were gun turrets on heavy bombers worth it?
Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:29 am
I read somewhere that if turrets and crew weight to man them was got rid of, the bombers could have flown higher, possibly too high for fighters...Does that argument make a lick of sense to you guys?
Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:41 am
Well the first thing that comes to mind is all of the variations in turrets that came and went throughout the war. (And into the cold war, these days it seems that electronic counter measures, stealth, etc, have made turrets obsolete.)
I would say that some turrets were needed, others werent. Look at the B-17 over europe, turrets were added as the air war and threat from enemy planes progressed. More luftwaffe planes and no escort fighters meant the B-17's needed more armament to defend themselves.
Where as in Japan the B-29's were stripped of turrets when they went to low level night bombing in order to increase the payload. The need for more payload and speed probably out weighed the risk of night fighters.
So I'd say the need for turrets varied depending on the type of mission and threat from enemy aircraft.
Also, the B-36 seemed to follow a similar path. As the need for more payload and range came about the turrets were removed.
I would say that some turrets were needed, others werent. Look at the B-17 over europe, turrets were added as the air war and threat from enemy planes progressed. More luftwaffe planes and no escort fighters meant the B-17's needed more armament to defend themselves.
Where as in Japan the B-29's were stripped of turrets when they went to low level night bombing in order to increase the payload. The need for more payload and speed probably out weighed the risk of night fighters.
So I'd say the need for turrets varied depending on the type of mission and threat from enemy aircraft.
Also, the B-36 seemed to follow a similar path. As the need for more payload and range came about the turrets were removed.
Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:52 am
Specifically it's the DH Mosquito vs Avro Lancaster argument.
See W.W.II in here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_research
Some writing based on firsthand period research by a father or Operational Research, Freeman Dyson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
The Mosquito was, in a sense, a Lancaster which used speed to defend itself, requiring two, not seven-ten crew and far less equipment (two not four Merlins, no guns, rather than eight, etc... The US never came up with an equivalent design, so there was no equivalent viability of the argument. But conversely there's a footnote lesson in the failure of the converted 'gunnery defending' heavy bomber B-17s that couldn't keep up after the others had dropped their bombs...
At night, the RAF Bomber Command's gunners were mainly vital as lookouts co-coordinating evasion. Remember Le May decided ditching turrets on B-29s was a good move. As ever, no extreme is always the right answer, but it is a best compromise between the three factors (see below) for the task.
More widely it's the classic military /boxing compromise of the triangle between firepower-speed/agility-defence.
Discuss, widely.
See W.W.II in here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_research
Some writing based on firsthand period research by a father or Operational Research, Freeman Dyson.
At the British Bomber Command, Dyson and colleagues proposed ripping out two gun turrets from the RAF Lancaster bombers, to cut the catastrophic losses to German fighters in the Battle of Berlin. A Lancaster without turrets could fly 50 mph (80 km/h) faster and be much more maneuverable.
“ All our advice to the commander in chief [went] through the chief of our section, who was a career civil servant. His guiding principle was to tell the commander in chief things that the commander in chief liked to hear… To push the idea of ripping out gun turrets, against the official mythology of the gallant gunner defending his crew mates…was not the kind of suggestion the commander in chief liked to hear.[29]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
The Mosquito was, in a sense, a Lancaster which used speed to defend itself, requiring two, not seven-ten crew and far less equipment (two not four Merlins, no guns, rather than eight, etc... The US never came up with an equivalent design, so there was no equivalent viability of the argument. But conversely there's a footnote lesson in the failure of the converted 'gunnery defending' heavy bomber B-17s that couldn't keep up after the others had dropped their bombs...
At night, the RAF Bomber Command's gunners were mainly vital as lookouts co-coordinating evasion. Remember Le May decided ditching turrets on B-29s was a good move. As ever, no extreme is always the right answer, but it is a best compromise between the three factors (see below) for the task.
More widely it's the classic military /boxing compromise of the triangle between firepower-speed/agility-defence.
Discuss, widely.
Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:56 am
The Silverplate B-29s were stripped of armor and turrets so as to fly higher and faster to avoid the Japanese fighters.
Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:14 am
I think one of the other things to consider as well is how much speed would really be gained with the US bombers? The one major problem with the British powered turret designs was that they were frankly major sources of drag. The US preferred much lower-profile, lower drag turrets on most designs (the B-24's nose turret being the notable exception) resulting in a much less loss of speed performance (although probably as much loss of height performance).
The other thing to consider is how much the additional speed and altitude would have effected bombing efficiency and accuracy. Remember that it was very poor as it was, imagine going faster and higher - it'd have been even worse.
Sometimes being able to go fast and high isn't the best solution.
The other thing to consider is how much the additional speed and altitude would have effected bombing efficiency and accuracy. Remember that it was very poor as it was, imagine going faster and higher - it'd have been even worse.
Sometimes being able to go fast and high isn't the best solution.
Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:16 pm
With regards to B-29's, it's important to note that B models and Silverplates did not lose all of their turrets and armor. Both still retained the tail turret (less 20mm) and all armor plating and glass in the tail gunner compartment, as well as all plating and glass fwd and aft of the pilots.
LeMay speculated that going in low and fast (and at night), the only real fighter opposition would come from the rear, which is why they retained the tail turrets.
The most effective method for downing a heavy was the head-on frontal attack, which is why you saw things like the chin turret appear in the B-17, nose turret in the B-24 (which initially was a field mod started by the "Jolly Rogers," 90th BG) and the 4-gun upper in the B-29, as well as additional armor plating.
LeMay speculated that going in low and fast (and at night), the only real fighter opposition would come from the rear, which is why they retained the tail turrets.
The most effective method for downing a heavy was the head-on frontal attack, which is why you saw things like the chin turret appear in the B-17, nose turret in the B-24 (which initially was a field mod started by the "Jolly Rogers," 90th BG) and the 4-gun upper in the B-29, as well as additional armor plating.
Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:28 pm
rear turrets persisted for decades after WW2. Nearly all medium and heavy bombers from US [B-36, B-45, B-66, B-47, B-52, A-3and others] USSR [Tu-16, Tu-95, Il-28 etc] had tail turrets either manned or remote. B-52's managed to shoot down a Mig ot two over NVN. The D model -52 tail turret was manned.
Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:15 pm
Can you imagine riding in the back of a B-52D in rough weather!!!!!! 
Last edited by b29flteng on Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gunners
Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:38 pm
In Europe, at least until about March 1945, stripping guns and gunners out of the aircraft would still leave the daylight bomber too slow and unable to fly high enough to escape either German fighters or flak. One bomber was a fairly easy kill for fighters, but the real defense was the tightly-kept box formation. I understand that the B-17 accounted for more German fighters shot down than all the Allied fighters combined.
As for the British night bombers, I also understand that it was preferable for the gunners not to fire and thereby give away the bomber's position unless the bomber was about to be attacked by a night fighter. The gunners, and especially the tail gunner, served best by telling the pilot the location of approaching fighters so evasive action could be taken.
As for the British night bombers, I also understand that it was preferable for the gunners not to fire and thereby give away the bomber's position unless the bomber was about to be attacked by a night fighter. The gunners, and especially the tail gunner, served best by telling the pilot the location of approaching fighters so evasive action could be taken.
Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:38 pm
Russian designers were still putting tail turrets in their transports as late as the Ilyushin Il-76 (1971 or so), so the idea still must have some provenance.
The B-52D at the USAF academy is also credited as shooting down a MiG-21.
The B-52D at the USAF academy is also credited as shooting down a MiG-21.
Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:46 pm
your comparing apples to oranges to grapefruit,
The day fighters over Germany were very different from the night fighters the RAF faced, and the Japanese did not have a effective fighter force that could counter the B-29s in either the day or night roles. Also you are also looking at a generation of advancment in the B-29 over the B-17. If the B-29 was flying out of England in 1943 instead of the B-17/24, who knows how it could have held up against the Luftwaffe.
The day fighters over Germany were very different from the night fighters the RAF faced, and the Japanese did not have a effective fighter force that could counter the B-29s in either the day or night roles. Also you are also looking at a generation of advancment in the B-29 over the B-17. If the B-29 was flying out of England in 1943 instead of the B-17/24, who knows how it could have held up against the Luftwaffe.
Turrets
Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:42 am
What Matt said, apples to oranges to grapefruit. From what I have read and been told, the usefulness of bomber turrets depended largely on the type of turret, the type of airplane, and the mission environment. The training of the gunner and his experience level seems to have played a big roll also. For the most part, the trend from 1939 to 1945 seems to have been more turrets, not less. Look at the layout for the proposed YB-40 (updated B-17 with two upper deck turrets), B-32 (two upper deck turrets), and the PB4Y-2 (two upper deck turrets and two side turrets).
Tripehound, where did you get the information about B-17s accounting for more German fighter shoot downs than all Allied fighters combined? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just curious if that information can be corroborated. There were more B-24s produced than B-17s, by a significant margin, so in order for that statement to be true, it would imply that turrets and gunners in the B-17 were better than the ones in the B-24.
On a personal note, I wish turrets had never been invented. I'm really starting to hate the &%@*^# things!
Tripehound, where did you get the information about B-17s accounting for more German fighter shoot downs than all Allied fighters combined? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just curious if that information can be corroborated. There were more B-24s produced than B-17s, by a significant margin, so in order for that statement to be true, it would imply that turrets and gunners in the B-17 were better than the ones in the B-24.
On a personal note, I wish turrets had never been invented. I'm really starting to hate the &%@*^# things!
Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:59 am
i feel that any turret weapon in use sucessfully would speed the goal of victory due to the attrition of knocking down any enemy aggressor. whittle away at the enemy's defensive rescources as they could not replenish fast enough. not all bomber aircraft whether heavy, medium, or light configuration always flew high altitude missions. those gunners contributed heavily in owning the skies over all theaters of ww 2. as technology & strategy progressed after the war, turret strategy dried up due to new cutting edge performance, so it eventually bowed out, but during ww 2 it was much needed.
Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:32 am
Many interesting views and good points made. Sadly little quantified data beyond the general type/campaign example (mine included! 
).
I think it's fair to say that the claims against Luftwaffe fighters by US gunners are (albeit with the best of intentions) significantly greater than Luftwaffe losses, but would be interested in data either way.
The Mosquito provides a real world example for the minimum resource use as an unarmed bomber alternative to the heavies. To massively (over-)simplify, the Mosquito concept used less resources in every single way (in many cases greater than 50% less) was as accurate, and could hit a target more frequently and come back more often than a heavy - even leaving aside the wood construction. Obviously that's very simplistic, but a study of the data is interesting, and the Mozzie's existence prevents analysis dismissing the 'turretless bomber' scenario out of hand.
One point not covered so far is the right turret in the right place. The RAF bombers were mostly given four positions - nose, dorsal, ventral and tail. The ventral turrets were generally removed for drag and inefficiency, while we now know that it was the one turret / observation point they really needed. The observation and sometimes defensive fire from the tail position was useful; the dorsal less so - and far less than retaining a ventral turret, while the nose was essentially useless - but see below.
Meanwhile the Sperry ball turret was, arguably, one of the 'best' as in fit and effective turrets ever - in the hardest position to prescribe for - most alternatives were remarkably bad.
CAPflyer's excellent point regarding British turrets being high drag is not actually as black and white as it seems. Induced drag from the Frazer Nash tail turrets vs the B-17's flexibly mounted guns would be interesting - particularly when balanced against it's worth, counting field of fire, calibre and accuracy. However the Lancaster was always fitted with an essentially redundant streamlined nose turret rarely if ever any use in night ops, and actually the exact thing the B-17A-F needed and yet they got the less streamlined and remotely fired chin turret in the G.
The dorsal turret fitted to the Lockheed Hudson and early Halifaxes was a modification of the turret fitted to the Halifax nose; while the later Boulton Paul II turret - designed for the Defiant, and used on many types, including the Halifax was not significantly draggier than the dorsal Sperry type on the B-17 /B-24 - oh, and it had four .303 rather than two .50s.
Those pointing out the post-W.W.II use of turrets might like to include the advent of radar gun laying, and the troubles the B-29s actually had over Korea, one of the few occasions W.W.II fighter vs turreted bomber battles occurred after 1945.
Interesting discussion.
).
I think it's fair to say that the claims against Luftwaffe fighters by US gunners are (albeit with the best of intentions) significantly greater than Luftwaffe losses, but would be interested in data either way.
The Mosquito provides a real world example for the minimum resource use as an unarmed bomber alternative to the heavies. To massively (over-)simplify, the Mosquito concept used less resources in every single way (in many cases greater than 50% less) was as accurate, and could hit a target more frequently and come back more often than a heavy - even leaving aside the wood construction. Obviously that's very simplistic, but a study of the data is interesting, and the Mozzie's existence prevents analysis dismissing the 'turretless bomber' scenario out of hand.
One point not covered so far is the right turret in the right place. The RAF bombers were mostly given four positions - nose, dorsal, ventral and tail. The ventral turrets were generally removed for drag and inefficiency, while we now know that it was the one turret / observation point they really needed. The observation and sometimes defensive fire from the tail position was useful; the dorsal less so - and far less than retaining a ventral turret, while the nose was essentially useless - but see below.
Meanwhile the Sperry ball turret was, arguably, one of the 'best' as in fit and effective turrets ever - in the hardest position to prescribe for - most alternatives were remarkably bad.
CAPflyer's excellent point regarding British turrets being high drag is not actually as black and white as it seems. Induced drag from the Frazer Nash tail turrets vs the B-17's flexibly mounted guns would be interesting - particularly when balanced against it's worth, counting field of fire, calibre and accuracy. However the Lancaster was always fitted with an essentially redundant streamlined nose turret rarely if ever any use in night ops, and actually the exact thing the B-17A-F needed and yet they got the less streamlined and remotely fired chin turret in the G.
The dorsal turret fitted to the Lockheed Hudson and early Halifaxes was a modification of the turret fitted to the Halifax nose; while the later Boulton Paul II turret - designed for the Defiant, and used on many types, including the Halifax was not significantly draggier than the dorsal Sperry type on the B-17 /B-24 - oh, and it had four .303 rather than two .50s.
Those pointing out the post-W.W.II use of turrets might like to include the advent of radar gun laying, and the troubles the B-29s actually had over Korea, one of the few occasions W.W.II fighter vs turreted bomber battles occurred after 1945.
Interesting discussion.
Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:00 am
In some ways this reminds me of another thread we had a while back:
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... 155#266155
Personally, I think the US should've put a bit more effort into the fighter-as-strategic-bomber concept or Mosquito / P-38ish concept, especially in Europe, but it was probably too much to ask of a force already committed to the concept of strategic heavy bombers, and would have put a strain on the production lines already running. It would have required significant contract and resource allocation changes and ramped-up pilot training as well.
On the other hand, the Mossie certainly does give the idea credibility, as did the limited tests the P-38s of the 20th FG made with some reasonable success. That said, I'd much rather be in a turreted bomber for long overseas flights with a heavy bomb load, and a decent loiter time, so I think they would have still had a place. I'm trying to think of the source, but gunnery claims from turret positions were horrendously inaccurate when compared to actual Luftwaffe losses. Another interesting thought is that the proper use of the turrets was in tight formations that combined massive amounts of firepower to multiply the protection to an individual bomber. One would wonder however, if this was not also a drawback that would've been even more dangerous if the war had dragged on further with the Germans employing air-burst rockets, not to mention the increased vulnerability to flak due to the predictable nature of the formations.
Ryan
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... 155#266155
Personally, I think the US should've put a bit more effort into the fighter-as-strategic-bomber concept or Mosquito / P-38ish concept, especially in Europe, but it was probably too much to ask of a force already committed to the concept of strategic heavy bombers, and would have put a strain on the production lines already running. It would have required significant contract and resource allocation changes and ramped-up pilot training as well.
On the other hand, the Mossie certainly does give the idea credibility, as did the limited tests the P-38s of the 20th FG made with some reasonable success. That said, I'd much rather be in a turreted bomber for long overseas flights with a heavy bomb load, and a decent loiter time, so I think they would have still had a place. I'm trying to think of the source, but gunnery claims from turret positions were horrendously inaccurate when compared to actual Luftwaffe losses. Another interesting thought is that the proper use of the turrets was in tight formations that combined massive amounts of firepower to multiply the protection to an individual bomber. One would wonder however, if this was not also a drawback that would've been even more dangerous if the war had dragged on further with the Germans employing air-burst rockets, not to mention the increased vulnerability to flak due to the predictable nature of the formations.
Ryan