← Home ← Back to /k/

Thread 64213554

141 posts 108 images /k/
Anonymous No.64213554 >>64213601 >>64214016 >>64214028 >>64214038 >>64214204 >>64217804 >>64219395 >>64222832
Medium bombers are the most underappreciated genre of WW2 warplane
Anonymous No.64213601
>>64213554 (OP)
>I recognize that box art.
This is now a box art thread. Pic related to the OP, of course.
Anonymous No.64214016 >>64214191 >>64216954
>>64213554 (OP)
True workhorse thread?
Anonymous No.64214028
>>64213554 (OP)
I love that plane. One of my all time favourites.

Here, have a Do-17
Anonymous No.64214038 >>64214050 >>64214208 >>64224433
>>64213554 (OP)
B-25H all the way. Every plane should have a 75mm cannon in the nose.
Anonymous No.64214050 >>64214102
>>64214038
It looks like its been smoking a cigar?
Anonymous No.64214052 >>64214091
for me it's the vickers wellington
Anonymous No.64214091 >>64214199
>>64214052
How about a bigger Wellington?
Anonymous No.64214092
Anonymous No.64214102
>>64214050
75mm cigar
Anonymous No.64214120 >>64217566 >>64222871
Do these count?
Anonymous No.64214191 >>64217185 >>64217359
>>64214016
>Martin B-26 Marauder
The most under-recognized USAAF combat aircraft of World War II. ETO Crews fought valiantly and expertly on long range interdiction and high level bombing missions for four years, and battled Me 262s in the last phase.
The final F and G variants were a slightly increased incidence main wing, a modification to the airplane mandated by U.S. Congress that degraded its top speed performance but made it (supposedly) easier to take off and land by decreasing landing speeds; when in reality by the time the F and G variants arrived by 1944 the flight deck crews themselves had already become experts at managing the slightly advanced learning curve required for safe and efficient operation of the Marauder, so the airframe modification wasn't required. (It was only the first year's operation of the bomber in USAAF service that had caused its non-combat loss rate to come to attention of top brass and stateside politicians that demanded "something be done" to the manufacturer's product, when in fact it was a skill issue)
Anonymous No.64214199
>>64214091
ok
Anonymous No.64214204
>>64213554 (OP)

It's amazing that France could make great looking aircraft that were just as dogshit as their ugly ones!
Anonymous No.64214208 >>64214220 >>64214343 >>64217393 >>64219914
>>64214038
>75mm cannon
anti-ship ? has it ever hit anything ?
Anonymous No.64214214
Just as B-29 required a 3000m fully paved runway, B-26 should have had standards for advancing into the makeshift airfields of the South Pacific.
Anonymous No.64214220
>>64214208
The sea
Anonymous No.64214340
CANT? more like CAN'T, amirite fellow tea slurpers?
Anonymous No.64214343
>>64214208
Thought they were more for hitting ground targets
Anonymous No.64214352 >>64214358
YOU WANT MIRRIN DORRAS?
Anonymous No.64214358 >>64214365
>>64214352
TOO BAD
HERE BOMB
Anonymous No.64214365
>>64214358
FUCK YOU
Anonymous No.64214404 >>64217325
Repeated low-altitude raids, even against Japanese AA fire, were dangerous, and targets requiring the penetration power of the 75mm gun were scarce.
Anonymous No.64216928 >>64217061
Anonymous No.64216954 >>64217061 >>64217104 >>64217359 >>64219735 >>64219996
>>64214016
How did this get the reputation of being dangerous while also having the highest crew survivability rate for WW2 bombers?
Anonymous No.64217061 >>64217359
>>64216928
>SNIFF
>>64216954
High wing loading compared to other medium bomber. Most crew fatalities were stall or stall-spin accidents. The type was better than a B-25 in more capable hand, though, since it was even able to do evasive maneuvers including rolling over inverted (though it could not sustain inverted flight, like all aircraft of the era).
Anonymous No.64217083 >>64217172
Wellington's airframe design is neat
Anonymous No.64217104 >>64219245
>>64216954
Basically a bunch of training accidents and ferry crews crashed them a bunch because they didn't know how to fly it. Didn't help that the people they were getting to teach them didn't have much experience with multiengine aircraft. When they started to rotate the guys who were flying them on the frontlines they were able to teach people that she was flyable with just one engine working and if they flew her at the speed needed she could be managed.
Anonymous No.64217172 >>64217195
>>64217083
Barnes Wallis conceived this style of construction. The man was a genius (and /ourguy/).

Him, Nevil Shute and Anthony Fokker all had a correspondence with each other.
Anonymous No.64217185 >>64217193 >>64227970
>>64214191
I do think she was the real underrated workhorse of the US of WW2. She did have a steep learning curve especially with having a high take off and landing speed that most pilots were not used but in the hands of the people who flew her in combat she was loved. Supposedly they got a bunch of WASP's to fly them in order to shame the guys to "git gud" but not sure how much of it was propaganda and was reality.
Anonymous No.64217193 >>64217310 >>64217348
>>64217185
Then what are your opinions of the DB-7/A-20/P-70. I always thought that it was the real workhorse.
Anonymous No.64217195 >>64229303
>>64217172
Genius was one way of putting it. The guy was using the thin line between genius and madness as a skipping rope. If he had his way there would likely be cities in Germany unsafe for human habitation to this day.
Anonymous No.64217310 >>64217348
>>64217193
Definitely consider her a workhorse design but one that would not put in say an underrated category as although generally an ok design there was always something better around just not in the numbers people wanted. Basically every example I can find of her in action is that they were using her cause she was all they had available and as soon as there was an alternative they'd immediately use a replacement such as the Beaufighter, B-26, Mosquito etc. About the only group I can find who really liked her were the Soviets.
Anonymous No.64217325
>>64214404
Shirley they would find a use for h.e. rounds
Anonymous No.64217348 >>64217383 >>64219252
>>64217193
>>64217310
>DB-7/A-20
Definitely a workhorse. Although a light bomber by classification it was sometimes used in the 'medium'/level bomber from medium-to-high altitude role (<--alongside B-25 + B-26), and in the Pacific along with the B-25 medium served in the low altitude ground attack and anti-ship missions.
Fun fact: when its replacement the A-26 Invader came along, USAAF pilots in the Pacific preferred the A-20 due to its in-line narrow fuselage seating arrangement (rather than the side-by-side A-26) for low level flight cockpit visibility.
Anonymous No.64217359
>>64216954
>>64217061

See : -------- >>64214191
Anonymous No.64217383 >>64219261
>>64217348
I have heard that Soviets made some rather interesting modifications for ground attack and anti-shipping missions as well but never been able to find a good description of what they supposedly did.
Anonymous No.64217393 >>64217651 >>64219390
>>64214208
Yeah it was mostly intended for use against shipping and it was borderline useless. 75mm guns are a joke to a ship and good luck hitting anything a 75mm could kill on the ground with something that can only do a couple of shots per minute.
Anonymous No.64217566
>>64214120
Yes. All-gun-nose medium attack/bombers are pure sex and anyone who disagrees is wrong and has shit taste.
Anonymous No.64217651 >>64217725 >>64217795 >>64219322 >>64221088
>>64217393
Mosquito had a QF 6 pounder (57) mm so you got about a round a second rather than hand loading a 75mm.
You would get a few hits on a good day with a compliant target.
Anonymous No.64217725
>>64217651
The 57mm was to punch holes in the sides of surfaced U boats so they couldn't dive without flooding anymore.
Anonymous No.64217751 >>64217793
Medium bombers were generally garbage except for antishipping.
Anonymous No.64217772
Anonymous No.64217792 >>64218274
Tail gunner's position on a Mitsubishi G4M Betty, with the 20mm Type 99 cannon.
Anonymous No.64217793 >>64217830
>>64217751
Wrong.
Medium bombers delivered ordnance in high level bombing missions and also interdiction against behind-lines enemy hard and materiel targets.
B-26 Marauder and Mosquito for mere example (there are many others)
Ju 88 was one of the Luftwaffe's primary workhorses throughout the war, even the late variants S and T 1944-45
Anonymous No.64217795 >>64221088
>>64217651
>mosquito mentioned
mosquito mentioned
my favorite ww2 plane
Anonymous No.64217804 >>64217938
>>64213554 (OP)
i think the infantryman and his rifle is underappreciated.
Anonymous No.64217830 >>64218132 >>64219416 >>64229160
>>64217793
The Ju-88 is the first true multi-role. It just does everything.
Anonymous No.64217938
>>64217804
This entire board is a rifleman's circlejerk, go to one of the other threads with that shit.
Anonymous No.64218132 >>64219416
>>64217830
>Junkers Ju 88
>first true multi-role
Probably this. Mosquito entered service later
P-38 is the first true multi-role single seat fighter
Anonymous No.64218274 >>64224855
>>64217792
>breach by necessity has to be inside the aircraft
Imagine the EEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Anonymous No.64218291 >>64218319 >>64218593 >>64221554
What is the COMFIEST bomber
Anonymous No.64218308 >>64218332 >>64218341 >>64218386
How do I explain to normies that German only started their terror campaign bombing England in response to the Allies bombing Dresden and killing over 80,000 people without sound like a Nazi?
Anonymous No.64218319 >>64218593
>>64218291
Comfiest medium has to be a pressurised one.
Ju288 comes to mind.
Anonymous No.64218332
>>64218308
Sound like a Nazi and thank them if they call you one.
Anonymous No.64218341
>>64218308
Dresden was much, much, later. Several years so.
There was a bit too and fro with light to medium bombers before the blitz.
Anonymous No.64218376 >>64218405 >>64218466 >>64219265
P-38 used the pathfinder type to carry out horizontal bombing, but were they not good at dive bombing?
Anonymous No.64218386 >>64218453
>>64218308
Pearl Harbor was revenge for the firebombing of Tokyo
Anonymous No.64218405 >>64218466
>>64218376
The aircraft infamous for the tail in the early models locking up in a dive?
Anonymous No.64218453 >>64218456
>>64218386
The japs get what they get for 9/11
Anonymous No.64218456
>>64218453
9/11 was only fair in response to the bombing of fordow
Anonymous No.64218466
>>64218405
>"infamous"
Compressibility at medium and high altitudes over 350 mph velocities was a phenomenon much studied during 1942-1943 by the American aeronautical engineers, it was unknown prior to then. Using both the P-47 and P-38 which at that time were the highest performing USAAF fighters that had experienced severe problems with the phenomenon, as testbeds

>>64218376
>"dive bombing"
the P-38 was never designed intended for or used in that role (You)r post is nonsensical
Anonymous No.64218482 >>64218568
I'm not asking twin-engine aircraft to imitate Stuka. A dive angle of about 30 degrees should be fine.
Anonymous No.64218568
>>64218482
A big problem with the late 1930s RLM was their insistence that Luftwaffe bombers (any size) be able to perform dive bombing missions.
Anonymous No.64218593
>>64218291
>>64218319
definitely the B-29 (beyond topic of this thread)

>Ju 288
maybe but that project was plagued with engine problems (and a project design powerplant, Jumo 222 that was never delivered)
Lessons learned and engineering from the 288 was partly implemented in the subsequent pressurized high altitude Ju 388
Anonymous No.64219245
>>64217104
There was also a major shortage of multi-engine trainers the entire war, and I think stick time may have also been prioritized towards the heavy bomber pilots (but I'm not totally certain of that). That led to pilots with insufficient hours in multi-engines getting into a tough design to handle on takeoff.

Also, Greg brought up the point that V1 didn't exist back then, and doctrine was to pull back on the yoke the entire time and let the nosewheel come up at minimum rotate speed, in order to reduce the length of runway needed (it was assumed they'd be largely used from forward bases with short or grass runways). The result was that they would get airborne at dangerously low speeds, and if an engine let go, there simply wasn't enough thrust to recover. That doctrine would be considered a gross violation of safety standards as we know them today, but again, tricycle undercarriages were still relatively new and our rules today are built on the knowledge gained from decades of accidents.
Anonymous No.64219252 >>64219330
>>64217348
Huh. I thought that story was about B-25 squadrons in the Pacific refusing the A-26 because its longer nose blocked visibility during low-level toss/retarded bombing runs. Now you've got me curious as to which (or both) it was.
Anonymous No.64219261
>>64217383
>Slav Havoc
A Slavoc.
Anonymous No.64219265
>>64218376
You really need dive brakes for dive bombing. They keep your speed down enough to maintain control. They also add weight, and therefore don't make sense for a plane that isn't specifically intended to do dive bombing (which does include some multi-roles like F4U, but you have to pay a price for them, and that price can be steep).
Anonymous No.64219297
There should have been more aircraft with underside windows.
Anonymous No.64219322 >>64219416
>>64217651
I like the fact it was a regular anti-tank gun taken off of its wheeled mount and fitted with an autoloader designed by a company that built cigarette making machinery.
Anonymous No.64219330
>>64219252
>B-25 squadrons in the Pacific refusing
Never heard that one. And sounds unlikely (B-25s had noses of varying length dependent on equipment/modification, also the "refusing" if that's what story says)
The A-26 Invader was criticized by early pre-deployment USAAF evalutions for having pilot visibility issues and the canopy was modified in early A-26B variants to a new clamshell design.
Anonymous No.64219336
Anonymous No.64219364 >>64219416
Anonymous No.64219367
I just think it's neat.
Anonymous No.64219390
>>64217393
The gunships were built to fuck up the overgrown shitty sampan thingies the nips used for coastal shipping within the island chains. They wanted a bit more punch than a bunch of 50 cal for the job and 75mm HE fit the bill.
For actual ocean-going tramp steamers they used skip bombing.
Fifth Air Force loved the B-25G/H as it was basically a tailor made variant specifically for them. The thing is that nobody else liked them because they never really had those kinds of crappy slow wooden defenseless targets to deal with.
Anonymous No.64219395 >>64219642 >>64222793
>>64213554 (OP)
isnt the mosquito the most famous british plane after the spitfire?
Anonymous No.64219416
>>64217830
>>64218132
Depends on your definition as there are multirole biplanes for example that legit did everything in the 20's. Will say though that the JU 88 is the probably the first one that did everything well.
>>64219322
Average Bong design process really. If it had a box stuck out the back and mounted sideways would be complete.
>>64219364
The thumbnail is rather lewd!
Anonymous No.64219570 >>64219584
20-40mm cannons were capable of both AP and HE shells and were suitable for anti-material strafing attacks, so it's a bit strange that they weren't used much by US attack aircraft.
Anonymous No.64219584 >>64219930
>>64219570
They tried.
They didn't have reliable ones in service.
Anonymous No.64219642
>>64219395
pretty much
In terms of WWII-era engineering, it's more significant than the Spitfire
Anonymous No.64219735 >>64219739 >>64219780
>>64216954
Because it was only introduced in 1944
Anonymous No.64219739
>>64219735
>it was only introduced in 1944
??
B-26 Marauder entered USAAF service in 1941.
Anonymous No.64219780 >>64219941 >>64229287
>>64219735
>Plane that was considered for the Doolittle raid only introduced in 1944
What did he mean by this?
Anonymous No.64219914 >>64220062
>>64214208
>anti-ship ? has it ever hit anything ?
IIRC there was a version of the DeHavilland Mosquito that was equipped with a 57mm cannon wich to this day remains the only plane to have won a an artillery duel with a warship. It stayed out of the range of the AAA of a (German...?) destroyer and scored a lucky hit in the ship's engine room which put it out of action.
Anonymous No.64219930
>>64219584
Yeah. Thats why 50cal is everywhere, Americans just couldn't 20mm so they perfected what they had.
Anonymous No.64219941
>>64219780
Making shit up bot is in a time loop.
Probably had too much LDS.
Anonymous No.64219996 >>64220034 >>64220067
>>64216954
their first missions in europe were catastrophic. they were used without fighter escort for low altitude bombing runs and got ripped apart by flak and enemy fighters. they were subsequently confined to medium altitude raids on less defended targets and only flew with fighter escorts which improved their survivability.

generally medium altitude was not a place where a ww2 bomber wanted to be, because thats the altitude where flak can still get you and where fighters perform best.
Anonymous No.64220034 >>64220072
>>64219996
Sure that wasn't the A-20?
Anonymous No.64220062
>>64219914

depends how rigidly you define artillery since Mosquitos and Beaufighters used to fly through flak from small german/italian warships, set their superstructure on fire with 20mm cannons then leave without elaborating.
Anonymous No.64220067 >>64220148
>>64219996
>without fighter escort
There was no fighter escort for Allied bombers over occupied Europe until 1943
USAAF B-26 Marauder squadrons operated without fighter escorts for most (except, for example, on strikes against enemy fighter airfields) of their missions until the end of the war. 'Fighter escort' was largely reserved for the heavy bombers

>'medium altitude'
That was the prime operating profile for the B-26 Marauder, around 15K ft
Anonymous No.64220072
>>64220034
His post is nonsensical. Certainly doesn't refer to the B-26 Marauder
Anonymous No.64220148 >>64220905
>>64220067
>>'medium altitude'
>That was the prime operating profile for the B-26 Marauder, around 15K ft
yeah and as i said not a good place to be, which is why the b26 was confined to b rank missions WITH FIGHTER ESCORT even at the end of the war. it was a very very vulnerable plane that would have performed abyssmally if it had been the main bomber of the allied air forces. stop sucking its cock.
Anonymous No.64220905
>>64220148
The B-26 has a very nice cock and her cock shall be sucked!
Anonymous No.64220957 >>64220984 >>64221034
>Bristol Blenheim
Anonymous No.64220984
>>64220957
Very nice pre war and nice to see one flying now.
Its a berm were you expecting a berm.
Anonymous No.64221034
>>64220957
underrated. Love it.

Here's another pretty Italian lady. Three engined bombers just scream interwar bomber and they're so cute.
Anonymous No.64221046
What game gives the best bomber experience? Been flying wimpys in IL2 Tobruk
Anonymous No.64221088 >>64221098 >>64221266
>>64217651
>>64217795
>In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now!
>It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito.
>I turn green and yellow with envy.
>The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building,
>and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again!
>What do you make of that?
>There is nothing the British do not have!
>They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops!
>After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set, then at least I'll own something that has always worked.
>t. Herman Meyer
Anonymous No.64221098 >>64221233 >>64222818 >>64223055
>>64221088
You had an equivalent piece of art, you fucker just let politics get in the way of it's destiny
Anonymous No.64221233
>>64221098
>The Nazis should just have been less of a retarded, self sabotaging, political bitch-fight
I think that might actually be more central to their identity than the German supremacism Anon. I'm not sure what they would even be without the non-stop squabbling.
Anonymous No.64221266 >>64226545 >>64227005
>>64221088
Wir haben Moskito heim im Reich.
Anonymous No.64221554
>>64218291
Arado Ar 234 B-2
>engines dont make much noise
>pretty much cant be intercepted
Anonymous No.64222679
Anonymous No.64222793 >>64222809
>>64219395
Is the Mosquito really a bomber? It's not something I'd throw under the same label as an He-111 / B25 / Welly / G4M
Anonymous No.64222809
>>64222793
Yes a medium bomber based on mid-20th century classification and its payload. Like the Ju 88 as discussed upthread it was used and modified for a wide range of other missions
Anonymous No.64222818 >>64226368
>>64221098
the He 219 could ? have changed the air war in Europe had it not been for RLM and backbiting/infighting. Could have had it in wide squadron service by mid-1943 and the Bf 110G / Ju 88G etc. wouldn't have been needed
One of the greatest 'what ifs' of WWII aviation
Anonymous No.64222832 >>64222850 >>64222962
>>64213554 (OP)
for some reason i spent a week or more learning that plane in a simulator, the aiming reticle for the bombardier was a mechanical calculator made with cable strings and some dials, the cable marked the release point of the bomb, extremely archaic for ww2, that is not a good example of a good medium bomber, it worked carrying torpedoes good enough thoug
Anonymous No.64222850
>>64222832
....
Anonymous No.64222871 >>64223065
>>64214120
Not really, the A26 was more of a close air support aircraft rather than a dedicated bomber.
Anonymous No.64222962
>>64222832
Something like this?
Anonymous No.64222985 >>64229240
Mosquito had its big moment in a series of special raids on Gestapo bases, but it appears there was too much collateral damage.
Anonymous No.64223055 >>64224755
>>64221098
The only place I've ever seen this plane even mentioned is in Biggles
Anonymous No.64223065 >>64223203
>>64222871
>blahblahplebbitspewblah
Wrong.
A-26 Invader was a light/medium bomber given the 'A' designation in USAAC's World War II era system, same as the A-20 predecessor. (It had more power and a heavier 4,000 lb-class payload so it could ? be classified as a ''medium" bomber but the 'light'/'medium bomber' nomenclature was abandoned soon after WWII with the development of jets and multi-role combat aircraft)
Like the A-20 the A-26 was built in the B and C variants which had a gun nose and clear perspex bombardier nose, respectively.
Its bomb load capacity and powerplants gave it the capability, performance of a typical WWII medium bomber (such as the Mosquito or B-26 Marauder <--which it shared same engines with).
In Korea the C variant was used for night bombing missions. (aka level bombing from low/medium altitude) After 1947 the 'A' designation was changed by USAF to 'B' (and the older B-26 Marauder was retired hence confusion sometimes between the two types), it was still a relatively modern and new piston engine type so kept in service through the 1950s, and even resurrected as the heavily modified B-26K for Indochina. Many other small countries used the A-26/B-26 Invader and it was also a favorite of covert action/contract missions (Bay of Pigs, Farm Gate) throughout the 1950s and 60s
Anonymous No.64223203 >>64223935 >>64223978 >>64224728
>>64223065
What did the 'A' stand for?
Anonymous No.64223935
>>64223203
Airplane, duh
Anonymous No.64223978
>>64223203
Anonymous No.64224433
>>64214038
for me it's the 12 50cal
Anonymous No.64224728
>>64223203
With US designations during WW2? Fuck knows. Could be any of the following as there is no rhyme or reason at times:
Army
Airplane
Attacker
Amerimutt
Anusol etc
Anonymous No.64224755 >>64225086 >>64226368
>>64223055
It isnt flashy, iconic or wunderwaffery, so it largerly gets ignored in popular culture, but it was arguably the most capable night fighter of the war (with de Havilland Mosquito and the P-61 black widow as acceptable other answers) , or at least definitely the axis side. And it has great aesthetics.
Anonymous No.64224832
Anonymous No.64224855
>>64218274
THE WHAT NOW?
Anonymous No.64225086 >>64226368
>>64224755
Savage treatment by history, it was ahead of its time, and I think it's beautiful
Anonymous No.64225114 >>64227036
I love the look of Ki-49
Anonymous No.64226368
>>64224755
>>64225086
It actually was one of Germany's 'wunderwaffe' except the RLM refused to acknowledge that at the time it was most needed during its early engineering development (wasted at least a crucial 18 months mid-war), and by the time they gave the program attention funding and logistic/developmental backing it required, it was too late.
See : >>64222818
Anonymous No.64226545 >>64227005
>>64221266
"You have a nice sole advanced polymer wood laminating glue factory in the entire Reich here. It would be a shame if something happened to it..."
Anonymous No.64227005
>>64221266
>>64226545
not Kurt Tank's finest moment (it was cool looking...), yes there were materials-mfg problems as well
Anonymous No.64227036
>>64225114
i liked them back when i played WarThunder, fighters will come to you, hoping for free kile and you could outmaneuver them and sit on it tail and wait for forward gunner to finish them
Anonymous No.64227970 >>64229059
>>64217185
>ywn have a plane wife
Anonymous No.64229059 >>64229287
>>64227970
In case you are wondering that pic was taken from 2016 by a woman who poses as an aviatrix as well as a model for other vintage events.

Pic related is the real Shirley Slade. She flew P-39's and B-26's.
Anonymous No.64229160 >>64229177
>>64217830
>The Ju-88 is the first true multi-role. It just does everything.
This
It says a lot when nightfighter pilots prefered it to an actual heavy fighter like the bf110
It's kinda the underappreciated workhorse for the german side
Anonymous No.64229171
Medium bombers are retarded and there is a reason why they were abandoned.

>to small to carry a significant amount of ordnance
>not enough range to reach far into enemy territory like strategic bombers
>still need fighter escort
>still need as many crew members than a strategic bomber

One of the main reasons why Germany couldn't invade Britain was because non of their planes was able to get much farther than the coast of England, therefore all of Britain's infrastructure, industries and military bases in the North were safe. Unlike Germany that got obliterated by thousands of strategic bombers.
Anonymous No.64229177 >>64229201
>>64229160
l-lewd!
Anonymous No.64229201 >>64229241
>>64229177
>l-lewd!
well can you blame the passionate Italian for falling for the tall and slender exchange program beauty that towers over him?
>no wonder his brakes failed
Anonymous No.64229240
>>64222985
One of the mosquitoes crashed and busrt into flames in a nearby school. 86 children were killed after subsequent passes by other bombers mistook the building on fire to be where the target was…
Anonymous No.64229241
>>64229201
If only we had a drawfag that could do bomber plane yuri based on these images.
Anonymous No.64229275
>Mmm, my comfy Heinkel, fly me to a land of pleasant dreams
Anonymous No.64229287 >>64229297
>>64229059
>>64219780

WW2 aviatrices existed on a level of based that is difficult to comprehend by most mortal minds.
Anonymous No.64229297 >>64229325
>>64229287
It would be great if we got something that told their tale properly. Wouldn't want Hollywood though to touch it, they're physically incapable of telling their story properly just like they will never be able to do the Red Tails.
Anonymous No.64229303
>>64217195
Do tell
Anonymous No.64229325
>>64229297
Sister Mary Aquinas Kinskey deserves a special segment in that retelling of the their tale. So do the female pilots of the Soviet Union. I mean, fuck the Soviet Union, but WW2 Soviet female pilos were worthy of admiration.