How did B-17 and B-24 formations avoid shooting each other? (3 Viewers)

[Admiral Beez]

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

Surely someone at Boeing told the Air Force chaps that more weight and drag without an engine upgrade beyond the B-17's 9-cylinder 1,000 hp Wright R-1820 Cyclone was not going to be able to keep up. In that light, was the 2,000 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp considered?

 

[Frog]

Surely someone at Boeing told the Air Force chaps that more weight and drag without an engine upgrade beyond the B-17's 9-cylinder 1,000 hp Wright R-1820 Cyclone was not going to be able to keep up. In that light, was the 2,000 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp considered? The R-2800 is heavier and longer, but narrower than the R-1820. I believe its first four engine application was the Boeing B-29, but it looks like it could be modified to fit the B-17. There were many twin engined R-2800 applications.

View attachment 798699

R-2800 on a B-29 ?
You would have needed 6 per plane...

 

[Admiral Beez]

R-2800 on a B-29 ?

Sigh. I abhor the pedant; so have edited the post, hopefully to your satisfaction.

 

[EwenS]

Surely someone at Boeing told the Air Force chaps that more weight and drag without an engine upgrade beyond the B-17's 9-cylinder 1,000 hp Wright R-1820 Cyclone was not going to be able to keep up. In that light, was the 2,000 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp considered? The R-2800 is heavier and longer, but narrower than the R-1820. I believe its first four engine application was the Boeing B-29, but it looks like it could be modified to fit the B-17. There were many twin engined R-2800 applications.

View attachment 798699

From Joe Baugher's site about the YB-40 with my emphasis.

"In the spring of 1943, the 327th BS of the 92nd BG based at RAF Alconbury were issued 12 YB-40s foroperational combat tests. The first operational YB-40 sortie took place on May 29, 1943 against St. Nazaire. Eight other missions were later flown, the last one taking place on July 4, 1943. Five kills and two probables were claimed during these missions, with the loss of one YB-40. Very early on, it was found that the net effect of the additional drag of the turrets and the extra weight of the guns, armor, and additional ammunition was to reduce the speed of the YB-40 to a point where it could not maintain formation with the standard B-17s on the way home from the target once they had released their bombs. The YB-40 could protect itself fairly well, but not the bombers it was supposed to defend. Consequently, it was recognized that the YB-40 project was an operational failure, and after less then ten missions the YB-40s were withdrawn from service, and the surviving YB-40s were converted back to standard B-17F configuration or used as gunnery trainers back in the States."

Boeing YB-40

There was only a single XB-41 based on the B-24 built. So many problems were encountered that the results of the YB-40 programme became available and the project was cancelled.

 

[marathag]

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

It was able to keep up with B-17s when loaded with bombs, but not on the return back.

More HP was needed.

Postwar, USN Privateers, very similar to the B-24, were retrofitted with R-2600 from the B-25 for better performance

with only minor work to mate up.

One way to improve that return home performance.

That said, The Gunship escort never worked well for anybody

 

[glennasher]

Surely someone at Boeing told the Air Force chaps that more weight and drag without an engine upgrade beyond the B-17's 9-cylinder 1,000 hp Wright R-1820 Cyclone was not going to be able to keep up. In that light, was the 2,000 hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp considered?

It's doubtful that Boeing had anything to do with the YB-40, I think that was a purely USAAF development. I wonder how much more fuel would be needed for a Double Wasp, anyway? It would probably need a lot more fuel, again, adding to the weight, and make it even more vulnerable. It seems like a dubious trade-off to me.

 

[EwenS]

It's doubtful that Boeing had anything to do with the YB-40, I think that was a purely USAAF development. I wonder how much more fuel would be needed for a Double Wasp, anyway? It would probably need a lot more fuel, again, adding to the weight, and make it even more vulnerable. It seems like a dubious trade-off to me.

The XB-40 was a Boeing built airframe converted by Vega. The 20 YB-40 and 4 TB-40 conversions were Vega built airframes with the conversions carried out by Douglas at Tulsa, Oklahoma. A number of different armament fits were tried on the aircraft not sent to Britain.

 

[Admiral Beez]

That said, The Gunship escort never worked well for anybody

Maybe the better use of the B-17s gunship was CAS under the protection of Allied air superiority. Sort of a 1940s Lockheed AC-130 - just look at the weaponry below. Was there a Gatling gun available in 1943?

 

[cvairwerks]

The Gating Gun was originally developed in 1861.... Airborne gunships were developed in the early part of the Vietnam conflict.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Maybe the better use of the B-17s gunship was CAS under the protection of Allied air superiority. Sort of a 1940s Lockheed AC-130 - just look at the weaponry below. Was there a Gatling gun available in 1943?

View attachment 798916

In 1943 over Europe, there wasn't a need for a CAS gunship. They needed fighters, and pronto, to protect bombers.

In 1944, the CAS flew at 300+mph on the deck, carried 6-10 rockets, 4-8 .50s (and 20mms on the Brits), and a ton or so of bombs.

Not sure getting a YB-40 down on the deck to hose down tanks at 180 mph with .50 cal is really useful. And no, no 20mm Vulcan is available in 1944. Nor useful, for that matter.

 

[GrauGeist]

The airborne gunship concept has changed over the years, but the origins point back to WWII, with both the "flying destroyer gunships" (XB-41, Me323E-2 WT and YB-40 types being prime examples) and the heavily armed ground attack types.

This eventually matured into a "lateral attack profile" tested aboard a modified C-131 and then combat field tested aboard modified C-47Ds.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Not sure getting a YB-40 down on the deck to hose down tanks at 180 mph with .50 cal is really useful. And no, no 20mm Vulcan is available in 1944. Nor useful, for that matter.

Fly parallel along the Normandy Beaches blasting away… but yeah we need a Vulcan or least something auto cannon like. Oh well.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Fly parallel along the Normandy Beaches blasting away… but yeah we need a Vulcan or least something auto cannon like. Oh well.

I'm not sure even 20mm Vulcans will do anything to WNs 65 through 71. All the Germans have to do is not shoot back until the landing craft hit the beaches. And even after that those YB-40s are about as useful as a pinholed condom.
Here's WN71:

Here's WN 65:

I'm not seeing twenty-double-mike making any dents in that.

 

[GrauGeist]

There were Landsers manning trenches and culverts between the hardpoints, as well as the AA pits, though.

I would say the gunships would have had better effect behind the bluffs, sweeping the incoming reinforcements, and logistic centers.