Most successful gun positions on B-17 and B-24?

Shortround6 · Sep 30, 2018

The thing with noise/sound is that it works on a logarithmic scale, which you probably know if you were working on try to stop whistling noises.
3 decibels is about as much of change in volume that most people can detect with their ears alone. However a 3 decibel change in volume (increase) requires twice the power to be put into the sound waves. 10 decibels sounds about twice as loud to the human ear but requires 10 times the power.
Doubling the distance from the sound source cuts the sound level by 6 decibels.
If you are trying to make bombs sound really scary before they explode you probably want to give them some help in the noisemaking department.

tyrodtom · Sep 30, 2018

I think bombs might be more effective if they were silent.
No warning, no chance to seek shelter, and suddenly the worlds falling down around you.

I think mortars could be more effective if they didn't whistle .
I don't know if all mortars rounds whistle when they fall, but all I've encountered did.

BiffF15 · Oct 1, 2018

tyrodtom said:
I think bombs might be more effective if they were silent.
No warning, no chance to seek shelter, and suddenly the worlds falling down around you.

I think mortars could be more effective if they didn't whistle .
I don't know if all mortars rounds whistle when they fall, but all I've encountered did.

The times the base was mortared I've heard them coming in. Followed by the land based phalanx system activation. Nothing like riding your bike past and hearing the hydraulics start (just prior to firing). Much louder outside the plane than in it.

Cheers,
Biff

Reluctant Poster · Oct 1, 2018

Glider said:
All I can say is that in Europe around D Day 8th Airforce B24's had the ventral turrets removed to save weight and because of the lack of effectiveness. They also went from two waist gunners to one.
The lower weight also improved handling at high altitude.

Source the 1000 Day Battle which concentrates on the B24 units in the 8th Airforce

I can't remember were I found this table. I do believe it was for the B-17. According to these stats the tail turret was the most important by far and the ventral turret the least important by far

mcoffee · Oct 2, 2018

Reluctant Poster said:
I can't remember were I found this table. I do believe it was for the B-17. According to these stats the tail turret was the most important by far and the ventral turret the least important by far

See Post #46

Benjdragon · Oct 4, 2018

swampyankee said:
There are two related issues: drag, which would slow down an aircraft and increase fuel needed for a mission and weight.

Looking at the second: say bomber X could carry 3,000 lb bombload to Berlin from bases in the UK. To get the required damage to the target, 150,000 lb of bombs are needed. This is 50 aircraft each with ten crew members. Get rid of the waist guns, saving their gunners (400 lb), guns, mounts, and sights (400 lb), and ammunition (200 lb), each aircraft can now carry 4,000 lb to Berlin. Now, there's only 38 aircraft required to perform the same mission.

Of course, now 1,000 lb more fuel can be carried in lieu of the bombs, which would permit more flexible routing or missions to more distant targets.

Late in the war, they removed some of the turrets and guns from B-29s flying to Japan. There was some speed increase because less weight means less drag, but the main reason was to increase the service ceiling. It allowed the bombers to fly higher than the Japanese fighters could go. I knew a man who crewed a B-36 bomber. He said that at maximum altitude the B-36 was more maneuverable than any of the jet fighters that could reach it.

swampyankee · Oct 4, 2018

Benjdragon said:
Late in the war, they removed some of the turrets and guns from B-29s flying to Japan. There was some speed increase because less weight means less drag, but the main reason was to increase the service ceiling. It allowed the bombers to fly higher than the Japanese fighters could go. I knew a man who crewed a B-36 bomber. He said that at maximum altitude the B-36 was more maneuverable than any of the jet fighters that could reach it.

I've heard, via a circuitous route, that the F-86D could intercept a B-36 at cruising altitude but couldn't make a second pass. I think the real driver to supersonic performance was to get interceptors that had enough performance to get that second pass.

Most successful gun positions on B-17 and B-24?

More options

Shortround6

Major General

tyrodtom

Senior Master Sergeant

BiffF15

Tech Sergeant

Reluctant Poster

Tech Sergeant

Attachments

mcoffee

Airman

Benjdragon

Airman

swampyankee

Chief Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads