# how much ammo did a b 17 carry for the 50s



## mike siggins (Jul 3, 2013)

I was wondering how much ammo each postion carried and how long it would take to empty there supply


----------



## drgondog (Jul 3, 2013)

At least 2000 rounds total. The radio hatch gun typically had 100+, the tail gunner and nose turret had 300+, top and ball turret had 250 each and the waist guns had 250 each with another several boxes stored near radio hatch as reserves for waist, radio hatch and ball turret. The Cheek guns had only 100 each IIRC


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 3, 2013)

I had just been reading about this the other day in another forum and the discussion is carried on by actual bomber crew members (B-17 and B-24)...

Lots of good info there: B17 - B24 reserve of ammunition


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 3, 2013)

I have a AFM-20 which is a gunners information file for training bomber gunners
It list the ammo capacity for the Sperry turret in the B-17 as 1000 rounds, 500 for each gun. But reloadable only on the ground. Some models had outside of the turret ammo cans to increase room in the turret for the gunner, inflight reloadable.
The upper ball, also a Sperry as 750 rounds total, in 6 cans that can be reloaded in flight.
The Bendix chin turret holds 730 rounds, also inflight reloadable.

My manual is incomplete so i'm not sure about the tailturret and free guns, but total rounds carried IMO would go well beyond 2000 rounds.

How long would it take to fire them all ? You can't fire any machinegun without stopping every few seconds for it to cool, and you'd probably never have a target near your sights much longer than that anyway.


----------



## Aozora (Jul 5, 2013)

From what I can find ammo capacity varied, with later B-17s having better ammunition feed systems - average was 6-7,000 rounds. As it was some crews were able to sneak more ammo on board - From _Combat Crew_, John Comer [Comer was a flight engineer/top turret gunner on 533rd BS, 381st Bg] recounting a hairy take-off during a raid on Anklam, Germany, October 9 1943, flying in a B-17G:


----------



## drgondog (Jul 5, 2013)

Aozora - capacity and actual practice are two separate things, as you know. For every three linked rounds of 50 cal you had to leave a pound of bombs behind. One could make an argument that the capacity could be measured as all ammo/no bombs.. so a nominal 5000 pound load out plus a standard 2000+ rounds stored normally is approximately 17000 rounds - IF you could stuff it at the CG.

In your article above - most command pilots would have kicked the idiots responsible for the incident off their crew. The B-17G already had a slightly aft CG problem under correct load out processes with all aft crew in Radio cell forward of Ball turret along with all the spare 50 cal ammo boxes. The crew knew Why, and also were indoctrinated regarding the So What relative to their already risky lease on life.

As to the story? I have been back in the tail gun position and I can not believe that more than four to six extra boxes (600-900 rounds extra) could be stored back there with the gunner. .. and still leave space to get out over the tail wheel if the A/c crash landed on take off... just for survival on that factor it's hard to conceive of such stupidity of the tail gunner even being back there on take off?


----------



## Aozora (Jul 5, 2013)

drgondog said:


> Aozora - capacity and actual practice are two separate things, as you know. For every three linked rounds of 50 cal you had to leave a pound of bombs behind. One could make an argument that the capacity could be measured as all ammo/no bombs.. so a nominal 5000 pound load out plus a standard 2000+ rounds stored normally is approximately 17000 rounds - IF you could stuff it at the CG.
> 
> In your article above - most command pilots would have kicked the idiots responsible for the incident off their crew. The B-17G already had a slightly aft CG problem under correct load out processes with all aft crew in Radio cell forward of Ball turret along with all the spare 50 cal ammo boxes. The crew knew Why, and also were indoctrinated regarding the So What relative to their already risky lease on life.
> 
> As to the story? I have been back in the tail gun position and I can not believe that more than four to six extra boxes (600-900 rounds extra) could be stored back there with the gunner. .. and still leave space to get out over the tail wheel if the A/c crash landed on take off... just for survival on that factor it's hard to conceive of such stupidity of the tail gunner even being back there on take off?


 
I'm just quoting from someone who was participating in operations at arguably the worst time of the war for B-17 crews; what may or may not have happened to the crew members responsible is not the issue in this particular incident - maybe it was overlooked because they survived a hairy mission partly because of the extra ammo so thoughtlessly loaded - we don't know why they weren't kicked off the crew, so you'll have to take that one up with the command pilot involved.

As it is, if you read the extract _carefully_, Comer did not say _all_ the boxes were stacked near the tail position, he states that _some _were, while others were redistributed in and around the waist positions. If you're trying to say Comer is wrong in his details, or that he was exaggerating for effect, he was there, we were not.


----------



## rochie (Jul 5, 2013)

if i remember there is a bit in Comer's book where the extra ammo boxes were stored in the wrong place and nearly caused them to crash on take off !

ignore me i should have read the whole of the excerpt posted as it is the one i was thinking of !!!!!


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 5, 2013)

The pilot in command may have took the view that nobody is perfect, and they learned from that.

They might have had other redeeming qualities, AND he didn't want to break-in new crewmembers.

Who on the aircraft is supposed to oversee weight and balance ? The flight engineer ? The PIC or co-pilot ?


----------



## GregP (Jul 5, 2013)

Each waist gun was fed by an ammo box exactly same as in the nose of a P-38. The box contained 27 feet of 50-caliber cartridge belt. When you shot all of it at a target, you gave them the "wole nine yards" ... it introduced a new term to the language. When the box was empty, you could go get anouther box and reload, but the number of boxes were limited since bomb load was the primary reason for the mission, not 50-caliber ammo.

The YB-40 was differnt and the primary mission was defense of the formation, so the reserve ammo boxes of nine yards each were plentiful instead of bomb load.

Information from B-17 veterans who volunteer at the Planes of Fame and from the P-38 Association. 

We have "the whole nine yards" of ammo belt displayed up on the wall next to our P-38 Lightning.


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2013)

That is just one of many possible explanations for the expression. In "English" English the expression pre-dates WW2 which makes it impossible that the length of a .50 calibre Browning ammunition "belt" is the origin of the phrase in early usage unless early machine guns also had 27' long belts. How long was the standard belt (and it was a belt, not linked cartridges) on a Vickers machine gun for example?

A quick internet search will turn up dozens of alternative explanations, everything from nine yards flying sails, bridal veils, the length of cloth needed for a good suit, to the capacity of coal or concrete trucks 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## drgondog (Jul 6, 2013)

Aozora said:


> I'm just quoting from someone who was participating in operations at arguably the worst time of the war for B-17 crews; what may or may not have happened to the crew members responsible is not the issue in this particular incident - maybe it was overlooked because they survived a hairy mission partly because of the extra ammo so thoughtlessly loaded - we don't know why they weren't kicked off the crew, so you'll have to take that one up with the command pilot involved.
> 
> As it is, if you read the extract _carefully_, Comer did not say _all_ the boxes were stacked near the tail position, he states that _some _were, while others were redistributed in and around the waist positions. If you're trying to say Comer is wrong in his details, or that he was exaggerating for effect, he was there, we were not.



He said "1300 pounds were stored at the tail". 200 (max) for tail gunner, 1100 for ammo. 50 pounds+ per box. 22 boxes at tail gun/tail wheel bulkhead.

The rest of the aft bomb bay crew knew better so, yes, I still don't give the story 100% credence. I can't imagine any of them not understanding the inertial effects of 22+ boxes of high density 'plugs' coming their way due to the sudden deceleration of a crash landing. They couldn't all be as stupid as the tail gunner.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 6, 2013)

Further 13,500 rounds = 4500 pounds, or about 2000 pounds over the calculated gross weight Takeoff, including mission load of fuel and bombs. You think the engineer (Comer) didn't understand the implications? Nah - I don't believe it but certainly acknowledge that such stupidity could exist - but he sure didn't tell the pilot or co-pilot, the two most responsible for the crew's safety.

Next - consider the sheer *volume* of the other 3200 pounds, 64 boxes of 50 cal stored in Radio cabin...aft of the CG by several feet, conversely shoving the 200 pounds per crew by 4 (ball, waist, waist, radio) by several more feet aft of CG, then by another 30 feet x 200 for tail gunner, then by 26 feetx1100 for stacked boxes at tail bulkhead..

I say the B-17 doesn't have a chance to fly after getting off the ground - IF it could get off the ground with that much of an aft CG issue.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 6, 2013)

I always thought The Whole Nine Yards was from tailoring. A sailor being issued by the Purser 9 yards of cloth to make his clothing when he joined a sailing ship. The expression dressed to the Nines coming from the same source.


----------



## Aozora (Jul 6, 2013)

drgondog said:


> Further 13,500 rounds = 4500 pounds, or about 2000 pounds over the calculated gross weight Takeoff, including mission load of fuel and bombs. You think the engineer (Comer) didn't understand the implications? Nah - I don't believe it but certainly acknowledge that such stupidity could exist - but he sure didn't tell the pilot or co-pilot, the two most responsible for the crew's safety.
> 
> Next - consider the sheer *volume* of the other 3200 pounds, 64 boxes of 50 cal stored in Radio cabin...aft of the CG by several feet, conversely shoving the 200 pounds per crew by 4 (ball, waist, waist, radio) by several more feet aft of CG, then by another 30 feet x 200 for tail gunner, then by 26 feetx1100 for stacked boxes at tail bulkhead..
> 
> I say the B-17 doesn't have a chance to fly after getting off the ground - IF it could get off the ground with that much of an aft CG issue.



Great, so you can micro-analyse and second guess a veteran's account of a particularly tough mission; perhaps you should contact JC, pointing out his errors as to how many rounds you think were loaded, show him a weight and balance diagram of an early B-17G, then explain that you think he was probably a rotten flight engineer because he didn't follow protocol. Lighten up, huh? The guy put his life on the line every time he flew on a mission - I think he has a right to be wrong in his details, and who the hell are we to judge?

My main purpose was to show that the ammo loading of B-17s could vary, depending on the mission and, sometimes, on individual crews.


----------



## nincomp (Jul 6, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> How long would it take to fire them all ? You can't fire any machinegun without stopping every few seconds for it to cool, and you'd probably never have a target near your sights much longer than that anyway.



Remember that the barrels were in the slipstream of very low temperature air. That must have had some effect.

On a different topic, it has been noted that some B17 crews did not carry the standard load of ammo. The following video is from a US History Channel's episode entitled "Long Odds." The crew of "Old 666" crammed in 6 extra .50 Brownings as well as extra ammo.

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Im086TCu3I_


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 6, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Great, so you can micro-analyse and second guess a veteran's account of a particularly tough mission; perhaps you should contact JC, pointing out his errors as to how many rounds you think were loaded, show him a weight and balance diagram of an early B-17G, then explain that you think he was probably a rotten flight engineer because he didn't follow protocol. Lighten up, huh? The guy put his life on the line every time he flew on a mission - I think he has a right to be wrong in his details, and who the hell are we to judge?
> 
> My main purpose was to show that the ammo loading of B-17s could vary, depending on the mission and, sometimes, on individual crews.


They used a load calculator to account for every pound aboard those ships wether it was a transport, a bomber or a dead-head...B-17, B-25, B-26, C-47...didn't matter. If you overload your machine regardless of material, you pay a penalty. If you stow it improperly, you can pay dearly. B-17s were more forgiving than B-24s, but no matter what it is, you'll lose range, speed or worse.
Each box for the .50 provided just enough ammunition for a full 60 second burst, regarless if they "squirt" or lean on the trigger. Each station is assigned a specific reserve and those are stowed in a specific position. Anyone "sneaking" additional ammo aboard can cause a fault in the load calculator and put the ship and crew in a dangerous situation.

If a guy was bragging about sneaking additional ammo aboard or any other unauthorized item not calculated, it put the entire crew in jeopardy.


----------



## Aozora (Jul 6, 2013)

Like I say, lighten up...do you guys read books written by veterans just for enjoyment, or do you do it to pick holes in their accounts??


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 6, 2013)

Do you think we sit on our asses and read books all day?

Or do you suppose we might have an intimate knowledge of how these machines work because we have been in direct contact with the men and the machines over the years?

How about you lighten up with your smartass comments...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 6, 2013)

If you look at the dimension of the.50 cal round (rim 0.804 in) "9 yards" does not match the ammo capacity of the P-38, (they may have carried less than full ammo). But '9 yards' of .50 cal ammo is quite a oad for a crewman to try to move in a bomber without help, especially if you count the box. 

As far as giving _ONE_ target the "whole 9 yards goes, a .50 cal firing at 850rpm ( about tops for a M2 aircraft gun) and with even 350 rounds of ammo that is going to take 24.7 seconds. A fighter doing just 300 mph will cover 2.06 miles in that amount of time. 

In reply to post #16 "Remember that the barrels were in the slipstream of very low temperature air. That must have had some effect"

The .50 was a notorious barrel burner. You don't get high performance without burning a lot of powder per round. One recommendation was for pilots to fire only 75 rounds in the first burst (which is actually rather long) and 25 rounds per burst on subsequent bursts which is getting on the short side). This for fighters which presumably have a faster slipstream going over their barrels than a bomber. 

It is quite possible to shoot out about 12 in of rifling on an air cooled ground 7.62 machine gun with a _plain steel_ barrel firing 500 rounds without stopping. Guns with chrome bores and/or stellite liners can do much better but a .50 uses about 4-5 times the amount of propellant per round as as a 7-8mm machine gun does.


----------



## Aozora (Jul 6, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> Do you think we sit on our asses and read books all day?
> 
> Or do you suppose we might have an intimate knowledge of how these machines work because we have been in direct contact with the men and the machines over the years?
> 
> How about you lighten up with your smartass comments...



So why put in a smartass comment about Comer "bragging about sneaking additional ammo aboard"? That's pretty insulting to a guy who put his life on the line; I also note that this same extract from Comer is mentioned and discussed  here, in a link you provided. There's no hint that these veterans thought that Comer was bragging, sneaking, or exaggerating about what happened, including this comment:



> John Comer was a flight engineer in the 381st BG and we flew B-17's. Incidentally, his book Combat Crew is exceptional. It is long out of print, but if you find a used copy, you will enjoy it.
> Bob Gilbert
> S/Sgt, 35 missions
> Ball Turret Gunner, Goldin crew
> ...



As it is I am sorry I posted the confounded extract - I didn't intend for it to be used in the way it has been.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 7, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Like I say, lighten up...do you guys read books written by veterans just for enjoyment, or do you do it to pick holes in their accounts??



Nobody was 'picking on' Comer until you put the narrative on display.. In other words we were more likely to be giving you a hard time for believing it? From my perspective I am Not apologetic for doubting the facts/claims made in his story.

I read to learn and frequently question dubious claims - book or internet or post. You may choose to embrace whatever narrative that floats your boat..


----------



## Aozora (Jul 7, 2013)

drgondog said:


> Nobody was 'picking on' Comer until you put the narrative on display.. In other words we were more likely to be giving you a hard time for believing it? From my perspective I am Not apologetic for doubting the facts/claims made in his story.
> 
> I read to learn and frequently question dubious claims - book or internet or post. You may choose to embrace whatever narrative that floats your boat..



With respect, you have not read the extract _properly_ - for a start not all of the extra ammunition was stored aft of the bomb bay - Comer wrote he placed _as much as he could_ forward, against the radio-room/bomb bay bulkhead and as close as possible to the B-17's cg, with the rest in the cockpit and nose. At no time does he specify how much extra ammunition was in the radio room or in the front, nor does he say how heavy each load was.

Instead you make assumptions, based on what?



drgondog said:


> 64 boxes of 50 cal stored in Radio cabin...aft of the CG by several feet, conversely shoving the 200 pounds per crew by 4 (ball, waist, waist, radio) by several more feet aft of CG, then by another 30 feet x 200 for tail gunner, then by 26 feetx1100 for stacked boxes at tail bulkhead..



There were not necessarily 64 boxes stowed in the radio room - that is your assumption. You are assuming he compounded things by ensuring the 4 rear crew members had to stay out of the radio room during take off with no evidence to back up that assumption. 1,100 lbs by the tail bulkhead? Assumption, No evidence. 



drgondog said:


> Further 13,500 rounds = 4500 pounds, or about 2000 pounds over the calculated gross weight Takeoff, including mission load of fuel and bombs. You think the engineer (Comer) didn't understand the implications?



So, what was the specified loading and weight for the mission? You don't know because it isn't described: the only clue is that it is a long range mission to Anklam requiring Tokyo Tanks. You are assuming 13,500 rounds was the actual loading. 

You also claimed:



drgondog said:


> He said "1300 pounds were stored at the tail". 200 (max) for tail gunner, 1100 for ammo. 50 pounds+ per box. 22 boxes at tail gun/tail wheel bulkhead.



no he did not: he said that _some_, not all, of the boxes had been re-stacked _ in the waist_ with _some_ stacked against the tail gunner's position. So how many boxes were re-stacked in the waist? How many by the tail wheel bulkhead? Not specified ie; you are assuming 22 boxes at tail gun/tail wheel bulkhead with no evidence to back that up. Assumption, no evidence, that Comer didn't understand what he was doing.

Comer explained to the pilots that the re-stacked ammunition _plus_ the tail gunner stupidly sitting in his post rather than in his proper take-off position, had made the aircraft "_too heavy at the tail_" by 1,300 lbs. Pop quiz - how much weight positioned well behind the c.g of a B-17 would make it tail heavy by 1,300 lbs, enough to make for an extremely risky take-off? 

Of course, this is very different from stating there was 1,300 lbs loaded around the tail gunner's position, which is what you are reading into this account - such a loading, that far behind the cg, would have made take-off impossible.

It is also very likely that Comer (or his editor or publisher) was mistaken about the ammunition load: here is part of a load diagram from the B-17F Flight manual







3,500 rounds standard, early B-17G probably not much different, in which case twice the normal load would be 7,000 rounds ie; about 2,200 pounds? 

Note that Comer says he _almost doubled_ the normal load of 7,000 rounds to thirteen thousand five hundred? What are the chances that in writing about events some 30 years later he, or an editor, or the publisher, transposed two lots of figures and came up with a slightly garbled account? 3,500 with a mark in front of it can look a lot like 13,500 and it seems all too coincidental that 13,500 rounds was what Comer claimed to have loaded - why not fourteen thousand rounds? So I'm going to assume that figures were transposed, because I know it can happen, and assume that what Comer meant to say is that he doubled the load from 3,500 rounds to 7,000. In fact earlier in the narrative Comer asked the armorer for 4,000 extra rounds, not 7,000. It also changes any calculations about how much extra weight was loaded in the rear of the B-17, and the effects of shifting _some_ of that weight. 

Or you can just read into the narrative whatever floats your boat...


----------



## stona (Jul 8, 2013)

I think that the Schweinfurt-Regensburg raid is a pivotal point in the anecdotal evidence. 
Many of the bombers ran out of ammunition when attacked as they withdrew in the afternoon of 17th August 1943. Anecdotal accounts of loading extra ammunition (and I've seen that 12-13,000 round figure elsewhere amongst others) start to occur after this ill fated raid.
How feasible that is and how accurate the memory of the veterans is I know not.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Greyman (Jul 8, 2013)

British data sheets over at B-17 Performance give:

B-17F: 3900
B-17G: 5160

Seem like simplified figures, but probably in the ballpark.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 8, 2013)

Aozora said:


> With respect, you have not read the extract _properly_ - for a start not all of the extra ammunition was stored aft of the bomb bay - Comer wrote he placed _as much as he could_ forward, against the radio-room/bomb bay bulkhead and as close as possible to the B-17's cg, with the rest in the cockpit and nose. At no time does he specify how much extra ammunition was in the radio room or in the front, nor does he say how heavy each load was.
> 
> Instead you make assumptions, based on what?
> 
> ...



Read the last paragraph of your narrative - in which Gleishauf(sp?) states specifically "We were 1300 pounds too heavy in the tail".

Note - he didn't say "aft of the CG, Radio Room, or Waist" - he said "Tail"... that structural grouping on a B-17 that hosts the tail wheel and tail gunner as well as supply aft flight control surfaces...

Read your own post thoroughly before commenting on my comprehension of the issue that Gleishauf (sp?) had discovered and reported to the command pilot.

How specific do you wish to get?


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 8, 2013)

A few months ago I read A Higher Call, by Adam Makos, about Luftwaffe ace Franz Stigler WW2 and B-17 pilot Charlie Brown's encounter.

When Stigler on encountering Charlie Brown's badly damaged B17, decides to let it go instead of finishing it off. Thinking it would probably crash soon anyway.

There's a few glaring faults in the book, one in particular I remember is it states the 2 bulges the Bf109G are noted for, are because of the supercharger.
We all know Franz Stigler would know better, or anyone that knows the Bf109 would know they're for breech and feed clearance on the MG131.
But the author somehow got that idea, and put it in print. Stigler nor any proofreader caught the error.


----------



## stona (Jul 8, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> Stigler nor any proofreader caught the error.



Happens all the time. I know personally of one case in which an author pointed out a miscaptioned photograph in his own book but was unable to prevent it appearing in the final printed version.

All the author can do is produce an errata sheet listing the mistakes.

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 8, 2013)

Here's a load chart for the B-24...notice at the bottom, the chart's note stating that 100 rounds of ammunition weighs 25 pounds.


----------



## Greyman (Jul 8, 2013)

That must be the rounds only, and no link. A wartime Browning .50 manual I have says 30 pounds, 4 ounces 'approximately' for a 100-round belt.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 8, 2013)

A minor detail, but from my time in ordinance I remember those cans as holding 105 linked rounds, and weighing 35lbs can and all. Two metal cans to a wooden box, 75lbs .
I've humped ( that's carried, for those of you not familiar with the expression) many a box of 50 cal. during my time in the Army .


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 8, 2013)

It's possible that Consolodated was estimating the ammunition's raw weight, but a 10 pound difference in estimated and actual is considerable when you total up the amount of rounds required per station.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 8, 2013)

Most weight charts so about 31lbs per hundred for .50 cal belted ammo, That is without cans. Weight may vary a bit due to mix of bullets used ( tracers area bit lighter) but not by 5-6lbs per hundred rounds.


----------



## bobbysocks (Jul 8, 2013)

seems time tends to give some stories a few more of this or that ... than what really happened. i have read a few accounts by aces who recounted an incident that i actually knew about ( and was subsequently well documented and substanciated ) and have seem glowing errors. other things caught me as odd so i shot letters or PMs to guys in the know...who mostly confirmed my suspicions. i had a gentleman my father flew with do an oral recording of his time in the ETO....some of his stories were the opposite of what he told me years previously....some were a conglamoration of 4 stories rolled into one. it was hard to get the true facts 30 minutes after it happened....let alone 20 some years after the fact. i read a lot of these with a huge grain of salt anymore..


----------



## Aozora (Jul 8, 2013)

drgondog said:


> Read the last paragraph of your narrative - in which Gleishauf(sp?) states specifically "We were 1300 pounds too heavy in the tail".
> 
> Note - he didn't say "aft of the CG, Radio Room, or Waist" - he said "Tail"... that structural grouping on a B-17 that hosts the tail wheel and tail gunner as well as supply aft flight control surfaces...
> 
> ...



Specific enough to note that that it was *Comer who told the pilot Gleichauf* that they were "too heavy in the tail by 1300 pounds". Plus,just before explaining to Gleichauf what had happened, Comer had chewed out the tail gunner, saying "You were in that tail on takeoff ? No wonder we were so tail heavy". Also noting the tail gunner was able to get out of the tail position in spite of 1,100 lbs of ammunition in 64 (or is it 22?) boxes allegedly stacked next to and around the tailwheel bulkhead.






Gleichauf, who was the command pilot, did not have to "discover" the problem because he was told by Comer. And Comer chewed out the tail gunner because he was the main reason for the plane being tail heavy. Kinda hard to believe he would say that when there were supposed to be 64 boxes of ammo packed into the tail area. 

So I ask again, how much weight was needed, some 30 feet behind the B-17's cg, to make the aircraft tail heavy by 1,300 lbs?

I have no doubts that the tail gunner, the rest of the gunners, and, possibly, Comer got a real chewing out on return to base but, with a shortage of experienced crews on the squadron, they were put on probation


----------



## stona (Jul 9, 2013)

I have had similar experiences to "Bobbysocks" on a number occasions, some related to more recent events than WW2 (the British assault on Port Said during the Suez Crisis for example). I don't believe that anyone has ever intentionally tried to mislead or deceive, it is the fallible and flexible nature of human memory.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## drgondog (Jul 9, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Specific enough to note that that it was *Comer who told the pilot Gleichauf* that they were "too heavy in the tail by 1300 pounds". Plus,just before explaining to Gleichauf what had happened, Comer had chewed out the tail gunner, saying "You were in that tail on takeoff ? No wonder we were so tail heavy". Also noting the tail gunner was able to get out of the tail position in spite of 1,100 lbs of ammunition in 64 (or is it 22?) boxes allegedly stacked next to and around the tailwheel bulkhead.
> 
> *The Narrative was "Too heavy in the tail by 1300 pounds". The Tail Gunner was at his station in the tail - aft of tail wheel. By Implication, 200 pounds for tail gunner plus gear and 1100 pounds of ammo at the aft bulkhead.
> 
> ...



The Flight Engineer/top turret gunner is the senior NCO and responsible for a.) the load out on takeoff, b.) positioning the crew at the radio bulkhead station - then he moves forward across the cat walk to his station behind pilot/co-pilot for takeoff. Comer is first guy that should be chewed out - the ammo was probably stored back there on Comer's orders as it is hard to image that the aft crew moved ammo around and then watch the tail gunner maneuver past the stored ammo at bulkhead as the B-17 was taxiing.

It is a strange tale.

Note - we may both be a little dyslexic regarding the names and who told who. I assumed (bad) that 'Jim' was the Flight Engineer, and that the story teller was the co-pilot. If the story teller is Comer, and comer is top turret gunner, then who is Jim of 'Jim should know better'? Once again the top turret gunner/flt engineer is senior NCO

EDIT - OK - I have it now. Kels is co pilot, Comer is Flt engineer - so 'Jim' must be some other NCO still aft of bomb bay..I still suspect Comer ordered the ammo that wouldn't fit on radio compartment/bomb bay bulkhead to be distributed toward the waist. There is no explaining "Legg" being stupid enough to crawl to his position - not a great place to be if the B-17 crash lands on takeoff... if airplane survives then he spends more time crawling out over tail wheel than simply egressing out the aft door like the rest of the aft crew.


----------



## beitou (Jul 9, 2013)

From this tale I take it that extra weight aft of the C of G would alter the angle of attack of the wing and hence the lift it produces, the farther back the weight the greater the change in angle of attack. Would the problem be as severe if the same weight is forward of the C of G. I seem to recall many references to weight aft causing problems but not so many of weight forward?


----------



## drgondog (Jul 9, 2013)

beitou said:


> From this tale I take it that extra weight aft of the C of G would alter the angle of attack of the wing and hence the lift it produces, the farther back the weight the greater the change in angle of attack. Would the problem be as severe if the same weight is forward of the C of G. I seem to recall many references to weight aft causing problems but not so many of weight forward?



Too much aft, or forward CG from the design margin renders the horizontal stab/elevator ineffective regarding pitch authority.

If cg too far forward - you don't take off. If too far aft, you can get off (if enough lift is available for the Gross weight) but it is hard to impossible to pitch the nose down to prevent stalling. There was a recent accident in Afghanistan when cargo broke loose in a 747 after take off while in a steep climb - an is stalled out and crashed.


----------



## beitou (Jul 9, 2013)

Thanks


----------



## Aozora (Jul 9, 2013)

drgondog said:


> The Flight Engineer/top turret gunner is the senior NCO and responsible for a.) the load out on takeoff, b.) positioning the crew at the radio bulkhead station - then he moves forward across the cat walk to his station behind pilot/co-pilot for takeoff. Comer is first guy that should be chewed out - the ammo was probably stored back there on Comer's orders as it is hard to image that the aft crew moved ammo around and then watch the tail gunner maneuver past the stored ammo at bulkhead as the B-17 was taxiing.
> 
> It is a strange tale.
> 
> ...


 
Gleichauf Crew B-17G-10-DL 42-37719 "Hellcat":












John Comer, flight engineer/top gunner and senior NCO wrote the book, and no he did not "order" the crew to redistribute ammunition boxes into the waist; that is yet another assumption made with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. 

"Jim" is Sgt James Counce, senior waist gunner who could also double as a flight engineer. The other crew members in the waist/tail area were Sgts Wilson, waist; Harkness, ball; Legg, tail gunner.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 10, 2013)

Can we agree on this... 1.) going to Anklam was a mission that was as long range as Berlin, and only 60 miles NW of Stettin, requiring b.) max fuel short of putting Tokyo tanks in bomb bay, and Probably reduced bomb load from 5000 pounds to 4000-4500, c.) and that the max bomb load permissible and loaded into the bomb bays was based on a calculation of 'standard' (for that crew) 7000 rounds of 50 caliber ammo?

Can we agree to conclude that the flight engineer (Comer) ignored his pilot's concerns for an 'extra load' of ammo (read a. and b.), much less Double the load (and weight) of what Comer described as Standard? So the Engineer, presumably knowledgeable about weights and balance, then stuck the equivalent of an 'extra' 2000 pound bomb aft of the bomb bay... which by the way - already had the normal spare ammo stored in the same location - mostly against the bomb bay/radio room
bulkhead - and didn't tell the pilot? 

It did not matter if another guy redistributed the ammo because Comer is soley responsible for the act of overloading the airplane, and further, creating the aft cg issue even if the extra ammo stayed where he (Comer by his narrative) personally put it. Everyone crew member aft of the bomb was simply dangerously ignorant(for moving the ammo further back to waist area and tail bulkhead - with Legg particularly a bonehead for taking himself into his tail position in defiance of takeoff procedures!) and Comer was dangerously incompetent for a.) putting that much weight into an already planned 'threshold Gross Weight' airplane on a very long mission - even if he had placed 75% forward and 25% aft, and b.) not personally *inspecting the aft section as the airplane was taxiing *to make sure the aft crew was in the radio room (SOP) during takeoff.

I actually don't know whether the story is a stretched 'tale of survival', outright BS or a simple truthful narrative to confess his own ignorance of unintended consequences of his own actions. Perhaps harsh - but he did nothing by the book and the NCO's under his command totally screwed up written and practiced takeoff SOP.


----------



## Aozora (Jul 10, 2013)

drgondog said:


> Can we agree on this... 1.) going to Anklam was a mission that was as long range as Berlin, and only 60 miles NW of Stettin, requiring b.) max fuel short of putting Tokyo tanks in bomb bay, and Probably reduced bomb load from 5000 pounds to 4000-4500, c.) and that the max bomb load permissible and loaded into the bomb bays was based on a calculation of 'standard' (for that crew) 7000 rounds of 50 caliber ammo?
> 
> Can we agree to conclude that the flight engineer (Comer) ignored his pilot's concerns for an 'extra load' of ammo (read a. and b.), much less Double the load (and weight) of what Comer described as Standard? So the Engineer, presumably knowledgeable about weights and balance, then stuck the equivalent of an 'extra' 2000 pound bomb aft of the bomb bay... which by the way - already had the normal spare ammo stored in the same location - mostly against the bomb bay/radio room
> bulkhead - and didn't tell the pilot?
> ...


 
What I can agree on is that as soon as you read the extracts you jumped to a series of conclusions unsupported by any evidence, exacerbated by a poor read of the extracts, and nothing will now change your mind. There is no evidence that the load was doubled _from_ 7,000 rounds - which is already almost double the normal load of an early B-17G; note that it was expected that fighter opposition would be light and that the mission was flown at lower than normal altitudes, meaning that it is extremely doubtful that anything like 7,000 rounds was the normal ammunition load carried. You then calculate that the equivalent of an extra 2,000 pounds was stowed aft with no evidence that that much weight, or anything approaching it was, was loaded. If Comer was the big screw up or BS artist you claim, somehow he and the rest of the crew survived right through their tour and Comer went on to do another couple of tours so he must have done some things right. He then wrote down his memories, not realising that 70 years later an armchair internet critic would accuse him of BS or ignorance. But that's life.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2013)

Just a though here, Bill...

If the extra ammo was stored aft, there would be no place to securely store the additional boxes except for the rear jumpseat area by the back hatch. There may have been no place for the tail gunner to sit and buckle in for take-off, except for his gun station.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2013)

And an additional thought here...

I want a yes or no answer from you Aozora, just either a Yes or No to my question:

Were you aboard that B-17 that day mentioned in the mission?


----------



## drgondog (Jul 10, 2013)

Dave - I fully understand that.. having said this, the tail gunner should have been at least no further aft than the aft radio room hatch with his back to it in case of a crash landing. As to placing 20+ boxes at the rear bulkhead, imagine all 20 + launched forward in a 10 G crash landing

SOP had all of the aft crew at the radio room/bomb bay bulkhead and asclose to the CG as they could crowd.

Go back to the aerly thread when Peters (15th AF B-17 pilot) was referenced as stating 15 + boxes as his 'normal load of .50 cal based on his recollection od 150 rnds/box. The guns were some times loaded but not chambered on takeoff but most of the 'spares' were placed up front fro all forward guns - and usually None of the guns aft were loaded, with all boxes up near the bomb bay for weight distribution close to the CG. Waist, Waist, Ball and Tail.

Death wish crew members moved more weight farther aft of CG. Death wish engineers loaded 2x ammo load on extreme long range missions because there was no safe place to put it and didn't think enough of his 'executive decision to TELL the pilots what he had done..


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2013)

I know how deadly an object can be in a crash!

My recent collision saw my Pentax camera launch off the seat and partially embed itself into the dash...and that was just a DSLR camera...


----------



## Aozora (Jul 10, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> And an additional thought here...
> 
> I want a yes or no answer from you Aozora, just either a Yes or No to my question:
> 
> Were you aboard that B-17 that day mentioned in the mission?


 
Yes I was on board that B-17 that day and saw absolutely everything that happened. Not only that but I saw drgondog and you there as well, taking and comparing notes and photos and muttering under your breaths that Comer should have been grounded then and there. Whatever rocks your boats.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2013)

"Whatever floats your boat", yeah...good return, there

In a forum, people will look at events and try to understand the how and why that happened so many years ago.

There will always be a difference of opinion. Talking like an ass to others who may challenge your opinion serves no purpose but to invalidate your argument. Unless you were in that B-17 that day, you don't know what really happened, do you? No, you don't...you are merely an "armchair expert" that you have so kindly pointed out to others (I assume excluding yourself, though) but you need to understand that there ARE people on this forum who have hands-on experiance with aircraft, both modern and vintage, in many aspects.

My advise to you, would be to simply be quiet now, you have done nothing to further your point, and it's ruining an otherwise informative thread.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 10, 2013)

ENOUGH! One more sarcastic comment and vacations will be given. People are human, mistakes can be made, lets move on.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2013)

Njaco said:


> ENOUGH! One more sarcastic comment and vacations will be given. People are human, mistakes can be made, lets move on.



Why the warning? How many are needed? How many have already been given in other threads?


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 11, 2013)

How was the ammo fed to the tail guns on the B17 all this talk of boxes has confused me I thought that the tail guns would have been fed from some sort of long track holding a belt similar to that used on RAF bombers tail positions.


----------



## Aozora (Jul 11, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> How was the ammo fed to the tail guns on the B17 all this talk of boxes has confused me I thought that the tail guns would have been fed from some sort of long track holding a belt similar to that used on RAF bombers tail positions.



From B-17F manual:






W shows two main boxes on either side of the tail gunner feeding .50s via short tracks; pretty sure that this was changed in the G series to boxes forward of the tailwheel bulkhead, feeding guns via a long track.


----------

