B-17

[CJE]

Was the official name of the B-17 "Flying Fortress" or just "Fortress"?
Thanks.

Chris

[Bruce Dennis]

Hello Chris,
I am pretty sure that it depends who is speaking:
US = B-17B/C/D/E etc Flying Fortress
UK = Fortress Mk xx

I have seen reference in text to 'Flying Fortress' in an RAF document but it was an early reference to the type before any were delivered to the UK.

HTH,
Bruce

[Pilot]

From Wikipedia:

The first flight of the Model 299 was on 28 July 1935 with Boeing chief test-pilot Leslie Tower at the controls.[1][15] 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_...lying_Fortress

[CJE]

What I want to know is: was "Flying Fortress" the USAAF official name or just a popular nickname (in the latter case, "Fortress" being the official name).

[Bruce Dennis]

Hello Chris,
I believe this may settle it:

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/usafserials.html

... which uses official documents for its sources, and contradicts what I said earlier. Seems 'Fortress' was the name.

Regards,
Bruce

[CJE]

Thanks Bruce.

[Graham Boak]

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.

[CJE]

Graham,

Even though I concur with the first part of the message (the B-17 was supposed to be a land fortress against invaders coming from the sea, but the USAAC had something else behind their minds), the USAAC did give names to all their aircraft for radio recognition purpose.
What is usually called "serial number" was nothing else than the last part of a radio call-sign. In peace time, pilots identified themselves as "Lightning 334" or "Airacobra 213" to control towers. In operational theaters, aircraft names were replaced by tactical codes, such as "Carman" for the 4th FG or "Dogday" for part of the 56th FG.
The habit of naming aircraft in WW2 was kept because many of them were still flying over the US territory where they had to be ID'd by air controllers.

Chris

[Graham Boak]

The link between names and radio call signs is new to me, do you have any idea when it was introduced? It would be interesting to know the names for all the other prewar USAAC types that otherwise have gone down anonymously into history.

[CJE]

Don't know. Seems that the first fighter was the P-38 and the first bomber the B-17. No official names previously (AFAIK). Maybe it started when they had a radio set aboard?