Name This One

guytipton41 · Post by **guytipton41** » Fri Apr 10, 2015 1:37 am

Hi Folks,

This picture caused me a double take. What could it be? I'll be surprised if it takes the experten more than five minutes.

Cheers,
Guy

wdolson · Post by **wdolson** » Fri Apr 10, 2015 1:51 am

http://xplanes.tumblr.com/page/107

The problem is the picture you posted is the first one that comes up in google if you search for B-24 with B-17 nose

Shark7 · Post by **Shark7** » Fri Apr 10, 2015 2:14 am

Was going to say it looked like a B-24 with a B-17G Nose assembly. I do have to wonder just what exactly they intended to accomplish with such a modification though.

JeffroK · Post by **JeffroK** » Fri Apr 10, 2015 2:20 am

From the files of Joe Baugher

One of the more remarkable examples of a modified B-24J was one upon which was grafted the complete nose of a B-17G in an attempt to improve the forward visibility. Only one such example was produced. s/n 42=73130

They were trying to increase to forward defensive firepower.

wdolson · Post by **wdolson** » Fri Apr 10, 2015 2:20 am

According to the link I posted, it was an experiment to improve the B-24. A B-17G nose was attached to a B-24J as an experiment.

Bill

Shark7 · Post by **Shark7** » Fri Apr 10, 2015 2:36 am

ORIGINAL: JeffK

From the files of Joe Baugher

One of the more remarkable examples of a modified B-24J was one upon which was grafted the complete nose of a B-17G in an attempt to improve the forward visibility. Only one such example was produced. s/n 42=73130

They were trying to increase to forward defensive firepower.

Which makes sense seeing that the Germans learned to attack the bomber formations from the front.

m10bob · Post by **m10bob** » Fri Apr 10, 2015 10:21 am

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: JeffK

From the files of Joe Baugher

One of the more remarkable examples of a modified B-24J was one upon which was grafted the complete nose of a B-17G in an attempt to improve the forward visibility. Only one such example was produced. s/n 42=73130

They were trying to increase to forward defensive firepower.

Which makes sense seeing that the Germans learned to attack the bomber formations from the front.

According to Saburo Sakai, the Japanese also learned this, against B 17's..Ironic, huh?

Shark7 · Post by **Shark7** » Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:04 pm

It was still safer than trying to catch them from behind. Fewer guns in the front (hence the major upgrades of the B17 nose) plus much less time spent in the sights of the guns.

wdolson · Post by **wdolson** » Fri Apr 10, 2015 7:10 pm

Though the B-24J already had a nose turret, which was probably why the B-17 nose idea was abandoned. The B-24 nose turret was probably about equally as good as the chin turret, if not better. The guns were directly sighted by the guy in the turret on the B-24.

Bill

obvert · Post by **obvert** » Fri Apr 10, 2015 8:28 pm

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: JeffK

From the files of Joe Baugher

One of the more remarkable examples of a modified B-24J was one upon which was grafted the complete nose of a B-17G in an attempt to improve the forward visibility. Only one such example was produced. s/n 42=73130

They were trying to increase to forward defensive firepower.

Which makes sense seeing that the Germans learned to attack the bomber formations from the front.
According to Saburo Sakai, the Japanese also learned this, against B 17's..Ironic, huh?

Just read "Fortress in the Pacific." All about the B-17 from the PI to So Pac. Highly recommended!

The B-17s in the Pacific were first C-D models. Then the most plentiful were the E. As we know a pitiful few F replacements arrive in 42. Then there is nothing. So the G with the chin turret didn't fight in the Pacific until 45, and then only a handful, mostly generals' private aircraft.

The Japanese had a ton of respect for the B-17, and yes, learned to fight it from the front. Especially the C-D models which were eventually field modified to get more defense up there. Some even put a fixed forward 50 cal and shot down a few Japanese fighters who came in directly ahead, probably thinking the guns usually poked out the sides of the nose.

This book also talks a lot about the B-17 skip bombing program (which was actually really successful! [X(]), night bombing against Japanese airfields (which was of special interest to me [:)]) and frequent use against ground troops to soften up an area before invasion or a planned attack. I learned a ton.

Anthropoid · Post by **Anthropoid** » Sat Apr 11, 2015 12:47 pm

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: JeffK

From the files of Joe Baugher

One of the more remarkable examples of a modified B-24J was one upon which was grafted the complete nose of a B-17G in an attempt to improve the forward visibility. Only one such example was produced. s/n 42=73130

They were trying to increase to forward defensive firepower.

Which makes sense seeing that the Germans learned to attack the bomber formations from the front.
According to Saburo Sakai, the Japanese also learned this, against B 17's..Ironic, huh?

. . . increased forward defensive power is all the more reason for a frontal approach! [:'(]

Treetop64 · Post by **Treetop64** » Sun Apr 12, 2015 12:48 pm

Lol, reminds me of this project:

m10bob · Post by **m10bob** » Sun Apr 12, 2015 2:15 pm

ORIGINAL: Treetop64

Lol, reminds me of this project:

Spit with a Daimler..

wdolson · Post by **wdolson** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:13 am

There were some in the Luftwaffe who claimed the DB 600 series engines were superior to the Merlin and that the Spitfire would be so much better if the British had a better engine. As an experiment a captured Spitfire had a DB engine mounted and the results showed that performance was almost identical with the DB engine. The project was quietly buried and nobody mentioned it again.

Bill

navysim · Post by **navysim** » Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:02 am

Ohhh A Messerspit bf109 MkXV. Brilliant idea.

geofflambert · Post by **geofflambert** » Thu Jul 09, 2015 5:02 pm

In my games the Spit underperforms compared to Hurricanes. Anyone else have that? I've gotten the impression that the pilots love the Spit because it's fun to fly. I used to think the P-39 was inferior to the P-40 and kept them back for trainers. I know better now but I don't play Allied anymore.

geofflambert · Post by **geofflambert** » Wed Aug 05, 2015 3:09 pm

This one shouldn't be too difficult

joey · Post by **joey** » Wed Aug 05, 2015 4:27 pm

Too bad is not the USS San Pablo. This boat gives off the "Good Earth" Pearl Buck feel.

geofflambert · Post by **geofflambert** » Wed Aug 05, 2015 4:49 pm

Here's one for the small arms people. I can't say if this is an authentic WWII pic, but I dimly remember researching this rifle once. I believe the Royal Gurkhas used it at one time. You can see the handle on the side that flips up for carrying. The stock is/was some kind of composite or plastic and there's a metal cap on the butt. There's a pistol grip and the magazine sticks straight down. It is not curved but is slightly angled on the bottom (not square). It has no boot where the magazine goes in, it just goes straight into the stock. What is it?

AW1Steve · Post by **AW1Steve** » Wed Aug 05, 2015 4:50 pm

It looks like a Spanish cruiser being salvaged after the Spanish American war. I'm not sure which one.

Name This One

Name This One

RE: Name This One

RE: Name This One

RE: Name This One

RE: Name This One

RE: Name This One

RE: Name This One

RE: Name This One

RE: Name This One

RE: Name This One

RE: Name This One

RE: Name This One

RE: Name This One

RE: Name This One

RE: Name This One

RE: Name This One

RE: Name This One

RE: Name This One

RE: Name This One

RE: Name This One