Fortress downing 23 Zeroes, October 1942??

the330thbg · **Joined:** Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:06 pm **Posts:** 2713

Unless they were a scant few British NA-73's (aka P-51s). I can not find any information of P-51's being deployed to the Pacific as early as 1942. No way.

bomberflight · **Posted:** Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:35 pm

I just flicked thru "Claims To Fame - The B-17 Flying Fortress" by Steve Birdsall and Roger Freeman.

In the chapter titled "The Legend of Suzy Q" .... B-17E 41-2489 'Suzie-Q' flew missions out of Java in Feb. 1942 before being sent to Australia where it was assigned to the 19th B.G.

The chapter includes "In February 1943 a Life Magazine story began : Suzy-Q is the fightingest Flying Fortress in the World"

The last paragraph contains the following "The story asserted that each gunner could claim 10 or more Japanese aeroplanes shot down, more than any other gun crew in the Pacific"

Maybe there's a connection ?

whistlingdeath77 · **Posted:** Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:17 pm

is there even going to be a new season of dogfights?

Chris Brame · **Posted:** Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:24 pm

Quote:

The rest of the story...
In case you wondered what became of the YB-40s, going through my father's flying records it seems he trained in one while doing B-17 training.

Where did your father train? Some YB-40s (including combat veterans (42-5736 Tampa Tornado and 42-5742 Plain Dealing Express) were in the batch seen being scrapped at Chino in The Best Years of Our Lives, with base codes from Rapid City, SD and Ardmore, OK.

the330thbg · **Joined:** Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:06 pm **Posts:** 2713

bomberflight wrote:

The last paragraph contains the following "The story asserted that each gunner could claim 10 or more Japanese aeroplanes shot down, more than any other gun crew in the Pacific"

Maybe there's a connection ?

Maybe these guys were smoking some special weed while on their island.., but that sounds absurd. Over the years I have had the opportunity to both meet and interview enough gunners to realize this is an impossibility.., unless they strafed them on the ground or the enemy was flying straight and level with them at the same speed and just kept getting shot down and another would pull up alongside to be shot down.

I am calling BS on this.

tulsaboy · **Posted:** Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:00 pm

330th-
While not specifically addressing the veracity of the claims made in the story you are referencing, consider the potential for wartime propaganda to inflate claims. The crew of a B-24 I am researching, for instance, was quite confident that on its last mission its gunners accounted for 2-3 kills. A subsequent story in a local paper said that it took down "at least 10 Nazi fighters" as it went down. Just because it is in print doesn't necessarily make it so.

kevin

the330thbg · **Joined:** Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:06 pm **Posts:** 2713

2 to 3 I can stomach. 23 in one mission is absurd

Dave Homewood · **Posted:** Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:57 pm

So I think it is pretty clear that no singular Flying Fortress had brought down 23 Zero's in one act. It is perhaps possible a singular B-17 brought down 23 over many missions. It's more likely that he referred to a flight of B-17's bringing down 23, and if that's the case it is probably a wildly innaccurate number.

As for the Mustangs, that really intrigues me because if the writer either mis-identified the aircaft himself or was told the wrong name by someone else when he witnessed a new type arriving, it seems very odd that the name they came up with was Mustang. Would they even have known that name then? The RNZAF boys would never have seen a Mustang. Their Yank Allies called them Apaches or P-51's as far as I am aware. So they could only have picked up on the name from a newspaper report or British magazine article or something similar I guess.

He was already familiar with P-39's from the Pallikulo base and P-40's at home in NZ, so it wasn't those types. If not a Mustang squadron, what else could it be?

I should mention he wrote that one of the B-17's that returned in October 1942 belly landed, and he wrote that it had shot down two Zero's and three Me-109's! That info obviously came from the crew of the bomber and spread round the airfield. Did they originally think that Tony's were Me-109's perhaps?

On another topic altogether yet related, on the 16th of october 1942 the No. 3 (GR) Squadron RNZAF Hudsons were scrambled at 4.00am to leave Pallikulo ("Buttons") and fly to Vila ("Roses") to clear the airfield as a massive fleet of Japanese ships including a carrier was supposedly heading towards Santo. In the end the Japanese fleet was supposedly stopped by US aircraft crippling the Japanese carrier. Both the diary and other sources cover this, but what I have never found out is what was the Japanese carrier involved? And was it actually crippled or as the rumours went, sunk? What was its actual mission? Was it really headed to attack Espiritu Santo? Or was this a misinterpretation of intentions by the intelligence people?

Thanks everyone for the input, it is all interesting stuff.

agent86 · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 3:57 am **Posts:** 926

I know,I'm being an a$$ but werent the P-39's in the early pacific war actually P-400's? Brit modified versions

Dave Homewood · **Posted:** Tue Feb 15, 2011 10:27 pm

His diary refers to them as P39's

gemmer · **Joined:** Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:54 am **Posts:** 314

agent86 wrote:

I know,I'm being an a$$ but werent the P-39's in the early pacific war actually P-400's? Brit modified versions

There was a mix of P-39Ds, P-39Fs and P-400s within the 8th and 35th Pursuit Groups.
Mustangs did not get to the Pacific until 1945.

Duane

the330thbg · **Joined:** Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:06 pm **Posts:** 2713

gemmer wrote:

agent86 wrote:

I know,I'm being an a$$ but werent the P-39's in the early pacific war actually P-400's? Brit modified versions

There was a mix of P-39Ds, P-39Fs and P-400s within the 8th and 35th Pursuit Groups.
Mustangs did not get to the Pacific until 1945.

Duane

Agreed unless they were part of some small RAF group as they were the only ones flying the early variants of 'Mustangs' at the time.

Dave Homewood · **Posted:** Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:06 am

I have never heard of the RAF being at Santo with anything. It is a real puzzle, that one.

gemmer · **Joined:** Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:54 am **Posts:** 314

the330thbg wrote:

gemmer wrote:

agent86 wrote:

I know,I'm being an a$$ but werent the P-39's in the early pacific war actually P-400's? Brit modified versions

There was a mix of P-39Ds, P-39Fs and P-400s within the 8th and 35th Pursuit Groups.
Mustangs did not get to the Pacific until 1945.

Duane

Agreed unless they were part of some small RAF group as they were the only ones flying the early variants of 'Mustangs' at the time.

Didn't happen. Aside from one squadron sent from England to Darwin in 1943 with Spitfires, for all practical purposes, RAF participation in the Pacific ceased to exist after the fall of Singapore and the Dutch East Indies in early 1942. The fighters there Buffalos and Hurricanes.

Duane

agent86 · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 3:57 am **Posts:** 926

The Bell P-400 was a version modified to Brit specs.They had 20mm cannons instead of the 37mm and different oxygen systems and throttlecontrols.They were taken over by the USAAF before delivery to the brits after 12/7/41.they were sent to the pacific.

Warbird Information Exchange

Fortress downing 23 Zeroes, October 1942??

Who is online