# Gunner's security question



## tyrodtom (Apr 10, 2017)

What methods were used to keep WW1 2 seaters gunner in the aircraft during action?

I've seen several pictures and paintings that it appears the gunner was standing while using the guns with several aircraft.

And then there's the F.E.2b, that the gunner had to stand with a foot on each side of the cockpit to use the gun that could cover the rear, I can see no way to make a harness that could make that safe.

Were they all just depending on their grip on the gun. or whatever else was close to grab, and trust that the pilot wouldn't do anything too abrupt ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2017)

I would think they would have some sort of "monkey harness". It's what we used so that we could move about the cabin with the doors open. Can't imagine not having something similar in WW1.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 10, 2017)

I would think so too, but I've never seen it mentioned.

But I have seen several accounts of 2 seaters loosing their gunner as they went down out of control. They fell out, or they jumped.
Of course it wasn't uncommon for pilots also to jump from burning aircraft in that era. Some preferring a quick death from a ground impact rather than a slow burning death.


Just think of what that FE. 2b gunner had to do to use that rear firing gun between his cockpit and the pilot.


----------



## stona (Apr 11, 2017)

Maybe an 'anti cavorting chain', really a lanyard and belt arrangement to allow the wearer to move about without falling from the aircraft ?
This was the restraint for the observer in a Swordfish.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 11, 2017)

stona said:


> Maybe an 'anti cavorting chain', really a lanyard and belt arrangement to allow the wearer to move about without falling from the aircraft ?
> This was the restraint for the observer in a Swordfish.
> Cheers
> Steve



A monkey harness...


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 11, 2017)

Or maybe some woven or metallic strap-like construction with clips at either end that could be affixed both to the aircraft and to the gunner?

Sorry (to both Stona and Adler)...couldn't resist. 

Yeah...I know "A monkey harness!"


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 11, 2017)

I had a monkey harness in the OH-6 too, was saved by it once for sure.

But I've looked several places and so far I can find no mention of a harness, or any other method of restraint for WW1 gunners.

I've seen a lot of reports of WW! action, and seen it mentioned several times about observer/gunners departing falling aircraft, not just burning aircraft they might have deliberately jumped from, but also aircraft that were falling out of control only.

I know they might have had many methods of keeping them secure.

But what DID they have ?
Either they had a safety harness and didn't use it a lot, or they were unhooking it pretty often and jumping.

The question came to me when I saw the picture of a FE-2b in the BP Defiant thread, and saw the gun between the front and rear cockpits for rear defense in the pusher aircraft. I realized the only way the gunner could use that gun was get up and stand on the cockpit rim, totally outside the aircraft.


----------



## mikewint (Apr 11, 2017)

Neither can I. The caption reads:
*A soldier poses with a Hythe Mk III Gun Camera during training activities at Ellington Field, Houston, Texas in April of 1918. The Mk III, built to match the size, handling, and weight of a Lewis Gun, was used to train aerial gunners, recording a photograph when the trigger was pulled, for later review, when an instructor could coach trainees on better aiming strategies.








*


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 11, 2017)

Heavy belt around waist is part of harness or fashion statement?

Modern day










Harness/belt blends in colorwise or goes under leather flying coat?


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 11, 2017)

It looks pretty much like the monkey straps we used in my time, except they were nylon webbing.
Also looks like the harness that comes with tree stands, and nobody uses.


----------



## mikewint (Apr 11, 2017)

From the book World War I by Adriane Ruggiero:


----------



## mikewint (Apr 11, 2017)

I really don't think that SAFETY was a concern. While those harnesses may have been worn under the leather I kinda doubt it. Take the British BE9
It was a pretty simple idea. During World War I, the British Royal Aircraft Factory, or RAF, wanted a fighter plane with guns that could shoot forward. So they took an existing plane and stuck a gunner onto the front of it. Seems like a pretty straightforward solution.
The only problem ...
Their method of adding a gunner? Strapping him in front of the propeller in a plywood box that earned the nickname "the pulpit," presumably to try to remind the gunner that he was about to meet God.
Should the BE. experience even the lightest crash, the gunner was guaranteed to be crushed by the firing V8 engine mounted to his back. It honestly didn't matter, however, since the gunner was much more likely to be sucked into the whirling propeller blades like a long before then.
Because there was no shielding used whatsoever between the gunner and the roaring vortex of death behind him, anything loose on his person, be it a scarf, wallet or arm while swinging the gun, was instantly sucked into the propeller blades. The gunner had no choice but to literally hold on for dear life until he either tired out or landed. And because the screaming engine was placed between the helpless gunner and the plane's oblivious pilot, the gunner had no way to communicate his fatigue to the pilot until the spray of his guts hit him in the face.


----------



## stona (Apr 11, 2017)

That really was a bad idea. To be fair only one was built, or rather adapted. It does however illustrate the experimental nature of aircraft development in WW1 which carried on into the inter war years. Those pouring scorn on a concept like the the turret fighter have the benefit of hindsight. There were many other concepts, some far more odd to us with our hindsight, that didn't make it into production. Some even make the B.E.2c/B.E.9 look quite sensible.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## mikewint (Apr 11, 2017)

Agreed and it also illustrates that safety was a very minor concern. The aircraft themselves illustrate this
1. Flimsy aircraft: get into too steep a dive---> no wings
2. No armament at first. The French fitted bullet deflectors to stop MG bullets shooting the propeller to pieces, the Germans invented a synchronizing gear so it fired between propeller blade revolutions.
3. The British fliers lacked parachutes, which were classed as cowardly. German balloon observers had parachutes and soon German fliers did too.
4. Navigation. There were no radios to help ask directions, no GPS. Pilots had to recognize where they were. This was hard when the world below you was a mess of mud and trenches all looking alike.
5. Petrol tanks: these weren't self-sealing and, to get a good center of gravity, were often under or in front of the pilot.
6. Castor oil. Aircraft engines and maintenance was a new science, and primitive oils were often used, such as castor oil. This meant that pilots were often flying while breathing a fog of castor oil, some suffered from chronic digestive problems.
7. For the Allies, poor aircraft and aircraft design. At the start of the war, Fokker (a Dutchman) had offered his designs to the Allies. They refused, so the Germans got them.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 11, 2017)

Not so much safety, but having to constantly replace gunners must have been a little inconvenient .
But of course they was having constantly replace everybody fighting during WW1.

But the war in the trenches was so bad they still had volunteers just waiting for their chance.

Men who choose to fly during war might be a little over influenced by their testosterone. Another name for the monkey harness, or strap, during my time, was the chicken strap. Some guys actually complained about it, wouldn't use it unless threatened with a Art. 15.
I wonder if the WW1 gunners were the same.

As a X gunner myself, I guess you could say I have a professional interest.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 11, 2017)

In part the weak construction/lack of protection was due to weak engines. 
A 100hp Green inline six in 1914 went about 440lbs. 
A 120hp Beardmore 6 went about 545lbs.
both water cooled engines so add???? 
The Early 7 Cylinder Clerget was good for 80-90hp for a mere 230-240lbs but these rotary engines (and some inline aircooled ones) 
had truly horrendous fuel consumption and for long flights (several hours) the extra fuel began to close the gap in weight to the water cooled engines. 
9 cylinder Clerget as used in Sopwith Camel went about 380lbs for 130hp and needed about 37 gal imp of fuel and almost 6 gallons oil for a 2.5 hour flight, Rotaries also had very poor throttle control. Most used an ignition kill switch to reduce power for landing. Momentary killing the ingition to reduce the power although some engines/aircraft could adjust the number of cylinders that cut out to keep it from being all or nothing. But raw fuel and oil still came out the exhaust.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 11, 2017)

Maybe by the norms of the times, a gunners job with or without a harness might not have felt so dangerous.

After all on the ground, thousands of men at a time were walking ( not running) across fields straight into machine guns, cannons, rifles and anything else the enemy chose to use, with only their faith and courage for comfort.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Apr 12, 2017)

I've looked through all the pics and cutaways I have on WW1 aircraft and the only harness I can find is when the pilots & gunners were seated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 12, 2017)

Most pictures I've seen shows the gunner as he was during take off, and landing, sitting down.

But when you see films or pictures of them demonstrating use of the gun, a lot are standing up.

On most of the aircraft the upper rim of the cockpit is below hip level, it wouldn't take much of a upset to send you right over the side.
And even if they did have harnesses it probably would have only been leather. Plenty to keep you secure in a seat, but not overly strong for stopping falling bodies.


----------



## mikewint (Apr 12, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> After all on the ground, thousands of men at a time were walking ( not running) across fields straight into machine guns, cannons, rifles and anything else the enemy chose to use, with only their faith and courage for comfort.


Our modern idea/belief in "cradle to the grave security" was not prevalent in the early 1900s. One has only to look at the horrendous casualty figures for WWI land battles to see how cheaply soldier lives were held by both sides. So the occasional gunner tossed out of the aircraft was "regrettable" but not disastrous. Consider the RFC aircraft losses during Bloody April


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 13, 2017)

You can see in those pictures that just changing magazines could be a hazard on a pusher. 
If the gunner fumbled it, it might brain the pilot, 47 or 92 .303 rounds in the single or double drum magazine would be quite heavy.
Or if it went through the propeller and got hit by a blade.


----------



## Airframes (Apr 16, 2017)

I was sure I had posted this, but I presume I made an error.
Here's a view inside a Bristol Fighter - I can see a 'sling' type of gunner's seat, but no sign of a harness or restraint.


----------



## mikewint (Apr 17, 2017)

Well them Britishers used to wear RED so the enemy wouldn't see blood and crossed WHITE belts to help the enemy aim AND would stand shoulder to shoulder in an open field!!! So, heck, "We don't need no stinken restraints"

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 17, 2017)

I thought the red was so you wouldn't see your own blood.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Apr 17, 2017)

My eyes aren't so good... is that a wicker seat for the pilot?

And Japanese planes are derided for a lack of pilot protection!


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 17, 2017)

I've seen a wicker seat in a lot of WW1 era aircraft.
When you're surrounded by about inch thick sticks of wood, joined by metal brackets, with tight wire holding it all in alignment, I don't think the type of seat could change the pilot's chances of surviving a crash much.
A good aluminum seat might make his body easier to find though.
Actually that form of construction was stronger than most would think, it just didn't perform very well during a crash.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 17, 2017)

With the engines of the time, light weight construction was the byword of the day. 

For the Bristol fighter (a real powerhouse in it's day) the dry weight of the engine was 1/3 of the empty weight of the aircraft. Now add oil, radiator/water, propeller and the powerplant is really sucking up a high proportion of the weight. 

And Aluminium was_ just_ coming into it's own as a construction material.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 17, 2017)

I'd like to thank everyone who has responded on this thread.
A lot of great pictures I've never seen before.

My biggest fascination has always been WW1 aviation, and stick and wire aircraft..


----------



## gumbyk (Apr 17, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> Most pictures I've seen shows the gunner as he was during take off, and landing, sitting down.
> 
> But when you see films or pictures of them demonstrating use of the gun, a lot are standing up.
> 
> ...



No, no harnesses of any sort in these machines for gunners that I know of. I've read a few accounts of people almost falling out during battle.

The F2B gunner cockpit comes to just under hip level, but to use the gun you have to crouch down a bit, so in reality it's harder to fall out than that, and you're already holding on to either the gun or scarfe ring to aim. We've got a waist harness out of an Avro 504 at the museum, but not sure if this was a civilian mod or original equipment, so it was at least thought of for pilots.


----------



## gumbyk (Apr 17, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> I've seen a wicker seat in a lot of WW1 era aircraft.
> When you're surrounded by about inch thick sticks of wood, joined by metal brackets, with tight wire holding it all in alignment, I don't think the type of seat could change the pilot's chances of surviving a crash much.
> A good aluminum seat might make his body easier to find though.
> Actually that form of construction was stronger than most would think, it just didn't perform very well during a crash.


Wicker actually has a lot of 'give' and can absorb a lot of energy, so was fairly common. Don't forget, most accidents was fairly low-speed, low energy events, especially compared to WW2 aircraft. e.g my Tiger Moth comes across the fence at 55 mph, a Yak 3, 120 mph, so there it has more than 4.5 times as much energy to lose during a crash.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 17, 2017)

I never realized that was the pilots seat till I looked close. I thought it was the gunners seat for use during takeoffs and such, but it's turned around wrong.
The gunners buttocks are about at the pilot's shoulders, must have made for good communications between them as long as neither were incontinent. Whew !


----------



## soulezoo (Apr 18, 2017)

gumbyk said:


> Wicker actually has a lot of 'give' and can absorb a lot of energy, so was fairly common. Don't forget, most accidents was fairly low-speed, low energy events, especially compared to WW2 aircraft. e.g my Tiger Moth comes across the fence at 55 mph, a Yak 3, 120 mph, so there it has more than 4.5 times as much energy to lose during a crash.


The wicker actually makes a lot of sense given the rest of the primitive construction of the aircraft and need for light weight wherever they could find it. It was just the first time I had seen it.


----------



## mikewint (Apr 18, 2017)

gumbyk said:


> a Yak 3, 120 mph, so there it has more than 4.5 times as much energy to lose during a crash.


HOLY CREPE!!! One of these babies zooooming overhead at Mach 4.08 THAT has to be something to see!!! Not exactly an elephant but still...not want to be below
Too Late me hat and coat was already on...


----------



## mikewint (Apr 18, 2017)

OK, ducking back in for a sec. Since KE = 0.5 m v^2 The energy would be increases by 16.5 times greater.
[door slams]


----------



## T Bolt (Apr 19, 2017)

Wicker Seats went way beyond WWI. Here's the interior of a Ford Tri-Moter

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Apr 19, 2017)

That's first class compared to today! Look at the ample elbow room!


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 20, 2017)

And window seats for everyone.


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 21, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> And window seats for everyone.



And proper, big windows to boot. No craning your neck to see anything - the entire vista is open for inspection.


----------



## mikewint (Apr 21, 2017)

Once again physics. Aircraft structures can withstand a pressure differential of about 8psi. Humans cannot survive if the partial pressure of oxygen falls below 2.9psi. So supplemental oxygen is required to fly above 12,500ft for more than 30min and a must at 15,000ft. Commercial air liners begin to pressurize the cabin as soon as the wheels come up maintaining the cabin pressure at about 7,000ft though the aircraft may be at 35,000ft. That works out to about 11psi.
Ok back to windows, that's 11 pounds of pressure on each and every square inch of surface, A window 1ft in diameter has 113sq in of surface so it must withstand 1244 pounds of force. Making the window 2ft in diameter must withstand 4976 pounds of force or 4 times as much pressure


----------



## pbehn (Apr 21, 2017)

mikewint said:


> Once again physics. Aircraft structures can withstand a pressure differential of about 8psi. Humans cannot survive if the partial pressure of oxygen falls below 2.9psi. So supplemental oxygen is required to fly above 12,500ft for more than 30min and a must at 15,000ft. Commercial air liners begin to pressurize the cabin as soon as the wheels come up maintaining the cabin pressure at about 7,000ft though the aircraft may be at 35,000ft. That works out to about 11psi.
> Ok back to windows, that's 11 pounds of pressure on each and every square inch of surface, A window 1ft in diameter has 113sq in of surface so it must withstand 1244 pounds of force. Making the window 2ft in diameter must withstand 4976 pounds of force or 4 times as much pressure


The Handley Page HP42 was an aircraft of the era but it only did 90MPH while cruising and could run out of fuel flying into a head wind London to Paris. The whole thing had less maximum horsepower than the last Spitfires, airsickness was a common problem.


----------



## Graeme (Apr 23, 2017)

Regards the F.E.2b - I have read some authors say no harness was fitted for the gunner/observer, but J.M. Bruce (and I have more faith in him) says they were fitted, but this doesn't mean the gunners always used them. It certainly seems they were never fitted for educational photographs like these...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Apr 23, 2017)

I like his agility and optimism with this shot...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 23, 2017)

But it was an era when people did just walk on the wings of aircraft in flight. I can understand people thinking others lives were not worth much at all but not people having the same view of their own.


----------



## mikewint (Apr 23, 2017)

I can't imagine a harness that would allow all that freedom of movement. At the same time the only really good pics are when the plane is on the ground so again an open question but I will stick to the opinion that shooting at enemy aircraft was the highest concern and personal safety low on the totem pole


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 23, 2017)

Personal safety may be somewhat low on the totem pole for the _higher ups_ but I know I always felt safer and would stretch things a bit further on the end of a 65-100ft ladder when I had a belt or harness and I didn't have a 80-120mph wind to deal with. 

They could order me to climb the ladder, they couldn't order me to lean out or stretch an extra few inches. And it was almost always one hand for the tool and one hand for the ladder and you can imagine how effective an 8lb axe was with one hand 

You don't have to held in securely but you have to have some assurance that a fall/slip will be short (several feet?) 

Anybody want to try some of those positions in the back of a pick up truck doing 90mph on a bumpy road? 

I don't KNOW if they used a harness/strap--anit-cavorting strap or not but aside from some of the more dared devil types such a strap would have provided great comfort to the hundreds of air gunners were more than brave but perhaps a little less fool hardy than the would be wing walkers.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 23, 2017)

Back when I was young and confident ( stupid) that monkey strap made me feel that no matter what happened, I could claw my way back to safety.

Those WW1 gunners, with all the extra clothes they had to wear for much colder flying conditions than what I had to contend with, couldn't have been very agile.

And just think what that twin Lewis in photo 42 would weigh, and the gunner's got to move it to the rear socket in a 90+ mph wind for some situations.
They were supermen in my book.


----------



## fubar57 (Apr 26, 2017)

Doesn't look like a harness here either, again the FE.2






File:Royal Aircraft Factory FE2d gunner.jpg - Wikimedia Commons​


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 26, 2017)

Ground picture. the crew isn't wearing their goggles either.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 26, 2017)

It looks like the pilot's Lewis is pointed right at the gunner's knee.

And when the gunner is sitting down it looks like the pilot's gun would right about head level. Imagine a .303 muzzle blast about a foot from your head.

I wonder how much the gunner's gyrations effected control of the aircraft ? 
Climbing up, sitting down , besides just the shifting of the weight, his upper body is close to the size of the rudder, and there are times when his whole body is exposed to the airflow..


----------



## gumbyk (Apr 26, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> I wonder how much the gunner's gyrations effected control of the aircraft ?
> Climbing up, sitting down , besides just the shifting of the weight, his upper body is close to the size of the rudder, and there are times when his whole body is exposed to the airflow..


 
A lot.
I can feel someone moving around too much in the front of the Tiger Moth, so this would be an order of magnitude worse.


----------



## fubar57 (Apr 27, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Ground picture. the crew isn't wearing their goggles either.



Yep


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 28, 2017)

fubar57 said:


> Doesn't look like a harness here either, again the FE.2
> 
> View attachment 372227
> 
> ...


What's that bulge on the upper wing the gunner's about to shoot holes in? Fuel or coolant tank? Oil reservoir? Really intelligent engineering!


----------



## gumbyk (Nov 28, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> What's that bulge on the upper wing the gunner's about to shoot holes in? Fuel or coolant tank? Oil reservoir? Really intelligent engineering!


Fuel. The coolant tank is under the pulpit (at least in the FE2B)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 29, 2017)

Graeme said:


> J.M. Bruce (and I have more faith in him) says they were fitted, but this doesn't mean the gunners always used them.



Jack Bruce was the former aircraft curator at the RAF Museum is something of an expert on the subject; I've rummaged through noites he left on different Great War aircraft - he wrote a lot of the Windsock publications monographs and his knowledge was second to none, but regarding the Fee, no harnesses were standard, but they could be. The observer didn't have a seat; he had to sit on the floor on take-off, without a cushion (!), but there were eyelets for the provision of a harness, but such a thing was not always fitted to the aeroplane. Somewhere I have photos of the Vintage Aviator Fee's gunner's pulpit; I'll see if I can find them.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 29, 2017)

_Observers and Navigators: And Other Non-Pilot Aircrew in the RFC, RNAS and RAF _By Wg Cdr C.G. Jefford on page 42 states the gunner of the DH-4 did not have a safety harness. Page 80 states the crews of the British Air Ships also did not have safety equipment as late as 1921.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 29, 2017)

A couple of pics of the gunner's hole in the Fee; They aren't great shots as I was holding my camera above my head and aiming blindly. It's pretty tall.

The stick at the front is the gun mount with its handle visible. On the coaming are clips, but I can't see the eyelets. Perhaps they are on the forward coaming out of visibility.




Gunner&#x27;s hole i

The rear section isn't contoured for the gunner to rest against, it is a door, which holds drums of Lewis MG rounds.




Gunner&#x27;s hole ii

The Fee in Masterton. I've done a walkaround, but its height meant that avoiding climbing aboard means that I don't have any of the cockpit.




F.E.2b

I'm heading back to Masterton in a few week's time, so I'll drop by to get some more pics. Here's an album of Great War machines.

The Vintage Aviator Ltd Hangar


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 29, 2017)

I've read several accounts of observers, and pilots falling out of inverted, falling aircraft.

I can understand that the observers needed a lot of mobility that straps would have limited, but can't understand pilots not strapping in.

What sort of restraint did the pilots have ?


----------

