[Shawn 507]

So what did the RAF think of the B-17s and B-24s they received from the US? Was it a case of no matter what, nothing beats British aircraft. Or did they actually like them over the home grown stuff?
- Shawn

[leeG]

Didn't Churchill do his summit traveling in a B-24?

[mustangdriver]

I know that they did not like the B and C model Forts. Even though they looked cool, no one did.

[swoop]

Shawn them n' us mentality does not prevail here.Preference would have been a luxury the RAF could not afford. If you sent pilots to do battle in Defiants, Fairey Swordfish and Battles.I should also add the Short Stirling with a ceiling of only 17,000ft. Is there really choices to be made?. That said. Every type of aircraft was appreciated , Including B-17s B-24s, even kites with bombs attached. Live in dark times and take all help you can get.

[Shawn 507]

Not trying to start a huge debate, just curious as to how the two were recieved by the pilots and crews. For example, the Brits were happy to recieve the M3 Stuart and M3 Grants, and later M4 Sherman during North Africa.
- Shawn

[1250ships]

There is a good story about RAF B-17s. They tried them out and didn't like them much, in part because they had problems with the bomb bay doors refusing to open at altitude. They reported this to the US Army which was baffled because they didn't have the same problem. Finally someone went along to observe and discovered the reason. Seems that before takeoff the RAF crews would urinate into the bomb bay. This worked fine on British bombers because there didn't have a tight seal on the bomb bay doors and the liquid drained out. The B-17 the seal was tight and urine pooled. When you reached high altitude it froze and jammed the doors. When returning to lower altitude it thawed and the doors would open, dropping the extra cargo and leaving no trace of why the doors weren't performing at altitude.

[Shawn 507]

And after the Great Yellow Mystery, what were the thoughts?
- Shawn

Originally Posted by 1250ships

There is a good story about RAF B-17s. They tried them out and didn't like them much, in part because they had problems with the bomb bay doors refusing to open at altitude. They reported this to the US Army which was baffled because they didn't have the same problem. Finally someone went along to observe and discovered the reason. Seems that before takeoff the RAF crews would urinate into the bomb bay. This worked fine on British bombers because there didn't have a tight seal on the bomb bay doors and the liquid drained out. The B-17 the seal was tight and urine pooled. When you reached high altitude it froze and jammed the doors. When returning to lower altitude it thawed and the doors would open, dropping the extra cargo and leaving no trace of why the doors weren't performing at altitude.

[jim]

Originally Posted by 1250ships

There is a good story about RAF B-17s. They tried them out and didn't like them much, in part because they had problems with the bomb bay doors refusing to open at altitude. They reported this to the US Army which was baffled because they didn't have the same problem. Finally someone went along to observe and discovered the reason. Seems that before takeoff the RAF crews would urinate into the bomb bay. This worked fine on British bombers because there didn't have a tight seal on the bomb bay doors and the liquid drained out. The B-17 the seal was tight and urine pooled. When you reached high altitude it froze and jammed the doors. When returning to lower altitude it thawed and the doors would open, dropping the extra cargo and leaving no trace of why the doors weren't performing at altitude.

There what did I tell you? You learn something new every day on this forum. I certainly had not heard that one before.

On a similar vein I heard that the bomber crews took great delight in emptying the Elsan toilets over Germany.

[1250ships]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

And after the Great Yellow Mystery, what were the thoughts?
- Shawn

Bomber Command didn't like the aircraft which is why they ended up at Coastal Command or in theaters with low priorities. Realistically they were correct in that neither B-17s or B-24s were designed or configured as night fighters and no one would argue that the early versions had much of a chance as day bombers over Europe. If the aircraft had been worked over a bit I'm sure they could have performed much better but that wasn't in the cards.

Also a question of whether the British could have received enough aircraft to put them into squadron service in sufficent numbers given the demand the US Army Air Force had for those aircraft.

[jim]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

Not trying to start a huge debate, just curious as to how the two were recieved by the pilots and crews. For example, the Brits were happy to recieve the M3 Stuart and M3 Grants, and later M4 Sherman during North Africa.
- Shawn

Shawn, I think happy would be a gross understatement. the Grants and Shermans were vital. Let us not forget all the other equipment that was sent from the US. My neighbour spent most of the war driving around in Chevy's.
His words, They were bloody marvelous, with their big balloon tyres they went like across the desert. They were a lot better than our stuff. I got really p....d off welding transmission boxes back onto our wagons every day, never had a problem with Yank stuff.