Front guns on a bomber.

[Getback]

Why is it that he ammo load on the front turret of a bomber greater than the rear guns? I'm willing to bet it had something more to do with the reality of WWII.

[Blooz]

The chin turrets had large ammo storage boxes to feed from so in their designs they made sure to pack in as much ammo as they could. Twin .50's get mighty hungry.

[RedTeck]

The Luftwaffe tactics of the day dictated the use of head on attacks to limit damage to their planes and more importantly, to reduce risk to the pilots. With the high closure rate and limited engagement time, it becomes a war of .50s vs small fighter and beer cans vs bombers. The larger amount of nose ammo, and the chin turret on the b-17, is just a reaction to a change in tactics.

[Cthulhu]

The Luftwaffe tactics of the day dictated the use of head on attacks to limit damage to their planes and more importantly, to reduce risk to the pilots. With the high closure rate and limited engagement time, it becomes a war of .50s vs small fighter and beer cans vs bombers. The larger amount of nose ammo, and the chin turret on the b-17, is just a reaction to a change in tactics.

This is all true, but I believe you omitted a major, if the not the primary reason: The Germans quickly determined that the B-17's cockpit (I don't believe it was armored) was extremely vulnerable and was the "Achille's Heel" of the aircraft. Survivability of their fighters was definitely an issue, but the point was still to shoot down the bombers in spite of the risk. Head-on attacks targeting the flight deck were the most effective way to do this.

If it were just a matter of "beer cans vs bombers", then 110's & 410's" could simply follow the formations out of effective .50 range and lob 30mm's in from the rear. But that wouldn't take advantage of the weak frontal aspect of the buffs. 

[AWwrgwy]

Why is it that he ammo load on the front turret of a bomber greater than the rear guns? I'm willing to bet it had something more to do with the reality of WWII.

It has to do with the reality of the aircraft.  Only the B-17 has more ammo in the nose.  This is because the B-17 has more guns in the nose.  There are 2 .50s in the chin turret and one .50 in each "cheek" for a total of four .50cal. machine guns.






wrongway

[Cthulhu]

It has to do with the reality of the aircraft.  Only the B-17 has more ammo in the nose.  This is because the B-17 has more guns in the nose.  There are 2 .50s in the chin turret and one .50 in each "cheek" for a total of four .50cal. machine guns.

(Image removed from quote.)




wrongway

Although only 3 could be fired at any given time, and I'm guessing that vibration made the "cheek" guns only somewhat accurate.

You're not gonna start barking are ya?

[Enker]

Although only 3 could be fired at any given time, and I'm guessing that vibration made the "cheek" guns only somewhat accurate.

You're not gonna start barking are ya?

Giggidy!

[RedTeck]

Lancaster has 2000 nose and top and 670 tail. Interestingly the b26 has 270 nose and 1600 tail. Not sure if it was the speed difference.

[Motherland]

Lancaster has 2000 nose and top and 670 tail.

That's because the Lancaster has .303's in the front and .50's in the tail. .50 caliber rounds are much larger than .303's

[Charge]

But but but in front turret you get significantly less time to shoot the target than in the rear, top or belly turret? 

Would it simply be a case of maintaining a healthy CoG. So that actually in flight most of the ammo in front was carried to the back as it was depleted faster?

-C+

[frank3]

But but but in front turret you get significantly less time to shoot the target than in the rear, top or belly turret? 

Then again, targets are harder to hit for the front-gunner, so probably he'll need more ammo for it

Lancaster has 2000 nose and top and 670 tail. Interestingly the b26 has 270 nose and 1600 tail. Not sure if it was the speed difference.

And, the Lancaster had twin-guns in the front, the B-26 hadn't (not counting the 5 dorsal guns!)

[Charge]

The point is that the front turret does not have much to shoot at, and when it does those two .50s do not really make much difference, but of course it is at least something and their hitting power against a HO:ing fighter is better than that of those positioned shooting rearwards.

Maybe I'd go as far as stating that due to positioning the tail gunner has 40% of opportunities to fire, belly 25%, top 15% sides 8% both and the rest forward 4% (just a wild guess, though).

If you look at a typical closure angle to shoot down bombers in films of that era it is usually 6oc and slightly below.

-C+

[Angus]

Something that boggles me is the effective range of the 50's. Was chatting with a gunnery guy once (working with 50's on LVT's) and he claimed the 50's were used to sweep areas about a mile away.
Yet, the Germans could lob their shells from a distance out of the 50's effective range, - a lesson learned with a lot of blood.
Were the aerial guns lower on the range?

[Spikes]

Lancaster has 2000 nose and top and 670 tail. Interestingly the b26 has 270 nose and 1600 tail. Not sure if it was the speed difference.

The B26 also has 1000 rounds that you fire forward from the pilot's position.

[RedTeck]

Above, I was just wondering out loud, if the speed difference between A B-26 and say a Lancaster was enough that they didn't feel a need to upgrade the nose armament. As far as the pilot controlled .50s on the B-26, I would guess the Luftwaffe was aware of these and had their fighters offset appropriately. Another guess is that in the "tight formations no matter what" policy of the day, the pilots wouldn't be allowed to manuever to bring their guns to bear. Don't quote me on that though.