Germans up armed FW with 30mm cannons. Experts estimated 3 hits could bring down bomber. B-17 & B-24 tail gunners had 2 50cals. My uncle was a gunner on B-24 , did 25 missions & returned to states.
I would love to know more about your background and how you're able to consistently put out such high quality videos. You perform a great historical service.
Excellent video! Yours is one of the best military channel on the internet. I simply wish you would slow down your commentary. I often feel that you're in a rush to finish your videos as soon as possible. Slow down, please.
You’re the most knowledgeable man on this topic I’ve seen. I can’t thank you enough for making this information more available to the public! Out of curiosity what made the b17 so much less effective than the b29 in terms of defending themselves? I understand the b29’s faced far less opposition but if I’m not mistaken they had a far better shoot down ratio
Thanks for the channel donation. Much appreciated. B-29s were equipped with superior defensive gun system than the B-17s or B-24s. B-29 air-to-air kill ratios were around 8x that of the of the B-17, when taken into account the B-17 gunner over claims.
The USAAF never had the idea that a single bomber could drive off a determined interceptor. The concept was that combined firepower of a massed bomber formation would provide a measure of self defense. If you read accounts by German pilots tasked with attacking those formations you can see they considered the defensive fire of such a formation to be very dangerous.
@@gort8203 I agree with you - the Luftwaffe found that out when attacking Britain. The USAAF and the RAF learned from those mistakes. But, and this is a huge but, you have skin in the game if you are defending your homeland. The box formations would certainly scare the hell out of you, but it's your own people down there. Firepower forced the interceptors into certain patterns of attack, which can be planned for, and that's better than nothing. I hope that my comment wasn't taken the wrong way. All I meant was that it was very costly to prosecute a bomber war.
My uncle was in the Army 8th Air Force as a B-17 crew chief. He said one day representatives from Boeing came by and put up these big posters on the operation room walls. The posters depicted a B-17 with guns blazing away at German FW-190s (Focke Wulf 190s). At the bottom of the poster were the words “Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?” My uncle said every man in every squadron signed his name on the poster.
Thx for this. Said it elsewhere, but as a B-24 pilot in the 15th, my father maintained the 190s were terrifying. After the 109s had scattered formations, the 190s chewed thru everything. The head-on attacks, often ten abreast, were brutally effective and, as dad said, horrifying to witness. Oh, the German pilots wanted no part of the '17s, concentrated on the more vulnerable and quicker to burn '24s.
Thank You! I always wondered about this. since my general impression is that the 24 was more designed as a chargo plane, tecnicaly superior to the 17 to be honest, but at the cost of being a more vulnerable target. I think the 17 became more popular on movies, news and kids magasines, etc because it had, from a purely wisual estetic point, a more aphealing look with all the guns sticking out and a lot more aggressive but still beautiful look. But in reality it seem to be the 24 who was the lady of choise who got most of the dirty job done, but the bulky and a bit old scool looking design with less guns was just not as popular to put on pictures and poosters. I am not by any means want to take away any creds from the 17, but I strongly believe that the air raids had not been the same logistic sucess without the 24. (Fun fact is that the Swedish airforve did buy a lot of old P 51 from the USAF after the war and we also managed to make several functioning planes out of a large batch of scrapped ones the USAF sold off as spareparts, there was a B17 here as well after the war, it served quite long for the civil airmail delivery after the war was ower. The completely unexpected actualy happened once here whan an American bomber with two crewmen managed to perfom an emergency ladning here, since there was no real expectations of this they had to setup a lot of formal paperwork, but they where of course newer inprisoned in reality, they where even allowed to use some of the aircrafts on the swedish base while they where waiting, unfortunately one of the guys died in a plane crash whan he decided to preform a dangerous stunt trick on low altitude ower the roof of a building, the other guy was sent home shortly after, that's the story of the american "POW" in Sweden, not as well known today i think... ).
That's not why they went after the B24's in mixed formations, B24's were faster than B17's so the B17's would be put up front to set the pace leaving the B24's in the notorious "tail end charlie" position, to make things even worse they flew about 2,000 ft lower than the B17's meaning they lost the added defensive firepower they'd have had from the B17's if they were at the same altitude, it's for those reasons that the Germans went after the B24's early on when the 8th Air Force was still flying mixed formations, German pilot's in interviews here on RUclips even cite those as the reasons they preferred attacking the B24's in mixed formations, it's also why when people use the mixed formations as a study on the survivability of the B17 vs the B24 you'll get skewed results, they just look at raw number's and don't take into account that the German fighter's were concentrating their attacks on the more vulnerable B24's who were stupidly put in a bad position, it didn't take too awful long and the 8th Air Force caught on to what was happening and quit running mixed formation mission's, they rearranged the squadrons so that bomb groups were either all B17's or all B24's. Sending out those early mission's unescorted trying to prove their bomber only concept wasn't the only stupid thing the 8th Air Force did that cost them bombers, mixing the B17's and B24's like that and blaming the defensive gunners of the B24's for their heavy losses was another bone headed move from it's commander's.
@@dukecraig2402 Interesting taughts, i always taught the B 24 was loosely based on the Lancaster but scaled down and had a stronger but slightly heavier (seen to it's size) body in order to make it more durable than the older British concepts.
@@dukecraig2402 Thank you for this interesting and illuminating info. My only source for German pilots preferring to hit '24s rather than '17s was based on contemporary interviews done with captured pilots that became common knowledge among my father and other '24 pilots. Not trying to be "right" here, just passing along what was "the word" in their world at the time.
It should be pointed out that, while bolting on all the armour and heavy guns greatly increased the effectiveness of FW190s against US bombers, it also decreased their speed and manoeuvrability. When escort fighters showed up in the bomber stream, the FW190s paid the price. The Mk108 cannon in particular was optimised for light weight, high rate-of-fire and heavy explosive payload. This came at a cost of poor muzzle velocity, acceptable against bombers but terrible in fighter combat.
I just finished reading the JG300 Wilde Sau unit history by Lorant and Goyat; One thing that worked well was fitting the FWs with the EZ42 gyroscopic computing gunsight and leaving off the armor and the Mk108 30mm cannons. Pilots who used this said they could accurately fire their 20mm cannons from up to 1000 meters away and stay far enough to cause a lot of problems for the bombers' defending gunners. That being said, they still had to contend with Allied escort fighters
There were. That’s the reason why the British used the cover of the night to protect them. They just comforted the crew and they hoped they had a psychological effect : they loaded them with a lot of tracers, to deter any incoming fighter.
No, at night the fighter had to come a lot closer, thus enhanching the usefullnes of the .303 Some Lancs had ,50 cal installed in the rear tower, two instead of 4 .303 But shooting was the last resort, mainly they used the lookout and corkscrewed away from the fighter, using guns were a dead givaway.
USAAF Operations Analysis, Report Ref # 687: "The fact that the intelligence section and claims board of a command have taken particularly great pains in the screening process to eliminate duplications and invalid claims assures that the list of approved claims is a reliable source of data for a study of enemy losses inflicted by gunners" First off there's a different between "claims" and "credits", everyone's always barking about the number of claims turned in by bomber gunners after a mission but that doesn't mean they were all credited, they had to be reviewed by a claims board, which every command had, and needless to say the number of credits afterwards was always less. As fast as people saying that the gunners "over claimed" what they apparently don't understand is that if a German fighter makes a pass at a bomber box and it bursts into flames or the pilot bails out and there were 5 gunners in 2 different bombers shooting at it it'd be real easy for at least 3 of those gunners to think he was the guy who hit it, then after they get back and go through their debriefing all 3 of them turn in a claim on the same fighter, it'd especially be easy for it to happen when the USAAF switched to ammo with no tracers, even with tracers it'd be hard to tell if someone in another bomber, or even your own for that matter, was even shooting at the same target you were with it becoming virtually impossible to tell after they dropped tracers from the ammo, that's exactly how you get 3 or 4 times the claims as aircraft that were actually shot down, it's not because gunners were lying, they were after all over 20,000 ft above the ground in -40 f temperatures and moving along at 225 MPH with their lives in immediate danger so yea, it'd be easy not to notice every single little thing around you like someone else on another bomber shooting at you, anyone who believes that things would be crystal clear to everyone up there about what was going on around them needs to have their head examined, it's not like playing a video game, you'd have no idea who else was shooting at the same thing you were much less if they were hitting it or even if you were hitting it, you could very well not have been hitting it but thought you were when you seen panels coming off of it and smoke starting to pour out of it, it kills me how people automatically assume that the gunners were involved in some kind of intentional deceit, and it's not like every claim was credited, as it says in that report the claims board sorts things out so intelligence has an accurate number of enemy aircraft destroyed for the sake of keeping track of how many available aircraft the enemy has, they weren't interested in handing out claims for propaganda reasons or because they were worried about what people were going to think 80+ years down the road, they were in the intelligence business not the propaganda business, so when the claims board went through all the after action reports from everyone being debriefed and looked at all the claims they went through everything with a fine toothed comb to sort out all the "duplicate and invalid" claims by doing thing's like looking at the position of a German fighter when it was said to be hit, then taking the claims of the different gunners who claimed it, look at the position of the bombers the different claimants were on, and determine who should get the credit with often times credits being shared between gunners just like they'd do with fighter's sometimes, so you can bet that whatever the number is when you see one for credits you can bet it's as humanly close as possible to an exact number, and as far as your claim that the number of credited kills by 8th Air Force bombers seems optimistic I don't know why you'd make that claim considering that 8th Air Force bombers flew over 600,000 sorties, so what's so hard to believe about them being credited with shooting down 6,265 fighter's? That's only 1 fighter in every 95 B17 flights, what's so hard to believe about that? Or do you just automatically say that about everything concerning the 8th Air Force?
They are, and for a number of reasons. Among them: Multiple gunners would fire at a single target and all of them would claim hits. Excitement and fear in combat. Firing windows being no more than a few seconds long. And so on .... It should also be noted that this trend of over-claiming was not limited to air gunners or to the Americans - it was true for pretty much all combat formats in WW2 and to every side involved.
@@dukecraig2402 Bloody damn-well rights, I'll say! ... You should perhaps let all the 'bigwig' producers over at *Masters of the Air* in on your most-secretive 'war-expert' findings. I'm sure - because of your 'well-explained' exemplary thesis (concisely explained in but _four_ sentences!), and aerial (Picasso-like) 'picturesque' foresight - both (big _beet-red_-faced) Spielberg and Hanks, as well as their acclaimed team of air-war 'masters', will now consider remaking this Series _[only]_ to your rigid 'war correspondent' exposé, towards meeting your exact specified 'bomber-interceptor claim/credit' (and alleged 'anti-deception/progaganda', 'duplicate/invalid', 'anti-war-ruling'/arbitration-committee-enforced) 'conspiracy' requirements (thus effectively, [painstakingly] recounting and reassessing _each_ and _every_ B-17/B-24 .50-cal. Browning M-2 round fired per sortie/aerial-gunner, _proper_ to Eighth Air Force 'high-court' regulation-order of Presidential-command, Special Office of 'Air-War Cheaters' Association, et al.) - and/or, will at least be consulting with you - and only through _'you'_ - in the near future ... Good job!
@@onenote6619 Indeed. Bomber claims were in a class of their own for the reasons you note, and generally ran around 7 claims per kill, fighter claims 2-3:1
TY for the vid .. . . I remember as a kid I went to the air museum and they had presentation on Air War in Europe for WW2, and the guy had cartridges next to him, and there was a vet that held something like 2 liter coke bottle, that was a 30 mm. The vet said just 3 of them and a bomber could be brought down, 6-10 for the 20 mm (It was the size of 32 oz 7-11 slurpee cup ), and they could take the machine gun hits all day (index finger sized) . They also had a chart of the effective ranges of 50 cal vs German 17mm, 20mm, and 30mm, and the cannons in theory could allow the Luftwaffe to fly just out of range and send stuff down range and score hits. Those visits brought out fascination with ww 2 warbirds
Well there's several things wrong there, a 30mm round isn't anywhere close to the size of a 2 liter bottle, and never in a million years could a fighter with 300mm guns loiter outside the range of .50 cals unthreatened, the diameter of a projectile is one thing but how big the cartridge, and therefore how much powder it contains that pushes the projectile out of the gun, determines how much velocity the round has, the cannons used on aircraft didn't have cartridges that were considerably bigger than the projectile that were necked down to the projectiles diameter like the .50 cal round did, the German fighter's with the 30mm cannons that had lower velocity had to get inside of the effective range of the bombers .50 cal defensive guns if it had any chance of hitting it. Both were shooting from a moving platform at a moving target which greatly decreases the maximum effective range, so it's not like shooting either one set up on mount on the ground shooting at a stationary target, for example a .50 cal machineguns maximum effective range in the ground role is 2,000 yards (that's the distance it can accurately shoot in the ground role but the bullet will actually travel 8,000 yards), but when used as a defensive gun on a bomber they were rated between 700 to 1,000 yards (depending on which gun position it was in). And the .50 cal had a velocity much higher than the German 30mm aircraft gun had which increases accuracy over distance because it's not dropping as much, the .50 cal has a velocity of 2,910 feet per second while the German 30mm cannon only had a velocity of 1,770 feet per second level, so while it only took 3 or 4 of the explosive rounds from a 30mm to bring down a bomber they still had to get within the effective range of the .50 cal defensive guns of the bombers plus there's going to be multiple gunners on a bomber from multiple bombers shooting at the fighter, more than one German fighter pilot said that attacking a bomber box was the worst experience of their life because of all the different guns shooting at them at once. So no, they couldn't just fly around outside the range of a bombers guns shooting at them, if that was the case the bombers of the 8th Air Force wouldn't have been able to shoot down over 6,000 German fighter's during the war. Note; The defensive guns on the British bombers were .303 cal which is a regular rifle cartridge like someone would use for deer hunting, German fighter's could stay outside of their 300 to 400 yard maximum effective range and fire on the bombers untouched by their defensive guns, that's exactly why the British switched to night bombing shortly after starting their bombing campaign, when they tried daylight bombing their loss number's per mission were 3 to 4 times higher than the US's and it's because their. 303 defensive guns were far too underpowered to use as defensive guns against fighter's.
There are reports that one Me262 brought down five P51's in a single run. But by 1945 there were only 200 German fighter pilots left out of 20,000. It was a war of attrition, pure and simple. Similar to what is happening in Ukraine right now.
@@thenevadadesertrat2713 Well that's some kind of a fairytale there, I could see one taking down 5 bombers on a single pass through a bomber stream if he was lucky but P51's no way, as soon as one is fired on they're going to scatter not just continue to fly along in formation like bombers that had to hold their position, now there could have been a ME262 pilot who bagged five P51's in a single mission but not one pass, and as far as that goes there were plenty of Allied pilots who flew "ace in a day" mission's with some even getting as many as 6 or 7 enemy fighter's in the same mission.
My only quibble of your analysis is that the effective firepower is not just: potency of the rounds x number of guns x rate of fire But also needs to have a factor 'fraction of rounds fire that hit the target'. The Germans calculated from gun camera footage that only 2 % of their rounds hit. If the 50s on the B-17s scored a higher hit rate (say 4 % of rounds fired hit) then that would cut into the German advantage. I recall that in US bomber gunnery schools (and I can't find the source) that hitting with 8 % of rounds fired was the average, with some gunners hitting about double that. Even if the training testing was overoptimistic, it might have meant that bomber gunners hit with a higher fraction of their rounds than did German fighters. One must also recall the 50s had a range advantage over the German autocannons. I think that people who say that a fast-moving fighter with fixed guns shooting at a bomber is an 'easy shot' aren't thinking very clearly about the problem. It's a lot easier for a bomber gunner to adjust his aim than it is for a fast-flying fighter to adjust its aim. One last note--the biggest reason why isolated bombers were 'easy meat' for German fighters wasn't the one-on-one relative firepower disadvantage. It was that a) out-of-formation bombers were usually out of formation for a reason; i.e., previous significant damage. Such planes might have only two engines working and/or major damage, including disabled/dead gunners and/or gun stations out. They might also have stabilizers, flaps, ailerons, and rudder out, as well as control cables out, limiting what evasive action they could take. b) In addition, such wounded B-17s often were assaulted by multiple fighters, not just one. By 1943, as evidenced in the Munster Raid, dozens of German fighters would attack to overwhelm the firepower of a single bomber group, nearly annihilating it (such as the 100th) while leaving other bomber groups untouched. While this was a cost-effective tactic in term of inflicting and receiving losses, it also was admission that the Luftwaffe was incapable of stopping the main bomber force from striking the target.
Both the MG131 (13.2mm) and MG 151/20 (20mm) had electrical primers and were easy to synchronize. The 30mm MK108 canon when used had to be placed on the outer wing gun positions since they used percussion primers and lacked synchronization equipment. -Interestingly the MG213 20mm revolver canon was testing with one Fw 190D squadron and was synchronized. It used a much heavier higher velocity round more like the ground based 2.0cm C38 FLAK. Basically 1000 RPM by 1000m/sec instead of 720 RPM and 790 meters/sec. The cartridges look the same size as the C38 FLAK though the rimmed base looks different. Due to the powered revolving breech jammed guns during maneuvering would have been a things of the past.
There seems to be error in the chart at 8:22, when you transpose the Fw 190 armament to the graph. It looks like you accidently included the one Fw configuration twice, so you see a jump in Fw firepower but you tag both as the same guns. Unless maybe you are right, and the jump is the introductions of mine rounds? I do notice that the dates of the armament jumps on that graph don't seem to match the timeline of armament shown on the earlier graph.
The first diagram showing the armament-over-time for the Fw also has a few errors it looks like; The first few preproduction Fw produced has six 7.9mm machine guns (vs the four the chart indicates), it's strange to even include this as onky 28 were produced. They then moved to four 7.9mm MGs plus two 20mm (vs the two+two the charge indicates). The next four bubbles are correct. But then the chart goes on to show Fw apparently armed with two 13mm, two 20mm, and *four* 30mm cannon. I can't find any record of Fw getting four such 30mm cannons, only ever two. Some late war variants did have a variation with two MK103 30mm cannons (much higher velocity than the MK108s), but never four 30mm. There are also lots of other armament configurations missing from the chart, but if you tried to map out every possible permutation of firepower that a Fw flew with across the war you'd be there all day! In fact, the timeline on that 'armaments of German fighters over time' just seems to be entirely erroneous. The Me 410 wasn't even introduced until early 1943! I have several words for whoever made that chart.
Great point about us bomber command. Looking for minimal firepower increase. Clearly if they would need to have 20 machine guns to face off against a single fighter threat, clearly this was not a feasible solution.
Great video. In reference to the last diagram- I think it’s probably relevant to point out that bombers fought in formation so perhaps the Air Force was willing accept the 3x firepower difference based on the ratio of allied bombers to enemy fighters. It would be interesting to how many bombers were used in a typical formation and how many FWs the Germans would typically send to interdict them.
so if gunners were only trained to shoot at enemy fighters flying a pursuit curve to their bomber, how do the rest of the formation's gunners provide mutual fire support since the incoming fighter's pursuit curve isn't relevant to their respective bombers?
The B-17 vs FW-190 chart has one drawback. As your audio states, although the B-17 didn't add more guns (for aft attack), they did improve the gunsights. How many guns would that equate? (yes, that's a challenge!). ;)
It’s a moot point. The Allies were well aware by early 1943 that bombers were vulnerable to fighters, hence the P-47 and later the P-51 escort fighters. The Fw190A was highly vulnerable to both of these fighters as it had a far lower ceiling. Also, less than 1,000 Fw190D aircraft were ever produced and only a few hundred were ever operational at any given time (compared to the 10,000+ American fighters operating over Europe).
My God your presentations are just wonderful. Always learn something new. Bravo! Could you possibly do a presentation on how air gunners claims of downed enemy fighter were so exaggerated as opposed to reality.
Luftwaffe had an unit called Luftwaffe Sturmgruppen equipped with very heavy armed and armored FW 190. This unit s main task was to shoot down bombers with all guns blazing simultaneously at point blank range. The pilots volunteerred to bring down bombers at any costs, thats including ram attacks. Those FW 190 was nicknamed "Sturmböcke". But because of the added weight of extra arming and armor, they became sluggish to control, so they had their own escorte fighters BF 109 to support them.
From trying out different Fw190 variants in various flight sims, I already knew the answer was "No" before clicking the video. The war situation and the growing importance of bomber interception for the Luftwaffe meant the Germans specialized their planes for killing bombers. Over time this meant more armor and loads and loads more firepower. The Fw190 was an extreme killer of bombers eventually even before the Me262 arrived. However, this came at a steep price for the Fw190. All the extra armor and firepower was more weight. Those external gun pods only worsened the handling of the plane. Meanwhile Allied fighters never truly had to worry about intercepting heavily armed, box formations of bombers because none of the Axis could ever send up flights like that. So Allied fighters stayed light and nimble and can shred these heavily laden 190s who were most of the time trying to go after the bombers. There's also another big issue the Fw190 series had for almost the entirety of the war: *They were bad in high altitude.* This was one of the reasons why the Bf109 stayed on for so much because they were better high up than the 190. The Fw190D9 was much better suited for high altitude work but didn't start entering service until the end of 1944. It was way too late and too few. So for the bulk of the time it was the Fw190A series that had to contend with the bombers, not the D series.
The trade-off for the FW190 was the bigger shells required shorter effective distances because of lower velocity. That would increase the engagement window for the bombers.
Its not really trade off since single bf109 cannon needs more time on target to shoot it down anyway. 190 also handles a lot better at higher speeds meaning those high speed passes are safer and accurate. Not leaking coolant when something looks at you funny also helps a lot.
Long range shooting really was a problem for the Germans because the slipstream of a formation of US 4 engine Heavies would cause so much turbulence it disturbed aiming.
I don't think the [scenario's] discussion is so much a question of _matching_ defensive firepower against an attacking interceptor (One doesn't necessarily need anywhere near twenty .50-cal. MGs to bring down, or even to deter, a single-engined interceptor.), but perhaps [more] dependent as well on meeting other self-influencing factors, the [innumerable] likes of which would otherwise decide the outcome of such a 'one-on-one' aerial engagement; these might include: position (or [initial] approach/angle of attack), initial target acquisition (sighting/firing first upon the enemy; i.e. reaction time vs range disparity, and/or element of surprise), pilot[s]/gunner experience/training, weather conditions/prevailing winds (cloud cover), interceptor/bomber maneuvers/evasive action (skill/aptitude), and including the 'more-or-less' indeterminate factor - downright 'luck'. I'm certainly not [thus] advocating such a scenario could boil down to anything akin to approaching parity - as it would [definitely] appear that the _(Sturmböcke_-armed/bomber-killer) Focke-Wulf would ultimately win in most contested situations - all I'm addressing here, given the (often chaotic) parameters involved in perhaps most WWII-era 'dogfights', the unforeseen/uncontrollable factors involved in determining victory often decided the outcome (over skill/weaponry/experience, etc.) over an adversary, and this type of scenario is no exception, regardless of one's superior firepower advantage, where chances for either side, however disparate, nonetheless come into play: In other words, given the 'odds', a pair of trained .50-cal. M-2 Brownings could certainly down any Fw 190 under [advantageous] circumstantial elements, but in all likelihood, the _probability_ of that outcome will often be [greatly] diminished under a 'calculated' range of similar/different scenario subsets, indicative of overall [initial] advantage to the 190. Aside of [attempts at] casting/predicting actual combat results towards such an aerial ('B-17 vs Fw 190') scenario, it would've been worth mentioning which particular [armament-array] version of Fw 190 equates to _twenty[!]_ .50-cal. M-2 Brownings (I can only 'assume' it would be an A-8 _Sturmböcke_ version, typically armed-out with: 2 × MG 131 + 2 × MG 151/20 + 2 × MK 108, yes/no?) - and exactly how 'you' *(WWII US Bombers)* derived to this figure/total (seeing one configuration arriving at: 6 × M-2 = one MK 108; 3 × M-2 = one MG 151; 1 × M-2 = one MG 131; × 2 = twenty .50-cal. Brownings). Personally, I'd take twenty M-2 Brownings _any day_ over the _Sturmböcke_ armament. I'm certainly no self-professed Focke-Wulf 'expert', but I do believe the chart (at 5:23), *Principal German Fighters and Armament,* detailing the last [bottom] armament-array box of the FW 190 ('supposedly' for an A-8 _[Sturmböcke]_ version, including _four[!]_ MK 108s) is in my view (correct me if I'm wrong), largely incorrect. In all my years of examining/reading Luftwaffe-related warplane literature (and I've seen many!), never have I _once_ ever come across anything of the likes of _any_ version of a 190, armed-to-the-teeth with _four[!]_ 30mm auto-cannons! Barring any evidential photographic/written witnessed proof of such a single [experimental/'prototypical'] example, I challenge if *WWII US Bombers* could provide/upload any documental existence (per the US Strategic Bombing Survey Report's 'findings') of a single [surviving] photograph towards such a particular up-armed Fw 190 version ... I'll believe it when I see it! As well, on the same chart (which is itself a rather incorrect/incomplete chronicled evolution of all the 190's A-series major armament configurations), I find it rather [equally] unlikely that the first [top] armament-array box of the (early A-series) Fw 190 was ever initially armed-out with [but] four MG 17s. (In this case, it would only have to be some ['other'] preproduction A-0 [or advanced prototype] version.) From what I've mostly gleaned of in the past, I'm of the understanding that the initial [limited] preproduction-run of the Fw 190 A-0 (likely of which, seeing only limited combat trial-runs) - of but a handful produced (some two-dozen[~?], in around early '41) - were all armed-out with _six_ MG 17s (though there does appear to be some disagreement among other sources, noting an armament-array of only four MG 17s); and naturally, as original photographic/sourced evidence of these [rare] types are hard to come by, it is just as equally hard to document the A-0 series' 'correct'/standard armament-array (as many of these were in fact themselves [later] trialled-out with varying [experimental] armament-arrays). Attempting to list (and/or correct) each and every sub-version of the Fw 190 is certainly not my aim here - that's beyond the scope of this discussion - however, after the A-1 came into service (summer '41 - replacing each of its mid-wing MG 17s with an MG FF, for a total of: 4 × MG 17s + 2 × MG FF), the first 190 version to be encountered by the Eighth Air Force (namely, over France in early fall '42) would've been [very likely] of the A-3 variety, indicative of its then standard (mid-war) armament-array via Box No. 3, listed from the top in the same chart (at 4:23); its wing-root MG 17s being up-armed to MG 151/20 standard. Excluding various [early] _Jabo_ fighter-bomber, high-altitude recon-types, and F-/G-series _Schlachtflugzeug_ ground-attack variants (amongst others, which often had decreased armament), this revised armament configuration (2 × MG 17 + 2 × MG FF + 2 × MG 151/20) would be standard fitment from the A-2 up thru the A-5 versions (entering operational service in late '42); the A-6 version (from summer '43) would be further up-armed, replacing the mid-wing MG FF with MG 151/20, and from the A-7 onward (from late '43), replacing the pair of MG 17 cowling guns with MG 131s (as indicated in Box No. 4 from the chart), with 'that' (2 × MG 131 + 4 × MG 151/20) becoming the new basic armament standard for the remainder of the war. Of note, the image shown (at 5:18), [possibly] portraying an early example of a dedicated _Sturmböcke_ bomber-interceptor type, is [more] likely that of a specially-outfitted (and largely combat-trialled) A-5/U12 version (or possibly that of either an A-6, or G-3/R1 long-range _Jabo Rei_ fighter-bomber sub-version), factory-fitted with an _Umrüst-Bausätze_ installation-kit of a paired-up _'Zwilling'_-type _Waffenbehälter_ MG 151/20 gun-pod mount. This particular A-5/-6 sub-type (first entering service as early around [late?] summer '43) would have as well retained the [earlier] MG 17 cowling guns. Later _Sturmböcke_ types (particularly of the more numerous and definitive A-8 version, entering service in early '44) would be further up-armed, replacing the paired _Waffenbehälter_ with the more powerful MK 108 (as portrayed in the image at 5:12, likely that of an A-8/R2 [or R/8] sub-version). Lastly, the image shown (at 8:49) is likely an (almost experimental/limited production) F-8/R3 _Schlachtflugzeug_ ground-attack sub-version, vaunting its paired-up 30mm MK 103 auto-cannons. Virtually exclusively trialled-out over the Eastern Front (against the massed hordes of marauding T-34s), it is very unlikely this type ever actively engaged the B-17 (or B-24) _viermots_ - mind you, they may have been initially trial-tested under limited non-operational combat-trialled conditions; however, due to the gun-type's excessive recoil, it is only understandable that if it were ever [actually] used in the air-to-air interception role, its 'effectiveness' there can be conclusively deemed with an 'optimism' of sheer fantasy, perhaps by the Eighth's bomber-gunners themselves. This was a most-interesting post, and I did enjoy responding to it. Though the many, almost experimental, and increasingly fearsome armament configurations of the vaunted Focke-Wulf 190 did display themselves [initially] well against the massed armadas of B-17s and Liberators, I don't believe it is the number (or type) of guns one has at stake to combat any given threat - what the equation really comes down to, is but more of a 'theatre' of pure numbers against [limited] numbers, whether on the ground, on the sea, or in the air ... for the ununited Axis forces, sufficiently and/or superiorly armed or not - inadvertent to the unforeseen laws of attrition, foremost of managing irreplaceable matériel loss, needed no less than an A-bomb to sue but for peace.
"Minimum armament" is hard to hear after a lifetime of the lore of the mighty M2 load outs. But it does make sense given that so many planes of the era had basically harassing fire levels of defensive firepower.
I thought I saw one of those reflector sights on the waist gun of a B17 before, I wondered if maybe it was part of some kind of a ground training aid that was inside of a stationary fuselage, but what gave me doubts about that was the gunner was fully suited up in what looked like an electric suit with his leather helmet, goggles, gloves and oxygen mask on, I wonder how long they had them before the war ended because aside from the picture of one in this video I've only ever seen that one other.
What I found interesting was, that of those bombers which got back - typically with bullet/shell-holes - they would then know to re-inforce those areas of the planes which normally never saw hits & returned. Because they were the impact areas that brought them crashing down
There was an interrupt mechanism that wouldn't allow the guns to fire when pointed at the tail. However many B-17s returned with 50 cal friendly holes in their planes!
It is critical to note that the pair of either 20mm and 30mm pods placed on the FW-190 wing underside had a very detrimental effect on flying performance. While degraded flight performance was not critical when attacking heavy bombers, degraded flight performance was critical in evading the growing number of escort fighters from 1944 onward. These 'pods' were disliked by the German pilots.
German fighters were getting heavier due to the necessity of more armor and increase in firepower. They were increasingly specialized for the bomber interceptor role. I recall reading an ace disliking how the Bf109's handling got worse as the service got further into the 1943 and later models. There is also the very real issue that these American bombers were flying in high altitude. The Bf109 flew well there but not the 190.
@randomnickify I've never heard or seen of a Ju 87 (nor a He 111) mounting rockets. Could be a case of misindentification (those are only *claims* remember), but perhaps they just bumped into each other on their own missions. Presumably during some of the lower altitude missions, as I don't think the German aircraft could even reach that high. Could also be claims by medium bombers, which would be flying lower and could more viably 'get stuck in' for a fight if they bumped into a German bomber. I'm not sure who's claims are included there.
Like not The ju87 is a slow flying ground attacker , i won´t fly high enough and quick enough to meet a B17 . Most ju87 not had the guns to even attack a B17 , only had some machineguns or the cannons in its pods . There was a version with 20mm gunpods wich would be proably quite destructive . Firepower would be equal to the late 190 with six 20mm mg151/20 , 4 in two gunpods and 2 in the wing . If a meet happens with that version it would be bad for both , the 20mm´s would shreed a B17 but the 50cals would shreed the ju87 . . .
The .50cal had a big range in comparison to the 30mm cannon. So "no match" is the wrong headline. Additionally the bomber formation, called 'boxes', gave german pilots hell. My grandfather joined the Luftwaffe, he said that a bomberkill was noticed as a 'big point' and required a lot of courage. BP, germany
Fascinating. The MK108 was a trade-off. It's velocity was low and its "drop" was marked at all ranges. This forced enemy interceptors to close to well within range of the mah deuce. What this series has suggested to me is that the interceptor effort was a vast waste of resources, while FlaK was the real bomber killer. Well, FlaK and faulty gasoline powered cabin heaters/stoves, something worth a dedicated video, perhaps. Similarly, I was amazed that B29 tail RaDARs were ineffectual. How does that failure compare with the efficacy of NightFighter RaDAR sets? Were those numbers similar? If so, it certainly seems like someone (USAAF/USAF) has long promoted a false narrative.
it has to do with gun sights; ideally armament in aircraft should be installed into the fuselage because of accurracy-related things. What you suggest was done with the later Fw 190D, namely the D-11 and the D-13 which only carried wing armament in addition to the motorkanone. the D-13 had only the MG-151/20's in the wing roots in addition to the aforementioned motorkanone. The reduced weight did not improve the D-13 significantly so I think we can safely deduce that eliminating the cowling MG's from the FW 190A series wouldn't have improved it either. the cowling MG's were also used to help aim the cannons so there is that too.
The 190 was a much tougher target than a 109. Claims by gunners and fighters were generally over stated. The 30mm would destroy most allied fighters with one round. And a bomber with 1 to 4. The B-17 and B-24 had basically 1930 defenses. The later B-29 with its much more advanced sighting equipment could and did hit fighters at ranges beyond the range of most fighters to effectively return fire. The 50 cal was long ranged and if the gunner was good was going to hurt anything it hot hit to 1000 yards or more. But the mounts on the bombers were not ideal. Also MG fire while not hurting the bomber much will kill or disable gunners. So that the fighter can drive up and deliver heavy hits with no return fire. One German fighter pilot said attacking a B-17 was like making love to a porcupine.
Fw 190 with 2 x 13 mm, 2 x 30 mm plus 4 x 30 mm was not real. Already the last picture with added underwing MK 103 was so bulky that it was never documented in combat.
Twin 0.50 machine guns can shoot out the bullet weight of 8 .303 machine guns'. Also the tail gunner can open fire at the range of 800 yards, FW190 on the other hand, won't get the maximum shooting effect until closeing into 300 yards, due to guns convergence setting. With improved compensated gunsight and good training, dealing with the straggler bomber's tail gunner still won't be a walk in the park.
Lucky for the Luftwaffe that the B29 wasn't ready a year earlier and showed up in Europe, with it's 11 to 1 kill to loss ratio it's defensive guns earned against Japanese fighter's it'd have been the bane of German fighter's. But those kinds of hypotheticals are just a waste of time because what happened is what happened and what didn't happen didn't, all those "what if's" don't have anything to do with history.
@@dukecraig2402it's not that simple, at that point Japanese were lacking experienced pilots, their planes were glass cannons without armor and self sealing tanks and later they simply started kamikaze the bombers what turned out to be more difficult to pull off than expected and often gave bomber gunners free target practice. Against the germans, highly experimental and temperamental B29 might turned out only as bigger, easier target. Without proper context numbers are usually meaningless.
The Henschell Hs 117 Schmeterling (butterfly) was ordered into production in January 1945 but after the allied advances it was cancelled in late February 1945. Too all intents and purposes it was ready. It used CLOS command line of site but because of the autopilot and 3 operators tracking (two tracked the target in elevation and bearing with a modified FLAK predictor while one guided the missile. The autopilot made the missile fly in the same direction as the optics was pointing so that the 3rd operator only had to center the target. It was upgradable with radar tracking. There were terminal homing for this missile under development including MAX-A doppler active radar operating at 5.8cm, MAX-P passive radar to home on to ground mapping radar and night fighters, acoustic and infrared though these were only laboratory devices.
One thing that diminished the effectiveness of German fighters was the variety of guns with different muzzle velocities and trajectories. The mine shells from an MG-151/20 start at about 800 m/s, while shells from an MK-108 leave the muzzle at 540 m/s. Put both guns in the same plane and you'll have a very limited zone where all your guns are hitting the same place.
@alexwilliamson1486 true, to an extent. But the problem comes with aiming, you're not able to concentrate all that firepower on a target at once except at close ranges. But that can also be argued to be an advantage - if your aim is off with one gun, the other gun might be in its sweetspot.
The little bit of relevant extra weight that a cannon armed bomber would have to carry compared with the significant extra damage they would inflict compared with a 50 cal? The availability of 50 cals compared with cannons had nothing to do with armament decision making? That's a big LOL.
some british bomber commander suggested eliminating all defensive armament from heavy bombers because he calculated the the RAF saves more men, fuel and aircraft that way due to the increase in speed and decrease in the amount of men you need for each sortie and overall weight. the idea was never even considered seriously because the increase in speed wasn't big enough to justify it.
Fighters armed with cannon vs bombers armed with .50 BMGs. What is the average engagement time? How many gunners on B-17s or B-24s in a formation are engaging each fighter? How many fighters did US bomber gunners manage to shoot down in the ETO. How many bombrs were lost to fighters? I can see were a determined pilot flying a FW-190 against USAAF bomber formations prior to fighter escorts would have a certain advantagees Maneuvering versus having to fly in formation. Harder hitting ammunition. Speed advantage limiting the gunners opportunity to engage. How much did the bomber formation limit the air gunners range of firing? Were any US bombers lost to friendly fire over Europe. Or were bombers spaced far enough apart? If the gunner is engaging a fighter and has to break off due to avoid hitting another bomber. Or were gunners assigned a specific firing arc. I also think that the B-17 was more survivable than the B-24. At least in terms of structual damage. As l understand it the B-24 was vunerable in the main wingspar fuselage area due to a lot of critical systems being in close proximity to each other. Fuel lines, hydraulics etc. of course if the fighter pilot scores cockpit hits killing both pilots. The airwer over Western Europe was a deadly business. For both sides. Allied aircrew even if they were able to escape their damaged aircraft had no guarantee of reaching a POW camp. Allied aircrew were killed on landing sometimes. Every allied aircrew from a shot down bomber was effectively a complete crew lost. Whether they all survived or were all killed. German pilots fighting over friendly territory could possibly be back in a cockpit the next day if their aircraft was shot down.
In a nutshell- defensive supporting fire was woefully inaccurate against enemy fighters which were attacking friendly bombers. Direct defensive fire of a bomber's guns against an enemy fighter attacking it on the other hand. was outgunned by a wide margin. This should have been recognized at the time. Given what was known of enemy fighter armament, expected enemy countermeasures to counter the threat of the four- engine bomber, and what was at stake, there was no excuse for it not being so.
The contest was not one-on-one bomber against fighter, it was a fighter against the combined fire of a combat box formation of bombers. The defensive fire of the bombers was definitely dangerous to intercepting fighters. This why the Germans employed heavy fighters with standoff weapons such as rockets that could be fired from outside the range of the defensive guns. The greatest immediate effect long range escort fighters had was in reducing the ability of those heavy interceptors to make such standoff attacks.
@@gort8203 While I agree that defensive supporting fire was "dangerous", it had nowhere near the protective effect that advocates of strategic bombing believed that it would have. A bomber crew's first order of business was survival. This alone ensured that bomber gunners would only be looking for fighters attacking neighboring bombers in those few seconds when the gunner was satisfied that no threat to his own ship was in sight. Moreover, this time interval was not guaranteed and could instantly drop to no time interval at all. The result of this was that defensive supporting fire predominantly took on the form of split- second, high- angle, deflection shots (not easy even for a fighter pilot) from violently shaking machine guns which had a reduced chance of hitting enemy fighters- while at the same time having a chance of hitting friendly bombers as well. What nails the coffin shut on this issue in favor of the interceptor is the number of claimed kills of German fighters by U.S. gunners- which regularly varied at five times that of actual German losses- and on some missions reached seven times that of actual German fighter losses. In short, the fundamental error that strategic bombing advocates made was their failure to realize that the same level of technology which produced a large four engine bomber with good range, heavy bombload, and good defensive armament could also be used to produce a single- seat, single engine fight with a heavy armament which outclassed those same bombers. Your reference of the fact that the Germans employed rockets is partial proof of this.
@@manilajohn0182 “While I agree that defensive supporting fire was "dangerous", it had nowhere near the protective effect that advocates of strategic bombing believed that it would have “
Which advocates? You are misrepresenting what USAAF leadership actually acted on at the beginning of the war by confusing it what some theorists believed before the war. Your claim is based on the popular ‘bomber mafia’ narrative, which is inaccurate at best and can be slanderous at worst. Even before entering the war the leadership realized that fighters had the performance and firepower to present a lethal threat to bombers, so they did not overestimate the protective effect of defense fire. By the time the Spanish Civil War and the Battle of Britain had been observed and analyzed they were well aware of the fighter threat. They were certainly aware that we already had our own heavily armed high-altitude interceptors like the P-38 and P-47 because they had signed the orders to build them. What they had been slow to realize before the war was that a practical long range escort fighter might be possible, because they always thought such a plane would be too heavy and unwieldy to compete with high performance enemy interceptors. The fact that the wanted a practical means of escort was the source of abortive experiments like the YB-40. It was why they sent the P-38 to England with the 8Th Air Force. There is no doubt that the defensive guns of a combat box made it dangerous to attack that box. Of course the firepower of an intercepting fighter was more powerful than a single bomber, but the gauntlet of fire from the formation restricted the ability of fighters to engage from the angles and for the lengths of time that would have rendered them even more effective. Of course no bomber could carry a weight of armament that would allow it to engage a fighter on equal terms, but the fight was not simply on equal terms. Warfare is a combined arms endeavor and the combination of arms is what produces end results. The defensive firepower of a combat box was not a magic shield, nor was it completely ineffective. If your point is that it did not reduce the bomber loss rate you are mistaken.
@@gort8203 When the U.S. daylight bomber offensive began, it was widely believed that U.S. heavy bombers could effectively defend themselves against enemy fighter attacks- primarily due defensive supporting fire. When U.S. losses began increasing (while bombing effectiveness was less than had been expected), the U.S. response was to press the B- 17 itself into service as a gunship to escort the bombers- an experiment which was a failure. Claire Chennault was forced into retirement years before the war began for maintaining that fighters could effectively intercept bombers, while, even before the daylight bomber offensive got underway, it was believed that the Battle of Britain was not a viable test of strategic bombing- due to the inadequate defensive armament of German bombers. Listen to General Haywood Hansell: "It was recognized that fighter escort was inherently desirable, but no one could quite conceive how a small fighter could have the range of the bomber yet retain its combat maneuverability. Failure to see this issue through proved one of the Air Corps Tactical School's major shortcomings." Note that I 'never' said that the defensive firepower of a combat box was completely ineffective. I said that it had "nowhere near the protective effect that advocates of strategic bombing believed that it would have"- which is accurate. The fact that the YB- 40 and long- ranged fighters were developed to escort those bombers is proof of that.
@@manilajohn0182 You are inadequately informed and grossly oversimplifying. I don't care what might have been "widely believed" by uniformed and non-executive persons who were not in charge. What matters is what Carl Spaatz and Hap Arnold believed, and it was not what you claim. There is no point in arguing with someone who is just going to keep repeating the anti 'bomber mafia' narrative.
B29s briefly tried 20mm with twin 50cals rear position not accepted but B36 had all 20mm the vibration when fired damage electrical systems inside a/c.
You would think that as soon as it is realized that heavy losses are going to be suffered both in Bombers and aircrew, a stop would be made to bombing operations and new tactics considered ?? but no, the poor sods continued to be sent out to bomb Germany and to be massacred. Blinkered thinking was not limited to the UK Military !!
Heavy losses were also suffered by RAF Bomber Command at night. Losses are never desired but are expected. You don't stop fighting the enemy unless they become unsustainable. When the losses became too heavy with the second Schweinfurt raid the 8th AF did suspend deep penetration raids and take some time to examine their tactics until circumstances improved.
the FW 190A series from A-6 or so onwards carried massive armament, which could then be enhanced with the R- and U-kits. They also carried more armor than, for example the Bf-109G. An upgunned FW-190 A-8 could carry: two MG131 on the nose, MG 151/20 in each wing root, MK 108 in outboard wing hardpoints and *four* MG151/20 under the wings. This arrangement was of course somewhat rare, but even without the underwing cannons the armament is massive considering that two hits from the MK 108's was enough to rip a whole wing off of any heavy bomber of the era.
Epic Comment Censorship: Putting Cannons in Aircraft get’s very Expensive That’s why They Fly in formations of Y Fire Very Y 50s did most Work just fine Though 20s Y Been Better for Quality shorter bursts against Y and Armor of most kind Very Expensive; Need’s more Tact, less Ammo, less volume, more waste Simply Y to scale most guns up by Calibers Though many Aircraft frankly didn’t have enough Guns of any kind to Y Themselves And many of those various Models didn’t have the Luxury of Mass Formation Unit defense Sad but True Alotta Y Statistics Great Lessons Good Work
What I would like to respectfully see is a video on the human destructiveness of the flight crew from both sides by these monstrous firepowers from the 50-CAL, cannons and all that when the projectiles went through a human body. The poorest being the bottom turret gunners who had to repeatedly take the unmerciful shots from those machine guns. When a shot B-17 was able to make it home when they pulled out the bodies were they pulling out pieces of flesh, scalp, nose, teeth, eyes, ears, limbs, guts, brain matters, bones, hands, feet so on i.e. a total horrific unspeakable mess of a human body inside e death dome? Are there available Army Air Corps reports from ground crew, doctors, medical examiners, officers who certified death reports who witnessed such decimation?
The bombing campaign was a total failure. Germany didn't surrender like was guaranteed by the fdr government. War materials production didn't stop in Germany never ran out of bullets, planes and guns. 47,000 Kia and wounded most of the destroyed bombers were taken down by flack. 25 missions were too low they should have served until the end of the war. 147,000 died on the ground and were only sent home by serious wounds. Kia were buried in Europe, and there were no twenty-five missions. Why were they special and not served till the end?
Not quite but both the Pratt & Whitney R1820 series and the BMW 801 did had a common ancestor in the P&W R1690. The 1690 was license-built by BMW, then further developed into the BMW 132, then into the 139 and finally into the 801 family. P&W built on the 1690 to arrive at the 1820 series, which had fundamentally different superchargers added to enable high altitude performance (channelling my inner Greg from Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles channel).
@@Wien1938 Yeah, BMW based their radial on a Wright, but this is not literally the same engine. The Wight on the B-17 had 9 cylinders and 1000 or so hp and the BMW has 14 cylinders and about 1500 hp. There share heritage but are not the same. Talking like that can mislead people.
I'm in awe of your in-depth research and hard work you put into these videos.
My day is made! I really appreciate the effort put into researching such niche videos.
This aerospace engineer (like me!) is remarkably thorough on his research. I find his videos very informative.
Germans up armed FW with 30mm cannons. Experts estimated 3 hits could bring down bomber. B-17 & B-24 tail gunners had 2 50cals. My uncle was a gunner on B-24 , did 25 missions & returned to states.
The experts usually put the number of 30mm MK 108 shells to 1-4 depending on where they hit.
Your Uncle was a cowardly war criminal terror bomber
Imagine the friendly fire horrors of using a 20mm as bomber defence in formation.
The B17 flew in tight formations to cover each other with crossing fields of fire
@@PostalWorker14 Yep. Bombers generally were not 1 on 1 with a fighter unless they were already damaged or had mechanical problems.
I would love to know more about your background and how you're able to consistently put out such high quality videos. You perform a great historical service.
I believe he volunteers or works as a historical guide at a WW2 air museum somewhere
@@kirotheavenger60 gotta protect this man at all costs
It's confidential.
It’s published in his channel’s “About” section; he was an aircraft engineer and volunteer guide at a local aviation museum.
He's got the entire declass files of WW2 lol
Excellent video! Yours is one of the best military channel on the internet. I simply wish you would slow down your commentary. I often feel that you're in a rush to finish your videos as soon as possible. Slow down, please.
You’re the most knowledgeable man on this topic I’ve seen. I can’t thank you enough for making this information more available to the public! Out of curiosity what made the b17 so much less effective than the b29 in terms of defending themselves? I understand the b29’s faced far less opposition but if I’m not mistaken they had a far better shoot down ratio
Thanks for the channel donation. Much appreciated. B-29s were equipped with superior defensive gun system than the B-17s or B-24s. B-29 air-to-air kill ratios were around 8x that of the of the B-17, when taken into account the B-17 gunner over claims.
The idea that a bomber can drive off an attack from a determined interceptor is insane.
Your videos are first-rate. Thank you.
The USAAF never had the idea that a single bomber could drive off a determined interceptor. The concept was that combined firepower of a massed bomber formation would provide a measure of self defense. If you read accounts by German pilots tasked with attacking those formations you can see they considered the defensive fire of such a formation to be very dangerous.
hence the combat box and why interceptors targeted damaged/lone bombers
@@gort8203 I agree with you - the Luftwaffe found that out when attacking Britain. The USAAF and the RAF learned from those mistakes.
But, and this is a huge but, you have skin in the game if you are defending your homeland. The box formations would certainly scare the hell out of you, but it's your own people down there.
Firepower forced the interceptors into certain patterns of attack, which can be planned for, and that's better than nothing.
I hope that my comment wasn't taken the wrong way. All I meant was that it was very costly to prosecute a bomber war.
The tail on attack was avoided because the reduced closing speed of the attacking fighter exposed it to too many .50 caliber rounds for too long.
@@dpeasehead and tail gunners very accurate deflection solutions much easier could open fire longer ranges too
My uncle was in the Army 8th Air Force as a B-17 crew chief. He said one day representatives from Boeing came by and put up these big posters on the operation room walls. The posters depicted a B-17 with guns blazing away at German FW-190s (Focke Wulf 190s). At the bottom of the poster were the words “Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?” My uncle said every man in every squadron signed his name on the poster.
Great video thanks. No stupid music, just clearly-presented information. Fascinating & enlightening
Thx for this. Said it elsewhere, but as a B-24 pilot in the 15th, my father maintained the 190s were terrifying. After the 109s had scattered formations, the 190s chewed thru everything. The head-on attacks, often ten abreast, were brutally effective and, as dad said, horrifying to witness. Oh, the German pilots wanted no part of the '17s, concentrated on the more vulnerable and quicker to burn '24s.
Thank You! I always wondered about this. since my general impression is that the 24 was more designed as a chargo plane, tecnicaly superior to the 17 to be honest, but at the cost of being a more vulnerable target. I think the 17 became more popular on movies, news and kids magasines, etc because it had, from a purely wisual estetic point, a more aphealing look with all the guns sticking out and a lot more aggressive but still beautiful look. But in reality it seem to be the 24 who was the lady of choise who got most of the dirty job done, but the bulky and a bit old scool looking design with less guns was just not as popular to put on pictures and poosters. I am not by any means want to take away any creds from the 17, but I strongly believe that the air raids had not been the same logistic sucess without the 24. (Fun fact is that the Swedish airforve did buy a lot of old P 51 from the USAF after the war and we also managed to make several functioning planes out of a large batch of scrapped ones the USAF sold off as spareparts, there was a B17 here as well after the war, it served quite long for the civil airmail delivery after the war was ower. The completely unexpected actualy happened once here whan an American bomber with two crewmen managed to perfom an emergency ladning here, since there was no real expectations of this they had to setup a lot of formal paperwork, but they where of course newer inprisoned in reality, they where even allowed to use some of the aircrafts on the swedish base while they where waiting, unfortunately one of the guys died in a plane crash whan he decided to preform a dangerous stunt trick on low altitude ower the roof of a building, the other guy was sent home shortly after, that's the story of the american "POW" in Sweden, not as well known today i think... ).
That's not why they went after the B24's in mixed formations, B24's were faster than B17's so the B17's would be put up front to set the pace leaving the B24's in the notorious "tail end charlie" position, to make things even worse they flew about 2,000 ft lower than the B17's meaning they lost the added defensive firepower they'd have had from the B17's if they were at the same altitude, it's for those reasons that the Germans went after the B24's early on when the 8th Air Force was still flying mixed formations, German pilot's in interviews here on RUclips even cite those as the reasons they preferred attacking the B24's in mixed formations, it's also why when people use the mixed formations as a study on the survivability of the B17 vs the B24 you'll get skewed results, they just look at raw number's and don't take into account that the German fighter's were concentrating their attacks on the more vulnerable B24's who were stupidly put in a bad position, it didn't take too awful long and the 8th Air Force caught on to what was happening and quit running mixed formation mission's, they rearranged the squadrons so that bomb groups were either all B17's or all B24's.
Sending out those early mission's unescorted trying to prove their bomber only concept wasn't the only stupid thing the 8th Air Force did that cost them bombers, mixing the B17's and B24's like that and blaming the defensive gunners of the B24's for their heavy losses was another bone headed move from it's commander's.
@@dukecraig2402 Interesting taughts, i always taught the B 24 was loosely based on the Lancaster but scaled down and had a stronger but slightly heavier (seen to it's size) body in order to make it more durable than the older British concepts.
@@dukecraig2402 Thank you for this interesting and illuminating info. My only source for German pilots preferring to hit '24s rather than '17s was based on contemporary interviews done with captured pilots that became common knowledge among my father and other '24 pilots. Not trying to be "right" here, just passing along what was "the word" in their world at the time.
It should be pointed out that, while bolting on all the armour and heavy guns greatly increased the effectiveness of FW190s against US bombers, it also decreased their speed and manoeuvrability. When escort fighters showed up in the bomber stream, the FW190s paid the price.
The Mk108 cannon in particular was optimised for light weight, high rate-of-fire and heavy explosive payload. This came at a cost of poor muzzle velocity, acceptable against bombers but terrible in fighter combat.
I just finished reading the JG300 Wilde Sau unit history by Lorant and Goyat; One thing that worked well was fitting the FWs with the EZ42 gyroscopic computing gunsight and leaving off the armor and the Mk108 30mm cannons. Pilots who used this said they could accurately fire their 20mm cannons from up to 1000 meters away and stay far enough to cause a lot of problems for the bombers' defending gunners. That being said, they still had to contend with Allied escort fighters
So the .303 guns of the Lancaster were essentially useless?
There were. That’s the reason why the British used the cover of the night to protect them.
They just comforted the crew and they hoped they had a psychological effect : they loaded them with a lot of tracers, to deter any incoming fighter.
No, at night the fighter had to come a lot closer, thus enhanching the usefullnes of the .303 Some Lancs had ,50 cal installed in the rear tower, two instead of 4 .303 But shooting was the last resort, mainly they used the lookout and corkscrewed away from the fighter, using guns were a dead givaway.
There is a video discussing this topic here.
Interesting some halifaxes had 4 303s in mid upper turret unique to This type
Good research but missed out on late war german anti bomber weapon the a/c itself sonderkommando elbe
Those bomber claim stats are a bit optimistic...
lol beyond that
USAAF Operations Analysis, Report Ref # 687:
"The fact that the intelligence section and claims board of a command have taken particularly great pains in the screening process to eliminate duplications and invalid claims assures that the list of approved claims is a reliable source of data for a study of enemy losses inflicted by gunners"
First off there's a different between "claims" and "credits", everyone's always barking about the number of claims turned in by bomber gunners after a mission but that doesn't mean they were all credited, they had to be reviewed by a claims board, which every command had, and needless to say the number of credits afterwards was always less.
As fast as people saying that the gunners "over claimed" what they apparently don't understand is that if a German fighter makes a pass at a bomber box and it bursts into flames or the pilot bails out and there were 5 gunners in 2 different bombers shooting at it it'd be real easy for at least 3 of those gunners to think he was the guy who hit it, then after they get back and go through their debriefing all 3 of them turn in a claim on the same fighter, it'd especially be easy for it to happen when the USAAF switched to ammo with no tracers, even with tracers it'd be hard to tell if someone in another bomber, or even your own for that matter, was even shooting at the same target you were with it becoming virtually impossible to tell after they dropped tracers from the ammo, that's exactly how you get 3 or 4 times the claims as aircraft that were actually shot down, it's not because gunners were lying, they were after all over 20,000 ft above the ground in -40 f temperatures and moving along at 225 MPH with their lives in immediate danger so yea, it'd be easy not to notice every single little thing around you like someone else on another bomber shooting at you, anyone who believes that things would be crystal clear to everyone up there about what was going on around them needs to have their head examined, it's not like playing a video game, you'd have no idea who else was shooting at the same thing you were much less if they were hitting it or even if you were hitting it, you could very well not have been hitting it but thought you were when you seen panels coming off of it and smoke starting to pour out of it, it kills me how people automatically assume that the gunners were involved in some kind of intentional deceit, and it's not like every claim was credited, as it says in that report the claims board sorts things out so intelligence has an accurate number of enemy aircraft destroyed for the sake of keeping track of how many available aircraft the enemy has, they weren't interested in handing out claims for propaganda reasons or because they were worried about what people were going to think 80+ years down the road, they were in the intelligence business not the propaganda business, so when the claims board went through all the after action reports from everyone being debriefed and looked at all the claims they went through everything with a fine toothed comb to sort out all the "duplicate and invalid" claims by doing thing's like looking at the position of a German fighter when it was said to be hit, then taking the claims of the different gunners who claimed it, look at the position of the bombers the different claimants were on, and determine who should get the credit with often times credits being shared between gunners just like they'd do with fighter's sometimes, so you can bet that whatever the number is when you see one for credits you can bet it's as humanly close as possible to an exact number, and as far as your claim that the number of credited kills by 8th Air Force bombers seems optimistic I don't know why you'd make that claim considering that 8th Air Force bombers flew over 600,000 sorties, so what's so hard to believe about them being credited with shooting down 6,265 fighter's? That's only 1 fighter in every 95 B17 flights, what's so hard to believe about that? Or do you just automatically say that about everything concerning the 8th Air Force?
They are, and for a number of reasons. Among them: Multiple gunners would fire at a single target and all of them would claim hits. Excitement and fear in combat. Firing windows being no more than a few seconds long. And so on ....
It should also be noted that this trend of over-claiming was not limited to air gunners or to the Americans - it was true for pretty much all combat formats in WW2 and to every side involved.
@@dukecraig2402
Bloody damn-well rights, I'll say! ... You should perhaps let all the 'bigwig' producers over at *Masters of the Air* in on your most-secretive 'war-expert' findings. I'm sure - because of your 'well-explained' exemplary thesis (concisely explained in but _four_ sentences!), and aerial (Picasso-like) 'picturesque' foresight - both (big _beet-red_-faced) Spielberg and Hanks, as well as their acclaimed team of air-war 'masters', will now consider remaking this Series _[only]_ to your rigid 'war correspondent' exposé, towards meeting your exact specified 'bomber-interceptor claim/credit' (and alleged 'anti-deception/progaganda', 'duplicate/invalid', 'anti-war-ruling'/arbitration-committee-enforced) 'conspiracy' requirements (thus effectively, [painstakingly] recounting and reassessing _each_ and _every_ B-17/B-24 .50-cal. Browning M-2 round fired per sortie/aerial-gunner, _proper_ to Eighth Air Force 'high-court' regulation-order of Presidential-command, Special Office of 'Air-War Cheaters' Association, et al.) - and/or, will at least be consulting with you - and only through _'you'_ - in the near future ... Good job!
@@onenote6619 Indeed. Bomber claims were in a class of their own for the reasons you note, and generally ran around 7 claims per kill, fighter claims 2-3:1
EXCELLENT video. The best of the best. Your descripition of ammo, fire power, etc...and conclusions. THANKS.
Wow, great job! Very interesting, especially the last few minutes on firepower of B17 vs FW-190 over the course of the war. THANKS!
TY for the vid .. . . I remember as a kid I went to the air museum and they had presentation on Air War in Europe for WW2, and the guy had cartridges next to him, and there was a vet that held something like 2 liter coke bottle, that was a 30 mm. The vet said just 3 of them and a bomber could be brought down, 6-10 for the 20 mm (It was the size of 32 oz 7-11 slurpee cup ), and they could take the machine gun hits all day (index finger sized) . They also had a chart of the effective ranges of 50 cal vs German 17mm, 20mm, and 30mm, and the cannons in theory could allow the Luftwaffe to fly just out of range and send stuff down range and score hits. Those visits brought out fascination with ww 2 warbirds
Well there's several things wrong there, a 30mm round isn't anywhere close to the size of a 2 liter bottle, and never in a million years could a fighter with 300mm guns loiter outside the range of .50 cals unthreatened, the diameter of a projectile is one thing but how big the cartridge, and therefore how much powder it contains that pushes the projectile out of the gun, determines how much velocity the round has, the cannons used on aircraft didn't have cartridges that were considerably bigger than the projectile that were necked down to the projectiles diameter like the .50 cal round did, the German fighter's with the 30mm cannons that had lower velocity had to get inside of the effective range of the bombers .50 cal defensive guns if it had any chance of hitting it.
Both were shooting from a moving platform at a moving target which greatly decreases the maximum effective range, so it's not like shooting either one set up on mount on the ground shooting at a stationary target, for example a .50 cal machineguns maximum effective range in the ground role is 2,000 yards (that's the distance it can accurately shoot in the ground role but the bullet will actually travel 8,000 yards), but when used as a defensive gun on a bomber they were rated between 700 to 1,000 yards (depending on which gun position it was in).
And the .50 cal had a velocity much higher than the German 30mm aircraft gun had which increases accuracy over distance because it's not dropping as much, the .50 cal has a velocity of 2,910 feet per second while the German 30mm cannon only had a velocity of 1,770 feet per second level, so while it only took 3 or 4 of the explosive rounds from a 30mm to bring down a bomber they still had to get within the effective range of the .50 cal defensive guns of the bombers plus there's going to be multiple gunners on a bomber from multiple bombers shooting at the fighter, more than one German fighter pilot said that attacking a bomber box was the worst experience of their life because of all the different guns shooting at them at once.
So no, they couldn't just fly around outside the range of a bombers guns shooting at them, if that was the case the bombers of the 8th Air Force wouldn't have been able to shoot down over 6,000 German fighter's during the war.
Note;
The defensive guns on the British bombers were .303 cal which is a regular rifle cartridge like someone would use for deer hunting, German fighter's could stay outside of their 300 to 400 yard maximum effective range and fire on the bombers untouched by their defensive guns, that's exactly why the British switched to night bombing shortly after starting their bombing campaign, when they tried daylight bombing their loss number's per mission were 3 to 4 times higher than the US's and it's because their. 303 defensive guns were far too underpowered to use as defensive guns against fighter's.
There are reports that one Me262 brought down five P51's in a single run. But by 1945 there were only 200 German fighter pilots left out of 20,000. It was a war of attrition, pure and simple. Similar to what is happening in Ukraine right now.
@@thenevadadesertrat2713
Well that's some kind of a fairytale there, I could see one taking down 5 bombers on a single pass through a bomber stream if he was lucky but P51's no way, as soon as one is fired on they're going to scatter not just continue to fly along in formation like bombers that had to hold their position, now there could have been a ME262 pilot who bagged five P51's in a single mission but not one pass, and as far as that goes there were plenty of Allied pilots who flew "ace in a day" mission's with some even getting as many as 6 or 7 enemy fighter's in the same mission.
My only quibble of your analysis is that the effective firepower is not just:
potency of the rounds x number of guns x rate of fire
But also needs to have a factor 'fraction of rounds fire that hit the target'. The Germans calculated from gun camera footage that only 2 % of their rounds hit. If the 50s on the B-17s scored a higher hit rate (say 4 % of rounds fired hit) then that would cut into the German advantage. I recall that in US bomber gunnery schools (and I can't find the source) that hitting with 8 % of rounds fired was the average, with some gunners hitting about double that. Even if the training testing was overoptimistic, it might have meant that bomber gunners hit with a higher fraction of their rounds than did German fighters. One must also recall the 50s had a range advantage over the German autocannons.
I think that people who say that a fast-moving fighter with fixed guns shooting at a bomber is an 'easy shot' aren't thinking very clearly about the problem. It's a lot easier for a bomber gunner to adjust his aim than it is for a fast-flying fighter to adjust its aim.
One last note--the biggest reason why isolated bombers were 'easy meat' for German fighters wasn't the one-on-one relative firepower disadvantage. It was that
a) out-of-formation bombers were usually out of formation for a reason; i.e., previous significant damage. Such planes might have only two engines working and/or major damage, including disabled/dead gunners and/or gun stations out. They might also have stabilizers, flaps, ailerons, and rudder out, as well as control cables out, limiting what evasive action they could take.
b) In addition, such wounded B-17s often were assaulted by multiple fighters, not just one.
By 1943, as evidenced in the Munster Raid, dozens of German fighters would attack to overwhelm the firepower of a single bomber group, nearly annihilating it (such as the 100th) while leaving other bomber groups untouched. While this was a cost-effective tactic in term of inflicting and receiving losses, it also was admission that the Luftwaffe was incapable of stopping the main bomber force from striking the target.
The pair of FW-190 wing root guns fired through the propeller disk same as the pair of cowl-mounted machine guns.
Both the MG131 (13.2mm) and MG 151/20 (20mm) had electrical primers and were easy to synchronize. The 30mm MK108 canon when used had to be placed on the outer wing gun positions since they used percussion primers and lacked synchronization equipment.
-Interestingly the MG213 20mm revolver canon was testing with one Fw 190D squadron and was synchronized. It used a much heavier higher velocity round more like the ground based 2.0cm C38 FLAK. Basically 1000 RPM by 1000m/sec instead of 720 RPM and 790 meters/sec. The cartridges look the same size as the C38 FLAK though the rimmed base looks different. Due to the powered revolving breech jammed guns during maneuvering would have been a things of the past.
@@chadmysliviec8449 you’re wrong or blind or both
There seems to be error in the chart at 8:22, when you transpose the Fw 190 armament to the graph.
It looks like you accidently included the one Fw configuration twice, so you see a jump in Fw firepower but you tag both as the same guns.
Unless maybe you are right, and the jump is the introductions of mine rounds? I do notice that the dates of the armament jumps on that graph don't seem to match the timeline of armament shown on the earlier graph.
The first diagram showing the armament-over-time for the Fw also has a few errors it looks like;
The first few preproduction Fw produced has six 7.9mm machine guns (vs the four the chart indicates), it's strange to even include this as onky 28 were produced.
They then moved to four 7.9mm MGs plus two 20mm (vs the two+two the charge indicates).
The next four bubbles are correct.
But then the chart goes on to show Fw apparently armed with two 13mm, two 20mm, and *four* 30mm cannon. I can't find any record of Fw getting four such 30mm cannons, only ever two. Some late war variants did have a variation with two MK103 30mm cannons (much higher velocity than the MK108s), but never four 30mm.
There are also lots of other armament configurations missing from the chart, but if you tried to map out every possible permutation of firepower that a Fw flew with across the war you'd be there all day!
In fact, the timeline on that 'armaments of German fighters over time' just seems to be entirely erroneous. The Me 410 wasn't even introduced until early 1943!
I have several words for whoever made that chart.
Great Video!
Great point about us bomber command. Looking for minimal firepower increase. Clearly if they would need to have 20 machine guns to face off against a single fighter threat, clearly this was not a feasible solution.
Great video. In reference to the last diagram- I think it’s probably relevant to point out that bombers fought in formation so perhaps the Air Force was willing accept the 3x firepower difference based on the ratio of allied bombers to enemy fighters. It would be interesting to how many bombers were used in a typical formation and how many FWs the Germans would typically send to interdict them.
The real answer to this problem was long range fighter escort.
Real answer is usa keep out of european conflict.
@@Eric-kn4yn Britain should have stayed out too.
@@unvaxxeddoomerlife6788 now look at europe all those sacrifices for .?
@@Eric-kn4yn That might have happened if Germany hadn’t declared war on the United States. Not much for studying history, eh?
@@Eric-kn4yn DIVerSiTy
Great video...👍
Impressive video... very
well done.
Subscribed! 👍🏾
Thanks again for all of your videos...
Thank you for another very informative video!
so if gunners were only trained to shoot at enemy fighters flying a pursuit curve to their bomber, how do the rest of the formation's gunners provide mutual fire support since the incoming fighter's pursuit curve isn't relevant to their respective bombers?
Our bombers never placed any 20 or 30mm cannons for the rear gunners a what dis they expect?
Excellent Data on Aircraft Weapons ,and a very informative Vid thank you for sharing
You sir are a true expert.
great analysis, I learned something new.
The bomber gunners were shooting down german dive bombers and attack aircraft too? What were they doing there in the first place?
Launching airbrush rockets from behind the formation, check the relevant video.
Outstanding video and presentation
The MK 101/103 didn´t fire the same shells as the MK 108.
The B-17 vs FW-190 chart has one drawback. As your audio states, although the B-17 didn't add more guns (for aft attack), they did improve the gunsights. How many guns would that equate? (yes, that's a challenge!). ;)
It’s a moot point. The Allies were well aware by early 1943 that bombers were vulnerable to fighters, hence the P-47 and later the P-51 escort fighters. The Fw190A was highly vulnerable to both of these fighters as it had a far lower ceiling. Also, less than 1,000 Fw190D aircraft were ever produced and only a few hundred were ever operational at any given time (compared to the 10,000+ American fighters operating over Europe).
Viper you forgot to mention the Germans had small fuel tanks and had to turn and run.
My God your presentations are just wonderful. Always learn something new. Bravo! Could you possibly do a presentation on how air gunners claims of downed enemy fighter were so exaggerated as opposed to reality.
couple of 20mm cannons and couple of 30mm cannons and 13mm MG. yeah lots of frontal fire power on 190
Luftwaffe had an unit called Luftwaffe Sturmgruppen equipped with very heavy armed and armored FW 190. This unit s main task was to shoot down bombers with all guns blazing simultaneously at point blank range. The pilots volunteerred to bring down bombers at any costs, thats including ram attacks. Those FW 190 was nicknamed "Sturmböcke". But because of the added weight of extra arming and armor, they became sluggish to control, so they had their own escorte fighters BF 109 to support them.
Will you cover all German fighters in future videos?
From trying out different Fw190 variants in various flight sims, I already knew the answer was "No" before clicking the video. The war situation and the growing importance of bomber interception for the Luftwaffe meant the Germans specialized their planes for killing bombers. Over time this meant more armor and loads and loads more firepower. The Fw190 was an extreme killer of bombers eventually even before the Me262 arrived.
However, this came at a steep price for the Fw190. All the extra armor and firepower was more weight. Those external gun pods only worsened the handling of the plane. Meanwhile Allied fighters never truly had to worry about intercepting heavily armed, box formations of bombers because none of the Axis could ever send up flights like that. So Allied fighters stayed light and nimble and can shred these heavily laden 190s who were most of the time trying to go after the bombers.
There's also another big issue the Fw190 series had for almost the entirety of the war: *They were bad in high altitude.* This was one of the reasons why the Bf109 stayed on for so much because they were better high up than the 190. The Fw190D9 was much better suited for high altitude work but didn't start entering service until the end of 1944. It was way too late and too few. So for the bulk of the time it was the Fw190A series that had to contend with the bombers, not the D series.
what a channel great stuff ww2
Would love a detailed explanation of bomber formation strategies
The trade-off for the FW190 was the bigger shells required shorter effective distances because of lower velocity. That would increase the engagement window for the bombers.
Its not really trade off since single bf109 cannon needs more time on target to shoot it down anyway.
190 also handles a lot better at higher speeds meaning those high speed passes are safer and accurate. Not leaking coolant when something looks at you funny also helps a lot.
Long range shooting really was a problem for the Germans because the slipstream of a formation of US 4 engine Heavies would cause so much turbulence it disturbed aiming.
I don't think the [scenario's] discussion is so much a question of _matching_ defensive firepower against an attacking interceptor (One doesn't necessarily need anywhere near twenty .50-cal. MGs to bring down, or even to deter, a single-engined interceptor.), but perhaps [more] dependent as well on meeting other self-influencing factors, the [innumerable] likes of which would otherwise decide the outcome of such a 'one-on-one' aerial engagement; these might include: position (or [initial] approach/angle of attack), initial target acquisition (sighting/firing first upon the enemy; i.e. reaction time vs range disparity, and/or element of surprise), pilot[s]/gunner experience/training, weather conditions/prevailing winds (cloud cover), interceptor/bomber maneuvers/evasive action (skill/aptitude), and including the 'more-or-less' indeterminate factor - downright 'luck'.
I'm certainly not [thus] advocating such a scenario could boil down to anything akin to approaching parity - as it would [definitely] appear that the _(Sturmböcke_-armed/bomber-killer) Focke-Wulf would ultimately win in most contested situations - all I'm addressing here, given the (often chaotic) parameters involved in perhaps most WWII-era 'dogfights', the unforeseen/uncontrollable factors involved in determining victory often decided the outcome (over skill/weaponry/experience, etc.) over an adversary, and this type of scenario is no exception, regardless of one's superior firepower advantage, where chances for either side, however disparate, nonetheless come into play: In other words, given the 'odds', a pair of trained .50-cal. M-2 Brownings could certainly down any Fw 190 under [advantageous] circumstantial elements, but in all likelihood, the _probability_ of that outcome will often be [greatly] diminished under a 'calculated' range of similar/different scenario subsets, indicative of overall [initial] advantage to the 190.
Aside of [attempts at] casting/predicting actual combat results towards such an aerial ('B-17 vs Fw 190') scenario, it would've been worth mentioning which particular [armament-array] version of Fw 190 equates to _twenty[!]_ .50-cal. M-2 Brownings (I can only 'assume' it would be an A-8 _Sturmböcke_ version, typically armed-out with: 2 × MG 131 + 2 × MG 151/20 + 2 × MK 108, yes/no?) - and exactly how 'you' *(WWII US Bombers)* derived to this figure/total (seeing one configuration arriving at: 6 × M-2 = one MK 108; 3 × M-2 = one MG 151; 1 × M-2 = one MG 131; × 2 = twenty .50-cal. Brownings). Personally, I'd take twenty M-2 Brownings _any day_ over the _Sturmböcke_ armament.
I'm certainly no self-professed Focke-Wulf 'expert', but I do believe the chart (at 5:23), *Principal German Fighters and Armament,* detailing the last [bottom] armament-array box of the FW 190 ('supposedly' for an A-8 _[Sturmböcke]_ version, including _four[!]_ MK 108s) is in my view (correct me if I'm wrong), largely incorrect. In all my years of examining/reading Luftwaffe-related warplane literature (and I've seen many!), never have I _once_ ever come across anything of the likes of _any_ version of a 190, armed-to-the-teeth with _four[!]_ 30mm auto-cannons! Barring any evidential photographic/written witnessed proof of such a single [experimental/'prototypical'] example, I challenge if *WWII US Bombers* could provide/upload any documental existence (per the US Strategic Bombing Survey Report's 'findings') of a single [surviving] photograph towards such a particular up-armed Fw 190 version ... I'll believe it when I see it!
As well, on the same chart (which is itself a rather incorrect/incomplete chronicled evolution of all the 190's A-series major armament configurations), I find it rather [equally] unlikely that the first [top] armament-array box of the (early A-series) Fw 190 was ever initially armed-out with [but] four MG 17s. (In this case, it would only have to be some ['other'] preproduction A-0 [or advanced prototype] version.) From what I've mostly gleaned of in the past, I'm of the understanding that the initial [limited] preproduction-run of the Fw 190 A-0 (likely of which, seeing only limited combat trial-runs) - of but a handful produced (some two-dozen[~?], in around early '41) - were all armed-out with _six_ MG 17s (though there does appear to be some disagreement among other sources, noting an armament-array of only four MG 17s); and naturally, as original photographic/sourced evidence of these [rare] types are hard to come by, it is just as equally hard to document the A-0 series' 'correct'/standard armament-array (as many of these were in fact themselves [later] trialled-out with varying [experimental] armament-arrays).
Attempting to list (and/or correct) each and every sub-version of the Fw 190 is certainly not my aim here - that's beyond the scope of this discussion - however, after the A-1 came into service (summer '41 - replacing each of its mid-wing MG 17s with an MG FF, for a total of: 4 × MG 17s + 2 × MG FF), the first 190 version to be encountered by the Eighth Air Force (namely, over France in early fall '42) would've been [very likely] of the A-3 variety, indicative of its then standard (mid-war) armament-array via Box No. 3, listed from the top in the same chart (at 4:23); its wing-root MG 17s being up-armed to MG 151/20 standard. Excluding various [early] _Jabo_ fighter-bomber, high-altitude recon-types, and F-/G-series _Schlachtflugzeug_ ground-attack variants (amongst others, which often had decreased armament), this revised armament configuration (2 × MG 17 + 2 × MG FF + 2 × MG 151/20) would be standard fitment from the A-2 up thru the A-5 versions (entering operational service in late '42); the A-6 version (from summer '43) would be further up-armed, replacing the mid-wing MG FF with MG 151/20, and from the A-7 onward (from late '43), replacing the pair of MG 17 cowling guns with MG 131s (as indicated in Box No. 4 from the chart), with 'that' (2 × MG 131 + 4 × MG 151/20) becoming the new basic armament standard for the remainder of the war.
Of note, the image shown (at 5:18), [possibly] portraying an early example of a dedicated _Sturmböcke_ bomber-interceptor type, is [more] likely that of a specially-outfitted (and largely combat-trialled) A-5/U12 version (or possibly that of either an A-6, or G-3/R1 long-range _Jabo Rei_ fighter-bomber sub-version), factory-fitted with an _Umrüst-Bausätze_ installation-kit of a paired-up _'Zwilling'_-type _Waffenbehälter_ MG 151/20 gun-pod mount. This particular A-5/-6 sub-type (first entering service as early around [late?] summer '43) would have as well retained the [earlier] MG 17 cowling guns. Later _Sturmböcke_ types (particularly of the more numerous and definitive A-8 version, entering service in early '44) would be further up-armed, replacing the paired _Waffenbehälter_ with the more powerful MK 108 (as portrayed in the image at 5:12, likely that of an A-8/R2 [or R/8] sub-version).
Lastly, the image shown (at 8:49) is likely an (almost experimental/limited production) F-8/R3 _Schlachtflugzeug_ ground-attack sub-version, vaunting its paired-up 30mm MK 103 auto-cannons. Virtually exclusively trialled-out over the Eastern Front (against the massed hordes of marauding T-34s), it is very unlikely this type ever actively engaged the B-17 (or B-24) _viermots_ - mind you, they may have been initially trial-tested under limited non-operational combat-trialled conditions; however, due to the gun-type's excessive recoil, it is only understandable that if it were ever [actually] used in the air-to-air interception role, its 'effectiveness' there can be conclusively deemed with an 'optimism' of sheer fantasy, perhaps by the Eighth's bomber-gunners themselves.
This was a most-interesting post, and I did enjoy responding to it. Though the many, almost experimental, and increasingly fearsome armament configurations of the vaunted Focke-Wulf 190 did display themselves [initially] well against the massed armadas of B-17s and Liberators, I don't believe it is the number (or type) of guns one has at stake to combat any given threat - what the equation really comes down to, is but more of a 'theatre' of pure numbers against [limited] numbers, whether on the ground, on the sea, or in the air ... for the ununited Axis forces, sufficiently and/or superiorly armed or not - inadvertent to the unforeseen laws of attrition, foremost of managing irreplaceable matériel loss, needed no less than an A-bomb to sue but for peace.
Great presentation. The ‘43 upgrade is relevant to North Africa also. Thanks.
Another excellent video. I wonder if the increasingly armed FW-190s saw decreasing range and loiter times or if engine improvements counteracted that.
"Minimum armament" is hard to hear after a lifetime of the lore of the mighty M2 load outs.
But it does make sense given that so many planes of the era had basically harassing fire levels of defensive firepower.
I thought I saw one of those reflector sights on the waist gun of a B17 before, I wondered if maybe it was part of some kind of a ground training aid that was inside of a stationary fuselage, but what gave me doubts about that was the gunner was fully suited up in what looked like an electric suit with his leather helmet, goggles, gloves and oxygen mask on, I wonder how long they had them before the war ended because aside from the picture of one in this video I've only ever seen that one other.
What I found interesting was, that of those bombers which got back - typically with bullet/shell-holes - they would then know to re-inforce those areas of the planes which normally never saw hits & returned. Because they were the impact areas that brought them crashing down
What stops the upper turret gunner when firing to the rear of the aircraft from hitting the tailfin of the plane?
There was an interrupt mechanism that wouldn't allow the guns to fire when pointed at the tail. However many B-17s returned with 50 cal friendly holes in their planes!
Horrible things humans do to each others.
Very interesting. Thank you
It is critical to note that the pair of either 20mm and 30mm pods placed on the FW-190 wing underside had a very detrimental effect on flying performance. While degraded flight performance was not critical when attacking heavy bombers, degraded flight performance was critical in evading the growing number of escort fighters from 1944 onward. These 'pods' were disliked by the German pilots.
German fighters were getting heavier due to the necessity of more armor and increase in firepower. They were increasingly specialized for the bomber interceptor role. I recall reading an ace disliking how the Bf109's handling got worse as the service got further into the 1943 and later models.
There is also the very real issue that these American bombers were flying in high altitude. The Bf109 flew well there but not the 190.
@@Warmaker01same with later MK spitefires
Trying to imagine aerial combat between a B-17 and JU-87. Meeting engagement?
Most likely lobbing airburst rockets from behind the formation to break it apart and let fighters take out the stragglers.
@randomnickify I've never heard or seen of a Ju 87 (nor a He 111) mounting rockets.
Could be a case of misindentification (those are only *claims* remember), but perhaps they just bumped into each other on their own missions. Presumably during some of the lower altitude missions, as I don't think the German aircraft could even reach that high.
Could also be claims by medium bombers, which would be flying lower and could more viably 'get stuck in' for a fight if they bumped into a German bomber.
I'm not sure who's claims are included there.
It is highly unlikely. I suspect misidentification.
Like not
The ju87 is a slow flying ground attacker , i won´t fly high enough and quick enough to meet a B17 .
Most ju87 not had the guns to even attack a B17 , only had some machineguns or the cannons in its pods .
There was a version with 20mm gunpods wich would be proably quite destructive .
Firepower would be equal to the late 190 with six 20mm mg151/20 , 4 in two gunpods and 2 in the wing .
If a meet happens with that version it would be bad for both , the 20mm´s would shreed a B17 but the 50cals would shreed the ju87 . . .
Good information
The .50cal had a big range in comparison to the 30mm cannon. So "no match" is the wrong headline. Additionally the bomber formation, called 'boxes', gave german pilots hell. My grandfather joined the Luftwaffe, he said that a bomberkill was noticed as a 'big point' and required a lot of courage.
BP, germany
Fascinating.
The MK108 was a trade-off. It's velocity was low and its "drop" was marked at all ranges. This forced enemy interceptors to close to well within range of the mah deuce.
What this series has suggested to me is that the interceptor effort was a vast waste of resources, while FlaK was the real bomber killer. Well, FlaK and faulty gasoline powered cabin heaters/stoves, something worth a dedicated video, perhaps.
Similarly, I was amazed that B29 tail RaDARs were ineffectual. How does that failure compare with the efficacy of NightFighter RaDAR sets? Were those numbers similar? If so, it certainly seems like someone (USAAF/USAF) has long promoted a false narrative.
The Mk108 absolutely disintegrates everything it touches in war thunder, Love the one shot rapid disassembly it offers to your unlucky victims.😂
Of course all that firepower weight worked directly against the 190s when the lightly armed Mustang showed up. The hunter becoming the bloated prey.
Why not ditch the two cowl mounted guns and rely on the wing cannon? The FW-190 became increasingly unwieldy with more and more guns being added.
it has to do with gun sights; ideally armament in aircraft should be installed into the fuselage because of accurracy-related things. What you suggest was done with the later Fw 190D, namely the D-11 and the D-13 which only carried wing armament in addition to the motorkanone. the D-13 had only the MG-151/20's in the wing roots in addition to the aforementioned motorkanone. The reduced weight did not improve the D-13 significantly so I think we can safely deduce that eliminating the cowling MG's from the FW 190A series wouldn't have improved it either. the cowling MG's were also used to help aim the cannons so there is that too.
The 190 was a much tougher target than a 109. Claims by gunners and fighters were generally over stated. The 30mm would destroy most allied fighters with one round. And a bomber with 1 to 4. The B-17 and B-24 had basically 1930 defenses. The later B-29 with its much more advanced sighting equipment could and did hit fighters at ranges beyond the range of most fighters to effectively return fire. The 50 cal was long ranged and if the gunner was good was going to hurt anything it hot hit to 1000 yards or more. But the mounts on the bombers were not ideal. Also MG fire while not hurting the bomber much will kill or disable gunners. So that the fighter can drive up and deliver heavy hits with no return fire. One German fighter pilot said attacking a B-17 was like making love to a porcupine.
I cant imagine what it would have been like being in a bomber beung hit by 20mm and 30mm
Excellent. I think we would all be experts by now.
It’s like putting life boats on the Titanic, it looked like it would work and made the crews feel better. God Bless those men!
The cold mechanical thought that goes into this is , chilling to imagine. 👍 Thx greatest generation 🙏✌️
Killing destroying the greatest generation ?.
Fw 190 with 2 x 13 mm, 2 x 30 mm plus 4 x 30 mm was not real. Already the last picture with added underwing MK 103 was so bulky that it was never documented in combat.
the FW190 had 20mms? i've ever heard of 13mm and 30mm's on the 190!!
This channel should be archived somehow.
This channel is www. There 4 good.
Twin 0.50 machine guns can shoot out the bullet weight of 8 .303 machine guns'. Also the tail gunner can open fire at the range of 800 yards, FW190 on the other hand, won't get the maximum shooting effect until closeing into 300 yards, due to guns convergence setting.
With improved compensated gunsight and good training, dealing with the straggler bomber's tail gunner still won't be a walk in the park.
Lucky for the B-17 crews that the rockets did not arrive in 1943
Lucky for the Luftwaffe that the B29 wasn't ready a year earlier and showed up in Europe, with it's 11 to 1 kill to loss ratio it's defensive guns earned against Japanese fighter's it'd have been the bane of German fighter's.
But those kinds of hypotheticals are just a waste of time because what happened is what happened and what didn't happen didn't, all those "what if's" don't have anything to do with history.
@@dukecraig2402it's not that simple, at that point Japanese were lacking experienced pilots, their planes were glass cannons without armor and self sealing tanks and later they simply started kamikaze the bombers what turned out to be more difficult to pull off than expected and often gave bomber gunners free target practice. Against the germans, highly experimental and temperamental B29 might turned out only as bigger, easier target. Without proper context numbers are usually meaningless.
The Henschell Hs 117 Schmeterling (butterfly) was ordered into production in January 1945 but after the allied advances it was cancelled in late February 1945. Too all intents and purposes it was ready. It used CLOS command line of site but because of the autopilot and 3 operators tracking (two tracked the target in elevation and bearing with a modified FLAK predictor while one guided the missile. The autopilot made the missile fly in the same direction as the optics was pointing so that the 3rd operator only had to center the target. It was upgradable with radar tracking. There were terminal homing for this missile under development including MAX-A doppler active radar operating at 5.8cm, MAX-P passive radar to home on to ground mapping radar and night fighters, acoustic and infrared though these were only laboratory devices.
Unlucky for all the civilians murdered in the bombing holocaust
One thing that diminished the effectiveness of German fighters was the variety of guns with different muzzle velocities and trajectories. The mine shells from an MG-151/20 start at about 800 m/s, while shells from an MK-108 leave the muzzle at 540 m/s. Put both guns in the same plane and you'll have a very limited zone where all your guns are hitting the same place.
Semantics…if you hit any vital parts of a bomber , the differing m/vs mean nothing….shells moving fast or slow would still kill you…
@alexwilliamson1486 true, to an extent. But the problem comes with aiming, you're not able to concentrate all that firepower on a target at once except at close ranges.
But that can also be argued to be an advantage - if your aim is off with one gun, the other gun might be in its sweetspot.
I believe the pilots could fire the 108s separately but I may be wrong.
@@kirotheavenger60 different trajectories reason 20mm deleted from rear gunner B29s 2 50cals
The little bit of relevant extra weight that a cannon armed bomber would have to carry compared with the significant extra damage they would inflict compared with a 50 cal? The availability of 50 cals compared with cannons had nothing to do with armament decision making? That's a big LOL.
some british bomber commander suggested eliminating all defensive armament from heavy bombers because he calculated the the RAF saves more men, fuel and aircraft that way due to the increase in speed and decrease in the amount of men you need for each sortie and overall weight. the idea was never even considered seriously because the increase in speed wasn't big enough to justify it.
Fighters armed with cannon vs bombers armed with .50 BMGs.
What is the average engagement time?
How many gunners on B-17s or B-24s in a formation are engaging each fighter?
How many fighters did US bomber gunners manage to shoot down in the ETO. How many bombrs were lost to fighters?
I can see were a determined pilot flying a FW-190 against USAAF bomber formations prior to fighter escorts would have a certain advantagees Maneuvering versus having to fly in formation.
Harder hitting ammunition. Speed advantage limiting the gunners opportunity to engage. How much did the bomber formation limit the air gunners range of firing? Were any US bombers lost to friendly fire over Europe. Or were bombers spaced far enough apart? If the gunner is engaging a fighter and has to break off due to avoid hitting another bomber. Or were gunners assigned a specific firing arc.
I also think that the B-17 was more survivable than the B-24. At least in terms of structual damage. As l understand it the B-24 was vunerable in the main wingspar fuselage area due to a lot of critical systems being in close proximity to each other. Fuel lines, hydraulics etc. of course if the fighter pilot scores cockpit hits killing both pilots.
The airwer over Western Europe was a deadly business. For both sides. Allied aircrew even if they were able to escape their damaged aircraft had no guarantee of reaching a POW camp. Allied aircrew were killed on landing sometimes. Every allied aircrew from a shot down bomber was effectively a complete crew lost. Whether they all survived or were all killed. German pilots fighting over friendly territory could possibly be back in a cockpit the next day if their aircraft was shot down.
In a nutshell- defensive supporting fire was woefully inaccurate against enemy fighters which were attacking friendly bombers. Direct defensive fire of a bomber's guns against an enemy fighter attacking it on the other hand. was outgunned by a wide margin. This should have been recognized at the time. Given what was known of enemy fighter armament, expected enemy countermeasures to counter the threat of the four- engine bomber, and what was at stake, there was no excuse for it not being so.
The contest was not one-on-one bomber against fighter, it was a fighter against the combined fire of a combat box formation of bombers. The defensive fire of the bombers was definitely dangerous to intercepting fighters. This why the Germans employed heavy fighters with standoff weapons such as rockets that could be fired from outside the range of the defensive guns. The greatest immediate effect long range escort fighters had was in reducing the ability of those heavy interceptors to make such standoff attacks.
@@gort8203 While I agree that defensive supporting fire was "dangerous", it had nowhere near the protective effect that advocates of strategic bombing believed that it would have. A bomber crew's first order of business was survival. This alone ensured that bomber gunners would only be looking for fighters attacking neighboring bombers in those few seconds when the gunner was satisfied that no threat to his own ship was in sight. Moreover, this time interval was not guaranteed and could instantly drop to no time interval at all. The result of this was that defensive supporting fire predominantly took on the form of split- second, high- angle, deflection shots (not easy even for a fighter pilot) from violently shaking machine guns which had a reduced chance of hitting enemy fighters- while at the same time having a chance of hitting friendly bombers as well. What nails the coffin shut on this issue in favor of the interceptor is the number of claimed kills of German fighters by U.S. gunners- which regularly varied at five times that of actual German losses- and on some missions reached seven times that of actual German fighter losses.
In short, the fundamental error that strategic bombing advocates made was their failure to realize that the same level of technology which produced a large four engine bomber with good range, heavy bombload, and good defensive armament could also be used to produce a single- seat, single engine fight with a heavy armament which outclassed those same bombers. Your reference of the fact that the Germans employed rockets is partial proof of this.
@@manilajohn0182
“While I agree that defensive supporting fire was "dangerous", it had nowhere near the protective effect that advocates of strategic bombing believed that it would have “
Which advocates? You are misrepresenting what USAAF leadership actually acted on at the beginning of the war by confusing it what some theorists believed before the war. Your claim is based on the popular ‘bomber mafia’ narrative, which is inaccurate at best and can be slanderous at worst.
Even before entering the war the leadership realized that fighters had the performance and firepower to present a lethal threat to bombers, so they did not overestimate the protective effect of defense fire. By the time the Spanish Civil War and the Battle of Britain had been observed and analyzed they were well aware of the fighter threat. They were certainly aware that we already had our own heavily armed high-altitude interceptors like the P-38 and P-47 because they had signed the orders to build them. What they had been slow to realize before the war was that a practical long range escort fighter might be possible, because they always thought such a plane would be too heavy and unwieldy to compete with high performance enemy interceptors. The fact that the wanted a practical means of escort was the source of abortive experiments like the YB-40. It was why they sent the P-38 to England with the 8Th Air Force.
There is no doubt that the defensive guns of a combat box made it dangerous to attack that box. Of course the firepower of an intercepting fighter was more powerful than a single bomber, but the gauntlet of fire from the formation restricted the ability of fighters to engage from the angles and for the lengths of time that would have rendered them even more effective. Of course no bomber could carry a weight of armament that would allow it to engage a fighter on equal terms, but the fight was not simply on equal terms. Warfare is a combined arms endeavor and the combination of arms is what produces end results. The defensive firepower of a combat box was not a magic shield, nor was it completely ineffective. If your point is that it did not reduce the bomber loss rate you are mistaken.
@@gort8203 When the U.S. daylight bomber offensive began, it was widely believed that U.S. heavy bombers could effectively defend themselves against enemy fighter attacks- primarily due defensive supporting fire. When U.S. losses began increasing (while bombing effectiveness was less than had been expected), the U.S. response was to press the B- 17 itself into service as a gunship to escort the bombers- an experiment which was a failure.
Claire Chennault was forced into retirement years before the war began for maintaining that fighters could effectively intercept bombers, while, even before the daylight bomber offensive got underway, it was believed that the Battle of Britain was not a viable test of strategic bombing- due to the inadequate defensive armament of German bombers. Listen to General Haywood Hansell:
"It was recognized that fighter escort was inherently desirable, but no one could quite conceive how a small fighter could have the range of the bomber yet retain its combat maneuverability. Failure to see this issue through proved one of the Air Corps Tactical School's major shortcomings."
Note that I 'never' said that the defensive firepower of a combat box was completely ineffective. I said that it had "nowhere near the protective effect that advocates of strategic bombing believed that it would have"- which is accurate. The fact that the YB- 40 and long- ranged fighters were developed to escort those bombers is proof of that.
@@manilajohn0182 You are inadequately informed and grossly oversimplifying. I don't care what might have been "widely believed" by uniformed and non-executive persons who were not in charge. What matters is what Carl Spaatz and Hap Arnold believed, and it was not what you claim. There is no point in arguing with someone who is just going to keep repeating the anti 'bomber mafia' narrative.
JU-87 with 37 mm anti-tank guns against bombers. Discuss.
JU87 couldnt operate well at 25K ft.
Pretty sure those are Zeros in the first clip, complete with belly tanks.
5 Ju-87? That was a mismatch!
B36 had 20mm cannon when fire vibration disrubted electroinc equipment
in WT a single 50 call turns a 190 to confetti from 1.5 km away lmao
Kinder spiel get a life.
B29s briefly tried 20mm with twin 50cals rear position not accepted but B36 had all 20mm the vibration when fired damage electrical systems inside a/c.
Effective range 50cal in B17 800 to 900 meters.
Forgot sonderkommando elbe german anti bomber weapon entire a/c very effective but rare himmlesfart kommando
Schwerpunkt vs turtlebaka...
Me262 4x30mm experimental 50mm cannon rm4 rockets germans really didnt like dicke autos.
You would think that as soon as it is realized that heavy losses are going to be suffered both in Bombers and aircrew, a stop would be made to bombing operations and new tactics considered ?? but no, the poor sods continued to be sent out to bomb Germany and to be massacred. Blinkered thinking was not limited to the UK Military !!
Heavy losses were also suffered by RAF Bomber Command at night. Losses are never desired but are expected. You don't stop fighting the enemy unless they become unsustainable. When the losses became too heavy with the second Schweinfurt raid the 8th AF did suspend deep penetration raids and take some time to examine their tactics until circumstances improved.
This narrator has braces and a Trapper Keeper
Rocket’s late at the war
the FW 190A series from A-6 or so onwards carried massive armament, which could then be enhanced with the R- and U-kits. They also carried more armor than, for example the Bf-109G. An upgunned FW-190 A-8 could carry: two MG131 on the nose, MG 151/20 in each wing root, MK 108 in outboard wing hardpoints and *four* MG151/20 under the wings. This arrangement was of course somewhat rare, but even without the underwing cannons the armament is massive considering that two hits from the MK 108's was enough to rip a whole wing off of any heavy bomber of the era.
Shot down claims might not be accurate since the Bf109 was smaller and could reach bomber altitude while FW190 had problems reaching bomber altitude.
❤❤❤
Didn't the up-gunning of the German fighters to the heavy cannons turn them into sitting ducks?
Epic Comment Censorship:
Putting Cannons in Aircraft get’s very Expensive
That’s why They Fly in formations of Y Fire
Very Y
50s did most Work just fine
Though 20s Y Been Better for Quality shorter bursts against Y and Armor of most kind
Very Expensive; Need’s more Tact, less Ammo, less volume, more waste
Simply Y to scale most guns up by Calibers
Though many Aircraft frankly didn’t have enough Guns of any kind to Y Themselves
And many of those various Models didn’t have the Luxury of Mass Formation Unit defense
Sad but True
Alotta Y Statistics
Great Lessons
Good Work
What I would like to respectfully see is a video on the human destructiveness of the flight crew from both sides by these monstrous firepowers from the 50-CAL, cannons and all that when the projectiles went through a human body. The poorest being the bottom turret gunners who had to repeatedly take the unmerciful shots from those machine guns. When a shot B-17 was able to make it home when they pulled out the bodies were they pulling out pieces of flesh, scalp, nose, teeth, eyes, ears, limbs, guts, brain matters, bones, hands, feet so on i.e. a total horrific unspeakable mess of a human body inside e death dome? Are there available Army Air Corps reports from ground crew, doctors, medical examiners, officers who certified death reports who witnessed such decimation?
Head on only faces top turret. Rear only faces tail gunner as top turret is blocked by his own vertical stabilizer.
The bombing campaign was a total failure. Germany didn't surrender like was guaranteed by the fdr government. War materials production didn't stop in Germany never ran out of bullets, planes and guns. 47,000 Kia and wounded most of the destroyed bombers were taken down by flack. 25 missions were too low they should have served until the end of the war. 147,000 died on the ground and were only sent home by serious wounds. Kia were buried in Europe, and there were no twenty-five missions. Why were they special and not served till the end?
What fantasy book did you read?
@@brennanleadbetter9708 I doubt he read a book, I think he watched RUclips and read an internet chat forum.
@gort8203 Probably got it from the cesspool that is Reddit.
The irony is the FW literally had the same engine the B-17 used.
I think you meant "virtually" rather than "literally", and even that is bit of a stretch.
Not quite but both the Pratt & Whitney R1820 series and the BMW 801 did had a common ancestor in the P&W R1690.
The 1690 was license-built by BMW, then further developed into the BMW 132, then into the 139 and finally into the 801 family.
P&W built on the 1690 to arrive at the 1820 series, which had fundamentally different superchargers added to enable high altitude performance (channelling my inner Greg from Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles channel).
@@Wien1938 Yeah, BMW based their radial on a Wright, but this is not literally the same engine. The Wight on the B-17 had 9 cylinders and 1000 or so hp and the BMW has 14 cylinders and about 1500 hp. There share heritage but are not the same. Talking like that can mislead people.
@@gort8203 Quite.