B-17 Bomber's Tail Station, Combat Effectiveness & Detailed Internal Walk Through
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 มิ.ย. 2022
- Enclosed is the part 2, WWII B-17 Bomber Tail Station. Topics include: detailed internal bomber crew station walk through and a discuss combat effectiveness of the station.
Library of B-17 Gunstations and Gunsights:
B-17 Tail Gunner Survivability (part 1): • B-17 Bomber Crew Tail ...
B-17 Tail Gunner Combat Effectiveness (part 2): • B-17 Crew Tour of Duty...
B-17 Ball Turret (part 1) Crew Survivability: • B-17 Bomber Ball Turre...
B-17 Ball Turret (part 2) External Features: • B-17 Bomber Ball Turre...
B-17 Ball Turret (Part 3) Combat Effectiveness: • B-17 Ball Turret, Comb...
B-17 vs. B-29 Gunsights: • WWII B-17 vs. B-29 Bom...
B-17 Gunsights for Ranging: • B-17 Bomber, Using Rin...
B-17 Gunsights for Tracking: • B-17 Bomber Tracking a...
B-17 Browning .50 Cal Machine Guns: • B-17 Bomber's Browning...
Thank you for an outstanding documentary on the B-17 Flying Fortress tail gunner position. My father was a B-17 tail gunner with a total of 35 combat missions to his credit. He served with the 15th Air Force, 2nd Bomb Group, 96th Squadron flying missions out of Foggia, Italy during WWII.
I used to produce a history page with 45,000 subscribers, I attempted to accumulate the data that you had shown and I spent weeks researching and found very very little.
I really wish this video was available to me years ago because it would’ve made it so much simpler.
I thank you and this was extremely well done.
These short videos have more information than 30 year’s of watching documentaries and reading. Any chance of B-29 bomber videos?
I Have quite a bit of B-29 material in the queue. I will start B-29 videos once i finish the B-17.
Looking forward to Super Fortress videos!
@@WWIIUSBombers Good deal. I was very disappointed when the B29 "Fifi" came to Baltimore 3-4 years ago to hear one of the docents telling a young family all about the innovative "Radar controlled" gun sighting system deployed on the B29 in WW2. This gentleman was likely 20 years my senior (I'm 56), and I could not bring myself to correct him. But this is how history is lost, and misinformation spread. The optically based, electrically controlled defensive fire control system of the B29 was a marvel of electromechanical engineering and computation, but it weren't radar ...
@@fanmini its my understanding the 29s turret mounted guns were all fitted with 8mm motion picture cameras to verify gunner kills, my question is where did all that footage go? I'm sure the quality was poor, slow frame rate but good enough to pull stills from at the least? The documentary "THE LAST BOMB" Has 3 maybe less clips of turret footage but the majority is fighter gun camera footage
edited to make the audience believe its bomber defense fire.
@@fanmini
The B-29 had electromechanical computers for the fire control system. I have looked in vain for a detailed engineering description of how these computers worked internally.
Another comment, when I was 14 my buddy and I went into a army surplus store in 1972.
I saw a bomber jacket that I wanted so bad. Even at that age, I realized what a gem it was, price was $13.50. Alot of money at that time.
The guy who wore it had painted the name of German cities on the back.
Beneath each cities name he painted a red bomb with 4 black stripes, 2 on the nose. 2 just below the tail. In addition, he had the date on each bomb, between the stripes.Some cities had 2 dated bombs, some had 3
What a gem to own.
Today, that jacket because of the dates and cities, would be worth alot of money just because it can be directly linked to specific air raids over Germany.
I met a WWII B-17 gunner a few years back (he's with his squadron mates in high patrol now). He was a flight engineer (top turret gunner) for his first dozen mission before losing fingers due to glove/suit malfunction. He transitioned to tail gunner afterwards and told some stories that were harrowing. Thanks for your videos to elaborate on the geometry and tactics.
Sitting on your knees for hours in an unpressurised, vibrating, aircraft for hours and being shot at.
That's the last time I ever complain about my job.
On the plus side you were not gonna need to do it long before death gets you.
@@africanelectron751 I salute every one of those brave men.
Peter, I helped on putting the CAF Texas Raiders back together and one of the tasks was rebuilding the tail gunners position. After installing the bicycle seat I sat in that position while I installed ammo "cans" and mounted the guns . All in all I was there for about 6 hours that day and found the position really comfortable. Difficult part was getting in and out the door. Getting past the tail wheel was just about impossible. Of course those guys were young and skinny and I was 70 and not so skinny.
@@tfogelson3139 Thank you for this hands-on insight . It's great that people like you keep these birds alive.
One of the coolest jobs of all time and you says this
Years ago I was addicted to reading German pilot's accounts. What I remember was that they started attacking from the rear and later "preferred" to attack head-on because rear attack was too dangerous. Their time of exposure was just too long and their angles changed too slowly for gunners to miss. Plus, the ballistics favored the guy shooting down-wind. Frontal attack required more skill as the firing time was so short and the last second dodge so intimidating. I recall some of the old hands looking around at all the low timer's and wondering how much they were getting done.
Side note: I recall some of them claiming that they lost more fighters to bombers than bombers shot down. I distinctly remember that they considered going against bomber boxes very rough duty and almost no one's preferred role.
What accounts would you recommend?
@@Ruweisat Most were compilations so I am not sure. I loved Adolph Galland's book ("First And Last", I think), but am not sure if he addressed what I referred to above.
There's another advantage to attacking from the front: if you get the rounds on target, you are sure to hit something important --- the nose, cockpit, and/or the engines.
@@primmakinsofis614 they generally aimed for the flight deck. Shots on target would take out the pilot copilot navigator Bombardier and top turret gunner. That’s why you’d see a perfectly good ‘17 diving out of control and five guys bailing out the back
Without a doubt, the best Luftwaffe fighter pilot book is "Heaven Next Stop" by Gunther Bloemertz. He was in JG 26 (Galland's unit before he became a General).
Thank YOU. No SHITTY BACKGROUND MUSIC. I can actually watch this start to finish. A+ For NO MUSIC.
This, just information.
Absolutely excellent work. Your research and detail is exemplary! This is the level of detail the more enthusiastic and dedicated WW2 researcher has been looking for..
These crews were brave beyond compare. I was able to go inside a B17 at an air show. It’s so small inside it’s unreal. The area for the tail gunner and belly turret gunner was almost unbelievable. No frigen way would I have crawled into those two areas. The guts these guys had was incredible
Every time I see pictures of the inside of a ww2 bomber, I can't help but think of what it would be like to try and get out in a hurry. Awful cramped.
WOW ! This was narrated so well I could have listened for a lot longer than 7 minutes. Well done.
Thank you for the breakdown of the ergonomics and relative effectiveness of the tail gunner. I never could figure out a bunch of the stuff from the model kits I built as a kid.
My grandfather is 97 he was a tail gunner in a B-25. He tells stories of going out on bombing missions flying barely above the ocean and seeing zero's in the moonlight, knowing that one trigger pull from him will give away the bombers location. Most of the time they went undetected, completed their bomb runs. The B-25 was a reliable, durable aircraft. He loved that plane.
I know I'm echoing what others have said but I've been fascinated with WW2 my whole life and have absorbed all I could on the B-17. I learned more about how the systems and tactics worked than I have from any of source, and it wasn't even eight minutes long. Bravo.
A tactic employed by the Luftwaffe was a decoy aircraft that would pose a threat to the rear gunners causing them to focus on him as he swept by, thus his comrades had a better chance of attacking the rear of a formation, it was, in its day, a "wild weasel" maneuver that was used by our pilots in Vietnam- it took a gutsy pilot to let it all hang out there.
Further, watching archive footage of a head-on attack, if the fighter chose to dive below the bomber risking the guns of the ball, you can ofttimes see him do a barrel roll as he went past offering the gunner his belly, this is because the fighters had thicker armor under the seat and thus offered much better protection for the pilot.
The gunner aiming at a target at 600m would aim at the wingtip nearest the B-17’s centre line to offset the forward momentum of the aircraft ‘throwing’ the rounds ahead, ie if he aimed at the attacking fighter’s centre line, the rounds would strike the outside wingtip - or miss.
When I was a young man, my bosses brother (Charles Love) told me a little bit about his role as tail gunner in a B-17.
The one thing I remember best is when he said "I had the best view of the bomb run, all I had to do was look down."
Bomber crews had amazing skills and courage. Much respect for the greatest generation.
I just found your channel a few days ago, i must say i love it! It is beautiful how much work you put into your videos for us to enjoy! Thank you very much!
Fascinating and very informative. You have definitely made the subject matter your own!
I have found your videos exceptional! Thank you!
Incredible information, thank you.👏🏻
Incredibly informative videos. Thanks so much for sharing!
Later in the war, the Luftwaffe shifted tacticts to rear mass attacks by armored Fw-190s, as these were more likely to succeed with inexperienced pilots, however, assembling such a group or even wing sized formation of 190s for an attack became increasingly difficult with fighter escort, but if a Gefechtsverband managed to engage in strenght, they usually overwhelmed the tail gunners by giving them too many targets to shoot at and having the heavier armament
I read an account somewhere by a US fighter pilot who saw one of those formations attack a bomber group. He said that it was many fighter in ranks stacked up behind each other, almost wingtip to wingtip in their rows. They flew as a mass toward the bombers and fired as one.
It brought down several bombers immediately and others were smoking or damaged, all in a few seconds.
When the US fighters attacked that formation they broke up and many were shot down, probably because they were relative novice pilot.
So it worked, but it was difficult to assemble and aim the mass, and it was vulnerable to fighter attack which would break it up quickly.
These "Sturmgruppen" FW-190s had 4 x 30 mm cannon, so they were supposed to close to 100 meters to open fire ('can't miss' range. At 6 rounds per second x 4 30 mm guns, that's 24 30 mm rounds in a second into a B-17, and it only takes an average of five hits to kill one.
These FW-190s were not expected to survive these attacks; it was hoped the pilots would due to the extra armor plating and would be able to bail out after the attack. The only possible counter would have been to try to include a 20 mm cannon in the tail; if the tail can put in 8-10 seconds of fire into the FW-190 before it closes to 100 meters, that's 64-80 20 mm rounds. If even a third of them hit it would have likely blown out the FW-190's engine or blown off a wing causing the German pilot to lose control of his fighter and saving the B-17.
Stumbled across these thanks to TH-cam suggestions (WW2 & other military history buff) & finding them very informative.
This is the best channel on TH-cam. Great content. Keep up the great work.
Amazing video
Wait.... that poor bastard had to be kneeling for like 8 hours straight?!
How the crap were these guys not crippled when they tried to leave?
Super informative! I hope you can do one on the chin turret as well- I’d be really interested in seeing that
Very good video with great information
Since the purpose of defensive armament is to prevent successful attacks (actually destroying attackers is a happy bonus), and it's impossible to accurately quantify such results, an accurate assessment of effectiveness is going to be very difficult to assess--aside from the very rough measure of bombers returning from missions.
Awesome video. Good job.
A new US Army Private could go to aerial gunnery school and if they passed it, got a promotion to Staff Sergeant and a station on a bomber. Many saw that as a good deal!
The Army Air Forces promoted all enlisted aircrew so that they would receive better treatment as a POW.
No
It was a bribe to get recruits
Like airborne pay
Good video and great information.
These are great, we use to be the cadre for bomber fantasy camp and tried to make the folks experiences as close as possible to ww2
You are amazing and I love your videos. Thank you!
fascinating stuff.. Thank you for making these.
Glad you like them!
My father was in hospital in England in July 1944. He told me there was an 18 year old B-17 tail gunner who had had his jewels shot off. He committed suicide.
Very interesting. Thank you.
The content I didn’t know I needed
Great video. This information is very fascinating and presented in an excellent manner. I know your focus is on other aircraft, but I would love to see a video on the B-25B, D, G variants tail gunner station. If must have been tough firing from a prone position.
Almost 50% success rate? Holy cow that's impressive. Well produced video too!
Great videos! (I just discovered your channel) A couple of weeks ago Ward Carroll had a video that included "Lucky" Luckadoo describing his experience in B 17s in WW 2. He mentioned that the tail gunner in the lead plane of a group was supposed to help aleret and direct fire for other group members. He also stated that the tail gunner had to relay that info through other crew members, wasting valuable time. I wondered if you have seen any reference to this practice.
Nice work.
Nicely Done !!!!!!!!
The B-17 used two hand held guns mentioned in this video this is in contrast to B-24 gunners who used a powered turret that is in a similar configuration to that of Lancaster and Halifax British bombers.
Thanks for the videos! Very interesting and detailed info. I've heard of the electric suits shorting out or failing otherwise, how reliable were they? Could crews usually count on them pretty well?
These videos are proving to be a fantastic source of inspiration when I'm building model aircraft. By any chance will you be doing a series of videos covering the B-24 Liberator. Or maybe another aircraft very dear to my heart, the RAF Avro lancaster. Thanks again from the UK. 🇬🇧
If you want coverage of British aircraft, check out the TH-cam channel called "UK Aircraft Explored". It's quite like this one, but focusing on British WW2 aircraft. It has a series of videos on the Lancaster.
The fighters approaching from the rear fired the first burst of fire at the rear gunner's canopy -
this position had one of the highest losses in the crew of a bomber
The G model offered the tail gunner a seat and an improved aiming apparatus.
... and everyone should read the book A Wing And A Prayer by Harry Crosby.
Strong work. Succinct and packed with interesting information. Bravo and wish you much success in the future.
I've only ever seen a couple pictures of 17s and 24s in formation together.
Very interesting vid.
Thanks!
Nicolas Mastriani was a tail gunner in a B-17 1943-1944 Shooting down 5 enemy aircraft 2 inside of 45 seconds and damaging another 15-20? They would tank the crews up with speed during missions and returning to England would drink large quantities of alcohol! He would often say them Germans are the best? But the truth be told I believe the Americans are the best! Nick became a drug addict after the war. Nick was my dear friend and passed aways 2009 and will never be forgotten! Long live Nickie the American spirit
go channel, my Dad was in B24s in Africia.
As early as 1942, some commanders, such as Colonel LeMay of the 305th Bomb Group, instructed their gunners to fire well beyond 600 yards and even outside the effective range of their guns. This, LeMay believed, would keep the German fighters at a greater distance. By early 1943, when the Luftwaffe began to favour head-on attacks and also started using cannons at a greater distance than the U.S. machineguns could reach, LeMay's tactics were less effective. Source: Curtis Emerson LeMay Papers, U.S. Library of Congress, Manuscript Division.
I remember reading one experienced German pilot saying "Look they're trying to scare us" (with their tracers).
@@joeperson4792 I believe it.
The .50 BMG was extremely effective well past 600 yards - you can more than double that. The issue is the lack of magnified sights on any of the gun positions of the B-17.
I just visited the Memphis Belle in dayton, Oh and I noticed those rear lights you was talking that alert the other bombers when there about to drop bombs and when bombs are being dropped. On the pictures you show, it shows 2 different colored lenses but on the Memphis Belle, this is not the case. The starboard light is white and the port side isn't. It has a round disc that has 4 small lenses. A red one. A green one and 2 white ones. I have a great picture of it but have no idea how to post it on here. Can you tell my why those are different?
🙏🏼
Worked
Kept planes from attacking from the rear
Moved to attacking from the front
Can you do the B29 walkthrough this level of detail is amazing
I am planning on releasing full up B-29 video content after I finish the B-17. I'm about 25% through my B-17 presentations.
@@WWIIUSBombers oh wow awesome
@@WWIIUSBombers How about B-24 data?? Interested because my dad was a 24 pilot.
My grandfather was a tail gunner
Not everyone qualifies to be NAVY.
"Designed to stop a standard 30 cal bullet"...
Weren't most of the fighters they were up against, equipped with 50cal MG and 20-30mm Cannons? 🤷🤔
7.92mm is a tad hotter than the GI 30-06, this plane was designed in the 1930s, and at that time the answer is no.
The B-17s started flying from England in 1942. By that time all German fighters had 20mm cannons and later 30mm cannons. Eventually 13mm replaced 7.92MGs as secondary armament.
They did, and let’s not forget the ammunition used, Minengeschoss, explosive rounds, 20 or more could take down a “viermot” (heavy) 2-3 round from the 30mm would do the same job. Yet more planes lost to flak. I’ve fired the Browning, on a tripod, unlocked, it was a static target about 700m away, it was as still hard to hit, how they ever hit anything is beyond me…
Not at the start
The 30 cals ( 3006, 7.92, 303 and 7.7 ) were used
As the war went heavier guns were used
Interesting. Why would the LEFT waist be more effective than the RIGHT waist? (though the windows are positioned slightly differently)
I question the "highly effectiveness" of the tail gunner, when the attack came from the front. If you add both plane's speed, these small fighters disappear with more than 500 mph. On top, the fighters have their tank and armor behind the cockpit, pretty save for the pilot vs. a .50.
I'm a bit surprised that there are few reports regarding the efficiency of the tail gunners because it was one of the reasons why the Germans preferred head-on attacks, even if the B-17G had the front turret under the nose. According to the German veterans they were more concerned with the tail guns....
Sure. When making an approach from the tail, your closing speed is only your speed advantage over the target, which would only be 100-ish mph, all the while all of those gunners are hammering away at you.
My Commando Comic knowledge says that "tail-end charlie" in British bombers was the least-survivable position, but they were on night missions and had weaker guns, to say nothing of lower visibility, so could be taken by surprise by a night-fighter that had time to sneak up and aim well.
@@worldcomicsreview354 thanks for replying! What you wrote makes sense....
The point is, that they are far shorter in gun range, if attacked from the front.
Do you think that plexiglass will stop those 20mm cannon shells?
aside from the ball turret gunner, was this the most uncomfortable gunner position among WW2 bombers?
How come the supplemental oxygen was used always at night? What makes flying at night so different that the supplemental oxygen was always on at night as opposed to the daytime only above 10,000 ft??
Night vision is more affected by reduced oxygen than daylight vision. While 10,000 ft is a typical altitude for donning oxygen in daylight, at night vision is improved by donning oxygen at 8,000 ft, sometimes even 5,000 feet.
Was the tail turret of B-24 better than this hand-operated stinger?
Why dont you number multi-part videos in the title and provide links to the other parts in the description? this is par for the course for a channel like yours.
Why the LEFT waist gunner specifically?
so much teck but it takes only 4 30mm shells from Mk108 cannon
🇺🇸 Can you just try to imagine kneeling for some 6-12 hours on a mission ?
These guys were beyond brave. True heroes.
Or Air Terrorists. Last November I visited Dresden.
Why does the left waist gunner often have better performance than the right waist gunner?
I don't think they do. It's a statistical anomaly.
Nice video well put together!
The first drawing of the operation of the guns is not correct.
The dual .50 machine were remotely operated by a kind of joy stick while aiming with sights on a kind of 'toy gun' ('dummy gun').
🇺🇸 So I’m very curious as to how a tail gunner would have been credited with a certified enemy interceptor ‘kill’ ?
- I mean I don’t think most tail positions had auto-cycling cameras.
They had to be confirmed.
If no one else saw it, too bad.
Overclaiming in air combat was huge on all sides in WW2, multiple bombers not only saw, but claimed, the kill.
Only fighters and attack planes had gun cameras. The blunt truth is that pretty much of the kill claims from WWII from both sides are highly dubious and should not be taken at face value. The same is true of tank kills.
Let's say you're a B-17 gunner - doesn't matter what position. A fighter comes into view and you start firing at it. It backs off its attack and flies away, trailing smoke. Is that a kill? If so, is it YOUR kill? Because you are but one of possibly many gunners firing at that plane. And you have no way of knowing, first of all, that a plane that flew away trailing smoke was actually destroyed. And, further, you have no way of knowing that it was YOUR bullets that were responsible for it since you were just one of several gunners shooting at it.
IMHO claims of kills in all aspects of combat are extremely difficult to verify and attribute to a specific combatant. Gun camera footage can make it simpler to verify the claim, but still allows for the possibility of multiple pilots claiming credit for a single kill.
The ONLY reliable stat for this sort of analysis, at least in the western theater, is both sides' loss reporting. Everyone knew what their losses were, and had to, because losses needed to be replaced. You couldn't finagle the number of aircraft you had lost, whereas kill claims could be manipulated easily, credibly and with no one having a way to dispute it.
Other planes
Everyone got debrief on what they saw
And here I thought the ball turret was the worst spot!
Something tells me there’s gonna be nobody in the comment section saying that they’re great grandpa or grandpa was a tail gunner ! Not because he didn’t survive the war, but because his balls didn’t!
I would have used up all my ammo before I got back. The officers would have grounded me after a few raids, lol.
Maybe after you wasted your rounds a fighter would appear and none of you would get back and I imagine that the rest of the crew would introduce you into a bit of discipline if you did make it 🤔👊
Wonder if they thought of a very bright light to shine at the enemy's pilot at night.??
You would be blinded and everyone will see you
No protection against 20 and 30 mm cannon
Some people did some things. They went up a beach jumped out of perfectly good airplanes behind Enemy Lines armed with the most effective machine guns in the world at the time. Some people did some things they flew and airplanes made out of aluminum foil and dropped bombs on factories railroads and cities. Some people did some things. My America great always Semper Fi
How did bomber gunners avoid hitting other bombers with friendly fire?
I'm sure they were able to pick out different types of planes from long distances. Just like you can tell a car from an suv on the highway
Plus attackers would probably be flying at them from a steep angle, different than their allies flight path.
Careful aiming.
The formation shape was to allow max "uncovered" guns.
By eye
Fact is, none of the claims of aircrew gunners are reliable. Multiple gunners could have been shooting at an enemy fighter, and one downed Messerschmitt or Focke Wulf could very easily have multiple claims associated with it. One victory turns to five, for example. The B-17 tail gun station could have greatly benefited from additional ammo and magnified optics - the .50 BMG is effective out well past 1200 yards. And the gunner's seating position is awful. One last thing = the armor plating was almost useless if a cannon shell exploded anywhere near the tail. The German fighters weren't shooting 8mm rifle rounds at B-17's - they were shooting 20mm and 30mm HE cannon shells of devastating effectiveness.
Why do you think the krauts attacked head on.
Easier to hit the officers in front.
Algorithm.
Lucky the Germans weren't shoting 30 caliber ammo ,NOT
50 cal 1000 yards zero
12345
I think the reason the reason why Axis bombers were shot down easily is because they didn't have the tech to have a rear gun turret.
As someone who grew up hunting ducks, I get the principle, but it's ridiculous to think these skills were taught in a classroom.
Everything to do with airplanes is taught in ground school. You don't get to fly until after you know what you're doing.
Gunners practiced skeet shooting during training
Designed to stop a 30 caliber bullet...sorry to inform you, but the enemy only shoots 50 caliber rounds.
Not at the start of the war
Worst job ever, change my mind.
You could be a submariner
@@RhodokTribesman In the 50's the USA and Soviet Union both experimented with an atomic-powered bomber, which could fly for days or weeks on end (as long as the crew had MRE's), and so always be on station to raid the enemy if WW3 started. The Americans found the shielding too heavy to use, the Soviets just didn't bother with shielding.