Most dangerous position in a B-17

[GrauGeist]

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.

Up through the "F" variant of the B-17, the front was lightly armed.
Due to the frontal attacks, the Chin turret was introduced on late "F" types and became standard on the "G".

 

[Milosh]

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

clock positions so 12 would be the front, 6 the rear.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

So, based on those numbers, bomber formations were primarily being attacked from the front or rear.

 

[fubar57]

But these days, fewer would seem to know that

​

I'm trying to teach my 8yr old grandson the time on our standard clock in the living room but he just points to the digital one on the stove

 

[Milosh]

So, based on those numbers, bomber formations were primarily being attacked from the front or rear.

Yes, no need for deflection shots.

One thing is they say azimuth but don't break it down whether the attack was high or low or in-between.

 

[GrauGeist]

On most bombers, a head-on attack (attacking from the 12 O'clock) offered less exposure to defensive fire as well as the possibility of taking out the pilot/co-pilot.
Lancasters, B-17s, B-24s, Stirlings, etc. only had a few forward Mgs as well as the upper turret to challenge the attack.

Coming in from the rear, the the defensive fire would be stronger (depending on bomber type) with tail-guns, upper/lower turrets and waist gunners as the attacker approached and over-took the bomber, plus the time of exposure to defensive fire was greater, too.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

IIRC, frontal attacks were why the B-24 had the nose turret installed from the later -G and all -H models going forward as well. From appearances, it seems that the -24's Emerson would have a much better arc of fire than the B-17's chin turret.

 

[pbehn]

The LW noticed straight away that the B-17 (Fortress 1) was vulnerable to frontal attack and the British noted it too. This was quite normal in the era, some RAF pilots favoured a head on attack in the BoB and Winkle Brown identified the Condor being weak in that area, so that is how he attacked them.

 

[special ed]

I have read, and on this forum as well, that when attacked from the front, the gunners, top and/or bombardier, would call for the pilot to nose up so the chin turret could fire as well. I have always assumed this was not in box formation but as a straggler.

 

[special ed]

Another bit of trivia slightly off topic was those who intercepted Bear bombers on patrol could tell by the tail gun barrels how close they could come. If the barrels pointed up, it was ok to come close enough to take pictures, theirs and ours. If the barrels pointed straight to the rear, keep your distance. When I heard this, I asked some who had been there and it was confirmed.

 

[Tinn]

If I had to choose a position on a B-17 (or B-24) I would opt for Maintenance Crew Chief

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

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

Possibly check out the Mediterranean Air War Series by Chris Shores et. al. Frank Olynyk expressed a possible interest in doing a by position casualty count for the heavy bombers as part of the research, using the relevant MACR. I do not know if it has been done or published. The cause of loss would affect crew survival chances, both total and by position

The data I have is simply total casualties for the entire war, the 8th AF B-17 listed as lost to fighters had an average crew size of 9.74, of which an average of 3.6 were killed. For flak losses 9.16 and 2.93. Reflecting the changes in crew sizes in 1944. From 1,429 B-17 losses to fighters and 1,379 to flak.

Early losses had higher casualty rates, to end May 1943, 112 B-17 lost to fighters, average crew size 10.05, of which an average of 5.54 killed. For the 38 B-17 listed as lost to flak the numbers were 10.03 and 4.18.

From a slightly later set of data, which has 4,508 B-17 losses of which 1,440 to fighter, 1,405 to flak. Collisions saw an average of 6.5 men killed per aircraft, crashes 3.6, fighters 3.57, take off accidents 3.04, flak 2.93, flak and fighter 2.85, friendly fire (usually bomb) 2.67, mechanical failure 1.7. Fatalities on aircraft considered to have been lost to fighter attack were 5,143 men, flak 4,123, collisions 1,607 then crashes with 519, out of 12,815 fatalities.

An incomplete list of 8th Air Force B-24 losses indicates close to half of the men on board were killed when the aircraft was shot down by fighters, while losses to flak had a slightly higher fatality rate than the B-17.

 

[GrauGeist]

Possibly check out the Mediterranean Air War Series by Chris Shores et. al. Frank Olynyk expressed a possible interest in doing a by position casualty count for the heavy bombers as part of the research, using the relevant MACR. I do not know if it has been done or published. The cause of loss would affect crew survival chances, both total and by position

The data I have is simply total casualties for the entire war, the 8th AF B-17 listed as lost to fighters had an average crew size of 9.74, of which an average of 3.6 were killed. For flak losses 9.16 and 2.93. Reflecting the changes in crew sizes in 1944. From 1,429 B-17 losses to fighters and 1,379 to flak.

Early losses had higher casualty rates, to end May 1943, 112 B-17 lost to fighters, average crew size 10.05, of which an average of 5.54 killed. For the 38 B-17 listed as lost to flak the numbers were 10.03 and 4.18.

From a slightly later set of data, which has 4,508 B-17 losses of which 1,440 to fighter, 1,405 to flak. Collisions saw an average of 6.5 men killed per aircraft, crashes 3.6, fighters 3.57, take off accidents 3.04, flak 2.93, flak and fighter 2.85, friendly fire (usually bomb) 2.67, mechanical failure 1.7. Fatalities on aircraft considered to have been lost to fighter attack were 5,143 men, flak 4,123, collisions 1,607 then crashes with 519, out of 12,815 fatalities.

An incomplete list of 8th Air Force B-24 losses indicates close to half of the men on board were killed when the aircraft was shot down by fighters, while losses to flak had a slightly higher fatality rate than the B-17.

What does this dissertation have to do with the most dangerous position for a crewmember aboard a bomber?

 

[Simon Thomas]

It was obvious to me.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

What does this dissertation have to do with the most dangerous position for a crewmember aboard a bomber?

Perhaps not directly germane to the topic, but it's interesting info to me nonetheless.

 

[bwiechman]

Various books by German pilots indicated they didn't like attacking from the rear. The slow closing speed made them more vulnerable to return fire. This was mentioned in A Higher Call, and several others.

 

[Acheron]

AFAIK, normally, a fighter would like to come up to a bomber from behind, match airspeeds and shoot the big plane up at its leisure.

I suspect against US bomber formations though, Luftwaffe pilots wanted to keep the engagement times short, because the bombers shot back a lot. So, attack from the front, the combined airspeeds of the crafts would shorten the time each side could shoot at the other.

 

[Zipper730]

I was thinking about something for a second regarding the waist gunners, there were two waist gunners on a B-17, but only one of every other position (the exception being pilots, but they were divided into pilot/co-pilot). With a total casualty figure being 147 for the waist gunners (22.76%), and 102 killed (20.82%), that comes out to 73.5 & 51 for each one, making for 11.38% / 10.41%.

Looking at these figures, you end up with

Crew-Position...................Casualties..............
.........................-Total.........Killed........Wounded
Pilot..................-10.68%....11.84%....-7.05%
Co-Pilot..............9.75%....-11.43%.../-4.49%
Navigator...........10.99%....11.43%.../..9.62%
Radioman..........11.15%..._.9.59%.../..8.97%
Top-Turret..........11.76%.../11.43%....18.59%
Left Waist..........11.73%...-10.41%....14.42%
Right Waist........11.73%...-10.41%....14.42%
Bottom Turret....10.99%.....11.63%....-8.97%
Tail Turret...........100.-%......100.-%....100.-%

 

[fubar57]

 

[wuzak]

"Considered one of the most important defensive positions aboard the bombers, the two waist gunners were supplied with maximum ammunition, but being back-to-back, they often got in each other's way. Even as infrequency of beam attacks and the limited field of fire of the guns mitigated the effectiveness of the station, its exposed nature made it one of the most dangerous to occupy."

Seems odd that "one of the most important positions" was subject to infrequent attacks and was also of limited effectiveness. And one of the most dangerous positions at the same time.