Yeah but you would in context, because aside the bombing thing he was...

I have little doubt that the RAF called some of the 8th Air Force people just as bad (or worse).

I had no idea about the German Air to Air rockets until I saw that early trailer...and admittedly scoffed at it, but it only highlighted my ignorance of the matter. If anything, the show has taught me something. :ok:

(Aside from the old RAF vs USAAF rivalry still exists!) :E

Yeah something about "Over-paid, over-sexed, and over here, (again)."

I am reminded of the John Mills movie ‘The Way to the Stars’ in which the over confident and cocksure 8th Air Force learnt the hard way. Twelve o’ Clock High is worth another look too…….

Wartime recordings

Very interesting, and indeed poignant footage, Nutty. Although the 'gun' sounds detracted from the overall somewhat - more .303 than .5"!

A general query to 'the body of the Kirk', if I may...although the elevation/depression of the twin .5s in the B-17s rear 'turret' (sic) seems adequate, what was their range of movement in azimuth like? Were they fixed fore-aft, or was there a bit of lateral movement available?

The B-17 rear armament configuration appears prima facie to be less effective than the standard RAF heavy bomber rear turret, or even that of the B-24!

Nearly all those films from WW II were silent - sounds were dubbed in later and I doubt the people who did that knew the difference in sound between a 30 cal and 50 cal.
The tail guns were pedestal mounted - similar to the waist gunners (but obviously a twin instead of single 50) so range of fire was pretty good - plus both the top turret and bottom ball turret could fire aft (obviously with care not to hit their own tail). IIFC, the RAF didn't use 50's, instead going for 30 cal - 50's were far more effective in arial combat.

According to one book I read on the 8th Air Force, it was calculated that it took the fire from 10 50 cals to discourage an attacking fighter (not to shoot it down, just to discourage him from pressing the attack home). Hence the empasis on tight formation flying.
The weak point of the earlier B-17 wasn't so much the tail as head-on - which is why a 'chin turret' with dual 50 cals showed up on (IIRC) the "G" model.

If you look at about 4.50 on the last post (B-17s over Europe) there appears to be one of the "Escort" B-17s (cannot recall their actual designation at the moment, something like YB-39?) with what appears to be TWO ball turrets hanging underneath. I presume this image was taken by a member of the Luftwaffe?

I think it's a G model with the nose turret - slightly odd angle and depressed guns. The YB-40 programme only fitted twin top turrets and the Bendix nose turret, but not twin ball turrets.

The G introduced the unmanned nose turret to counter the Germans use of head on attacks, where the earlier B17’s were poorly defended.

In such a crowded sky amongst all of the chaos, surely some of the B17 formation must have been hit by their own gunners.

Was that in fact ever an issue ?

El Grifo

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) YB-40 pre-dated the G, but the G "mainstreamed" several YB-40 innovations including the nose turret?

Not wishing to be pedantic, but...:rolleyes: :8 Was the B-17G 'Nose Turret' not more properly called the 'Chin Turret'?

Grabbed Masters of the Air on Audible - all 25 hours of it.

All three TV episodes are dealt with before chapter one even begins, and episode 4 (if it deals with the Munster raid) will be episode 3 turned up to eleven. Don't read/listen to the forward if you don't want spoilers!

Edit: I picked up the book to see why the TV series decided that the 389th BG was a B17 group early in Ep1 - sat as I am next door to Hethel airfield every day and well aware that the Sky Scorpions operated the B24 (ok, I'm a geek)

You are of course correct.

No worries ! In absence of a response, I found this.
Live and learn !

"Gunners on US bombers flying in tight formations did not just spray machine gun fire all over the place trying to track fighters. The formations were designed to give clear fields of fire to the gunners, but each gunner was assigned a certain sector to cover and he only fired at targets entering his sector.

A aerial gunner who broke discipline and hit other aircraft would be removed from flight duty quickly and likely find himself as an infantry replacement. Aircrew took a dim view of undisciplined gunners."

El Grifo

The B-17 gunners had only enough ammo for ~60 seconds of fire (I think the top turret had a little more). While that's a lot compared to (for example) the ~14 seconds of fire for a Hurricane fighter, fighters were not in the 'fight' for hours at a time - a B-17 might be over enemy territory for 4 or 5 hours straight! So aside from the risk his fellow airman of 'undisciplined' fire, they needed use care that they didn't run out of ammo early and leave themselves defenseless against further attacks.
er

Hilarious reading here.
its a movie/series not a documentary!!

Who cares if they don’t wear masks at 18000 feet or the P51s had red tails?

Do you criticise the technique of the staff in BBCs Casualty? Or the authenticity of the Expendables? If you do, get a life.

It’s entertainment pure and simple. The audience DONT CARE if the aircraft have the wrong markings……

Was that per gun or in total?