The "Flying Coffin" Turned Escort "Fighter": Consolidated XB-41 Liberator
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 вер 2023
- In this video, we talk about the Consolidated XB-41 Liberator, a modified B-24 Liberator from early World War 2 that was designed to take the place of escort fighters. We look at why a bomber design was selected to fill in for the escort fighter role, how the plane performed, and why it ended up failing as a concept. We also take a brief look at the Boeing YB-40 Flying Fortress, a similar gunship bomber concept that had more success, in order to get an idea of how the XB-41 would have performed in combat. Finally, we conclude with a look into the gunship-escort concept and the benefits.
Jimmy Stewart liked the Liberator. He flew 20+ missions deep into Germany. He could have had a desk job but refused.
I’ve found that B-24 crews loved their Libs and B-17 crews loved theirs. The Lib wasn’t “hated”, at least not by the people who flew them. Like most aircraft, it had many advantages and disadvantages.
One benefit of the YB-40 program was the testing of the chin turret which covered the dead zone at 12 o'clock. This was put into production on the late B-17F and all B-17Gs.
The Liberator was used by the British for long range anti submarine patrols. A friend who sadly is no longer with use flew liberators and flying boats both Sunderland and Catalinas. Later he rejoined RAF bomber command flying Halifax. With the Halifax being his favourite. He was badly shot up in most aircraft he flew including taking massive damage to a Sunderland from 88s managed to return to base with all crew alive but the plane was beyond repair after landing. The Halifax took huge damage and kept flying he did have to bail out over allied airspace three times twice after being hit by night fighters. On one mission a mosquito night fighter took out two German fighters as they approached his aircraft.
My father-in-law flew with either the RAF or RCAF out of India flying Liberators against the Japanese. (He is Canadian, but could easily have been flying with the RAF).
They did some very hairy stuff - skipping bombs into the sides of ships from 50 feet off the water. This was done while flying British crew makeup - no co-pilot.
Crazy stuff.
Back in the early 1960`s I was flying in a SAC bomb wing. There were some WW2 retreads who flew B17`s out of the UK. They said that in a mission briefing if there would be B24`s going along that everyone would cheer knowing that the Luftwaffe would prefer to go after the B24`s rather than the B17`s
In the mid 70's I flew with a 17 retred, he remembered leaving before the 24 in his 17 and they always beat him back home. Great guy, that stuck with him first and foremost apparently.
Something else to bear in mind is that many of the additional guns were a case of giving a gunner who had one gun two guns. So you basically have the same arcs of fire and capacity to engage targets, just with a little more lead in the air. And when it comes to defensive gunners, one gunner with one gun, spewing tracers at a fighter to make him second guess coming any closer doesn’t necessarily benefit much from giving him another gun.
Some of the benefits from these programs were isolated areas where the gunner was able to do more (like the chin turret that replaced the ball mounts in the B-17s nose, giving a vastly improved arc of fire).
The chin turret was an excellent result of these armed bomber escort ships. I think if the escort bombers could provide greatly enhanced firepower they might have been worth it like ,radar, guided missiles or something like that or Radar aimed guns. Nicely done video 👏.
They also started adding forward facing machine guns below the cockpit line to deter head-ons by the German fighters.
but when rounds do find their mark, you're putting 2x as many into the target for teh same moment in time.
Well, the army thought it was a great fucking idea to get rid of the tracer for B-17 gunnersin 1944 . Their (flawed) logic was that because of the tracer, gunners would try and aim via tracer and not proper deflection shooting, completely forgetting the deterrence effect of tracer. They could have had the best of both worlds by training them to aim only with sights but nope
@@Legitpenguins99 your comment is lacking in comprehension of the realities of combat, closure rates, etc. They were taught to use their sights. And we always stop using tracers in every war. I never loaded tracers into my weapons when i was in combat. The deterrence effect can help, but not always. The Germans knew they were being shot at, regardless of the tracers, and flew in to attack anyways.
The Army was truly determined to make the 'self defended bomber' work. It wasn't admitted to be a failure, despite the losses, until dedicated fighters capable of escorting to and from targets came online.
The prewar self-defending concept was known to be insufficient, which is why they tried things like heavily armed gunships to protect the bombers until fighters could escort the formations deeper into Germany. The difference between them and you is that you would have thrown in the towel and quit, while they had a war to fight and continued offensive operations while working on solutions.
They almost had the same thing later in the war with the P4Y Privateer but with a single tail. This version fixed a lot of the problems of the B-24.
I remember a story about them using a YB-40 in the Mediterranean to bait and destroy a P-38 that had ben captured by the Italians and was being used to shoot down straggling bombers.
Oh? That's interesting. I haven't heard that story
I remember reading that story in the book "Flying Forts" by Martin Caiden. A very interesting story and the YB-40 did shoot down that P-38.
The pilot was Guido Rossi. I read Flying Forts too, by Martin Caiden
@@mountainghost5044 From what I remember, the bomber pilot and the Italian became very close friends after the war. I believe I had read that story in the Smithsonian Magazine some years ago.
😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
Thank you so much for covering this almost forgotten concept
I recall an epic story of an old B17 converted to a recon gunship in the Pacific and barely escaping a mauling group of Japanese fighters to return the crew safely, landing on fumes....
I believe you are referring to Old 666. The crew added 4 more .50 Cal machine guns, for a total of 16 machine guns.
Old 666. Earned two MOH on one mission.
@@edm52 That's it...thanks!
@@PeteCourtier Love your avatar 👍
Had no idea of a B-24 variant of the YB-40's. Nice job!
Flying Coffin ? War Is DEADLY - I am 90 USAF Korean
War Vet - We guided B29s to target - God bless those crews - They Died - War is HELL
Interesting that the PB4Y-2 PRIVATEER Itself was a heavily armed Bomber/patrol Aircraft along the lines of the XB-41 BUT an improvement on the B-24 Design.
I've read of the gunship version of the Boeing B-17. Never knew they tried to do a B-24 version.
B-24...."cramped interior"!? At a local airshow years ago, I toured inside the B-24, it was plenty spacious for my 6'4" 300lb. plus self. I couldn't even get through the B-17's hatch. Too tight by far.
You have to consider that a modern airshow version isn't going to have all the same bulky original equipment they would have had in the 40s (especially things like water rafts which came in huge pods and most especially a full bomb load) as well as someone manning all the turrets. The waist gunners especially had to coordinate properly to keep from bumping into each other while manning their guns.
I think you'd have a different opinion if you had lost a wing and were in a dive.
Your "Cool Logo" is the coolest!
It's a cool logo for sure
My father liked his B-24 just fine. The B-17, he told me, would rattle and shake any time someone fired their guns and make him more nervous than the Luftwaffe.
There was 'just a bit' of rivalry between Fortress and Liberator crews as to who had the better aircraft.
Airmen who flew B 17's would insist that a B 24 was actually a shipping crate used for delivering new Flying Fortress bombers.
Yeah, but the B-17 could get you home with damage that would shatter a b-24.
Boeing just had a better PR department both plane burned easily as both were full of gasoline there casually rates were very similar
@@kdrapertruckernot really. B-24s were known to be just as strong often
That's funny, my uncles needled each other about which was better.
splendid as always
Early war Germany was more of the Army Air Force's doctrine, that the bombers could defend themselves.
The P-47 could have been outfitted with proper drop tanks to escort the bombers much earlier (long before the P-51s showed up).
The P-47 would’ve had them to begin with of it weren’t for the bomber mafia h0ez!
@@BARelement 😜
Th eP-47 was outfitted with drop tanks before the P-51 took over the role. It just couldn't go as far.
The loss rate of the 24 was almost identical to the 17. It was in fact slightly better.
This is true based on post-war studies. Also, at least for the 8th Air Force, casualty rates of the B-24 were lower than the B-17.
see: Kugel, H. 2011. Daylight Precision Bombing: Dangerous Doctrine of the Eighth Air Force. Warfare History Network. Winter.
They tended to go down flaming a lot more than the B17s, anyway 20 to 40mm canons wold slice anything in half - the B24's wing had a very high wingload and poor main spar structure.
Yet still they had a slightly better near insignificant loss ratio. It was however much harder to get out of. @@RamonInNZ
There is a problem with quoting the lose rate between the two aircraft if you are using the statistics for the whole war. The B17 was in service first in Europe during a time when the deep Germany raids had extremely high loss rates. The B24's only came into use in very late 1943. Losses were still high, but nothing like what had happened in the fall of 1942. The point is that the B17's had a rougher time of it than the B24 ever saw as far as the German attacks on them. Those losses were heavy and weigh down the statistics to offer a bit of misleading information about the durability of the two aircraft when compared to each other.
Late 43????? Try JANUARY 43 @@cdjhyoung
Some stats dispute the idea that the armed bomber was ineffective at defending itself. Between August 1942 and June 1944, for the Eighth Airforce, roughly 1,682 were lost to aircraft and 905 to flak. However, the total number of Eighth Airforce aircraft damaged by flak fire between December 1942 and April 1945 was an astounding 54,539. Note that German pilots were terrified at attacking Allied box formations. "Against 20 Russians trying to shoot you down or even 20 Spitfires, it can be exciting, even fun. But curve in towards 40 fortresses and all your past sins flash before your eyes." -Geschwaderkommodore Hans Phillips JG-1. When they made their kills they were primarily against damaged B-17's who had been separated from the "herd/pulk" and who were usually moving much slower due to an engine loss. This allowed for easy passes at speed from all angles. It wasn't until early 1943 that they developed effective gun pods and rockets that could be launched in a head to head dive which became very effective. And by that point they were also running short on quality pilots who could land those hits without hitting an aircraft. By early 1944, P-47's, P-38's, and P-51's were all able to escort the full distance with drop tanks.
The gunship concept made perfect sense at the time but as noted, the return trip was not easy. By by 1944 there was no longer a need for them. Allied escorts didn't even need to shoot down enemy aircraft. If they disrupted the head on attack/dive formation then there was little chance of success. Coming back around, gaining altitude, gaining distance, and repeating another dive attempt was near impossible. While the Fw-190 on paper was 100mph faster than the B-17, it rarely was able to sustain that speed for very long. During the infamous "Black Thursday" event, the Eighth lost 60 B-17's in a single sortie. However, despite using the top down attack method, the Luftwaffe lost 40 planes themselves as the new nose and roof mounted guns allowed Allied pilots to engage diving aircraft.
great video!
congrats
The B-24 was unloved for a very good reason. They had a bad tendency to blow up in mid-air. No joke. Due to the placement of the wings, the fuel lines passed through the fuselage behind the cockpit. Leaks were too common, and the fumes, given a spark, would cause an explosion and literally blow the plane apart. Like the YB-40, my guess is that the XB-41 was also too slow to keep up with the bombers once they dropped their bombs and shed 4,000 pounds. The XB-41 was still hauling its increased weight minus some of the bullets it had expended and fuel/oil consumed.
You did not have to guess, just watch the entire video, you did guess correctly
Thanks, dad.@@randalmontgomery4595
Although I do not read of it often, it seems there was a significant issue with the gasoline fueled combination stove/heater on board the B24. This sometimes exploded, causing loss of the plane. This problem was not limited to the B24, but was most often associated with it. I do not know if it was ever fixed.
Re: escort bombers. The escort bomber could not keep up with the bomber stream after bomb laden bombers had loosed bombs on target. Though the bombers were considerably lightened after release, the escort bomber continued at full MTOW; flew like pigs, staying overloaded and slow, unable to keep up with the returning strike aircraft.
I can hear the crew chief cussing about the worn out engines.........
There would have never been a viable heater as with no insulation and temperatures so low the only solution was suits electrically heated.The DC3 heater on the other hand was installed and when it worked properly, provided reasonable comfort. Said heater was directly responsible for death of Rick Nelson and others in his DC3. It was said, that a copilot could earn a job anywhere if he could keep that loose collection of junk referred to as a heater operating. Also, the fuel transfer system on the B24 left much to be desired with pumps throwing sparks everywhere while fuel dripped. The C87 was the cargo version having many of the same systems. Read Fate is the Hunter/ Earnest Gann. He flew many hops across the pond, Greenland, and Iceland flying for Air Transport Command.
You do understand that an E is missing in your screen name, right?@@Einwetok
@@krautyvonlederhosen It's silly that you assume it's a Germanic word, or a misspelled island, you Word Nazi edgelord wannabe.
The more bomber flight time over German the higher the exposure to AA fire and German fighters. Bomber speed was the biggest survival factor. Not counting allied fighter escort coverage
Don't discount altitude, the Pacific proved that. Most things couldn't reach the 29.
Not saying the idea was sound, it probably wasn't, but there was a SERIOUS FLAW in reasoning starting about 15:00 with posing the question of was the idea worth it for the extra guns? It goes on to compare the numbers of guns available between the gunship and bomber versions and then asks,
"are those additional guns worth sacrificing the ability to drop a bomb load, personally I don't it is, etc".
This has a glaring flaw! It wasn't so much the extra guns carried, as the B24 was fairly well armed as it was, but the comparison omits all that EXTRA AMMO! I know the extra ammo was mentioned in the WEIGHT comparisons but idea of the gunship considered all that extra ammo as even more important than the extra guns since relatively few guns were actually added. A much more realistic question would have been "was all that EXTRA AMMO worth sacrificing the ability to drop a bomb load"? Of course it was a combination of both guns and ammo that was the basis for the idea but the bomb load SEVERELY limited the ammo supply that could be carried on a standard B24, or a B17 for that matter. A standard bomber trying to defend itself while running the gauntlet to the target, away from the target and then quite a distance on the trip home would simply have a severe shortage of ammo and could not keep those guns firing for the entire distance it was exposed to fighters unless it made compromises to conserve ammo! The idea of the gunship was to have guns that could fire the entire exposure time much more so than simply adding a few extra guns!
Thanks for the great video! I think if they went in there with more gunships on the outside of the boxes it would have helped. BTW, pertaining to that Liberator that is on fire in your video, there was one on in a lot of war videos using footage of wing folding in after getting a flak hit. I wonder if any of the crews in either one lived later on? That would be a cool video for UA-cam.
That bomber was hit over Rabaul in the Pacific. The sole survivor was the navigator who managed to bail out. He was captured by the Japanese and executed
I read that one time, a YB-40 actually destroyed another B-17. This B-17 was a captured example operated by the Germans and used to sidle up to inbound raids for the purposes of vectoring fighters. And it was thus hated by the US guys. So one day, when no official mission was going, a crew took a YB-40 out solo to see if they could attract the attention of the Luftwaffe's B-17. As it happened, they did. Once the 2 planes were flying side-by-side, they started trading broadsides like ships-of-the-line. The out-gunned German B-17 went down but the YB-40 was badly shot up as well and barely made it back. Or so the story goes. IIRC, I got it from _Flying Fortress_ by Edward Jablonski, who even provided the names of the crew. But anyway, the story stuck with me, whether or not it was actually true.
:D Jep! Thanks!
In theory, it was a good idea, but there was one huge problem: the German fighters were fitted with the MG 151 20 mm cannon and the MK 108 30 mm cannon could hit a B-17 or B-24 outside the range of the 12.7 mm (0.5 in) machine guns used on the YB-40 and the XB-41. No wonder the idea was quickly dropped once the P-47 and P-51 became available in quantity by late 1943.
In reality though...the Germans didn't hang back to shoot. They just got in close and thundered a cannon through the cockpit.
Actually the .50 rounds have a much longer range than 20mm and 30mm WW2 rounds.
@@ThatZenoGuy But did the 0.50 rounds have the hitting power of the German MG 151 20 mm or MK 108 30 mm cannon? The destructive power of these cannons was why the USAAF abandoned the idea of heavily armed "escort bombers" and instead switched to fighters that could fly at long ranges.
@@Sacto1654
.50 rounds were not as strong as 20 or 30mm. But in regards to range while still causing damage, .50 was superior. The ballistic qualities of ww2 cannons were never particularly great.
The only conceivable practical(?) use for the gunship would actually be on the return, helping cover damaged bombers on the way home. Many damaged bombers would have made it back if they’d had some sort of support until the escort fighters could rendezvous. Still, it was an I’ll-conceived solution.
The P-38 always had the range but was more deployed in the Pacific.
because it suffered horribly against LW Fighters in the european theatre with their performance at the ceiling of the bombers, in the pacific they could fly much lower
The gunship fighter concept was hard to get right. Out of all of them the P-61 was the only successful one. The attempts did generate some interesting designs, such as the one with 37mm guns on the engine pods and the Boulton Paul defiant.
The Boulton-Paul Defiant was one of those planes that could have benefited from a more powerful Merlin 61 engine of 1,600 bhp and replaced the four 0.303 machine guns with two 20 mm Hispano cannon. That would have raised the top speed of the Defiant to 360-370 mph and with the hitting power of the Hispano cannon, could have been a huge scourge against _Luftwaffe_ bombers.
@Sacto1654 It would still have been vulnerable to head on attack, and it would interesting to see how you could fit a pair of 20mm along with ammunition feed into a BP turret.
@@kitbag9033 the lack of forward armament can easily be remedied. Some .303 guns in the wings shouldn't be a problem. Hell, maybe mount some in pods under the wings. So many planes of that era had guns added over their lifetimes, I don't know why this one can't.
@@starpilot101So, with respect, you install .303 in the wings, 4, 6 or 8. Best case is that you have the equivalent of a plump Hurricane, carrying your 20 mm cannon in a turret that they can't fit into. There is a practical reason why none of this occurred in real life...
I feel like the YB40 concept could have worked better if they'd utilized different weapon systems than just the .50 cal, maybe using 20 mm or something like that, they could have designed something to fill that role especially in the time before the introduction of the chin turret on the b-17s when goof off of fighter pilots were attacking head-on, a 20 mm cannon or two in the nose of a couple of the b-17s in the formation would have been quite terrifying
The recoil of a 20mm cannon is much higher than dual or quad 50 cal machine guns. Mounting a 20 mm cannon would probably involved revamping and reinforcing the structure of the air frame for either plane. B25s were equipped with front aimed 20 mm canons that, though effective, were very destructive on the air frame to the aircraft. Consider also that the air frame of a B24 was designed to survive only 100 flight hours before major reconstruction. That would be around 10 missions and the air frame is worn out by design.
Fun fact. @4:00 the B-24 Joisey Bounce was repainted as "Utah Man" and after a dozen missions over the middle east repainted again to Joisey Bounce. It's next mission it collided in mid air with another B-24 and all twenty crew members from each flight were killed.
16:53
The P-38 with the name Yippee. I'm certain that was the name given to the 8000 th P-38 built.
Read the book "The Bomber Boys". The between the wars idea that the bombers would quickly end a war with high altitude precision bombing. Take out war production without another long bloody WW1 style ground war.
yeah the "Douhet doctrine" was a very diehard but flawed concept.
Imagine what a game changer mid-air fuelling could have been if the concept had been discovered by either side in WWII
First successful inflight refuelling was done in June 1923. Grappled-line loop refuelling had been developed prior to the start of WW2.
DOD site says it was done with modified B-24's during WW2. B-29's were the first used in large numbers.
@@Einwetok a B-24D converted to a tanker was used on 7 times refuel a B-17E during June 1943. I'm not aware of any conversions.
Interesting. I hadnt known it was already a thing. Curious as to why it was never implemented although they probably thought the whole idea behind it was a stupid at the time.
@@Rose.Of.Hizaki the RAF Tiger Force bombers were going to use it but the war ended sooner than expected. RAF Coastal Command was Aldo considering using it to close the air cover gap mover the Atlantic but went with the Kong range Liberator instead. The cost and complexity of in flight refuelling were major factors in deciding to not go ahead with the Coastal Command plan
i wouldnt call the yb-40 just a blip as its armament laid the basis for the b-17g.
When he mentioned gunships I thought oh they're going to stick flak cannons inside of a bomber with radar.
PS worked on AC-130 H for Lughead Aircraft. Great weapons platform for ground support. Air defense? LOL
The government made a lot of 'training films' to improve the morale of crews that had their doubts about the B-24. It's not unpatriotic to criticize an airframe.
The reason that it was canceled was because the P-51 mustang was available. With a single 150 gallon drop tank it was capable of escorting the bombers to Berlin and back. The P-38 and P-47 came along a few months later. The P-38 was an excellent choice, with twin 100 gallon drop tanks it could easily fly wherever the bombers did and was very rugged and survived both flak and air to air combat quite well.
P47s were escorting before the p51. And could go to berlin with drop tanks which were available.
The 8th airforce just CHOSE not to use the p47.
See gregs airplanes. He totally kills the old p51 was the only one could escort to berlin blahblah
thats why the Luftwaffe tried - not always successful - to intercept the bombers as early as possible to either force the P-51 to drop their tanks prematurely or to fight with worsened performance
The Luftwaffe, headed by Goring, failed in the Battle of Britain for a multitude of reasons, but primarily, in my opinion, was they were using aircraft that were completely useless in the war over Britain, they had no heavy bombers, the Stuka dive bomber was defenceless against fighters because it wasn’t really a conventional bomber, it was more of an infantry support,
ground attack aircraft, the Luftwaffe’s medium bombers couldn’t carry a large enough payload and the fighters had not got the loiter time to protect the bombers, but because the German hierarchy were so overly confident in their abilities following the Spanish Civil War and their blitzkrieg through Europe development of other aircraft was left behind, and they never caught up with allied development of superior aircraft, but that’s just my opinion.
The Mantra that “The bomber will always get through” was so wrong, yes a bomber or two would get through but the losses, especially during daylight raids, were not the result the USAAF thought they would get, the RAF Bomber Command had experienced the issues and determined that the losses were unsustainable, but that was not the opinion of the top brass in the USAAF, they, like the Germans, were overconfident to the point of lunacy, the premise that the Nordon bombsight would get more bombs on target in daylight, but that didn’t work out so good either.
Was the gunship good for riding the strangling (damaged) bombers home?
It would have been a lot more effective to create a new aircraft that would fill the roll as heavy long range fighter. This being with enough weapons to fight off the enemy while having large fuel tanks and high speed option to support them properly. Of course these fighters would need not just front facing weapons, but one in the rear as well and possibly a top mounted gun as well. Some heavier armor to make sure it would be a effective measure against enemy fighters and flak fire would be needed. So a 4 powerful engines aircraft would be highly needed.
The only real advantage of the B-24 was its range. Not effective in the confines of the European operation but as a patrol bomber with COSTAL COMMAND, and in the PACIFIC Theatre, its range was a real asset.
And North Africa for southern Europe, ploezti etc
Range is not only an advantage in reaching a distant target, it is also important when used for loiter time. Many (most?) bombing missions launch from England risked the air bases being closed because of bad weather when their bombers returned. Air bases in Scotland or northern most England were the alternative landing points for the bombers. But you needed the fuel to get there. My dad flew 11 bombing mission at the beginning of his tour with 6 of them ending on Scottish bases. Those missions were in September and October of 1944.
Black Thursday, 14 Oct 1943, was the reason that the Army Air Corp backed out of the XB-41.
They should have slapped some 20 mm in the top turrent and tail stinger.
The YB-40 and the XB-41 are two examples of overthinking that leads to over complicating what could have become everything they wanted an more. Both aircraft ideas were approached thinking more was better, when the KISS system should have been used. In this case, they thought more firepower would be better and that turned out to be it's downfall.
A typical AN/M2 Aircraft Light Weight .50 Cal Machine Gun weighs about 60 pounds and a WWII metal link 100 Round Belt of .50 caliber ammo is about 35 pounds. The standard B-17F was equipped with 13 M2's. 4 single mounts in the Nose, 2 twin mounts in the Top and Ball turrets, 2 single mounts for each waist gunner and a twin mount in the tail. That is about 780 pounds for just the M2's. How many rounds for the guns seems to be about 2,000 but that was what was "at the ready" in the guns at take off. But they often carried spare boxes of ammo and it all depended on the bomb load and mission. Most had to be calculated by the max takeoff weight and fuel consumption. More weight requires more fuel and fuel also has weight. So if it was just 2,000 rounds of .50 caliber ammo that would be another 700 pounds for a total of 1,480 pounds for just the Machine Guns and Ammo. That doesn't include the weight of the turrets and guns that they added.
Germany had Schnell Bombers that could be converted to a fighter and the JU-88 was one of the best examples. But even the DO -17 could be converted to that heavy fighter concept. If the USAAF had look at that concept they might have seen what they were looking for. In this case, less firepower and faster speed was better.
If they looked at the YB-40 project with the KISS system to converting the B-17 to a Fighter or F-17, they would have stripped it down to the bare basics. Removed all turrets, gun positions and most of the armor. Then removed the plexiglass nose and mounted 4 or 6 M2's in fixed mounts with a sheet metal covering. The Crew could be cut to 2 or 4, Pilot, Copilot, Radio/Navigator and Flight Engineer. That is if the last two would be needed for radio communication and servicing gun problems. Then the YB-40 might have worked if it were flown with pilots that had some experience in both single or twin engine Fighters and 4 engine Bomber aircraft. The YB-40 carrying a standard or double ammo load of a Fighter, would be much lighter and faster than the standard B-17 and probably a bit more maneuverable. It would have done much better if they had upgraded the engines to either Allison V-1710 V-12 engines like on the one Lockheed conversion of the XB-38 or using the Packard made V-12 Merlin engines used in the P-51.
But the USAAF could have converted several Twin Engine Light Bombers for that job. The B-25. the B-26, the A-20 and A-26 all of which had been converted to ground attack aircraft with .50 Cal Machine Guns or 20mm Cannons in the nose. Especially the B-26 Marauder and the A-26 Invader would have excelled in this roll and both had drop tanks fitted to them. Converting the engines to the V-12 Allison or Packard engines might have given them more speed and both could have been reworked to be single seat fighters. Some B-25's had a 75mm in the nose that was used to attack ships and ground attack. A hit from one of them would have done a lot of damage
But having done extensive research in the past on both the YB-40 and XB-41, you can tell the people working these projects were not looking at them like a fighter aircraft and really missed a big opportunity. They were looking at them like a flying version of a Navy Destroyer Escort of the sky used to protect a convoy of Bombers. On the sea the Destroyer escort concept worked for the most part when encountering one or a few slow moving U-Boats. But in the sky, speed is everything when it comes to downing fighter aircraft. The McDonnell XP-67 Moonbat might have been inspired from these projects.
Note: I used the B-17F as the baseline here because it didn't have the chin turret or the big turrets the B-24 had. Both the B-17F & G had the same number of guns, but the G had two in a chin turret that added weight and I couldn't find the weights of the turrets quickly.
Re the early part of the vid, funny thing is that by comparing german and british records as available today, the Me 110 had the best kill loss ratio of any aircraft of either side in the Battle of Britain
"I Suspect" one Gramps may have crossed paths with this B24 in his BATTLE for the ATLANTIC! as an EWO and on to NASA?
Sadly, the B24 was the wrong plane at the right time
Boeing had better heavy bombers in the pipeline, but none ready when another heavy bomber was badly needed.
What were the overall formation losses during sortes with the gunship vs. without? If more planes made it to the target and back home, then the gunship would probably be worth it, at least until long range escort fighters became avalable in quantity.
It is possible that the gun ships didn't become available soon enough before the long range fighter escorts came into the theater to make refining the bomber escorts a worthwhile pursuit.
...late and great uncle Al said it was like sitting on the porch, and flying your house...
No ball turret?
"Worse of the two, and therefore the more interesting". LOL
Why not fit radar turrets like the Lancaster Pathfinders.
..the GUNSHIP concept seems to be only successful when used in a Ground Support Roll............
Maybe if they used the R2800 on these B17s...
They tried uprating a B-25 with R-2800s... NAA test pilots loved it. Flew like a bat outta hell. Then the Army AF test pilot tried it. He flew the wings off it. Literally. Fatal catastrophic crash. So they stayed with R-2600s.
It was too much of a complicated job. The majority of ancillary systems were designed around the Cyclone engines so it would need a complete redesign of the aircraft.
Changing engines is not going to do anything.
The very concept is flawed in that it assumes you can successfully defend other aircraft in the formation from your position in the formation. I'd bet the idea originated in a meeting that did not include any bomber crews!
Another Great video. I suspect the extra range of Luftwaffe cannons over 50 cals were also a major factor. Plus a large plane, in day light is just an obvious target for the AA. Night bombing with path finders was the answer.
No.
There was a good bit of tactical maneuvering that went on throughout the war.
Early in the war - Poorly Armed British Bombers were shot out of the sky trying to bomb targets in the day time without escorts. So they switched to night bombing.
The Germans then created an Air Defense Network of Radar's and Fighter Coordination Centers that were directing Night Fighters onto targets. When close enough - the Night Fighters own radar could pick out the target but they couldn't find targets very well all by themselves.
Day and Night Bombers both suffered horrendous casualties - but - Day Fighters flying escort missions eventually wore the Luftwaffe Day Fighters down.
While the British did try and provide Night Fighter Escorts for their bombers - these aircraft lacked the long range radars Ground Controllers could use to vector their Night Fighters onto targets - until the Night Fighters less powerful radar could pick up the target.
German Night Fighters were therefore not shot out of the sky the way their Day Fighters were and eventually to some extent the British Switched to Day Light Bombing - since there were few if any German Day Fighters.
.
I wonder how successful they would have been if they had been used to support ground forces. In my head what I'm thinking is basically the AC-47/130 but waaay earlier.
No they aren't gatling guns, 40MM or artillery but having a few orbit over an area flying a profile where the 4 turrets could be brought to bear and atleast a waist position. Either the YB-40 or XB-41 or both.
Look up the B-25H - it had a 75mm howitzer fitted.
Too slow, AA fire would've butchered them, don't forget that AC130s are generally used against enemies that don't have ANY heavy AA support.
The coffin is the most produced bomber of all time and was in service until 1968.
It reminds me of a Book ( fiction ) I read KG200 , where the Luftwaffe fixed up crashed U.S Bombers then flew them up into U.S formations and opened up on them , interesting Vid.
I've read that the Luftwaffe did fly captured bombers just outside of gun range of formations, radioing intercept data.
That actually happened in the video game Heroes Over Europe!
I have to say this is the first report I have seen on the Liberator that says it wasn't respected as a bomber.
Not convinced by the cramped interior remark. The B-24 was much less cramped than a B-17.
Great stuff. Another idea that didn't make sense.
Your statement at the end that they ended up using fighters with drop tanks that could escort them for the whole mission is misleading. While the Mustang had the greatest range, they could not escort them all the way to targets in eastern Germany and the the other fighters such as the Thunderbolt and Lightning had far less range. Also the fighters had to drop their drop tanks when they engaged the enemy so as to be more maneuverable at which point they had to return to base after the fight. Why no one ever sent a second wave of fighters to escort them on the way home has always puzzled me.
A second wave? You have a finite number of fighter groups.
"Why no one ever sent a second wave of fighters to escort them on the way home has always puzzled me." They did do that. Fighter escort groups worked in relays.
i wish you guys would do more reserch the 109 was never called bf it is the me109 the bf was to say what factory it was built at
The XB-41 project was cancelled because of flight and training experience with the YB-40s. Even before they went into combat it was apparent it wasn't a good idea.
Only two B41s (B24s) were ever used in combat there were ,more Converted B17s used but their weaknesses of not being able to keep up with the returning bomberds due to their extra weight of increased armoument and ammunition some carried 40 mm cannon So after a few months and a head on collision with a Me 109 they were withdrawn
From the data comparing the ME BF 109 and BF 110 there really wasn’t any difference in the range, 418 miles vs 410 miles.
The difference was greater when they were first designed.
And in both cases, the range is based on a clean airframe without external fuel tanks.
All the B-24 guys I knew preferred it. It flew higher, faster and carried more bombs.
Should have reinvented the electric powered gatling gun at each position.
Would not have mattered.
They should have fitted the radial engines from the Thunderbolt to these gunships so that they could keep up with the empty bombers on the way back home. For yeares I thought the B17 had the same radial engine as the Corsair, Thunderbolt and Hellcat,but that is incorrect.
..Not really. Fitting a vastly bigger and heavier engine, which then requires more fuel, is no easy feat.
The USAAF failed to recognize and follow a simple and immutable rule and fact of aviation physics, and did so many times. Breaking and not respecting this rule and fact is done at one's peril, and never works out well.
The rule and fact? An increase in an aircraft's weight MUST be accompanied by an appropriate increase in power or the aircraft's performance will be seriously reduced. That's it. Simple, yes? Yes.
Accordingly, the YB-40 and the XB-41, both heavier than the aircraft upon which they were based, and neither one receiving an increase in power, failed to perform to the standards required to accomplish their missions. This was predictable as an absolute fact, and much wasted effort and expenditure of time and money might have been saved by the USAAF's judicious reference to and respect of and for the above rule and fact.
Poor p-38 😂
The US airforce just needed take a few Mossies along
The US did fly Mosquitos, mainly for long range photo recon over Europe
Despite the Fanboy love. They were no match for single-engine Fighters.
Calling the standard B-24 a 'Flying Coffin' in your title doesn't do this good aircraft the justice it deserves.
According to some it could receive less punishment than the Boeing B-17 and therefore would have a lower survivability, but statistics seem to prove otherwise....
That is not a bf-110 bro 😒
Good video thank you! A simple gripe.... pronunciation.
Luftwaffe : looft-wah-fuh instead of lufft-wah-fuh
Don't worry it's kinda like a southerner trying to say jalapeno. Just hurts my ears.
The British De Havilland wooden twin Merlin engined Mosquito fulfilled all requirements and was feared and admired by the Germans including Goring. They even designed a similar type, imitation being the sincerest form of flattery.
It was canceled because the YB-40 failed spectacularly
There are far too many anecdotes circulating about the robustness and superiority of the B-17. Postwar studies based on scientific inquiry and statistical analysis show the Eighth Air Force B-24 had a lower rate of loss and related casualty rates when compared to the Eighth's B-17.
see: Kugel, H. 2011. Daylight Precision Bombing: Dangerous Doctrine of the Eighth Air Force. Warfare History Network. Winter.
PS Also referenced below in a reply.
It is astronomically more difficult to hit a fighter flying past you than it is to hit a fighter attacking you. The concept of bombers covering each other was flawed from the beginning.
Typical American approach: 10 guns is good, 20 guns must be better.
Must be some reason that the U.S. won... perhaps 10 guns=good, 20 guns=better, atomic bomb=war is over.
Works in schools.
The USAAF had a really dumb leadership in WWII which focused around the myth of the Norden bomb sight. Because of the sight the USAAF had to bombed by day, This was ok as US bombers did not need fighter escort, the XB-41 was just added stupidity for that concept. When it was realized fighters would be needed none were available as no drop-tanks had been made for US fighters.They were not needed as the USAAF had no plans for long range missions. Luckily the RAF made drop-tanks and these were purchased for the P-47 Thunderbolt, while US industry got busy on drop-tank production and aircraft modification.
The US should have licensed the Mosquito.
That's not a solution.
"2nd half of WW2"!
Don't you mean the last third?
The War did didn't start in December 1941.
Umm no... the United States entered WWII in December 1941. The war had been going on since '39.
@@tempestfury8324 Ooops, my bad.
I meant to write the War DID NOT start in 1941.
I've corrected that, so thanks for the reply.
Mate, go back to school. Get a real job, child.
You are flapping your gums about things you know nothing about. That war was some 80 years ago.
Kids like us did all this stuff as teenagers.
Americans be like, escort fighters? No just add more Daka.
Almost everything you state as fact is 100% incorrect.
Great, look forward to your rebuttal.
Sounds like useless drama xd
What about firepower? Your lecture style is flawed thus you are a tiny channel
Lets see your channel?
That is a disingenuous and pointless comment. You can do better to give him some constructive criticism rather than attack other comments. His channel is TINY. And the growth rate is very small. There is a reason for that. I consider myself an average YT consumer. I follow 200+ channels. I get a lot of exposure to good and not so good channels. This one has interesting topics that are delivered poorly. He can do better. I hope he does so I can come back regularly. As currently configured it is not on my go to list. Period. And your email says a lot about you. @@jimbovoncarguy3877
Yeah , where's your Channel?