B-17s and Their Gunners

[Charge]

B24s and B17s would have probably done as well with only tail, ball and top turret. Generally it was thought that 17G was an upgrade with forward facing turret but with such brief firing opportunity against a fighter spitting 20mm and 30mm grenades I'd say they were more a hindrance than actual benefit, that is if you choose to ignore the effect on morale that you could do at least something against a HO attack. I'm not at all sure if implementation of more guns produced the side effect that German pilots changed tactics more than that they constantly needed to adapt to diminishing numbers, lack of experienced pilots and increasing amount of escorting fighters, but also to improvement of their effective armament against bombers and the need to change tactics because of that.

In practice for bombers to fly level and rely on their defensive armament was a good tactic as long as you could get several guns to fire at one attacker simultaneously, and also that for such defense a turreted gun is much more useful than a manually controlled gun which has a ridiculous dispersion even when fired from a level flying steady platform. Add to that even a slight amount of movement in platform and your chances to hit something are as much as 1:1,000,000 -of course if you shoot that much you will hit something.

-C+

[MiloMorai]

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.

There was ~50% more B-24s produced than B-17s.

This was posted on another board (numbers from the Army Air Forces Statistical Digest)

Average on hand from Jan 1994 to April 1945.

ETO
B-17 - 1852 (61.6%)
B-24 - 1154 (38.4%)

MTO
B-17 - 416 (30%)
B-24 - 970 (70%)


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

Note: might not total 100% as the graphic was hard to read

[33Vortex]

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."

Exactly the quote which came to mind as I read the OP but I did not take the time to dig it out. I agree that the gunners were indeed a big factor and if lenience was shown towards the end of the war in manning the planes properly, it was only because of the simple fact that the Luftwaffe had been defeated.

[Slade]

GOOB can you offer any facts to this discussion?

[Charge]

B17 tail turret > dia 45' - 25mils
B24 tail turret > dia 35' - 19.3mils

Strange. Were B17 tail turrets, early or Cheyenne, ever powered or just "hand-held"?

-C+

[Brooke]

I think that the guns on B-17's and B-24's did change LW tactics.  Consider that how to attack a Lancaster would be different than attacking a B-17 (the Lancaster having no bottom turret) and that based on the tail guns of B-17's and relative lack of forward guns, the LW changed to attacking from head on.  Based on AH flying, we know that attacking head on is much, much harder than attacking from the rear quarter, so it wasn't because it was a more-effective position to approach from irrespective of defensive guns.

[Charge]

I don't really know how the Lancs were attacked when they still did daytime raids but when they did night-time raids they were attacked from below because inserting guns shooting upwards was easier and it was also easier to aim those and usually it was also easier to spot the bombers if there was a cloud cover. It is interesting that while Brits eventually inserted the "Fishpond" feature in their H2S navigation radar they never installed even a hand-held gun to face downwards in Lancasters (I recall it was tried but not adopted). That is most likely because it was easier to just evade the night fighter than accept the complications of having a belly turret, basically it's a trade-off and in that case it was not worth it. Eventually as the speeds increased and suitable attacking angles were mostly from rear quarters it was not worth to have but only the tail turret, and when missiles were introduced, no guns at all.

When there were still experienced pilots available for LW the head-on attack was the most effective way of attack as even a brief burst from front practically guaranteed catastrophic damage to the bomber since most of the armor protection faced backwards and if you hit the bomber you probably hit the cockpit and engines. Flying straight into HO course was tricky, though, and US tactics to deny them by slightly changing course made it even more difficult. Flying the same course and turning back for HO attack effectively ended when escorts started to fly along the bombers into Germany.

Interesting video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dMog3T3CAc

-C+

[MiloMorai]

The first Lancs (Mk I, II) had a FN64 turret in the belly aft of the bomb bay. When the H2S was installed, it was removed as this was the location of the turret. There was also the poor visibility and lack of a regular crew member to man the position.

[Paladin3]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that they used to ferry them with farings over the gun ports. There was some thought that it gave better fuel economy and such. I spoke with a former gunner who said that during the war they had removed them from his B17 when it arrived across the pond but that it was the only time he saw it - and they even recyled them for something that he didn't remember.

[33Vortex]

I don't really know how the Lancs were attacked when they still did daytime raids but when they did night-time raids they were attacked from below because inserting guns shooting upwards was easier and it was also easier to aim those and usually it was also easier to spot the bombers if there was a cloud cover. It is interesting that while Brits eventually inserted the "Fishpond" feature in their H2S navigation radar they never installed even a hand-held gun to face downwards in Lancasters (I recall it was tried but not adopted). That is most likely because it was easier to just evade the night fighter than accept the complications of having a belly turret, basically it's a trade-off and in that case it was not worth it.

Interesting parts from a interview with Peter Spoden, a Luftwaffe night-fighter ace.

According to this video, though it may be disputed, Bomber Command refused to remedy the problem, facing it with what some might call typically british pig-headedness in face of facts. Seriously though, over 5000 night bombers from Bomber Command were lost during the course of the war, the lack of a belly turret is one obvious major cause for this.

[Ack-Ack]

RAF Bomber Command felt that the best defense at night was to get lost in the darkness, that is why gunners had standing orders not to fire unless they were in immediate danger that they had to fire their guns.  Remember, the Corkscrew Maneuver was the primary defensive tactic used by Lancaster crews during night time raids.

ack-ack

[zippo]

  Sort of on topic...Google Bell P63 pinball.  Live target for realistic gunnery training.  Even with frangible bullets I don't think I would have wanted to do that.

[MiloMorai]

FN.20 Tail Turret

Traverse: 94 degrees to each beam
Elevation: 60 degrees
Depression: 45 degrees

[Charge]

"Interesting parts from a interview with Peter Spoden, a Luftwaffe night-fighter ace."

I have his book, with signature.   

Just finished reading a book of Paul Zorner who was also a night fighter ace and I can recommend his book to anybody interested on subject. Not sure if it's available in English.

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

Nächte im Bomberstrom. Erinnerungen 1920-1950. By Paul Zorner. Ed. Kurt Braatz. Wang, Germany: Verlag NeuundzwanzigSechs, 2007. ISBN 978-3-980-7935-9-9.

I understand from Zorner's book that he was very very rarely shot at by the rear gunner and that it was usual that only few of the crew got out from Lancasters, although he too recalls only shooting in the wings to light the fuel tanks, contrary to what Spoden believed.

So, as it was difficult to provide a working sighting system for belly turrets many designs relied on periscopic systems which were deemed inadequate even for daytime use. I'm not sure if there was any belly turrets available which would provide as good view as any of the tail turrets, so if even the tail turret guys rarely saw the attacking fighters it would be pointless to install a belly turret which simply would not work anyway. The most skilled night fighter pilots always tried to ensure they were not seen as they attacked and if there was such risk they just held back and approached from a less detectable position.

Interesting info here:

http://lancaster-archive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2256&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

http://lancaster-archive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2256&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=20

-C+

[33Vortex]

"Interesting parts from a interview with Peter Spoden, a Luftwaffe night-fighter ace."

I have his book, with signature.   

Just finished reading a book of Paul Zorner who was also a night fighter ace and I can recommend his book to anybody interested on subject. Not sure if it's available in English.

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

Nächte im Bomberstrom. Erinnerungen 1920-1950. By Paul Zorner. Ed. Kurt Braatz. Wang, Germany: Verlag NeuundzwanzigSechs, 2007. ISBN 978-3-980-7935-9-9.

I understand from Zorner's book that he was very very rarely shot at by the rear gunner and that it was usual that only few of the crew got out from Lancasters, although he too recalls only shooting in the wings to light the fuel tanks, contrary to what Spoden believed.

So, as it was difficult to provide a working sighting system for belly turrets many designs relied on periscopic systems which were deemed inadequate even for daytime use. I'm not sure if there was any belly turrets available which would provide as good view as any of the tail turrets, so if even the tail turret guys rarely saw the attacking fighters it would be pointless to install a belly turret which simply would not work anyway. The most skilled night fighter pilots always tried to ensure they were not seen as they attacked and if there was such risk they just held back and approached from a less detectable position.

Interesting info here:

http://lancaster-archive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2256&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

http://lancaster-archive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2256&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=20

-C+

Good points , but how did Spoden contradict this? I've not read his book.