# B-17G Cutaway



## horseUSA (Feb 13, 2004)

B-17G Cutaway


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 14, 2004)

nice pic, even if it is of the B-17


----------



## horseUSA (Feb 14, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> nice pic, even if it is of the B-17


I hear you I have a Lancaster I, just have to scan and upload


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 14, 2004)

ohoh, yey \/


----------



## Crazy (Feb 14, 2004)

GREAT PIC M8 8)


----------



## Viper (Feb 16, 2004)

sweet pic, were did u get it horse?


----------



## Viper (Feb 16, 2004)

hey,has anybody been in the b-17 sentimenatal journey?,it was pretty cool.ive toured it


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 16, 2004)

Both nice looking Pics 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## Crazy (Feb 16, 2004)

I have a book called " The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft", by Enzo Angelucci. That thing has about 16 different cutaways of WWII aircraft. 

My scanners broken, though


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 16, 2004)

You could alway's put some picture's up of woman  

Hot Space


----------



## Crazy (Feb 16, 2004)




----------



## Hot Space (Feb 16, 2004)

Just a thought  

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 17, 2004)

the second pic makes it look like it's about to ditch


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 18, 2004)

itr doesnt really, you mean you WANT it to look like its about to ditch....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 18, 2004)

now cheddar cheese, the B-17 dissin is behind us now, i've moved on, i'm a changed man, i really do think it looks like it's ditching


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2004)

if you say so


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2004)

you...... you don't trust me *sniff*


----------



## Crazy (Feb 21, 2004)

While I don't believe he's a changed man, I do agree. It KINDA looks like their ditching 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 21, 2004)

thank you, at least someone likes me *sniff*


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 21, 2004)

damn  must be all this alchohol ive been drinking  you know i went to the doctors the other day and they found some blood in my alcohol stream


----------



## Crazy (Feb 21, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 21, 2004)

you SO didn't make that up........................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 22, 2004)

It does look like its ditchin' but the giveaway is that the crew are still onboard...you can see the flight engineer sitting in his turret looking quite happy


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 22, 2004)

i know but it cracks me up every time


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 22, 2004)

wow, you must have good eyes, i cant se him


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 22, 2004)

well i can't really see if hes happy or not but he is there, i think i can see a pilot too...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2004)

ah! pehaps they were dummies as this was a crash test of what would happen when the plane ditched?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 24, 2004)

maybe its flying upside down and what you see as the sea is actually the sky 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2004)

both very good theories


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 24, 2004)

Yes...very good but very unlikely methinks...


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 24, 2004)

Yes...very good but very unlikely methinks...  Perhaps its been captured by the Germans and they couldn't work out the strange American controls and they're about to crash into the sea?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 25, 2004)

forgive me for stating the obvious, burt perhaps they are actually about to ditch and that was the last photo taken of it in one piece 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 25, 2004)

I'm sure Lanc will be very upset to hear that the poor B-17 didn't survive....why does he hate B-17's so much anyway?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 25, 2004)

im not sure  maybe because its american, i dont really know  its a conspiracy......


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 25, 2004)

Oh well, we'll have to ask him!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2004)

yes we will  ill leave that up to you


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2004)

it's not that i hate the B-17, it's merely my opinion that the lancaster was better, i mean, was their any evidece i was happy that the B-17 is ditching? why do you all steriotype me?


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 26, 2004)

We don't stereotype you mate - its just the evidence is so overwhealming!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 27, 2004)

you dont hate the b-17 lanc? ive never heard a lie so big, in some forums comments like "the b-17 is shit" were not uncommon 8) and we all know youre happy that its ditching, i bet youre sitting at home quietly smirking....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 27, 2004)

ok then C.C., i challenge you to find a time when i said "the B-17 is two bob bit [cockney rhyming slang]", go on.........................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 27, 2004)

do you want me to publicise what happened in the game of top trumps the other day?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2004)

you already have, so go on....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2004)

damn  ill do it when ive got some time 8) and hot space and crazyu have been around here a while, im sure they'll back me up on it... wont they?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2004)

i NEVER said


> the b-17 is shit


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 29, 2004)

you did say something along those lines once, im willing to place a cash bet 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 29, 2004)

i said it was crap, not shit, so there............................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 1, 2004)

same thing 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 1, 2004)

no it's not


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 2, 2004)

it is in my book 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 2, 2004)

i hope you're "book" isn't a dictionary, they're spelt different for one thing.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2004)

its a metaphor


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 3, 2004)

awwww, but mine was a really good comeback, took me ages to think of that


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 3, 2004)

u loser...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 4, 2004)

8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 6, 2004)

not funny............................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 6, 2004)

it is, just your sense of humour isnt that well developed 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 7, 2004)

i propose a new notion, i propose that your sence of humor is just different to mine, think about it...................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 8, 2004)

You two are undoubtably the biggest pair of fishwives i have EVER seen..don't the pair of you ever quit filling up threads with Spam?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2004)

and lanc, im older, so my sense of humour i far more developd than yours 8) and, my sense of humour is highly versatile, and can be used over several catagories 8) think of my sense of humour as a mosquito, a great all rounder, and yours as a lancaster, great in one area 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 8, 2004)

well i have an ace up my sleeve, if you're as versitile as a mosquito, i'm THE ONLY plane that was more versitile, the Ju-88 (ha! my superior knoledge comes through again)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 9, 2004)

ummmm im a Me-262 cuz its fast and it looks nice


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 9, 2004)

Yeah and its unstable and difficult to control


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 9, 2004)




----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 11, 2004)

Please Please Please Pease Please Please Please Please Pease Please Please Please Please Pease Please Please Please Please Pease Please 

Can anyone find a Cutaway image (just like the one at the beginning of this thread) of a Fairey Barracuda (British Navy Bomber) for me please? i've already serached Google but i can't find it anywhere - but beleive me that doesn't mean it isn't there  


Thanks very much!


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 11, 2004)

> Yeah and its unstable and difficult to control


actually it was one of the most stable planes of the war so  right back atcha! the He162 was the unstable one, so thats why it would be better for dogfighting in the hands of a good pilot like Heinz Bar who flew Schwalbes

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 13, 2004)

Most Jet aircraft from that period were pretty unstable including the Me262 - it was mostly their fuel that wasn't terribly stable


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2004)

that's most true of the Me 163, i know it's not a jet, but it still had very volitile fuel................................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 14, 2004)

8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2004)

well that was totally uncalled for.............................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 21, 2004)

sorry bronzewhaler i cant find anything on the barracuda


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 21, 2004)

have you actually looked?


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

Yes, he has - there is nothing to find - i've looked, C.C has looked. there obviously isn't one around


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

i've been looking....but no such luck mate....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2004)

that's because it was so good they didn't want anyone seeing how it worked


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

i found something on hte barracuda


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2004)

if you had you probably would have posted it 8)

and lanc thats a bit unlike you, you dont like the barracuda


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

i have.....CC....in the barracuda thread!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2004)

ah  explains a lot


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

But alas...nothing particularly useful JJ...but I appreciate everyones effort all the same


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2004)

8)


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 26, 2004)

> But alas...nothing particularly useful JJ...but I appreciate everyones effort all the same


well, just no pleasing some people


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 26, 2004)

im easily pleased 8) oooooo a light bulb


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> > But alas...nothing particularly useful JJ...but I appreciate everyones effort all the same
> 
> 
> well, just no pleasing some people



No, not at all...if you'd have found what I asked you for i would've been pleased


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2004)

have you heard anymore on those cutaways yet?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2004)

have you heard anymore on those cutaways yet?


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 4, 2004)

No, people gave up ages ago i think...no-one could find any


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 4, 2004)

oh, it's just i thought that man was getting them..................................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2004)

lanc - im gonna cut a barracuda in half at the FAAM and take a pic for bronze 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 7, 2004)

Thats very kind of you - i'll come down and pay your police bail for you if they're decent pictures 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 8, 2004)

no, i have a small "gift" for the officer


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 8, 2004)

Aren't you a bit young for giving those kinds of gifts?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2004)

what, chocolate?


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 13, 2004)

No lanc....not chocolate!


----------



## brad (Apr 13, 2004)

waht then


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 13, 2004)

yeah, we wanna know..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 14, 2004)

a bribe you imbecil


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 14, 2004)

If you guys didn't get the hint the first time...   

heres a repeat that should form as a HUGE hint to what i was hinting at...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2004)

well that was totally uncalled for.....................


----------



## brad (Apr 14, 2004)

muppet


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 15, 2004)

Oh come on..  

Only kidding


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2004)

that is unnaceptable germans, tut tut (p.s. loving the fit chick in your MSN thing)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 15, 2004)

what? yes, my pics are nice, but what is unacceptable? im confused...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 15, 2004)

if anyone is wondering here are the pics i use, i have "more revealing" ones but i dont wanna offend anyone...


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 16, 2004)

Bloody Hell


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 16, 2004)

tut tut germans....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 16, 2004)

who is it you're getting these cutaways from?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

well, that was a lame attempt to get back on topic 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 23, 2004)

hey, i've kept more topics on topic than you, and i'm not even a mod..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

perhaps you should have my job then 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2004)

i'm not saying i want your job, it's just that i've been making a real effort to not spam and keep things on topic like we both said we would, i've kept up my end of the deal, i just annoyed that you aint..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

hey, im just trying to be a bit relaxed about it so we can make the site more enjoyable for everyone. i can be strict if you want, but i dont think youll like it. (and psst, remember the yellow card system, much more of you telling me what to do and i might have to give you one)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2004)

don't let the power go to your head, i don't think the other mods would stand for you giving me a yellow card just for that.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

i aint letting it go to my head  first you complain that im doing a bad job, then you say im letting the power go to my head


----------



## Crazy (Apr 29, 2004)

Ladies, ladies, kep it down in here, there's a conversation about cutaways going on 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2004)

I tried to get it back on topic ages ago, then C.C. told me off for doing it, which is how this all started................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2004)

i didnt tell you off


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

you didn't have to be so offensive about it..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

i wasnt


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

you was, you said it was lame.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

that was a joke, a petty joke


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

i took it as quite offensive............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

you dont usually


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

well i didn't know you meant it as a joke..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

didnt the fact i put a '  ' after it means anything?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

no


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

ah well 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

it's just been us two posting here for ages, perhaps no-one care enough to interfere................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

no one cares enough anyway


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Look at the little baby B-17...that's a very early B-52 by the way...the 'new' ones have completely different noses.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 4, 2004)

wow christ, that shows how big the b-52 really is


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Haven't you ever seen one? They used to do fly-bys here (at RAF Finningley) when the air shows were on before it shut down.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 5, 2004)

i havent seen any planes up close


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

That's a pity. From what I hear the Imperial War Museum is supposed to be top notch.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

I've heard that too, but luckily for me my dad was in the RAF so I always got into airshows for free.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

Well, over here, I've been able to see the Naval Air Museum and the 8th AF Heritage Museum. I'm hoping to see the USAF Museum this summer. If I do I'm going to kick and scream like a kid until they let me sit in the P-38.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Is that the one in Ohio, Wright Patterson AFB, right? 

If so, you lucky B**TARD!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

you think the B-52's big, you should see a B-36, it's as long as the B-52 is wide................


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

It's good you mentioned that...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

sawell as that, the B-36 makes the B-29 look the size of a fighter, not many "old" planes can say they can do that............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

It's good picture though, don't you think?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

not really, it doesn't show the ful scale of the B-36.............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

I'll try and get one next to a B-29.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 8, 2004)

there is somewhere, it's in the Big bombers topic...........


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

I know, I posted it...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2004)

fiar doos........

and do you think the B-36 would have got shot down by the germans if they had taken brittian and had to bomb from america........


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

It would have been a situation similar to the unescorted raids of 1943 since no fighter was going to make that distance (although tests were done using a B-36 to tow or carry a fighter under the fuselage). The B-36 had some pretty awesome firepower and more accurate sights. I'm not claiming that the B-36 was invulnerable, but it did have a better chance than a B-17 on its own.


----------



## plan_D (May 11, 2004)

I heard of tests of B-29s carrying a Mustang under each wing for escorts...  

Now that's some crazy idea.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

I've never heard of that. Would have been interesting. I've got a book with a pic of a B-36 carrying an F-84 Thunderstreak under it's fuselage though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

remeber it would take one hell of allot of shots to bring one down..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Yeah, it would have been immensely tough. But the 30mm shells the Germans used in their interceptors were terribly lethal.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

It depends where you hit it, if those 30mm punish the wing roots the wing could just fall off.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Or a fuel tank.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

but this thinh was huge, it would be prettu tough, and it had something like 20 cannon with better sights, it would be bloody tough


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Being bigger is a bigger target. And if you have a Me-262 coming at you at high speed your slow firing cannon isn't going to do much because the Swallow will be bloody hard to hit.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

but even if you did hit a fuel tank, it had a range of 10,000 miles, it's not gonna miss a bit of fuel...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

I was talking about the Fuel tank exploding.

The B-36 carried 16 20mm cannons. Now, over Korea, B-29s with .50cal mg took their toll on MiG-15s (one actually became a MiG Ace shooting down 5). It seems reasonable that the B-36 would have shot down alot of Me-262s.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

.50 cals are a lot faster firing than 20mms. The cannon would have been hard pressed to get a hit. Losing fuel would have taken its toll on even a plane as big as that, and yes exploding would have been quite bad. 

The B-29s in Korea was made obselete the Mig-15s ripped them apart.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

I know that but I was discussing their defensive argument. If the B-29 could shoot down MiG-15s, then the B-36 would have been capable of shooting down Me-262s. The lower rate of fire means few hits, but the greater power of the 20mm shell compensates for that.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Not really since it was hard enough hitting fighters with machine guns, let alone cannons. If you can't hit it, you don't do damage.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

I would need to check, but I don't think the rate of fire of the cannons on the B-36 was that far below that of the B-29's machine guns. And shooting down a fighter with .50cals would require several hits. Say that a cannon has a rate of fire 2/3s that of a machine gun. It will (in theory) still achieve 2/3 as many hits which will be more deadly than the machine gun.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

But that's theory, no evidence. The cannons would be hard pressed to hit the fighters.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

There's no evidence because the B-36 never had to take a shot at enemy fighters. But since the USAF switched from machine guns to cannons I'm going to guess the guys in the know expected them to be effective.


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

That's not always true. Unless they were multi-barreled 20mms then firing rate would not be increased to that of the 12.7mm. The Tu-4 had 23mm cannons, but that is the Soviets thinking of heavier firepower is better.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

Well the .50cal Browning's rate of fire wasn't that impressive. I think the 20mm would have been able to put out enough fire. The Mk. V Hispano gun had a rate of fire of around 700-750rpm and that was pretty much equal with a Browning.


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

Even with that (which is pretty impressive) they would have struggled. Remember the Korean pilots in the Korean war weren't smart, and the Germans had combat experience they knew how best to attack a bomber formation. 
But the 20mm would have been better than 12.7 mm on the B-29.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 13, 2004)

i think at over $3,000,000 each, they would find and use the best armourment they had, if they think the cannon was the way to go, they must be right.............


----------



## plan_D (May 13, 2004)

As the Americans are always right


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 13, 2004)

I wouldn't make that claim. But with the 20mm you did get a longer range and more damage per shell. I feel it was probably the right choice.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

Neither would I, I was joking. The speed of the shell itself is still slower than that of the 12.7mm.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 14, 2004)

I think everyone has acknowledged that. In needs to also be realized that the 30mm guns of the Me-262 suffered the same problems (low rate of fire, low muzzle velocity, low range). I'm not claiming that the Me-262 would have trouble hitting the B-36 as it is huge but it would have to get in relatively close to do it and that would ease things on the B-36 gunners.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 14, 2004)

but 4x30mm cannon were devistating once you did hit.......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2004)

i imagine they were 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2004)

Yes, remember you do not always tail hang, and the German tactic to was to do a head on run of the bombers, very fast closing speed which gives the fighter higher chance of survival against the enemy guns.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

But that wasn't a common practice with Me-262s against B-17s. The B-36 would have been quite a bit faster so I doubt the 262 would have made many head-on attacks.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

Still tail hanging would have been their first choice of attack.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

And would have provided an easier shot for the gunners. For that matter, a head-on attack provides and easy shot for the gunners.


----------



## plan_D (May 15, 2004)

I meant it wouldn't have been their first choice, bouncing would have probably been the first. The 'ole up and under.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 15, 2004)

i'd imagine the best way to attack it would be from the side.............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Side attacks would have probably been the best way. But the B-36 had the same compensating gun sights used on the B-29 so even a side attack would have been far from safe.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 16, 2004)

or if you could take off the tail.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

True, but that works against just about any plane.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

Directly under would have been safer. Lightning, it would have been very hard for the crews to hit the 262s. One B-29 got 5 Mig-15s, five isn't many.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

For a bomber five is a lot. Especially considering that the numbers of aircraft involved in Korea (and every action since) are considerably lower than they were during WWII.

Underneath would have been the better option, I agree. The only possible problem I see with that is that even if the 262 can hide beneath one B-36 to avoid its guns, the flanking B-36s will still have a shot against it.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

The B-52A and B actually had 4*12.7mm in the tail, they must have realised the deficiant in the 20s on the B-36.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 17, 2004)

> The B-52A and B actually had 4*12.7mm in the tail



that aint gonna save you from a missile................


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

The B-52 was designed in 1947. And the B-52G and H actually had air to air missiles.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

You also have to realize that by the time the B-52 was in service the USAF had realized that a bomber's primary defense was electronic rather than guns.


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2004)

The original design of the B-52 only ever had those guns in the tail. The late G and H B-52s have become amazing at electronic defence. The B-52s that carry cruise, and stand off missiles actually have decoys in their bomb bay. These decoys have the exact same RADAR signature as the B-52 itself. 

The B-1 has a quarter the RADAR signature than the B-52.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

It's smaller than that. Try 1/100th the signature of a B-52, with the B-2 RCS being even smaller than that! On radar, a B-1B has a smaller return than even a F-16.


----------



## plan_D (May 19, 2004)

The B-1 actually has 1/20th the signature of the B-52.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 19, 2004)

I have seen figure's as small as 1/100th so that's what I was citing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 19, 2004)

even if the ECMs on the B-52 do save you from a missile, the fighter pilot can still come in at short range where ECMs aren't that effective or use his cannon.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 19, 2004)

But he's got to be able to close to that range. The ECM on the B-52 can make it difficult for a fighter pilot to even hold a track with his radar.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 19, 2004)

how can a B-52 be stealthy?..........


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

Not stealthy. But ECM jams more that just missles. If the fighter's radar is being jammed it will have a lot of difficulty homing in on the B-52.


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2004)

Propaganda figures of 1/100th. It's 1/20th. Anyway, the ECM on the B-52 isn't that good. The main defence of the B-52 is its decoys which will make out that there is more than one B-52 confusing RADAR guided missiles, and the enemy planes RADAR. 
If the enemy plane decided to come to take it down with cannon the B-52G and H both are equipped with 20 SRAM air to air missiles.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 20, 2004)

SRAM: Short-Range Attack Missile. It was a short ranged tactical nuclear missile. I don't see how that will be useful against a fighter.


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2004)

My bad, it can carry 20 Boeing AGM-69A SRAM (Yes, air to surface thermonuclear) but in air to air defence it can carry 12 air to air missiles on under-wing pylons, I imagine they will be ASRAAM or AIM-9 missiles, but I don't actually know. 
The T-171 20-mm gun in the rear was going to be removed but was kept, even in the H series B-52.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 21, 2004)

The USAF dropped out of the ASRAAM program so it's not those (they are going with a suped-up AIM-9, the AIM-9X). I still have never seen anything about the B-52 carrying air-to-air missiles. I imagine targeting them would cause some trouble.


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2004)

I have to find more concrete evidence on them doing so, as I've never actually seen a picture with them carrying any.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 22, 2004)

The B-52 had a rear-mounted radar used to target its rear guns. I suppose a rear-facing missile could have its seeker head slaved to the radar to produce a target lock. Still, I've got my doubts.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2004)

it's all very well saying the B-52 can carry Air-to-Air missiles, there's nothing it can't carry, but what if you don't have any? they're very rarely carried...................


----------

