B-17/YB-40 gun arrangement

[Canso42]

I was reading "Fortress of the Skies" and came to a few short sentences and one photo about the unsuccessful YB-40 gunship variant of the 17G. The photo caption stated that it carried 16 guns including another power turret which was rear facing from the top of the radio comp. Okay add one gun here. A G model carried thirteen guns -where were the other two? I cant' tell from the mediocre photo.
No bombing with this bird? It could do some damage if all the empties and empty ammo boxes got shoveled overboard all at once.
Just wondering.

Doug R. 'Canso42'

[DanteC]

If I remember correctly, each waist window had 2x .50 cals and there are a few photos in the Squadon B-17 In Action book.

[Shay]

The 2nd dorsal looks similar to the type used on the A-20s



Shay
_____________
Semper Fortis

[Steve Nelson]

The aft dorsal turret is definately a Martin 250CE..same as the A-20, B-24, Marauder, and others.

The "Mickey Mouse" aircraft (41-20994 by the caption) appears to have had the upper deck cut down forward of the radio compartment turret. Maybe for a better field of fire?

41-24341 also seems to have a retractable ball turret, something I haven't seen on a B-17 before..must have been another part of the YB-40 mods.


SN

[Warbird Mechanic]

The YB-40 gunships were actually B-17F models built by Lockheed Vega. The one my father flew when he was stationed at the Gunnery School at Buckingham Field in Ft. Meyers, Florida in 1944 had no less than 30 automatic weapons of various calibers that included mostly 50-caliber, but also had 20-mm and 40-mm guns in the waist positions. There were four gun cradles in the waist position. Two held twin 30-mm cannons and the other two held twin 40-mm cannons in place in that each cradle could be swung around inside the waist position and stowed. My father said the YB-40 flew like a hog because it was so heavy on the controls and it was very difficult to trim the aircraft in flight. The bombbay was nothing more than an armoured bathtub that held most of the ammunition for the guns. The YB-40 was also slower than a fully loaded B-17, which was why the YB-40's were withdrawn from combat. Many were converted back to B-17F's while others were relegated to gunnery schools for use as trainers. The nose turret design on the YB-40 was soon incorporated into the B-17G models and on some existing B-17F's as a field modification. The YB-40 could carry two 2,000 pound bombs on two external wing mounted bomb shackles, (one for each wing mounted inboard of the inboard engine nacelles), but these were rarely ever used in combat if at all.

Jim

[Larry Kraus]

A quick Google search brought up the following site:

http://www.327th.org/327th-org/Greg/yb-40.htm

There is a link button on the home page to additional info on one of the gun arrangements.Another link button on that page leads to the operational history.Most of the pictures have already been posted,but there's some useful information.Also,don't forget the XB-41,which was a one-off escort version of the B-24.

All of the information that I've read on the YB-40 indicates that it flew poorly,partly because it had a high gross weight and an aft center of gravity (it was tail heavy).Also,once the bombers had dropped their bombs,the YB-40's couldn't keep up with the empty B-17's.

[Second Air Force]

An interesting bit of useless trivia--I work next door to the hangar complex where most of the YB-40 modifications were performed. Douglas-Tulsa was given the contract to install the bulk of the equipment on all but the first couple of planes, and it was done in the Mod Hangars on the north end of the field at what is now Tulsa International. I have a photograph somewhere of a YB-40 in our hangar and a picture of the same hangar today, but have no idea which pile they are in.

Scott

[Former Member]

If I'm not mistaken the designers also toyed with the idea of a 4-gun ball turret. This was a prototype and to my knowledge none of these ever went into production or saw service.

John

[mustangdriver]

Could you imagine that noise in that? Where is that ball turret? it looks like a museum display.

[Former Member]

Could you imagine that noise in that? Where is that ball turret? it looks like a museum display.

Not only the noise but also the cramped conditions of the turret (as if a regular ball turret wasn't tight enough! ) I also would've liked to have seen the ammo box arrangement and flexible feed chutes for the turret. With all the added weight one would think they would've had to have some sort of added support to keep the turret in the aircraft.

Somebody sent me a pic of this awhile back and if I remember correctly it's in storage at the NASM.

John

[Elroy13]

We were with Thunderbird at a show a few years ago and some one came up to us with some pictures. The chin turret had 4 or 6.. 50's in it. I remember someone saying on its first flight it nosed over on take off. One of our guys has the period pictures. I believe it was configured in the Pacific. Anyone else heard of this?

[Canso42]

Wow! Thanks for all the responses everyone. Do I infer that there was really no 'standard' gun arrangement on a YB-40? Shay's third photo is the one I referred to. I wondered if they used double waist guns. Jpeters that four-gun ball looks like something out of Jules Verne. Can you imagine the total noise of a fully engaged 40? I bet it was something to see from the right angle in flight in combat in a clear sky.
thanks group,
Doug.

[fotobass]

More importantly, if everyone was shooting at some evil-intentioned so-and-so at three o'clock, how mch rudder do you think it took to keep her in formation?

There's an interesting story about the YB-40 and a captured P-38 in Martin Caiden's book 'Flying Forts'.

[L. Thompson]

There's an interesting story about the YB-40 and a captured P-38 in Martin Caiden's book 'Flying Forts'.

The old Martin Caidin story is at least half FICTION. There was certainly no YB-40 involved at all. The 419th Bomb Squadron of the 301st BG was attacked by an Italian captured P-38G on 11 August 1943. My Dad was a tail gunner in the "Tail End Charlie B-17" of the 419th that day. His aircraft, B-17F-85-BO, 42-30093, was assigned to the 419th on 17 June 1943 at St. Donat, Algeria (near Constantine). They were shot up pretty bad by the P-38 but managed to limp home before belly landing about 10 miles short of the base. No injuries.
His crew on 11 August was pilot Silvestri Silvestri; copilot Frank J. Jowdy; navigator Eugene V. Markel; bombardier Ralph E. Thompson; engineer Kyle U. Block; radio operator Robert L. Gilmore; gunner Robert R. Martin; ball turret gunner Sidney L. Smith; gunner Frank A. Sciarrillo; and Ernest L. Thompson at tail gunner.

The aircraft was salvaged 19 August 1943.

Unfortunately there was fatalities with one Fortress downed early in the attack. It was B-17F-95-BO, 42-30307, “Bonnie Sue”

Pilot – 1st Lt. Albert J. Fensel O-792572 from Pennsylvania
Copilot – F/O Bobbie W. Follett T-000172 from Oregon
Navigator – 2nd Lt. Richard E. Jameson
Bombardier – 2nd Lt. Peter M. Robeck
Engineer/Top Turret – S/Sgt. Martin L. Poler 19032352 from Washington
Waist Gunner – Sgt. Robert W. Kennedy 16009599 from Wisconsin
Radio Operator – S/Sgt. Rodman H. Robinson 31129977 from Massachusetts
Ball Turret – Sgt. William L. Cummings 11018985 from Massachusetts
Tail Gunner – Sgt. Jack Ledford

Only Jameson, Robeck, and Ledford survived being picked up by a PBY after 60 hours in the water. seven chutes had been seen, however.

Italian author and historian, Ferdinando D'Amico, wrote this a few years ago on another site:

"In Martin Caidin's "Fork-Tailed Devil: The P38" he recounts an incident regarding a captured P38 flown by a Captain Rossi and American intelligence efforts to lure it to destruction by means of his wife's picture painted on the nose of a YB-40. Please separate fact from fiction and give the true details of this "incident."

Personally, I think people are probably bored with this topic, but you're doing right by discussing it in hopes that it might be possible to set the record straight once or all (I doubt we'll be successful as fiction is always more fascinating than facts, at least many think so...).

The whole matter is a textbook example of how "hearsay", stereotypes and no research could lead to a completely fabricated history.

The article (and later or earlier, the book and chapter) of Martin Caidin, was nothing else than the reprint of an even older article by Glenn Infield titled "One Of Our Own Planes Is Shooting Us Down!" (sic) and I must confess that IMHO it is the kind of "historical" research that causes more damage to history than anything else.

The P-38 mentioned in Caidin's "story" was captured on 12 June 1943 in Sardinia where a ferrying US pilot landed by mistake due to the malfunctioning of the compass. Thus, it became "property" of the Regia Aeronautica and was soon brought to the Italian Test Center of Guidonia (near Rome). This aircraft was flown - with Italian markings - by Col. Angelo Tondi (Chief test pilot of the center) in the Summer of 1943 in half a dozen scrambles against USAAF bombers attacking Rome and Central Italian targets.

On 11 August 1943 Col. Tondi intercepted off the coast the B-17F s/n 42-30307 of 419th BS, 301st BG and shot it down at 12.00 hrs*. This was the only successful interception completed by this aircraft and soon after the P-38 was grounded due to the bad quality of the Italian petrol that had corroded the fuel tanks.

* (cfr. Missing Air Crew Report n.490 available at the US National Archives - I own a copy of it)

All the above is also proved by photographic evidence, by the accounts of Col. Tondi and by the documents of the Guidonia Test Center reporting all the scrambles effected by the P-38. This material is available to researchers at the Italian Air Force Historical Branch, where I consulted it personally.

The "Captain Guido Rossi", the YB-40 and the soap-opera story of the former romance between the wife of the YB-40 pilot and the Italian pilot (!!) clearly are a joke, or should be... instead they were taken seriously and developed a life of their own. This should tell us a lot about the dangers of writing and spreading information that has not been checked or researched.

Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to accept this or to behave accordingly..."