Reply With QuoteSomething I'd like to know: were the defenses on the B-17s and B-24s effective?
Would something else have been more effective, like a 20 mm cannon, been more effective than the .50 cal machine guns?
Modern Marvels S09E15 Ball Turret Gunners
Something I'd like to know: were the defenses on the B-17s and B-24s effective?
Would something else have been more effective, like a 20 mm cannon, been more effective than the .50 cal machine guns?
No way
The desing of 20mm cannon of WW II time, made it cumbersome and heavy to allow it serving as a defensive weapon on B-17's and B-24's. Just imagine how many cannons, with their ammo load, could've been fitted to those bombers, sacrificing payload and crew-space. Enemy fighters flew at attack speeds that made sighting and firing the .50's a demanding task, so that trying to do that with a heavier weapon could've been no match for the agile fighters.Originally Posted by CG51
Pretty brutal that scene at 25:19 - you can see how the tailgunner gets taken out first, then the ball turret gunner and then the two engines.
Those crews were lucky that Hitler was too dumb to invest every resource into developing the ME262 as a fighter plane as quickly as possible. Some B-17 crews jumped out of their aircraft as soon as they caught sight of it.
"Effective" is a relative term. At first, when the Americans started bombing Europe from bases in Britain, the bombers were sent in unescorted by fighters. The losses were very, very high; unsustainable, in fact. Organized mass attacks by German fighters devastated incoming bomber formations. The Air Force was forced to send fighter escorts in with the bombers because the bomber's defenses alone were just not enough. With the escorts breaking up the highly organized mass attacks, German fighters were only able to get through the escort screen in smaller numbers and launch attacks of opportunity. With the bombers able to concentrate their defensive firepower on a small number of attackers, it was far more effective.
I can't help but to imagine what happened before this B17 was forced to do its belly landing. It might have been horrible for the crew.
To add to what Oughtsix said, even then after the introduction of fighter escorts with the legs to fly the entire raid, losses were still very high. If I remember right the 8th Air Force had the highest casualty rate of all American forces in the war. The M2s, in addition to be difficult to hit the interceptors with, did not have enough power to reliably stop them since it is likely that even a good gunner would only drop a few rounds into the target. The American and Allied 20mms (like the Hispano) of the era have a poor reputation for reliability as well. (Even then, most fighters should have carried them rather than 50s.)
I think the failure of the "fortress bomber" is evident in that the next generation of bombers lacked the many MGs of the WWII era bombers and as time went on, bombers got rid of defensive guns altogether.
There was a variant of the B-17 called YB-40 that was developed before viable long range fighter escorts were available. It was a B17 that had an extra top turret added in the radio operator's position, and each waist position had two, rather than on .50. Instead of bombs, the YB-40 carried a lot more ammo for the guns. Operationally, it was deficient because the extra guns and ammo added more weight than the standard bomb load on a B-17, and the extra guns increased drag, so it was difficult for the YB-40 to keep up in formation, especially after the bombers had all dropped their loads. They were only operational for a few months in the summer of 1943.
Another things about the Allied 20mm designs at the time was a rather slow rate of fire. The machine guns mounted on aircraft were AN/M2 .50,s not standard M2s, and they had a higher rate of fire than the ground version.
There wasn't a really viable 20mm available at the time. FWIW, even early B-52s that fought over Vietnam still had .50s; a quad mount in the tail.
Many thanks,everyone!
My understanding now is that the ROF for the 20mm of the time just wasn't sufficient to engage the faster fighter aircraft.
The Germans respected the M2, it could do enough damage . . . if it could be brought to bear in time and fired accurately. As for losses, looks like the 8th suffered a few thousand more KIA/MIA than the USMC in the Pacific. However as a % of the respective forces, the Marines suffered a 3.6% rate to the 8th's 2.5 % (how many ground crew relative to flying crew?) By comparison the Submarine service lost about 3600 men altogther for about an 18% casualty rate.
By comparison, the U-boats suffered a 75% casualty rate and the Luftwaffe casualty rate (entire war) was somewhere around 14% (based on 3,400,000 luftwaffe personnel between 1939-45.) http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html
Posting Permissions
