How Effective was the WWII B-29 Bombardier as a gunner?

The intent of this video is to describe the WWII B-29’s Bombardier’s station external features, walk through the interior station, and discuss the stations combat effectiveness. Also, a graphic showing a connection of the WW2 B-29 bomber to the Star Wars Millennium Falcon.
Takeaways from the video:
- The Star Wars Millennium Falcon Flight Deck Design was inspired by The B-29 bomber
- Non-Armored crew station
- Controls 2 turrets
- 100% Armor Piercing Incendiaries
- No Tracers in ammo mix
- Optical illuminated Reticle Gun sight
- Computer accounted for ballistics
- Japanese mostly attacked bombers nose during Day
- The Bombardiers gun station was ½ as effective as the tail gun station.

[@MrLemonbaby]

Incredibly you present this complex material in a step-by-step manner so that the viewer never gets lost. Very well done indeed.

[@steveperreira5850]

I really enjoyed his videos. Matter of fact. Concise and clear description. In this one, no surprise, front gunner has a hard job, rapid closing velocity.

[@dukecraig2402]

Your videos are undoubtedly the absolute best source for information on the US bombers of WW2 and are excellent for dispelling myths about them, like the typical myths of the Norden bombsight and how they were supposedly inaccurate. Keep making these videos, the information from them is priceless and of all of the KZbin channels including the one's I always immediately click on when I see they've released a new video your's is one of the only 4 that I'm subscribed to.

[@eisenhorn029]

"The intent of this video" gets me going every time, in a good way. Love the knowledge you are sharing on this awesome subject.

[@terrybaird3122]

The sophistication of WW2 aircraft never ceases to amaze me,

[@andrewdonohue1853]

the b29 was the pinnacle of piston powered bomber technology, only the B50 and B36 surpassed it.

[@andrewmountford3608]

I always wondered about the pressurisation issue. Cheers for explaining that.

[@SpaceTomato2199]

I really wish someone would use this type of video format in a naval context as I am rarely into aircrafts, the subject is complex yet this video presents it in a understandable and simple matter, the format got me engaged with the video and the subject even though i am not that into the detailed specifics of ww2 aircrafts. Helluva good work

[@johnned4848]

Just another awesome video. Your research is amazing- where do you get all your documents and illustrations? And it's so well produced and written. Clear precise not a wasted word.

[@donbrashsux]

These videos are by far the best on KZbin .. narration is perfect and explains all the details.. just brilliant

[@johnnicatra570]

Great job all your videos are well done and very interesting.

[@Chilly_Billy]

Another fantastic installment on the nuts n' bolts history of WW2 bombers. Always outstanding videos.

[@Matt-416]

Once again, thank you so much for these videos!! As a long time WW2 bomber enthusiast (especially the B17F), you show and answer things that I've always wondered about. Please keep them coming!

[@notmenotme614]

4:35 I’m amazed how this B-29 looks in such good condition. It looks brand new, fresh off the production line.

[@Eric-kn4yn]

No mystery those guys spend hours &hours &hours to make it so

[@johnlovett8341]

Awesome as always. Thanks!

[@Dustypye]

I really appreciate the time, effort and rigour you are putting into the content on the channel and wonder if you are planning to cover the radio equipment and procedures used on both the B17 and B29. Many thanks, Robert.

[@WWIIUSBombers]

I do have some wwII communications data. I’ll put that topic in the queue.

[@ddopson]

This channel is one of the most under-appreciated things on the internet. The information is stunning in its detail, presenting raw historical data that I've never seen elsewhere, and which may not even exist in any of the books on WW2. It's abundantly clear that the creator does his own original research in what I can only assume are offline historical archives, probably microfilm archives, some of which may have not been previously digitized prior to their inclusion in these videos. I'd be hard pressed to name another source, on any subject, who can speak with the degree of earned authority that WWII US Bombers has on this subject.

[@Kingwoodish]

"Shoot down a Zero, you get a smoke break"... "Roger, Wilco Captain".

[@chrisa8799]

Dude these are some of the most scholarly, educational, and vintage WWII videos on youtube. Be proud, sir

[@mrSweetpotato67]

Love your videos!

[@andrewray5142]

Thank you for all your videos!

[@elykeom1]

This system would make the B29 the most well protected strategic bomber from head on attacks, beating many other ww2 bombers on fire power alone...

[@primmakinsofis614]

Great work as always! Thanks for your efforts on these videos. Keep 'em coming!

[@joeperson4792]

Nice of you to throw in the Star Wars inspirations. I've always wondered about the effectiveness of remotely manned guns on B-29s vs other bombers in WW2. No wonder the B-29 took a long time in development. Its fail safe back up the B-32 still used manned turret so the army needed justification I guess.

[@iroll]

The B-32 was supposed to get the remote control turrets, but it was such a shit show that they dumped them just to get it out the door before the war would be over.

[@okrajoe]

I've always wondered how effective the nose turrets were.

[@Primus54]

Another excellent video supported by actual published statistics. One tiny nit to pick. Suggest you refer to protective glass as “ballistic resistant” glass, not just ballistic glass. Given the lack of any such protection on the B-29’s nose, the last position I would have wanted to occupy was the bombardier’s, particularly on day missions.

[@WWIIUSBombers]

Good comment, will do in future.

[@jonathansteadman7935]

I discovered these uploads today and what a fascinating subject. Went to main page, subscribed, and have done a binge watch. Really enjoyable .

[@WWIIUSBombers]

Glad you like them!

[@charlestuozzolo7283]

Your videos are always outstanding and provide great detail on the operations of equipment and tactics. Having flown in a B24 and a B17 you answered questions that i had on the equipment that I saw. I dont know how you find out this info and get the old pubs but great job. Many years ago I saw an article in the Wall Street Journal on how Germany used after action bombing photos to help them look for possible unexploded ordnance from bombing raids during construction projects. The packets of info came from Maxwell AFB. I wonder if you plan to do any videos on after strike reports. Again great job and keep it up!

[@hamishneilson7140]

How did WW2 IFF mechanisms work? That antenna seems pretty minimal. Did it actively ping something out when radar hit it or something?

[@stephenbritton9297]

Am I the only one who thought it was a bit funny that one second he's talking about the O2 system, and the next, the ash tray???

[@j.jn.n1120]

could you make a video about the performance of the B 29 against the mig 15 in the Korean war?

[@donalddodson7365]

Thank you. I have no known relatives who fought in the B-29, but have a tremendous respect for all WWII bomber crews. Slow, big and high priority for enemy interceptors. Day after Day going up and striving to come back. Certainly grim work, but necessitated by the Nazi and Empire of Japan decisions.

[@dukecraig2402]

Not all enemy fighter's of WW2 were that much faster than the US bombers in WW2, their turbo charged engine's gave them excellent high altitude performance. A typical example is the FW190, with it's single stage supercharger it's performance started dropping at 15,000 ft, by the time they climbed up to the 25,000 ft operational altitude of the B17's their performance was way down and they were clawing for air, so much so that if they approached a B17 formation from behind they were exposed to the fire from the tail gunners for an insane amount of time before they were in the effective range of their own guns and could shoot back, and any attempt at evasive maneuvers would just make them lose ground, that's the real reason they adopted the head on attack method, not because the earlier B17's didn't have the chin guns that was simply an added bonus. But head on attacks had their problems and some unit commander's were reluctant to adopt them for those reasons, it gave chances of a collision with the bombers especially with pilots who didn't have a lot of experience, coupled with the fact that because of the 500+ MPH closing speed it only afforded the fighter pilot with moments to line up a shot, some of the commander's with a lot of rookie pilots didn't want to adopt that strategy. Another problem with the head on attack was because of the speed of the US bombers at 25,000 ft compared to the lowered speed of the fighter's at that altitude was they only got one try at it, they'd never get turned around and get out in front of them for another try at it. The ME109 also had a single stage supercharger but it was a fluid coupled variable speed system that had better performance at higher altitude so when possible they would use them to attack the bombers while FW190's would lurk at lower altitudes to attack any bombers that'd been damaged and lost altitude and the protection of other bombers from having to leave the defensive box. The Germans eventually developed the high altitude variant's of the FW190 like the Dora, but by the time they got them into service in any kind of number's the USAAF had the proper kind of drop tanks for the P47 and had P51D's in service by then that both had high altitude supercharger systems and were escorting the bombers all the way to their targets using the relay system.

[@stephengreen3367]

@@dukecraig2402 Really informative. Thank you!

[@dukecraig2402]

@@stephengreen3367 The reason that the Germans shot down as many bombers as they did on missions like the infamous "Black Thursday" raid on Schweinfert is because they swarmed them with something like 250 fighter's that attacked from the front, as I explained after one pass through them they'd never get turned around and get back out in front of them again for a 2nd try. Then after the first attack they landed and re-armed and re-fueled and hit them again when they were coming off the target, if you think about it hitting them twice with that many fighter's for all the more they shot down actually isn't very good, and the reason they didn't shoot down even more or all of them is the speed that those bombers could fly at that altitude with their turbo charged engine's, after shedding the 6,000 lbs of bombs they probably climbed to 30,000 ft coming off the target to make it even harder on the fighter's, but unfortunately the fighter's probably had plenty of B17's that were damaged inbound that couldn't keep up with everyone else coming off the target to shoot up, any stragglers probably formed up on each other to maximize their defensive power but at the lower altitudes the damaged bombers would have been flying at would have been down where those fighter's superchargers could perform, especially any with damaged oxygen systems that would have forced them down around 10,000 ft, they'd have torn them up.

[@dieterkahsnitz5921]

Agree. So unfussy. Love it.

[@donbrashsux]

Was the little Ford ashtray more full going to the battle or coming home 🤔.. these great vids are such a reality check about bravery of a bygone generation that gave us peace n freedom

[@WWIIUSBombers]

Related B-29 Videos from WWII US Bombers Channel: B-29 Bomber Gunnery Video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rKixgX2dg6qsg7c B-29 Bomber’s Tail Gunner Station Video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oqWzioSce5eCl8U B-17 vs. B-29 WWII Gunner Kill Ratios Video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oITac2SDrcaopMk B-29 Tail Gunner’s Radar Video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ol6WaqqYiMqSZs0 B-29 5 Fascinating facts Video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/kKbVoIOOr9eIesk

[@paulchukc]

I expect a bigger bomber can offer more room for the bomberdier, yet B-29's bomberdier seat seemed more confined then B-17's.

[@dukecraig2402]

Yea it looked pretty tight there.

[@olentangy74]

I never knew that the fuselage was depressurized if air combat was anticipated, but it makes sense. the bombardiers station was more complex than I knew. The B-29 you tour here is a beautifully restored example. Where is this museum?

[@WWIIUSBombers]

The B-29 in located in Seattle at the Museum of Flight.

[@mlovmo]

I remember reading of a B-29 bombardier who told of how he shot down a Japanese rocket-powered plane zooming up in front of him using the lower forward turret.

[@Eric-kn4yn]

What happened to a/c temperature as we know at 10k m temp could be minus 20C and leather in crews lightweight overalls

[@keithammleter3824]

Another splendid explanation by WWII US Bombers, who outclasses all other KZbin videos on WW2 airforce technology. Gunner effectiveness was defined in an interesting way. Was the purpose of a B-29 to destroy enemy aircraft? If so, defining gun station effectiveness as the fraction of encountered enemy aircraft destroyed is reasonable. This purpose was specifically part of USAAF mission in Europe, but not against Japan. The purpose of B-29's over Japan was to destroy their industry and morale. This means that the true indication of a gunner station effectiveness is how well it enables the B-29 to reach target, drop bombs, and return to base for another mission. This is not the same as destroying fighters, because if the B-29 gun stations frighten enemy fighters into turning away, or using less effective attacking directions, that's just about as good as destroying them. However, the number destroyed would have been easier to count accurately.

[@tristanmole5885]

How did the gunner see where the guns were pointed

[@bdv861]

Ash tray but no cup holder? Where did they put their Starbucks? Oh the humanity!

[@brianbalster3521]

where is This b-29 at? which museum? thanx! Good video

[@WWIIUSBombers]

In Seattle at the Museum of Flight. Plane is T-square 54.

[@Compulsive_LARPer]

engaging for the algorithm

[@matthewmoore5698]

The delivery system cost more than the main weapon (A-BOMB) so it was useful for 5 minuets, they knew nothing of the Gulf Stream and it was pressurised had gun radar but I think it was a very important plane and I think the B36 wasn’t that much one of theses with swept wings

[@user-qz1qo4hx7i]

I'm a viewer. Just a guess, but the scene outside the front windows looked like the Museum of Fight in Seattle. It's a great museum and worth a visit.

[@Spacklatard]

07:20 Can the computer lead targets travelling at Mach 2?

[@clmccomas]

No. The computer system had problems leading the Mig 15 that had a maximum speed of Mach 0.87 at sea level. This and other factors were the reason the USAF quickly turned to nighttime bombing for the B-29 during the Korean war.

[@Spacklatard]

@@clmccomas OK Cool..that Concorde is pretty safe then

[@clmccomas]

@@Spacklatard Ouch! Walked into that one, but the problems the B-29 FCS had shooting down MIGS only five years after the war is a good illustration on how revolutionary the jet age was.

[@tomservo5347]

I honestly thought the B-29 was designed to cruise at an altitude beyond the reach of most Japanese fighters. We always hear about the European conflict against the Luftwaffe but we seldom hear many things about the Pacific theatre's bombing campaign and the struggle against Japanese fighters. I'm curious how the B-29's loss ratio was. It's incredible that the B-29 development program cost more than the Manhattan Project.

[@WWIIUSBombers]

See the channel’s video on B17 vs. B29 gunner kill ratios.

[@yoseipilot]

Well, how many B-29 were lost in WW2 and how many Japanese Interceptor were lost?

[@zedfourme5085]

I'd be curious what a 10 round burst of 20mm would do to that cockpit. No armour save for the pilots seats and just plexiglass.Yikes.

[@matthewmoore5698]

Could you imagine having an ash tray on a B2 ll

[@blurglide]

Why are there barrel shrouds on the guns? Who's going to touch them in combat? Don't they cool off VERY quickly up there?

[@Eric-kn4yn]

Even at 30k feet the guns were used on short bursts to reduce overheating

[@blurglide]

@@Eric-kn4yn the shrouds don’t reduce overheating- they increase it. What they reduce is burnt hands.

[@billyponsonby]

7:49 George Lucas wuz ere

[@Eric-kn4yn]

B 29. Why did Japan go up against usa. Like it or not they didn't have a chance 🤔

[@johnbasiglone1219]

15 and 30 kills per 100 encounters seems hyper inflated and hard to believe. I know those are the numbers in the survey, but we know, all countries inflated their success. And the Army Air Corps were out there with the leaders in the pack on inflating numbers.

[@JK-rv9tp]

History Channel: Stupid garbage content about ancient aliens and "pickers". KZbin: Intelligent content history techno geeks actually enjoy, produced by fellow citizen history techno geeks. There's just no comparison. Amazing. Fun fact: Quarter inch thick acrylic plastic, the typical canopy and window material, has roughly the same tensile strength as the surrounding .040 alum skins, although not as ductile. The B-29's greenhouse (and the window you sit next to on an airliner), is not as delicate as it looks.