Lotsa questions on the B-25B

[warbird1]

I know that the B-25B was made famous by the Doolittle raid and that only 120 were produced, however I'm looking for answers to the following questions:

1) Were any "B" models, besides the Doolittle ones, used in any combat zones by the United States during the war? If so, can anyone post pictures, and provide info on what units, locations, time used, etc.?

2) Were any of the 23 delivered to the RAF as Mitchell Mk. 1's used in combat by the U.K.? Same question as above plus pictures.

3) Regarding the remotely operated ventral turret on the "B" model, can anyone provide info? Where did the gunner sit on the airplane, how much view did he have? Was it the same system as the remotely operated turrets on the B-29 or different? Details?

4) Why was the tail gun removed from the "B" model? What was the purpose of the clear plexiglass encasement over the tail if there was no gunner? Was it simply for observation to look for enemy fighters or perhaps to take pictures for battle damage assessment or what?

5) Why did they use an exhaust collector ring on the "B" model, but yet went back to the individual exhaust stacks on the war time "J" models?

6) Are the glass noses interchangeable on the B,C,D and J models, or are they all slightly different? Could the same one be used in restoration for any of these models?

7) When was the last "B" model flown or retired from the Air Corps/Air Force?

8. Regarding the last surviving "B" model owned by Aero Trader out in Borrego Springs in storage. I've only seen pictures of the fuselage. Do they have the wings also? If not, could other model wings be used - i.e. C, D, or J models? How easy would it be and how much modification would it require? I know given enough money anything is possible, but is it practical, or would a scratch built "B" model wing have to be built?

I know it's a lot of questions, but these are things I've pondered over the years. Thanks to anyone who supplies info!

[JDK]

Interesting questions!

Unfortunately the nice forum software dumped my carefully crafted response to this question, so a short version:

3) Regarding the remotely operated ventral turret on the "B" model, can anyone provide info? Where did the gunner sit on the airplane, how much view did he have? Was it the same system as the remotely operated turrets on the B-29 or different? Details?

No. Pre-/early war remote control turrets were mechanical and didn't have any sophisticated computing or interrelations - they were like a bike handlebar turning the wheel, rather than anything cleverer. The B-29 had an integrated fire control system that enabled turrets to be handed off from one gunner to another, and had complex computing to allow for the gunner's remote position, as well as gunsights able to handle aim off, etc. Much more like a battleship's fire control.

If no one else gets to it, I'll dig out what R Wallace Clarke has in British Aircraft Armament vol 1.

HTH,

[The Inspector]

....and, since the poor gunner was kneeling facing backwards and bent over using a series of mirrors to sight with, the turret became a great place for the gunner to deposit his breakfast-

[Ken]

4) Why was the tail gun removed from the "B" model? What was the purpose of the clear plexiglass encasement over the tail if there was no gunner? Was it simply for observation to look for enemy fighters or perhaps to take pictures for battle damage assessment or what?

5) Why did they use an exhaust collector ring on the "B" model, but yet went back to the individual exhaust stacks on the war time "J" models?

Not sure there was ever a tail gun position on the B. When you look at the tail evolution from the NA-62 through the B-25G, the various stinger glass configurations are, as you say, mostly an observation post. Of course this is why the Doolittle airplanes used wooden sticks to replicate guns. If there was ever a gun provision there, I'll let others respond. In-theatre mods of C/D and G airframes with a basic tail gunner enclosure led to the arrangement we're familiar with on the H/J.

Regarding exhaust, again, I'm not the most qualified, but I believe there are slightly different collector rings found from the A-C, as I believe there was an interesting post on here pointing out how museum airplanes modified to look like B's usually end up with C-style exhausts and the subtle difference is lost. The individual Hayes stacks appeared on later C/D airplanes and were standard on the G/H/J. My impression is that they increased power while removing some complication/easing maintenance. Post-war is when we see partial collector rings returning on TB-25's - I assume this was done to reduce noise somewhat.

Ken

[b29flteng]

The post war TB-25 partial collector exhaust (Hayes mod) was for carburetor heat.

[rwdfresno]

Not sure there was ever a tail gun position on the B. When you look at the tail evolution from the NA-62 through the B-25G, the various stinger glass configurations are, as you say, mostly an observation post

I believe our friend is refering to the elimination of the tail gunner position in the B model from the earlier versions of the B-25. The B-25A had a single flexible .50 caliber machine gun in the tail.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared ... 4S-003.jpg

4) Why was the tail gun removed from the "B" model? What was the purpose of the clear plexiglass encasement over the tail if there was no gunner? Was it simply for observation to look for enemy fighters or perhaps to take pictures for battle damage assessment or what?

This was removed because it was thought that between the newly added dorsal and ventral Bendix gun turrets that the rear of the aircraft was sufficiently defended. Also with the addition of the dorsal and ventral turrets the armor plating and rear gun mount was removed to help offset the additional weight of the turrets. The rear bubble was simply an observation point. Later the H model introduced the elimination of the ventral turret and the addition of the 2 .50 caliber machine guns in a tail mounted Bell turret. That is when the dorsal turret was moved forward to maintain the wieght and balance because of the additional wieght in the tail.

5) Why did they use an exhaust collector ring on the "B" model, but yet went back to the individual exhaust stacks on the war time "J" models?

During C model production blocks there was some experimentation with exhaust configurations. This was due to B-25Bs and early C being pulled from night operations due to the very visable flame that would protrude from the early collector ring exhaust pipes. This was a giveaway to the enemy during night operations. There were soem changes made with partial collectors but this was found to be a weak design and would result in the semi collectors cracking. They opted for the Clayton "S" stack design to elimnate the visable flame issues and the semi collector cracking.

My impression is that they increased power while removing some complication/easing maintenance.

Unfortunately, the design did sacrifce a few miles per hour in speed but it was considered a good trade-off for the additional benefits.

The post war TB-25 partial collector exhaust (Hayes mod) was for carburetor heat.

You are exactly right. This is also why the Harker's from C&P Aviation decided to keep the later model collector ring on "Betty's Dream." With the cold of Minnesota they opted for carb heat over the original J model “S” stacks on the top cylinders.

6) Are the glass noses interchangeable on the B,C,D and J models, or are they all slightly different? Could the same one be used in restoration for any of these models?

For the most part the answer is yes. When the C/D model replaced the .30 caliber flexible machine guns in the in the nose at the -5 production block with a .50 caliber flexible gun it introduced some minor changes to the glazed nose that resulted in some additional reinforcing at the gun ball mount point. In the J model when the factory added additional forward firing machine guns to the starboard side of the nose it did change the nose “glass” by adding some additional holes for the guns to protrude however the frame was not changed. The PBJ-1C/D had several aircraft fitted with the rather ugly radome that protruded from the top of the glazed nose. Additionally some of the post war- B-25Ks and others had radomes attached to the front of the glazed nose. Essentially there were slight modifications to the glazed nose depending on the type of hardware that was used in the nose however the basic frame of the glazed nose was not changed throughout production and one nose would “fit” on another model aircraft and could be easily modified to fit whatever hardware was included in that model.

8. Regarding the last surviving "B" model owned by Aero Trader out in Borrego Springs in storage. I've only seen pictures of the fuselage. Do they have the wings also? If not, could other model wings be used - i.e. C, D, or J models? How easy would it be and how much modification would it require? I know given enough money anything is possible, but is it practical, or would a scratch built "B" model wing have to be built?

Aero Trader does not have the wings for the B model. They basically have the fuselage from the nose to the tail. The wings were cut from the center section. The wings are essentially the same on the B-C-J models. There are some differences mainly due to different fuel tank configurations however structurally they are the same and outer wing panels can be used from aircraft to aircraft. The biggest issue of course is that the wings were cut from the center section and the wing and nacelle sections are missing. The center sections are structurally very similar between the B and C/D model and Carl has told me in the past that the B model fuselage can be adapted to the J model center section with some reasonable modifications.

1) Were any "B" models, besides the Doolittle ones, used in any combat zones by the United States during the war? If so, can anyone post pictures, and provide info on what units, locations, time used, etc.?

I'm not a super guru on combat operations however I don't think that the B-25B made it to any over-seas combat zones for the purpose of being inovlved in combat operations (out side of Doolittle Raid). I wouldn't be surprised if some made it over-seas as squadron hacks or being used as transports. Most of the early Medium Bomber Wings that had flown B-25Bs at one time or another in the States (I think 12th,38th, and 42nd) ended up being first deployed with (again I'd check these facts around the combat deployments as it has been years since I studied them) 12th BG with B-25C/D, 38th BG with B-26s, 42nd B-25 C/D.

The B-25Bs did however have some use in the role of anti-submarine partol aircraft.

Hope that helps. Thanks, Ryan

edited for accuracy by RWDFRESNO

Last edited by rwdfresno on Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[warbird1]

Thanks everyone for your detailed answers, especially Ryan! I appreciate it! I would still like any more info that anyone has to add, and particularly any pictures of B-25B's in service besides the Doolittle Raiders.

The B-25Bs did however score some of the early war kills in the role of anti-submarine partol aircraft being the first aircraft to sink enemy ships on both US coasts with the 17th Bomb Group.

I would love more info on this if anyone has any references/sources where I could research more.

Thanks all !

[rwdfresno]

I would love more info on this if anyone has any references/sources where I could research more.

Removed some links to inaccurate info

Last edited by rwdfresno on Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[warbird1]

I would love more info on this if anyone has any references/sources where I could research more.

Some good stuff here:

This is a great story recalling the sub kill off the SC coast with Lt Holstrom (later to become a Doolittle Raider)as PIC
http://www.b-26mhs.org/archives/manuscr ... th_bg.html

http://bombgroup17.com/17th_bg_wwii

Ryan

Great reading! Wow, I have no idea that a Japanese sub was sunk at the mouth of the Columbia river! Has that ever been formally acknowledged by our government?

[b29flteng]

Ryan[/quote]

Great reading! Wow, I have no idea that a Japanese sub was sunk at the mouth of the Columbia river! Has that ever been formally acknowledged by our government?[/quote]

Wikileaks hasn't released it yet?!?!?

[Jack Cook]

Great reading! Wow, I have no idea that a Japanese sub was sunk at the mouth of the Columbia river! Has that ever been formally acknowledged by our government

sorry but that was a whale
Lt Jean Daughtry of the 42nd BG flying a A-29 did damaged a Japanese sub off of the Oregon coast in early 1942.

[warbird1]

Great reading! Wow, I have no idea that a Japanese sub was sunk at the mouth of the Columbia river! Has that ever been formally acknowledged by our government

sorry but that was a whale
Lt Jean Daughtry of the 42nd BG flying a A-29 did damaged a Japanese sub off of the Oregon coast in early 1942.

Jack, I don't doubt that you are correct, as you usually are, but can you give me the reasons why you believe that? From this link:

http://www.b-26mhs.org/archives/manuscr ... th_bg.html

It says, "The U.S. Coast Guard later found enough evidence to verify that the submarine was Japanese. Higher headquarters of the Army classified the engagement as secret, consequently no publicity of any kind."


Are you saying that Col. Hammond is "embellishing" his story?

BTW, do you have any B-25B photos you could upload by chance? Thanks.

[Jack Cook]

I know of this episode.
It was a enemy Megaptera Novaeangliae seeking to infiltrate and pillage the north Pacific Krill population.

[Jack Cook]

BTW the only actual sub (made of steel not blubber) sank off the north Pacific coast was the Russian L-16 which was sank by a Japanese I class boat around Nov 1942.

[warbird1]

I know of this episode.
It was a enemy Megaptera Novaeangliae seeking to infiltrate and pillage the north Pacific Krill population.

Okay, I can read between the lines - you don't want to discuss this in public for some reason.