Printable View
found this photo today while looking for something else. Impressive photo. one only hopes that the crew managed to either get back home or bail out .
Can only imagine the language from the rear gunner of that one when the tail broke!
Attachment 88443
As a matter of interest, here's a Q for the fliers amongst you. Could the bomber have got back safely like this
From what I know about the B17 (Not much) it could make it back with a whole lot more than that missing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Could it... on a really good day, yes.
Did the one in the picture. No.
Here's one I did a while ago about a B-17 that suffered massive damage held together by the crew using their riser lines from their chutes as the rear gunner was trapped.
The plane was repaired and put back into service and I think it survived the war.
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....023#post414023
I seem to remember that photo as a series of pics. The latter ones showing the bomber going out of control.
That's a fairly famous picture. As I recall they did get back. The 17 was a tough bird.
The tail broke because it got hit by a bomb from above. The USAF is infamous for bombing its own side. Twice when Bradley was starting Operation Cobra. Again in Afghanistan when an National Guard guy killed 3 CF troopies and wounded 8.
I believe that in the first Iraq war to free Kuwait; more British soldiers were killed by US troops than by Iraqi's. When some of the British armoured vehicles got mistakenly hit by A10's. Maybe someone in the know could confirm that?
Off track from the OP but here is a bit from the net about the A-10 attack on the British Scimitar's;
Conduct of the inquest
Matty Hull (1976–2003)
The inquest took oral testimony from the various British personnel associated with the incident, including those in the convoy, and a FAC who expressed the opinion that the aircrew were acting independently. Walker commented on the actions of L/Cpl Finney GC, stating: “You are a brave man. You are to be commended for what you did.”
It was publicly acknowledged during the inquest that a cockpit video of the head-up display from one of the aircraft existed, which media reports indicated had been shown to the BoI, but not released to Hull's family with the findings.
The video was shown to the coroner in private, although permission to use it in public was refused by the Ministry of Defence, citing international agreements related to the release of classified information, and the US classification of the tape as secret. This adherence to international protocols led to significant criticism in the British media, leading to a public statement by Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram which reiterated the requirement for US de-classification of the video and highlighting ongoing engagement to achieve that.
Media reporting indicated that the MOD had previously denied the existence of the video.
On 2 February 2007 Walker opted to adjourn the inquest until the video could be displayed in open court.
Unauthorised leak and subsequent de-classification of video evidence
The video was leaked to The Sun tabloid newspaper, and reported on 6 February 2007, as well as published on the newspaper's website. The newspaper indicated that the leak had come from a US military source. The US government subsequently announced that the video would be declassified, but noted that the leak was likely to be a criminal offence.
The video released was 19 minutes long, and was accompanied with recordings of cockpit audio and radio communications.
British media allege six errors on the part of the aircrew:
Gus Kohntopp, identified as POPOV36.
The pilots asked the Forward Air Controller ("Manila Hotel") if friendly forces were around the Iraqi vehicles – not to the west.
Neither pilot gave the precise grid references for the Household Cavalry patrol to double check its identity.
1. The pilots convinced themselves that the orange identification panels were in fact orange rocket launchers.
2. POPOV36 decided to attack, saying he is "rolling in" without permission from the Forward Air Controller.
3. POPOV35 asked for artillery to fire a marker round into the target area to clear up confusion, but POPOV36 attacked without waiting for it.
4. POPOV36 strafed the column for a second time, but still doubted its identity.
5. The audio track includes debate over the identity of the targets and the order, from the FAC, to disengage identifying a likely "blue-on-blue" incident. The audio track also includes notification of one death and several injuries with the order to return to base. Subsequent audio indicates frustration and crying with the comment: "We're in jail, dude". Upon viewing the video, Matty Hull's widow, Susan, stated that the pilots were, "more concerned for themselves than their victims".
A statement released by the Oxfordshire coroner's office later confirmed that Walker was of the view that, being in the public domain, the video could now be presented as evidence without the approval of the US government, and that the inquest would resume on 12 March 2007.
On 6 February 2007 the Sun named POPOV36 as Colonel Gus Kohntopp, a commercial pilot for Southwest Airlines and member of the Idaho Air National Guard. The British inquest was set to resume on 12 March 2007. As of 9 February 2007, Kohntopp was reported to be, "in hiding." He had previously been "hailed as [a] hero" by his neighbors in Boise, Idaho.
Inquest reconvened
The Oxfordshire inquest resumed as scheduled on 12 March with testimony from a British Forward Air Controller (FAC) involved in the incident, who stated that the incident wouldn't have happened if the two U.S. pilots involved had followed the same procedures that UK pilots must follow in the same type of situation. On 13 March, the same British FAC testified that POPOV36 committed a "catalogue of serious failures" when he shot at the British vehicles in the incident, including "ignoring crucial warning signs, attacking without permission, and failing to wait for an artillery shell marker on a proposed target." After the inquest revealed that portions of relevant evidence from the U.S. investigation into the incident were blacked out in the copy of the report given to the inquest, Matty Hull's widow made a personal appeal to U.S. president George W. Bush for the information to be released to the inquest.
Inquest verdict
On 16 March, coroner Andrew Walker returned a narrative verdict, stating that the killing of Hull was "unlawful". Walker said: "The attack on the convoy amounted to an assault. It was unlawful because there was no lawful reason for it and in that respect it was criminal." Neither of the two U.S. pilots involved nor any other representative from the U.S. government appeared at the inquest, despite numerous requests from Walker, Harman, and Hull's family to do so.
Research focused on the incident
As the only case where video of an incident of fratricide or 'friendly fire' has become publicly available, the case has attracted a great deal of interest among researchers interested in exploring the question of why such incidents occur and what might be done about them. Drawing on the sociological research traditions of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, the work of Nevile and the work of Elsey, Mair, Smith and Watson, among these, has offered detailed accounts of how the incident unfolded in real-time as well as how it was subsequently investigated by the various military and non-military inquiries after-the-fact. In the course of their research, Elsey, Mair, Smith and Watson developed an alternative version of the transcript, based in part on the detailed information released in the USAF Friendly Fire Investigation Board Report, to make it easier to follow the incident’s interactional dynamics. The transcript is available open access.
The USAF also had some 'own goals' in Vietnam too.
For a supposedly non-political forum, some of these posts come awfully close to USA bashing. For what purpose, I wonder? No, the US did not kill more British soldiers than the Iraqis! What kind of a statement is that? And no, the USAF was not “known” for bombing its own!! Good Lord! And no, the USAF did NOT have its “own goals” in Nam. This all very disappointing, especially from our so-called friends and allies.
#11 I never bash anyone only try to present the facts as I find them, sad part is no matter what war there will always be "Blue on Blue" you cannot get it 100% correct all the time in a war zone history if full of those errors.
Sad that the British soldier lost his life but on the other side of the coin I might surmise those pilots are still living in hell by the incident to this day..........
No further comment from me re the incident in threads 8 and 9. Except that the coroners inquest took place at Oxford and some of the families were spitting blood and feathers at the media present regarding the pilots. All except one generous, quiet and reserved family who kept their counsel private. While not praising the bravery of the low level pilots, did not level one iota of criticisism towards them either*. They simply and quietly praised their son and told that he died a hero in their eyes, as a proud warrier in battle. And they were as proud as any proud parent should be.
* I expect that they simply grieved in private and not in public on TV
Not to beat a dead horse too badly, and I do not wish to cause dissension in the ranks, but of all the friendly fire incidents in the past 100 or so years, you somehow see fit to report in great loving detail a single incident that just happens to bash the USA. Words will never be able to express the depth of sadness and loss felt by the survivors and families, including the young men that did it, especially when considering that it was blue-on-blue. That it was true, no doubt. That it needed to be brought up, particularly in today’s climate of hatred of all things US, is doubtful. And distasteful. The fog of war is real, fellows, and will always be present and cause poor decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
---------- Post added at 10:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 AM ----------
The absolute epitomes of what we all imagine true British restraint to be. Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
I apologies to you Bob if you were offended. It was not my intension to bash the USA. In fact during the build up to the first Gulf war; I was working in Riyadh. I can assure you that all ex-pat's; including myself were very happy to see them.
When Kuwait was invaded in 1990; it took 3 day's before the local Saudi news programs even mentioned it. The Americans were very quick to react and the transport and AWAC's planes flying in and out 24/7 were a very reassuring sight for all.
Regarding my question regarding casualties from that conflict and the subsequent comment on the blue on blue; it was the result of something that I had heard just after the end of the conflict.
I decided to research it today and you are correct. I was wrong. Total death's in British forces for operation Granby is stated as 47. Nine of which were the result of a blue on blue of British 1st Armoured vehicles by A10's.
A very unfortunate event for all parties concerned.
Regarding the B17 photo. I just thought it was an interesting photo; one that shows the dangers of large close formations and also the courage of the bomber crews. I did not expect to offend anyone by posting it.