What part of a B-17 did German Fighters target to ensure bomber destruction - Deep Dive Review

The video will address WWII operational data which showed the engines were the most vital part of a bomber and should be the target of German bomber interceptors. Data shows 2/3 of bomber shot down by fighters had fires. 50% of all bomber fires were in the engine, 15% in the fuel tanks, and 10% the hydraulic system. German ammo belts mixes were optimized to take advantage of the bomber’s engine and fuel tank’s vulnerability.

[@WWIIUSBombers]

Edit-The B-17's engine is the Wright R-1820, not the R-1830 as described in the video

[@Flapjackbatter]

Pish posh. Don't worry about it. Even you can make a mistake I gues.

[@michaelfrench3396]

When I was a young man, I had the pleasure of knowing a B-17 pilot named Joy Dunlap. He flew with the 8th and he told me that there is nothing scarier than a head-on attack by 20 plus enemy fighters. And it makes sense if you kill the pilot and the co-pilot. The plane goes out of control and everybody dies

[@jayklink851]

A few years back, I had the privilege of flying on a B-17. Let me tell you, making your way from the aft towards the bow was extremely cumbersome, even while grounded. There was only a very narrow metal corridor that crossed over the bomb bay. Hell, even on the ground, navigating from the aft to bow (or bail out position) was tricky. A severely damaged plane, that wasn't flying level, man, it would seem really challenging, if not impossible, for the boys in the back to bail out.

[@matydrum]

​@@jayklink851and also only the pilots had their parachutes strapped on! They had to clip it on the harness. And if you had your anti flak vest even worse because you had to take it off! The ball turret gunner had to first come out of it etc... crazy stuff...

[@jayklink851]

@@matydrum Oh for sure! On a severely damaged plane that can't maintain something close to level flight, those boys in the back may not be getting out of there.

[@matydrum]

@@jayklink851 that must be why the copilot has the highest survival rate. It's not his duty to keep the plane flying until the crew evacuated and he already had his chute strapped on.

[@julianneale6128]

@ 03:40: It's also worth mentioning that if an engine continues to burn, it'll eventually have a significant effect on the structural integrity of the main wing spar. This will cause a catastrophic failure of the wing, which results in the loss of the aircraft. I really enjoyed this interesting video.

[@thomasdarwin6174]

The up-armed FW190 was a true terror to these guys

[@billfraser9731]

I spoke to a surviving B17 co- pilot in mid '80's who was shot down on March 6, 1944 on a raid to Berlin. Very humble man. He told me his plane was set on fire with a head on pass. I later read a book "Target Berlin" which said his Wing (1st) and (Bomb Group 91st), (401 sq) led the mission. I concluded after the fact he must of been in the lead as his crew was experienced on their 17th mission. (Paris Coleman plane) and he was KIA after bailing out

[@b1laxson]

Did you mean the pilot was KIA? and you were talking in the 80s to the co-pilot?

[@neilwilson5785]

Oh no! I am pausing these videos when the graphs appear on screen. I'm getting too far down the rabbit hole! Anyway, great video as always.

[@FrankJmClarke]

I love the trusting guy at 5:27, doesn't even look back at the guy with his hand on the M2 :).

[@hansvonmannschaft9062]

That galavanting fellow did also give me the shivers to see him show up there, as if no man-disassembling machinery was nearby at all, much less aiming in his general direction.

[@FrankJmClarke]

OK, it does seem to be an M1919 :). Don't know what the back sight is. Presumably having no range safety was just fine.

[@hansvonmannschaft9062]

@@FrankJmClarke Not sure if someone deleted a message in the middle, or if they got messed up for me. In any case, the follow up shots do show someone holding a .50 cartridge right next to the hole. Could be an unwanted mistake-inducing error caused by the editor.

[@Munakas-wq3gp]

@@hansvonmannschaft9062 I'm pretty sure nobody would walk like that today, with the other guy still holding the handles...

[@hansvonmannschaft9062]

@@Munakas-wq3gp Oh I completely agree, hence my first comment. And the irony is that the security protocols and measures we use today came straight from the range or the field, ie, situations like the one we just saw.

[@calvingifford9442]

My Dad got shot down over New Guinea in the PTO in a B-17, luckily getting found by a coast watcher soon after his parachute ride. Early in '44, in a B-24, he ended up getting shot down coming back from Balikpapan. Again very lucky to get rescued with most of his crew by a Navy Sub ( unfortunately, I don't remember which one ). I do wonder if the Germans passed on this kind of info to their Axis partners. Very much enjoy your channel!

[@erickent3557]

When writing tech docs at work, I increasingly read in the "WWII US Bomber" voice. If the words and voice don't mesh, this is a warning that my text requires edits for compactness and clarity.

[@Chilly_Billy]

I'm glad I'm not the only one. I was reading an old magazine article and I swear Keith's voice was in my head.

[@infantryattacks]

Excellent summary. Thank you.

[@ChattahoocheeRiverRat]

I'm curious where you find those publications you reference. Is there a library out there somewhere? It's amazing to see the depth of analysis done during and after the war, and even more amazing the way you integrate info from multiple pubs to create a presentation. Amazing work !!

[@mabbrey]

always great info

[@alexwilliamson1486]

Pneumatic Hammer….the 103/8 was a formidable weapon.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

OK, new questions. Considering that a single frontal pass unloaded 150 rounds, most must have missed, or they'd be guaranteed a shootdown every single time. 1. Did the Germans ever do any studies on what percentage of shots actually hit targets? 2. Did USAAF ever do any studies on what percentage of frontal attacks did knock out a bomber? This is some pretty fascinating material. You're really knocking it out of the park.

[@edwardscott3262]

Yes they did studies on it. The ability to shoot down a plane with one lone projectile is practically impossible. There's another channel like this that just happened to cover your questions. I forget exactly the name of the channel but Greg's airplanes and automobiles will get you close enough to find it. It's a good channel and worth looking at. Lots of very indepth looks at lots of WW2 airplane stuff.

[@TempusFugit1159]

@@edwardscott3262 You might mean Christoph Berg's "Military Aviation History Channel;" he does a great job with his videos on topics like this.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

@@edwardscott3262 Thanks. I've been watching Greg's videos for a while, I'll have to look for that.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

@@TempusFugit1159 Yep, been watching his too :)

[@rich7787]

@@edwardscott3262Greg and this fellow are my two top airplane channels. Red is also great, but Greg and this guy are just a smidge better

[@mbryson2899]

Beautifully done! Thank you for sharing.

[@Br1cht]

So I guess I have to fill the part that our host counted on being present. SURVIVOR BIAS!!! There, done.

[@stewartmillen7708]

2nd attempt at a comment, as the first one disappeared. What you seem to say--that the areas on the B-17 that will tend to be hit will be simply based upon their proportional size, from the attacking German fighter pilot's perspective--is born out in games too. The things presenting the biggest proportional area will get the most hits. The notion that German pilots could effectively target a vulnerable area (say the cockpit) isn't borne out by data (no matter what some German pilots said postwar). In games most of the time you miss the bomber entirely in a head-on attack. If you're lucky you get a single 20-mm hit or two; rarely more than that. If you're even luckier those hits will be significantly damaging. Ace pilots will get achieve more hits and do more damage, but there is no advantage at all about the head-on attack save that it reduces the German fighter's exposure to bomber defensive fire. That by itself should tell you something about the effectiveness of said defensive fire. There is an analogy about this with tank warfare. Yes, tanks had weak spots. Yes, instruction manuals were published describing these weak spots, instructing tank or anti-tank gunners to "shoot here'. Yet in almost all cases these weak spots were smaller than the published best-case target-range dispersion of the tank or anti-tank gun, which meant that "you really can't target and hit these; if you hit them, it's just dumb luck". As I said, that's even the best-case target-range dispersion, where 50 % of the rounds fired fall within a specified ellipse. In actual combat, one can expect that ellipse to be at least two, if not three times larger.

[@WilliamHarbert69]

Great presentation. Thank you.

[@patrickshanley4466]

Excellent video again 👍

[@SuperYooper11]

Another great video!

[@josem.2714]

New to the channel and finding the content amazing! Thanks for putting this up. I have a question regarding a previous video. How would toggliers proceed once the lead bomber (or bombardier) was lost? Thanks again.

[@4shink]

I believe it was standard procedure to have a "deputy" lead aircraft/crew that would assume leadership navigation and weapons drop if the original lead aircraft was lost. I do not know if there was a chain of command procedure if both the lead and deputy crews were lost.

[@SoloRenegade]

1:28 unless you're a lightweight Japanese aircraft with no reserve structure, such as the A6M Zero

[@rodrigomeneses5900]

great document

[@cowtown9437]

Why not mention any Germen ace's historical testimonies for the head-on high altitude interceptions as a tactic, Keith?

[@romaliop]

Hits will naturally be at least semi-random due to the convergence of the guns, especially with wing mounted guns. With a high closing speed and a relatively short burst, there's really no way for the pilot to effectively concentrate fire onto a target smaller than the horizontal distance between the two wing gunpods and the vertical distance of the bullet drop between the furthest and the closest shots in the burst. On average the bullets and shells will impact towards the center of the aiming point, but they will still be scattered on both vertical and horizontal axis depending on the aggregate effects of the gun convergence and the slight deviations in the angle of attack for each pass. Targeting certain parts of the plane might be possible when attacking stragglers from behind and/or above with relatively slow closing speeds, though.

[@Davie-jx4rh]

Although this would be true of fockewulfs, bf109s and me262s had central armament that can be specifically aimed

[@mbryson2899]

Didn't the US bombers use a fancy computing sight for their turret/barbette and tail locations?

[@Davie-jx4rh]

@@mbryson2899 don’t take my word for it, but if I remember correctly they used compensating gunsights

[@hansvonmannschaft9062]

@@Davie-jx4rh They were added at some point, not there originally, but indeed, it is true. The ones with the highest tech though, were the Pacific-operating B-29's MG's.

[@Davie-jx4rh]

@@hansvonmannschaft9062 thanks for the clarification, pretty interesting how almost all of our late war aircraft got smart sights

[@GreySectoid]

Wait fuel tanks are now listed as most vulnerable spot but in the last video the "fireball engulfing the crew compartment" was a movie myth, oh I see it was the oxygen tanks, ok the movies got it partially correct then.

[@Mokimanify]

I think that from pretty much angle it was the cockpit

[@werre2]

spoiler without watching the video and based on just simulator experience: whatever they could hit. From forward - the cockpit, from other angles - middle mass and from behind - engines

[@marvinacklin792]

Brutal!

[@danielrose-tt7os]

If better protection of the pilot/co-pilot was the goal how should the design of the B-17 be changed? If it was known that the Norden bombsight would never prove effective how would have the design of the B-17 been altered?

[@joeycerelli]

that is a .30 cal machine gun in the demonstration video

[@diegomora1294]

I truly believe that in the first video the pilots of the b17 were KIA

[@JoseJimenez-sh1yi]

Did german figthers attacked form below afther diving from the rear?

[@mattcavanaugh6082]

No, they dove, flew ahead of the bomber formation gaining altitude to make another head-on attack. Or go looking for stragglers to finish off.

[@mattcavanaugh6082]

@@speedyeg-guitars-playlists4800 Schräge Musik (play on words = 'jazz') were manually fired, and only used at night. Photocell-triggered, upward-firing rockets were used sparingly very late in the war.

[@mokwit]

@@mattcavanaugh6082 me 163

[@Shilling_Larping_Services_LLC]

WHAT ABOUT SURVIV- Oh I love you

[@WWIIUSBombers]

I’ve been waiting all day since release for this! Thanks

[@Shilling_Larping_Services_LLC]

@@WWIIUSBombers ♥

[@Tim.NavVet.EN2]

I'm sure stating that the B-17s had R-1830 engines was an accident! However, the B-17s flew with the Single Row, 9 Cylinder R-1820 and not the twin row, 14 cylinder R-1830....

[@WWIIUSBombers]

Thanks for the clarification. I pinned an edit note in the comments.

[@Tim.NavVet.EN2]

@@WWIIUSBombers No Problems! Thanks for the quick correction..... The R-1830s were often used interchangeably (with the R-1820) on various civilian aircraft (i.e. what manufacture's engines does you're airline or company already have in it's fleet)

[@michaelfrench3396]

And no fair! That picture you show of a b24 going down with its Wing off and fuselage engulfed in fire was not caused by any enemy action. It was caused by the bomber over them dropping a bomb straight through the port wing

[@L_Train]

4:01 this one?

[@L_Train]

9:21 this one?

[@L_Train]

3:31 this one?

[@thkempe]

@@L_Train I know this picture as a direct hit by Flak.

[@michaelfrench3396]

​@@L_Train no, that's not the picture that I'm thinking of. It's very distinctive because the picture is taken from above the other bomber..

[@philiphumphrey1548]

The fact that the Germans loaded up to 6 x 20mm autocannons onto a FW190 single engine fighter is testament to how robust the US bombers were. The weight of the cannons and ammunition would have reduced its speed and agility and made it much more vulnerable to escort fighters.

[@MattKearneyFan1]

That’s why the German fighters were lost in higher numbers to fighters. Their designs to take on bombers made them less maneuverable against the mustangs

[@mokwit]

The bomber destroyers had to have their own escort fighters.

[@kossaKSF]

In frontal attack, just sprey'n'prey immense firepower of FW190 will do the job.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

The key for me was the finding that hits were random and not concentrated on wing roots, engines, cockpit, etc, meaning the guns had (I guess) too much vibration and built-in variation to make it possible to aim at anything other than the whole bomber.

[@kossaKSF]

@@grizwoldphantasia5005 It seems Germans realize this with each iteration of fighters being heavier armed. Ultimate solution was MK108 pneumatic hammer + R4M rockets. They did not focus on accuracy, only on sheer firepower.

[@DD-qw4fz]

@@grizwoldphantasia5005 "too much vibration and built-in variation to make it possible to aim at anything other than the whole bomber" completely wrong conclusion, it has nothing to do with vibration, its all about the speed of approach. Try a ww2 flight simulator, you only have 2-3 seconds max in a head on.

[@c.t.5931]

Excellent summary. Thank you.