There are certainly ways to improve the performance of the plane, but the problem with doing too much, especially if you're talking about swapping away from radial engines or other clearly visible modifications is that it becomes too easy to distinguish visually from the B-17s and the Luftwaffe fighters just don't engage them. The whole point of the concept (as I understood, anyway) was that an unsuspecting interceptor would think they were attacking a regular Fortress until it was too late and they suddenly found themselves staring down far too many .50 cal barrels. If a pilot can ID the YB-40 from outside of machine gun range then it's a trick that will only work until the Luftwaffe figure out that they don't have bombs and can be ignored.
AHC Make the YB40 successful
- Thread starter Oldbill
- Start date
Both. Besides more armor there was a second dorsal turret in the radio operators position plus twin beam guns and a chin turret. Lots more ammo as well, which is why once the regular bombers had dropped their loads they got left behind fast...
When I saw this I thought you was talking about this plane for a moment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_XB-15
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_XB-15
IMO I think the USAAF and Boeing were already looking at the next generation VLR bomber: The B-29. As we know the B-29 program was running behind schedule and Hap Arnold pushed to get it into combat in 1944. Improving the B-17 would have slowed progress more.
That being true, so would the B-40, wouldn't it? Especially if it has improved performance. And if there's capacity for an improved-performance "escort bomber", there's room to improve the basic B-17, no? I'm not saying it gets to a level equal to the B-29 (not a chance), just incremental (more/less) gains.
marathag
Banned
US had enough production facilities, like say Vega, to do upgraded B-17s while everywhere else does 'Standard' B-17s.
As it was, some crews claimed the Vegas were better than the Boeing or Douglas made craft
I agree with you. They put a chin turret on the B-17G OTL so Boeing could have continued to improve the Flying Fortress, especially since the USAAF decided against deploying the B-29 to England.
I just think Hap Arnold wouldn't tolerate anymore distractions toward getting his B-29 bomber wings up and running. I feel the Superfortress gun system could have been tested on the YB-40.
What do you think about the B-40 concept being added to the B-29? I know the Twentieth Air Force struggled to get enough bombs to Japan during Operation Matterhorn and in the early days of the bomber offensive from the Marianas but what about dedicated B-29 gunships for the early daylight missions?
How about a B-24 gunship?
The liberator groups could need some help also. I think the B-24 would be easier to convert to gunship mode. seal up the waist gun positions and put in a second turret? Once again remove the bomb bay?
A B-24 gunship sounds like something James Stewart would volunteer for.
The liberator groups could need some help also. I think the B-24 would be easier to convert to gunship mode. seal up the waist gun positions and put in a second turret? Once again remove the bomb bay?
A B-24 gunship sounds like something James Stewart would volunteer for.
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
Fighters were never really a problem, vs the mechanical issues.
Considering how B-29s ended up being used, low altitude with most guns removed, would have been worth it to just let B-32s fill that role. They had fewer engine issues due to better nacelle design for cooling as it was, but never got the pressurization or remote turret bugs worked out. It never had its 'Battle of Kansas' like Boeing had
marathag
Banned
They just were not as rugged, and lagged the B-17 for speed and altitude.
Maybe just have the B-40s stick with B-24 groups
A B-40 is going to stick out more in a B-24 formation but it is worth trying.
At work.
I keep hearing "Get left behind when the bombers are 'clean'."
So..... my thought is thus. Build the B-40 to be AS fast as an unladenswallow B-17 from the get-go.
Then add in 'Air brakes' or 'Fowlers' to slow the bird down too keep her in line with the laden bombers.
Once the B-17's are clean the B-40 closes/drops her own devices a can still keep up.
Also, though it bulks her up some, the powrred waist blister guns from the... um... B-24? Swap out the twin 50 cals for a 20 mm? Not sure of the travers speeds on the powered blister but it would seem to make swinging the 20's a 'lighter load'?
Is such a thing possible?
Cheers.
I keep hearing "Get left behind when the bombers are 'clean'."
So..... my thought is thus. Build the B-40 to be AS fast as an unladen
Then add in 'Air brakes' or 'Fowlers' to slow the bird down too keep her in line with the laden bombers.
Once the B-17's are clean the B-40 closes/drops her own devices a can still keep up.
Also, though it bulks her up some, the powrred waist blister guns from the... um... B-24? Swap out the twin 50 cals for a 20 mm? Not sure of the travers speeds on the powered blister but it would seem to make swinging the 20's a 'lighter load'?
Is such a thing possible?
Cheers.
Pretty much.
Also where would you place these planes? Can't put them in the middle of a formation, the field of fire is not good, all your mates are in the way. Above, attack from below, below attack from the top. The same would go for in front or behind the formation. Fighters would just keep away from them. Also there is the lead up, by the time they are going to be up and ready the P-51 would be there.
At work.
From limited experience of "IL 42. Forgotten war" when fast approaching a bomber box the finer details of the targets do tend to get some what lost.
If there are any board members reading along with real world experience I am sure their input on the matter will be greatly appreciated.
Though, I agree, that the over gunned wolf amongst the flock of egg laden sheep will become obvious after a fighter pass or two. However, by then, how much extra damage will the heaver defensive guns reak?
As of how to deploy the B-40? One on each 'Corner"' of the formation I would suggest. After all, they are there to ADD to the rest of the bomber's defensive fire. Not supplant it.
Cheers.
From limited experience of "IL 42. Forgotten war" when fast approaching a bomber box the finer details of the targets do tend to get some what lost.
If there are any board members reading along with real world experience I am sure their input on the matter will be greatly appreciated.
Though, I agree, that the over gunned wolf amongst the flock of egg laden sheep will become obvious after a fighter pass or two. However, by then, how much extra damage will the heaver defensive guns reak?
As of how to deploy the B-40? One on each 'Corner"' of the formation I would suggest. After all, they are there to ADD to the rest of the bomber's defensive fire. Not supplant it.
Cheers.
There was a prototype
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_XB-41_Liberator
Basically suffered from the same problems as the B-40.
marathag
Banned
Reflector sights far better than ring and post too. Fitted on PB4Y-2 Privateer, a single tailed, stretched USN B-24 without turbos.
Yes, that's the ticket! 
So...... given the extra 'Beef' on these beasts.
Just how much extra engine power is needed to get them tootling along with their 'Unladen' charges/brethren?
So...... given the extra 'Beef' on these beasts.
Just how much extra engine power is needed to get them tootling along with their 'Unladen' charges/brethren?