B-17 underside Ball Turret Gunner

[kool kitty89]

Ok, does not to get off topic, but how was the "bath tub" turret?

[Micdrow]

Originally Posted by drgondog

I agree Paul - I am aware of none - with 3 point landing gear designe rather than tricyscle there was plenty of room - so why add the weiight.

I did love the modified B-17 "liberator" - but like the B-17G chin turret better from a weight standpoint

I will have to do some looking when I get home, I beleive I have some pictures on my hard drive of the B-17 with liberator turrents floating around. Will post them when i get home if some one else does not.

[Micdrow]

Originally Posted by V-1710

If you look just aft of the ventral turret on 12443, I think you can see the sighting station for the turret. The Bendix turret on the B-25 had 2 problems: First, it was extremly difficult to use the gunsight, and many gunners got vertigo looking through it. Second, the sight would get oil residue from the engines on the lens, obscuring the view through it.

You are correct V-1710. From what Ive understood the Vertigo was just nausiating for the operator that used them for the turrent on the under side of the bomber.

[evangilder]

Yep. If you read Doolittle's biography, he mentions it, and it's lack of usability.

[olbrat]

Great information and pix guys! I really appreciate it!

[Micdrow]

Here are some pictures of a B-17 with the liberator tail and nose turrent's

[JoeB]

Bendix remote control belly turret on B-17E: first 112 examples. At the start of the war the B-17's in the Philippines and Hawaii were C's and D's (most or all of former modified to the 'D' standard in the field). The first E's arrived in Hawaii during the PH attack. Thereafter, to replace the heavy initial losses on the ground and build up the B-17 force in PTO, many of the Bendix turret E's were deployed to Netherlands East Indies (where Far East Air Force had withdrawn) and Hawaii and saw action in the early months of the war. In John Ford's famous footage of Midway, the B-17E's taking off to attack the Japanese are a mixture of Bendix and Sperry turret examples by then, June '42.

Quotes from "Fortress Against the Sun" by Gene Salecker:
"It is believed no e/a was ever shot down by the Bendix turret"
"the awkward sighting arrangement gave the gunner nausea and...vertigo"
"This turret is a jinx...wonderful set up if it works-which it doesn't-on our plane or any other"
"Perhaps no more than 100 hostile rounds were ever fired"
"Realizing the turret was useless some crews loaded the guns with tracers and rigged cords to the triggers...the waist gunners would kick the cords and send a few tracer rounds"
"often to cut down on weight the twin .50's were removed and replaced with black painted broomsticks"
"We took the early under-turrets out...because useless"

The book goes on to note the early Sperry ball turrets had their own teething problems in early-mid '42 in PTO, but were basically workable unlike the Bendix remote.

The B-17E reconstructed and flown by the Japanese was based on 41-2471, a Bendix turret a/c left behind on Java, Feb 1942.


Joe

[kool kitty89]

DOes anyone know how useful the earlier "bath tub" turrets of the C/D were?

[JoeB]

The 'bathtub' was a fixed gondola under the fuselage rather than a turret. Below is (a bit dark sorry) photo of B-17C's bathtub with single .50 cal. Most sources say the D had a twin .50 in this position though I've never seen a picture; again the a/c in the Philippines and HI in Dec 1941 were D's, or C's brought to D standard. The other armament was a another twin .50 firing from the radio operators compartment on top (reduced back to a single in later B-17's but supplemented by the new top turret), a single waist .50 on each side, and a .30 that could be fired from various sockets in the nose. The big complaint about B-17D defensive armament was hard to shoot at a fighter approaching directly from the rear, neither above or below. The proper tail guns of the B-17E were viewed as a significant improvement, despite the unworkable Bendix belly turret on early examples. The problem then became, as later in the ETO, that enemy fighters started attacking from head on.

As in ETO, but easier to document from both sides case by case in early PTO because of the small scale of combat, claims by B-17's (and bombers generally) to have downed enemy fighters were typically highly overstated, often much more so than claims of fighters to have downed enemy fighters. The B-17D and E's were somewhat vexing targets for Japanese fighters in 1941-42 because they could absorb a fair amount of damage (though sometimes crashed on the way back to base, unseen and unclaimed by the Japanese), but actually shot down fairly few Japanese fighters, especially D's.



Joe

[Matt308]

Were the electrical and heating conduits a restriction upon turret freedom? Specifically, was the turret limited in traverse by connections to a certain degree of freedom in any one direction (ie clockwise, counter-clockwise)?

And also were there dogs that prevented turret traverse into propeller arcs?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Matt308

Were the electrical and heating conduits a restriction upon turret freedom? Specifically, was the turret limited in traverse by connections to a certain degree of freedom in any one direction (ie clockwise, counter-clockwise)?

From memory - no. The post-Y support rotated with the turret - and in turn was supported by the frame you see in Paul's pics. The Oxy and electrical connection was made at the top of the frame - then down to the turret. The "Y" structure rotated with the turret so maintained relative position.

I have never looked at the connection at the top of the frame closely but I do remember the oxygen and electrical hose like two umbilical cords going from the frame to the turret.

I think it was SOP for Ball turret gunners to periodically alter their rotation direction to minimise problems at the connectors but they failed anyway from time to time.

And also were there dogs that prevented turret traverse into propeller arcs?

I don't recall seeing any - and didn't see any in the pictures in the 10 and 2 o'clock traverse position. If the upper limit of azimuth was only a couple of degrees down from CL of the B-17, it shouldn't need any.

[Watanbe]

Wow I knew ball turrets were small but dang...that is absolutely tiny, great photos. Im 6-2 and there is no way i fit in there. My head wouldnt even fit in that space.

[HoHun]

Hi Flyboyj,

>If a wheels up landng was done with the ball turret down it would crack the fuselage in half or cave into the fuselage.

I'm not sure if the results were quite that dramatic, but the damage certainly was bad enough that the B-17 manual advised jettisoning the ball turret for a wheels-up landing - which required a lengthy operation with on-board tools as there was no jettison mechanism. Nothing you'd like to do in an emergency.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[drgondog]

I have seen quite a few examples of a bellied in fort.

The damage mode I saw the most of was a 'deformed' bulge in the airframe around the ball - and in many cases the frame and Ball turret 'seemed' intact. Similarly a ditching rarely (by and of itself) caused an airframe failure there. No suprise considering how some came back from a direct hit by flak between the waist guns and Ball turret.

The B-24 was a different discussion and another good reason to be able to retract it.. Ditchings frequently broke its back - probably because (I suppose), unlike a Fort, the high wing offered no "ground' effect nor did it prevent the a/c from really digging in.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by HoHun

Hi Flyboyj,
I'm not sure if the results were quite that dramatic, but the damage certainly was bad enough that the B-17 manual advised jettisoning the ball turret for a wheels-up landing - which required a lengthy operation with on-board tools as there was no jettison mechanism. Nothing you'd like to do in an emergency.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

There have been several documented descriptions of a B-17 landing on the ball turret and when the aircraft came to rest the fuselage broke approximately where the ball turret was installed. As previously stated the ball turret wasn't a flimsily structure, most of it was basically a big chunk of metal and plexiglass as cane be seen the the earlier photos.

What would save the aircraft in many occasions was the ability to get the tail wheel down. That along with the turret could support the fuselage. Also remember that the MLG on the B-17 stuck out of the nacelle and that also provided some clearance but depending on the terrain the ball turret could really do some damage to the fuselage. Note the attached photos...