# B-17 underside Ball Turret Gunner



## olbrat (Jun 3, 2008)

After watching a B-17 flying recently, I was curious how the underside ball turret gunner entered/exited the turret. Was it from below or from inside? I had heard a couple of horror stories of how they were trapped if they aircraft had to do a wheels-up landing, etc., but I didn't know if they were true or not. I would think it would be terribly uncomfortable to be in one of those things for hours on end, or stuck in one with the electricity out and so on.

Thanks in advance for any answers.


----------



## Marcel (Jun 3, 2008)

olbrat said:


> After watching a B-17 flying recently, I was curious how the underside ball turret gunner entered/exited the turret. Was it from below or from inside? I had heard a couple of horror stories of how they were trapped if they aircraft had to do a wheels-up landing, etc., but I didn't know if they were true or not. I would think it would be terribly uncomfortable to be in one of those things for hours on end, or stuck in one with the electricity out and so on.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any answers.



Inside. During start and landing, the gunner was not present in the ball, but stayed with the others in the hull. Only when entering enemy territory, he had to climb into his seat, so he wasn't there the whole flight. This was bad enough as the position is very cramped and often the gunner had to be pulled out by his mates as he wasn't able to move his legs anymore, because of bad blood circulation..


----------



## evangilder (Jun 3, 2008)

Maximum height for a ball-turret gunner was 5'4". It was very cramped. There is a hatch on the ball that the gunner would climb into once airborne. I have some shots of it somewhere.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 3, 2008)

olbrat said:


> After watching a B-17 flying recently, I was curious how the underside ball turret gunner entered/exited the turret. Was it from below or from inside? I had heard a couple of horror stories of how they were trapped if they aircraft had to do a wheels-up landing, etc., but I didn't know if they were true or not. I would think it would be terribly uncomfortable to be in one of those things for hours on end, or stuck in one with the electricity out and so on.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any answers.



If a wheels up landng was done with the ball turret down it would crack the fuselage in half or cave into the fuselage. Half the ball was a chunk of extremely thick aluminum casting, the over half was plexiglass, several inches thick.


----------



## Micdrow (Jun 3, 2008)

Here are a couple of pictures of the turrent of a B-17


----------



## drgondog (Jun 3, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If a wheels up landng was done with the ball turret down it would crack the fuselage in half or cave into the fuselage. Half the ball was a chunk of extremely thick aluminum casting, the over half was plexiglass, several inches thick.



I know you have seen the B-17 and B-24 Ball, but at risk of boring others..

First the B-24 Ball was retractable and could be raised into the Fuselage.

Both had a Frame inside the fuselage, which had the oxygen hose and electrical connection for heating inside the turret, entering near the top of the frame and dropping to the Ball (IIRC).

You Could open the aft hatch of the ball Turret from the outside - which was opposite the circular panel the gunner used to sight through... but nearly impossible to go out that way with guns level

The SOP was to rotate the ball so that the 50's were pointed straight down, open and enter the hatch and climb in, then close and lock the hatch from the inside. 

In an emergency you rotated the turret to face down and hoped someone was there to help open the hatch and hand you your chute if you chose 'comfort' over safety. Even a small guy was extremely cramped with a chute over the electrically heated suit.

It almost always caused a fuselage structural failure in that location during ditching, and often with a belly landing.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 3, 2008)

No models of the B-17 had a retractable turret?


----------



## Micdrow (Jun 3, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> No models of the B-17 had a retractable turret?



None that I know of, though they did do some experiments by placing the same nose and tail turrents of a B-24 into a B-17.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 3, 2008)

I agree Paul - I am aware of none - with 3 point landing gear designe rather than tricyscle there was plenty of room - so why add the weiight.

I did love the modified B-17 "liberator" - but like the B-17G chin turret better from a weight standpoint


----------



## V-1710 (Jun 3, 2008)

I think a few of the very earliest B-17E's used a retractable Bendix ventral turret similar to what was fitted to B-25B's and C's. This turret was sighted through a periscope from a position above the turret in the fuselage.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 3, 2008)

I knew some early B-17E's had the Bendix turret (similar to the top turret used later on iirc) but I don't think it was retractable though. (iirc it's actually slightly smaller in height than the ball turret)

The first B-17E's had the "bathtub" turret from the previous models. 


Here's a bendix ventral turret:





The "Swamp Ghost's" Bendix turret:


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 3, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I know you have seen the B-17 and B-24 Ball, but at risk of boring others..



 No sweat Bill.

I actually was inside one that was erected on a scaffold. I'm 5'9" and "stuck out" about 6".


----------



## evangilder (Jun 3, 2008)

Ugh, I have heard so many bad things about those Bendix turrets. I'd almost rather take my chances in a ball turret. I am not aware of any retractable B-17 ball turrets either. They did have tool kits that were used to jettison the turret in the event of a wheels up landing. If the turret was dropped before landing, the B-17 could be back in the air in a matter of days. If the ball stayed on, it would break the back of the Fortress.

Below is a shot I took in Nine-Oh-Nine last year. It's kind of hard to see the support post going all the way to the top of the fuselage because of the wiring harness above the O2 bottle.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 4, 2008)

What was wrong with the Bendix turret?

(and I think I was wrong about the early B-17E's using the 'bath tub' turret, the D seems to have been the last to use it with the first ~100 E's having the Bendix turret)


----------



## V-1710 (Jun 4, 2008)

If you look just aft of the ventral turret on 12443, I think you can see the sighting station for the turret. The Bendix turret on the B-25 had 2 problems: First, it was extremly difficult to use the gunsight, and many gunners got vertigo looking through it. Second, the sight would get oil residue from the engines on the lens, obscuring the view through it.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 4, 2008)

Ok, does not to get off topic, but how was the "bath tub" turret?


----------



## Micdrow (Jun 4, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I agree Paul - I am aware of none - with 3 point landing gear designe rather than tricyscle there was plenty of room - so why add the weiight.
> 
> I did love the modified B-17 "liberator" - but like the B-17G chin turret better from a weight standpoint



I will have to do some looking when I get home, I beleive I have some pictures on my hard drive of the B-17 with liberator turrents floating around. Will post them when i get home if some one else does not.


----------



## Micdrow (Jun 4, 2008)

V-1710 said:


> If you look just aft of the ventral turret on 12443, I think you can see the sighting station for the turret. The Bendix turret on the B-25 had 2 problems: First, it was extremly difficult to use the gunsight, and many gunners got vertigo looking through it. Second, the sight would get oil residue from the engines on the lens, obscuring the view through it.



You are correct V-1710. From what Ive understood the Vertigo was just nausiating for the operator that used them for the turrent on the under side of the bomber.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 4, 2008)

Yep. If you read Doolittle's biography, he mentions it, and it's lack of usability.


----------



## olbrat (Jun 4, 2008)

Great information and pix guys! I really appreciate it!


----------



## Micdrow (Jun 4, 2008)

Here are some pictures of a B-17 with the liberator tail and nose turrent's


----------



## JoeB (Jun 4, 2008)

Bendix remote control belly turret on B-17E: first 112 examples. At the start of the war the B-17's in the Philippines and Hawaii were C's and D's (most or all of former modified to the 'D' standard in the field). The first E's arrived in Hawaii during the PH attack. Thereafter, to replace the heavy initial losses on the ground and build up the B-17 force in PTO, many of the Bendix turret E's were deployed to Netherlands East Indies (where Far East Air Force had withdrawn) and Hawaii and saw action in the early months of the war. In John Ford's famous footage of Midway, the B-17E's taking off to attack the Japanese are a mixture of Bendix and Sperry turret examples by then, June '42.

Quotes from "Fortress Against the Sun" by Gene Salecker:
"It is believed no e/a was ever shot down by the Bendix turret"
"the awkward sighting arrangement gave the gunner nausea and...vertigo"
"This turret is a jinx...wonderful set up if it works-which it doesn't-on our plane or any other"
"Perhaps no more than 100 hostile rounds were ever fired"
"Realizing the turret was useless some crews loaded the guns with tracers and rigged cords to the triggers...the waist gunners would kick the cords and send a few tracer rounds"
"often to cut down on weight the twin .50's were removed and replaced with black painted broomsticks"
"We took the early under-turrets out...because useless"

The book goes on to note the early Sperry ball turrets had their own teething problems in early-mid '42 in PTO, but were basically workable unlike the Bendix remote.

The B-17E reconstructed and flown by the Japanese was based on 41-2471, a Bendix turret a/c left behind on Java, Feb 1942.





Joe


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 4, 2008)

DOes anyone know how useful the earlier "bath tub" turrets of the C/D were?


----------



## JoeB (Jun 4, 2008)

The 'bathtub' was a fixed gondola under the fuselage rather than a turret. Below is (a bit dark sorry) photo of B-17C's bathtub with single .50 cal. Most sources say the D had a twin .50 in this position though I've never seen a picture; again the a/c in the Philippines and HI in Dec 1941 were D's, or C's brought to D standard. The other armament was a another twin .50 firing from the radio operators compartment on top (reduced back to a single in later B-17's but supplemented by the new top turret), a single waist .50 on each side, and a .30 that could be fired from various sockets in the nose. The big complaint about B-17D defensive armament was hard to shoot at a fighter approaching directly from the rear, neither above or below. The proper tail guns of the B-17E were viewed as a significant improvement, despite the unworkable Bendix belly turret on early examples. The problem then became, as later in the ETO, that enemy fighters started attacking from head on.

As in ETO, but easier to document from both sides case by case in early PTO because of the small scale of combat, claims by B-17's (and bombers generally) to have downed enemy fighters were typically highly overstated, often much more so than claims of fighters to have downed enemy fighters. The B-17D and E's were somewhat vexing targets for Japanese fighters in 1941-42 because they could absorb a fair amount of damage (though sometimes crashed on the way back to base, unseen and unclaimed by the Japanese), but actually shot down fairly few Japanese fighters, especially D's.






Joe


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 4, 2008)

Were the electrical and heating conduits a restriction upon turret freedom? Specifically, was the turret limited in traverse by connections to a certain degree of freedom in any one direction (ie clockwise, counter-clockwise)?

And also were there dogs that prevented turret traverse into propeller arcs?


----------



## drgondog (Jun 5, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Were the electrical and heating conduits a restriction upon turret freedom? Specifically, was the turret limited in traverse by connections to a certain degree of freedom in any one direction (ie clockwise, counter-clockwise)?
> 
> *From memory - no. The post-Y support rotated with the turret - and in turn was supported by the frame you see in Paul's pics. The Oxy and electrical connection was made at the top of the frame - then down to the turret. The "Y" structure rotated with the turret so maintained relative position.
> 
> ...



I don't recall seeing any - and didn't see any in the pictures in the 10 and 2 o'clock traverse position. If the upper limit of azimuth was only a couple of degrees down from CL of the B-17, it shouldn't need any.


----------



## Watanbe (Jun 6, 2008)

Wow I knew ball turrets were small but dang...that is absolutely tiny, great photos. Im 6-2 and there is no way i fit in there. My head wouldnt even fit in that space.


----------



## HoHun (Jun 6, 2008)

Hi Flyboyj,

>If a wheels up landng was done with the ball turret down it would crack the fuselage in half or cave into the fuselage. 

I'm not sure if the results were quite that dramatic, but the damage certainly was bad enough that the B-17 manual advised jettisoning the ball turret for a wheels-up landing - which required a lengthy operation with on-board tools as there was no jettison mechanism. Nothing you'd like to do in an emergency.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## drgondog (Jun 6, 2008)

I have seen quite a few examples of a bellied in fort. 

The damage mode I saw the most of was a 'deformed' bulge in the airframe around the ball - and in many cases the frame and Ball turret 'seemed' intact. Similarly a ditching rarely (by and of itself) caused an airframe failure there. No suprise considering how some came back from a direct hit by flak between the waist guns and Ball turret.

The B-24 was a different discussion and another good reason to be able to retract it.. Ditchings frequently broke its back - probably because (I suppose), unlike a Fort, the high wing offered no "ground' effect nor did it prevent the a/c from really digging in.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> I'm not sure if the results were quite that dramatic, but the damage certainly was bad enough that the B-17 manual advised jettisoning the ball turret for a wheels-up landing - which required a lengthy operation with on-board tools as there was no jettison mechanism. Nothing you'd like to do in an emergency.
> 
> Regards,
> ...



There have been several documented descriptions of a B-17 landing on the ball turret and when the aircraft came to rest the fuselage broke approximately where the ball turret was installed. As previously stated the ball turret wasn't a flimsily structure, most of it was basically a big chunk of metal and plexiglass as cane be seen the the earlier photos.

What would save the aircraft in many occasions was the ability to get the tail wheel down. That along with the turret could support the fuselage. Also remember that the MLG on the B-17 stuck out of the nacelle and that also provided some clearance but depending on the terrain the ball turret could really do some damage to the fuselage. Note the attached photos...


----------



## drgondog (Jun 7, 2008)

That is pretty interesting Joe - hadn't put the tailwheel 'survivability' factor in context but as I think of of it that seems to be a factor.


----------



## HoHun (Jun 7, 2008)

Hi Flyboyj,

>There have been several documented descriptions of a B-17 landing on the ball turret and when the aircraft came to rest the fuselage broke approximately where the ball turret was installed. 

Thanks for the interesting pictures! I've had a look at a B-17 manual, and it does in fact feature an illustration of a ditching B-17 with the caption "IF TAIL IS DOWN FUSELAGE IS LIKELY TO BREAK HERE" and an arrow pointing at the section directly ahead of the ball turret.

I'm not sure if the turret is to blame, or the tail strike, or a combination of both.

It's a different manual than the own that I had seen previously, and it doesn't seem to mention the jettisoning of the ball turret.

>What would save the aircraft in many occasions was the ability to get the tail wheel down. 

Hm, with regard to the B-17 with intact fuselage, do you think it's possible that it actually had the port main wheel down, too?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 7, 2008)

That picture of the Japanese B17 ... is it an illusion ... or does it look like in truth, there was only 1 engine on the wing?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 7, 2008)

Well, it's not unheard-of:
Aero Vintage Books: 2005 B-17 News







> It would appear that the number one engine has been completely removed, nacelle and all. A close look at the photo suggests that the number four engine is still installed. The details behind this aircraft remain unknown, with many suggestions offered on the forum thread. My guess: the engine and nacelle were removed for a ferry flight, possibly to get the airplane to a major repair depot for work.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 7, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> Thanks for the interesting pictures! I've had a look at a B-17 manual, and it does in fact feature an illustration of a ditching B-17 with the caption "IF TAIL IS DOWN FUSELAGE IS LIKELY TO BREAK HERE" and an arrow pointing at the section directly ahead of the ball turret.
> 
> I'm not sure if the turret is to blame, or the tail strike, or a combination of both.
> ...


I believe if you look at a B-17 IPC or structural repair manual, there is an assembly seam (Bulkhead 6) just foward of the turret. It seems if there is a load imposed on the fuselage that this point, there would be failure here as evident of the photo posted. The tail wheel can and did take up some of the impact in a gear up landing provided it extends.

BTW I attended an open house at the local GA airport in my area (See my post on this) The B-17, "Sentimental Journey" was there. I posed this question to one of the maintainers of this aircraft and his response was "if the ball doesn't cave in it will probably bend the fuselage."




HoHun said:


> Hm, with regard to the B-17 with intact fuselage, do you think it's possible that it actually had the port main wheel down, too?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Henning (HoHun)


Hard to say - the only way someone could really trend this is look at many of the photographs and talk to people who have flown on these aircraft. Based on speaking to surviving B-17 aircrew members and having the opportunity to see the aircraft up close I would believe that if a B-17 landed on the turret, there would be major structural damage and the turret itself would not necessarily collapse.


----------



## Graeme (Jun 9, 2008)

Turret Trivia...













(From Price/Spick's "Great Aircraft of WWII.)


On the subject of B-17 defensive armament, the British tested a Fortress II (FK165) with a modified nose incorporating a 40mm Vickers Gun. Tested from December 1942, it fired about 700 rounds successfully. The sighting position was in the 'gondola' beneath the gun...


----------



## jhor9 (Aug 5, 2008)

I will try to answer some of the above remarks. I flew 50 sorties as pilot.

Marcels answer was correct

My ball turret gunner was about 5'8" or 9.

During B17 transition I flew in C,D and E models, I can't remember the ball turrets, in combat I flew mostly F's and some G's the turrets wre the same.

During my tour (7/43 to 2/44) we never saw heated flying suits, temp were 
-50-60F, also waist windows were open

History channel had pictures once of a belly landing with the gunner trapped in the turret


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 5, 2008)

Hi jhor9 - nice to see you posting, hope all is well!


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 5, 2008)

Good to hear from you again jhor. Having seen you post since watching your interview. Missed you sharing your insight with us.


----------



## Hoosier Hot Shot (Apr 20, 2012)

I was a ball (belly) turret gunner on a B-24 in the Pacific in 1944. For some clarification, I was about 5' 9" and about 135 pounds. I did not wear a parachute (we wore a harness and had to exit the turret and snap on a chest pack if necessary) but without the chute, it was not uncomfortable for me.
The real problem was correcting a stoppage in a gun. Normally one lifts the "top cover" which could be raised to 90 degrees, allowing access to the chamber and the bolt. In the ball/belly turret, this was impossible, so they made the"top/cover" slotted at the hinge end, and one lifted it an inch or two, then removed the cover. This allowed about two or three inches to access the mechanism and clear a stoppage. Believe me, clearing a stoppage in that small space was hard on the fingers. 
We had lots of bad ammo and stoppages were a serious problem because access was severely limited. 
On "ordinary" fifties, one pulled back on a handle to "charge" the gun; in the ball/belly, there was a wire and pully arrangement - not enough room for the normal arrangement. The handle was attached to a wire and through a pully, moved he bolt back.
The computing sight was nice, but rather dificult to operate; had to adjust range by raising and lowering your heel in a stirrup, and because the sight was always taking motion into account, the operator had to learn to use it. If you moved too fast, the sight would move off the target as a result of your motion.
I would love to hear from any other ball/belly turret gunners! They aren't making them anymore, you know!
Tom McCarthy (The Hoosier Hotshot)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Apr 20, 2012)

Good info Tom, and greatest respect to you, riding in on of those bowls !!


----------



## seesul (Sep 11, 2020)

evangilder said:


> Ugh, I have heard so many bad things about those Bendix turrets. I'd almost rather take my chances in a ball turret. I am not aware of any retractable B-17 ball turrets either. They did have tool kits that were used to jettison the turret in the event of a wheels up landing. If the turret was dropped before landing, the B-17 could be back in the air in a matter of days. If the ball stayed on, it would break the back of the Fortress.
> 
> Below is a shot I took in Nine-Oh-Nine last year. It's kind of hard to see the support post going all the way to the top of the fuselage because of the wiring harness above the O2 bottle.
> 
> View attachment 393412



Eric,

don't you know where this special tool box was placed and don't you have a picture of it?


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 11, 2020)




----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 11, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


>




I just discovered I’ve been going to the wrong gun range.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

