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'm in awe of your in-depth research and hard work you put into these videos.

This aerospace engineer (like me!) is remarkably thorough on his research. I find his videos very informative.

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.

My day is made! I really appreciate the effort put into researching such niche videos.

The idea that a bomber can drive off an attack from a determined interceptor is insane. Your videos are first-rate. Thank you.

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.

Other problematic is weapon placement. The best option is to pack all weapons into fuselage. Even though synchronizing mechanism reduced rate of fire, this layout removed problems with convergence. Guns installed in wings needed convergence setting and it usually was around 200-400m setting where all weapons had the mid point. And once target was closer or distance was greater, the effective coverage was less and less effective. While guns mounted in central pack could hit targets in 100-1000m distance with +/- same effectivity. Ideally some 30mm firing through propeller shaft and 2-4x 20mm cannons around the engine block. Or 4x30mm in nose like ME-262 had. Twin engine beasts enjoyed advantage in this too. Look at Whirlwind, Beaufighter, Mosquito, Bf-110, Me-410 etc etc. Those things could fire at enemy bomber from large distance while staying out of enemy defences and still score good coverage of hits. While if FW190A8 pilot will try to stay 800+m behind bombers to be somewhat less affected by 0.5in HMGs, he will have hard time hitting targets properly because of spread of those wing mounted cannons.

EXCELLENT video. The best of the best. Your descripition of ammo, fire power, etc...and conclusions. THANKS.

Great video thanks. No stupid music, just clearly-presented information. Fascinating & enlightening

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.

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.

Thanks again for all of your videos...

Thank you for another very informative video!

Wow, great job! Very interesting, especially the last few minutes on firepower of B17 vs FW-190 over the course of the war. THANKS!

Excellent Data on Aircraft Weapons ,and a very informative Vid thank you for sharing

Those bomber claim stats are a bit optimistic...

Impressive video... very well done. Subscribed! 👍🏾

Great Video!

Outstanding video and presentation

great analysis, I learned something new.

The pair of FW-190 wing root guns fired through the propeller disk same as the pair of cowl-mounted machine guns.

Great video...👍

Very interesting. Thank you

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

Lucky for the B-17 crews that the rockets did not arrive in 1943

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).

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.

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.

what a channel great stuff ww2

So the .303 guns of the Lancaster were essentially useless?

You sir are a true expert.

Good information

Great presentation. The ‘43 upgrade is relevant to North Africa also. Thanks.

The real answer to this problem was long range fighter escort.

Another excellent video. I wonder if the increasingly armed FW-190s saw decreasing range and loiter times or if engine improvements counteracted that.

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.

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.

Would love a detailed explanation of bomber formation strategies

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

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.

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.

Our bombers never placed any 20 or 30mm cannons for the rear gunners a what dis they expect?

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

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.

The cold mechanical thought that goes into this is , chilling to imagine. 👍 Thx greatest generation 🙏✌️

Will you cover all German fighters in future videos?

Excellent. I think we would all be experts by now.

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.

couple of 20mm cannons and couple of 30mm cannons and 13mm MG. yeah lots of frontal fire power on 190

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.

The MK 101/103 didn´t fire the same shells as the MK 108.

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.

"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.

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!). ;)

The bomber gunners were shooting down german dive bombers and attack aircraft too? What were they doing there in the first place?

I cant imagine what it would have been like being in a bomber beung hit by 20mm and 30mm

Horrible things humans do to each others.

The Mk108 absolutely disintegrates everything it touches in war thunder, Love the one shot rapid disassembly it offers to your unlucky victims.😂

Trying to imagine aerial combat between a B-17 and JU-87. Meeting engagement?

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.

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!

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.

What stops the upper turret gunner when firing to the rear of the aircraft from hitting the tailfin of the plane?

This channel should be archived somehow.

Of course all that firepower weight worked directly against the 190s when the lightly armed Mustang showed up. The hunter becoming the bloated prey.

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.

B36 had 20mm cannon when fire vibration disrubted electroinc equipment

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

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.

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.

5 Ju-87? That was a mismatch!

the FW190 had 20mms? i've ever heard of 13mm and 30mm's on the 190!!

Pretty sure those are Zeros in the first clip, complete with belly tanks.

Forgot sonderkommando elbe german anti bomber weapon entire a/c very effective but rare himmlesfart kommando

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.

❤❤❤

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.

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.

in WT a single 50 call turns a 190 to confetti from 1.5 km away lmao

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.

JU-87 with 37 mm anti-tank guns against bombers. Discuss.

Schwerpunkt vs turtlebaka...

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.

Shot down claims might not be accurate since the Bf109 was smaller and could reach bomber altitude while FW190 had problems reaching bomber altitude.

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.

This narrator has braces and a Trapper Keeper

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 !!

Me262 4x30mm experimental 50mm cannon rm4 rockets germans really didnt like dicke autos.

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

Rocket’s late at the war

Head on only faces top turret. Rear only faces tail gunner as top turret is blocked by his own vertical stabilizer.

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?

Didn't the up-gunning of the German fighters to the heavy cannons turn them into sitting ducks?

The irony is the FW literally had the same engine the B-17 used.

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?