B-17s and Their Gunners

[Slade]

Hello,

In a lively discussion over the pros and cons of having gunners on a B-17 (equipt to have guns) left me wondering what the facts are.

[Question]
Were there any B-17 pilots (whose planes were equipt to have guns) flying in the European theater that routinely preferred NOT to have any gunners?

I can live with the facts.  I'd just like to know if any, or even what percentage, flew over Hitler's Germany and opted to have the gunners booted out because some viewed them as ineffectual.  I know if I were a B-17 pilot I'd want the gunners but that is just me.

Just looking for the facts on this topic.


Thanks,

Slade 

[Karnak]

I can't see any advantage to it, other than limiting casualties, given that you still have the turrets and guns and are still limited to having to fly at about 200mph in formation.  The idea of no guns and no gunners as on the Mossie requires the bomber to be free to use speed and maneuverability to evade interception, which a gunnerless B-17 would still not have.

[Slade]

...requires the bomber to be free to use speed and maneuverability to evade interception, which a gunnerless B-17 would still not have.

That makes sense sir.  I am starting to wonder if the gentlemen arguing so staunchly about B-17s not having gunners was less than 12 years old.

[MiloMorai]

Possibly the waist gunners (and hand held guns)  could have been eliminated. The radio operator gun was not of much use, so could have been eliminated as well.

[Grendel]

Having gunners or not was not pilot's decision. It was doctrine.
B-17's doctrine was to fly in formation and to rely on heavy defensive firepower of a group.
B-25s and B-26s also always naturally flew with their gunners.
What would be the point of leaving gunners away? You get slightly lighter plane with no defensive power and absolutely meaningless increase in performance, while still having the equipment, crew positions and aerodynamic effects.

g

[Slade]

What would be the point of leaving gunners away?

To defend the person that was so attached to this statement (not I), he said that it was statistically proven during the war that they were not effective.  His quote, "it took 1 million gunner rounds to kill one plane".

[Karnak]

To defend the person that was so attached to this statement (not I), he said that it was statistically proven during the war that they were not effective.  His quote, "it took 1 million gunner rounds to kill one plane".

Kills are not the only purpose of defensive fire.  If it makes the attacking fighters hesitant or unwilling to close to ranges at which they become effective it helps keep the bombers safe too.

[Charge]

The waist gunners in B17 were not really of any other use than helping the tail gunner or ball gunner if anything went wrong. Leaving them away would mean a weight loss of 300kg (~600lbs).

Of course the amount of guns would mean a tremendous morale boost to crew but in practice the unpowered, turretless guns merely participated in defensive power only in a form of fireworks (which were sometimes enough to fend off the less determined interceptors).

-C+

[Karnak]

Late in the war the waist gunner positions were eliminated as I recall.

[colmbo]

Late in the war the waist gunner positions were eliminated as I recall.

Nope.  One crew position was done away with (9 instead of 10), but waist guns were used throughout the war.

[Karnak]

Nope.  One crew position was done away with (9 instead of 10), but waist guns were used throughout the war.

No, many B-17s were flying without waist guns at the end.  The Luftwaffe had just been so gutted.  Same reason you had Lancasters on day ops at the end.

[colmbo]

No, many B-17s were flying without waist guns at the end.  The Luftwaffe had just been so gutted.  Same reason you had Lancasters on day ops at the end.

Where did you get that info please? 

[Karnak]

Where did you get that info please? 

Photos of B-17 crews with seven crew members. I will try to dig up documentation over the coming week.  If I fail I will withdraw the claim and plead faulty memory.

[Brooke]

It took a lot of rounds of gunner ammo per Luftwaffe plane shot down, but that is not the most-important statistic.  More important is how many Luftwaffe planes were shot down by B-17 and B-24 gunners.  (Keep in mind, there were slightly more B-24's in WWII than B-17's -- it's not only about B-17's.)  Also important is that Luftwaffe fighters didn't like to hang around among the bombers because of how heavily gunned they were.  It changed their tactics and their time of fire on bombers, which was very, very important.

An example of what LW pilots thought of this.  From "Fips" Phillips, a 200+ Eastern Front Ace wrote the following while in command of JG 1 defending against American Bombers over Northern Germany:  "Against 20 Russians trying to shoot you down or even 20 Spitfires, it can be exciting, even fun. But curve in towards 40 fortresses and all your past sins flash before your eyes."

I doubt very much that having gunners on B-17's and B-24's were not a major factor.

[Guppy35]

Photos of B-17 crews with seven crew members. I will try to dig up documentation over the coming week.  If I fail I will withdraw the claim and plead faulty memory.

This would  be a new one for me too karnak.  Thinking it's memory.

I know some groups did experiment with removing the chin turret and the ball turret at a point very late in the game.  94th BG I believe did it.

OK found reference to it.  No specific date, but in the last weeks of the war, figure mid April-May 45 the 94th removed the chin and ball turrets on their 17s.  Wasn't 8th AF wide though.