|
Re: B-17
I think you have to look back to the origins of the requirements, and the "bristling with machine guns" derivation is a red herring. The aircraft was intended to provide a defense of the US against seaborne attack. It was intended (at least by the USAAC!) to replace the fixed gun positions in fortresses lining the coast, specifically (I believe) the Atlantic coast. Thus the name "Flying Fortress" was particularly apt, and will have been used by senior planners arguing their case for budget funding, long before appearing in a Seattle newspaper after the aircraft had flown.
It can be argued that the entire requirement was a cover for the "real" intentions of the staff to create a strategic bomber force, and/or as a means of diverting funding that otherwise would have gone into maintenance and even renewal of these fixed fortresses and their ageing guns.
Which doesn't mean that its official name was anything at all, the USAAC not being in the habit of naming its aircraft. The use of popular names was only adopted during the war, and may well have followed the RAF name rather than lead.
|