B-17s and Their Gunners

[Charge]

I recall that Spoden really thought that shooting in the wings would give the crew time to get out and did not really confirm later on whether or not this was true, or maybe he did but did not want to bring that up in his book, While Zorner ponders this matter a bit more and realizes that very few people survived from bombers he shot down. What is strange that usually they theoretically had time to bail out but for some reason were unable to even if the plane was in a slight descent. Maybe it was difficult to get out from a Lanc even with a light G onset, dunno.

Spoden was shot down by tail gunners a few times, though.

-C+

[33Vortex]

Well, what was Spoden's closure rate when attacking? What window did he have to actually spot parachutes from the lanc he shot at? Probably none, so I'm guessing this was only his theory that it would give the crew a chance to bail out and why would it not? I mean it certainly give them a better chance than if the whole fuselage was shot up or severed, right? Spoden also says, primarily the reason was because there were the fuel tanks. So the crew was the secondary consideration and less important than actually bringing the aircraft down.

Consider that some of the easier rides at your local theme park involve maybe 2-3 G of acceleration. Try standing up and getting out. Imagine doing that in full flight gear, in cramped compartments and the blackness of night. They also had to open a hatch/door to get out... several challenges either one of which can prove to be too much.

[SDGhalo]

Well, what was Spoden's closure rate when attacking? What window did he have to actually spot parachutes from the lanc he shot at? Probably none, so I'm guessing this was only his theory that it would give the crew a chance to bail out and why would it not? I mean it certainly give them a better chance than if the whole fuselage was shot up or severed, right? Spoden also says, primarily the reason was because there were the fuel tanks. So the crew was the secondary consideration and less important than actually bringing the aircraft down.

Consider that some of the easier rides at your local theme park involve maybe 2-3 G of acceleration. Try standing up and getting out. Imagine doing that in full flight gear, in cramped compartments and the blackness of night. They also had to open a hatch/door to get out... several challenges either one of which can prove to be too much.

not to mention the wingspare that came through the lanc. that some of the crew had to climb over.
 

[Charge]

This video shows quite well the crampedness of a turret:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZKG1cc8Bgg&feature=related

I found only parts 2,4, and 7 of this drill film.

I guess every plane with a "manual exit system" can be tricky in the event of emergency. I recall that Zorner was quite mad to British high command for sending young men to war in such death trap (Lancaster). Later on he nearly faced the same fate when trying to exit from a burning 110 and he and his radar operator bot got stuck in the plane. Spoden nearly perished as he had ejected from 110 and got stuck in the tail plane and nearly went all the way into ground before he was able to release himself and deploy his chute.

-C+

[MiloMorai]

not to mention the wingspare that came through the lanc. that some of the crew had to climb over.
 

What crew would that be?

Nose gunner and bombardier went out through the hatch in the bottom of the nose. The pilot, navigator and radio operator went out through the hatch in the canopy. The mid upper gunner went out through the hatch in the side of the fuselage in front of the tail plane. The rear gunner rotated his turret and went out through the door in the back of the turret.

[Charge]

The rear gunner maybe had best chances to bail out if he survived the first attack. Although many times they kept their parachutes on the fuselage side and had to grab it before closing the turret hatch again, attaching the chute and turning the turret all the way to the side so they could exit through the turret hatch. Nicholas Alkemade faced the grim choice of burning alive or bailing out without his chute which burned because he did not have it on in the turret. He chose to bail out without chute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Alkemade

-C+

[SDGhalo]

What crew would that be?

Nose gunner and bombardier went out through the hatch in the bottom of the nose. The pilot, navigator and radio operator went out through the hatch in the canopy. The mid upper gunner went out through the hatch in the side of the fuselage in front of the tail plane. The rear gunner rotated his turret and went out through the door in the back of the turret.

im saying in general oh and you forgot the flight engineer but thats not my point. i mean sure in level flight they can all get out if the pilot holding her. he would have seconds though once he let go to get to the front hatch until she started going down.

but now put into play its dark out your plane gets hit by fighters or flak and starts burning and your pilot Bomb aimer and the flight Eng get it. and as she starts going down your instinct say get to the main hatch which every one uses to get into the bomber. the tail gunner has to open his door to grab his chute and clip it on before he can rotate it and plop out. the nav and the rad op would be in trouble since they have to climb over the spar.

[MiloMorai]

the nav and the rad op would be in trouble since they have to climb over the spar.

To do that they would be going backwards when their escape hatch is forward.
http://www.lancaster-archive.com/lanc_parachute.htm

Position    Location
Pilot    Seated on the left hand side of the cockpit. There was no Co-Pilot
Flight Engineer    Seated next to the pilot on a folding seat
Navigator    Seated at a table facing to the port (left) of the aircraft and directly behind the pilot and flight engineer
Bomb Aimer    Seated when operating the front gun turret, but positioned in a laying position when directing the pilot on to the aiming point prior to releasing the bomb load
Wireless Operator    Seated facing forward and directly beside the navigator[/b]
Mid-Upper Gunner    Seated in the mid upper turret, which was also in the unheated section of the fuselage
Rear Gunner    "Tail End Charlie" seated in the rear turret this to was in the unheated section of the fuselage and was also the most isolated position. Most rear gunner's once in their turret's did not see another member of the crew until the aircraft returned to base, sometimes 10 hours after departing

You forgot that the nav and rad op would also have to somehow get past the mid upper turret if they wanted to exit via the crew entry hatch.

[Brooke]

I'm reading "JG26:  Top Guns of the Luftwaffe" currently.  (An excellent and thorough book so far.)

This is only an anecdotal observation, but in my reading so far, it seems like the JG26 pilots suffered about as many losses from bomber gunners as from enemy fighters.  This is based on German fighter pilots reporting who was lost and how, not based on claims from US bomber gunners.

[Oldman731]

I'm reading "JG26:  Top Guns of the Luftwaffe" currently.  (An excellent and thorough book so far.)

One of the best unit histories ever written, IMHO, certainly the best English book on a Luftwaffe unit.  The author conducted the same depth of research that Roger Freeman did on his 8th AF histories.

- oldman

[Squire]

Seriously though, over 5000 night bombers from Bomber Command were lost during the course of the war

There were 4145 heavy bombers lost with the English based USAAF 8th AF from late 1942-45. That said RAF per sortie bomber losses were heavier in WW2 @ 5 percent or so to the 8th AF @ 3.8 percent. War is a messy business...there are a plethora of ways to die in a plane in war. In any case the tactics were polar opposites in mass raids into Occupied Europe; the RAF used bomber streams and night to do it, where defensive fire from formations was not practical as you could not safely fly close together at night. The USAAF flew during the day and as such required by tactical neccesity to fly in close formation with a lot of guns vs day fighters. Neither air force flew the mission profile they intended at the beggining of the war.

Both methods were dangerous and both had their benefits and unique problems. Its also worth pointing out that despite all the extra guns, including belly turrets the 8th AF required many squadrons worth of escorts. There seems to be little evidence that belly turrets were a panacea? The heavies needed either the cover of night or a substantial fighter escort to avoid heavy losses.  Even the YB-40s were of no real value festooned as they were with extra guns.

As for the night bombers electronic jammers, window, the cover of night, some escorting night fighters and other tactics were the best defense against night fighters. Not being detected at all was the best defense. There were many other dangers than just fighters for both air forces; collisions, takeoffs and landings, bad weather, mechanical problems, navigation errors and all sorts of other awfull things awaited every mission not to mention the pervasive FLAK.


 

[Raptor05121]

This is a very interesting topic. I'm enjoying the reading <S>