Comment

Koch Bros. Conference: 'The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment'

563
Shiplord Kirel: From behind wingnut lines8/08/2011 9:47:24 am PDT

re: #537 wlewisiii

Well, no, not at all. It was designed for strategic bombing from the get go. The ideas were very clear in the writings of Mitchell and Seversky and others and both Boeing and the Army were paying close attention.

Congress being a bunch of isolationist idiots would not fund an offensive weapon but would fund a defensive one. Hence the fantasy of land based bombers playing maritime interceptors.

The Fortress name was given by reporters. They didn’t know anymore then than they do now and so all those bristling .30’s seemed like a huge armament to them.

The specification said what it said, a bomber to replace the B-10 and to be capable of reinforcing Hawaii, Alaska, and the Panama Canal Zone, none of which are within range of likely strategic targets. The experimental XB-15, built at roughly the same time, was specifically a strategic bomber project, to be capable of hitting Japan from Guam.

Richard Williams, a reporter for the Seattle Times coined the name “Flying Fortress” when the Model 299 was rolled out, bristling with multiple machine gun installations.[14] The most unique being the nose installation (see note for description and drawing) which allowed the single machine gun to be fired from about any frontal angle any approaching enemy fighter would take to attack the B-17 [15] Boeing also claimed in some of the early press releases that Model 299 was the first combat aircraft that could continue its mission if one of its four engines for what ever reason failed.


This is wrong. Williams was referring to its role. The model 299 had only five machine guns, all of .30 caliber, compared to the much smaller B-10’s three. The B-10 also had a nose turret, so this was hardly unique or striking.