Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Slade on January 29, 2012, 11:02:52 AM

Title: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Slade on January 29, 2012, 11:02:52 AM
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  :salute
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Karnak on January 29, 2012, 11:11:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Slade on January 29, 2012, 11:25:31 AM
Quote
...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.
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: MiloMorai on January 29, 2012, 12:24:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Grendel on January 29, 2012, 02:42:43 PM
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
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Slade on January 29, 2012, 06:01:42 PM
Quote
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".
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Karnak on January 29, 2012, 06:23:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Charge on January 30, 2012, 02:29:59 AM
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+
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Karnak on January 30, 2012, 08:12:20 AM
Late in the war the waist gunner positions were eliminated as I recall.
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: colmbo on January 30, 2012, 09:58:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Karnak on January 30, 2012, 10:03:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: colmbo on January 30, 2012, 05:22:26 PM
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? 
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Karnak on January 30, 2012, 05:31:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Brooke on January 30, 2012, 07:16:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Guppy35 on January 31, 2012, 12:59:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Charge on January 31, 2012, 03:06:24 AM
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+
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: MiloMorai on January 31, 2012, 07:44:14 AM
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
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: 33Vortex on January 31, 2012, 07:54:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Slade on January 31, 2012, 08:21:59 AM
GOOB can you offer any facts to this discussion?
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Charge on January 31, 2012, 08:30:15 AM
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+


Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Brooke on January 31, 2012, 02:58:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Charge on January 31, 2012, 05:37:12 PM
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+
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: MiloMorai on January 31, 2012, 06:19:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Paladin3 on February 09, 2012, 12:42:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: 33Vortex on February 09, 2012, 01:04:38 PM
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gi6UOoKItY), 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.
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Ack-Ack on February 09, 2012, 01:52:53 PM
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
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: zippo on February 09, 2012, 03:05:24 PM
  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.
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: MiloMorai on February 09, 2012, 05:29:35 PM
FN.20 Tail Turret

Traverse: 94 degrees to each beam
Elevation: 60 degrees
Depression: 45 degrees
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Charge on February 10, 2012, 04:05:18 AM
"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+

Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: 33Vortex on February 10, 2012, 04:51:56 AM
"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 :aok , but how did Spoden contradict this? I've not read his book.
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Charge on February 10, 2012, 06:01:46 AM
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+
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: 33Vortex on February 10, 2012, 06:45:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: SDGhalo on February 10, 2012, 10:02:42 PM
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.
 
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Charge on February 11, 2012, 02:32:50 AM
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+
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: MiloMorai on February 11, 2012, 09:28:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Charge on February 11, 2012, 01:08:58 PM
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+
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: SDGhalo on February 12, 2012, 09:36:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: MiloMorai on February 12, 2012, 11:46:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Brooke on February 13, 2012, 07:50:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Oldman731 on February 13, 2012, 07:55:50 PM
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
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Squire on February 14, 2012, 08:15:49 AM
Quote
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.


 
Title: Re: B-17s and Their Gunners
Post by: Raptor05121 on February 17, 2012, 10:38:01 AM
This is a very interesting topic. I'm enjoying the reading <S>