It also kept the gunners inside the pressurized cabin, which the earlier bombers did not have. The remote turrets could traverse more quickly than the earlier models, too, letting them track enemy fighters better.
That’s how my grandfather described the B-17 top/ball turret gunsights and the B-29 gunsights as operating, except he described it on the B-17 as more like a pair of lines you adjusted, not a circle. And on the B-29, a gunner controlled multiple gun turrets- so he aimed using one sight, and multiple gun turrets tracked the target.
Oh… and while he was the top turret gunner/flight engineer on his crew, he flew several catch-up missions with other crews as a ball-turret gunner (he was 5’6" or 5’7") and had the turret traverse stuff get shot out, so someone had to crank his turret around so he could get out. He said he finished that mission firing the radio operator’s gun. (in another mission, his heated suit electrics got shot out somewhere in the fuselage, so he went up there again, because it was the only heated compartment other than the cockpit!)
So was the ball-turret position the most dangerous position on the plane?
All else equal, maybe, but that rarely happens. The Luftwaffe preferred head-on attacks against B-17’s, where the defense was weakest and the crew was concentrated.
There are analog computers working with resistors and capacitors. The New Jersey had mechanical analog fire control, gears and cogs. In the P-61, any crew member could fire the turret machine guns; I suppose which ever guy had the best view of the other aircraft.
It’s not an urban legend. If two things occurred, the BT gunner was likely doomed.
- the turret had to jam, i.e., not rotate. It had to rotate to a position where the door would open for the gunner to get out.
- the landing gear had to fail to extend for landing.
Under those circumstances, the ball turret was between the airplane and the ground, and the gunner was up shit creek.
This thread reminded me of something I had forgotten about for many, many years. Does anyone remember Spielberg’s television series, Amazing Stories?
Here’s the key two minute bit from the pilot, relevant to this thread, written and directed by Spielberg himself. He must have heard the turret gunner stories himself.
Wayyy ahead of ya, tb.
I understand the B-29 gunners carried huge bottles of aspirin with them, as they’d get terrible headaches from remotely sighting the guns.
I watched this documentary the other day and in it they discuss this happening. At the 6:00 mark a gentlemen called Andy Rooney, a reporter for stars and stripes claims he witnessed it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXRyDcqzdoU
45 minute documentary on youtube.
A new record for not reading OP?
How so, drifting off topic?
Don’t know about the specifics of the landing accident, but it brings to mind two stories I’ve heard about turret gunners. In 1943 a mid-air collision in North Africa resulted in the tail gunner becoming trapped, through heroic effort they kept the B-17 intact and managed to land, whereupon the tail gunner escaped via ladder.
Even more extraordinary is the story of Lt. Glenn H. Rojohn’s B-17 accident, in which the ball turret became wedged in another B-17 which itself wedged the top turret in the aircraft above. Most of the crew managed to bail out, though the ball turret gunner was trapped.
“Before they jumped, Little, Neuhaus and Elkin took the hand crank for the ball turret and tried to crank it up to free Russo. ‘It would not move,’ Elkin wrote. ‘There was no means of escape for this brave man.’”
A few years ago, I got to spend a few hours crawling around a B-29 that was undergoing restoration. One of the turrets was sitting beside the plane, and for testing so was one of the sights. All hooked up and operational though. Adding a short video I took:
Of note, there was a switch panel, apparently any/all of the turrets could be operated by any of the operators, including (I think) operating more than one turret at a time from a single sight.
“This video is private.”
:dubious:
Quite the contrary. The ball turret ended up proving to be the safest position in a B17. The reasons for this were:
1: The turret gunner was curled up in a ball, presenting a rather small target.
2: The ball turret had a steel for that protected the gunners back.
3: The turret had a 2" thick bullet proof front glass.
I know it’s surprising, but the turret for all is claustrophobic drawbacks was about as safe as one could get.
:smack:
Sorry about that, fixed now.
I keep checking this thread to see if anyone has solved it, but I don’t think it will happen. Supposedly Rooney didn’t write about this incident until several years later. It’s possible that he saw a plane belly land but no one was in the turret and he mistakenly thought there was, or that the death was simply written up as ‘killed in action’ and left no concrete evidence, but there doesn’t seem to be any information at all to corroborate the story.
There are other websites with WWII buffs who have had the same discussion and even gone through after-action reports and accident reports for the bomb groups stationed where Rooney supposedly witnessed this event, but no one can find anything to back it up. On the day it supposedly happened, there were no fatalities with the unit it supposedly happened to. Expanding the timeframe, there were some belly landings but no deaths. Someone else on another forum said they asked the National Museum of the United States Air Force and they had researched it came to the conclusion that it was a myth.
It’s worth noting that there doesn’t seem to even be a consensus on whether or not such a thing would result in the gunner being crushed. The B-17 had a procedure and tools available (a crescent wrench and hammer) to jettison the turret in the event of a wheels-up landing. The reason was that the turret, being made of forged aluminum, wasn’t exactly delicate and could push up through the belly and cause more damage than a belly landing without it. I still wouldn’t want to be in there during a belly landing, but I’m not convinced that it would necessarily result in the turret being crushed and the gunner becoming a skid mark across the landing strip.
In 2004, Aluminum Overcast, a rebuilt B-17, had it’s landing gear fold up during a 30 mph taxi and flopped onto her belly. The ball turret was pushed up into the fuselage with some supporting mechanisms poking out of the top of the aircraft. That was a slow speed flop straight down and not a “100mpg scrape down the runway,” but it was still a drop of, what, 1 foot?
On the other hand, here is one semi-belly landed B-17 resting on the turret. However, it’s tail gear is down, which would help support the turret. Here are All American and Sweet Pea sitting on their turrets, although both have the front landing gear down. The turret in both crashed wasn’t punched up through the fuselage, but it wasn’t crushed or scraped away to sparks either.
Here is another shot of Sweet Pea. Notice the turret hatch is open. That’s because the gunner was supposedly trapped inside until rescuers ran up and freed him. Some reports say he wasn’t, but this alleged first hand account says he was.
In short, I’m not saying it didn’t happen or couldn’t happen, but there seems to be no proof that it did and the turrets weren’t thought to crush like that during a belly landing.
There is, however, this photo which claims to be from the crushed ball gunner incident although there seems to be no other information to go along with it. It could be a turret damaged by enemy fire.
They could control extra turrets, depending on their location. The tail gunner couldn’t control anything extra because with his limited view, any other gun would be of little use to him. Here is a chart showing which gunners could control which guns.
Thanks, Fubaya.