B-17 Bombing, Fuzes, Shackles, and Bomb Release Units
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 มิ.ย. 2022
- The intent of this part 2 video is to provide a review WWII B-17’s bombing systems and components, including the Bomb AN-M103 fuses, B-11 shackles, and A-4 Bomb Release Units. The video will discuss the integration of these components the B-17s adopted during a bombing run. We will also discuss how crew members dealt with hung bombs.
B-17 Bombing 7 part Series:
B-17 Part 1 (Bombing Introduction): • B-17 Bomber, Aerial Bo...
B-17 Part 2 (Fuses, shackles): • B-17 Bombing, Fuzes, S...
B-17 Part 3 (Norden Integration): • The Norden Bombsight B...
B-17 Part 4 (Ballistics Math): • B-17 Bombing Ballistic...
B-17 Part 5 (Training Accuracy): • B-17 Bombing Accuracy ...
B-17 Part 6 (Combat Accuracy): • B-17 Combat Bombing Ac...
B-17 Part 7 (Norden Bombsight): • WWII B-17 Combat Bombi...
My father was the top turret gunner on the “Glittering Gal” B-17. He described a mission in which a bomb did not release from the rear shackle and was hung up. The front wire must have pulled out because he recalled the propeller in the front was spinning. Because the bomb bay was so narrow he had to remove his carry around oxygen bottle in order to get in there. He stabilized the bomb with his foot and someone handed him a screw driver to release the bomb. He almost passed out due to the lack of oxygen. He was awarded the Silver Star for his actions that day. He said several times he didn’t think he deserved a medal for his actions, he just didn’t want to die that day. I wish I had asked him many more questions about his experiences but it was something he didn’t freely talk about. Dad flew 52 missions, came home, met my mother, who was a WAC and got married. Thomas A. Scott: Silver Star, DFC, Purple heart, I love and miss you immensely dad.
And yet another,,,,,
Boy does this take me back to aircraft weapons mechanic school at Lowry AFB in 1960. We were taught to install the arming wires a little differently: secure one end of the wire to the nearer bomb lug, run it through a wire link being held by the arming lever, through the fuze vane, and install retaining clip on end of wire. The complete arming wire will fall with the bomb. If the A4 arming lever is in the armed position, the wire link will be retained and the arming wire will be will be pulled through the link and out of the fuse vane; if the lever is not armed, the wire link will be free to go with the arming wire and bomb and the fuze will be safe. This method prevents damage to the aircraft by arming wires still held in the shackle flailing in the air stream after the bombs are dropped and before the bomb bay doors are closed. Also, I remember a bomb release actuator that allowed the bombardier to select one of three arming modes when fuzes with different time delays were installed in nose and tail fuze positions: SAFE, BOTH, AND TAIL ONLY. Although I remember the A4 and B11 quite well, memory fades on the details of how the nose and tail arming levers were actuated independently for this function.
My Dad was a Ball Turret Gunner, He kept one bomb tag from each mission, he wrote bomb load and where they bombed on each tag. I still have them along with his jacket. "Utah Gal" was his plane. Thanks for the informative, I always wondered how those pins and tags were used.
That is so cool
Another awesome comment.
My father flew a B-24 in Italy November 1944 to April 1945. I have copies of his mission orders. Those orders specified a mix of bomb fusings. They were bombing marshalling yards - some fuses were to detonate on contact others had a mix of delay length. They wanted bombs to explode a day later (or more) to delay repair activities. I've never been able to find how bombs could drop from 24,000' at ~250 mph and survive the explosion of other bombs to detonate hours to days later.
Thank you for doing this video. My father is no longer with us, but I'm passing along his message that the B-24 was better than the B-17. :) RIP Dad, I know I'm stirring up the shit with this one.
jwhoward, I think the 24 was faster and carried a larger bomb load and had a longer range but had a tendency to break apart more than the 17 when it crash landed. My uncle piloted a B-24, including I think, two missions over Ploesti. My father was a B-26 pilot who did his 65 missions and came home. Not many of these old crew members left. cheers
Awesomeness in both of these comments.
@@diffened Dad cited the ‘24’s airspeed and said, “do you want to be faster or slower through the flak? I wanted the least time possible.”
@@jwhoward182 Yeah, from what I have read the 24 was a better plane. The B-17 had better PR I guess, because it seems to be the more recognized plane.
@@diffened the b24 had slightly more range but the b17 could carry a bit larger payload, the speed was within a few mph of each other although the b17 could operate at much greater altitudes
Found this channel like a week ago, enjoying your work.
Disseminating info from official documents is a worthwhile contribution since most aren't really interested enough to find that info for themselves. However, it's not the same as getting first hand info from a WW2 USAAF veteran. What was actually done in practice was often not strictly "by the book." A lot of the commenters who claim their fathers or grandfathers told them this or that have incorrect info because of the typical problems with second and third hand info.
The effective bomb load of B-17F and G models was only _three_ 1000 lb. bombs or five to six 500 lb. bombs on very long range missions. On longer missions _half_ the bomb bay was occupied by the auxiliary fuel tank. That left only one rack for bombs. In my dad's unit, the 34th BG (H), the practice was to load a max. of five 500 lb. bombs per rack because adding a sixth significantly increased the probability of a hung bomb. If you don't believe it, look at the films of B-17 groups releasing bombs on some of the missions deep into Germany or to Czechoslovakia.
As an Air Force ammo troop it’s amazing to me how little has changed in munitions. I guess there’s no reason to change what works but bombs still operate the same way.
I was thinking the same. I loaded four different fighters and one bomber from 1980 to 2011 and much seems very familiar in this video.
Neat spot-welding on the bomb shackles…
Yours is the first pictorial with explanation of this I have ever seen. Well done. Thank you. 👍🇺🇸
Love the technical details that are superbly well explained in all your videos.
You keep cranking these out and I'll keep coming back for more!
Salutations from Ontario, Canada.
Cheers!
I second that.
Any one else concur?
Nothing much change up to Vietnam. I was a munitions specialist on B52s at Utapao Thailand. Still used shackles attached to arming wire and mostly mechanical fuses. The models changed but the process was mostly the same only on a much more industrial scale as the B52-D could carry 128 500Lb bombs.
Yup same shackles as WWII, it wasn't broke so.....
John Comer in the book Combat Crew talks about tripping the release shackles on hung up bombs with a screwdriver. He was a Flight Engineer/ mid upper turret gunner on the B 17.
Thanks for mentioning this book! I listened to it and now it’s one of my favorite wwii books.
Fun fact! The B-52 internal conventional bomb system still uses the B11 shackle and an upgraded version of the A4 release! If it works, keep using it! The B-1b and the B-2 use gas operated bomb racks powered by impulse cartridges.
Great information, thanks from 🙏🇮🇳🙏 Bharat (India)
My mother made bomb fuse casings during WWII.
I once heard tha 90% of the ordinance casings dropped in europe were made in Milwaukee Wisconsin at the A.O.Smith Company. When I started there in 1983 I had a picture of a guy with a chain fall stacking bomb casings up to the bottom of the jousts and the number on the building column in the picture was the same number on th column next to my bench as in the picture.
Later I found out that during the Korean and Vietnam war a buddy of mine worked at and owned a business that was making the ring that held the fins on some of the bigger bombs. That's how he made his first Million. OH according you wouldn't believe the tolerances he had to hold on the bomb parts he made. Just so they could blow them up.;
The largest honey pot in history, funded by hapless taxpayers.
Not that I begrudge anyone who works in the industry who have exactly zero power or influence on .Gov policy.
@@SynapticTransmission
Actually, I think the tolerances are so they DON'T blow up before you want them to, but DO blow up at that point, and we still had an estimated 1:5 failure to detonate rate. 😧
Very interesting stuff. Thanks for posting it. A lot more complicated than dropping a hand grenade out of a biplane.
Don’t forget that they were required to have a curly handlebar moustache,,,, lol
@@shakeydavesr Of coarse.
So many questions answered in one excellent video. A recent subscriber and it's already a favourite channel. Keep up the great work.
Loaded & armed many bombs, mines, torpedos, rockets, flares, Harpoon missiles, Maverick missiles & B57 nuclear depth bombs while in the US Navy 1990-1995.
Awesome, just what I was searching for! Many thanks
I had just found part 1 like an hour this part came out, great timing! New subscriber!
It is truly amazing to see just how complex these aircraft were.
Really enjoying these videos! Anyone tell you that you sound an awful lot like the action lab guy here on YT. I wonder🤔 double identity two channels😂. Either way great work. Looking forward to more of your 💣
Great video, amazing how the military has a number for EVERYTHING, I wonder who the guy in charge of that was ya know like Dewey for the old library index system :-)
Thanks 100 times for this good informative video
I thoroughly enjoyed this vid. Fascinating.
Thank you, very nicely done.
Awesome video! Very informative.
Great discovery !
Great job. I love this sorta stuff.👍🏻
Very interesting as always, not for nothing I has subscribed a month ago! You are doing a great job and looking forward to see your new videos 👍👍👍
Nice job, very interesting
Great stuff.
Great video 👍
Solid!
Top KEK!
nice job
This reminds me of gunnery school.
Could you do a video on the B-17 radio position? How did it fit into the crew, group and ground communication? Thanks
What was the percentage of dropped bombs that didn't explode due to a fuse malfunction? Every now and then we hear of an unexploded bomb being unearthed somewhere in Europe.
Not all were due to malfunctions, sometimes for emergency reasons the bombs would be released unarmed.
Unlike the Lancaster bomber that didn't have access to the bomb bay from inside the fuselage and had to have the bombs armed on the ground before take off the B17 and B24 both had access to the bomb bay during flight, standard procedure was for the bombardier to arm the bombs after take off, likewise they could be disarmed after that should the situation arise, sometimes due to an emergency situation like the loss of an engine or engine's the bombs would be jettisoned unarmed, ideally this would be done over the channel but sometimes the emergency situation called for them to be dropped unarmed over land.
@@dukecraig2402 thanks for the info but I remember that there was not a few malfunction among the bombs dropped. I didn't know that on the Lancaster on flight the bomb load couldn't be reached but I'm at fault because I wasn't thinking about the obvious....
@@paoloviti6156
The vast majority of unexploded ordnance found that were dropped by US bombers were jettisoned unarmed due to emergency reasons, the thing is most people don't know that and assume that all the unexploded bombs from American bombers found over the years were duds and classify them as such, even some of the "experts" on WW2 aviation.
These are the same experts that claim the Mosquito could carry the same bomb load as a B17, for some reason a lot of video makers out there think that the maximum internal load of a B17 was 4,000 lbs, in reality it was 13,000 lbs, and the maximum internal load of a B24 was 13,600 lbs.
But loading up one to it's maximum would shorten it's range and more importantly would decrease it's altitude when the whole idea was high altitude deep penetration mission's so they weren't loaded to the maximum, but even then the typical load on a mission to Berlin was 5,000 to 6,000 lbs depending on the types of bombs loaded.
This video lists 6,000 lbs for 12 general purpose 500 lb bombs, but more often than not they had a mix of general purpose and incendiary bombs coming in at 5,000 to 6,000 lbs depending on the target, the biggest asset of the B17 was it's ability to fly at 25,000 to 30,000 feet during a mission because of it's 2nd stage turbocharger, every 5,000 ft of altitude cut in half the chance of being hit by flak, and due to the single stage supercharger systems on German fighter's although they could reach the altitude of the B17 their performance was way down and they were clawing for air at that point, when a German fighter would make a pass through a B17 box they were more vulnerable to their defensive guns at that altitude because their performance was down and it took a while for them to get turned around and regain the altitude to make another pass, so the higher a B17 flew the safer it was which is why they only loaded them with 5,000 to 6,000 pounds for a trip to where there'd be plenty of fighter's and flak from ground fire.
In the mid/late 30's the "Bomber Mafia" Generals that ran the USAAC were convinced that fighter escorts wouldn't be need for US bombers because of the altitude and speed they could fly at, of course by 1943 when the 8th Air Force started their bombing campaign that turned out not to be true due to the advancements in German fighter's the past few years, suddenly a bomber flying at that altitude and speed could be caught by German fighter's, and with the help of radar they could actually be waiting on them, but still the higher the bombers flew the better off they were, had they flown their missions 10,000 to 15,000 ft lower than they did their losses would have been much worse than they already were.
The maximum bomb load with an internal load and external wing racks early in the war was around 17,500 to 18,000 lbs, by the end of the war due to them getting more power from the engine's from them being tuned for higher octane fuel was 20,000 lbs.
That configuration was rarely used but it was done early on when they were striking targets on the French coast and it was used more commonly in the Pacific, B24's could also be loaded to a similar weight with external wing racks.
@@dukecraig2402 comments on this video have been extremely informative, yet another great comment.
@@neiloflongbeck5705
I already mentioned in my comment that increased bomb loads would lower altitudes and that every 5,000 ft decrease in altitude doubled the chances of being hit by ground fire, and that's why loads to Berlin were kept between 5,000 to 6,000 lbs so they could fly at 25,000 ft.
But I believe you're wrong, as I mentioned increasing bomb load also shortens range and I don't think that a B17 loaded with 17,500 lbs with external wing racks would have the range to make it to Berlin and back, not given the extra time and additional fuel consumed it took to take off and form up a formation of B17's, you can't just look at it's range in that configuration you also have to subtract the additional hour or so it took to do that, the first one taking off is the limiting factor when doing the math for that because they could be in the air for an hour circling around while everyone else takes off and forms up on them, plus you've got the fact that they never flew in a straight line from where they took off in England to Berlin, there was always a "dog leg" in their route to try to fool the Germans about what their target was, and formations were often split so they'd approach the target from two different directions attempting to hit the target one after the other.
So the limiting factor would be the lead plane that took off first from the group that had the furthest route to fly, with all that factored in I highly doubt a B17 with 17,500 lbs with the added drag of external wing racks holding bombs would have the range to make Berlin and back.
Great I'm really interested in all this stuff .can u do one a bit simpler.?
One thing I've always wondered is what happened when bombs got hit by flak or projectiles from fighters while still in the bomber? Did bombers just vaporize sometimes when their load exploded in midair?
it happened, but was pretty unlikely. Military explosive is a pretty stable product. Even if exposed to fire, it will rather burn than explode. a flak or cannonshell maybe could penetrate or explode direclty nearby the bomb and set it off.
Nice job.! Your familiar with the Alconbury accident.?
Looks like you've got all the parts to put together a mock bomb release demonstration in your driveway. Wire it all up, get the solenoids working, hang the dummy bombs, enclose it all in a plexiglass bomb bay section, suspend it on a platform and bombs away! Amaze your friends and impress your neighbors! For added realism add a bombardier station with Norden sight.
We still use this system on nonrotary internal releses on the B-52,
My dad was rf4 pilot. if you like please share recon pilots stories with people .
How does the sudden weight loss when the bombs were released affect the plane? Does the plane suddenly lifts up and speeds up, gaining more altitude? Also if a bomber was forced to unload their bombs without arming them, what happens to the bombs during impact?
I would imagine yes, suddenly free of the loads the aircraft will tend to rise, but I believe typically they are flying on autopilot at the time as the bombardier has control of the aircraft. Maybe it corrected as fast as it could to keep one aircraft from popping into one above it.
If not armed.. I would imagine they would do damage simply as 500 pound heavy things impacting something at very high speeds. Just no blast.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐.....
Hi All, I need some info. I was told decades ago a family member was involved in the arming systems development, and I thought it was the pin development. Can anyone provide a rabbit hole to jump in for names of those who may have been involved in this equipment development? Thank you for your help
I've noticed in films of combat footage that American and British bombs fall out in a horizontal position while German and Japanese bombs just tumble out willy nilly. Why?
Good question.
I'm not positive about Japanese bombs, but the tumbling bombs in German WW2 footage were being dropped from Heinkel 111 bombers. Bombs were loaded in the Heinkel's bomb bay vertically and dropped tail first, so they tumbled in free fall to assume their nose down trajectory.
@@martinross6416 8
Until yesterday i defused an an-m64
With 103 und 101 Fuze 😄
Interesting and informative. This is the first time I have been the first like and comment.
It’s worth nothing that the B17 crew could access the Bombay in flight to deal with hang ups, to arm/disarm the bomb load as needed.
Bombay is a long way to go. I’m surprised they had enough fuel to fly to there.