B-17's in Vietnam? -Update

[JohnB]

Okay a question for believers in the word of our second eye witness....

If the B-17 were at a firebase in South Vietnam...why the mystery?
I'd guess the aircraft would have been operated by the USAF if it was in country.
No CIA spooks...or reason for a B-17 gunship to be classified.

That's the problem with conspiracy theories...perople are so busy coming up with fantastic stories they forget about simple motives.

Again, why make a 30 year old bomber equipped with technology already in use in other 30 year old airframes (AC-47s) secret if used in South Vietnam?

[Wildchild]

Use whatever is avaible? Feild mods maybe?

[gary1954]

During the early period of that war , weren't "Bombers" prohibited hence the re-designation of the B-26 Invader to the A-26 Invader??
I'm just axing

An A-17?

I dun thing-so

[SaxMan]

It sounds like he is mixing up the AC-130 with a B-17, given the volume of fire. If you don't think that is possible, consider this story

My father, who is a pretty decent history buff in his own right, was on a business trip to San Francisco when the big Mt. Diablo fire occurred in 1979. My father described how it seemed like an endless line of C-130s were going back and forth to the fire. Doing a bit of research, I found out those planes were not C-130s, they were B-17s. In fact, the Mt. Diablo fire was the last "big" fire that the B-17s worked. I can tell you my father knows the difference between a C-130 and a B-17, but he clearly made the mistake in identification...and this was just from a brush fire and not having to worry about hostiles shooting at you as they would have been in Vietnam.

[Wildchild]

It sounds like he is mixing up the AC-130 with a B-17, given the volume of fire. If you don't think that is possible, consider this story

My father, who is a pretty decent history buff in his own right, was on a business trip to San Francisco when the big Mt. Diablo fire occurred in 1979. My father described how it seemed like an endless line of C-130s were going back and forth to the fire. Doing a bit of research, I found out those planes were not C-130s, they were B-17s. In fact, the Mt. Diablo fire was the last "big" fire that the B-17s worked. I can tell you my father knows the difference between a C-130 and a B-17, but he clearly made the mistake in identification...and this was just from a brush fire and not having to worry about hostiles shooting at you as they would have been in Vietnam.

The problem here is the reports were from the early war... before the AC-130

[12XU2A3X3]

so in essence, a four engine gunship of some kind. i'm all for applying occam's razor, but let's not discount anything yet. sometimes things simply go unreported.

okay, so there were no "bombers" in vietnam. just like there were no us troop in laos or cambodia and no hostile interaction between the us air power and china, yeah?

[JohnB]

Use whatever is avaible? Feild mods maybe?

But first they'd have to be in the field.

No reason why B-17s would be there during that time period.
1950's possibly...mid-late 60s...very doubtful.

[dollar65]

I think the whole Vietnam story comes from the use of a TB-17G 44-85531 was based at Clark AB and supposedly used for "clandestine" operations.
One book (I can't reacall which one) mentions the aircraft and says it was used over Vietnam in the 50s because the Vietnamese thought it didn't look like an "American" aircraft.

That was in "B-17 in action" by Larry Davis, Squadron Signal pub. in 1984, page 56.

Laurent

[The Inspector]

I think the whole Vietnam story comes from the use of a TB-17G 44-85531 was based at Clark AB and supposedly used for "clandestine" operations.
One book (I can't reacall which one) mentions the aircraft and says it was used over Vietnam in the 50s because the Vietnamese thought it didn't look like an "American" aircraft.

That was in "B-17 in action" by Larry Davis, Squadron Signal pub. in 1984, page 56.

Laurent

I do believe I covered that in post 4 on page 1. It's usage is also covered in the U of Texas library history mentioned in that posting, if anyone bothered to read it.(Oh, that would require typing and clicking, and scrolling and....)

GARY1954, the A-26 was a DOUGLAS product, distinctly different from the MARTIN B-26 except in general layout, when the MARTIN went away after WW2, the A for 'Attack' designator was taken out of the Air Forces' vocabulary and the DOUGLAS A-26 got a promotion to 'B'. The A-17, a prewar design by the true genius of aviation design, John Northrop, morphed and eventually was the daddy of the SBD, but you already knew that-

[Steve Nelson]

The Invader indeed became the B-26 when the the Air Force revamped their designation system after becoming a separate service (and the Marauders were long gone) but I understand it was redesignated A-26 during Vietnam specifically to get around the "no bombers" rule.

Not to stray too far off topic, but I've also read that the B-50 was originally designated B-29D (or some other subvariant) but Congress wouldn't approve funding for continued development of a WWII design, so (on paper) it became a "new" aircraft called the B-50.

SN

[The Inspector]

The Invader indeed became the B-26 when the the Air Force revamped their designation system after becoming a separate service (and the Marauders were long gone) but I understand it was redesignated A-26 during Vietnam specifically to get around the "no bombers" rule.

Not to stray too far off topic, but I've also read that the B-50 was originally designated B-29D (or some other subvariant) but Congress wouldn't approve funding for continued development of a WWII design, so (on paper) it became a "new" aircraft called the B-50.

SN

The B-50 evolved from the post conflict ashes of WW2 and originally was identified as the B-29D when B-29A-5-BN, 4293845, was bailed to P & W in 1943 as the 'makey-lookie' for the R-4360 'D' version making it the XB-44 for about 20 minutes. In an attempt to show our potential adversaries in Borscht Junction that America had made great leaps since 1945 we were replacing our old, inefficient, slow, short ranged B-29's with super duper brand new B-50's, and somehow drawings of the XB-54 kept 'leaking out' too.

[Wildchild]

There is one other thing we have completely forgot about... The French AF were in Vietnam at the time and way before us, and they operated B-17's, but i'm not sure if they used 17's in the 60's in vietnam

[muddyboots]

GARY1954, the A-26 was a DOUGLAS product, distinctly different from the MARTIN B-26 except in general layout, when the MARTIN went away after WW2, the A for 'Attack' designator was taken out of the Air Forces' vocabulary and the DOUGLAS A-26 got a promotion to 'B'. The A-17, a prewar design by the true genius of aviation design, John Northrop, morphed and eventually was the daddy of the SBD, but you already knew that-

No, no I didn't. Start another thread and tell us about the morphology of WWII aircraft!

[Jollygreenslugg]

There is one other thing we have completely forgot about... The French AF were in Vietnam at the time and way before us, and they operated B-17's, but i'm not sure if they used 17's in the 60's in vietnam

Ah, no. As far as US WW2 bombers used by the French in Vietnam go, the Aéronavale used PB4Y Privateers, and the Armée de l'air used B-26 Invaders. The only French military use of the B-17 (that I'm aware of) was one aircraft used as a general's runabout, and that wasn't in Vietnam.

Anyway, the times are all wrong. The French military kinda didn't have much involvement in the region after 1954! So, that wasn't "at the time" that the Miniguns were in use.

The well-known French use of B-17s was by the IGN (Institut Géographique National), which wasn't military. B-17s were used for aerial mapping, and many of them survived long enough to enter preservation, but the history and use of these aircraft is documented, and didn't include use as gunships.

Why would the French (whose military presence in Vietnam ended in 1954) provide aircraft for use as gunships, after a spectacular political failure a decade earlier. The mere idea of the French saying "oh, hello USA, we know you're the best-equipped military nation on the planet, but perhaps you may wish to borrow our photographic aircraft to expensively modify to get back at our former enemies!" Ah, no! I think it's fair to say that French military B-17 involvement in Vietnam in the 1960s can be comprehensively ruled out.

Cheers,
Matt

[famvburg]

In case I missed the suggestion I'm about to make, my apologies, but what if the guy saw an AC-47 and confused it for a B-17? I can see a B-17 and C-47 from a distance being confused. I think the AC-47 would've been the right timeframe.