WW2 Bomber Gunner Stations

[BreakingBad]

I was wondering if there was a gunner station in American bombers during ww2 that a disproportionate success rate.

For example was one station responsible for the most air-to-air victories.  My guess if there was it would be the tail or turret station.

By the same token, were there stations that had a disproportionate mortality or wounding rate.

[wpeters]

I would say that the Tail gunner and Waist gunners would have been the most exposed to enemy fire

[GScholz]

Depends on aircraft type. In the B-17 I believe it was the ball-turret that was the most dangerous position aboard.

[Rino]

     Also on the B-17, the dorsal and ball turrets had the greatest field of fire.  The tail and nose <on G
models> came second with the radio operator's hand held .50 probably having the worst FoF.

[colmbo]

Depends on aircraft type. In the B-17 I believe it was the ball-turret that was the most dangerous position aboard.

Stats I saw was that the ball was the safest of the gunner positions.  Ball also had the best % of rounds on target.

[MiloMorai]

 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

scroll down, http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/chapter9.htm

tail gunner - 13.6%
ball turret - 10.6%
top turret - 10.6%

[GScholz]

scroll down, http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/chapter9.htm

tail gunner - 13.6%
ball turret - 10.6%
top turret - 10.6%

And just above that statistic is says: "The lowest incidence of casualties appears to occur in the ball turret gunner's position. This was partially due to the fact that only one of the two types of aircraft (B-17) carried a man in that combat position."

I distinctly remember reading that the ball turret was the most dangerous position on the B-17. Don't remember where I read it though...

[FLOOB]

It was the most difficult position to bail out of, and the ball gunner couldn't wear a chute. I'm sure you've heard Andy Rooney talk about the b17 ball gunner stuck in the turret when the b17 had to land wheels up. I don't think I've seen German gun cam video of rear attacks when the ball turret was still moving. Nobody wanted to be a ball turret gunner, there's a documentary about it on YouTube. There's even a famous American poem The death of a ball turret gunner. Be mindful that wartime stats of buff gunner victories are greatly inflated. Gunners were largely ineffectual, that's why daytime bombing in ETO was halted until long range escort was viable, which was very effective. But so was flack. In fact by the end of the war Lemay was removing gunners and guns, except the tail gunner, from b29s. It was determined that the reduced weight and consequent small gain in speed was a more significant contribution to bombers returning safely.

[mthrockmor]

I remember spending an afternoon talking to some B-17 gunners at the Chino Air Museum in Chino, California. One of them had been shot down and spent the rest of the war in Stalag 17 of the movie by the same name. Another one had two kills, both were ball turret gunners. It seems to me one of them said a version of the B-17 allowed them to get into the ball turret while in flight. An earlier model required the gunner to get in while on the ground.

If I am correct in my memory it strikes me that the later version, which allowed the gunner to get in/out while in flight would be the safer.

This discussion is really interesting.

boo

[FLOOB]

The tail gunner position was also too cramped for a chute, and it lacked the bail out alarm. A couple of reasons, besides being uncomfortable and really really cold, why the tail gunner spent most of the trip in the waist.

[MiloMorai]

Gunners were largely ineffectual, that's why daytime bombing in ETO was halted until long range escort was viable

The bombing wasn't halted. They just flew missions that could be escorted with the a/c available.

[FLOOB]

Good point.

[GScholz]

They still withdrew from central and eastern Germany for half-a-year.

[colmbo]

And just above that statistic is says: "The lowest incidence of casualties appears to occur in the ball turret gunner's position. This was partially due to the fact that only one of the two types of aircraft (B-17) carried a man in that combat position."

I distinctly remember reading that the ball turret was the most dangerous position on the B-17. Don't remember where I read it though...

The two types mentioned are the B-17 and B-24 which BOTH used the exact same Sperry ball turret so not sure why that statement was made.  Can't always believe what you read.  I think the myth of the ball turret comes from the probable one time some poor schmuck was trapped in the ball for landing --- as the story was told the ball became a death trap. 

[GScholz]

Depends on what B-24's were part of their sample. Early 24D and all 24E had the periscope-sighted Bendix turret.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4vuxpnx4Tic#t=347

Dramatically shows how the ball turret was exposed to gunfire from a six o'clock position. The top turret is more or less protected by the tail surfaces, but the ball turret is an obvious target. The prone tail gunner is a much smaller target, and also has some armor (not that it mattered against cannon...)