Comparative scores of tail gunners vs. belly?

Does any one have statistics comparing the scores of WW2-vintage bomber gunners?
How many interceptors did tail gunners kill?
How many killed by ball turret (belly) gunners?
How many killed by mid-upper turret gunners?
How many killed by nose turret gunners?
How many killed by waist gunners?

Bonus points if all your statistics come from the same type of bomber (e.g. Lancaster).
 
For the RAF's night bombers, I'd say they rarely shot down anything. Thus the ventral turret was removed and replaced with guidance systems, and in some versions the dorsal turret was also removed. I would assume the tail gunner had the best chance.

r06p4Dt.png


I sometimes wonder if the Lancaster would have served equally well flying unarmed, thus risking fewer crew and perhaps gaining a few knots.

p_lanccanadian5.jpg
 
Overall statistics per gunner or gun position were never officially compiled, although medal citations for individual actions did get into some specifics. The highest single mission score was from a waist gunner on a B-17, Benjamin Warner, mentioned for his DSC, and the highest kill number for a bomber was 14, but two were due to ramming. One cannot, or shouldn't attempt to belittle any particular gun position on the basis of kills because those positions can determine the direction of fighter attack. The German success with Shrage Musik was based on the lack of ventral guns on British night bombers, and the Wellington featured no dorsal turret which allowed a variety of attack profiles without defensive fire. In addition, the spotting of enemy night fighters from a tail or ventral position to allow for the pilot to perform evasive manoeuvers was an important aspect of defense.

All in all, effective gunnery ability was most important. The aforementioned Ben Warner had been an instructor, chosen for just that ability, and there were a couple of gunner aces operating out of the side blisters of Catalinas, largely known to be meat on the table. Apart from Adrian Warburton, nose guns don't get much mention, although they were a welcome addition to the B-17.
 
Who cares?

The job of the defensive gunners isn't to shoot down attacking fighters, it's to stop them pressing home their attack. A fighter which is spotted and evaded, or one which turns away early because of defensive fire, is just as ineffective as one that is shot down.
 
Who cares?
I've never understood the motivations behind such posts. The author obviously cares sufficiently to post on the topic.

Perhaps it's a legitimate question, asking us who indeed cares? Well, I for one do, it's an interesting topic, and I found Just Leo's contribution to be insightful and informative.

I imagine this exact question drove the design decisions on where to place defensive armaments on bombers.

To answer your question, I imagine Boeing cared which guns were best placed for the most defensive ability and subsequent kill scores as they upped the armament on the B-17.
 
It's a bit more complicated than that- first, kill scores are very far from being reliable. Overclaiming is universal; after the Battle of Britain it was estimated that the RAF claimed two and a half German aircraft for every one it actually shot down; and the Germans claimed three and a half for every British aircraft.

American bomber gunners were particularly optimistic in this regard- at Schweinfurt, they probably did shoot down forty German fighters; but claimed upwards of five hundred.

The numbers are not reliable to begin with, basing anything on them is trusting to foundations of jelly. Mostly the basis of judgement seems to have been tactical concept; the Germans resorting to head on attacks because the defensive armament of the American bombers had been laid out expecting a tail chase, for instance.

Also worth noting- Curtis LeMay's division fired off more ammunition and filed fewer claims than the rest of the force; but he brought more bombers back, because they were firing sooner, to deter and drive off.

it may be that the Defiant is the reason British bombers had no belly turret; that was their favourite point of attack, they were basically doing the same thing- but they were discredited by their later performance, which could have killed off the British equivalent of schrage musik, and any notion of defence against same.
 
Gunners can make claims, but received no credit. And any gunner watching to confirm his score wasn't doing his job.

German fighters commonly opened with a head-on attack because they were waiting, and had to release their rockets. Closing speed limited the duration of firing time for cannon fire. Subsequent attacks came from all quarters, high and low. Repeating head on attacks consumed too much set-up time.

LeMay could whistle through his ass. Bomber gunners using their ammunition up before the fighter was in range doesn't make a lot of sense. If Luftwaffe pilots didn't want to fly through defensive fire, they wouldn't have shown up.

British aircraft didn't use belly turrets because they didn't have one worth beans. Firing a machine gun aimed through a periscope or mirror is pointless, and negates the better reason for the position, a pair of real time eyes. The British used an equivalent to schrage musik in 1915. The fact that Defiants were hopeless against fighter attack should have been a lesson learned from another Barnwell-designed aircraft, the Bristol Fighter. Do you know the story? It was hardly a reason to build bombers defenseless against oblique cannons.
 
British aircraft didn't use belly turrets because they didn't have one worth beans. Firing a machine gun aimed through a periscope or mirror is pointless,
It does seem pretty dumb.

underturret2.jpg


lanc.jpg


But in the end, wasn't this what the B-29 had? Yes, your head is sticking up a bubble instead of a periscope, but you're still a distance from the gun, so need a remote siting system.

cfcobsbuble.jpg
 
Last edited:
Not what happened- going by Middlebrook's book and Galland's memoirs for that matter. There's a campaigning season before Wgr.21 comes into service- which it did based on wartime experience.

Head on attacks were preferred and the Luftwaffe tried to arrange them- GCI remember?- wherever possible. Beyond Lightning and Thunderbolt range, repeated head on attacks did occur- breaking off, circling, round, coming back again appears in the accounts of the time, American and German.

Mustangs changed that, not bomber turrets. Remember the Americans were running ten to fifteen percent losses on deep operations into Germany before all the way escort- unsustainable even for them.

And your prejudices are showing about LeMay. He got where he did because he was damn' good at his job; his air division consistently lost fewer bombers and hit targets more accurately than the rest- incrementally better, but consistently so.

And "if they didn't want to fly through defensive fire they wouldn't have shown up" is- seriously, it's the sort of thing you expect a Gestapo 'morale officer' to come out with. It's not how war works. It's not how air combat works. Even the Nazis weren't that crazed.

Yes, there were German kamikazes in all but name, but not very many of them- most sane pilots looked for advantage wherever they could find it, to kill without being killed. Hit the soft spots. Don't fly through any more defensive fire than you have to. Head on, even when the B-17G with the chin turret enters service, reduces engagement time.

The Brisfit had a terrible entry into service- but went on to become the best two seater of the first world war, produced numerous aces, was retained in service until the early thirties, and arguably it was attempts to produce a modern Bristol Fighter that produced the specification that gave rise to the Defiant and Roc. The fixed forward gun became the main armament in practise, and the observer's gun a bonus, basically.
 
The most effective gunner positions might have fewer kills because smart fighter pilots are going to approach from a different direction.
 
For the RAF's night bombers, I'd say they rarely shot down anything. Thus the ventral turret was removed and replaced with guidance systems, and in some versions the dorsal turret was also removed. I would assume the tail gunner had the best chance.

r06p4Dt.png


I sometimes wonder if the Lancaster would have served equally well flying unarmed, thus risking fewer crew and perhaps gaining a few knots.

p_lanccanadian5.jpg


How much weight is saved on a Turretless Lancaster with say only 4 or 5 crew - Pilot, Engineer/Co-Pilot, Bomb Aimer, Radio Operator and possibly an Observer.

I to have always wondered if a 4 Engined 'Mosquito' would be the way to go?

As streamlined as possible, with no defensive armament etc

IIRC Leonard Cheshire allowed turrets to be removed (cannot find the ref?) - which resulted in fewer losses and of course Freeman Dyson petitioned BC to do the same he thought that the removal of turrets would gain the Lancaster 50 mph.

Of course you could argue that the Germans would notice and simply make faster Interceptors that could attack the defenceless aircraft from any angle without fear of being shot down.

Being fast would of course reduce the time the aircraft spent in territory.
 
IIRC Leonard Cheshire allowed turrets to be removed (cannot find the ref?) - which resulted in fewer losses and of course Freeman Dyson petitioned BC to do the same he thought that the removal of turrets would gain the Lancaster 50 mph.

As commander of 76 Squadron, he had the FN5A nose turret and FN50 mid-upper turret removed from squadron aircraft. He wouldn't likely remove the tail turret, because his specialty was evasion tactics, and that doesn't work if you don't know when to use them.
 
HEADQUARTERS 2D BOMBARDMENT DIVISION
AAF 147 APO 558
21 MAY 1944



SUBJECT: Removal of Lower Ball Turret in B-24 Aircraft
TO : Commanding General, Eighth Air Force, AAF Station 101, APO 634

1. Operational experience in B-24 aircraft in this Division has increased the belief that under present combat conditions, the benefit derived from the Sperry ball turret may not be commensurate with the weight and parasite drag involved in this installation. Many of the group commanders wish to have the opportunity of removing this turret in at least some of the aircraft in each formation to improve the performance and the ability to maintain tactical formation with improved altitude performance, gas consumption, engine performance, etc.

2. This Headquarters concurs with this belief and is of the definite opinion that increased overall efficiency in operations may be achieved through the removal of the ball turret.

3. Some of the facts pertinent to the decision to remove the ball turret are submitted:

a. An estimate of the weight eliminated and of the effect of the C.G. on B-24H and B-24J aircraft is as follows:

WEIGHT C.G. LOCATION
(LBS) % M.A.C.
TYPICAL TAKE-OFF CONDITIONS
(Combat crew, 6,000 Ibs bombs, 6,000 rounds ammunition and 2,700 gallons fuel)
With Ball Turret 65,445 32.3
Without Ball Turret 63,945 28.9
Weight saved 1,500


TYPICAL LANDING CONDITIONS
(Navigator and bombardier on flight deck, tail gunner at waist position, 6,000 rounds ammunition and 500 gallons fuel)
With Ball Turret 46,245 29.7
Without Ball Turret 44,745 24.9
Weight saved 1,500

Note: The ammunition expended has not been considered in the above calculations, because of its variable aspect. It is assumed, however, that this will not materially affect C.G. since uniform expenditure throughout the ship may be assumed.

b. A statistical analysis of the combat activity of the defensive armament in this Division is as follows:

(1.) 6 MONTHS - NOVEMBER 1943-APRIL 1944
-------------------TOTAL-----%-OF-----------DESTROYED-----PROB.-DESTROYED-----DAMAGED----N0.-CLAIM
----------------- ENCS.----TOTAL ENCS.------N0.-------%----N0.---%-------------N0.-----%---------N0.---%
GUN-POSITION
NOSE------------164--------16.0-----------------72-----15.1-----18--18----------25------15.6------49------17.2
TOP-TURRET----177--------17.2-----------------75-----15.6-----20---20 ---------31------19.4------51------18
BALL-TURRET-----53---------5.1-----------------30-------6.3------3----3------------7------4.4-------13------4.6
LEFT-WAIST----158--------15.6------------------85----17.8-----13 ----13----------24-----15-------36-------12.7
RIGHT-WAIST---158-------15.6------------------66-----13.8-----19----19----------24-----15-------49-------17.2
TAIL-TURRET----312--------30.5----------------150-----31.4-----27----27---------49------30.6----86-------30.3
TOTAL-----------1022--------100----------------478------100----100-----100-----160------100 284 100

(2.)-MONTH-OF-APRIL-1944
------------------TOTAL-----%-OF-----------DESTROYED-----PROB.-DESTROYED-----DAMAGED----N0.-CLAIM
----------------- ENCS.----TOTAL ENCS.------N0.-----%------N0.---%-------------N0.-----%---------N0.---%
GUN-POSITION
NOSE------------74-----------20.5--------------31---19--------8------25-----------9-----15.8---------26----23.8
TOP-TURRET----75-----------20.7--------------32--19.6-------8-----25----------13-----22.8---------22----20.2
BALL-TURRET---13-------------3.7---------------5---3.1--------1------3------------2-------3.5----------5-----4.6
LEFT-WAIST-----53-----------14.6--------------30---18.4------3------9.4---------9------15.8--------11----10.1
RIGHT-WAIST----48----------13.3--------------19---11.7-------3------9.4---------9------15.8--------17----15.6
TAIL-TURRET-----98----------27.2--------------46---28.2-------9-----28.2-------15------26.3--------28-----25.7
TOTAL------------361----------100-------------163----100-----32----100---------57-------100-------109----100
 
Top