how much ammo did a b 17 carry for the 50s

[Aozora]

Do you think we sit on our asses and read books all day?

Or do you suppose we might have an intimate knowledge of how these machines work because we have been in direct contact with the men and the machines over the years?

How about you lighten up with your smartass comments...

So why put in a smartass comment about Comer "bragging about sneaking additional ammo aboard"? That's pretty insulting to a guy who put his life on the line; I also note that this same extract from Comer is mentioned and discussed here, in a link you provided. There's no hint that these veterans thought that Comer was bragging, sneaking, or exaggerating about what happened, including this comment:

John Comer was a flight engineer in the 381st BG and we flew B-17's. Incidentally, his book Combat Crew is exceptional. It is long out of print, but if you find a used copy, you will enjoy it.
Bob Gilbert
S/Sgt, 35 missions
Ball Turret Gunner, Goldin crew
381st Bomb Gp., 533rd Bomb Sq.
US 8th Air Force

As it is I am sorry I posted the confounded extract - I didn't intend for it to be used in the way it has been.

 

[drgondog]

Like I say, lighten up...do you guys read books written by veterans just for enjoyment, or do you do it to pick holes in their accounts??

Nobody was 'picking on' Comer until you put the narrative on display.. In other words we were more likely to be giving you a hard time for believing it? From my perspective I am Not apologetic for doubting the facts/claims made in his story.

I read to learn and frequently question dubious claims - book or internet or post. You may choose to embrace whatever narrative that floats your boat..

 

[Aozora]

Nobody was 'picking on' Comer until you put the narrative on display.. In other words we were more likely to be giving you a hard time for believing it? From my perspective I am Not apologetic for doubting the facts/claims made in his story.

I read to learn and frequently question dubious claims - book or internet or post. You may choose to embrace whatever narrative that floats your boat..

With respect, you have not read the extract properly - for a start not all of the extra ammunition was stored aft of the bomb bay - Comer wrote he placed as much as he could forward, against the radio-room/bomb bay bulkhead and as close as possible to the B-17's cg, with the rest in the cockpit and nose. At no time does he specify how much extra ammunition was in the radio room or in the front, nor does he say how heavy each load was.

Instead you make assumptions, based on what?

64 boxes of 50 cal stored in Radio cabin...aft of the CG by several feet, conversely shoving the 200 pounds per crew by 4 (ball, waist, waist, radio) by several more feet aft of CG, then by another 30 feet x 200 for tail gunner, then by 26 feetx1100 for stacked boxes at tail bulkhead..

There were not necessarily 64 boxes stowed in the radio room - that is your assumption. You are assuming he compounded things by ensuring the 4 rear crew members had to stay out of the radio room during take off with no evidence to back up that assumption. 1,100 lbs by the tail bulkhead? Assumption, No evidence.

Further 13,500 rounds = 4500 pounds, or about 2000 pounds over the calculated gross weight Takeoff, including mission load of fuel and bombs. You think the engineer (Comer) didn't understand the implications?

So, what was the specified loading and weight for the mission? You don't know because it isn't described: the only clue is that it is a long range mission to Anklam requiring Tokyo Tanks. You are assuming 13,500 rounds was the actual loading.

You also claimed:

He said "1300 pounds were stored at the tail". 200 (max) for tail gunner, 1100 for ammo. 50 pounds+ per box. 22 boxes at tail gun/tail wheel bulkhead.

no he did not: he said that some, not all, of the boxes had been re-stacked in the waist with some stacked against the tail gunner's position. So how many boxes were re-stacked in the waist? How many by the tail wheel bulkhead? Not specified ie; you are assuming 22 boxes at tail gun/tail wheel bulkhead with no evidence to back that up. Assumption, no evidence, that Comer didn't understand what he was doing.

Comer explained to the pilots that the re-stacked ammunition plus the tail gunner stupidly sitting in his post rather than in his proper take-off position, had made the aircraft "too heavy at the tail" by 1,300 lbs. Pop quiz - how much weight positioned well behind the c.g of a B-17 would make it tail heavy by 1,300 lbs, enough to make for an extremely risky take-off?

Of course, this is very different from stating there was 1,300 lbs loaded around the tail gunner's position, which is what you are reading into this account - such a loading, that far behind the cg, would have made take-off impossible.

It is also very likely that Comer (or his editor or publisher) was mistaken about the ammunition load: here is part of a load diagram from the B-17F Flight manual

3,500 rounds standard, early B-17G probably not much different, in which case twice the normal load would be 7,000 rounds ie; about 2,200 pounds?

Note that Comer says he almost doubled the normal load of 7,000 rounds to thirteen thousand five hundred? What are the chances that in writing about events some 30 years later he, or an editor, or the publisher, transposed two lots of figures and came up with a slightly garbled account? 3,500 with a mark in front of it can look a lot like 13,500 and it seems all too coincidental that 13,500 rounds was what Comer claimed to have loaded - why not fourteen thousand rounds? So I'm going to assume that figures were transposed, because I know it can happen, and assume that what Comer meant to say is that he doubled the load from 3,500 rounds to 7,000. In fact earlier in the narrative Comer asked the armorer for 4,000 extra rounds, not 7,000. It also changes any calculations about how much extra weight was loaded in the rear of the B-17, and the effects of shifting some of that weight.

Or you can just read into the narrative whatever floats your boat...

 

[stona]

I think that the Schweinfurt-Regensburg raid is a pivotal point in the anecdotal evidence.
Many of the bombers ran out of ammunition when attacked as they withdrew in the afternoon of 17th August 1943. Anecdotal accounts of loading extra ammunition (and I've seen that 12-13,000 round figure elsewhere amongst others) start to occur after this ill fated raid.
How feasible that is and how accurate the memory of the veterans is I know not.
Cheers
Steve

 

[Greyman]

British data sheets over at B-17 Performance give:

B-17F: 3900
B-17G: 5160

Seem like simplified figures, but probably in the ballpark.

 

[drgondog]

With respect, you have not read the extract properly - for a start not all of the extra ammunition was stored aft of the bomb bay - Comer wrote he placed as much as he could forward, against the radio-room/bomb bay bulkhead and as close as possible to the B-17's cg, with the rest in the cockpit and nose. At no time does he specify how much extra ammunition was in the radio room or in the front, nor does he say how heavy each load was.

Instead you make assumptions, based on what?


Note that Comer says he almost doubled the normal load of 7,000 rounds to thirteen thousand five hundred? What are the chances that in writing about events some 30 years later he, or an editor, or the publisher, transposed two lots of figures and came up with a slightly garbled account? 3,500 with a mark in front of it can look a lot like 13,500 and it seems all too coincidental that 13,500 rounds was what Comer claimed to have loaded - why not fourteen thousand rounds? So I'm going to assume that figures were transposed, because I know it can happen, and assume that what Comer meant to say is that he doubled the load from 3,500 rounds to 7,000. In fact earlier in the narrative Comer asked the armorer for 4,000 extra rounds, not 7,000. It also changes any calculations about how much extra weight was loaded in the rear of the B-17, and the effects of shifting some of that weight.

Or you can just read into the narrative whatever floats your boat...

Read the last paragraph of your narrative - in which Gleishauf(sp?) states specifically "We were 1300 pounds too heavy in the tail".

Note - he didn't say "aft of the CG, Radio Room, or Waist" - he said "Tail"... that structural grouping on a B-17 that hosts the tail wheel and tail gunner as well as supply aft flight control surfaces...

Read your own post thoroughly before commenting on my comprehension of the issue that Gleishauf (sp?) had discovered and reported to the command pilot.

How specific do you wish to get?

 

[tyrodtom]

A few months ago I read A Higher Call, by Adam Makos, about Luftwaffe ace Franz Stigler WW2 and B-17 pilot Charlie Brown's encounter.

When Stigler on encountering Charlie Brown's badly damaged B17, decides to let it go instead of finishing it off. Thinking it would probably crash soon anyway.

There's a few glaring faults in the book, one in particular I remember is it states the 2 bulges the Bf109G are noted for, are because of the supercharger.
We all know Franz Stigler would know better, or anyone that knows the Bf109 would know they're for breech and feed clearance on the MG131.
But the author somehow got that idea, and put it in print. Stigler nor any proofreader caught the error.

 

[stona]

Stigler nor any proofreader caught the error.

Happens all the time. I know personally of one case in which an author pointed out a miscaptioned photograph in his own book but was unable to prevent it appearing in the final printed version.

All the author can do is produce an errata sheet listing the mistakes.

Steve

 

[GrauGeist]

Here's a load chart for the B-24...notice at the bottom, the chart's note stating that 100 rounds of ammunition weighs 25 pounds.

 

[Greyman]

That must be the rounds only, and no link. A wartime Browning .50 manual I have says 30 pounds, 4 ounces 'approximately' for a 100-round belt.

 

[tyrodtom]

A minor detail, but from my time in ordinance I remember those cans as holding 105 linked rounds, and weighing 35lbs can and all. Two metal cans to a wooden box, 75lbs .
I've humped ( that's carried, for those of you not familiar with the expression) many a box of 50 cal. during my time in the Army .

 

[GrauGeist]

It's possible that Consolodated was estimating the ammunition's raw weight, but a 10 pound difference in estimated and actual is considerable when you total up the amount of rounds required per station.

 

[Shortround6]

Most weight charts so about 31lbs per hundred for .50 cal belted ammo, That is without cans. Weight may vary a bit due to mix of bullets used ( tracers area bit lighter) but not by 5-6lbs per hundred rounds.

 

[bobbysocks]

seems time tends to give some stories a few more of this or that ... than what really happened. i have read a few accounts by aces who recounted an incident that i actually knew about ( and was subsequently well documented and substanciated ) and have seem glowing errors. other things caught me as odd so i shot letters or PMs to guys in the know...who mostly confirmed my suspicions. i had a gentleman my father flew with do an oral recording of his time in the ETO....some of his stories were the opposite of what he told me years previously....some were a conglamoration of 4 stories rolled into one. it was hard to get the true facts 30 minutes after it happened....let alone 20 some years after the fact. i read a lot of these with a huge grain of salt anymore..

 

[Aozora]

Read the last paragraph of your narrative - in which Gleishauf(sp?) states specifically "We were 1300 pounds too heavy in the tail".

Note - he didn't say "aft of the CG, Radio Room, or Waist" - he said "Tail"... that structural grouping on a B-17 that hosts the tail wheel and tail gunner as well as supply aft flight control surfaces...

Read your own post thoroughly before commenting on my comprehension of the issue that Gleishauf (sp?) had discovered and reported to the command pilot.

How specific do you wish to get?

Specific enough to note that that it was Comer who told the pilot Gleichauf that they were "too heavy in the tail by 1300 pounds". Plus,just before explaining to Gleichauf what had happened, Comer had chewed out the tail gunner, saying "You were in that tail on takeoff ? No wonder we were so tail heavy". Also noting the tail gunner was able to get out of the tail position in spite of 1,100 lbs of ammunition in 64 (or is it 22?) boxes allegedly stacked next to and around the tailwheel bulkhead.

Gleichauf, who was the command pilot, did not have to "discover" the problem because he was told by Comer. And Comer chewed out the tail gunner because he was the main reason for the plane being tail heavy. Kinda hard to believe he would say that when there were supposed to be 64 boxes of ammo packed into the tail area.

So I ask again, how much weight was needed, some 30 feet behind the B-17's cg, to make the aircraft tail heavy by 1,300 lbs?

I have no doubts that the tail gunner, the rest of the gunners, and, possibly, Comer got a real chewing out on return to base but, with a shortage of experienced crews on the squadron, they were put on probation

 

[stona]

I have had similar experiences to "Bobbysocks" on a number occasions, some related to more recent events than WW2 (the British assault on Port Said during the Suez Crisis for example). I don't believe that anyone has ever intentionally tried to mislead or deceive, it is the fallible and flexible nature of human memory.

Cheers

Steve

 

[drgondog]

Specific enough to note that that it was Comer who told the pilot Gleichauf that they were "too heavy in the tail by 1300 pounds". Plus,just before explaining to Gleichauf what had happened, Comer had chewed out the tail gunner, saying "You were in that tail on takeoff ? No wonder we were so tail heavy". Also noting the tail gunner was able to get out of the tail position in spite of 1,100 lbs of ammunition in 64 (or is it 22?) boxes allegedly stacked next to and around the tailwheel bulkhead.

The Narrative was "Too heavy in the tail by 1300 pounds". The Tail Gunner was at his station in the tail - aft of tail wheel. By Implication, 200 pounds for tail gunner plus gear and 1100 pounds of ammo at the aft bulkhead.

The number of rounds per box has been speculated all over the place (as noted in the thread above) but the weight of linked .50 is close to 3/pound - so rather than quibble on the number of boxes, focus on calculation of 1100 pounds x 3/pound ==> 3300 rounds. If 150 per box ==>22 boxes, if 105 ==>33 boxes

Gleichauf, who was the command pilot, did not have to "discover" the problem because he was told by Comer. And Comer chewed out the tail gunner because he was the main reason for the plane being tail heavy. Kinda hard to believe he would say that when there were supposed to be 64 boxes of ammo packed into the tail area.

Read it again. The narrative stated that the majority of the ammo was stored where it should be stored - some in the nose the rest in the radio compartment.

So I ask again, how much weight was needed, some 30 feet behind the B-17's cg, to make the aircraft tail heavy by 1,300 lbs?

1300 pounds.

1300 = tail gunner plus rest of ammo stored at aft bulkhead =>1100 pounds of 50 caliber ammo.

I have no doubts that the tail gunner, the rest of the gunners, and, possibly, Comer got a real chewing out on return to base but, with a shortage of experienced crews on the squadron, they were put on probation

The Flight Engineer/top turret gunner is the senior NCO and responsible for a.) the load out on takeoff, b.) positioning the crew at the radio bulkhead station - then he moves forward across the cat walk to his station behind pilot/co-pilot for takeoff. Comer is first guy that should be chewed out - the ammo was probably stored back there on Comer's orders as it is hard to image that the aft crew moved ammo around and then watch the tail gunner maneuver past the stored ammo at bulkhead as the B-17 was taxiing.

It is a strange tale.

Note - we may both be a little dyslexic regarding the names and who told who. I assumed (bad) that 'Jim' was the Flight Engineer, and that the story teller was the co-pilot. If the story teller is Comer, and comer is top turret gunner, then who is Jim of 'Jim should know better'? Once again the top turret gunner/flt engineer is senior NCO

EDIT - OK - I have it now. Kels is co pilot, Comer is Flt engineer - so 'Jim' must be some other NCO still aft of bomb bay..I still suspect Comer ordered the ammo that wouldn't fit on radio compartment/bomb bay bulkhead to be distributed toward the waist. There is no explaining "Legg" being stupid enough to crawl to his position - not a great place to be if the B-17 crash lands on takeoff... if airplane survives then he spends more time crawling out over tail wheel than simply egressing out the aft door like the rest of the aft crew.

 

[beitou]

From this tale I take it that extra weight aft of the C of G would alter the angle of attack of the wing and hence the lift it produces, the farther back the weight the greater the change in angle of attack. Would the problem be as severe if the same weight is forward of the C of G. I seem to recall many references to weight aft causing problems but not so many of weight forward?

 

[drgondog]

From this tale I take it that extra weight aft of the C of G would alter the angle of attack of the wing and hence the lift it produces, the farther back the weight the greater the change in angle of attack. Would the problem be as severe if the same weight is forward of the C of G. I seem to recall many references to weight aft causing problems but not so many of weight forward?

Too much aft, or forward CG from the design margin renders the horizontal stab/elevator ineffective regarding pitch authority.

If cg too far forward - you don't take off. If too far aft, you can get off (if enough lift is available for the Gross weight) but it is hard to impossible to pitch the nose down to prevent stalling. There was a recent accident in Afghanistan when cargo broke loose in a 747 after take off while in a steep climb - an is stalled out and crashed.

 

[beitou]

Thanks