World War II according to Helldiver

[Helldiver]

A review of whats available for WWII aircraft for Flight Simulators shows a war upside down.


For instance, all you see is B-17Gs. Not so. Most of the war it was the B-17Fs without that useless and ugly chin gun. The B-17G was an overweight pig.


The SBD is featured when it was the SB2C that won the war. The SBD only lasted for the first 18 months of the war. The SBD was too slow, couldn't fold it's wings, took up too much space, had lousy defensive power and couldn't carry enough bombs. Easy target for the Zeros.


Everyone flies the P-51 and yet the P-47 out flew and out gunned the 51 and it had a better survivability. The same number of P-51s were built as there were P-47s. Vastly greater damage was done to the enemy by the P-47.. In most cases the 51s would come back without firing their guns. The P-47 always came back with their guns empty.


The popular belief is it was the F4-U Corsair flown by US Marines won the war in the Pacific. No so. Most of the enemy planes destroyed was by F6-F's flown by the US Navy.


The Marines were a very small contingent flying out of the islands in the South Pacific, notably Guadalcanal. I blame “Baa Baa Black Sheep” for this fallacy.


The B-24 has been lost in history and yet there were more of them than the B-17. They carried a much bigger bomb load. It was faster that the B-17 and had a much greater range. Too many movies about the 8th air force I guess.


The B-29s finished the war. But it was the “Blue Airplanes” that the Japanese feared. It was the Navy planes that would come and strafe the streets. They would cheer the B-29s since they told they were returning Japanese aircraft.


So you young kids can have the war any way you want to. You will call out references written by guys that weren't even born when the war was going on and have there own agendas. The worse is Wikipedia.


All I can say, I was there and it the best that an 80+ year old memory can do.

[Flyboy208]

Appreciate your post and service Helldiver. Alot of true statements here. My Uncle flew B-17's. And I am an 8 year US Navy veteran. I'm just happy a website like the Sim-Outhouse exists to keep history alive.

I salute all those of the greatest generation for all of their accomplishments.

Mike

[Smashing Time]

All I can say, I was there and it the best that an 80+ year old memory can do.[/quote]

Doesn't that make you just 16 in 1945?

[DaveKDEN]

>"Everyone flies the P-51 and yet the P-47 out flew and out gunned the 51 and it had a better survivability. The same number of P-51s were built as there were P-47s. Vastly greater damage was done to the enemy by the P-47.. In most cases the 51s would come back without firing their guns. The P-47 always came back with their guns empty."

I met a WW-II Vet who agrees wholeheartedly. While he found the P-51 a wonderful aircraft, he stated without hesitation that he'd much rather be in a -47 in combat.

[Panther_99FS]

The B-24 has been lost in history and yet there were more of them than the B-17. They carried a much bigger bomb load. It was faster that the B-17 and had a much greater range. Too many movies about the 8th air force I guess.

You'll get no debate from me on this one...(And I work for HQ 8AF) :mixedsmi:

[Helldiver]

I was sixteen June of 1944 when I joined the Navy. A lot of guys in my boot company were also sixteen. All you had to do is to pass a physical and have someone acting as your parent sign for you. The services were not particular at that time.

[Flyboy208]

Did you go to RTC at Great Lakes aka "Great Mistakes" - I did. Alot of history there. Was fortunate enough to read up on this stuff when there. Many memories of liberty in Waukeegan and a trip to Chicago after graduation.

Curious, I was also a Naval Aircrewman, did you WWII types do training at Pensacola as well?

Mike

[PRB]

Oh goody, a "food fight!"

B-17F / B-17G

There is just no way around the fact that the majority of B-17 missions flown over Europe in WW-II were flown by B-17Gs. From an engineering and aerodynamic point of view, the B-17G may well have been a pig, but so what? They were there. Now, it may have been true that the B-17F “carried the load” in those dark days of late 1943 and early 1944, when the B-17E and F was all we had. That’s a valid point. Of the 8000 B-17Gs produced, how many didn’t serve in WW-II? I’d be surprised if the number is greater than 0. So that’s, once again, more than twice the number of B-17Es and Fs combined. So how on Earth can 3000 B-17Fs have flown more missions than 8000 B-17Gs?

SBD / SB2C

No, the SBD didn’t win the war all by itself. Nor did the SB2C. Which was better? Well, obviously the SB2C was. But, like the B-17G, it wasn’t there in 1942, during those dark days of Coral Sea, Midway, and Guadalcanal. They fought with what they had, and they didn’t have any SB2Cs. If they had em they would have used em, but they only had the lowly SBD, so they had to make do. They did pretty well with the diminutive Douglas, I’d say. Wouldn’t you grant them that?

[Helldiver]

All I can say is the the news reels and such things as the "March of Time" showed was B-17Es and B-17Fs. Don't forget all we had was radio and movies for the news. TV wasn't around then.
The B-17Gs only showed up when the war was practically won. So as far as we knew back here it was the B-17F that carried the war. In fact you look at all the movies made during that time and the B-17G was absent. Like I said, it's the recollection of what went on during the war. I thought I'd pass it along while I was still able.

[MudMarine]

Thank you Helldiver for sharing your memories! And blame Hollywood and Greg Boyington for Baa Baa Blacksheep. Not many Marines liked Boyington, he enjoy bucking the system too much. That TV show wasn't the Marine Corps fault!:costumes: A Marine aviators number one task is ground support! Every Marine no matter what his job does one thing; support the infantry! We know we're small but we're proud to serve; just like every veteran.

[Bomber_12th]

From my own perspective, and certainly from many others, it isn't about what plane out-did the other, during WWII, and that is why it receives more attention on this forum, it is just about what plane a person enjoys the most, through many different personal connections and experiences. If you are a developer, and you happen to like the B-17G more than the F, so be it, you will model it and paint it more, that doesn't mean that someone is making a statement saying that the G did any more service for the allies than the F. If you are a casual simmer, and you happen to like the lines of the Mustang more than the Thunderbolt (which the Mustang did outperform - I can show you copies of the original 1943 documents), you will fly it more and take more screenshots, etc. I don't think there is any cause for alarm, that we 'young ones' are making up history, at least the ones that have a true respect for those who faught in WWII and take the time to know the facts.

Unfortunately today, you cannot go out and see a perfectly restored B-17F unless you have special permission granted by the Museum of Flight in Seattle, Washington. While with around 20+ B-17G's fully restored throughout the country, on public display, they are far more accessible and thus easier to research. It is quite incredible the amount of research that is needed to do an aircraft up 'right' with today's standards, and with detail and expectations being pushed to the limits, you really need to have books of data and a first hand viewing of the aircraft.

Some say that the P-51B/C did more for the allies during WWII than the D model, since it took the war to Germany before the D arrived, and hence took on a bigger brunt. When I chose to model the P-51B/C, this didn't matter to me. What did matter is my close connection to the aircraft, having grown up with one, just a few miles from my house, plus I think it is just good looking, not to mention I got as good of research data as one could find on the aircraft, thanks to a number of owners, operators, and restorers of the type.

[CodyValkyrie]

God bless all those that served. God bless you Helldiver. Because of men like you, we are all free. Courageous young men like yourself saved this world. We are all indebted deeply to you all.

Because of men like you many men like myself found the courage ourselves to step into the uniform.

[Helldiver]

Flyboy- We went to NAS Memphis for Gunnery schools, Radio School, Radar School and something called Aerology which is how weather effects aircraft. Then to NAATC at NAS Jax. Then I was transferred to Mainside NAS Jax.

[Flyboy208]

Flyboy- We went to NAS Memphis for Gunnery schools, Radio School, Radar School and something called Aerology which is how weather effects aircraft. Then to NAATC at NAS Jax. Then I was transferred to Mainside NAS Jax.

Ahh, Millington, Tennesee. That's where my AT "A" school was. Amazing the similarities over the years.

Mike

[Willy]

I'll be on base at Millington on Friday. My monthly trip down there.

[whitehawk_2009]

that useless and ugly chin gun.

I have spoken to several B-17 vets who said that even if the chin turret didn't do much, they liked having an additional two .50 cals pointing forward when the germans did the head on attacks. Although this may be biased, they were all members of lead crews.

The B-24 has been lost in history and yet there were more of them than the B-17. Too many movies about the 8th air force I guess.

Not going to argue this, Liberator crews sometimes complained about there being 11 crew members on every B-17, one being a publicity officer Of course, having Gregory Peck play a B-17 pilot doesn't help either....

It's not just the B-24 that was lost to history, but the 15th AF too. I had a high school history teacher who tried to tell me that the US only flew bombers from England, and didn't fly any from Italy. Needless to say, I got a detention for swearing at a teacher. My grandfather flew 34 missions as a B-17 radio operator with the 429th BS, 2nd BG, 15th AF.

Thank you for your service Something most people don't say often enough, in my opinion. Although not around here!:ernae:

WH

[bazzar]

I don't know but I'm sure I remember Britain taking part in that war somewhere...:mixedsmi:

[bull494]

I have to agree with many of the perspectives given in this thread. However, I will not debate which plane was better, which one flew more missions, and so on. And yes, the media (Hollywood) does give a slanted view on these things. So what was the REAL factor in bringing World War II to an end? The courageous people who fought this vicious war with such tenacity. The determination to continue the fight when the going was tough. The family members who were at home who prayed and didn't know if their their child or spouse survived the day. The work force who worked to manufacture the planes, ships, tanks, etc. so that the fight could be done in the first place.

Not trying to debate, just putting my nickel in. And thank you Helldiver, I find your comments very insightful and will keep them in mind. I very much respect you and other veterans (alive and dead) for the tremendous sacrifices that were made to protect our country.

James

[stiz]

I don't know but I'm sure I remember Britain taking part in that war somewhere...:mixedsmi:

thats my major quib as well, all you hear is "amercia won the war" etc they didnt, they helped but they sure as hell didnt win it on their own!!

"if it wasnt for the americans the war wouldnt have been won" is another one that gets me, whilst its true that we possibly couldnt have lasted long term if it wasnt for the convoys, during BOB we made all our own aircraft, trained our crews and pretty much stopt the german advance. Before you say anything, yes there was US pilots during the battle of britian and to those 7 (number got from offical records) my thanks.

Baiscly the whole american attitude of "we won the war single handed", whislt not held by everyone but you cant deny the masses belive it, is total :bs:, no one could have won without the other.

rant over

[jankees]

I don't know but I'm sure I remember Britain taking part in that war somewhere...:mixedsmi:

Britain..wasn't that the stranded giant aircraft carrier the US used to invade Germany?
But seriously, a big thank you to all that helped liberate my country (and all the others), whether they were American, Polish, British, Canadian or Brasilian.
As to which plane outperformed the other, I honestly don't care, I would say they were all needed, and were all there when needed.
As for simming, I fly and paint what I like, and that has nothing to do with historical relevance (though I wish someone would finally make a real FSX Mustang...).

[Cees Donker]

thats my major quib as well, all you hear is "amercia won the war" etc they didnt, they helped but they sure as hell didnt win it on their own!!

I didn't read anywhere in this thread anyone stating that. Or did I miss something? Same goes for Bazz: I don't think Helldiver implied such a thing.....



Cees

[alastairmonk]

Its just the same for the RAF ....

In the early days the Hurricane shot down more Luftwaffe planes that all other defences combined, but the Spitfire gets all the glory. The Imperial War Museum archives have something like 8,000 hours of footage on the Spitfire and about 500 hours of footage on the Hurricane.

For Bomber Command the Halifax gets overlooked in favour of the Lancaster. Ask any Canadian veteran of Bomber Command. Most flew in Halifaxes. Not that I don't get a lump in my throat every time I see the BBMF Lanc flying overhead, its just a shame that there are no Halifaxes still flying.

Then there's the old chestnut:

America was late for WWI
America was late for WW2
So America is going to make sure its absolutely on time for WW3

All in good fun ..... anyone who has forgotten the air forces sacrifice during WW2 need only visit the glass wall of remembrance outside the American Air Museum at Duxford, or the RAF Memorial at Runnymede

http://aam.iwm.org.uk/server/show/nav.1755

http://www.207squadron.rafinfo.org.uk/othermems_Run.htm

Alastair

[expat]

You'll get no debate from me on this one

Ditto. Fully agree. Great stuff Helldiver. Fascinating lesson on how time, the media and myth can color and skew our understanding of history.

[Helldiver]

It was not my intent to slight the British part in the war. Not at all. I was merely talking about the US aircraft.
As far as the English part, the Hurricane seemed to overshadow the Spitfire. It got better press. It's angular looks looked like a fighter. The Spitfire looked like a speedster. The Wellington, the Halifax and the Hudson bombers were covered much more than the Lancaster's. Also The Mosquito and the Tempest got a lot of publicity. This is just from the American experience.
As far as the enemy aircraft was concerned, the FW-190 was heard about by the returning fliers along with the Me-110. The Me-109 was just thought of as being a minor irritation. Not much was ever heard about the Me-262 until after the war was over.
Japanese aircraft would be the Zero. That's about it and it seemed that it was contained very quickly. The senseless Kamikaze attacks were covered. We just couldn't understand why anybody would take on such an idiotic way to die. I still can't understand it.
It was brought home when the Carrier USS Franklin limped into Bayonne, N.J. with a permanent list to starboard.

By the way, I have to print large in order to see my mistakes. I have Macular Degeneration plus cataracts. My left eye is practically useless. I can only see fussy variations in light. The right eye is better but it still take large print colored blue. That's why I put down these thoughts before I couldn't see anything.

[Ferry_vO]

during BOB we made all our own aircraft, trained our crews and pretty much stopt the german advance.

Well if it wasn't for the Dutch airforce shooting down a lot of German 110's and Ju-52's during early May of 1940, the chances of a German invasion would have been much greater. The Germans simply lacked the equipment for an invasion in June.

The reason the B-17 got more publicity was that it flew mostly over 'fortress Europe' which was a more compact and densly populated battlefield compared to the Pacific where the Liberator was the most used bomber. Spreading propaganda was more important over here and the B-17 played a bigger part in the war over Europe than the B-24 did, though we do know the Liberator from the bombing of the Rumanian oilfields.
The range and speed of the B-24 were important over the Pacific, while the structural strength of the B-17 was vital over the heavily defended cities of Europe.

The Halifax may have been the better bomber in general, but the Lancaster got it's fame from the dambuster raids and the ability to carry just about everything including the 22,000 pound grand slam bombs.