As a long time B-17 Fanatic it was my extreme pleasure to purchase the
"The Final Cut". I fully enjoyed it.
However; I question a statement made in the section that dealt with the history of N17W.
"that an old B-17F would be deployed to combat in Europe is difficult to envision".
At the time of the questioned deployement, N17W would have been around 10 months old. Hardly an "old" a/c! I know that they were turning them out in rapid numbers in '43, and were losing them almost as fast!
With 27 years in Military Aviation, I have no trouble seeing "them" cut orders for all available a/c to transition to a war zone for a planned max. effort.
When we went to the Gulf we had Hueys that were twenty to twenty five YEARS old. Let alone ten months old. There are UH-60's in Iraq that were built in '78! If someone had handed me the books to a ten month old a/c I would be the happiest Crewchief in the Army!
By the way as a Teenager in the SF bay area of CA. I can remember seeing a two vics of B-17s heading toward the Mt Diablo fire; durring 1977. The passed overheard!
Thanks
Joe
"The final Cut" and N17W
-
aerovin2
- Site Admin
- Posts: 915
- Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:03 pm
- Location: Lincoln, California
- Contact:
Joe,
For me, the problem is that the airplane was assigned to the 8th Air Force for less than two months, coming from a training base and returning to a training base. This is suggested by the aircraft record card showing what appears to be a departure on 1/24/44 and a return date of 3/10/44 with a destination of "SOXO", the destination code for assignments to the 8th Air Force in the UK. Once the airplane is at "SOXO," further assignments within that command are not on the record card.
There were hundreds of B-17Fs assigned to crew training stateside and in early 1944 new B-17Gs were replacing any remaining "F"s in the groups. Factories were cranking out in excess of 20 new B-17Gs every day. I wouldn't say it is impossible that this "F" was assigned to combat, but it seems unlikely given the duration and timing. A diligent search of available records, albeit made ten years ago, did not turn up this airplane on any group aircraft listings. It seems more likely to me that 42-29782 was used either for transportation or a special project of some sort. Lacking definitive documentation, it becomes a matter of conjecture. Perhaps something that is conclusive will turn up in the course of other research.
I hope this explains the conclusion I reached in Final Cut, and is not to say that there are not errors and/or incorrect assumptions in that book. I think it is inevitable when working with diverse sources that have to be used to document the histories of these B-17s.
Scott Thompson
For me, the problem is that the airplane was assigned to the 8th Air Force for less than two months, coming from a training base and returning to a training base. This is suggested by the aircraft record card showing what appears to be a departure on 1/24/44 and a return date of 3/10/44 with a destination of "SOXO", the destination code for assignments to the 8th Air Force in the UK. Once the airplane is at "SOXO," further assignments within that command are not on the record card.
There were hundreds of B-17Fs assigned to crew training stateside and in early 1944 new B-17Gs were replacing any remaining "F"s in the groups. Factories were cranking out in excess of 20 new B-17Gs every day. I wouldn't say it is impossible that this "F" was assigned to combat, but it seems unlikely given the duration and timing. A diligent search of available records, albeit made ten years ago, did not turn up this airplane on any group aircraft listings. It seems more likely to me that 42-29782 was used either for transportation or a special project of some sort. Lacking definitive documentation, it becomes a matter of conjecture. Perhaps something that is conclusive will turn up in the course of other research.
I hope this explains the conclusion I reached in Final Cut, and is not to say that there are not errors and/or incorrect assumptions in that book. I think it is inevitable when working with diverse sources that have to be used to document the histories of these B-17s.
Scott Thompson
Scott,
Thank you for taking the time out to reply to my post. The answer was well thought out and informative. (grin) I wish you had used the same reasoning in the book!
I think it was just the use of the word "old" that hit me.
Does make you wonder though, why she went over to England in the first place. If they were replacing Fs with Gs then there should have been more than enough surplus Fs for any non-combat function. Didn't I see a pic in Ethels book of an "old" E being used as a hack in 44? Which kinda supports that they had enough "obsolete" airframes available.
Would be interesting to see if it was just her, or whether other planes from her training squadron were sent overseas.
Again Thanks Scott on a Great Book. Right next to Peters book on my bookshelf.
Joe
Thank you for taking the time out to reply to my post. The answer was well thought out and informative. (grin) I wish you had used the same reasoning in the book!
I think it was just the use of the word "old" that hit me.
Does make you wonder though, why she went over to England in the first place. If they were replacing Fs with Gs then there should have been more than enough surplus Fs for any non-combat function. Didn't I see a pic in Ethels book of an "old" E being used as a hack in 44? Which kinda supports that they had enough "obsolete" airframes available.
Would be interesting to see if it was just her, or whether other planes from her training squadron were sent overseas.
Again Thanks Scott on a Great Book. Right next to Peters book on my bookshelf.
Joe