How did B-17 and B-24 formations avoid shooting each other?

[Admiral Beez]

I just finished watching the fancifully-unrealistic Masters of the Air on AppleTV. When the German fighters were attacking the B-17 gunners were firing all over the place. Below is how it's supposed to be.

But if German fighters got in amongst the below formation, IRL, how did gunners try to avoid hitting each other?

 

[cvairwerks]

They were separated both vertically and horizontally and the gunners knew their fields of fire. Additionally the guns, flexible or turret mounted, had stops where they could not point in certain zones on the a/c that they were mounted in. If you have ever flown formation, you know that the lead a/c tries to hold as steady as possible and his wingmen attempt to hold steady in their assigned locations. In reality, everyone is moving up\down, in\out, forward\backward in relation to the lead a/c. Now add numerous flights of 4, flying off their lead and he's trying to fly off the section lead and the section lead is trying to fly off the formation lead.....The further an a/c is out, the more they get to play "crack the whip", trying to stay in proper formation. In reality, maintaining position within a range of +/- 100 feet was considered to be good.

Here's a video shot from a Blue's cockpit and this is considered very tight formation work. Forget what they are doing and simply watch the inter aircraft movement through the show. Now think about doing this in a bomber, but at 200 knots or so, with 100 foot spacing and doing it for hours on end, in near Arctic flight gear, and then add in being shot at too.....


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ynvoriv09Ks

 

[Reluctant Poster]

I just finished watching the fancifully-unrealistic Masters of the Air on AppleTV. When the German fighters were attacking the B-17 gunners were firing all over the place. Below is how it's supposed to be.

View attachment 797125

But if German fighters got in amongst the below formation, IRL, how did gunners try to avoid hitting each other?

View attachment 797126

They didn't. In fact there are instances of gunners damaging their own planes.

 

[Frog]

Even instances of crew members killed by other planes fire in the formation.

 

[RCAFson]

I just finished watching the fancifully-unrealistic Masters of the Air on AppleTV. When the German fighters were attacking the B-17 gunners were firing all over the place. Below is how it's supposed to be.

View attachment 797125

But if German fighters got in amongst the below formation, IRL, how did gunners try to avoid hitting each other?

View attachment 797126

Check out 4:21 of this video:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTHczTWkw-c

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Thankfully the B-17s and 24s were only armed with 50 cal

 

[SaparotRob]

Agreed. A 24 pounder carronade would've sucked.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Thankfully the B-17s and 24s were only armed with 50 cal

Some with more than others.

 

[marathag]

somewhat related, position effectiveness

HEADQUARTERS 2D BOMBARDMENT DIVISION
AAF 147 APO 558
21 MAY 1944


SUBJECT: Removal of Lower Ball Turret in B-24 Aircraft
TO : Commanding General, Eighth Air Force, AAF Station 101, APO 634

1. Operational experience in B-24 aircraft in this Division has increased the belief that under present combat conditions, the benefit derived from the Sperry ball turret may not be commensurate with the weight and parasite drag involved in this installation. Many of the group commanders wish to have the opportunity of removing this turret in at least some of the aircraft in each formation to improve the performance and the ability to maintain tactical formation with improved altitude performance, gas consumption, engine performance, etc.

2. This Headquarters concurs with this belief and is of the definite opinion that increased overall efficiency in operations may be achieved through the removal of the ball turret.

3. Some of the facts pertinent to the decision to remove the ball turret are submitted:

a. An estimate of the weight eliminated and of the effect of the C.G. on B-24H and B-24J aircraft is as follows:

WEIGHT C.G. LOCATION
(LBS) % M.A.C.
TYPICAL TAKE-OFF CONDITIONS
(Combat crew, 6,000 Ibs bombs, 6,000 rounds ammunition and 2,700 gallons fuel)
With Ball Turret 65,445 32.3
Without Ball Turret 63,945 28.9
Weight saved 1,500


TYPICAL LANDING CONDITIONS
(Navigator and bombardier on flight deck, tail gunner at waist position, 6,000 rounds ammunition and 500 gallons fuel)
With Ball Turret 46,245 29.7
Without Ball Turret 44,745 24.9
Weight saved 1,500

Note: The ammunition expended has not been considered in the above calculations, because of its variable aspect. It is assumed, however, that this will not materially affect C.G. since uniform expenditure throughout the ship may be assumed.

b. A statistical analysis of the combat activity of the defensive armament in this Division is as follows:

6 MONTHS
November 1943-APRIL 1944		TOTAL		DESTROYED		PROB. DESTROYED		DAMAGED		NO. CLAIM
GUN POSITION		ENCS.	%	NO.	%	NO.	%	NO.	%	NO.	%
NOSE		164	16	72	15.1	18	18	25	15.6	49	17.2
TOP TURRET		177	17.2	75	15.6	20	20	31	19.4	51	18
BALL TURRET		53	5.1	30	6.3	3	3	7	4.4	13	4.6
LEFT WAIST		158	15.6	85	17.8	13	13	24	15	36	12.7
RIGHT WAIST		158	15.6	66	13.8	19	19	24	15	49	17.2
TAIL TURRET		312	30.5	150	31.4	27	27	49	30.6	86	30.3
TOTAL		1022	100	478	100	100	100	160	100	284	100

MONTH
MONTH OF - APRIL 1944		TOTAL		DESTROYED		PROB. DESTROYED		DAMAGED		NO. CLAIM
GUN POSITION		ENCS.	%	NO.	%	NO.	%	NO.	%	NO.	%
NOSE		74	20.5	31	19	8	25	9	15.8	26	23.8
TOP TURRET		75	20.7	32	19.6	8	25	13	22.8	22	20.2
BALL TURRET		13	3.7	5	3.1	1	3	2	3.5	5	4.6
LEFT WAIST		53	14.6	30	18.4	3	9.4	9	15.8	11	10.1
RIGHT WAIST		48	13.3	19	11.7	3	9.4	9	15.8	17	15.6
TAIL TURRET		98	27.2	46	28.2	9	28.2	15	26.3	28	25.7
TOTAL		361	100	163	100	100	100	160	100	109	100

 

[pbehn]

Steps were taken to try to minimise it, but with the millions of rounds fired it is almost certain that every small possibility actually happened. If you fire a bullet up in the air at an angle ahead of an aircraft, there is a combination of angle and speed that means the plane hits the bullet on its way down, if you fire enough bullets, like monkeys on typewriters, it will happen.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

8th Air Force report (note the numbers do not seem to quite add up at times) Numbers are incidents, not aircraft damaged unless specified. And of course there are those that did not return to consider. Format is cause of damage, number, category A/AC/B.

February 1944 total of 2,433 incidents of damage resulting in 2,163 heavy bombers damaged, including 2,033 flak, 223 enemy aircraft caused incidents. (February the only month Category E mentioned and then only from aircraft status reports, not combat damage reports)

Machine gun fire unknown origin 68 incidents 27/37/4, plus 1 category E
Other US aircraft machine gun fire 8 incidents 2/6/0
Self inflicted 60 incidents 38/22/0
Empty shell cases or links 103 incidents 77/26/0
Unknown cause 18 incidents 9/9/0
Other causes 23 incidents 9/9/2 plus 3 category E

March 1944 total of 3,086 incidents of damage resulting in 2,805 heavy bombers damaged, including 2,610 flak, 214 enemy aircraft caused incidents

Machine gun fire unknown origin 58 incidents 29/25/4
Other US aircraft machine gun fire 5 incidents 2/2/1
Self inflicted 40 incidents 22/18/0
Empty shell cases or links 107 incidents 96/11/0
Unknown cause 17 incidents 15/5/0
Other causes 28 incidents 20/8/0

April 1944 total of 3,901 incidents of damage resulting in 3,542 heavy bombers damaged, including 3,355 flak, 255 enemy aircraft caused incidents

Machine gun fire unknown origin 106 incidents 43/60/3
Other US aircraft machine gun fire 3 incidents 2/1/0
Self inflicted 38 incidents 24/13/1
Empty shell cases or links 108 incidents 92/16/0
Unknown cause 19 incidents 10/8/1
Other causes 17 incidents 10/6/1

May 1944 total of 3,993 incidents of damage resulting in 3,667 heavy bombers damaged, including 3,468 flak, 171 by enemy aircraft caused incidents

Machine gun fire unknown origin 80 incidents 43/30/7
Other US aircraft machine gun fire 24 incidents 11/12/1
Self inflicted 17 incidents 8/8/1
Empty shell cases or links 136 incidents 115/20/1
Unknown cause 10 incidents 6/4/0
Other causes 44 incidents 21/21/2

 

[MIflyer]

They tried shooting bazookas out of the tail of B-17's but it did not work too well.

 

[glennasher]

They tried shooting bazookas out of the tail of B-17's but it did not work too well.

The back blast off that bazooka must have been fun for the waist gunners, huh?

 

[SaparotRob]

The back blast off that bazooka must have been fun for the waist gunners, huh?

That never occurred to me. I've been enjoying my senility a bit too much.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Steps were taken to try to minimise it, but with the millions of rounds fired it is almost certain that every small possibility actually happened. If you fire a bullet up in the air at an angle ahead of an aircraft, there is a combination of angle and speed that means the plane hits the bullet on its way down, if you fire enough bullets, like monkeys on typewriters, it will happen.

A group formation (36 B-17s) would have much less than one cubic mile of airspace in the formation. Said formation would have anywhere from 330 to 400 machine guns pointing in all directions, depending on model. The odds on not catching friendly fire had to be very low.

 

[Barrett]

somewhat related, position effectiveness

HEADQUARTERS 2D BOMBARDMENT DIVISION
AAF 147 APO 558
21 MAY 1944


SUBJECT: Removal of Lower Ball Turret in B-24 Aircraft
TO : Commanding General, Eighth Air Force, AAF Station 101, APO 634

1. Operational experience in B-24 aircraft in this Division has increased the belief that under present combat conditions, the benefit derived from the Sperry ball turret may not be commensurate with the weight and parasite drag involved in this installation. Many of the group commanders wish to have the opportunity of removing this turret in at least some of the aircraft in each formation to improve the performance and the ability to maintain tactical formation with improved altitude performance, gas consumption, engine performance, etc.

2. This Headquarters concurs with this belief and is of the definite opinion that increased overall efficiency in operations may be achieved through the removal of the ball turret.

3. Some of the facts pertinent to the decision to remove the ball turret are submitted:

a. An estimate of the weight eliminated and of the effect of the C.G. on B-24H and B-24J aircraft is as follows:

WEIGHT C.G. LOCATION
(LBS) % M.A.C.
TYPICAL TAKE-OFF CONDITIONS
(Combat crew, 6,000 Ibs bombs, 6,000 rounds ammunition and 2,700 gallons fuel)
With Ball Turret 65,445 32.3
Without Ball Turret 63,945 28.9
Weight saved 1,500


TYPICAL LANDING CONDITIONS
(Navigator and bombardier on flight deck, tail gunner at waist position, 6,000 rounds ammunition and 500 gallons fuel)
With Ball Turret 46,245 29.7
Without Ball Turret 44,745 24.9
Weight saved 1,500

Note: The ammunition expended has not been considered in the above calculations, because of its variable aspect. It is assumed, however, that this will not materially affect C.G. since uniform expenditure throughout the ship may be assumed.

b. A statistical analysis of the combat activity of the defensive armament in this Division is as follows:

6 MONTHS
November 1943-APRIL 1944		TOTAL		DESTROYED		PROB. DESTROYED		DAMAGED		NO. CLAIM
GUN POSITION		ENCS.	%	NO.	%	NO.	%	NO.	%	NO.	%
NOSE		164	16	72	15.1	18	18	25	15.6	49	17.2
TOP TURRET		177	17.2	75	15.6	20	20	31	19.4	51	18
BALL TURRET		53	5.1	30	6.3	3	3	7	4.4	13	4.6
LEFT WAIST		158	15.6	85	17.8	13	13	24	15	36	12.7
RIGHT WAIST		158	15.6	66	13.8	19	19	24	15	49	17.2
TAIL TURRET		312	30.5	150	31.4	27	27	49	30.6	86	30.3
TOTAL		1022	100	478	100	100	100	160	100	284	100

MONTH
MONTH OF - APRIL 1944		TOTAL		DESTROYED		PROB. DESTROYED		DAMAGED		NO. CLAIM
GUN POSITION		ENCS.	%	NO.	%	NO.	%	NO.	%	NO.	%
NOSE		74	20.5	31	19	8	25	9	15.8	26	23.8
TOP TURRET		75	20.7	32	19.6	8	25	13	22.8	22	20.2
BALL TURRET		13	3.7	5	3.1	1	3	2	3.5	5	4.6
LEFT WAIST		53	14.6	30	18.4	3	9.4	9	15.8	11	10.1
RIGHT WAIST		48	13.3	19	11.7	3	9.4	9	15.8	17	15.6
TAIL TURRET		98	27.2	46	28.2	9	28.2	15	26.3	28	25.7
TOTAL		361	100	163	100	100	100	160	100	109	100

EXCELLENT Info. Or as the RAF chaps said, "Pukka gen." Sharing widely.

 

[GrauGeist]

By the way, the B-17's waist .50.MGs were on a free swinging pintle mount - there were no stops.

The same goes for Radio Operator's MG, which was eventually eliminated on the "G" models.

The foreward .50 MGs in the nose had limited travel by virtue of their mounts.

 

[Airframes]

There is a scene in the not that fanciful "Masters of the Air" where it appears that a waist gunner may have hit a B-17 on his port side.
I watched it on a relatively small computer screen, and it was of fairly brief duration, so hard to be sure.

 

[Alan Stevens]

Some with more than others.

View attachment 797140

The YB-40 was intended to protect bomber formations on missions over Europe, especially before long-range fighter escorts like the P-51 Mustang were available.

Despite its heavy armament, the YB-40's increased weight and drag significantly reduced its performance, making it less effective in practice.

The YB-40 saw limited use and was eventually deemed unsuccessful, leading to the program being discontinued.

The concept was innovative but ultimately impractical due to the performance trade-offs.

 

[GrauGeist]

Not only did the USAAF try a B-17 gunship (YB-40), but a B-24 (XB-41) was trialled.
It too, failed.

Even the Germans tried a gunship concept to protect the Me323 transports, with a modified Me323E-2 "waffenträger" variant.

And the results were the same as the USAAF's.