How fucking bad ass would it be to be a ball turret gunner? And

Or more often than not, having your landing gear damaged and making an emergency landing by sliding the belly of the plane on the ground, killing the gunner.

>>32505900
Just have your friend draw some new ones in his notebook

>>32505900
>Ge golly men! our landing gear is broken
>Hmm looks like were in for a bit of slide
>sir...should we tell the gunner
>...nah, guys a dick

>>32505976
More like:
>Return from mission having taken enemy fire
>deploy landing gear, touchdown
>left leg collapses from battle damage (20mm right next to mounting bracket)
>Ball turret crushed, plane skids to halt.

>>32505908
First thing that came to mind.

>>32505900
>Or more often than not
Seriously rare. Turret is retracted for landing, and the other crew would be there to help you out if it jammed.

>>32505886
It would suck some serious ass. But on the bright side, he would be one of the only ones with a parachute.

It would be very easy to be killed in many, many ways. From mechanical failure, shrapnel, otherwise unseen enemy fire, fuel would follow the body of the plane rearward causing any fireball to consume the ball.

And that is all I could think of as my PC updates.

>>32505900
Did any of them try to land upside down in that case or would that be a dumb idea also why not have a special system to have the guy eject or be able to clib out of the turret?

>>32505900
I doubt they were occupied for takeoffs/landings. I know they were retracted on the B-24's for takeoff/landing.

>>32506089
They are very cramped. I doubt they wore parachutes.

File: B-17_Yankee_Lady_top_turret.jpg (557KB, 1600x1064px) Image search: [Google]

557KB, 1600x1064px

>>32506104
You do realize just how many turrets there were on the B17? Fucking every surface had one, no angle was blind. You'd kill everyone and even if you survived, the guy on top gets smeared on the tarmac.

>>32506123
something tells me guy on top would have an easier time getting out of that spot than the guy on the bottom that had to have the door at a specific angle to get out.

i'm ignoring the fact that landing upside down is stupid as fuck to begin with

File: blub.gif (1MB, 361x241px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 361x241px

>>32506104
>Did any of them try to land upside down
>would that be a dumb idea

File: i cant believe.jpg (40KB, 408x439px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 408x439px

>>32506104
>Just land upside down

>>32506123

The top turret is just the flight engineer standing on a raised deck, it's not a ball turret.

>>32505976

>Hydraulic lines out
>Can't extend landing gear
>Can't pivot ball turret into position for the gunner to get out.

>>32506104
This and that AK thread. Wew lads. The memes are off to a good (bad) start this blessed new year!

>>32505886
pod gunners might be targeted by fighter pilots or be more exposed to direct fire; but I suspect shrapnel, flack and bullets would pass through most of the plane anyway

and while I have no doubt that landing gear faults may have caused belly gunners to be tarmacked, why would the gunners be in the lower pods during landing anyway

>>32506889
Some US heavy bombers had ball turrets that did not have access to the rest of the aircraft, you got in on the ground and got out on the ground.

>>32506114
See to get out of them you had to retract the turret so the door would be accessible. That won't happen if hydraulics are shot or the door gets jammed from a shell casing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH9w1ryNAp8

>>32506889
Hydraulic lines getting cut. Sometimes shrapnel would jam the system that allowed the ball turret to retract.

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.

The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner by Randall Jarrell

File: 1317863273962.jpg (91KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1024x768px

>>32506785

D'ya think they still didn't tell them sometimes?

And all the way during they final landing the belly gunner is crying and pleading for them to let him out or ditch in water or something over their internal radio
And as they get nearer to the ground the other crew members take off their headsets to no longer have to bear the sound of the gunner weeping, cursing them, and pleading with them to speak to him and none of them have the heart to.
Except the pilot has to keep their headset on to communicate with Ground Control all the way to the ground.
And has to speak formally and professionally with ground control because GC is higher ranked than them.
So all the way on the final approach he has to keep up this monotone conversation with GC while the belly gunner is screaming at him to not do this.
Screaming at him the entire time until there's that final crunch/scrape of making contact with the ground and the gunner goes silent.

>>32506927
Why would the us army create such a flaw i the weapons system why ? I can think of ten ways to make that thing safer

>>32506104
>Did any of them try to land upside down in that case or would that be a dumb idea

>or would that be a dumb idea

>>32507002
I don't understand how you people make up bad situation in your head to jack off to.

>>32507002
Why land in water wont the guy just drown also why not just jump oit of the turret with a parachute? There must have neen better ways then that man

>>32507009
Because the people that designed it had no idea or just wanted the military to buy their system so they could make money.

>>32507030
>fitting in a ball turret with a parachute

>>32506785
AFAIK ball turrets are electrically powered, unless if your aircraft is of bongland origin.

Ball turrets also have mechanical backups. A clutch lever inside can be utilized to swing the turret gun-side downwards to allow access via the entry hatch. If the one inside the turret is somehow fucked, then a crewmember can do the same from the inside.

>>32507035
you should watch the vid, it does a decent job explaining

What if they just ejected the ball and ensured it was spinning enough that when it hit the ground it rolled off the momentum leaving the guy inside safe?

>>32507398
How in the Physics would that work?

>>32507398
It only works if you paint it red and white and shout the airman's name as it lands.

>>32506927
Thanks for sharing. That was an interesting watch.

>>32507421

that's how the bouncing bombs worked - they spun the bomb up prior to dropping it and it'd skip over the water and gently bump against the side of dams before sinking.

>>32507521
I don't think a human would be able to take those forces. Especially in a thin aluminum/glass ball.

>>32507521
Those didn't have a person inside them, retard

>>32507009

Many of these planes were designed and fielded in the span of a couple of years, which is a hideously rushed job by aviation standards.

>>32507595

Especially without computers aiding the design.

>>32506911
which ones?

>>32506074
Turret only retracted in the B-24, m80. Although I'm pretty sure the "no-gear ball turret gunner" situation really didn't happen so often to warrant how much it's parroted lately.

It's only repeated over and over because it's such a shitty way to die.

>>32506911
Literally completely wrong.

File: Automated_Tank.jpg (2MB, 2356x3344px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2356x3344px

>>32507009

The tried to automate it with primitive RC, bless their hearts, but the technology just wasn't there at the time so they had to directly stuff the gunner into the pod. UACVs themselves might be a relatively new technology, but there was planning for their hypothetical roles as early as the 20s.

Surprised by the mis-information occuring in this thread.

The only widely-fielded Sperry-equipped bomber that was able to retract the turret was the B-24.

The majority of ball turret gunners could not fit a parachute in with them (though some did); the majority used a safety strap which tethered them to the aircraft (the movie "Memphis Belle" is a good example)

The whole crushed-on-landing thing was probably extremely rare, as it would require both a malfunctioning/damaged electrical system AND an inability of a crewmember to operate the manual alignment mechanism, whether through another mechanical failure or lack of available crewmen (in which case the aircraft is probably doomed anyway).

The ball turret was actually a very innovative design, giving incredibly improved fields of fire and view, as well as improving gunner effectiveness over prior designs (e.g. the "tin bathtub" on early B-17's and some German bombers)

File: Jettisoned Ball.jpg (55KB, 378x455px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 378x455px

The Sperry Ball Turret in the B-17 and B-24 was actually pretty robust and a bit tougher than most people give it credit for. There are more than a few instances of B-17's and B-24's landing with damaged gear and the ball turret and its mounts either pushed up into the hull of the aircraft or broke it in half at that location.

Also in the event of the ball turret being completely fubar'ed it was possible to jettison the entire ball, Sperry was supposed to affix a tool kit to the frame for this very purpose. It was a fairly complicated process that took about half an hour but it was possible. Of course the damn thing was so small that only a goddamn Leprechaun could wear a chest parachute inside of them but in a pinch said lucky midget could either bail out of the back hatch or if they had to jettison the ball he could knock his hatch loose and drop out. Hopefully the electrical system of the bomber was functional and the turret could be reoriented, or the waist gunner could engage the manual clutch and hand crank the turret.

File: Tough Ball.jpg (55KB, 600x460px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 600x460px

>>32508102
Picture of a B-17 resting on it's ball turret, just the ball alone weighed nearly 1500 lbs so it wasn't a fragile piece of equipment.

File: Tinky winky tutu.jpg (33KB, 360x271px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 360x271px

>>32506104
>Landing upside down
It must be nice to live in your world

>>32506970
Came here for this.

>>32505900
Ball turret was usually manned once out of allied territory.

>>32505900
>>32505976
>>32506074
My great uncle was a USAAF ball turret gunner in WWII. The crew voted him to do it because he was a short Italian man and thus fit the best. I don't know about take offs or landings, but I know that once in the air being in the ball turret was horrifying because it was cramped, you were in there doubled over for hours at a time, you couldn't have your parachute on you (had to be stored outside the turret cuz lack of space), and enemy fighters intentionally came from behind and below to shoot at ya.

I saw on the military history channel about a time where the gear on a plane was busted and the guy was trapped in the ball turret, though I can't remember why. In order for the plane, and thus, the crew, to survive, they had to make a belly landing, which meant sacrificing the ball gunner. They went and told the ball gunner, who accepted his fate so that his brothers in arms may live. There was no body to recover.

File: nope.jpg (13KB, 230x230px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 230x230px

>>32508364
>There was no body to recover.

So he was a ghost all along!?

File: laugh.png (128KB, 375x375px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 375x375px

>>32506104
>Did any of them try to land upside down

>>32505900
Came here to post this. I can't even imagine what was going through the minds of the men who had to die this way.

File: Form1A.jpg (140KB, 700x487px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 700x487px

My grandfather was a tailgunner in a B-25. I think the 57th bomb wing flying out of Corsica. I'll tell you the most bad ass story he has from the war.

A FLAK round went through the tail about one meter from his position and it cut some cables that were controlling the altitude of the bomber. They had already dropped their bombs and were heading back to base flying over a body of water.

His pilot/captain announced that they would have to ditch the plane into the ocean. My grandpa knew he was supposed to prepare for impact and not bother the captain but he had an idea.

My got on the radio and asked the rest of the crew to move to the back of the plane, filling up the tail-section with the weight of their bodies. It actually worked because the plane tilted back enough for the pilot to keep altitude and land at the nearest base. That day he saved all their lives.

After that they were stranded at some strange airfield for two weeks waiting for a replacement plane or orders. He said he had the time of his life there with the local girls and booze because they opened up their emergency rations that had some money.

I guess he just ran through all the hoes in that little town. Sounds awesome. He also claims that he saw ME-262 near flying around italy and france but I don't think me and my dad believe him there. Is that even possible??

>>32508364
Why didn't they just rotate the turret so he could exit into the fuselage?

>>32508694
>>32507002
Reminds me of Vladimir Komarov, a Russian cosmonaut that basically fell from space when his capsule failed.
>He successfully re-entered the Earth's atmosphere on his 19th orbit, but the module's drogue and main braking parachute failed to deploy correctly and the module crashed into the ground, killing Komarov. According to the 1998 book Starman, by Jamie Doran and Piers Bizony, as Komarov sped towards his death, U.S. listening posts in Turkey picked up transmissions of him crying in rage, "cursing the people who had put him inside a botched spaceship."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Komarov

When I first read this it disturbed me for days.

File: IMG_3606.jpg (19KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 480x360px

>>32505908
>TFW you're old enough to have seen this on TV when it aired for the first time....

>>32508744
sometimes the rotation mechanisms would get jammed
if the landing gear got fucked then the ball turret's stuff could get fucked too

File: TP-82 2.png (61KB, 416x303px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 416x303px

>>32508756

I suspect the radio stuff is false, simply because that particular was known well ahead of time by the entire cosmonaut corps that it was going to be a suicide mission - to the extent that Yuri Gagarin tried to get Komarov replaced by himself in the hope that the idea of Gargarin dying in a spaceflight would be too large a PR disaster for the higher ups who were pushing the flight to ignore.

So I'd be surprised if Komarov hadn't been given some suicide method before the flight, or at the very least used the various "survival weapons"

File: 1482270266337s.jpg (2KB, 125x62px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x62px

>>32506104

Someone screencap this.

>>32508951
And that's why there were manual controls

That story is highly suspect though I don't doubt it could have happened

File: 1419109547404.png (32KB, 301x263px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 301x263px

>>32506104
>Did any of them try to land upside down

>>32508756
>U.S. listening posts in Turkey picked up transmissions of him crying in rage, "cursing the people who had put him inside a botched spaceship."
Apocryphal.

File: sweating.jpg (23KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x300px

>>32506163
This pic is oddly hot.

>>32507002
>D'ya think they still didn't tell them sometimes

No. The gunner had control of the primary retraction gear from inside the ball. If there was a problem, he was the first to know. There was a manual backup system that was operated from inside the plane, and the turret could also be hand rotated into position so that the hatch could be opened without retracting the ball. In this case, the gunner usually needed help to climb up into the plane.

The tail gunner position had a higher mortality rate than the ball turret. Why don't you write some necrofap about that?

>>32507002
bro what the fuck

>>32505900
I guess you saw that documentary on the bombing raids over Germany as well eh?

>>32507398
They'd have to be flying low enough or the turret would just shatter on impact. Not to mention the Gs the gunner would have to withstand would be unbearable followed by an extremely hard impact with no sort of way to reduce speed or absorb the shock of hitting the ground. So now instead of being smashed, you've probably lost consciousness, your bones are shattered, and no body has any fucking clue where you landed. So you die a slow and painful death if you manage to survive impact.

I'd rather be pancaked on the tarmac.

>>32507398
It would be better if they fitted the ball turret with a parachute and then ejected it so that it could shoot at the enemy as it descended.

>>32506104
>land upside down
At no point did the RAAF receive B-17s

>>32506104

Are you Australian ?

>>32507002
autism.

I actually got to chat with a WW2 gunner. Les Gordon, bloke was also in a book called 'Flak'. He was a tailgunner on Lancasters, mostly night time bombing. Said one of the most spectacular things he saw was when they dropped the 12,000lb Cookie blockbuster on a refinery. Pitch black, and then a massive flash and visible spheres from the pressure wave.
The mortality rate of his squadron came up, and he had this to say (paraphrased)

>Every time we went out, we'd come back and notice empty spaces in the mess during breakfast. We all probably thought about it, but we also knew we had a job and so we put it out of our minds as much as we could. And if you didn't do your job, then you'd be booted out and locked up.

Same book also has a few pilots mentioning Memphis Belle was bullshit- the 'screaming on the radio as the bomber goes down' never happened, at least in their units. They considered themselves professionals, there were procedures and you followed them.

>>32506163
Uhh... sauce?..

>>32508756
I'd found an article in the past with the actual radio recording, if not of him crying out then his last intelligible words or something. I'll have to see if I can dig it up.

Here it is, there's an audio file further along in the article:
http://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2011/05/02/134597833/cosmonaut-crashed-into-earth-crying-in-rage

>>32509111
IIRC Komarov volunteered in place of Gagarin, as the two were close friends, both knew of the suicide nature of the mission, and Komarov understood the large morale hit for the country if his friend and hero were to be lost.

>>32509455
My belief as well. I mean, Murphy's law coupled with the sheer volume of bomber sorties throughout the war leads to me believing it definitely happened at least once, but not nearly as much as people seem to think it could.

>>32506055
>>32505976
>>32505900
The ball turret gunner reenters the plane during takeoff and landing. He is also supposed to be able to bail out with a chute.

The grease spot anecdotes you know about are when the gunner could do neither.

File: tmp_31141-1483151331699-1881582425.jpg (81KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 768x1024px

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.

>probably the least desirable position in the plane

File: LOL.gif (77KB, 520x245px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 520x245px

>>32506104
>Did any of them try to land upside down
Dude, only a Harrier can do that.

>>32505900
false
https://books.google.com/books?id=RhqIYP2uLnUC&pg=PA35#v=onepage&q&f=false

File: 1449507210337.jpg (31KB, 442x430px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 442x430px

>>32515476
Anyone who begins a rebuttle with "false" tends to be on the spectrum.

>>32508364
Do you know where he was stationed?

File: 1457023564681.gif (987KB, 229x176px) Image search: [Google]

987KB, 229x176px

>>32506104
>land upside down

>>32507398
>)
Right before the ball was ejected they could fill it with helium so it would float gently to the ground.

>>32507009
There was a real war on and any feature not necessary was omitted. An ejection seat is a very complex machine not suited to a ball turret.

Ye with stupid turret questions, use a fucking search engine to see how they were designed and all will be clear.

>>32508694
They were issued pistols for good reason, like tank crews.

>>32508694
Most of the time?

The tarmac

File: 1482852673352.jpg (3KB, 238x195px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 238x195px

>>32507002

>>32508756
hahahaha another dead screaming slavshit hitting the earth at 2000mph hahah implying anything of worth was lost

>>32520904
edge

>>32512619
NO SHIT REALLY?!

File: R2FMPr9[1].jpg (113KB, 1440x1438px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1440x1438px

>>32507973
>operating an entire TANK using dead reckoning + timing
It would be like the death robot from Robocop.

>>32521311
Jesus christ you made me go back and read that.
They actually planned to use vinyls to operate these shits.
>DJ destroyer and the self steering torpedoes
>Jerry T. And the Runaway Tankers

>>32506970
doesn't even try to rhyme -infinity/10,
put some fucking effort into a poem about such a horrific topic

all these
>upside down
memeposts

There is no reason you could not land a plane upside down. It would be a soft crash landing but no different from landing the plane on its belly with out any landing gears, apart from being more difficult.

File: 1480465478474.jpg (31KB, 598x398px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 598x398px

>this whole fucking thread

>>32521590
Except that it would drop out of the sky long before you could land it, unless you're talking about something like a fighter jet that doesn't rely on its wings for lift like an airliner or heavy bomber does.

>>32521590
>upside down
>soft landing
holy shit my sides

>>32521613
You realize that there is more to how wings work than just the air traveling over them at different rates due to shape, right? In fact stunt planes have perfectly flat wings that work just as well upside down or right up.

A bomber, upside down, would obviously generate less lift than right side up since it has a more traditional wing, but its also not got a heavy as fuck bomb load anymore, it doesn't need to generate as much lift to stay in the air.

>>32521715
No- they don't. Aerobatic planes use symmetrical airfoils like SD-8020. That airfoil is something like 10% thick at the high point, so no, it's not a flat plate.

>>32521732
I meant not curved. My point still stands, you can fly upside down. And if you can fly upside down, you can land upside down.

>>32521715
I understand very well how they work, my wife is an aerospace engineer.

Stunt planes don't rely on their wings for lift, like fighters don't. They have a very efficient power-to-weight ratio. Hence my stated exception.

The design of an airliner/bomber wing forces a low pressure zone at the top of the wing - which becomes the bottom if it's upside down. The wings would literally suck it towards the earth.

We haven't even gotten into how many of the systems aren't designed to function in a sustained inverted state and would fail.

You could do a quick roll but nothing sustained for long enough to land like in the movies.

>>32506927
fuck i wish they made new episodes.

>>32510861
it would be fun and terrifying landing on a steep mountain.

>>32521756
lift is generated by many different effects. as i said a bombers wing is optimized for flying rightside up, but you could trim both ailerons up to alter airflow over the win and then just hold the wing at a higher than normal attack angle. Do it right and ground effect will take care of when on final aproach.

As i said it would be more difficult, but i dont see why people are writing it off as impossible. Wings only generate some of their lift through the common pressure difference explanation. Keeping in mind an empty bomber will handle a lot better than a laden one. Some ww2 medium bombers were turned into heavy interceptors with that weight savings.

As long as you have forward speed, which you will if you are dropping out of the sky, and something remotely resembling a wing, you can trade speed for lift for speed for lift back and forth all day until you finally gently touch down if you time it right.

>>32506865

that is not how they sat.

>>32506104

Now the top guys fucked.

My grandpa told me that the ball turret gunner was given a can of grease, in the event of the door jamming or not opening he could take off his gear and grease himself up and slither out.

File: 1474180689319.png (1MB, 1284x980px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1284x980px

>>32506104
Wow, I never would have thought of that. Brilliant.

File: 1468032197394.jpg (78KB, 659x506px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 659x506px

>>32521514
>>32521311
You bastards, I am crying from laughing so hard

>>32521851
that sounds like a really easy to lost the entire bomber crew instead of "just" the ball gunner.

>>32521950
Yeah, a judgement call would have to be made. I could see the crew bailing except the pilot to give it a shot though if the plane was otherwise intact. If its shot to hell and barely hanging in there to start with trying to land upside down starts getting pretty suicidal

>>32516852
God dam new man

>>32505886
or crushed under the aircraft when the landing gear is damaged and it has to make a landing.

>>32522156
good job missing the entire fucking thread mate

>>32507398
That's some kerbal tier shit right there.