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

[bowfin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[tyrodtom]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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