The Myth of the Crushed Ball Turret Gunner

[Mark Allen M]

Sadly I’ve come across sets of photographs of “visual evidence” of tragic wartime casualties after 8th AF bombing missions. I’ve never posted them here or anywhere for that matter. And yes, they are as tragic and horrible as one can imagine. Whenever I read a WWII story that states “KIA, Lost, Shot down, Died, etc.” or “Only lost a certain amount of planes, ships, soldiers, sailors or airmen” I remind myself that any human being “lost” as a direct result of war and combat is something no one wants to see photographs of. I’ve seen proof of far too much death and destruction both from history and present to know that nothing is out of the realm of actually happening.

But as is always the case with everything these days, unless I see ‘absolutely without a doubt’ evidence that something occurred or someone stating something as fact, sadly I’ll always be skeptical.

[quemerford]

Whenever I read a WWII story that states “KIA, Lost, Shot down, Died, etc.” or “Only lost a certain amount of planes, ships, soldiers, sailors or airmen” I remind myself that any human being “lost” as a direct result of war and combat is something no one wants to see photographs of. I’ve seen proof of far too much death and destruction both from history and present to know that nothing is out of the realm of actually happening.

Very well put, especially coming so soon after Holocaust remembrance day. Each 'loss' is a person.

[Jesse C.]

Thanks to this site, and postings such as this, I cringe more often at shows and museums when I over hear folks talking about planes or events.
The myths and tall tales are alive and well out there, and this type of article really does help you see it more clearly. For years I have heard, and believed the Ball Turret tale. Always with some skepticism due to the ball having a door to get in and out off. Sure, damage can hamper that, but if it did actually happen, I am sure someone would have taken note just for the sake of how the event went down.

Until such facts come in, on this and other things, and the media catches up, I will keep hearing about the Whistling Death and Ball Turret stories.

[JohnB]

Myths die hard.
They will always be out there.

When giving tours at the museum, you hear a bunch of historically dubious tales.
But you can't really come out and call BS on a story handed down from someone's father or grandfather, so you smile and change topics.

[mike furline]

Info and photo from "Masters of the Air" about half way down.

https://forum.quartertothree.com/t/bomb ... i/131369/8

[JimH]

Info and photo from "Masters of the Air" about half way down.

https://forum.quartertothree.com/t/bomb ... i/131369/8

"Plastic cage"? and "Hydraulic Failure"? The ball turret is cast in thick magnesium and is extremely strong. As we saw from the Aluminum Overcast gear collapse the turret pushed straight through fuselage. There is a tool kit on mounted on the Ball Turret to unbolt and drop the turret in the event of a forced landing. The turret can also be hand cranked or moved by hand with the the lock loosened. Anyone that's ever unloosened the turret in flight can attest if you go too far the turret will rotate extremely fast pointing the guns straight down (effectively exposing the hatch to the inside of the airplane).

The landing gear on the B-17 is electric...with the well known hand crank back up. The only flight systems that are Hydraulic are the brakes and the cowl flaps. In all my years of touring I never heard of anyone getting crushed. We had a veteran in New England that followed us around the area in his camper, "Smitty" Smith. He took a hit in the turret that partially detached his arm, he managed to get the turret rotated so that he could get back in the airplane, get his chute, and bail out. He ended up losing his arm, but he survived. He said the only reason he didn't bleed out was the frigid temperatures.

Jim

[mike furline]

Info and photo from "Masters of the Air" about half way down.

https://forum.quartertothree.com/t/bomb ... i/131369/8

"Plastic cage"? and "Hydraulic Failure"? The ball turret is cast in thick magnesium and is extremely strong. As we saw from the Aluminum Overcast gear collapse the turret pushed straight through fuselage. There is a tool kit on mounted on the Ball Turret to unbolt and drop the turret in the event of a forced landing. The turret can also be hand cranked or moved by hand with the the lock loosened. Anyone that's ever unloosened the turret in flight can attest if you go too far the turret will rotate extremely fast pointing the guns straight down (effectively exposing the hatch to the inside of the airplane).

The landing gear on the B-17 is electric...with the well known hand crank back up. The only flight systems that are Hydraulic are the brakes and the cowl flaps. In all my years of touring I never heard of anyone getting crushed. We had a veteran in New England that followed us around the area in his camper, "Smitty" Smith. He took a hit in the turret that partially detached his arm, he managed to get the turret rotated so that he could get back in the airplane, get his chute, and bail out. He ended up losing his arm, but he survived. He said the only reason he didn't bleed out was the frigid temperatures.

Jim

And while all of those nit-picky details may be true, the photo does show the results of a turret being ground down.

[p51]

And while all of those nit-picky details may be true, the photo does show the results of a turret being ground down.

Good point.
As most of you likely know, B-17 crews were often worried about belly landing with the ball in place, as it could (and sometimes did) break the aircraft in half right at that spot. That, to me, speaks more about how strong the darned thing was than anything else.
I can't quote the figures, but I remember reading a postwar USAF study that showed the ball turret casualties were somewhat lesser than those in other positions on heavy bombers.

[menards]

Info and photo from "Masters of the Air" about half way down.

https://forum.quartertothree.com/t/bomb ... i/131369/8

"Plastic cage"? and "Hydraulic Failure"? The ball turret is cast in thick magnesium and is extremely strong. As we saw from the Aluminum Overcast gear collapse the turret pushed straight through fuselage. There is a tool kit on mounted on the Ball Turret to unbolt and drop the turret in the event of a forced landing. The turret can also be hand cranked or moved by hand with the the lock loosened. Anyone that's ever unloosened the turret in flight can attest if you go too far the turret will rotate extremely fast pointing the guns straight down (effectively exposing the hatch to the inside of the airplane).

The landing gear on the B-17 is electric...with the well known hand crank back up. The only flight systems that are Hydraulic are the brakes and the cowl flaps. In all my years of touring I never heard of anyone getting crushed. We had a veteran in New England that followed us around the area in his camper, "Smitty" Smith. He took a hit in the turret that partially detached his arm, he managed to get the turret rotated so that he could get back in the airplane, get his chute, and bail out. He ended up losing his arm, but he survived. He said the only reason he didn't bleed out was the frigid temperatures.

Jim

And while all of those nit-picky details may be true, the photo does show the results of a turret being ground down.

I wasnt aware the ball turret was magnesium. Would the turret scraping against a paved runway get hot enough that it would/could ignite the magnesium components of the turret?

[wendovertom]

regarding first hand accounts - I have heard stories told by vets that I knew just could not be true and in fact could be contradicted by official records. But, you listen and respect the sacrifices they made - a lot of which I will never know about. General Paul Tibbetts IV told me once he has heard more fantastic stories about his Grandfather than he could have ever imagined. A historian has to be repectful and careful with oral history. It is important but it is the POV for one person as well.

Tom P.

[JohnB]

I can't quote the figures, but I remember reading a postwar USAF study that showed the ball turret casualties were somewhat lesser than those in other positions on heavy bombers.

The only time I recall speaking to my father about wartime losses, he said there was a reputedly "jinxed" bomber in his group that lost a couple of tail gunners.
I specifically recall him using the term that has been used here (and in the Masters of the Air quote in the link above)...Washed him out with a hose....

It would be interesting to learn the etymology of that phrase. Seemed to be popular in that era.

[Mark Sampson]

The poet Randall Jarrell served with the AAF during the war. I remember reading that he had been a staff officer with the 8th AF, but I can't quote a reference for that. He did publish two volumes of poetry in the 1940s, "Little Friend, Little Friend" and "Losses", which deal with his Army experience. Poets doing what they do, their lines often become figures of common speech.

[Spitty]

Thought the Phrase "They hosed them" out related to British Tailgunners.

[mustangdriver]

In the time I’ve spent with the veterans of our air tours plane and museum aircraft you definitely sometimes experience a story that you respectfully listen to and know that it’s a stretched truth. The gentleman I encountered with this story was not that. Simply due to the detail of trauma it caused on the crew members who were not flying that day.



Just because it’s not written in a government form (something I feel they would have been pretty sensitive about in a case like this) doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Even today loved ones back home don’t hear the exact details of how a loved one passed unless someone who was there tells them the exact details.

Remember up until a few years ago, if someone would have said “A TBM crew came back with the turret gunner so mangled they just pushed the whole plane over, we’d be having this same argument about that. But the somewhat recently discovered video proves that stuff like this happens.

While I believe it’s a story that got around, I also do believe it happened and this gentleman is one to be believed.

I also find it funny that if it’s a detail we like, we unquestionably say “see the veteran recalled that. But if it’s one we doubt we very easily say, “well your veteran must have mid-remembered.” We have to be careful with that.

So the discussion of “If there’s no written government form, or photo, it doesn’t exist”.
Did the B-25 “Ruptured Duck” have nose art? There’s no photo. No government form. Just a few guys that said it was there and describe it. But do you believe it was there?

[quemerford]

Just because it’s not written in a government form (something I feel they would have been pretty sensitive about in a case like this) doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Even today loved ones back home don’t hear the exact details of how a loved one passed unless someone who was there tells them the exact details.

So the discussion of “If there’s no written government form, or photo, it doesn’t exist”.
Did the B-25 “Ruptured Duck” have nose art? There’s no photo. No government form. Just a few guys that said it was there and describe it. But do you believe it was there?

I think it's important to state that lack of evidence is not evidence. This happens too much. Neither are we suggesting that we shouldn't believe what our vets say. Just that we need to be careful relying on anecdotal recollections, even if they are by highly-experienced or respected witnesses. And multiple recollections of the same thing are also often proven to be incorrect because on delving deeper we find that a single witness will have recounted the same tale to multiple recipients, who retrospectively become multiple witnesses.

So it's very important that we don't turn this round and try to create a story along the lines of "this would not have been officially recorded". As with Mark, I've seen very graphic photos in accident reports and graphic details in other primary-source data. So it's a spurious argument that things must have been so on the grounds that they were "too sensitive" to record. The evidence in many examples of primary sources show this to be untrue.

Again I'll re-state that a lack of evidence is not evidence.