Author Topic: B17 Gunship  (Read 2045 times)

Offline SMIDSY

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1248
B17 Gunship
« on: July 20, 2005, 02:57:48 AM »
i vaugly remember hearing something in a documentary about a "b17 gunship varient" that was armed with 20mms instead of fiddy cals. it didnt carry bombs i think and was placed randomly in the bomber stream to suprise the glorious sons of germany. is there any truth to this memory? if so, what were its specifications, exact armorment and in what #s were they used?

Offline SMIDSY

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1248
B17 Gunship
« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2005, 06:27:28 AM »
AH HA!! found it! called the YB-40. it was indeed used to escort b17s. it didnt have 20mms. my gun count one a pic i found is 16x.50 cal MGs.
notice the aditional dorsal turret and twin waist guns.
[/URL][/IMG]

here's a diagram
[/URL][/IMG]
« Last Edit: July 20, 2005, 06:30:47 AM by SMIDSY »

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
B17 Gunship
« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2005, 07:02:52 AM »
Both it and its gunship B-24 cousin, the XB-41, were both duds. Once the regular B-17/B-24 had drop their bombs the gunships (YB-40s) were left behind. The regulars had to slow down and escort the gunship escorts.

The XB-41 never got out of the USofA.

XB-40: Conversion of B-17F-1-BO 41-24342


YB-40: Conversions of B-17F-10-VE 42-5732/5744, B-17F-30-VE 42-5871,
and B-17F-35-VEs 42-5920, 5921, 5923, 5924, 5925, and 5927.

Offline SMIDSY

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1248
B17 Gunship
« Reply #3 on: July 20, 2005, 07:59:17 AM »
it did see service in europe. only info i could find was that of the 1st heavy bombardment wing. they were the 327th bomb squadron. according to the squadron records they shot down 5 german fighters. but they lost 2 yb-40s. they were a group from may 29, 1943 untill july 29, 1943.

Offline Mustaine

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4139
B17 Gunship
« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2005, 09:36:46 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by SMIDSY
they were a group from may 29, 1943 untill july 29, 1943.
thats about all i have heard.... 1 month of service, a total flop.


search it here on the BBS... it gets asked about every 6 months or so, i can recall distinctly 3-4 posts about it in this forum.
Genetically engineered in a lab, and raised by wolverines -- ]V[ E G A D E T ]-[
AoM DFC ZLA BMF and a bunch of other acronyms.

Offline SuperDud

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4589
B17 Gunship
« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2005, 12:26:39 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Both it and its gunship B-24 cousin, the XB-41, were both duds.


My kinda plane:D
SuperDud
++Blue Knights++

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15781
B17 Gunship
« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2005, 12:32:44 PM »
if you cant hit em... ADD MORE GUNS!

not suprised it was a flop, how would arming 10 (or whatever) amount of bombers in a group of hundreds of b17's make any difference what-so-ever?
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
B17 Gunship
« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2005, 01:09:13 PM »
Sounds like an idiotic idea to me.

Kind of shows the Germans weren't the only "desperate" ones...
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline Tails

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 604
B17 Gunship
« Reply #8 on: July 20, 2005, 08:26:36 PM »
I think the gunship libbies and buffs were a stop-gap measure while longer range escort fighters were being developed. Once the likes of the 'stang came into use in numbers, the idea was obsolete. Hence why lots of X's and Y's, but no plain-Jane 'B-40' and 'B-41', they were scrapped before full production.
BBTT KTLI KDRU HGQK GDKA SODA HMQP ACES KQTP TLZF LKHQ JAWS SMZJ IDDS RLLS CHAV JEUS BDLI WFJH WQZQ FTXM WUTL KH

(Yup, foxy got an Enigma to play with)

Offline AdmRose

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 624
      • http://www.geocities.com/cmdrrose/index.html
B17 Gunship
« Reply #9 on: July 20, 2005, 10:11:24 PM »
I can't help but think why they didn't add these extra guns to REGULAR B-17s, might have made a difference then even without the extra ammo load.

Offline SMIDSY

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1248
B17 Gunship
« Reply #10 on: July 21, 2005, 12:08:55 AM »
admrose, the gunners on american bombers were far more successfull than pop culture would have us believe. in fact, a whole two thirds of all german and italian fighters were felled by the .50 cals of the american bomber fleet.

Offline leitwolf

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 656
B17 Gunship
« Reply #11 on: July 21, 2005, 12:13:28 AM »
source?
veni, vidi, vulchi.

Offline SMIDSY

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1248
B17 Gunship
« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2005, 02:17:37 AM »
some documentary i saw on...pbs a coupe years ago.

Offline Tails

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 604
B17 Gunship
« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2005, 04:42:51 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by AdmRose
I can't help but think why they didn't add these extra guns to REGULAR B-17s, might have made a difference then even without the extra ammo load.


As mentioned above, a B-40 with weapons and full ammunition weighs in about the same as a B-17 with full bombload. Even with a lighter ammo load, I would think a B-17 might not be able to support the weight of both the gunship's gunload AND bombs.
BBTT KTLI KDRU HGQK GDKA SODA HMQP ACES KQTP TLZF LKHQ JAWS SMZJ IDDS RLLS CHAV JEUS BDLI WFJH WQZQ FTXM WUTL KH

(Yup, foxy got an Enigma to play with)

Offline Tony Williams

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 725
      • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
B17 Gunship
« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2005, 07:47:52 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by SMIDSY
admrose, the gunners on american bombers were far more successfull than pop culture would have us believe. in fact, a whole two thirds of all german and italian fighters were felled by the .50 cals of the american bomber fleet.


Some quotes from 'Flying Guns – World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45' - details on my website :cool:

"On combat operations, the American bombers in the ETO expended 26.3 million rounds of .50" ammunition in 1943, and 36.2 million in 1944; the wartime total was 72.3 million rounds. (In October 1943, the ammunition consumption reached a peak of 632,773 rounds per operational day.) That corresponds to nearly 12,000 rounds for every enemy aircraft claimed shot down by the bombers. Because, as we have seen above, these claims were often far higher than the actual German losses, a more realistic average would probably exceed 40,000 rounds for every destroyed German fighter. "

and:

"In comparison, the American fighters expended 26.6 million .50" rounds and 262,189 20 mm rounds, and claimed the destruction of 5222 enemy aircraft in the air and 4250 on the ground. That corresponds to 2810 rounds per enemy aircraft claimed as destroyed. Because the fighter claims were usually much closer to reality, a very rough but reasonable estimate would be that a fighter was ten times more efficient as a gunnery platform than a bomber."

and:

"Some commanders were quite sceptical about the effectiveness of this form of defensive armament. In April 1943 Colonel Claude E. Putnam, commander of the 306th BG, gave as his opinion that four gunners needed to fire simultaneously at an enemy fighter to have a 50% probability to bring it down. Worse, he estimated that to only one in ten of the gunners who theoretically had a firing opportunity actually opened fire. His colleague of the 308th BG, T.R. Milton, shared his doubts, and feared that the defensive guns were often more a hazard than a protection, because the danger of “friendly fire” in a dense formation was high."

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum