Warbird Information Exchange

I asked this in the Bendix turret thread but it was somewhat off topic - but again:

Has it ever been said, even anecdotally, of the aerial kills scored by bombers (e.g. B-17, B-24) which crew positions scored the bulk of the kills - or was it evenly distributed? In other words, which rig was the most successful? Top turret, ball turret, chin, waist, cheek, tail?

Granted, (just an example) if the enemy always attacked from behind, you'd expect the tail gunner to have the most kills ... unless that setup was poor and maybe the ball turret was superior or vice versa ... and maybe that would skew the numbers.

So are there any AAF records on this?

_________________
"Take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves."

Hmmmm, not sure, have wondered that myself. Found this link that you might find interesting.
http://jpgleize.club.fr/aces/ww2usgun.htm

i'd say dorsal / top turret. clearest range of fire, no abstructions etc....... & no i did not link to the post thread before mine.

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

The one with the best aim.

I have a relative that was a ball turret gunner, and he said he loved the view from the ball calling it "The best seat in the house".

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

I'm sorry, what does that mean?

Ken,

Try the AFHRA online subjects. There are studies of flexible gunnery training and turret development there that may shed some light on the subject. From veterans I've talked to the best positions were probably the top and tail turrets, followed by the ball. It depended on so many factors and the claims were so hard to confirm in the heat of battle that we'll probably never know an exact figure. Here's the link: http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/numb ... sintro.asp

That'll keep you busy for a while!
Scott

i meant i didn't look at the link offered before i posted my opinion.

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

Slightly o/t I know, but I seem to remember (rather surprisingly) reading somewhere, that statistically the ball turret gunner had a greater survivability rate than those at other positions? Can anyone confirm this, or is my mind wandering!! Still can't imagine being in combat scrunched in that tiny space, heroes each and every one of them. Brave ,brave men.

_________________
If the first casualty of war is innocence, the second is sobriety - Hawkeye.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws - Plato.
Lies get halfway round the world before the truth has a chance to get it's pants on - Churchill
If you are going through he11 - keep going - Churchill

Being scrunched up in the ball turret makes you a smaller target perhaps? I would think it was that the Luftwaffe prime attack was to either gain altitude and dive through the formation from above or do a head-on, either of which makes the ball a small percentage of the target.
The tail position probably one of the more stressful, staring into the contrail behind watching for fighters hiding there. At least from the front they came and went FAST, for good or for bad, but being in a plexi bubble up front with blazing cannon coming straight at you has GOT to be a bit un-nerving!
Top gun, more comfortable, good visibility (at least better than some), wide range of fire to reach out and touch someone!

I know during the Battle Of Britain the fighter pilots found through trial and error (and against official doctrine) that the best way to scatter, and un-nerve, a large bomber formation was a full frontal attack. Quite a few pilots died in collisions through pulling out too late though, as the closing speeds were very fast. I agree that the tail gunner was in a very stressful situation (as if any bomber crew were not!!) Jack Cook posted a picture that to me said it all, and was very chilling, of a Me-410 (I think!) closing on a bomber from the rear in broad daylight. Frightning stuff.

_________________
If the first casualty of war is innocence, the second is sobriety - Hawkeye.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws - Plato.
Lies get halfway round the world before the truth has a chance to get it's pants on - Churchill
If you are going through he11 - keep going - Churchill

Well here's the top gunner....


TSgt Art Benko of Bisbee, AZ 1941 Arizona Rifle Champion KIA Nov 1944 scored 16 kills
awarded Legion of Merit, 3 Distinguished Flying Crosss, 4 Air Medals, 2 Purple Hearts
B-24D-20-CO s/n 41-24183 "The Goon" 374th Bomb Squadron 308th Bomb Group

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

I remember a study that gave the ball gunner a slightly higher survivability rate than other positions. Being a smaller target and having structure all around would have to make some difference, especially compared to the waist gunners.

I would think a gutsy tail gunner would have a better than average chance to get hits because of the slower closure rate if the attacker came in from behind. Those fellows were certainly in a lonely position with regard to the rest of the crew.

Here's another shot of The Goon that must have been taken during the same photo shoot--notice the oil stain on the prop blade is the same in both pictures:

National Geographic, January 1948

Scott