Packet Guns

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

W

wuzak

Captain
8,312
2,835
Jun 5, 2011
Hobart Tasmania
I was just looking through a flickr collection that Njaco had linked (in the aviation links thread) and found this great shot of a B-26

B-26C | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

showing the pilot, co-pilot and navigator(?) with the bombadier having a sneaky cigarette!

Anyway, my question is about the packet guns attached to the side of the fuselage.

Were the packet guns in any way aligned, or way just the way that they went on?

Was the hand aimed nose gun any good in comparison?

Would that sort of solution have been any good for the B-17 instead of the chin turret to fight off head on attackers? Would that cost less weight and drag?

Also, is that another gun poking out the lower right of the nose (lower left in the photo)?
 
Last edited:
I'm sure the crewchief would align them on the ground so they all fire aligned with the aircraft, they're for low level attacks. The pilot could aim them using tracers and by watching the bullet strikes on the ground. I don't see any sights in the picture.

Trying to use those guns on any airborne attackers would be more destructive to a formation than any attackers could be.
 
There is at least one instance that I know of where a single .50cal was mounted with a crude sight on a B-17. I've always felt that the .30cals mounted at the nose eyebrow positions were just added weight, but having talked with an actual B-17 pilot from the war his response was "we liked any gun that would shoot".
 
I've seen a picture of a Ju-52 transport with a forward firing 7.92mm MG.

Maybe the pilot was adding emphisis to his request for transfer to fighter aircraft.
 
Not a pilot but beng able to shoot back in some way shape or form just "feels" better and with enouh lead in flight you could never tell, you might just hit something. When taking fire on the ground we seldom knew where the rounds were coming from except in a general way, so you just sprayed the treeline and hoped
 
wuzak said:
Wouldn't that also be the case for the chin turret?
Click to expand...
The pilot doesn't control the chin turret, the bombadier uses it, and it was flexible.

Packet guns were aimed only by pointing the nose at where you wanted the fire to go. Can you imagine what would happen to a B-17 in a formation, if the pilot tried to follow a head on attacker by aiming the whole aircraft at it. Stall or collide with other aircraft in the formation, or cause other bombers problems because they have to avoid him..
 

I wouldn't imagine B-17 pilots doing that.

But I could imagine forward firing guns would discourage frontal attacks.
 
Just putting a stream of tracers out there in the hope that some one would fly into them seems a waste of .50 cal. to me. It wouldn't take the attackers long to notice that they were fixed, and just avoid the one degee or whatever they'd cover.
 

AFAIK, the cheek guns on operational B-17s were always .50 cal, just like all of the other guns on the ships.
 
The cheek guns did have some coverage, nowhere as much as the chin turret though.

Wasn't the B-17s used in some low level missions in the Pacific, on a very few missions ? Or am I confusing a movie with real history?
 
By the way, there were a few B-17s that were field modified with a 20mm nose cannon, and several more that had them in the tail...

As far as the gun packs go, the B-25 used them to great effect in the PTO against Japanese positions and shipping...if you look at footage of the B-25s strafing Japanese ships, you can see a pretty accurate line of of bullet impacts on the water, so they were definately aligned but what the actual range of convergance was, I'm not sure.
 
I can definitly see the use of a gun pack for low level use.
But I don't see any practical use for it on a B-17 for air to air.
 
Dave, if I'm not mistaken, they were aimed straight ahead just as they were mounted. Not really needing a convergence because of the size of the target they were going after. I may be wrong though.
 
How far apart would the guns be where they're mounted, 5 feet ? If they're mounted parallel, the bullets would be striking only 5 feet from each other. If they converge, they may be concentrated at the convergence zone, but beyound that the bullet streams get further apart, making long range shots impossible.
 
We had a B-25 here in Redding during an airshow several years ago and they had the blister cowling removed and you could see the aligning adjusters...

Now I'm pretty sure they weren't going for nail-driver accuracy like a fighter because ground attack doesn't require it.
 
tyrodtom said:
The cheek guns did have some coverage, nowhere as much as the chin turret though.

Wasn't the B-17s used in some low level missions in the Pacific, on a very few missions ? Or am I confusing a movie with real history?
Click to expand...

They also gave the navigator something to do besides plotting the course and dodging flack.

Are you thinking of "Air Force?"
 
I maybe am thinking of the movie " Air Force", just a Hollywood fantasy then I guess.

Then I guess the bombadier could man the cheek guns when not behind the bombsight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Alternative airborne guns 2.0
3 4 5
Replies
94
Views
3K
MikeMeech
M
AA guns + rockets alternatives for 1935-45
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
Alternative light and anti-tank guns, 1935-45
10 11 12
Replies
226
Views
8K
Shortround6
S
A
Did the British Air Ministry consider 0.55 in (14 mm) guns?
Replies
15
Views
2K
Reluctant Poster
R
N
"Top Guns Of Their Time"
Replies
16
Views
2K
33k in the air
Menu
Log in
Register