doublegunshop.com - home Forums Thread Like Summary - OT: Who's B-17 did they lose yesterday?

A P-36 hit it during an airshow in Dallas yesterday. Was it "Sentimental Journey"? Both aircraft were destroyed, with 6 lives lost.

I feel certain that the families of those killed would disagree most vehemently. Good lord, man.
JR

What's "sad" is that someone would actually put the above thought into print. Gil

Somethings never change, some people as well. More compassion for a piece of manmade machinery than human life itself. Wow.

On display at the Mighty 8th Air Force Museum outside of Savannah there is on display a restored B17. The Smithsonian has one. A bit of history:
"From May 1942 to July 1945, the Eighth planned and precisely executed America's daylight strategic bombing campaign against Nazi-occupied Europe, and in doing so the organization compiled an impressive war record. That record, however, carried a high price. For instance, the Eighth suffered about half of the U.S. Army Air Force's casualties (47,483 out of 115,332), including more than 26,000 dead. The Eighth's brave men earned 17 Medals of Honor, 220 Distinguished Service Crosses, and 442,000 Air Medals. The Eighth's combat record also shows 566 aces (261 fighter pilots with 31 having 15 or more victories and 305 enlisted gunners), over 440,000 bomber sorties to drop 697,000 tons of bombs, and over 5,100 aircraft losses and 11,200 aerial victories."
26,000 airmen dead. I bet not a single member of their KIA's families shed a tear over the loss of the plane. I bet the survivors who bailed out only to learn that others in the plane didn't survive didn't proclaim it was more terrible to lose the plane than the men. While not in a B17, but a B25, I can assure you my mom didn't mourn the loss of the plane her brother Tom was in when it was shot down over Wewak, New Guinea on October 16, 1943. Losing a 75 year old B17 doesn't diminish the loss of those who served in WWII nor does it diminish the terrible loss suffered by the families of the recent crash. It's a strange argument to insist that the greater tragedy was the loss of a 75 year old B17 and the fighter plane that hit it rather than the loss of the 6 men who died flying the planes. Yes, some perspective would be helpful, but not for whom you think needs it. Rule of Holes: When you're at the bottom of a hole and you can't get out, don't keep digging. Gil

Men who climbed into those B-17’s were brave, determined men. Some of the daily loss rates must have told those men the odds of rotating out were very, very bad. Watching planes, with friends go down, or fellow crew men get hit or killed had to sobering. By 1943-44 fighter tactics had been perfected against bombers and the attrition rates per mission was grinding down plane and crew numbers at almost impossible to replace numbers. If 10% per mission were lost getting to 25, then 28 or 30 mission was almost impossible. Some made it, many did not.

I had two uncles in Sherman’s, who fought and survived Tigers, but both thought their cousin, who was a ball turret gunner was either braver, crazier or dumber than they were. Differed depending on the moods of three vets who rarely talked about the war. Few family vets talked about what they saw or did in the war. None of them tolerated REMF who talked a Great War but saw almost no combat. They knew and had a way of shutting them down.

You really don't get it, do you? This value of human life thing?
JR

I am not the least bit offended. You misread me. I am simply reminded that there are things and people that have not changed, and are at times wolves in sheep's clothing.

I've made my point, now I'm done.

Best to you, nca225