Nose turrets on night bombers

[Reluctant Poster]

Well a crew member, as I remember they had to rig up styrrups to keep the gunners feet out of the bomb aimers eye line.

The mid upper turret was deleted

 

[Reluctant Poster]

The nose gunner on Lancs was the bomb aimer. In the case of the Ju-88, the pilot saw the fighter up ahead and called the bomb aimer, who then manned the turret and opened up on the fighter. I've never before read of a RAF night bomber gunner opening up on a fighter that was not after his own aircraft, but of course there were few instances indeed where that was even an option. If they saw a fighter going by that did not seem to be after them they usually left it alone so to prevent attracting attention. The B-29's on the night raids over Japan did the same thing.

The B24 front gunner doubled as the toggler when the 8th AAF switched to bombing on the lead aircraft making a trained bombardier redundant.

 

[pbehn]

The mid upper turret was deleted

Well yes, but it was a special squadron using special planes for a special mission. They didn't remove a squadrons turrets and think what to do with the man who was sat there.

 

[yulzari]

For pretty much every RAF bomber (Lancaster/Manchester, Halifax, Wellington, Whitley), the nose gunner was not a dedicated position but a task that the bombardier performed when not on the actual bombing run. It was an efficient use of personnel because the bombardier was only needed during the run over the target when, for the most part, the biggest threat was from flak rather than night fighters. For the rest of the mission, he'd just be deadweight so giving him the nose gunner job actually reduced the number of personnel required to man the bomber fleet.

Outside of the bombing run, having an extra pair of eyes in the forward hemisphere was a valuable addition to enhance situational awareness for the pilot. As others have noted, this function often had more to do with avoiding collision with other aircraft in the friendly bomber stream than it did to defend against enemy night fighters.

The removal of front turrets later in the war was largely to reduce weight and drag to improve speed. It did not result in smaller crews, however, because there was still a need for the bombardier.

A British Bombardier is a Corporal in the Royal Artillery. The person who aimed the bombs in the RAF was titled a 'Bomb Aimer'.

Yours Pedantically..........

 

[buffnut453]

A British Bombardier is a Corporal in the Royal Artillery. The person who aimed the bombs in the RAF was titled a 'Bomb Aimer'.

Yours Pedantically..........

Well, if we're being pedantic, the bombs weren't aimed. The aircraft was directed over the optimal aim point and then the bombs were dropped. Yes the position was "Bomb Aimer" but he was never the "person who aimed the bombs" because no such role existed.

And, for fear of starting a flame war, I'm chuckling as I write this, primarily at myself for using the American bombardier term when referring to the position in question...and I'm ex-RAF. I clearly need remedial re-blueing!!!

 

[stona]

Well, if we're being pedantic, the bombs weren't aimed.

I've spoken to a couple of bomb aimers who would strongly disagree with that. They would point out that sights are used for aiming, and their beloved Mk XIV was exactly that. To be pedantic, bombs are aimed by attempting to position the aircraft at the correct point in space so that when released the bombs will hit the appropriately named aiming point.

 

[swampyankee]

I assume that over europe during night night bomber runs, the night fighter did not attack head on. Closing speeds greater than 500 mph at night seem an unlikely strategy. If this is true, did night bombers carry nose gunners, nose guns, and ammo. Assuming it didn't greatly effect center-of-gravity, this reduces weight and reduces casualties if the bomber is lost.

The B-24, for example, had a nose gunner who was not also the bombardier.

While the Carpetbaggers were no longer bombing, their B-24s had the nose and belly turrets removed, the former because forward visibility was more important than a turret that wouldn't be used (if there was flak to suppress, they were in the wrong place) and the latter because there wouldn't be any fighters attacking from beneath (my uncle related how they would frequently have to pull up to miss steeples)

 

[Admiral Beez]

Was anything greater than twin guns installed in bomber nose turrets? The B-17G had four guns in the nose, but only two in the turret. Is this six gun turret legit?

B-17G Fitted With SIX .50Cal Machine Guns In The Front "Turret" - Aviation Humor

 

[gjs238]

Was anything greater than twin guns installed in bomber nose turrets? The B-17G had four guns in the nose, but only two in the turret. Is this six gun turret legit?

B-17G Fitted With SIX .50Cal Machine Guns In The Front "Turret" - Aviation Humor

B-17G with a 20 mm cannon onboard!

 

[yulzari]

Well Coastal Command tried a 40mm S Gun on one of their B17s

 

[fubar57]

The 6 gun turret mentioned in gjs238's post is "A B-17 Flying Fortress (serial number 42-31435) nicknamed "West's End" of the 384th Bomb Group. Handwritten caption on reverse: 'West's End, 231435. Chin turret removed 6/1/44. Guns fired by pilot. A/C belly landed 6/7/44 after raid in southern England" The photo is copyrighted by George F. Sheehan Jr from the Roger Freeman Collection and may only be used by permission here...Terms & Conditions | American Air Museum in Britain The guns were in a fixed position