Warbird Information Exchange

A good friend of mine put his new website online yesterday - http://zeamerseagerbeavers.com/ - he has been researching Jay Zeamer (MOH) and his B-17 crew of the 43rd BG for over 20 years.

He is endeavoring to correct the myths and misunderstandings that have been perpetuated and embellished about their epic 16 June, 1943 reconnaissance mission over the Solomon Islands in the SWPA.

The myths began with magazine articles in the '40s, and were accelerated by Martin Caidin's story "Mission Over Buka" in his book Flying Forts.

For those unaware of the story - this is the most decorated heavy bomber crew of WWII. Zeamer and bombardier Joseph R. Sarnoski were awarded the Medal of Honor, and the rest of the crew were each awarded the Distinguished Service Cross - second only to the MOH for combat decorations. There were also several Purple Hearts awarded.

He interviewed members of the crew, members of the 43rd, family members, people who knew Zeamer, etc. Many folks have contributed to this effort. This is a labor of love, admiration and respect for what this crew accomplished, and for who they were.

There's also a Facebook page for participants of that site: https://www.facebook.com/zeamerseagerbe ... page_panel

These are perpetual works in progress - always looking for more correct info, photos, etc.

Enjoy!

_________________
Dave

Excellent
Many Thanks

With regards to the armament carried by 666, I, in my humble opinion think that the new website
does not clear up any myths, instead expanding on them. The author claims that the crew eliminated
2,000 pounds of weight removing equipment including ammo belts and feed chutes. My thinking is that
2,000 pounds is a pretty hefty reduction in weight. Secondly, how are the guns serviced without the belts and chutes, especially when it's alleged that the aircraft had added guns? It seems to me that any reduction in weight, whatever it was would be more than offset by the "added guns", ammo and mounting hardware. While twin radio room guns were not unusual in Pacific B-17Es, twin waist guns would be almost unmanageable in a slipstream. And, how was the ball turret gunner going to manage an additional belly gun cut into the floor of the A/C and man the turret, which was certainly more effective than a jury rigged tunnel gun? The author also refers to spare guns carried, which would also add weight and be of dubious value as replacements except, perhaps for the nose guns.

I don't know how much personal correspondence you have from Col. Zeamer or members of his crew, gemmer, but I wrote to the man himself in 1996, and several other times.

He was kind enough to answer my dumb, uneducated questions. He may have "misremembered" certain things - such as the number of .50s on '666 - who can say - since none of US were there. I don't believe he was prone to exaggeration.

I doubt they had the facilities, or the time, or any reason to weigh the a/c before and after the removal of "useless weight," so I imagine Col. Zeamer was guesstimating the weight loss.

I have attached my letter from Col. Zeamer dated April 12, 1996:



Take it however you like.

There has been some clarification about the guns to the Q & A on the site: http://zeamerseagerbeavers.com/faq/

Not my site, but I helped a bit.

_________________
Dave

Just speculating here.

If you eliminated the E-11 recoil mount at the waist gun in favor of a cobbled together pair of ground cradles on a common pintle, and eliminated the feed racks, feeding the guns with naked belts straight from boxes, you would offset most of the weight of the second gun. Ditch the computing sight (if fitted) and you'd be even closer. Recoil would be less pleasant to deal with, and long term fatigue would be worse, but I somehow don't think those are priorities.

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.

Jay Zeamer and his crew left a lot of unanswered questions and it looks like most of them will stay that way. It seems that nobody can even locate the reconnaissance photos they took that memorable day.

Zeamer's later written statement that "our B-17 never had a name" contradicts information he gave to writer Art Cohn and the reason could be that the relationship with "Lucy" had not turned out the way he had once hoped.

I guess it’s a fairly minor point, but a story about the crew singing "Lucille" (to tease the pilot) first appeared in a 2 June 1943 Chicago Tribune report about the Zeamer crew on the 30 May mission to Wewak in The Old Man.

It's a fact that Jay Zeamer "dated" Lucile Christmas, the daughter of General John K. Christmas. Lucile ultimately married a man named William Brewster in 1945. Brewster had graduated from MIT in 1939 so he and Zeamer possibly moved in the same social circle. William Brewster died in February 2013.

Anyway, it's been proved beyond doubt that 41-2666 was named Lucy

_________________
www.B17BlackJack.com