soc.history.war.world-war-ii

On Feb 21, 11:55 pm, "Hal Hanig" wrote:
> narrled...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 4:04 pm, "Hal Hanig" wrote:
> >> Michael Emrys wrote:
> >>> in article 47BDC253.8060...@hotmail.com, Tiger at Lana_sa...@hotmail.com
> >>> wrote on 2/21/08 10:30 AM:
>
> >>>>> Sure the B-26 had a 10MPH faster top speed but does that really make
> >>>>> any
> >>>>> difference in a bomber?
>
> >>>> When a Zero is on your tail, every litle bit helps.
>
> > My source shows a much larger speed advantage than 10mph, but as we
> > know models varied and all such figures should be taken with salt.
>
> >>> Your logic is impeccable. However, since the B-26 was withdrawn from the
> >>> Pacific theater after 1942, they were unlikely to meet up with many
> >>> Zeros.
>
> > Yes, I believe that was a matter of range, where the B-25 had the most
> > substantial advantage, as the Liberator did over the Fortress. ( I
> > think some early B-26 types particpated in the battle of Midway as
> > torpedo bombers, to not much effect.)
>
> >>> That said, the B-26 seems to have had other advantages. It suffered the
> >>> fewest crewmen lost on a percentage basis during the war of any American
> >>> bomber and had a very good record for accurate bombing. So it must have
> >>> had
> >>> something going for it.
>
> > One difference might be simply that the 25 was a prewar(?) design and
> > the 26 a later one based on a few more years experience, with the
> > corollary that there were more 25s earlier.
>
> >> Foolish me....all these years, I always thought that bombing accuracy was
> >> something bombardiers got credit or blame for, not the airplane they
> >> happened to be riding in.
>
> > Fair enough, but this is probably the cue for Art Kramer, if he's
> > still around.
>
> >> BTW, the airplane's nickname "One-a-Day in Tampa Bay" evolved from the
> >> frequency with which new pilots transitioning into the plane made
> >> unscheduled landings in the water....it was apparently quite a handful
> >> for
> >> inexperienced pilots. OTOH, no one ever said that about the B-25.
>
> > Yep, the 26 was a hot aircraft, and the 25 was a workhorse. I've met
> > former pilots of both types, but as far as I know only the 26 has an
> > international organization of ex-26ers. (Motto: Optimi Optimorum.)
>
> > I did learn one B-25 joke from a man who flew them in the SoPac:
>
> > "What do you say to B-25 pilot?"
>
> > " . . . "
>
> > "I SAID, WHAT DO YOU SAY TO A B-25 PILOT?"
>
> > "Did you say something?"
>
> > It would explain a lot about my father, who flew a B-25 in the Med.
>
> If he was in the BG headed up by Col. Phil Cochran that moved from Corsica
> to eastern Italy near the end of the war,

381st Squadron, 310th Bomb Group (M). He didn't arrive until Nov '44
(the family thinks perhaps he was kept stateside because he was a good
instructor and of his German-born parents his mother had not
naturalized until May 1944. His father had already done so in the
1920s; my brothers and I think 'Oma' wanted to see who was going to
win first . . .)

He flew 57 missions all over N. Italy/Austria and Yugoslavia.
According to the ABMC (?) website the 381st suffered -no- killed,
although they got shot at and my father earned a DFC for leading his
flight to an accurate bomb run with a badly flak-damaged engine. I
don't think he was ever based anywhere but Corsica, but could be
wrong.

I was in the trash hauling outfit
> that carried most of their stuff over there (4th TCSq, 62nd TCGp). I got
> about 4 hours in a B-25 after the war.....it was not quite as noisy as the
> SA-16 that I blame my loss of hearing on but it handled a lot better in the
> air. I wouldn't have minded doing my WWII flying in one of them..

I'm not familiar with the SA-16, and like I said I was only repeating
what a B-25 pilot told me about noise. B-25 flyers have also told me
it was a rugged plane and pretty popular.

Myself, I get motion sickness watching carousels, so my aeronautical
knowledge and experience is from reading and conversation only.

Narr