Talk:Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleBoeing B-17 Flying Fortress is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 18, 2010.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 1, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
January 10, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
January 20, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
October 11, 2010Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 28, 2012, and July 28, 2015.
Current status: Former featured article

482 BG[edit]

Close discussion by user not here to build an encyclopedia

The symbol shown for the 97BG IS IN FACT THAT OF THE 482 BG. The 2nd, 97th, 99th & 301 should either contain a Y consistent with th3 63(sic) [463] & 483; or be smaller than the 1st & 3rd BD/AD SYMBOLS. The Ys would be consistent for the period of table showing Square P & W. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B020:7C67:450:A990:1F1C:9253 (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Square T[edit]

Close discussion by user not here to build an encyclopedia

The 493 BG DID NOT CARRY THIS MARKING on its B-17 and in fact had dropped it while still Flying the Liberator. The BW used red segments on the tails on both the B-24 and B-17. The 34 BG was among the BW groups. See also the 490th BG. The 385 BG transfered in and adopted a large red checkerboard tail marking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B020:7C67:450:A990:1F1C:9253 (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Pie Y[edit]

REF; http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b17_squad.html

The Y in the circle segment is the symbol of the 463 BG. THERE WAS NO 63 BG in the EAME. —  Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B020:7C67:450:A990:1F1C:9253 (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop ranting on the talk page. Citation needed If there are errors or inconsistencies in this article then please feel free to correct them using citations and reliable sources. The principle is outlined at WP:SOFIXIT. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The chart is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B020:7C67:450:A990:1F1C:9253 (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Correct it then, using a cited reliable source. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

INCORRECT ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B020:7C67:450:A990:1F1C:9253 (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Focus on the content, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B020:7C67:450:A990:1F1C:9253 (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm simply explaining why you can't edit the article as Nimbus suggested. As to focusing on the content, please provide verifiable reliable source vto support your change, and explaining the change you want made, and perhaps Nimbus will change it for you if he feels the changes have merit, after checking the sources if he so desires. - - BilCat (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Which would have been "embedded graphic" regardless of who...or geograph.

Maurer, ...Units; pg 129 @ 63 TCG.  & # 463 Bg.
Bishop, ...Big Triangle; pg 220 and others.;
FORMAN; ...Directory, end leaf; and many others;  

Mundy; ...15Th AF MARKINGS and others. However the graphic is unreferenced, unsourced and unsubstanciated. That it is even encyclopedic is questionable.

==tune 2015 (UTC)

Their user pages are semiprotected because no one else has any business editing them. Their talk pages are not protected, and that's the place for a warning -- but beware of the boomerang. You come across as being here to pick fights, not to build an encyclopedia, and you're likely to get a cold reception if you go to any of the arbitration or administrator intervention pages with unclean hands. --Yaush (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

em.

Design and Development[edit]

Close discussion by user not here to build an encyclopedia

This article deviates from the standard aircraft article by omitting this major section. Instead it splits the subjects and interjects numerious intervening titled and untitled paragraphs that disrupt the continuity and chronolgy of the fundamental design & development storyline.

Moreover, either the standard format is not present; or if present, the content deviates from the heading, thoughout much of the article. The result is a meandering and disorganized presentatiion complete with redundencies and contradictions. What ever praise the article once enjoyed is no longer in evidence. To understand this more objectively, outline the article in hard copy, complete with hierarchy, given each topic its heading. Look at the results and form your assessment. Mine found the article has been amended too often in piecemeal, and suffers accordingly. It needs an overhaul.

...and oh, I have no desire to participate in this process. I abdicate that to R. Freeman (dec) and David Osborne and their B-17 Flying Fortress Story. The latter has reviewed the individual history for every one of the 12, 730 B-17 that have a card on file and supplement those histories in many ways. And that one model 299, never a B-17, is also in the book. So when instead you choose the 1963 work of Bowers in any reiteration, be cognizant of want you are rejecting. You can use a map of the flat earth, but you won t soar to new heights.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B122:67F8:E0C2:D605:D761:5A5 (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Combat box[edit]

Close discussion by user not here to build an encyclopedia

the combat box initiated by Le May and adopted in the VIIII BC was an 18 plane formation stacked high and low of the lead six. it was NOT the diamond 12 shown. the unsourced, incorrect graphic is recommened for removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B00D:405:FA26:7363:F8F0:2AAE (talk) 09:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Variants table[edit]

Close discussion by user not here to build an encyclopedia

ref: The B-17 Flying Fortress Story; Freeman & Osborne; 1998. this book is authoritative and contains a synopsis of the official aircraft history cards for each B-17 ( less a few NIF). The number of F-DL is less than the 600 first ordered from Long Beach, not the 605 stated in the chart. That number is cited to Bowers (#53) work which is a reinteration of his 1963 colaboration ( also cited in the article). That 1963 was based on factory production planning records and not actual production. The F-DL series ended at block 65. The blocks G-1 into 10 account for DL # 530 to 605 and seq. 529 F-DL. ( plus 71 to G & G-DL) MOREOVER, the current G total can not be summed correctly if five (5) G-10-DL are alleged as F-80/85. Do the math.

B-17H vs SB-17...again[edit]

The article now has the order both ways in different places. The mission prefix for the SAR dates to 1948. The H SERIES was the AAF war time designation. The ATC/ MATS assumption of the role was post war. The wartime AAF had about a half dozen ASR emergency rescue squadrons (ERS) and most used the B-17H at least at some point. See Craven & Cate Vol VII for a whole chapter on the subject. Meanwhile the article needs some repair, consistency, clarification of timeframes and removal of redundencies. or find the coverage that was reverted and restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B023:61A7:BF0A:E9DC:25D8:F585 (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

CAREY (ref 7 & BIBLIOGRAPHY) 404 error[edit]

and with it goes the credibility of Defeat of the Wehrmacht as the CBO primary objective. citation needed now.

No. Citation still stands, and fortunately archive.org "is your friend" . GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I don t understand this reply. Are you saying you got the link to work? are you saying the ref was published? what exactly are you saying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:8ACD:5D09:1E54:32B4:388D (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

German weapons[edit]

the inserted discussions on German weapons systems recently inserted into the article are no the subject of the article. If deemed germane, hyperlinks are recommended in lieu of sidetracking the article's focus on the Mitchell.

"Mitchell"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


IP 2600[edit]

Just to note that IP 2600 has been blocked from editing and they are not allowed to contribute, as such any contributions can be removed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

A service ceiling greater than any of its Allied contemporaries?[edit]

Isn't this factually incorrect? The de Havilland Mosquito had a service ceiling of 11,000m which is greater. Maybe the text should read '... than any contemporary allied heavy bombers.

I wouldnt have considered the Mosquito as a contemporary of the B-17. MilborneOne (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Jesus wept. Somebody's awfully desperate to award the B-17 an undeserved propaganda superlative. The United States wasn't allied with anyone till December 1941. The passage at issue refers to the B-17's war service with the USAAF (and not its first, unsuccessful period in action with 90 Squadron RAF in summer 1941). The term 'Allied contemporaries' therefore means 'US and British bombers of the Second World War', so both the Mosquito and the B-29 beat the B-17 hollow. On operations it actually flew at around 25,000 - 26,000. When the RAF tried to fly it higher, it didn't work because the engines bled oil in the low air pressure and the oil caked on the tailplane and froze and seized the elevators. Plus the oxygen system froze, the radios froze and the guns jammed. Later models used by the Eighth Air Force (and redesigned in light of 90 Squadron's experience, with far more guns and a bigger tailfin to counter the directional instability) were much heavier and couldn't reach 30,000 at operational load anyway. So the article is awarding an undeserved propaganda superlative. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Addition of B-17 Pilot, LT. Robert V. Mercer to Wiki B-17 Page[edit]

Greetings,

My name is Dean Carter. I am a first time Wikipedia contributor.

I have attempted to enter information regarding B-17 Pilot LT. Robert V. Mercer (1923-1945).

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=104361456

LT. Mercer died in January 1945, after his B-17 took heavy flak and caught fire. He ordered his entire crew to bail out, including his Co-Pilot, Lt. Charles Taylor (Whom sadly died of impact injuries sustained from the jump) but which saved the lives of the other six men.

LT. Mercer also avoided the small village of Tournai, Belgium, sparing many civilian lives.

This act of sacrifice was witnessed by many of the village residents, whom in 2008, had Belgium dedicate an official memorial to LT. Mercer and the crew.

LT. Mercer also has an entire chapter concerning him in James Hammond's (Award winning Journalist and former Wall Street Journal writer), book, "Tom's War". A book concerning his father, Tom Hammond, also a B-17 pilot and friend of LT. Mercer's.

http://www.amazon.com/Toms-War-Flying-Eighth-Europe/dp/0595415393

My question is in my novice attempt to insert this information to the B-17 page, it seems I am doing it correctly, as I can see a "Updated" page after I insert the new info, but when I check back in an hour it is not updated.

What do you think I am doing wrong, or am I having to await an "Approval"?

Thanks much for any help.

Cordially,

Dean CarterCarter1969 (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Wilmington, NC, USA

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Ammunition[edit]

Hello all, i read the article but could find no information on how much ammo each gun had and how long they could fire for, or if they had extra ammo stored and had to reload the guns86.141.175.1 (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The B-17E carried 11,275 rounds according to this [[1]] Irondome (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Operator Austria[edit]

Austria never had a Boeing B-17 in service. I think this is a mistake, because we (I am from Austria) had one Saab 17 (also known as B17) in service- a complete different plane with the same name --Peettriple (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2017[edit]

Request: remove Austria from the list of operators. Austria never had a Boeing B-17 in service. The Austrian Air Force had one Saab 17 (also known as B-17), but that is a complete different plane--Peettriple (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Peettriple (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Factotem (talk · contribs) 13:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


Well Written?[edit]

On first read through it's fundamentally good. I'll copy-edit the small stuff as I go through, and highlight more substantial changes here.FactotEm (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Second sentence, third para, Design and variants section, is huge and unwieldy. Can it be broken down into discrete sentences, and do we really need to know who designed/built the turrets?FactotEm (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

3rd para in section "Initial USAAF operations over Europe" begins "At the same time..." but not clear which time is being referred to. Also has the abbreviation "AAF" - need to clarify what this stands for (USAAF?). FactotEm (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The 2nd Schweinfurt raid is already discussed in the 4th para, "Combined offensive" section. The 5th para then talks about the effects of the losses and other stuff, but the last sentence then seems to return to the 2nd Schweinfurt raid and Doolittle's attempts to cancel it. Is there a disconnect here?FactotEm (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The last para in the lead contradicts itself. FactotEm (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Referencing[edit]

reference info for Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
unnamed refs 72
named refs 149
self closed 183
Refn templates 1
bare url refs 1
cs1 refs 21
cs1 templates 22
cs2 refs 1
cs2 templates 1
harv refs 1
harv templates 1
sfn templates 1
uses ldr yes
refbegin templates 2
cleanup templates 11
dead link templates 2
webarchive templates 21
use xxx dates dmy
cs1|2 df dmy 8
cs1|2 dmy dates 3
cs1|2 mdy dates 2
cs1|2 ymd dates 2
cs1|2 last/first 10
cs1|2 author 4
explanations

Zamzow is a dead link. It's also a thesis, which need to be handled carefully. FactotEm (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I've added a fair few citation needed tags. Also, running the External Links checker on this page throws up quite a few problems. FactotEm (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Overall, a mess.
Trappist the monk (talk) 10:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I've learned that deadlinks aren't a show-stopper for GA, but nevertheless it might be a good idea to look at this.FactotEm (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Coverage[edit]

Third sentence in Design and varients section begins "While models A through D of the B-17 were designed defensively..." and then details the E model, but preceding paras make no mention of the D model. FactotEm (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The section on Colin Kelly's actions seems a bit anecdotal, and just plain odd. In one sentence he's crashing his B-17 into a Japanese ship (which the article on him makes no mention of), then 2 sentences later he's flying his burning B-17 long enough for the crew to bale. Does this need to be in the article? FactotEm (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The last sentence in the section "Bomber defense", beginning "This durability..." seems out of place. It's something I would expect to see in a summary somewhere, at the end of the article or maybe the lead, but not in a section with such a specific subject. Is it necessary? FactotEm (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The whole "Luftwaffe attacks" section seems to stray off topic. Do we need so much information? Would it be better to condense into a couple of sentences and place it at the end of the preceding section?FactotEm (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Not a fan of 'in popular culture' sections myself, and this and the "Other non-military achievements and events" section don't seem to add much to the article. Consider removing?FactotEm (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

There were at most 168 B-17s in the Pacific Theatre, of over 12,000 built, yet the Pacific Theatre section represents around half of the text in the whole Operational History section, which includes an introductory section, RAF usage, initial USAAF operations, and the combined offensive sub-sections. I would have thought there would be more to say about operations over Europe, or have I missed something? FactotEm (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The Accidents and incidents section needs a short summary FactotEm (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Stable[edit]

Yes. FactotEm (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Illustrated[edit]

If anything, the article is over-illustrated. Lots of images down the right hand side, and some sandwiching of the text. Do we really need so many images? FactotEm (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Review on hold[edit]

I've replaced the review on hold to give the nominator a chance to respond to the comments above. FactotEm (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm going to fail this nomination. Sorry. None of the comments have been addressed, either by discussion or amendments to the article. It's a shame, because it's really quite well written. The balance, however, doesn't feel right, specifically with regard to information about European theatre of operations in comparison with the rest of the article. The profusion of images is another key issue. Note that I have not checked the licensing of these, nor do I intend to while there is the likelihood that quite a few will be removed. Happy to revisit this if someone wants to get involved. FactotEm (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Austrian 'B 17'[edit]

I think this was a good faith error, based on this. I've a hunch that the editor has confused the type, which is the Saab 17. One was indeed sold to Austria as a target tower. Irondome (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

"at the expense of bombload"[edit]

" it was a relatively fast, high-flying, long-range bomber with heavy defensive armament at the expense of bombload" is dubious according to discussion in GA nomination on plwiki (see https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Propozycje_do_Dobrych_Artyku%C5%82%C3%B3w/Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress ) - fuel and armour was mentioned as also important and that bombload was not really low Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It is true that the B-17 did not carry such a great bomb load as compared to other, later bombers serving in the same role, for instance the B-24 which carried three more tons of bombs, flew faster, and had greater range, but could not fly as high. Or you could point out that any mass on a bomber aircraft is going to affect the mass of the bomb load. A larger bomb load would be possible by eliminating gunners and guns, or by reducing fuel – both methods were used at various times in WWII. So it's fair to say that heavy defensive armament resulted in a smaller bomb load. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Exact Wording of Nickname Origin Quote[edit]

The article currently reads:

Richard Williams, a reporter for the Seattle Times, coined the name "Flying Fortress" with his comment, "Why, it's a flying fortress!".

However, the cited reference does not include that exact wording; instead only noting that:

When Seattle newspaperman Richard L. Williams caught sight of the Model 299, he promptly dubbed it “flying fortress.” The name stuck.

A brief obituary from the Los Angeles Times has this version of the story:

Assigned to write a Seattle Times caption on a picture of the B-299, a B-17 prototype, on July 17, 1935, Williams wrote: "Declared to be the largest land plane ever built in America, this 15-ton flying fortress, built by the Boeing Aircraft Co. under Army specifications, today was ready to test its wings."

Does anyone have a primary source for the wording of the quote in the article? (That is to say, one that does not simply reprint the version from an earlier source.) Otherwise, I am tempted to change it.

I found a book that cites Roger Freeman's book B-17: Fortress at War, which might be a good place to start. Unfortunately, I don't have access to it at the moment. –Noha307 (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I checked the B-17: Fortress at War book today, and it does not mention any sort of exclamatory comment either. Instead, it mentions the exact same picture caption story from the Los Angeles Times obituary above. To quote page 8 of the book:
The Seattle Daily Times, serving the area around the largest city of Washington State in the north-western corner of the United States, has always given a good measure of publicity to Boeing, the aircraft manufacturers, ultimately Seattle's major employer.
In 1935 Boeing, establishing themselves as a progressive force in the highly competitive and financially perilous business of aeroplane design and construction, were known to be working on the prototype of an advanced bomber; although the Company did its best to keep details secret. Final assembly took place in a hangar at Boeing Field, a few miles south-east of the city, and on the afternoon of July 16 the completed 4-engined aircraft, Boeing Model 299, was at last unveiled for public view.
A press photographer took pictures of the event and these, with details given by Boeing, arrived on the desk of Richard L. Williams, a member of the editorial staff. The laudatory copy prepared included the sentence: 'Ropes kept a throng of spectators from closely inspecting the fifteen-ton flying fortress, which made its first public appearance yesterday afternoon when it was rolled out of its hangar and its motors tested.' Williams noting the novel machine gun turrets jutting out from the streamlined metal body of the aircraft depicted in the photographs picked out as a caption heading the words – 15-TON FLYING FORTRESS.
The title caught the attention of Boeing executives and Flying Fortress was later registered as a Company name for their Model 299, although in a rather different context, echoing the defensive posture of the nation and in line with the isolationist policy then pursued by the United States Government. The aircraft was ostensibly for long range ocean patrol to protect America's coastline from a hostile fleet, although many officers of the Air Corps realised its offensive potential.
Note that in this telling, Mr. Williams did not even see the bomber in person. So if it did indeed occur, it was in the editorial office and not while standing in front of the plane itself. Unfortunately, the book has neither footnotes, nor a bibliography, so Freeman's version of the source of the story cannot be traced any farther back. –Noha307 (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Notable B-17s Section[edit]

I am going to be bold and delete the entries of surviving aircraft with no notable wartime history. It is starting to suffer from listcruft. In addition, the surviving aircraft article already covers the subject in sufficient detail and including them here would simply be redundant. –Noha307 (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

B-17s bombing and inflicting considerable damage on Scharnhorst in Brest.[edit]

This article states that RAF B-17s "on 24 July .. attacked the Scharnhorst, anchored in Brest, and inflicted considerable damage on the vessel."

There are quite a few discrepancies with this account.

1. The article on German_battleship_Scharnhorst#Air_raid_on_24_July_1941 makes no mention of this inflicting of "considerable damage" by B-17s.

2. Scharnhorst was not anchored in Brest, but 200 miles away in La Rochelle on the 24th July having left Brest on the 21st and arriving in La Rochelle on the 23rd.

3. Only Halifax heavy bombers of No. 35 Squadron RAF and No. 76 Squadron diverted to Scharnhorst in La Rochelle (in it's port of La Pallice).

4. The B-17s were part of the initial, undiverted plan to attack all of the ships in Brest... The RAF had planned a large, complicated raid on the capital ships in Brest for the night of 24 July, but an aerial reconnaissance photograph [1] of Scharnhorst in her berth at La Pallice caused a last minute alteration to the operation. The Halifax heavy bombers of No. 35 Squadron RAF and No. 76 Squadron RAF flew the extra 200 miles to reach Scharnhorst and the rest of the raid on Brest went ahead as planned, with Prinz Eugen and Gneisenau as their principal targets.. I.e. they attacked Prinz Eugen and Gneisenau in Brest.

5. The only RAF B-17s (List_of_Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress_operators#_United_Kingdom) to attack German capital ships were those of No._90_Squadron_RAF which, on the 24th July played a part of the aforementioned "large, complicated raid" on the Prinz Eugen and Gneisenau - i.e. the part that wasn't diverted to Brest - .....taking part in a large scale attack on the German battleship Gneisenau at Brest, France on 24 July. Three Fortresses attacked were to attack from 30,000 ft (9,100 m), with the objective of drawing German fighters away from 18 Handley Page Hampdens attacking at lower altitudes. A larger force of 79 Vickers Wellingtons would attack later, while the fighters were meant to be refuelling. The operation did not work as expected, with 90 Squadron's Fortresses being unopposed, with the German defenders concentrating on the Hampdens and Wellingtons, shooting down two and ten respectively.. Further, the record of 90 Squadron with B-17s in Northern Europe is concluded.. 90 Squadron flew its final operational mission over northern Europe on 25 September 1941. In 51 operational sorties, 25 were abandoned due to faults with the aircraft, with 50 tons of bombs being dropped, of which only about 1 ton hit the intended targets.. Again no mention of any bombs from RAF B-17s hitting any German capital ship, especially not the Scharnhorst, which was 200 miles away on the 24th July.

6. Neither are any recorded as hitting the sister of the Scharnhorst that was in Brest, German_battleship_Gneisenau#Air_attacks_in_Brest - which does not mention any bombs hitting on the 24th July, but many attacks around that time from other squadrons and aircraft. Clearly the part that the B-17s played in the attacks on Brest did not succeed, only the Halifaxes attacking Scharnhorst scored any hits that day. So they were a diversionary attack from a high altitude of 30,000 ft on Prinz Eugen and Gneisenau, and not surprisingly none hit.

7. The source being used for this baffling claim of "severly damaging Scharnhorst" is Garzke & Dulin, pp. 159–160. but this is used in many the other articles on this point, which all corroborate with each other, and not "severly damaging Scharnhorst" which is clearly a fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.7.146 (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC) 86.161.7.146 (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Sperry remote turret.[edit]

The early B-17E's did not use the Bendix remote turret. It was a Sperry remote turret. The same people that designed and built the upper turret and the later ball. This is clearly called out in the B-17E pilots manual and also shows in the Boeing engineering drawings. This Bendix thing has been repeated for years and is wrong. B17FE (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Sperry remote turret[edit]

I do not know how to use this fully, so bear with me. I need to contact BilCat and provide him with the correct information on the remote turret used on the early B-17E's. I have the Boeing installation drawing and the B-17E Pilots Manual which show this information.

Thank you,

Karl Hauffe B17FE (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B17FE (talkcontribs) 00:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm just going to point interested editors to the discussion on your talk page: User talk:B17FE#Confused. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)