B-17 Ball Turret

[Flyingfortress]

I always understood the B-17 had a fixed ball turret and the B-24 had one that retracted. That being said, why am I reading now that the '17s ball turret was also retractable? I have never seen a Fortress with a retracted turret. Does anyone have info or a picture to this effect? :wacko:

[Huey Gunner]

From all that I have read, the Sperry turret on the B-17 was not retractable. Which posed a peticular problem in the early days of the Pacific war. As most all runways were not concrete and if the aircraft took off in wet conditions and a rain squal could not be found to fly through to clean off the turret, it was rendered basically useless. As per the book "Flying Fortress" by Edward Jablowski.

[theplasticsurgeon]

I always understood the B-17 had a fixed ball turret and the B-24 had one that retracted. That being said, why am I reading now that the '17s ball turret was also retractable? I have never seen a Fortress with a retracted turret. Does anyone have info or a picture to this effect? :wacko:

My understanding is the same.

The turret could had to be released (having extracted the gunner first), in the case of a crash landing, as the fixed mountings would break the B17's back.

I think that confirms what you thought anyway.

[jrallman]

well, the Sperry was retractable, the B-17 had no retraction mechanism. In other words, it isnt the turret, it is the plane. That is why the same turret was retractable on the B-24 and not on the B-17. No need to have heavy and space consuming retracting mechanisms on a B-17 when the the fort is a low wing tail dragger. The B-24 with its high wing nose wheel design necessitated a retracting ball, otherwise the landing gear would have to be unrealistically long to clear the ball turret.

[B-17fan]

I'm currently reading Martin Bowman's latest work "B-17 Combat Missions". The first-person accounts and color artifact photos make it a welcome addition to my B-17 collection. Unfortunately the book contines the misconception that the B-17 ball turret was retractable, stating it was "hydraulically suspended... and could be raised and lowered". Another portion of the text states if time permitted the ball would be dropped prior to ditching. I might be wrong but I've always understood "ditching" to mean a water landing. I doubt a crew would want to create a 3 foot opening in the belly of the aircraft prior to landing on water.

All-in-all it's a good book and recommended.

[Dr. Tran]

I am a little reminded of that eposide of Amazing Stories featuring the B-17. Quite a cast Spielberg chose too - a young Kevin Costner, Kiefer Sutherland, and even a small role by Anthony LaPaglia.

I wonder if anybody has modeled that fictional B-17?

[strikeeagle801]

I can't remember who it is by, but I remember reading a poem in high school called "death of the ball turret gunner" Anyone else read this poem? It was kind of graphic, as they ended up washing him out with a hose. I just can not grasp the courage these young men had. The ball turret was the most dangerous, yet least protected part of the entire plane. And I have read instances where the turret would get stuck for one reason or another, and they gunner would not be able to get out and would be crushed by a crash landing.

Aaron

[Dr. Tran]

Death Of The Ball Turret Gunner

By Randall Jarrell

From my mother's sleep I fell into the State,

And I hunched in its belly till my wet fur froze.

Six miles from earth, loosed from its dream of life,

I woke to black flak and the nightmare fighters.

When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose.

[Huey Gunner]

I am a little reminded of that eposide of Amazing Stories featuring the B-17. Quite a cast Spielberg chose too - a young Kevin Costner, Kiefer Sutherland, and even a small role by Anthony LaPaglia.

I wonder if anybody has modeled that fictional B-17?

Is that the one where he was trapped in the turret and the gear was jammed up?

[Huey Gunner]

I am a little reminded of that eposide of Amazing Stories featuring the B-17. Quite a cast Spielberg chose too - a young Kevin Costner, Kiefer Sutherland, and even a small role by Anthony LaPaglia.

I wonder if anybody has modeled that fictional B-17?

Found it on IMDB. "The Mission" 1985.

[Expat Tomcat]

When we were in Columbus for the Gathering of the Mustangs both B-17s had their ball turrets turned so the access hatch was open on the outside of the airplane. All I have to say is that it is WICKED small in there, no place for a big guy like me. Later, I got a better look at the Air Force Museum, its just amazing to me that they could jam a human being into that small of a space. That took real guts to be crammed in there, and not just flip out because of claustrophobia. Let alone being suspended on the bottom of a bomber 6 miles up, with little hope of getting out without assistance.

The ball turret has always been the most fascinating thing about the B-17 and B-24 for me. I'd like to make a model of one, in large scale, something like 1/4, that would be so cool.

BTW I just bought the "Firepower" upgrade for CFS3 which had both the bombers that had this turret in the upgrade. I just flew a whole mission in the ball last night.

[Michael Vorrasi]

I always understood the B-17 had a fixed ball turret and the B-24 had one that retracted. That being said, why am I reading now that the '17s ball turret was also retractable? I have never seen a Fortress with a retracted turret. Does anyone have info or a picture to this effect?

B-17 Ball turrets were fixed. I've flown in one that has its ball turret and mount in place. It is most assuredly fixed. The single exception is the sole XB-40, which had a semi-retractable ball turret to reduce drag after they added all the extra turrets and ammo weight. The YB-40's reverted to the fixed ball turret. I've also flown in a B-24J that had its ball turret and that plane does have a retractable mount. Same ball, different mounts. I've compared them both in the flesh.

Mike

Edited December 3, 2007 by Michael Vorrasi

[Gordon]

Hi Guys. I always thought the ball turret was fixed as well. I read somewhere that a special tool was carried inside the fuselage which was used to release the turret as, if it was stuck thro' damage or whatever, the gunner couldn't get out the turret hatch! I also read somewhere that on one occasion, the turret was stuck but there was no tool. Another B-17 flew overhead and a tool was dangled along the fuselage on a rope till it reached the waist-gun position, was grabbed and then used to successfully release the turret.

If true, the poor guy must have had to change his underwear when he landed eh?!

[Hawk10]

The reason that the B-24 had a retractable turret and the B-17 didn't was very simple - Ground clearance! IIRC even if all the tires on the 17 were flat, the turret would still clear the ground (at least in theory). Whereas in the 24, even with the tires and struts full, the turret would still drag on the ground. An advantage the non retractable also had was it allowed a few more pounds of ammo or fuel to be carried (I learned very early on the truth of the saying "The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire!)

And I've read in a several places that the ball turret gunners job/position was not more dangerous than any other in a B-17 or B-24 in combat. They all were quite dangerous.

Edited December 4, 2007 by Hawk10

[AUTitaler]

Dr. Tran,

Thanks for posting the poem and it's author. I've loved that poem since the first time I hear it in Ms. Smith's 9th grade english class. Thanks again.

Death Of The Ball Turret Gunner

By Randall Jarrell

From my mother's sleep I fell into the State,

And I hunched in its belly till my wet fur froze.

Six miles from earth, loosed from its dream of life,

I woke to black flak and the nightmare fighters.

When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose.

[LanceB]

The ball turret was the most dangerous, yet least protected part of the entire plane.

Actually, I believe ball turret gunners had the lowest mortality rate of any of the crew on 17s and 24s. The pilots had the highest. The reason? Think about it. If you are the opposing fighter, are you going to be trying to make a climbing attack into the belly of a bomber, where they can see you coming and you aren't accelerating, or a diving attack from above with the sun behind you or, as was very common, a head-on attack while aiming for the flight deck?

There was a reason the 17Gs got that chin turret, you know...

Oh, and I think the image of "trapped in the turret in a belly landing" has been overblown. Not that it never happened, but between the normal power operation of the gear, the hand crank, and plain ol' gravity, the odds of the gear getting completely stuck in the up position were not as great as all that. I would be far more concerned about the turret getting stuck and the crew detaching the mounts to drop the turret. I have read in several books how the ball turret gunner (like the tail turret gunner) often wasn't wearing his parachute while "at the office" due to space issues. If something happened, he was supposed to get back into the fuselage and grab his chute before jumping.

Edited December 5, 2007 by LanceB

[Steve N]

I saw some video of the EAA's B-17G "Aluminum Overcast" when she did her belly-flop at Van Nuys Airport a few years back. Both landing gear simply collapsed, and you could see the ball turret mount get driven through the top of the fuselage. When I flew in her last summer, I could see where the fuselage skin had been replaced (it was painted a slightly different shade of silver.) We actually had a little excitement on landing ourselves, when one of the main tires went flat. No damage done, but we were stuck out on a taxiway in 90+ heat while they rustled up some ground transport (and the spare tire.)

SN

[jrallman]

I remember reading (of course, I dont remember where) that B-17 tail gunners had a somewhat higher mortality rate, due to their relatively undefended position from rear attacks, and that they were so far removed from the rest of the plane in case of flak or other damage to the fuse.

[latormentabritanica]

I've also read somewhere that the highest mortality rate in the B-17 was the tail gunner, due to him not being surrounded by equipment. I've been in the tail position, and there's nothing between the gunner and air besides some very thin aluminum. However, the same document stated that the ball turret gunner had the lowest rate of survival during bailouts.

And the feared situation of the gunner stuck in the ball turret during a bellying-in happened. In fact, my edition of "The Mighty Eighth" shows a 44th BG B-24 bellied in, and the caption states that the ball turret gunner was trapped before hand and was crushed.

[ScottD]

I am a little reminded of that eposide of Amazing Stories featuring the B-17. Quite a cast Spielberg chose too - a young Kevin Costner, Kiefer Sutherland, and even a small role by Anthony LaPaglia.

I wonder if anybody has modeled that fictional B-17?

Thats the first thing that popped into my head when I saw this thread...I never realized that all of those actors where in that episode..its the same deal with Saving Private Ryan...quite a few actors (besides Tom Hanks and to a lesser extent Matt Damon) in that right before they hit the big time.

[Boman]

If you recall the movie "Mephis Belle" there is actually a scene in there wich projects this quite good;

The belly turret jams while an ME-109 prepares an attack, then the enemy fire rips open the entire ball turret. The gunner survives only because of the safety belt worn exactly for such instances, as when they open the hatch to the turret the gunner is hanging by it for dear life

[Boman]

Was also reading through AF Colours volume 2 - ETO & MTO, and in it, it is stated that the B-17's fitted with a "mickey radome" in place of the ball turret had this as a retractable device.

Apparently the reason was that it was much longer/more extended than the usual ball turret, causing problems during landing if extended.