# Most successful gun positions on B-17 and B-24?



## Jerry W. Loper (Jun 7, 2012)

B-17G gun positions: 2 cheek guns, 2 chin turret guns, 2 dorsal turret guns, 1 radio compartment gun, 2 waist guns, 2 ball turret guns, and 2 tail guns.

B-24J gun positions: similar to B-17 but without the cheek guns and radio compartment gun.

Out of these defensive positions, which shot down the most enemy fighters?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2012)

some info...

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/air-gunner-aces-27065.html


----------



## model299 (Jun 7, 2012)

It would seem from that list that top turret and tail gunners had the most success.


----------



## davebender (Jun 7, 2012)

Did anyone besides the USAAC employ manned waist guns? They strike me as a lot of additional weight (gun + ammo + gunner) for little additional protection. Not to mention some loss of aerodynamic efficiency from having a hole in the fuselage side with a gun barrel sticking out.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 7, 2012)

The British used them on Wellingtons at least. He 111s used them. I am sure a few others did too.


----------



## windswords (Jun 7, 2012)

Several Japanese planes such as the G4M and the H6k and H8K used them as well.

As for the gun positions on the 17 and 24 the power turrets will usually yield better kill scores because they are a stable gun platform compared to free swinging manual guns and because they often had reflector type gun sights.


----------



## model299 (Jun 8, 2012)

windswords said:


> Several Japanese planes such as the G4M and the H6k and H8K used them as well.
> 
> As for the gun positions on the 17 and 24 the power turrets will usually yield better kill scores because they are a stable gun platform compared to free swinging manual guns and because they often had reflector type gun sights.



Plus, they sported doubled up fifties as apposed to the waist position's one. Double the firepower.


----------



## davebender (Jun 8, 2012)

More firepower is nice but putting what you have on target is what counts. B-17 waist gunners were wearing oxygen masks and bulky clothing to keep warm. They are standing on a moving aircraft firing a MG which is also mounted to that moving aircraft. Field of vision isn't good and you've got a 180 mph wind blowing through the fuselage opening.

Not even John Rambo could accurately fire a machinegun under those circumstances.


----------



## renrich (Jun 8, 2012)

Has to be the tail gunner. Low or no deflection shot and no vertical stabiliser to get in the way. Also more time to hit target becuse of closure rate. The reason the USN taught their pilots full deflection shooting ws so that they could stay away from the tail cone shooting.


----------



## davebender (Jun 8, 2012)

> Has to be the tail gunner. Low or no deflection shot and no vertical stabiliser to get in the way. Also more time to hit target becuse of closure rate.


Bouncing from astern is normally the preferred way to attack an enemy aircraft. So I suspect the tail gunner gets more then his fair share of targets.

On the flip side, enemy fighter aircraft shoot back. So the tail turret requires protective armor if the gunner is to survive.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jun 10, 2012)

Worth remembering, too, that one-on-one was fairly rare, so the fighter pilot could find himself the target of half a dozen rear turrets from a properly set up box formation. It's generally said that this was the main reason for the Luftwaffe switching to head-on attacks.


----------



## davebender (Jun 10, 2012)

A B-17 box under attack is spraying thousands of poorly aimed .50cal rounds per minute. I wonder how many hit other bombers in this box or nearby bomber boxes?


----------



## muscogeemike (Jun 10, 2012)

davebender said:


> A B-17 box under attack is spraying thousands of poorly aimed .50cal rounds per minute. I wonder how many hit other bombers in this box or nearby bomber boxes?


Also how many friendly fighters were hit or shot down?


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 10, 2012)

muscogeemike said:


> Also how many friendly fighters were hit or shot down?


The friendly fighters didn't have a habit of flying through the formations, the way a attacker would. They kept their distance.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 10, 2012)

When the box formations were properly kept. Every aircraft had a clear field of fire directly above, below, behind, and ahead. So every turret gunner was pretty well clear to fire almost any fighter they could see. The waist gunners on some of the aircraft would have pretty restricted fields of fire, but since they were the less effective position anyway, so what. 
I don't think many gunners, even under combat stress is going to continue firing at a target when they see that fire is going to hit one of the other aircraft in the formation. When you consider they've been in this formation for hours, and that formation mate has been in the same ralitive position the whole time.

Of course every formation wasn't kept perfect, aircraft did get out of position, and gunners did make mistakes.


----------



## davebender (Jun 10, 2012)

.50cal BMG rounds travel a long way. I think they would retain enough energy to pierce aircraft aluminum 3 miles away.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 10, 2012)

Some of us seem to think these gunners were idiots. 

Look at the diagrams of bomber boxes, and then access how likely friendly fire accidents were. To prevent such incidents, but still provide for mutual support was why they were layed out the way they were.


----------



## Dcazz7606 (Jun 10, 2012)

IMO if the waist positions were not there the enemy fighters would have found a way to exploit this weakness with beam attacks.


davebender said:


> Did anyone besides the USAAC employ manned waist guns? They strike me as a lot of additional weight (gun + ammo + gunner) for little additional protection. Not to mention some loss of aerodynamic efficiency from having a hole in the fuselage side with a gun barrel sticking out.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 10, 2012)

The top turret or ball turret could cover the same area, but they'd probably be looking for fighters closer to the center of their coverage area, and a fighter slipping in from the side might not be seen in time.

Late in the war, they started leaving the waist gunners home, and fairing over the hole.
The ball turret and top turret are both big drag producers too. Plus BIG weight penalties. The tail turret is probably the only turret that didn't have big time drag.


----------



## davebender (Jun 10, 2012)

Friendly fire WWII [Archive] - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum


> 14/10/44:
> One 401st BG B-17 took "friendly fire" from a gunner on a B-17 from another Group who was testing his guns, taking several 50 calibre bullet holes in the fusilage.


This is the type of incident I would expect when you've got hundreds of aircraft spraying .50cal MG bullets. Only it would be much worse during combat as bomber gunners don't have time to aim carefully or ensure there isn't a friendly aircraft 2 miles beyond the attacking enemy fighter aircraft.


----------



## bowfin (Jun 10, 2012)

> The top turret or ball turret could cover the same area, but they'd probably be looking for fighters closer to the center of their coverage area, and a fighter slipping in from the side might not be seen in time.



In the case of the fight of the B-25 _Tondelayo_, the crew chief had the radio operator spy on the top turret gunner's legs as he fired at oncoming Zeros and then look out the opposite waist window and shout out a head's up when a threat was coming close. (They had expended 1,200 rounds of .30 ammunition through the two waist guns which would have been their usual posts during an attack...in later model B-25s they would have been .50)

Jack Murphy said he had a Zero pull up between his B-25 and another one flying in close formation. The Zero close enough that he could see the Japanese pilot swiveling his head back and forth to make sure that either turret gunnercould not shoot for fear of hitting the other B-25 as well. Jack said he looked like "a mean s.o.b.".

Murphy turned his turret away as a ruse but kept his eyes glued on this Zero, which immediately tried to climb out from between the two bombers. Jack Murphy gave the unfortunate Zero a short burst in the cockpit and the Zero went down.


----------



## bowfin (Jun 10, 2012)

> A B-17 box under attack is spraying thousands of poorly aimed .50cal rounds per minute.



Why would they be necessarily be "poorly aimed"? 

The gunners trained in the 345th Bomb Group were expected to break two clay targets with one shot as their paths intersected, thrown from opposite skeet houses.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 10, 2012)

bowfin said:


> Why would they be necessarily be "poorly aimed"?
> 
> The gunners trained in the 345th Bomb Group were expected to break two clay targets with one shot as their paths intersected, thrown from opposite skeet houses.



Were they on aircraft flying at 20,000ft+ at 200mph when they did this?


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 10, 2012)

In any defensive situation, you're going to have some friendly fire casualties.

When anti-aircraft fires, some shells don't explode mid-air, they fall back to possibly the very people you're trying to protect. Sometimes the aircraft you shoot down are going to do more damage than the bombs they drop.

The gunners in the aircraft are sometimes going to damage their own squadron mates. You either accept it, and try to place the aircraft in formations that make friendly fire accidents less likely. Or you just leave the gunners and turrets behind, and hope the additional speed will result in fewer lost aircraft.

Im the B-17 and B-24, I think keeping the gunners were the better way.


----------



## Glider (Jun 11, 2012)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Worth remembering, too, that one-on-one was fairly rare, so the fighter pilot could find himself the target of half a dozen rear turrets from a properly set up box formation. It's generally said that this was the main reason for the Luftwaffe switching to head-on attacks.



I read a book recently which consisted of a summary of the interrogation of senior Luftwaffe officers such as Galland which were undertaken just after the war. It was clear that the Luftwaffe switched from head on attacks to tail attacks on bomber units. The problem was that head on attacks need a lot of skill to hit the bomber due to the closing speeds and the average Luftwaffe pilots simply didn't have the skills needed


----------



## Glider (Jun 11, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> When the box formations were properly kept. Every aircraft had a clear field of fire directly above, below, behind, and ahead. So every turret gunner was pretty well clear to fire almost any fighter they could see. The waist gunners on some of the aircraft would have pretty restricted fields of fire, but since they were the less effective position anyway, so what.
> I don't think many gunners, even under combat stress is going to continue firing at a target when they see that fire is going to hit one of the other aircraft in the formation. When you consider they've been in this formation for hours, and that formation mate has been in the same ralitive position the whole time.
> 
> Of course every formation wasn't kept perfect, aircraft did get out of position, and gunners did make mistakes.



Its worth remembering that AA gunners on ships often hit their own ships, let alone other ships that were in the area.


----------



## model299 (Jun 11, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Were they on aircraft flying at 20,000ft+ at 200mph when they did this?



They also trained by shooting skeet standing in the back of a truck traveling down the shooting range. The speeds are, of course, slower, but the relative diffence between the skeet and the truck was about the same.



Glider said:


> Its worth remembering that AA gunners on ships often hit their own ships, let alone other ships that were in the area.



According to accounts I've read, the majority of the damage to civilian areas during the Pearl Harbor raid was from American AA ordinance


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 11, 2012)

adrenaline, confusion, fear, and everything else thrown on top of target fixation...youhave a great mix for friendly fire. in any of those positions you are looking at the attacking EA and trying to calculate the lead. if you get too fixed on your target or your periferal vision is obscured bullits are going where they shouldnt. i would bet there were far more 50 cals going into friendly ac than the usaac would admit to. 

i would like to know which position had the highest mortality rate...off the top of my head i would guess the tail gunner.


----------



## davebender (Jun 11, 2012)

That should be proportional to the amount of protective armor around the gunner.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 11, 2012)

The armor was mostly for protection from flak shards. You can't load a aircraft with enough armor to stop 20mm, at the ranges some of the fighters closed to, unless it's a off angle shot.

I would think the tail gunner too. A high proportion of attacks were from the rear, so a lot of fire was coming his way. The shells didn't have to pass thru any aircraft structure first, so he had only his armor to protect him. And his fifties.


----------



## davebender (Jun 11, 2012)

Me-410 bomber crew were protected by about 400kg of armor. I think the Ju-88 was similiar. That might stop more then just flak shards.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 11, 2012)

davebender said:


> Me-410 bomber crew were protected by about 400kg of armor. I think the Ju-88 was similiar. That might stop more then just flak shards.



And the Il-2 had over 700 kg. But so what. It's a apples to oranges comparision. Aircraft designed for ground attack, with 2 crew members close together. Not much of a engineering problem to armor, in comparision to to 75 foot fuselage with 10 men all thru it's lenght.

Sure, the Me-410 was pressed into bomber destroyer duty, and did well against unescorted bombers, but was slaughtered, 400 kg armor and all, when escorts showed up.


----------



## bowfin (Jun 13, 2012)

> Were they on aircraft flying at 20,000ft+ at 200mph when they did this?



Good shots are good shots. Period.

Go to your local skeet range and report back to us when you can do this on a consistent basis. 

If you want to skip firsthand experience at the range and just go with the math, the targets are closing on each other at 110 mph and the skeet load is travelling at 1100 fps. Compare with a *closing *FW-190 (150-200 mph) being shot at with projectiles that travel 2,700 fps.

However, I really think you need to try the skeet shot and then tell us it doesn't mean anything. Nothing like a dose of first hand experienced reality to clarify opinions.


----------



## Erich (Jun 13, 2012)

In June of 44 the LW tactic was to close in with Allied 4 engine bombers from the rear hoping just to take on the tail gunners position, this remained so till the last engagements during March of 45 with piston engine fighters, jets continued the rear mount as well till wars end. front attacks were eliminated almost altogether preferring the striking power en-masse from the rear and then when the first 1-2 attacks had occurred LW fighters then could come from any angle to attack - i.e. T/E 110G's and the Me 410's.


----------



## Tankworks (Jun 13, 2012)

I seem to recall it having been said that LW pilots were to open fire at 500 meters but they said that the bomber gunners were opening up at 1000 meters and it was difficult to fly into all that lead and keep your eyes open (speaking of head-on attacks)! I think Johnson wrote in his book that he once chased a 109 through the bomber boxes and it scared him so bad that he swore never do it again.
I have read that the ball gunner position was the most dangerous but I have also read that it was the safest so make of that what you will!


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 13, 2012)

i have read of more than one ball gunner trapped in place as the plane had to belly in. that would be a hell of a thing to have to do as a pilot and crew.


----------



## Balljoint (Jun 14, 2012)

Erich said:


> In June of 44 the LW tactic was to close in with Allied 4 engine bombers from the rear hoping just to take on the tail gunners position, this remained so till the last engagements during March of 45 with piston engine fighters, jets continued the rear mount as well till wars end. front attacks were eliminated almost altogether preferring the striking power en-masse from the rear and then when the first 1-2 attacks had occurred LW fighters then could come from any angle to attack - i.e. T/E 110G's and the Me 410's.



Could the change in tactics be a function of the erosion of the skill and training of the pilots, other than the jets?


----------



## Erich (Jun 14, 2012)

No it was the transformation of aerial tactics as a standard for all fighter gruppen to attack from the rear, presented less of a target and an easier escape for the LW pilot to bank out of the bomber formation right or left.


----------



## Glider (Jun 14, 2012)

I do think that the reduction in training did have something to do with the switch back to rear attacks. The others points made are certainly valid but the reduction in skill did have something to do with the change.


----------



## Erich (Jun 14, 2012)

actually it was the too high proportion of LW losses during frontal attacks, something had to change, big aces were falling with their wingmen as they tried to fly the long length of the bomber group and coming up to top to meet Allied escorts head-on. Tactics in 44 changed..............period


----------



## Jack_Hill (Jun 15, 2012)

Yes, many highly skilled luftwaffe fighter pilots were dead or exhausted by 1944.
And rookies, maybe, had no training,fuel,skill, motivation or guts enough.
Though, if not rlm official tactic (had rlm efficient official something by this time ?) for bomber boxes attack, common way was from the rear, prefering isolated a/c.
First, eliminating the tail gunner thread, meanwhile striking the fin/rudder/elevators ensemble.
Shells penetrating almost straight,deeply into fuselage,causing heavy structural/crew/hydraulic/oxygen/electric damages wich, if a successful pass,could turn a living B17 into an easy prey or dead man walking.
By the end of 43, tail gunners did the hardest job to my eyes.


----------



## CBBEhr (Aug 30, 2018)

B-17Gs would 
At waist positions have perspex window panels and reflector sights
Top turret and ball turret would have computing sights
Crewman would have chest chute
Radio room gunner would double duty as 2nd waist gunner, removeable panel in top of radio room
Lead bombardier did not use guns after IP reached, finding target.
Tail gunner might fire in direction of friendly aircraft to let them know they should not be there


----------



## MIflyer (Sep 19, 2018)

Looking at a B-24 tail turret, it seems to have a better view and field of fire than just about any other US aircraft. Reportedly the Germans had a healthy respect for it.

The father of an officer I served with was a B-24 waist gunner with the 8th AF in WWII. He said there was was one tail gunner with his outfit that was famous for getting a number of kills. His dad asked him how he did it.

The tailgunner explained that when he saw a German fighter approaching rather than open fire on it at maximum range he held his fire and moved the guns up and down and from side to side, to make the German think the guns were jammed. The German would think he could get in close before firing and then .... Bam! The gunner blew him away.

It would seem to be logical that other gunners be advised of the tactic but I suppose the rest of the crew did not want to screw up a good thing they had going.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 19, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> Looking at a B-24 tail turret, it seems to have a better view and field of fire than just about any other US aircraft. Reportedly the Germans had a healthy respect for it.
> 
> The father of an officer I served with was a B-24 waist gunner with the 8th AF in WWII. He said there was was one tail gunner with his outfit that was famous for getting a number of kills. His dad asked him how he did it.
> 
> ...



The lame duck trick. I used it many times in the Eagle when fighting F16s. Loved it, worked well!

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Sep 19, 2018)

All I can say is that in Europe around D Day 8th Airforce B24's had the ventral turrets removed to save weight and because of the lack of effectiveness. They also went from two waist gunners to one.
The lower weight also improved handling at high altitude. 

Source the 1000 Day Battle which concentrates on the B24 units in the 8th Airforce


----------



## mcoffee (Sep 20, 2018)

Attached is the request from the 2AD to remove B-24 ball turrets. The supporting data shows that the ball turrets had only 5% of the total encounters, declining in the April '44 month to 3.7%. It is interesting to note that the percentage of claims for each position closely tracks the percentage of encounters for that position. No position's percentage of claims was significantly different than its percentage of encounters. The tail turret had twice the encounters of the other positions, but only more successful because of the greater opportunities.

While most of the replies in this thread are old, the statements such as "spraying thousands of poorly aimed .50cal rounds" are absurd. The gunners were trained to only fire at aircraft directly threatening their particular box. There were not shooting at anything they saw. Also, aiming a flexible gun in the waist position was a much more natural motion than operating a power turret where one control was used for azimuth and another for elevation. Like aiming an Etch-A-Sketch.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Sep 20, 2018)

In the Pacific I understand they eventually removed the tail turrets from the B-24's and replaced them with position that was more or less open to the rear. I think weight reduction may have been the primary objective but it is possible that they were on more lower altitude missions as well, where fresh air was more important that keeping the breeze outside.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 20, 2018)

Testing done by the USAAF found that the bullet pattern from a B-17 during ground testing had the following results for 12 rounds to 600yds:
ball turret > dia. 15' - 8.3mils
upper turret > dia. 21' - 11.7mils
chin turret > dia. 23' - 12.6 mils
waist(closed) dia. 26' - 14.3mils
side nose > dia. 34' - 18.7mils
tail turret > dia 45' - 25mils

For the B-24 it was:
ball turret > dia. 15' - 8.3mils
upper turret > dia. 20' - 11.2mils
nose turret > dia. 23' - 12.9mils (Emerson)
nose turret > dia. 35' - 19.3mils (Motor Prod.)
waist(closed) dia. 23' - 12.9mils
waist(open) dia. 63' - 35.6mils
tail turret > dia 35' - 19.3mils

taken from: "Gunner" ISBN 1-55046-332-2
**************************
Attacks and hits on B-17s and B-24s, Jan - May 1944
Distribution according to direction of origin in azimuth
B-17 % distribution of 3585 attacks and 441 hits whose direction could be determined
12 - 20.2/15.6
1 - 12.5/9.3
2 - 5.9/6.7
3 - 4.5/3.9
4 - 5.7/4.0
5 - 9.1-9.2
6 - 20.7/15.6
7 - 5.9/6.6
8 - 3.8/2.7
9 - 3.9/2.9
10 - 3.7/3.9
11 - 10.4/10.3

B-24 % distribution of 10425 attacks and 102 hits whose direction could be determined
12 - 21.6/17.6
1 - 12.7/8.4
2 - 3.9/5.2
3 - 2.9/5.4
4 - 3.0/3.6
5 - 7.7/7.8
6 - 20.7/15.6
7 - 19.6/20.6
8 - 11.0/6.9
9 - 3.1/2.0
10 - 6.9/3.4
11 - 11.9/7.8


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 27, 2018)



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Timppa (Sep 28, 2018)

Milosh said:


> Testing done by the USAAF found that the bullet pattern from a B-17 during ground testing had the following results for 12 rounds ,Attacks and hits on B-17s and B-24s, Jan - May 1944
> Distribution according to direction of origin in azimuth
> B-17 % distribution of 3585 attacks and 441 hits whose direction could be determined
> 12 - 20.2/15.6
> ...


----------



## Milosh (Sep 28, 2018)

Timppa, the numbers are clock positions. 12 would be head on attack and 6 would be an attack from the rear.

Yes the numbers don't add up to 100, but iric they were from a hard to read diagram I had found on the inet at one time.

Azimuth would be low to high attacks.

12 - 20.2/15.6

12 is clock position
20.2 would be the percentage of the attacks
15.5 would be the number of hits on the a/c.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 28, 2018)

Tagas said:


> They would have done better leaving the guns back in England and exchanging the weight for speed at least in the early years of the war. Hitting fighter/fighter bomber, with a 50 cal from a moving bomber was pure luck. The only value in my opinion is purely psychological for the gunner. Might as well have thrown oranges at the 109's and 190's.....


Well, the Luftwaffe went to great lengths to armor the Fw190 against defensive oranges, now, didn't they?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 28, 2018)

Tagas said:


> _They would have done better leaving the guns back in England and exchanging the weight for speed at least in the early years of the war._ Hitting fighter/fighter bomber, with a 50 cal from a moving bomber was pure luck. The only value in my opinion is purely psychological for the gunner. Might as well have thrown oranges at the 109's and 190's.....




This comes up lot in discussion about guns on bombers. However the actual increase in speed on an existing bomber by leaving the guns and ammo home (and the gunners and plating over the openings) is not that great. You have already paid a large penalty in a larger, higher drag fuselage and in using a wing sized to carry the weight of the guns/mountings/ammo/gunners. 
If designing with with a clean sheet of paper you can use a smaller fuselage to house the smaller crew and use a smaller wing to lift the lower weight. 
It is also a fallacy that weight and speed are closely related. Weight and drag are closely related. 
For instance this turret 




was going to cost a lot more in speed due to drag than it's weight is going cost.
whereas a turret like this 





has a lot less drag. 

Anybody who thinks that by ditching the guns/ammo and gunners on an already existing bomber they will pick up meaningful increases in speed is invited to look up the Avro Lancastrian, Handley Page Halton, Consolidated C-87 or Boeing C-108.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 28, 2018)

Of what use were the waist gunners?


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 28, 2018)

Milosh said:


> Of what use were the waist gunners?


On several bomber types, the upper turret was not able to depress well enough to provide protection to the rear quarter. The lower or ball turret (depending on the aircraft) was not able to elevate enough to also cover the rear quarter.
On a B-17, the upper turret was well foreward and the single MG of the Radio Operator was only good for high to horizontal six-O'clock attackers, so the port and starboard waist gunners provided a wide area of defensive fire.


----------



## MIflyer (Sep 29, 2018)

Note that the PB4Y-2 retained the B-24 tail turret, replaced the nose turret with a totally cool looking ERCO turret, added another top turret, and replaced the open side window gun positions with ERCO waist turrets, which had the ability to fire under the airplane. They had no ball turret in the belly.

These turrets were fed ammo via chutes. When my friend Bob Berry's PB4Y-2 was attached by 12 George II fighters making head on passes, the ammo feed on one side turret failed, the nose turret had the top blown off, and the forward top turret was put out of action. When the nose gunner did not respond to the pilot's questions as to his condition, Bob was ordered to take over the nose turret. As it turned out the nose gunner was only stunned, waved his hand to indicate he was okay, and went back to firing at the enemy fighters.

Bob's airplane was in formation with another PB4Y-2, and that day they together shot down two George fighters and escaped with one wounded man, some shot up radio equipment, and a dead engine they had to shut down because the throttle had been shot away. 

Turned out that the top turret had been disabled by a single enemy round that jammed in its gears. They pulled it out and Bob still has it as a memento. 

Making head on passes on Privateers was a BAD idea, even if you outnumbered them Six to One.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 29, 2018)

Tagas said:


> If thats true, and im not trying to argue here. Why did they strip every gun, ammo belt, metal plate and anything else that wasnt bolted down when they launched B-25's for the Doolittle raid? I appreciate they had limited distance to take off, ie: a carrier deck, but they also had limited fuel range too. And why did the Germans remove rear gunners, metal plates, landing gear spats and even the jericho sirens just to exchange weight for speed on the already slow Ju-87. And B-17 G's had nose mounted turrets. Surely that would be a clear aerodynamic mistake for a bomber that already had a slow cruising speed.
> Before fighters like the Fw-190 & P-47/ Hawker Typhoon/Tempest, F4U, designers were of the opinion radial engines were never going to be better or faster than inlines, because of the drag/large surface area. Even recon fighters were stripped of all guns and ammo in favour of speed...... To say the aspect of speed vs weight is irrelevant is just silly


OOOKAAY.
1, They did not strip every gun from the Doolittle raiders.




Yes they had to take off from the carrier deck and according to one source this is the fuel load.
"the retractable ventral turret was removed, saving about 600 pounds of weight. More fuel was added to the plane, bringing the total fuel load to 1141 gallons--646 gallons in the wing tanks, 225 gallons in the bomb bay tank, 160 gallons in a collapsable tank carried in the crawlspace above the bomb bay, 160 gallons in the ventral turret space, and ten 5-gallon cans for refills." They *traded *weight for fuel, not improved speed/performance by getting rid of weight.
2. I don't know about the JU-87 but is like putting lipstick on a pig. Were they improving speed? (and ditching the landing gear spats for naked landing gear is going to cost performance, not add to it.) Are you sure they weren't trying to carry a heavier than normal load?
3. Please compare speeds of a B-17G to a B-17F (without the front turret) the turret did cost some performance due to the increase in drag, the increase in weight ona B-17 is negligible.
4, I have no idea why you are bringing in the radial vs inline argument when the dispute is about weight vs speed.
5. Recon fighters were often stripped of guns (but not always) in order to fit either extra fuel or the cameras or to keep the CG in place with the change of equipment. Spitfires used the entire leading edge of the wing for fuel tanks. They traded armament weight for fuel weight. P-38s had up to five cameras in the nose and room and cg considerations dictated the removal of the guns.




A Merlin P-51 was 3 mph faster clean after it had burned off 1000lbs of fuel than when it was fully loaded but clean. Granted wing lift goes up with the square of the speed so a very fast plane is less bothered by weight increase than a slower plane.
Adding 15-20mph of cruise speed ( a liberal estimate) is not going to do much for survival against 350mph interceptors.

A lot of books about aircraft do confuse weight with loss of performance and ignore drag. Was it the weight of the Hispano cannon on the Spitfire that cost 5-6mph in speed or the projecting cannon barrels, the bumps on the wing to clear the ammunition feeds and the slot in the bottom of the wing for the cartridges to fall out of? 

Was it the weight of the four cheek guns on a B-26 that had the manual saying the range was affected by 3% or the drag of the gun barrels and blisters?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 29, 2018)

Tagas said:


> If thats true, and im not trying to argue here. Why did they strip every gun, ammo belt, metal plate and anything else that wasnt bolted down when they launched B-25's for the Doolittle raid? I appreciate they had limited distance to take off, ie: a carrier deck, but they also had limited fuel range too. And why did the Germans remove rear gunners, metal plates, landing gear spats and even the jericho sirens just to exchange weight for speed on the already slow Ju-87. And B-17 G's had nose mounted turrets. Surely that would be a clear aerodynamic mistake for a bomber that already had a slow cruising speed.
> Before fighters like the Fw-190 & P-47/ Hawker Typhoon/Tempest, F4U, designers were of the opinion radial engines were never going to be better or faster than inlines, because of the drag/large surface area. Even recon fighters were stripped of all guns and ammo in favour of speed...... To say the aspect of speed vs weight is irrelevant is just silly



Hello Tagas,

I believe what Shortround6 meant to write was Speed and Drag are directly related.

As for Speed versus Weight, you will find that lowering the weight on most aircraft will not significantly increase the speed.
Figure the difference might be 1 or 2 percent.
What it DOES influence is Take-Off distances and Climb Rates which is probably the reason Doolittle's B-25B's left a lot of equipment home.
As for the StuKa, a reason for leaving off equipment might be that the runways they were using were terrible.
The wheel spats tended to get clogged up with mud. but leaving them off probably sacrificed a little speed not that it would make much difference with a Ju 87.

Regarding the Chin Turret on the B-17G:
You have to go back and look at the YB-40 escort version of the Flying Fortress. (See attached images)
It was an interesting idea. It had very little trouble flying with the loaded bombers on the way to the target but on the way back, the bombers were light and faster (yes, faster) and it could not keep up. Now keep in mind we are talking about a LOT of weight here, no just the bomb load but half the fuel would be gone along with some ammunition AND in leaving the target they would also be likely to be in a gradual descent.
The problem was that even on the way out, the YB-40 had much more drag and had to run higher throttle settings to keep up.
On the way out, neither the extra weight nor drag was easily disposable.

In reviewing what was the single best improvement in defence between the YB-40 and the regular B-17F, it appeared to be the Chin turret so it was added to the B-17G (actually started with the late B-17F).

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 29, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> Looking at a B-24 tail turret, it seems to have a better view and field of fire than just about any other US aircraft. Reportedly the Germans had a healthy respect for it.
> 
> The father of an officer I served with was a B-24 waist gunner with the 8th AF in WWII. He said there was was one tail gunner with his outfit that was famous for getting a number of kills. His dad asked him how he did it.
> 
> ...


The B-24 rear turret was the worst US turret of the war. Its is ironic in that the B-24's Martin upper turret was the best. The Consolidated tail turret was a fundamentally flawed design that as a consequence had very poor accuracy. Read chapter IX of the attached AAF Historical Study - Development of Aircraft Gun Turrets in the AAF 1917-1944.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 29, 2018)

There are two related issues: drag, which would slow down an aircraft and increase fuel needed for a mission and weight.

Looking at the second: say bomber X could carry 3,000 lb bombload to Berlin from bases in the UK. To get the required damage to the target, 150,000 lb of bombs are needed. This is 50 aircraft each with ten crew members. Get rid of the waist guns, saving their gunners (400 lb), guns, mounts, and sights (400 lb), and ammunition (200 lb), each aircraft can now carry 4,000 lb to Berlin. Now, there's only 38 aircraft required to perform the same mission.

Of course, now 1,000 lb more fuel can be carried in lieu of the bombs, which would permit more flexible routing or missions to more distant targets.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 29, 2018)

The spats were ocassionally removed from the Ju87 (and other types) because of the muddy conditions where it was operating from.
The Jericho Trumpet was deleted from the late D model onward because the psychological value of the device was no longer useful. The siren's mount on the maingear fairings were still part of the aircraft's assembly on the late D models, but that was even dropped by the G model.

Neither of which had anything to do with increasing the Ju87's speed.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Sep 29, 2018)

The Luftwaffe thought the B-24 tail turret was the best was of the war.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 29, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The spats were ocassionally removed from the Ju87 (and other types) because of the muddy conditions where it was operating from.
> The Jericho Trumpet was deleted from the late D model onward because the psychological value of the device was no longer useful. The siren's mount on the maingear fairings were still part of the aircraft's assembly on the late D models, but that was even dropped by the G model.
> 
> Neither of which had anything to do with increasing the Ju87's speed.




The siren (calling a noisemaker on a nazi aircraft after an OT Jewish weapon is a bit outre) did degrade the Stuka’s performance.


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 29, 2018)

It was called the Jericho Trumpet, in German the _Jericho-Trompete._ From (sorry) Wiki...

"The B-1 [variant] was also fitted with "Jericho trumpets", essentially propeller-driven sirens with a diameter of 0.7 m (2.3 ft) mounted on the wing's leading edge directly forward of the landing gear, or on the front edge of the fixed main gear fairing. This was used to weaken enemy morale and enhance the intimidation of dive-bombing. After the enemy became used to it, however, they were withdrawn. The devices caused a loss of some 20–25 km/h (10-20 mph) through drag. Instead, some bombs were fitted with whistles on the fin to produce the noise after release"


----------



## Milosh (Sep 29, 2018)

It was also turned on/off by the pilot.

Come now fubar, you being a Canadian should be able to convert metric better than that, 20kph = ~12mph, 25kph = ~15mph


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 29, 2018)

LOL.....as I said....Wiki. Aaaaaaaaaaaaand, what the heck is 2.3 ft. Wiki.?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 29, 2018)

Does wiki actually say that the Jericho Trumpet was mounted on the "leading edge of the wing"??

Seriously??

The B and D variants had the siren base located on the upper maingear fairing. The A, C and G did not have provisions for the sirens.

Please, please tell me that someone hasn't assumed the MG17's gun ports are the "leading edge of the wing" location they are claiming...


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 29, 2018)

Yep...your one stop source for continuous errors. This is why I always make a point saying the quote is from Wiki and post it verbatim. The Wiki article on the Ju 87 actually got it correct, it's only when you scroll down to the B variant does it go sideways

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 29, 2018)

Gawd...I just went and looked.

Sorry I did, what a mess.
This entire part looks like a grade school book report:


> The B-1 was also fitted with "Jericho trumpets", essentially propeller-driven sirens with a diameter of 0.7 m (2.3 ft)[42] mounted on the wing's leading edge directly forward of the landing gear, or on the front edge of the fixed main gear fairing. This was used to weaken enemy morale and enhance the intimidation of dive-bombing. After the enemy became used to it they were withdrawn. The devices caused a loss of 20–25 km/h (10-20 mph) through drag.[_citation needed_]Instead, some bombs were fitted with whistles on the fin to produce the noise after release.[43] The trumpets were a suggestion from_Generaloberst_ Ernst Udet (but some authors say the idea originated from Adolf Hitler).[44]


Notice after footnote [42] that entire portion looks like it came from a social media comment section?
In addition, there is a [citation needed] flag, which would be VERY interesting to see the contributor's source.
I also find it funny that they state that the Jericho Trumpet has lost it's psychological value, so it was discontinued BUT whistles were put on bombs to frighten the no linger frightened people. Right.

I also noticed this gem a little further down in the R variant section:


> The R-3 was an experimental tug for gliders and had an expanded radio system so the crew could communicate with the glider crew by way of the tow rope.


So they used the tow rope to communicate? Were there soup cans on each end of the rope or did they have a code using a series of tugs?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 29, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> So they used the tow rope to communicate? Were there soup cans on each end of the rope or did they have a code using a series of tugs?



Very clever, they avoided using the radio so as to maintain radio silence to surprise the allies and to give Bletchley Park nothing to work with

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Sep 30, 2018)

Could a communication wire be attached to the tow cable?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 30, 2018)

Very likely and it could either use a panel of signal lights/buzzer or telephone communication but radio doesn't need a wire connection.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 30, 2018)

I was thinking the a/c intercom system ran thru the radio. Radio does seem rather strange, I agree.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 30, 2018)

You don't have to do anything special to a bomb to make it whistle, I'm pretty sure they all do. 
Ever listen to recordings during bombing attacks, from the bombed viewpoint ?


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 30, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> The Luftwaffe thought the B-24 tail turret was the best was of the war.


Really. Source?


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Sep 30, 2018)

In June 1943 the Operational Research Section of the 8th AF issued a report entitled "Analysis Of Battle Damage Caused by Machine Gun Fire, Missions 37-60, February to May 31, 1943 (Self-Inflicted damage). A surprising number of aircraft received damage inflicted by their own guns or by stray shots from friendly aircraft. Most of the damage was from waist gunners firing into the tail sections of their own planes.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 30, 2018)

tyrodtom said:


> You don't have to do anything special to a bomb to make it whistle, I'm pretty sure they all do.
> Ever listen to recordings during bombing attacks, from the bombed viewpoint ?


 Try googling 

whistles on bombs

and you will get a number of pictures of German and US navy bombs with whistles.
I can remember reading a as kid a leftover magazine from WW II that described a B-17 doing a multi hour nuisance raid over a Japanese base to keep the defenders up all night before the real raid in the morning. They taped empty beer/soda bottles to the fins of small bombs. They had several crates of small bombs which were dropped one at time from the waist gunners windows.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 30, 2018)

Milosh said:


> Could a communication wire be attached to the tow cable?


There was a communication line that ran between the tow-plane and the glider, secured to the tow cable.

That wiki description is poorly worded and misleading to the point that a reader might be led to believe the Germans used a magic rope that not only connected the two aircraft, but transmitted messages too and from...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 30, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Try googling
> 
> whistles on bombs
> 
> ...


 I'm not saying people didn't try to enhance that whistle.
But from having worked on thousands of bombs of different types myself, i'm not at all surprised that they whistle pretty good all on their own.
They're roughly built, especially around the tail fins. 
Then working in the auto industry over 40 years, the early part of that career spent in warranty work, trying to get rid of wind whistle in new cars among other things. I've noticed small gaps can cause awfully loud noises.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 30, 2018)

tyrodtom said:


> ...Then working in the auto industry over 40 years, the early part of that career spent in warranty work, trying to get rid of wind whistle in new cars among other things. I've noticed small gaps can cause awfully loud noises.


Dealt with that same issue for years, too.
Windwings, antennas, ill-fitting body seals and even some brands of wiper blades would do it.

Federal Signal's Jetsonic lightbar series was notorious for whistling if an installer cut corners and omitted the plastic strip that covered the hardware slot on the bottom of the lightbar's housing, too.

Then there was the VW Type I engine's fan shroud that whistled like mad if the coil was relocated and the holes left unplugged...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 30, 2018)

The thing with noise/sound is that it works on a logarithmic scale, which you probably know if you were working on try to stop whistling noises. 
3 decibels is about as much of change in volume that most people can detect with their ears alone. However a 3 decibel change in volume (increase) requires twice the power to be put into the sound waves. 10 decibels sounds about twice as loud to the human ear but requires 10 times the power. 
Doubling the distance from the sound source cuts the sound level by 6 decibels. 
If you are trying to make bombs sound really scary before they explode you probably want to give them some help in the noisemaking department.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 30, 2018)

I think bombs might be more effective if they were silent. 
No warning, no chance to seek shelter, and suddenly the worlds falling down around you.

I think mortars could be more effective if they didn't whistle . 
I don't know if all mortars rounds whistle when they fall, but all I've encountered did.


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 1, 2018)

tyrodtom said:


> I think bombs might be more effective if they were silent.
> No warning, no chance to seek shelter, and suddenly the worlds falling down around you.
> 
> I think mortars could be more effective if they didn't whistle .
> I don't know if all mortars rounds whistle when they fall, but all I've encountered did.



The times the base was mortared I’ve heard them coming in. Followed by the land based phalanx system activation. Nothing like riding your bike past and hearing the hydraulics start (just prior to firing). Much louder outside the plane than in it.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Oct 1, 2018)

Glider said:


> All I can say is that in Europe around D Day 8th Airforce B24's had the ventral turrets removed to save weight and because of the lack of effectiveness. They also went from two waist gunners to one.
> The lower weight also improved handling at high altitude.
> 
> Source the 1000 Day Battle which concentrates on the B24 units in the 8th Airforce


I can't remember were I found this table. I do believe it was for the B-17. According to these stats the tail turret was the most important by far and the ventral turret the least important by far


----------



## mcoffee (Oct 2, 2018)

Reluctant Poster said:


> I can't remember were I found this table. I do believe it was for the B-17. According to these stats the tail turret was the most important by far and the ventral turret the least important by far



See Post #46


----------



## Benjdragon (Oct 4, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> There are two related issues: drag, which would slow down an aircraft and increase fuel needed for a mission and weight.
> 
> Looking at the second: say bomber X could carry 3,000 lb bombload to Berlin from bases in the UK. To get the required damage to the target, 150,000 lb of bombs are needed. This is 50 aircraft each with ten crew members. Get rid of the waist guns, saving their gunners (400 lb), guns, mounts, and sights (400 lb), and ammunition (200 lb), each aircraft can now carry 4,000 lb to Berlin. Now, there's only 38 aircraft required to perform the same mission.
> 
> Of course, now 1,000 lb more fuel can be carried in lieu of the bombs, which would permit more flexible routing or missions to more distant targets.


Late in the war, they removed some of the turrets and guns from B-29s flying to Japan. There was some speed increase because less weight means less drag, but the main reason was to increase the service ceiling. It allowed the bombers to fly higher than the Japanese fighters could go. I knew a man who crewed a B-36 bomber. He said that at maximum altitude the B-36 was more maneuverable than any of the jet fighters that could reach it.


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 4, 2018)

Benjdragon said:


> Late in the war, they removed some of the turrets and guns from B-29s flying to Japan. There was some speed increase because less weight means less drag, but the main reason was to increase the service ceiling. It allowed the bombers to fly higher than the Japanese fighters could go. I knew a man who crewed a B-36 bomber. He said that at maximum altitude the B-36 was more maneuverable than any of the jet fighters that could reach it.



I’ve heard, via a circuitous route, that the F-86D could intercept a B-36 at cruising altitude but couldn’t make a second pass. I think the real driver to supersonic performance was to get interceptors that had enough performance to get that second pass.


----------

