Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Shuttle bombing

Shuttle bombing is a tactical approach in where formations depart from one base, conduct strikes on enemy targets, and then land at a forward allied base for refueling, rearming, and maintenance, rather than returning directly to their origin. This method enhances operational range and surprise by distributing aircraft across multiple bases, reducing vulnerability to enemy defenses during return flights, and enabling subsequent attacks from new positions. First employed on a significant scale by the Royal Air Force's Bomber Command in June 1943, when 59 Lancasters bombed , , and diverted to bases in Northwest , the demonstrated inter-theater coordination and tactical flexibility. The concept gained prominence during through the ' (USAAF) , a series of seven shuttle bombing raids conducted between June and September 1944. Proposed as early as 1942 to extend bombing reach into eastern Germany, Poland, and the Balkans—areas beyond the range of bases in and —the required Soviet approval, secured at the in late 1943 after persistent U.S. negotiations. Three airfields near Kiev—, , and Pyriatyn—were prepared by U.S. engineers for B-17 Flying Fortresses, B-24 Liberators, and escort fighters like P-51 Mustangs, marking a rare instance of U.S.-Soviet military collaboration. The primary goals included striking Axis oil refineries, aircraft factories, and infrastructure to support the Soviet advance on the Eastern Front, while also fostering Allied unity and potentially diverting resources ahead of the invasion. Operation Frantic's execution involved coordinated launches from the in and the in , with aircraft shuttling to Soviet bases after outbound strikes. The inaugural mission on June 2, 1944, saw 130 B-17s and 70 P-51s from Italy bomb , , before landing in ; subsequent raids targeted Romanian oil fields and airfields, with return legs striking additional sites en route to Italy or . A notable escalation occurred on June 21, 1944, when 145 bombers from England hit an at Ruhland, and proceeded to , only for a devastating night raid to destroy 47 B-17s and damage others on the ground, underscoring the bases' vulnerability due to limited air defenses. Over the campaign, the USAAF flew 2,207 sorties, including 851 bombing missions that dropped thousands of tons on targets, alongside supply drops to the Polish Home Army in during the uprising. Despite tactical successes, such as disrupting oil production and providing fighter support in , shuttle bombing's strategic impact was limited by logistical strains, Soviet restrictions on U.S. operations, and advancing Soviet ground forces that rendered the bases obsolete by 1944. Total losses included 5 B-17s and 17 fighters in combat, plus significant ground damage, while the operation strained U.S.-Soviet relations—foreshadowing tensions—due to incidents like the attack and Soviet isolation of American personnel. The final mission on September 18, 1944, involved 107 B-17s dropping supplies over launched from bases in and intending to land at bases in after the drop, after which Frantic concluded, having demonstrated the tactic's potential but also its dependence on reliable allied cooperation.

Development

Strategic Rationale

During , the (USAAF) employed shuttle bombing as part of , involving heavy bombers such as the B-17 Flying Fortress departing from bases in or , striking assigned targets en route, and landing at forward airfields in the for refueling, rearming, and maintenance before conducting potential follow-on missions or returning to their original bases. This approach circumvented the round-trip range constraints of conventional operations, allowing aircraft to effectively extend their operational reach without the need to carry sufficient fuel for a full return journey immediately after the strike. Conventional bombing raids launched from bases faced significant fuel limitations that restricted deep penetration into territory, particularly toward the east, where the B-17's combat radius—approximately 800 miles on long-range missions with a 4,000-pound bomb load—proved inadequate for sustained operations against distant objectives without compromising payload or defensive capabilities. Additionally, these missions exposed bombers to heightened vulnerability during extended return flights over heavily defended airspace, as aircraft depleted fuel reserves and faced repeated engagements with fighters and anti-aircraft fire along predictable routes. Strikes from Italian bases encountered similar challenges, with logistical strains further limiting the frequency and depth of operations against targets beyond central . The primary strategic goals of shuttle bombing included extending the effective range of USAAF bombers to strike critical eastern German industrial sites, such as oil refineries and aircraft factories that had been relocated beyond the reach of standard missions from western bases. By landing at forward bases, the tactic aimed to confuse Luftwaffe defenses through variable return paths, thereby dispersing German fighter resources and reducing interception efficiency over western Europe. Furthermore, it sought to increase overall sortie rates by enabling multiple strikes per aircraft cycle, thereby amplifying the pressure on Germany's war economy without proportionally escalating attrition from exhaustive round-trip flights. This tactical development gained urgency within the USAAF following the failures of unescorted deep-penetration raids in 1943, notably the Schweinfurt- mission on August 17, 1943, where the First Air Division suffered a 20% bomber loss rate, with 36 of 183 B-17s destroyed and over 370 airmen missing, highlighting the unsustainable risks of operating at the limits of aircraft range and fighter escort capabilities. Although part of the force in that mission continued to North African bases as an early shuttle operation, it highlighted the limitations for deeper eastern strikes, prompting proposals for Soviet basing. The high attrition—exceeding 20% in key elements of the force—underscored the need for alternative basing strategies to support deeper strikes, prompting Army Air Forces commander Gen. Henry H. "Hap" Arnold to propose shuttle operations in the fall of 1943 as a means to target relocated German armament plants in the east.

Planning and Agreements

Diplomatic negotiations for shuttle bombing, later codenamed , began in late 1943 amid efforts to enhance Allied cooperation against Germany. At the from November 28 to December 1, 1943, U.S. President presented Soviet Premier with a outlining the proposal, originally discussed at the Moscow Conference earlier that year, for U.S. Army Air Forces (USAAF) aircraft to use Soviet bases for shuttle operations—launching from or , striking targets, and landing in the USSR for refueling and maintenance before returning or continuing missions. expressed interest and promised to study the documents, emphasizing the need for strict secrecy in any officer-level contacts between the two nations. This marked the initial persuasion by U.S. leaders, including and Army Air Forces Commanding General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, to secure Soviet approval despite underlying tensions. On December 25, 1943, Soviet Foreign Minister delivered a formal response to U.S. Ambassador in , stating no objection in principle to providing air bases for shuttle bombing, provided operations were coordinated with Soviet Air Force commands and preliminary discussions occurred with U.S. military representatives there. These talks laid the groundwork for a reciprocal arrangement, including the exchange of weather data once decisions were finalized. Building on this, negotiations intensified in early 1944, led by Major General John R. Deane, head of the U.S. Military Mission in . By spring 1944, Deane's efforts resulted in Soviet approval for USAAF access to bases in , including as the primary site, for additional bombers, and Pyriatyn for fighter escorts. personally endorsed the arrangement, viewing it as a means to demonstrate Allied unity while probing U.S. intentions. Logistical planning focused on integrating U.S. operations into Soviet infrastructure while maintaining operational independence. was selected for its strategic location near the front lines and capacity to accommodate heavy bombers like the B-17 Flying Fortress, with facilities upgraded to support refueling, repairs, and arming. Coordination extended to supply chains, where the Soviets agreed to provide ground labor and air defense, while the U.S. handled fuel, bombs, and specialized maintenance through prepositioned stocks shipped via routes. These preparations involved detailed consultations between U.S. and Soviet officers to align procedures, ensuring the bases could sustain shuttle missions without compromising Soviet security. Planning faced significant challenges stemming from mutual distrust and practical hurdles. Soviet leaders harbored suspicions of motives, fearing the operations might serve as a for gathering or post-war positioning, which delayed responses and imposed strict on U.S. personnel. Initial reluctance also arose from concerns over provoking retaliation on Soviet soil, given the proximity of bases to Axis-held territories. Language barriers complicated discussions, requiring interpreters and slowing coordination on everything from airfield protocols to supply protocols. Despite these obstacles, Deane's persistent secured the necessary commitments, though they highlighted the fragile nature of U.S.-Soviet collaboration.

Execution

Initial Missions

The initial missions of launched on June 2, 1944, marking the debut of shuttle bombing tactics between Allied bases in and the . A force of 130 B-17 Flying Fortresses departed from airfields near , , under the command of , who flew as copilot in one of the bombers. Escorted by 70 P-51 Mustang fighters from the —the first such use of these long-range escorts in shuttle raids—the bombers targeted the railway marshalling yards at , , to disrupt Axis logistics in . The operation also incorporated C-47 Skytrain transports to ferry ground personnel and supplies ahead of the main force, ensuring logistical support at the forward bases. The outbound route took the aircraft northeast over the , avoiding heavily defended areas while maintaining formation for the en route strike on . Despite overcast conditions and variable weather that complicated navigation, the formation pressed on without major incidents, dropping bombs on the target before proceeding eastward. One B-17 was lost to unknown causes during the , but no aircraft fell to fighters or flak on the inbound leg. The bombers safely landed at and airfields in , while the P-51s touched down at nearby Pyriatyn, achieving full recovery of the remaining force to Soviet territory. Upon arrival, the underwent initial refueling and , with planners anticipating a 48-hour turnaround for subsequent strikes from the Soviet bases. This rapid cycle underscored the operation's goal of extending bomber range without returning to immediately, enabled by prior agreements for basing rights in the USSR. The successful landing and warm reception by Soviet hosts validated the shuttle bombing concept as feasible, setting the stage for follow-on raids despite the logistical strains of operating in a remote theater.

Subsequent Operations

Following the initial Frantic I mission in early , subsequent operations expanded the shuttle bombing concept through a series of six additional raids, designated Frantic II through VII, conducted between late June and September 1944. These missions involved American heavy bombers and fighters staging from Soviet bases in , such as , , and Pyriatyn, to strike targets across and before returning to bases in or . Frantic II, launched on June 21, 1944, targeted the synthetic oil plant at Ruhland, , with 163 B-17 Flying Fortresses escorted by 70 P-51 Mustangs, marking the first major involvement in the shuttle raids; aircraft then conducted a return strike on the at Drohobycz, , before departing Soviet bases on June 26. Frantic III, from July 2 to 5, 1944, shifted focus to transportation infrastructure, bombing marshalling yards at and Arad in and , while incorporating diversions to evade interceptors. Later operations further diversified targets, with Frantic IV (July 22–26, 1944) employing diversionary tactics, including feints over the , to attack airfields at Ziliștea and in en route to strikes near and the Ploiești oil refineries. Frantic V (August 4–12, 1944) emphasized oil production, hitting the plant at Trzebinia, , on an internal shuttle mission, followed by attacks on Focsani airfield in en route back to . Frantic VI (September 11–13, 1944) targeted Chemnitz refineries in and the Diósgyőr steel works in , while Frantic VII on September 18 culminated in a supply drop to resistance fighters in , though most aid fell into German hands due to inaccurate drops. Tactical adaptations evolved significantly across these missions to address vulnerabilities exposed in earlier raids. Return strikes became standard, allowing aircraft to bomb twice per sortie—once inbound to Soviet bases and again outbound—maximizing range and surprise against German defenses. Fighter escorts increased in scale and integration, with P-38 Lightnings, P-47 Thunderbolts, and additional P-51s providing cover for bomber formations, enabling deeper penetrations into contested airspace. Coordination with occurred on a limited basis, including joint and occasional escort support during Frantic IV and V, though Soviet reluctance often confined collaboration to base . Weather adaptations were critical, with missions frequently scheduled on days of poor visibility over to justify diversions to USSR bases; several s, including elements of Frantic III, were aborted due to fog and storms disrupting formations. The operations reached peak scale in , with over 1,000 U.S. aircraft—primarily B-17s and B-24 Liberators from the Eighth and Fifteenth Air Forces, plus escort fighters—staged across Soviet facilities, supported by nearly 5,000 American personnel for maintenance and refueling. This buildup facilitated 2,207 total sorties, including 851 bombing runs, though Soviet infrastructure limitations and advancing lines strained logistics. By late September, the missions were curtailed as the Soviet Vistula-Oder Offensive loomed, rendering forward bases untenable and diminishing the strategic need for raids amid deteriorating U.S.-Soviet relations.

Challenges

Logistical and Technical Issues

The shuttle bombing operations under were heavily dependent on Soviet infrastructure, which proved ill-equipped for accommodating U.S. heavy bombers like the B-17 Flying Fortress. At the airfield in , initial runways measured only 3,300 feet and 1,900 feet, far short of the mile-long (approximately 5,280 feet) requirement for safe B-17 takeoffs and landings, necessitating the rapid installation of pierced-steel planking by American engineers to extend usability. This inadequacy contributed to operational hazards and extended preparation times, as bases had been left in ruins by retreating German forces, forcing most U.S. personnel into tent housing and complicating rapid deployment. Supply chain disruptions further hampered efforts, with delays in delivering critical 100-octane fuel and spare parts routed through distant ports like or Arctic convoys via , averaging five days for arrivals at Soviet bases. Fuel shortages were acute, particularly after the raid on in June 1944, which destroyed over 450,000 gallons of high-octane , leading to the cancellation of all planned bomber sorties in July 1944 and forcing some during Frantic II to adopt low-risk return routes to conserve remaining supplies. Spare parts availability was limited, exacerbating downtime as U.S. bombers required specialized components not readily available in the region. Technical challenges arose from incompatibilities between U.S. aircraft and Soviet support systems, including Soviet mechanics' unfamiliarity with American designs like the B-17 and P-51, which increased repair times and left some aircraft grounded after missions. Maintenance demands were intensified by Ukraine's humid conditions, which accelerated corrosion on engines and airframes, contributing to significant delays in operational cycles. Soviet tools and facilities lacked the precision needed for U.S. equipment, often requiring American ground crews to improvise, which further strained resources at forward bases like and Mirgorod. Coordination difficulties compounded these problems, stemming from time zone disparities, communication gaps reliant on interpreters, and cultural clashes between U.S. crews and Soviet hosts, resulting in language barriers that caused delays. Soviet restrictions on target selection and operational autonomy added further complications, isolating American personnel and limiting flexibility. Planned 48-hour turnaround times for refueling and rearming extended due to misaligned schedules and Soviet clearance protocols, as seen in the initial shuttle delayed by five days from differing operational procedures. Overall, these logistical constraints limited the operation's efficiency, though the USAAF ultimately flew approximately 2,200 sorties.

Enemy Responses

The , particularly the , mounted significant intelligence and retaliatory efforts against shuttle bombing operations, focusing on the vulnerability of forward bases in the . German , including He 177s, identified key staging airfields such as through repeated overflights in early June 1944, enabling precise targeting despite Soviet efforts to conceal the sites. On the night of June 21-22, 1944, approximately 75 bombers, consisting of Ju 88s and He 111s, conducted a devastating raid on airfield under the cover of darkness, destroying 47 B-17 Flying Fortresses on the ground along with 2 C-47 transports and 1 F-5 , while damaging 26 additional B-17s; the attack resulted in 2 fatalities and dozens of Soviet deaths, with ongoing injuries during cleanup efforts. Initial defensive measures proved inadequate due to the absence of effective Soviet air cover, as Stalin's forces provided no night fighters or robust antiaircraft protection for the American bases, leaving the parked aircraft exposed during the critical early phases of . In response, U.S. forces implemented dispersal tactics, spreading aircraft across multiple runways and hangars, and later incorporated P-47 Thunderbolt escorts for outbound missions to counter potential intercepts. However, recurring raids persisted; on the following night of June 22, 1944, a secondary attack targeted Mirgorod airfield, though damage was limited to several aircraft due to prior dispersal and relocation of most bombers, highlighting the ongoing threat despite these adaptations. These strikes profoundly impacted shuttle bombing operations, compelling the rapid eastward relocation of surviving from western Ukrainian bases like Mirgorod and Pyriatyn to more secure sites farther from lines, such as Kirovograd, to evade further detection and . The emphasis shifted temporarily from offensive bombing to base defense, with personnel constructing additional revetments and requesting enhanced Soviet radar support, though cooperation remained limited. Overall ground losses from these raids exceeded 70 , including both destroyed and heavily damaged planes, severely straining the limited fleet available for the shuttle missions and contributing to the operation's scaled-back scope in subsequent months. Beyond base strikes, the employed broader interception tactics against shuttle formations, particularly those originating from Italian bases under the . German fighters operating from Italian soil, including Bf 109s and Fw 190s, engaged outbound legs of several Frantic raids, such as during Frantic I in June 1944 when 2 P-51 Mustangs were lost to enemy fighters amid claims of 8 German aircraft downed. In some missions, like Frantic III in July 1944, these intercepts resulted in notable attrition, with U.S. gunners and escorts claiming dozens of victories but sustaining losses that further complicated the triangular bombing routes.

Results and Analysis

Bombing Effectiveness

The shuttle bombing raids under targeted strategic sites across , focusing on industrial and transportation infrastructure critical to the war effort. Key strikes included the synthetic oil plant at Ruhland, , during Frantic II on June 21, 1944, as well as oil refineries at in and rail yards and bridges in . These efforts aimed to degrade Axis logistics and fuel supplies through strikes enabled by the format, which allowed more time over targets. The USAAF flew 2,207 sorties, including 851 bombing missions, dropping thousands of tons of bombs on primary targets. The shuttle format potentially improved accuracy compared to conventional round-trip raids by permitting bombers to loiter and adjust during attacks, though specific metrics are limited. Such improvements were evident in missions like , where formations struck airfields effectively. Attrition rates highlighted both strengths and vulnerabilities in the operations. Air-to-air losses remained low, under 2% per sortie, largely attributable to strong fighter escorts from P-51 Mustangs and other types that protected bomber formations. Combat losses totaled 5 B-17s and 17 fighters, though ground losses were significant, most notably the attack on airfield on the night of June 21-22, 1944, which destroyed 47 B-17s and 15 P-51s, damaged 26 other B-17s, and killed at least one American airman. These figures reflect the escorts' role in minimizing combat losses while exposing vulnerabilities in base security. Allied claims of Axis aircraft destroyed were high but actual confirmed losses were fewer. Despite these tactical achievements, the operations faced notable limitations that curtailed overall effectiveness. Weather conditions and navigation errors affected several missions, leading to off-target drops or aborted strikes that reduced impact. The small scale of Frantic relative to the broader Allied campaign—encompassing tens of thousands of sorties and hundreds of thousands of tons—meant its contributions had minimal effect on the German war economy, serving more as a supplementary effort than a decisive blow. Logistical constraints, including reliance on Soviet facilities, further hampered sustained operations.

Broader Impact

The shuttle bombing operations under exacerbated diplomatic tensions between the and the , highlighting underlying mistrust that foreshadowed divisions. Soviet vetoes of initial target selections, prioritizing tactical strikes over strategic ones, created early friction, as noted by USAAF commander Eaker, who emphasized the need to "gain the full confidence and respect of the Russians." The German raid on the base in June 1944, where Soviet air defenses failed to intercept attackers despite advance intelligence, led to accusations of inaction, destroying 47 B-17s and straining relations further; Americans blamed inadequate Soviet anti-aircraft and night fighter support, while restrictions on fraternization isolated US personnel. viewed the operation as a potential probe of Soviet defenses and a bargaining tool, later reclaiming bases in August 1944 amid the , where he denied landing rights for relief missions, deepening US perceptions of Soviet unreliability. Strategically, Operation Frantic validated the concept of shuttle bombing for extending air power reach but underscored significant risks in multinational basing arrangements, influencing post-war US air doctrine toward greater self-sufficiency. The reliance on Soviet infrastructure exposed vulnerabilities, as seen in the Poltava raid's devastation due to deficient host defenses, prompting USAAF planners to prioritize independent base security and logistical autonomy in future operations. This shifted emphasis to carrier-based and self-contained air forces, reducing dependence on potentially unreliable allies and informing NATO's early planning for flexible, standalone deployments in contested regions. The operation's limited tactical success highlighted the challenges of coordinating with ideologically divergent partners, reinforcing lessons on aligning military objectives with political realities in joint endeavors. As a rare instance of direct US-Soviet military collaboration during , involved over 1,300 American personnel stationed at Soviet bases in , marking a symbolic peak in cooperation despite its operational flaws. It marginally supported the Allied Oil Plan by targeting facilities, such as the Ruhland plant in Frantic II, but demonstrated the limits of inter-Allied coordination amid competing national priorities. The effort ultimately faltered due to cultural clashes and Soviet restrictions, serving as a cautionary example of wartime alliances strained by mutual suspicion. Post-war declassified analyses, including 1945 US Strategic Air Forces in (USSTAF) evaluations, assessed Frantic's indirect impact as tying down approximately 5-10% of available fighter resources through diversionary threats, though it exerted no decisive influence on the war's outcome. The operation's political aims—to foster US-Soviet —proved illusory, widening postwar rifts and exemplifying how shared enemies could not overcome deep-seated hostilities. Its legacy endures as a study in the perils of multinational air campaigns, emphasizing the primacy of self-reliance in strategic air power.

References

  1. [1]
    [PDF] Bombing the European Axis Powers - Air University
    4. Great Britain. Royal Air Force––History––World War, 1939-1945. 5. Bombing,. Aerial––Europe–– ...
  2. [2]
    Shuttle Raids to Russia - Air Force Museum
    Early in 1944, the U.S. persuaded Stalin to permit AAF heavy bombers to fly shuttle missions to Russia to bomb enemy targets in eastern Germany and the ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
  3. [3]
    OPERATION FRANTIC: Shuttle Raids to the Soviet Union
    In 1944, the US persuaded Soviet leader Joseph Stalin to allow USAAF aircraft to operate out of bases in the western Soviet Union.Missing: sources | Show results with:sources
  4. [4]
    Operation Frantic On Eastern Front: Preview Of the Cold War
    Early on the overcast afternoon of June 2, 1944, three white-starred Boeing B-17 Flying Fortresses in V-formation roared over the Soviet air base at Poltava.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  5. [5]
    Operation Frantic | World War II Database
    In order to reach these plants, the United States Army Air Forces proposed "shuttle bombing" - flying American aircraft into and out of bases in Soviet ...
  6. [6]
    The Poltava Debacle | Air & Space Forces Magazine
    Mar 1, 2011 · “Hap” Arnold, commander of the Army Air Forces, proposed “shuttle bombing”—staging US aircraft into and out of airfields on the Russian front, ...
  7. [7]
    A map of the distance WWII fighters can fly from the UK mainland ...
    Dec 14, 2015 · ... WW2 aircraft too is insane. For instance, a B-17 on a "long range" combat mission of 800 miles could carry about 4,000 pounds of bombs and ...
  8. [8]
    Schweinfurt–Regensburg Raid: August 17, 1943 | New Orleans
    Aug 17, 2023 · The Eighth Air Force's first penetrating strike into Nazi Germany was a bloody affair that provided lessons for both sides.Missing: sources | Show results with:sources
  9. [9]
    [365] Bohlen Minutes - Historical Documents - Office of the Historian
    ... shuttle-bombing between Great Britain and the Soviet Union.3 He handed ... The Communiqué and its release (Documents 343–352) · III. The Tehran Conference.
  10. [10]
    Historical Documents - Office of the Historian
    ... 1943 ... shuttle bombing, communications, etc, paraphrase of which follows: ... The Communiqué and its release (Documents 343–352) · III. The Tehran Conference.
  11. [11]
    [PDF] American Air Operations - DTIC
    In the summer of 1944. units of the Eighth and Fifteenth United States Army. Air Forces began flying to and from bases inside the Soviet Union. Called "shuttle.Missing: diplomatic agreements
  12. [12]
    Blow Out at Poltava - HistoryNet
    Dec 6, 2016 · Of 74 B-17s at Poltava, 47 were total losses; so were two C-47 transports and an F-5 reconnaissance plane. Many B-17s burned to cinders ...Missing: initial | Show results with:initial
  13. [13]
    Frantic Joe | Operations & Codenames of WWII
    'Frantic Joe' was the US first air raid in the 'Frantic' series, designed to support the Soviet summer offensive timed to coincide with the 'Overlord' ...
  14. [14]
    [PDF] SO NEAR AND YET SO FAR - DTIC
    The Command historians documented the reasons behind Operation Frantic in the fall of 1943 from the perspective of the Military. Mission at the Embassy in ...
  15. [15]
    [PDF] With Courage: The U.S. Army Air Forces in World War II, - DTIC
    shuttle bombing continued throughout the summer, but Soviet bases became less important as Allied troops advanced from the invasion beaches toward Germany's ...
  16. [16]
    How a joint Soviet-American WWII operation ended in disaster for ...
    Sep 6, 2018 · A joint American-Soviet bombing mission over Germany in 1944 was meant to improve relations between the two countries. Instead, it seriously damaged them.Missing: agreement diplomatic negotiations<|control11|><|separator|>
  17. [17]
    Operation Frantic 1944 - Poland in Exile
    Deane would enable the Americans to use bases in the Ukraine at Poltawa and Mirgorod for bombers and Pyrjatyn for fighter escorts. The Soviets would provide ...<|separator|>
  18. [18]
    Operation Frantic - jstor
    390th operated while in the Soviet Union. Before the shuttle raids, the 390th had been bloodied in combat over Europe, taking part in all major Eighth. 24.Missing: rationale | Show results with:rationale