Author Topic: B17 Gunship  (Read 2050 times)

Offline AquaShrimp

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1706
B17 Gunship
« Reply #30 on: March 26, 2007, 03:33:47 PM »
Which part is flawed?  U.S. bombers in the 1930s flew faster and higher than any current fighters.

Turrets and hand-held guns were added to bombers in the early 40s, reducing their speed and making them increasingly vulnerable.

A report done on bomber defenses after World War II cited that bomber speed, and not defensive armament, was the main factor in the safety of bomber formations.

Even Tony Williams said that it took 50,000 rounds fired from bomber guns to down a single fighter.

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
B17 Gunship
« Reply #31 on: March 26, 2007, 03:53:00 PM »
What was the name of the B-17 that was armed with 19 .50 caliber machine guns?  It was profiled in that Dogfights show, just can't recall the name or which theater it was in.  It was at the time it was attacked by enemy planes the most heavily armed B-17 in the US inventory.  It was an epic battle too, think the B-17 crew accounted for quite a few kills.


ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline Airscrew

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4808
B17 Gunship
« Reply #32 on: March 26, 2007, 04:08:11 PM »
Bombers designed in the '30s were faster than fighters designed in the '20s and early 30's and they were as fast as fighters designed late in the 30's.   In that particular time more time was spent developing bombers specifically to be faster than the fighters.  Problem with that is 1. the bombers didnt carry a large load 1,000 to 2,000 lbs of bombs,  2.  As soon as the bombers got faster, fighter development picked back up and soon the fighters were faster than the bombers.   As soon as they figured out that the bombers needed to carry larger loads they realized that they would not be able to outrun the fighters so they had to arm them, and then add armor to protect the crews.  Yes adding armaments to the bombers slowed them down, but by the 40's any bomber carrying a significant load of bombs was not going to be able to outrun a fighter anyway and they needed the guns to defend themselves.  There were exceptions like the Mosquito but it only carried 2,000 lbs and then later 4,000lbs.  It wasnt so much the guns themselves but the defensive formations were the bombers flew close together to provide support to each other and provide a deterient to fighters.  You dont have to shoot down a fighter, just tear it up, hole its radiator, damage the wings, wound the pilot bad enough and they'll go away

It would be interesting to know how fast a B-17 would be with only 4 crewmembers, no guns and ammo and the extra oxygen, etc and only 8,000lbs of bombs
« Last Edit: March 26, 2007, 04:19:01 PM by Airscrew »

Offline Serenity

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7313
B17 Gunship
« Reply #33 on: March 26, 2007, 05:01:45 PM »
lol. Deja vu... (<--- remembers asking for this a year ago...)

I still want it! Come on! While it was definately unsuccesful in real life, I know people who fly the B-17, dump all its bombs on takeoff and fly into FT (TT nowadays) and just use it as a gunship. The speed issue and lack of bombs that made it utterly useless in real life wont effect it here, as people dont really understand the art of bombing anyway... And, ive already got a skin in mind! Tampa Tornado! I can post a pic here. I know it didnt fight in that skin, but it WAS based at molesworth... Anyway, YES! to the YB-40

Offline wasq

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
      • Photos
B17 Gunship
« Reply #34 on: March 26, 2007, 05:15:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Serenity
lol. Deja vu... (<--- remembers asking for this a year ago...)
If you look at the original post, you'll note that this was actually asked nearly 2 years ago. :)

Offline Grant Pratt

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7
      • http://wheezambu@windstream.com
YB-40
« Reply #35 on: March 26, 2007, 08:31:20 PM »
I have seen some writing on the YB-40.  It was noted that it would fall behind on return trips from bombrun as it was heavier than an empty 17 so would get attacked as it fell out of formation being slower.

Offline Serenity

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7313
Re: YB-40
« Reply #36 on: March 27, 2007, 03:09:32 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Grant Pratt
I have seen some writing on the YB-40.  It was noted that it would fall behind on return trips from bombrun as it was heavier than an empty 17 so would get attacked as it fell out of formation being slower.


Yes, but since when do we fly with more than one person in AH?!? Dont you know??? Cooperation is a cardinal sin!!!:furious

Offline Willfly

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 115
Hmm...
« Reply #37 on: March 27, 2007, 07:32:48 PM »
I read about this plane on this link http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/american.htm
(Scroll down the navigation bar on the left side of screen to 'Bombers,' at the bottom of the section should be the YB-40)


I hear about it but problems were inevitably encountered. The problem about having so many .50 cal's on board even without bombs made the YB-40's heavy and slow, so once when the 'Regular' bombers had dropped their payload, the YB-40's would fall behind. Plus, having a plane with a production value of only twenty planes is way too small to be used in Aces High.