Most dangerous position in a B-17

[trackend]

Especially if you were "Tail End Charlie."

Very true FB some of those clips on this site are real tear jerkers those poor young sods didnt have a chance i think some people tend to look at a machine being shot down and forget the unlucky bastards inside. A tank exploding into flames looks spectacular but inside its boiled flesh and screaming .

 

[plan_D]

You knock out the tail-gunner then go for the vital parts of the wing e.g fuel lines, engines, control surfaces etc.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

He might have help from the Ball if the attack came from the bottom

Another thing to think about in the tail - when making adverse maneuvers or flying in turbulence, it has the most movement. Basically a "puke pit"

 

[CBBEhr]

As a docent at Evergreen in Mcminville I worked on the B-17
Turret lower casing was forged or cast aluminum pieces about 1/4" thick
Glass panels were perspex about 3/16" thick
Chest chutes were not initially available and gunner could not bail out

 

[Zipper730]

According to the 8th Air Force web page the best position was the Bombardier then the top turret/Waist gunner. The worst was the Radio/Pilot. The Waist gunner position was twice as bad accounting for the fact there were two. Ball turret,Navigator, Co-Pilot were about the same. It must be noted that this is for the 95th BG and go as follows

Pilot 58kia 11wia
Co- Pilot 56kia 7 wia
Nav 56kia 15wia
Top T 47kia 29wia
Radio 58 kia 14wia
Ball 56kia 21wia
waist 102kia 45wia
tail 57kia 14wia

As you can see it doesn't matter much where you are if your inside the plane.

The highest is however, the waist gunner.

 

[T Bolt]

Very good old thread.
One other unpleasant although not really hermful thing that B-24 tail gunners had to put up with was the after effect of the crew members using the aircrafts relef tubes during the mission. My father told me the tail gunners would bitch at the rest of the crew for using them becouse it would freeze on the outside of the fuselage, then when the aircraft came down for the landing in the warmer air it would thaw and stream into the tail turret all over the tail gunner.

 

[Milosh]

The highest is however, the waist gunner.

Pilots are higher if counted together like the waist position.

 

[Gleasonfan]

I just found this site today. My father's rating during The War was tail gunner. Why someone who was 5'10" was rated for the tail is beyond me. Fortunately he was such a good shot he became an instructor at Harlingen AFB Texas. Any way, he and my mom both said the running joke at any B-17 base was, "What does a B-17 pilot first ask for after a mission? Give me 2,000 gallons of fuel and a new tail gunner." He also said every B-17 belly landing he saw at Harlingen with the belly turret stuck down ended up with one less crew member. B-24's were supposedly worse.

 

[Milosh]

I just found this site today. My father's rating during The War was tail gunner. Why someone who was 5'10" was rated for the tail is beyond me. Fortunately he was such a good shot he became an instructor at Harlingen AFB Texas. Any way, he and my mom both said the running joke at any B-17 base was, "What does a B-17 pilot first ask for after a mission? Give me 2,000 gallons of fuel and a new tail gunner." He also said every B-17 belly landing he saw at Harlingen with the belly turret stuck down ended up with one less crew member. B-24's were supposedly worse.

Dad was a WAG and was the tail gunner in Coastal Command Wellingtons. He was 5'11". He said he would rotate the turret as far right or left and hang out of the turret more or less scanning the sea.

 

[pbehn]

There has to be a lot of survivor bias in this. If the two pilots are hit the plane doesnt get home and frequently no one else gets out. While in planes where the crew jumped out at least one pilot couldnt get out.

 

[Gleasonfan]

Another bit of trivia courtesy the "Ol Sergeant" - Total casualties in training were almost the same as casualties in combat during The War.

 

[pbehn]

Another bit of trivia courtesy the "Ol Sergeant" - Total casualties in training were almost the same as casualties in combat during The War.

I believe that was a matter that reached up as far as the USA congress as an issue? 10% of pilots were lost in training.


G Gleasonfan The reason why it reached congress is the same reason there are comprehensive statistics on it, it doesnt imply that the USA was any worse than anyone else, they werent.

 

[wuzak]

While the tail gunner was probably the most vulnerable, I would think he was the most effective. So the risk is justified by the reward.

What of other positions?

Were the waist gunners, for example, justified, or would a B-17 be better off without them?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

While the tail gunner was probably the most vulnerable, I would think he was the most effective. So the risk is justified by the reward.

What of other positions?

Were the waist gunners, for example, justified, or would a B-17 be better off without them?

Justified because of the slower speeds of the B-17 and B-24

Some food for thought about the tail gunner's position

When LeMay firebombed Japan, the tail gunner's position was the only gunner's position kept on the participating B-29s

Silverplate B-29s (the ones that carried nukes) kept the tail gunner's position.

Tail gunners remained a standard position well into the jet age.

The Soviets felt the position was important enough to have on transport aircraft.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The dismissal of frontal attacks as a deadly tactic doesn't comport with what I've read, which says that the high closing speed combined with weak frontal armament on the bombers made this a preferred approach by LW fighter pilots.

 

[Snautzer01]

The dismissal of frontal attacks as a deadly tactic doesn't comport with what I've read, which says that the high closing speed combined with weak frontal armament on the bombers made this a preferred approach by LW fighter pilots.

Quite richt, In fact the luftwaffe build special FW190 for this purpose.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The dismissal of frontal attacks as a deadly tactic doesn't comport with what I've read, which says that the high closing speed combined with weak frontal armament on the bombers made this a preferred approach by LW fighter pilots.

True, but the frontal attack was the tactic of the day for the Luftwaffe based on their ability to track and intercept large bomber formations. I think in the greater picture planners would assume that future operations would involve bombers being chased rather than confronted head on as this was evident when gunner positions started going away in the post war years and the last position maintained was the tail gunner.

Someone posted some statistics about Luftwaffe frontal attacks and their effectiveness and IIRC they weren't as effective in bringing down bombers as first thought.

 

[Milosh]

Someone posted some statistics about Luftwaffe frontal attacks and their effectiveness and IIRC they weren't as effective in bringing down bombers as first thought.

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

Can you imagine what the results would be while shooting at a real a/c traveling at high speed?

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

Note: might not total 100% as the graphic was hard to read.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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

Can you imagine what the results would be while shooting at a real a/c traveling at high speed?

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

Note: might not total 100% as the graphic was hard to read.

Great info - now in the 2nd part, numbers 1 - 12, which one is from head on or the nose?

 

[Snautzer01]

Frontal attacks could also brake up formation. I think a good reason.