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

[Jack_Hill]

Yes, many highly skilled luftwaffe fighter pilots were dead or exhausted by 1944.
And rookies, maybe, had no training,fuel,skill, motivation or guts enough.
Though, if not rlm official tactic (had rlm efficient official something by this time ?) for bomber boxes attack, common way was from the rear, prefering isolated a/c.
First, eliminating the tail gunner thread, meanwhile striking the fin/rudder/elevators ensemble.
Shells penetrating almost straight,deeply into fuselage,causing heavy structural/crew/hydraulic/oxygen/electric damages wich, if a successful pass,could turn a living B17 into an easy prey or dead man walking.
By the end of 43, tail gunners did the hardest job to my eyes.

 

[CBBEhr]

B-17Gs would
At waist positions have perspex window panels and reflector sights
Top turret and ball turret would have computing sights
Crewman would have chest chute
Radio room gunner would double duty as 2nd waist gunner, removeable panel in top of radio room
Lead bombardier did not use guns after IP reached, finding target.
Tail gunner might fire in direction of friendly aircraft to let them know they should not be there

 

[MIflyer]

Looking at a B-24 tail turret, it seems to have a better view and field of fire than just about any other US aircraft. Reportedly the Germans had a healthy respect for it.

The father of an officer I served with was a B-24 waist gunner with the 8th AF in WWII. He said there was was one tail gunner with his outfit that was famous for getting a number of kills. His dad asked him how he did it.

The tailgunner explained that when he saw a German fighter approaching rather than open fire on it at maximum range he held his fire and moved the guns up and down and from side to side, to make the German think the guns were jammed. The German would think he could get in close before firing and then .... Bam! The gunner blew him away.

It would seem to be logical that other gunners be advised of the tactic but I suppose the rest of the crew did not want to screw up a good thing they had going.

 

[BiffF15]

Looking at a B-24 tail turret, it seems to have a better view and field of fire than just about any other US aircraft. Reportedly the Germans had a healthy respect for it.

The father of an officer I served with was a B-24 waist gunner with the 8th AF in WWII. He said there was was one tail gunner with his outfit that was famous for getting a number of kills. His dad asked him how he did it.

The tailgunner explained that when he saw a German fighter approaching rather than open fire on it at maximum range he held his fire and moved the guns up and down and from side to side, to make the German think the guns were jammed. The German would think he could get in close before firing and then .... Bam! The gunner blew him away.

It would seem to be logical that other gunners be advised of the tactic but I suppose the rest of the crew did not want to screw up a good thing they had going.

The lame duck trick. I used it many times in the Eagle when fighting F16s. Loved it, worked well!

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Glider]

All I can say is that in Europe around D Day 8th Airforce B24's had the ventral turrets removed to save weight and because of the lack of effectiveness. They also went from two waist gunners to one.
The lower weight also improved handling at high altitude.

Source the 1000 Day Battle which concentrates on the B24 units in the 8th Airforce

 

[mcoffee]

Attached is the request from the 2AD to remove B-24 ball turrets. The supporting data shows that the ball turrets had only 5% of the total encounters, declining in the April '44 month to 3.7%. It is interesting to note that the percentage of claims for each position closely tracks the percentage of encounters for that position. No position's percentage of claims was significantly different than its percentage of encounters. The tail turret had twice the encounters of the other positions, but only more successful because of the greater opportunities.

While most of the replies in this thread are old, the statements such as "spraying thousands of poorly aimed .50cal rounds" are absurd. The gunners were trained to only fire at aircraft directly threatening their particular box. There were not shooting at anything they saw. Also, aiming a flexible gun in the waist position was a much more natural motion than operating a power turret where one control was used for azimuth and another for elevation. Like aiming an Etch-A-Sketch.

 

[MIflyer]

In the Pacific I understand they eventually removed the tail turrets from the B-24's and replaced them with position that was more or less open to the rear. I think weight reduction may have been the primary objective but it is possible that they were on more lower altitude missions as well, where fresh air was more important that keeping the breeze outside.

 

[Milosh]

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

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

 

[fubar57]

 

[Timppa]

Testing done by the USAAF found that the bullet pattern from a B-17 during ground testing had the following results for 12 rounds ,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

The first number may be the gunner position. You know what position ?
Second number may be the hit percentage. But the sum is more than 100. ?
Third number may be the azimuth. But what is the reference vector ?

 

[Milosh]

Timppa, the numbers are clock positions. 12 would be head on attack and 6 would be an attack from the rear.

Yes the numbers don't add up to 100, but iric they were from a hard to read diagram I had found on the inet at one time.

Azimuth would be low to high attacks.

12 - 20.2/15.6

12 is clock position
20.2 would be the percentage of the attacks
15.5 would be the number of hits on the a/c.

 

[GrauGeist]

They would have done better leaving the guns back in England and exchanging the weight for speed at least in the early years of the war. Hitting fighter/fighter bomber, with a 50 cal from a moving bomber was pure luck. The only value in my opinion is purely psychological for the gunner. Might as well have thrown oranges at the 109's and 190's.....

Well, the Luftwaffe went to great lengths to armor the Fw190 against defensive oranges, now, didn't they?

 

[Shortround6]

They would have done better leaving the guns back in England and exchanging the weight for speed at least in the early years of the war. Hitting fighter/fighter bomber, with a 50 cal from a moving bomber was pure luck. The only value in my opinion is purely psychological for the gunner. Might as well have thrown oranges at the 109's and 190's.....

This comes up lot in discussion about guns on bombers. However the actual increase in speed on an existing bomber by leaving the guns and ammo home (and the gunners and plating over the openings) is not that great. You have already paid a large penalty in a larger, higher drag fuselage and in using a wing sized to carry the weight of the guns/mountings/ammo/gunners.
If designing with with a clean sheet of paper you can use a smaller fuselage to house the smaller crew and use a smaller wing to lift the lower weight.
It is also a fallacy that weight and speed are closely related. Weight and drag are closely related.
For instance this turret

was going to cost a lot more in speed due to drag than it's weight is going cost.
whereas a turret like this

has a lot less drag.

Anybody who thinks that by ditching the guns/ammo and gunners on an already existing bomber they will pick up meaningful increases in speed is invited to look up the Avro Lancastrian, Handley Page Halton, Consolidated C-87 or Boeing C-108.

 

[Milosh]

Of what use were the waist gunners?

 

[GrauGeist]

Of what use were the waist gunners?

On several bomber types, the upper turret was not able to depress well enough to provide protection to the rear quarter. The lower or ball turret (depending on the aircraft) was not able to elevate enough to also cover the rear quarter.
On a B-17, the upper turret was well foreward and the single MG of the Radio Operator was only good for high to horizontal six-O'clock attackers, so the port and starboard waist gunners provided a wide area of defensive fire.

 

[MIflyer]

Note that the PB4Y-2 retained the B-24 tail turret, replaced the nose turret with a totally cool looking ERCO turret, added another top turret, and replaced the open side window gun positions with ERCO waist turrets, which had the ability to fire under the airplane. They had no ball turret in the belly.

These turrets were fed ammo via chutes. When my friend Bob Berry's PB4Y-2 was attached by 12 George II fighters making head on passes, the ammo feed on one side turret failed, the nose turret had the top blown off, and the forward top turret was put out of action. When the nose gunner did not respond to the pilot's questions as to his condition, Bob was ordered to take over the nose turret. As it turned out the nose gunner was only stunned, waved his hand to indicate he was okay, and went back to firing at the enemy fighters.

Bob's airplane was in formation with another PB4Y-2, and that day they together shot down two George fighters and escaped with one wounded man, some shot up radio equipment, and a dead engine they had to shut down because the throttle had been shot away.

Turned out that the top turret had been disabled by a single enemy round that jammed in its gears. They pulled it out and Bob still has it as a memento.

Making head on passes on Privateers was a BAD idea, even if you outnumbered them Six to One.

 

[Shortround6]

If thats true, and im not trying to argue here. Why did they strip every gun, ammo belt, metal plate and anything else that wasnt bolted down when they launched B-25's for the Doolittle raid? I appreciate they had limited distance to take off, ie: a carrier deck, but they also had limited fuel range too. And why did the Germans remove rear gunners, metal plates, landing gear spats and even the jericho sirens just to exchange weight for speed on the already slow Ju-87. And B-17 G's had nose mounted turrets. Surely that would be a clear aerodynamic mistake for a bomber that already had a slow cruising speed.
Before fighters like the Fw-190 & P-47/ Hawker Typhoon/Tempest, F4U, designers were of the opinion radial engines were never going to be better or faster than inlines, because of the drag/large surface area. Even recon fighters were stripped of all guns and ammo in favour of speed...... To say the aspect of speed vs weight is irrelevant is just silly

OOOKAAY.
1, They did not strip every gun from the Doolittle raiders.

Yes they had to take off from the carrier deck and according to one source this is the fuel load.
"the retractable ventral turret was removed, saving about 600 pounds of weight. More fuel was added to the plane, bringing the total fuel load to 1141 gallons--646 gallons in the wing tanks, 225 gallons in the bomb bay tank, 160 gallons in a collapsable tank carried in the crawlspace above the bomb bay, 160 gallons in the ventral turret space, and ten 5-gallon cans for refills." They traded weight for fuel, not improved speed/performance by getting rid of weight.
2. I don't know about the JU-87 but is like putting lipstick on a pig. Were they improving speed? (and ditching the landing gear spats for naked landing gear is going to cost performance, not add to it.) Are you sure they weren't trying to carry a heavier than normal load?
3. Please compare speeds of a B-17G to a B-17F (without the front turret) the turret did cost some performance due to the increase in drag, the increase in weight ona B-17 is negligible.
4, I have no idea why you are bringing in the radial vs inline argument when the dispute is about weight vs speed.
5. Recon fighters were often stripped of guns (but not always) in order to fit either extra fuel or the cameras or to keep the CG in place with the change of equipment. Spitfires used the entire leading edge of the wing for fuel tanks. They traded armament weight for fuel weight. P-38s had up to five cameras in the nose and room and cg considerations dictated the removal of the guns.

A Merlin P-51 was 3 mph faster clean after it had burned off 1000lbs of fuel than when it was fully loaded but clean. Granted wing lift goes up with the square of the speed so a very fast plane is less bothered by weight increase than a slower plane.
Adding 15-20mph of cruise speed ( a liberal estimate) is not going to do much for survival against 350mph interceptors.

A lot of books about aircraft do confuse weight with loss of performance and ignore drag. Was it the weight of the Hispano cannon on the Spitfire that cost 5-6mph in speed or the projecting cannon barrels, the bumps on the wing to clear the ammunition feeds and the slot in the bottom of the wing for the cartridges to fall out of?

Was it the weight of the four cheek guns on a B-26 that had the manual saying the range was affected by 3% or the drag of the gun barrels and blisters?

 

[Ivan1GFP]

If thats true, and im not trying to argue here. Why did they strip every gun, ammo belt, metal plate and anything else that wasnt bolted down when they launched B-25's for the Doolittle raid? I appreciate they had limited distance to take off, ie: a carrier deck, but they also had limited fuel range too. And why did the Germans remove rear gunners, metal plates, landing gear spats and even the jericho sirens just to exchange weight for speed on the already slow Ju-87. And B-17 G's had nose mounted turrets. Surely that would be a clear aerodynamic mistake for a bomber that already had a slow cruising speed.
Before fighters like the Fw-190 & P-47/ Hawker Typhoon/Tempest, F4U, designers were of the opinion radial engines were never going to be better or faster than inlines, because of the drag/large surface area. Even recon fighters were stripped of all guns and ammo in favour of speed...... To say the aspect of speed vs weight is irrelevant is just silly

Hello Tagas,

I believe what Shortround6 meant to write was Speed and Drag are directly related.

As for Speed versus Weight, you will find that lowering the weight on most aircraft will not significantly increase the speed.
Figure the difference might be 1 or 2 percent.
What it DOES influence is Take-Off distances and Climb Rates which is probably the reason Doolittle's B-25B's left a lot of equipment home.
As for the StuKa, a reason for leaving off equipment might be that the runways they were using were terrible.
The wheel spats tended to get clogged up with mud. but leaving them off probably sacrificed a little speed not that it would make much difference with a Ju 87.

Regarding the Chin Turret on the B-17G:
You have to go back and look at the YB-40 escort version of the Flying Fortress. (See attached images)
It was an interesting idea. It had very little trouble flying with the loaded bombers on the way to the target but on the way back, the bombers were light and faster (yes, faster) and it could not keep up. Now keep in mind we are talking about a LOT of weight here, no just the bomb load but half the fuel would be gone along with some ammunition AND in leaving the target they would also be likely to be in a gradual descent.
The problem was that even on the way out, the YB-40 had much more drag and had to run higher throttle settings to keep up.
On the way out, neither the extra weight nor drag was easily disposable.

In reviewing what was the single best improvement in defence between the YB-40 and the regular B-17F, it appeared to be the Chin turret so it was added to the B-17G (actually started with the late B-17F).

- Ivan.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Looking at a B-24 tail turret, it seems to have a better view and field of fire than just about any other US aircraft. Reportedly the Germans had a healthy respect for it.

The father of an officer I served with was a B-24 waist gunner with the 8th AF in WWII. He said there was was one tail gunner with his outfit that was famous for getting a number of kills. His dad asked him how he did it.

The tailgunner explained that when he saw a German fighter approaching rather than open fire on it at maximum range he held his fire and moved the guns up and down and from side to side, to make the German think the guns were jammed. The German would think he could get in close before firing and then .... Bam! The gunner blew him away.

It would seem to be logical that other gunners be advised of the tactic but I suppose the rest of the crew did not want to screw up a good thing they had going.

The B-24 rear turret was the worst US turret of the war. Its is ironic in that the B-24's Martin upper turret was the best. The Consolidated tail turret was a fundamentally flawed design that as a consequence had very poor accuracy. Read chapter IX of the attached AAF Historical Study - Development of Aircraft Gun Turrets in the AAF 1917-1944.

 

[swampyankee]

There are two related issues: drag, which would slow down an aircraft and increase fuel needed for a mission and weight.

Looking at the second: say bomber X could carry 3,000 lb bombload to Berlin from bases in the UK. To get the required damage to the target, 150,000 lb of bombs are needed. This is 50 aircraft each with ten crew members. Get rid of the waist guns, saving their gunners (400 lb), guns, mounts, and sights (400 lb), and ammunition (200 lb), each aircraft can now carry 4,000 lb to Berlin. Now, there's only 38 aircraft required to perform the same mission.

Of course, now 1,000 lb more fuel can be carried in lieu of the bombs, which would permit more flexible routing or missions to more distant targets.