B-24 Gun Upgrades to Attack Submarines
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 сер 2024
- In Spring of 1943, German U-boats were engaging Patrolling Aircraft rather than diving. US Anti-Submarine command upgraded the B-24 maritime patrol Aircraft’s forward facing guns to effectively engage the submarines deck crews. The aircraft gunners would shoot at the Submarines deck crews trying to suppress their return fire. The WWII modified aircraft were designated as the PB4Y-1 and later PB4Y-2s.
My dad was stationed in P'cola during WW2. He was assigned to a PB4Y2 aircraft unit that flew over the Caribbean searching for submarines. They found and sank a few.. I loved his stories until I went into the military myself. I then learned that what I thought was neet fun, was often long boring hours followed by gut clenching horror. He's gone now, but I respect what he and several thousand others did to keep us free. I only served 22 years but I saw enough to know it wasn't a fun war.
My father was plane Cap and flight engineer on the Y2 VPB111 and is still kickin as a matter of fact we are going to my parents 75 anniversary June 18!
These wonderful planes plugged the gap in the Atlantic and were a game changer.
The firepower on that PB4Y-2 Pioneer looks very impressive! Thanks for sharing about an aircraft with which I was not familiar!
It's the same model of plane that a navy pilot and crew were killed in trying to replicate what the Dambusters did.
I've seen the film and couldn't figure out what kind of bomber it was because of it's single rudder, they were too low over the water when the pilot released the bomb, it's splash was so big and went up so high it hit underneath the tail immediately pushing it upwards and of course instantaneously pointing the nose downwards at the water that was just feet in front of it, at the speed it was going it just plowed into the water full speed an instant after the bomb splashed into the lake they were testing at, it's a horrible thing to watch.
I never could figure out what kind of a plane it was because of the modified nose and single rudder until just now seeing this.
there was definitely a coastal command modification liberator used by 120 squadron(terry bullocks unit) that had the ball and rear turret removed and the weight replaced by a fuel bladder. The front turret was removed and replaced by a quad 20 mm mount. There are two interviews with terry bullock (who sank at least 5 u-boats) and damaged several others where he describes attacking a uboat with this aircraft
Very few PB4Y-2 Privateers were ever built in the first place, and fewer still survive to this day. I've had the fortune of seeing an even rarer example of an airworthy Privateer up close at the Planes of Fame Air Show in Chino, California. It's by a very wide margin my favorite warbird at that event, because it looks like it flew straight out an an alternate reality.
Saw one in Kissimmee, FL about 25 yrs ago, waiting to be restored. My Dad was a mechanic on standard Liberators during WWII, so I have somewhat of an affinity for the aircraft. Faster than the B17, longer range. It was the obvious choice for ASW at that time.
There is another example, largely unrestored at the Yankee Air Museum in Ypsilanti Michigan
739 PB4Y's were produced. While a small number compared to B-17's and B-24's it was still quite a few planes.
@@jamesfisher4326 That is indeed a lot of airframes, but not so many that a significant number of them could have survived into the 21st century. The US military scrapped retired aircraft throughout the latter half of the 1940s as though their lives depended on it; the USAF was in such a big rush to be rid of the B-32 Dominator, for example, that most of the airframes ever completed were made airworthy only so that they could be flown straight from the factory to the smelters.
The Air Museum in Galveston, Texas had a nice one years ago. I wonder where it is now?
Can't believe you don't have more subscribers, this is great content, glad this came up in my feed.
I am pleased to hear you say bullet resistant rather than bullet proof. Many people have been mighty disappointed to learn that things that were said to be bullet *_proof_* … Weren't!
Thanks for this!! During the war my Father-in-law worked as an engine mechanic on Canadian anti-sub Liberators, and my Grandfather was a Chief Stoker Officer in the RCN on convoy escort duty. One kept 'em flying and the other benefitted from it.
These had different engines, probably because the mission didn't require high altitude flight. There is one still flying somewhere in the S/W, restored. Former fire bomber. There is a museum in Ypsilanti Michigan with a single vertical tail one, and the side canopy's in the waste are still there. The museum thought about replacing the tail, to make it look like a 24, but they nixed that idea. I was there a couple of years ago, and they had acquired a rear fuselage from a 24', from India I think. It starts part way into the rear wing root, and just short of the tail plane area.
Excellent video. I should add that some early B24s supplied to RAF Coastal Command were fitted with a belly pack containing four 20mm Hispano cannon for attacking submarines. On one occasion a cannon armed B24 attacked a Focke Wulf Condor. Some RAF B24s were also fitted with eight rocket projectiles on small stub wings on the side of the forward fuselage. The RAF also liked to remove the American fifty calibre dorsal and tail turrets and replace them with British turrets with four 0.303 guns. Some RAF B24s had no dorsal turret.. There was a proposal to fit the discarded B24 tail turrets in Avro Lancasters but this was not possible. I think the reason was that the B24 turrets were electric while the Lanc turrets were hydraulic.
The consolidated a-6 tail turret was hydraulic. The Emerson a-15 nose turret was electric.
Brits innovate, good on you. Thanks for radar and sonar.
Replacement of.50 cals for an ineffective rifle caliber is ineffective
Thanks for your historical contributions!
V514 is on display at the Naval Air Museum at Pensacola, FL. I was informed this was my Grandfather's plane as it's Crew Chief. Thanks for explaining why it had B-24 ancestry though he was patrolling in the Pacific at the time.
I remember seeing a cartoon ages ago _(decades before the post I'm trying to share the link to)_ about how Lib pilot's arms were massively muscled from working the unboosted controls. The mighty eighth & their forts were the love of the media and the glory boys who got all the press, but the B 24 was a superior aircraft when it came to payload, and much more challenging to fly. Pilots who had flown both were in the universal agreement that the B-17 was a much easier stick.
My Dad flew 30 missions in the B-17, he flew a B-24 only twice. He said the B-24 had much less inherent stability. The B-17 could fly hands off after trimming, but not the B-24.
I'm trying to build a model of the dedicated B-24 U-boat killer and this detailed information is fantastic.
Hi from Sydney Australia, your videos are very informative and entertaining for those like me interested in history. Your work is much appreciated. Please keep these videos coming. Kind regards Marc.
Am I correct in thinking that an ex RAAF Liberator is being restored for static display in Australia?
Hawkins and Powers operated several PB4YS These aircraft were rebuilt to meet USCG SAR requirements in the 50's. These were the 4Ys used in Firefighting.
Fascinating video. I was curious about the PB4Y-2 Privateer and looked it up. Wikipedia has a nice entry on the plane. It was primarily built for the US Navy as a maritime patrol plane for the Pacific theater and doesn't seem to have been used against the German U-boats. The large single tail was put in because it gave the plane greater stability at the low to medium altitudes in which it operated. The turbosuperchargers were removed from the engines as the plane did not need to fly at high altitudes, and this made the plane lighter and faster. The low to medium altitude deployment also explains why they removed the ball turret from the belly and added a second top turret, as air defense against enemy fighters was focused on attacks from above rather than below. Some 739 were built, but most missed WWII, as the first operational deployment did not happen until January 1945, in the Pacific, where it was used to patrol coastal areas off China, the Phillipines, Okinawa, and the Marianas.
P.S., Joseph Kennedy Jr., the scion of the Kennedy family, was plunked into the relatively safe job of flying anti-submarine patrols off England during WWII in a PB4Y-1 for two tours of duty. Unhappy that he was going to be sent home having done nothing glorious to brag about, he volunteered for the ill-fated Operation Aphrodite mission to fly an explosive laden B-24 which promprtly blew up ahead of schedule killing him and his co-pilot.
I love the detail and historical info in your videos. Thanks again for a great job.
Thanks for another fine feature. Aviation History Nov. 2002 mag. has a great account of a 30 minute running battle between two Privateers and about a dozen N1K2 George fighters of the 343rd Kokutai.
I love your work. I learn so much thank you for all you do
Why did they create the Privateers? If they were still being used against the Japanese subs, why the extra turrets, none of which would help in disabling or sinking submarines? Whatever the reason, a B24 with twelve .50 caliber machine guns could put out a hell of a lot of firepower. I am 81 years old, and the B24 has always been my favorite WW2 bomber, but this is the first time I have heard about the Pioneer. Thank you for educating me about this fantastic plane.
They flew low so all their defense was set up for attacks from above. The strafing guns were the nose, side and tail guns. The side teardrop turrets could both rotate 110° down to fire directly underneath the plane thus eliminating the need for the ball-turret.
Japanese fighters would attack the PB4Y's. A number were shot down by these fighters. PB4Y's were also used as long range reconnaissance planes scouting Japanese held islands and fleets that were defended by fighters.
Privateers, besides what the other two commentators said, also ran into the big Japanese Scout/Flying boats like the Emily which required a lot of hits to bring down.
A slight misconception as to the function of the extra .50 calibre guns. The subs had formidable antiaircraft fire and this had to be countered in order for the B24 to drop its bombs or fire rockets from low altitude. The machine guns of the B24 were to strafe the sub deck not to sink it. Strafing hopefully would eliminate anti aircraft fire from the sub’s deck, the B24 then cruises in and drops its bombs/rockets. This was explained in the video so a careful listening would answer your question for you.
@@teeanahera8949 Thanks for the info. It makes sense.
Thanks! I've long wondered about the arrangement of those waist turrets.
Didn't know the tear drop turret were moving complexe turrets! Very interesting once again!
There is a complete 'how to use' article here on the web that explains the full function of the ERCO side and nose turrets on the PB4Y-2.
Don't know if he said but the ERCO nose turret could rotate 360° thus enabling the nose gunner to help cover the top back of the plane along with the tail and top two turrets.
LOVING this series. Keep 'em coming Sir!
Solid, dependable information on attractive yet generally unrecognized topics. Excellent work!
My dad build part of the Nordon gun site for the plane. He worked at the gun factory in DC during the war.
The PB4Y-2 was possibly the best all-around bomber with improved flight characteristic with lighter tail and longer fuselage with ERCO turrets and other improvements....
Thanks for the excellent upload. I know that in Great Britain during WWII the B-24 was greatly appreciated by RAF Coastal Command.
I may have seen one of these in when driving through the California desert that I guessed was a fire fighting aircraft. It was definitely a B24, but had the single rudder. What can I say, it was so cool. This was probably 2015-20 years ago. I wonder if it’s still flying.
I’m an old man who does know his WW2 aircraft.
A single tail identifies it as a PB4Y-2 Privateer. If the war had continued the USAAF likely would have adopted a single-tail version as the B-24N.
I saw one of these in a museum, somewhere in the Midwest I wanna say along Route 66... It was a family road trip so I don't remember all the details, but seeing what appeared to be a B-24 with a single tail was remarkable to me.
They were used for fire fighting after the war
I saw yours at a San Diego airshow bout the same time.
All that armor & those power turrets must've eaten considerably into the liberator's respectable payload
Greetings from COSTA RICA 🇨🇷 Excelent Bomber .
Fascinating
I'm surprised they didn't put in 20mm or 30mm autocannons or high-velocity ballistics to punch some holes in the sub. I guess they wanted the bombs, rockets and depth charges to do the work, and just use the .50-cals to keep the sub crew from firing back.
Browning .50 Cal. AN/M2s were in plentiful supply, with copious ammunition quantities and types, and a known quantity by Ordnance. Up-gunning to a cannon might involve additional reengineering, logistics issues with the new ammo, excess stress on the airframe, and a lower rate of fire.
I've seen belly packs of 4×20mm Cannon on RAF Coastal Command B-24. I don't know how widespread they were, but they did exist.
@@downunderrob My reply was more directed to the US Navy, the Pacific theatre and the PB4Y-2 Privateer.
RAF had some brilliant field mods, like a pair of 40mm [Vickers] under the wings of Hurricanes, as tank busters in the Desert War. And ''Pappy'' Gunn [of USAAF] tried mounting everything that could shoot on A-20s and B-25s in the New Guinea campaign.
They were Vickers 40mm cannon on the Hurricane 2D
@@antonyhughes4702 Thanks for the correction.
Thanks!
Thanks for the channel $ donation. Much appreciated.
Your videos are comprehensive and ejoyable. Thank you 🙂
I didn’t realize the blister turrets on the PB4Y-2 could move up and down
Excellent Production
You should check out the B-24 commerce killers that Pappy Gunn modified.
Will you go into more details regarding the PB4Y-2 ? Kinda curious what brought on that increase in MG, whether the side ones were used for straffing or performing a pylon turn around the target, etc.
@WWIIUSBombers >>> Great video...👍
another great vid
The British used B124s (and Sunderland flying boats) for anti submarine use. They had radar and powerful lights on the wings. The lights came on just as the close range lost the radar target. Bombs released where the lights intersected and the submarine was toast. It was so effective, the germans turned off their radar detectors thinking they had somehow been advertising their own location.
I see "Strawberry Bitch" at the beginning.
I am so old, I can remember when she sat outside at the USAF museum, DAYTON , OHIO.
Huge shout-out to the NMUSAF.
Truly the first aircraft I can ever remember seeing. (with a name like that, every school child grinned and made jokes)
I wonder why they did not put a Hull on it, it's almost ready to be a floatplane with the high wings and deep and narrow body.
Since they did not one would think to fight guys in a boat from a plane more bottom turrets would be a better modification. The field of fire down from either of those is zero unless the plane banks, and the wing blocks a lot of it for the front one. The sidepods is a good idea but that must have added a ton of drag, Enough to shorten it's range.
The PB4Y2 also lost the turbo superchargers for each engine, thus saving weight for fuel and payload. It was not expected that the PB4Y2 would fly at altitude.
Is it known how many kills these mod B-24s earned?
I never knew this plane existed! Thanks
Great description!
Now we need episodes describing what happened when these aircraft encountered their Uboat enemies.
How well did they work in practice?
My late father trained on the PB4-Y in 1945. His favorite was the Martin PBM.
Lt. Walter Barlow Jr. U.S.N.
Pima Air & Space Museum in Tucson has a restored PB4Y-2 on display
I really enjoy your presentation style.
The PB4Y-2 was an upgraded B-24 for the US Navy......Had a single tail, engines nacelles turned sideways, and added guns.......
And I do believe it was also 7ft longer. The extra room was for the electronics used for sub hunting.
Thanks for this 👍
I would think that the success rate of the German Uboats in bringing down an attack bomber could not have been very high. Diving would still seem the best course of operation.
Thanks for the info, great video and what an incredible plane. Wouldn’t want to mess with 12 of those big .50 BMG guns (plus bombs and depth charges).
The Mexican Air-force contribution is an interesting story. They flew P-47s and were trained by my great uncle (American of Mexican d@heritage who went on to become the first USAAF/USAF jet fighter instructor, IIRC both accomplishments took place at the old Williams Air-force base outside Mesa, Arizona) research Mexican Fighter Squadron 201, Aztec Eagles and their contributions to the retaking of the Philippines
The text that's on screen at 3:45 talks about "a new type of electric light camouflage." What the heck was that?
Electric lights were used to disguise or eliminate an aircraft's silhouette by making the airplane just as bright as the rest of the sky.
Great series.
{erhap you should have mentioned that the PBY4-2 Privateer didn't have turbo-charged engines fitted because most of their sorties were carried out at low altitude and the engine necelles were rotated through 90deg as well
Trying to picture than the nacelles being rotated 90° - that would either turn it into a helicopter or a hovercraft!😅
I remember watching this plane fight forest fires back in SoCal.
A place called Hemet Ryan Field. There was a bicycle in the rear window.
Sadly he went down. It was not long after that they grounded the B17 and other WW2 planes
I remembered that too
@@Hi-lb8cq were did you get to see them
@@jagsdomain203 during ww2 my grandfather was a top turret gunner and flight engineer on a B-24 stationed out of Italy...I used to go with him to reunions and we used to go to the local air field to see the nine o nine B-17 & all American B-24 fly over..but in my time I've seen dozens of ww2 bombers in museums all around America...i remember the modified B-24 used to fight fires and seeing video of it breaking apart and going down due to high levels of stress....I believe the wing fell off as it was diving to put out the fire if that's the same one
@@Hi-lb8cq dam I miss thoughts days
Subscribed and thumbs up. Very interesting unknown history.
It's a cool description of tactics. " The American bombers have no forward facing guns so we will stay and fight." " The Amis have fitted machine guns in the nose." " Let's resume diving".
I wonder if they considered cheek gun packs like the ones used on B-25s. Mount them low enough so they wouldn’t interfere with the nose turret.
Another arrangement that probably would have worked would have been the quad .50 cal arrangement that was field fabricated on several B17's as a way of dealing with head on attacks before the chin turrets were fit at the factories.
Some resourceful unit in the 8th Air Force came up with the idea and had their maintenance crews fabricate a fixed non movable chin blister with 4 forward mounted and bore sighted AN/M2 .50 cals, the pilot aimed and fired them like the .50's in a P38 would have been.
I read an account of the first time they were used when a flight of four FW190's attacked their formation, the two lead bombers were the one's fitted with the guns, when the FW190's came in for the attack the two lead bombers turned into them and proceeded to hose them down with what was apparently pretty accurate fire downing 2 of the 4 FW190's leading to the other 2 breaking off their attack and heading back to their base with a new found respect for the front of B17's.
That arrangement probably would have worked pretty well especially if it was augmented with a large bore cannon like some of the B25's used for ground attack were.
I wonder why they did not keep the ball turret that would have been two more machine guns to strafe the U-boat. Or they could have taken a lesson from the B-25H with that 75mm gun.
Great content.
liking, commenting, & subscribing ! 🐿
First I'd ever heard of side turrets. I wonder how much different a single belly turret was from two side turrets which could aim 5 degrees more than straight down; which armament enemy fighters thought was more dangerous.
Those PB4Y-2 side turrets were the inspiration for the defensive turrets of Star Wars Millennium Falcon.
It does not seem likely that these anti-sub B-24s ever faced any German fighters...certainly not when they were out over the middle of the Atlantic. No German fighters were flying out to the far south of Iceland, right?
@@iKvetch558 not likely
@@iKvetch558 Anti-submarine patrols encountered German fighters all the time. The Allies concentrated a lot of their anti-submarine efforts where the submarines were most concentrated and that was near the French and Norwegian coasts on their way in and out of port. The Germans responded with long range sweeps and patrols with Ju-88 heavy fighters and the RAF responded with sweeps and patrols using Beaufighters. There was even a dogfight between a B-24 and two Focke Wulf Condors. The PB4Y-2 was heavily armed and armored based on that experience and proved extremely tough targets when they encountered Japanese fighters in the Pacific. They chose side turrets instead of a belly turret because they normally flew too low to be attacked from the bottom, the side gunners were primarily lookouts, and the belly turret made ditching more dangerous.
@@danielstickney2400 That is a really good point about the Pacific, and how the British dealt with fighters when they flew close enough to France or Norway. I was thinking only of the Very Long Range patrol aircraft that closed the Mid Atlantic gap in early and mid 1943 which all flee deep into the Atlantic from the Azores and Africa and Iceland. They were so far out that the only Axis plane they might have seen would be a Condor.
I knew that other planes that flew closer in would have encounters with fighters, and that even if the VLR aircraft did not run into fighters that far out, they would still tend to be armed based on the experiences of other ASW patrol aircraft. I also was not even thinking about the patrolling of the Pacific, and the fact that there would be numerous encounters with fighters there. ✌
Excellent informative video! 👍🏻🎅👍🏻
1st visit to your channel. excellent presentation. Really did your homework. well worth my time! new sub. thx.
Did the tail gunners ever take a few shots at the U-boats as the bombers flew away after making a depth charge run?
By the time they were able to get the sub in their sights, I expect the sub would be submerged enough to make it unlikely that the bullets would ever reach the sub, let alone with enough power left to penetrate its hull.
I flew PB4Y2’s for Hawkins & Powers before they were shut down
The pby catalina was once fitted with 20mm cannons for experimental purposes. The only reason I know this is because of world at war and someone brought it up in a video.
Some RAF Coastal Command aircraft modified the nose to have a 20mm cannon for better AA suppression.
IIRC that included the B-24
How about some.20-.30mm cannons on the front of that bad boy. That would put a hurt on those "tin cans"!!!!!
What was the reason for the change of the tail configuration? What were the resulting pros and cons?
Indeed. Imagine trying to fight a war with piddling little calibers and quantities of ornaments - leave it to the genteel residents of the continent to try to kill someone evil gently and politely
Great videos. Have you done a video on radio communication standard radios like the BC312 and survival radios Gibson girl radio CRC 7 ground to air and beacon radios etc.
Had an uncle that flew one as a slurry bomber for forest fires, that and B-17's
Had no idea the mmarit B-24s were almost a completely different plane, by war's end!
I think the PB4Y-2 Privateer was the first plane to successfully use a guided bomb. It was called a bat.
Was a 20mm gun ever considered for AS patrols?
Omg i love this plane, it would club submarines like they were baby seals
I like ww2 planes
I have always been interested in the PB4Y-1 and the PB4Y-2 and have wished for years that someone would manufacture a scale model of their aircraft if someone does please let me know I'd love to build one to put in my collection.
For protection, the nose ball turret gunner had armor plates and armor glass. The bombardier had plexiglas. Hmm.
And it never made much sense to me that the PB4Y-2 had two top turrets. I could see one for self defense from aircraft, but the other positions could also help protect. However, the primary mission of the PB4Y-2 was ASW, so an additional top turret did precious little for strafing surfaced targets, unless the pilot inverted the aircraft, which hopefully no pilot would ever do!
Purpose of the Navy PB4Y-2 was definitely not ASW.
So why did the later version PB4Y-2 get all those extra turrets that don't fire forward?
They possibly were used during a pylon turn around the submarine, bringing all those guns to bear for suppressing fire. Like an AC-130 does.
BIG thanks ! Was mounting of twin .30 MGs up front ever considered, because of their greater rate of fire against crew targets ? Anti personnel use of .50 seems a bit "over kill", after all.
I would like some links to be placed here to the reports cited.
When mounted on a ground tripod or light ground vehicle, you are correct, the rate of fire is more important. However, in air use, range is a huge consideration. The ballistic coefficient of the .30 caliber bullet means it loses velocity much, much more rapidly. This means it has a much shorter range, and also that even when in effective range, it is harder to get the guns on target because the bullets follow a highly curved trajectory in comparison to the much flatter-firing .50 bullet.
When engaging a surface target from an aircraft, there is a very high closure rate, which means a short engagement window. The shorter the effective range of the guns, the less time available to engage. You might be able to begin the engagement at 4,000 yards with .50s, but have to wait for about 2,000 yards for a .30. And that entire time you're closing range, the sub's defensive guns continue to engage the aircraft, because they're firing 20mm and 37mm guns that technically outrange even the .50.
Ideally, the bomber's guns should outrange the AA guns, and should open fire before the sub's guns can even reach them. But that's not really practical because it would require extremely heavy, high-caliber guns.
Many thanks and fully understandable. That makes me wonder about the success rate for the Beaufort / Beaufighter and Mosquito each firing 4 cannon of 20 mm at U-boats. That ammo must have been a lot more effective also against the U-boat structure and bridge armour than those merkan .50ies? Also wonder about Cat and Sunderland .30 guns. Especialy the latter proved quite vulnerable to U-boat fire. Following up on that scenario - what about instances where B25 with 75 mm and (sorry for thread contamination) Mozzies with 57 mm guns have attacked U-boats ? @@bronco5334
Weird, it says 2 replies, and I can see your comment in my notifications, but it's not displaying in the comments section here.
But, to answer: the 57mm Mollins gun or the 75mm on the B-25 are totally different beasts from the .30 or .50 machine guns. Yes, they are large enough to technically outrange the sub's guns, but their effective range is limited by the ability to accurately aim them. The aircraft has neither adequately sophisticated sighting systems, nor adequately stable firing platform to get reliable hits at much range. And the 57mm and 75mm don't have the rate of fire to be effective for suppressing the gun crews. They're killing weapons, not suppressing. Too slow-firing to be effective in suppression, but if you hit, you kill the sub (or at least damage it badly enough to prevent submerging)
I did re-arrange my replies and deleted one. I know about those slow firing weapons, but I wondered about engagements where these were effective in sinking U- boats, not in neutralizing their crew in the open.
Did quad a/c 20 mm strafing sink any U- boats that you know of ?@@bronco5334
@@bronco5334 Excellent information, thank you!
Looking for an image of a a PB4Y-1 Registration 32209? Lost March, 1944.
My dad flew one of these.
Any numbers on how may of these (-1 and -2) were produced? Also, how many subs did they sink or disable vs loss of the aircraft?
Is there still in in MI? I'm always looking for an excuse for a road trip...
What was the reasoning behind adding a second top turret, when earlier they said it could be deleted altogether? Wouldn't the extra weight of the turret, guns, ammo, etc. be detrimental to fuel economy? What theater was this new PB4Y-2 design deployed to first?
It looks like the design may have been developed mid-war when the Axis fighters were a more significant threat, but there were never many Axis fighters out in the Atlantic...
I wonder why they went with twin-50 rather than quad-M1919.
Willow Run, Warren Kidder 1995 pp 148-162 has a description of the adaptation of the Emerson (cylindrical) turret to the B24 in 2/2/43 to 6/1/43. Your video shows both this turret and the Ecco(spherical) turret on PBs. The AAF handed the anti U Boat mission to the USN & RAF Coastal command at some point, I think. The Emerson turret was required to counter head on attacks by the Luftwaffe, but would obviously work against U-boats. I’ve never seen a photo of an ETO B 24 with the spherical turret. But your video has photos of PBS with both. Any wisdom on this? If there is a manual for the Ecco turret it must have been used to a significant degree?
If they had decided that they didn't need a mid-upper turret on the upgraded Liberator, why did they install two on the Privateer?
I've noticed that there are several turrets seen on PB4Y series aircraft (as well as other bombers). Are these reliable ID features? What are the differences between the different types?
Some were for better angle shots
Could the top turret be brought to bear on a sub? or would the attack angle of the aircraft put the sub below the max depression before it got the range?
If the pilot put the aircraft in a pylon turn [like the AC-130s do] around the target, five of the 6 turrets could be brought to bear like a broadside. The disadvantage would be the PB4Y would be making himself a bigger target. The advantage would be 10 hot .50s blazing across the decks and conning tower. An initial head-on attack was the best for the first pass, as the airplane had the advantage of surprize. In this attitude, the nose turret and maybe the upper forward turret, super-firing, would have a shot.
By the time the Privateers entered service, the Axis had no effective aerial opposition, especially at sea.
Yup! Lots of things are extremely vulnerable to .50 cal machine guns fired from aircraft ! 🐿
I wonder what prompted the change from twin to single rudder.
Stability at low altitude.
@@HootOwl513 The Privateer, a large aircraft built by Consolidated, did not use a tail from the much smaller Douglas B-23. No idea where you got that idea. The concept was pioneered in the XB-24N.
@@jacksons1010 OK. You're right. I have no idea where I heard that, myself. Likely on UA-cam. Comparing the Three-Views on Wikipedia, they are definately different. Similar, but different in scale. It was the same Tail configuration as on the B-32 Dominator.
I sainted father flew on PB4Ys after the Korean War.
I have always been disappointed that the U.S. military created so few heavy gunships during WWII.
Can you imagine if they had created the C-47 "Spooky" gunships and used them during Normandy and other landings?
A dozen of them flying down the coast of France, strafing the German emplacements would have saved a lot of Allied lives.
The planes were available and guns were available to build them.
Instead there was a few feeble efforts with B-24s and B-25s for surface attack with additional forward firing weapons.
There is a much better chance of hitting a plane which is coming straight at you than one that is flying by you at over 200mph.
You would need to be an experience bird hunter or trap or skeet shooter to hit it.
The effectiveness of side firing gunships has long been proved with the AC-47 and the AC-130.