PDA

View Full Version : b-17 guns



sakai2005
05-15-2007, 04:42 PM
did the b-17 ever use a shotgun type weapon? if not why not? seems that a large cal. shot gun would work on fighters as close as they came from the footage ive seen.a nice blast of 50 cal.steel ballbearings say 10 or so per round would have a large pattern.

sakai2005
05-15-2007, 04:42 PM
did the b-17 ever use a shotgun type weapon? if not why not? seems that a large cal. shot gun would work on fighters as close as they came from the footage ive seen.a nice blast of 50 cal.steel ballbearings say 10 or so per round would have a large pattern.

XyZspineZyX
05-15-2007, 04:50 PM
Two words:

Combat Box

PBNA-Boosher
05-15-2007, 04:52 PM
Adding to Chris's words...

Hundreds of bombers + Combat box + 10+ MG's per plane = Shotgun dispersion of many thousands upon thousands of bullets.

Taylortony
05-15-2007, 04:56 PM
Dangling your hand out of the window at minus 20 up at 30,000 odd feet to pump your 4 barreled shotgun turret after each burst would not go down well either..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

FluffyDucks2
05-15-2007, 04:56 PM
Why bother when you have .50s?? shotgun is a low velocity low range weapon that would be only of use at the very CLOSEST range that fighters attacked...what use is it waiting until they are 50yds away when they are getting hits on you at 500yds??
Typically any footage you have seen of bombers being shot up at close range, have been seperated from the formation and the gunners are already dead.

sakai2005
05-15-2007, 05:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
Two words:

Combat Box </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


ive not heard that term before please explain.
does it refer to the formation of the planes.

LStarosta
05-15-2007, 05:57 PM
No, it's the box they shipped the .50's in.

Zeus-cat
05-15-2007, 06:20 PM
sakai2005,

B-17s flow in a formation that maximized the effectiveness of their defensive guns. Each plane in the box defended itself and the other nearby aircraft making attacks by enemy fighters very dangerous. The formations were referred to as a combat box.

berg417448
05-15-2007, 06:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sakai2005:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
Two words:

Combat Box </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


ive not heard that term before please explain.
does it refer to the formation of the planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Diagrams here:

http://www.303rdbg.com/formation.html

FritzGryphon
05-15-2007, 07:05 PM
Fragmentation or buckshot rounds of such low caliber wouldn't be effective against fighters.

Keep in mind the armor glass on fighters could stop rifle bullets, or even machine gun bullets. Even the prop hub could stop shotgun pellets.

ake109
05-16-2007, 10:32 AM
The effect of shotgun style shots fall off dramatically once further than point blank (say 50-100m) range. And to get a sizeable number of pellets per shot while having enough mass and velocity per pellet to harm an enemy fighter would require a very very BIG shell. A gun firing such a BIG shell won't reload very fast.

They never put shotguns on fighters for the same reason.

Airmail109
05-16-2007, 10:55 AM
Imagine B17s with .50cal gattling guns

Why they never put them in bombers during world war 2 is beyond me

jarink
05-16-2007, 11:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Imagine B17s with .50cal gattling guns

Why they never put them in bombers during world war 2 is beyond me </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two reasons.

First, there were no .50cal gatling guns in WWII.

Second, gatling guns as we know them today have terrifically high rates of fire - 1000s of rounds per minute. That means the bomber would have had to carry a huge amount of ammo to feed the gun in order for it to last an entire mission. All that ammo equates to a lot of excess weight. That was one of the reasons the YB-40 (B-17 with extra guns/turrets) didn't work. Even though they didn't carry bombs, the YB-40s combat loaded weight was much higher than that of a normal B-17. This forced them to fly slower or use more gas to keep up, limiting range and altitude.

mynameisroland
05-16-2007, 11:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Imagine B17s with .50cal gattling guns

Why they never put them in bombers during world war 2 is beyond me </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because electrically powered gattling guns werent invented yet and because B 17 gunners contribuited not a great to the defeat of the Luftwaffe.

Better have a 20mm Hispanno in the key positions than .50 cals anyway.

OneMug
05-17-2007, 12:43 AM
Anyone have stats on how many bombers were shot down, damaged and how many casualties were taken by friendly gunner fire (not AAA)?

Seems to me that, in the heat of battle, it would be easy to spray rounds into adjacent friendly aircraft. Unless the gunners were well trained & disciplined. Even then....

I know in many cases, it would be hard to differentiate incoming rounds between friendly & enemy fire but there must have been a lot of damage done. Does anyone know?

Did they ever try "interruptors" to prevent, say the top gunner, from shooting up his own vertical stabilizer?

OneMug
P.S. When I first played this game, I briefly tested to see if I could shoot down my own plane or another bomber in my formation from different gunner positions. This was in QMB, of course. IIRC, the answer was yes but not easy. Sure caused a lot of hollering! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Bearcat99
05-17-2007, 09:16 AM
Thats a nice diagram there Berg..