Why the lack of manned turrets on World War Two German bomber aircraft?

[Phantom Fanatic]

Hello all.

I looked around and did not see any existing threads addressing this matter so I decided to start one.

What I have been wondering for some time is the lack of manned turrets of world war 2 German bombers. All the pre war and early war models seem to have had dorsal and ventral gun positions. The later war models also lack, at least for the most part, manned gun turrets instead using unmanned low profile gun turrets. Why is this the case? Was it doctrine, or the size of the aircraft? I feel like a lot of german bombers would have benefitted from having traversing gun turrets. I have always wondered why they never seem to have pursued the idea.

 

[dan_inbox]

Hello all.

I looked around and did not see any existing threads addressing this matter so I decided to start one.

What I have been wondering for some time is the lack of manned turrets of world war 2 German bombers. All the pre war and early war models seem to have had dorsal and ventral gun positions. The later war models also lack, at least for the most part, manned gun turrets instead using unmanned low profile gun turrets. Why is this the case? Was it doctrine, or the size of the aircraft? I feel like a lot of german bombers would have benefitted from having traversing gun turrets. I have always wondered why they never seem to have pursued the idea.

You have the answer in your own question: "low profile gun turrets".
With much faster wartime aircraft, turret drag was detrimental to the bomber's survival.

 

[Phantom Fanatic]

You have the answer in your own question: "low profile gun turrets".
With much faster wartime aircraft, turret drag was detrimental to the bomber's survival.

But why the dorsal fix gun positions in earlier bombers. Why did the He-111 for example not get turrets sooner than it did? I guess my question is more about the lack of traversing turrets in earlier German aircraft.

 

[HoHun]

Hi,

What I have been wondering for some time is the lack of manned turrets of world war 2 German bombers. All the pre war and early war models seem to have had dorsal and ventral gun positions. The later war models also lack, at least for the most part, manned gun turrets instead using unmanned low profile gun turrets.

It might be a useful approach to turn the question around and ask, why did the RAF equip their bombers with manned turrets in the pre-war and early-war period, and what operational capabilities did they gain from that decision?

I suspect that the RAF was overestimating the value of manned turrets, as can be deduced from their fascination with turret fighters, of which the Defiant was expected to be only the first generation. The Battle of the Heligoland Bight, in which Wellingtons suffered heavy losses to Luftwaffe fighters, in spite of being armed with two two-gun turrets each, in my opinion showed that even the best-armed (at the time) RAF bombers' armament wasn't sufficient to allow daylight operations in areas where they'd encounter enemy fighters.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Foo Fighter]

Low profile, low drag but these only came to their own later in the war when technology had advance.

The manned turret has not of the complex sighting requirements and if those aircraft mentioned had come along later in the war no doubt would have gone the unmanned route.

The B-17 had a mix of turret and gun positions and B-29 all low profile gun turrets, no waist gun positions on those.

 

[CJGibson]

Could be as simple as weight and space in the airframe. British prewar bombers, eg Hampden didn't have the space.

Did the Luftwaffe policy(?) Of grouping all the crew in the forward fuselage mean fitting flexible mgs rather than turrets was the only solution until the low drag ie more compact turrets appeared.

Chris

 

[NMaude]

A bit off-topic but hadn't the British physicist, Freeman Dyson (He died 2020 at the ripe old of 96) when he was working for the RAF determined in a study that not only were the Lancaster's nose and dorsal turrets unnecessary but also without them the Lancaster would've been 50mph faster?

 

[Phantom Fanatic]

Hi,



It might be a useful approach to turn the question around and ask, why did the RAF equip their bombers with manned turrets in the pre-war and early-war period, and what operational capabilities did they gain from that decision?

I suspect that the RAF was overestimating the value of manned turrets, as can be deduced from their fascination with turret fighters, of which the Defiant was expected to be only the first generation. The Battle of the Heligoland Bight, in which Wellingtons suffered heavy losses to Luftwaffe fighters, in spite of being armed with two two-gun turrets each, in my opinion showed that even the best-armed (at the time) RAF bombers' armament wasn't sufficient to allow daylight operations in areas where they'd encounter enemy fighters.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

That definitely helps. I must further wonder if the lack of a German strategic bomber force also played a role. The schnell bombers were supposed to be light and fast, a requirement not very conducive to gun turrets. From what I have gathered from the books I’ve read it seems that turrets were added to the later medium bomber projects because the they were just not fast enough to outrun fighters and therefore needed better defenses. Also as mentioned by others here by later in the war streamlined remote turrets were a viable option.

 

[TinWing]

Hello all.

I looked around and did not see any existing threads addressing this matter so I decided to start one.

What I have been wondering for some time is the lack of manned turrets of world war 2 German bombers. All the pre war and early war models seem to have had dorsal and ventral gun positions. The later war models also lack, at least for the most part, manned gun turrets instead using unmanned low profile gun turrets. Why is this the case? Was it doctrine, or the size of the aircraft? I feel like a lot of german bombers would have benefitted from having traversing gun turrets. I have always wondered why they never seem to have pursued the idea.

The Mosquito was an extreme example, but I can only suppose that the Germans similarly prioritized speed ahead of defensive armament in the mid-1930. Germany also likely underestimated the speed of Britain's aviation buildup, in particular advances in aero engines and fighters.

Adding manned defensive armament and additional aircrew was incredibly detrimental to payload, especially in twin engine bombers in the late 1930s. Looking back the Mosquito or the late war Invader represented optimal solutions of the question of defensive bomber armament for twin engine types. In short, little or none.
Ultimately, the motivational psychology of defensive armament was probably more effective in keeping bombers crews flying than in fighting off enemy fighters. I'd argue that USAF long range fighters escorts were of far more actual use than silly ventral ball turrets on B-17s. A lot of WWII practices were far more about aircrew morale than actual effectiveness. Like the concept of "evasion lines" in occupied Europe to rescue downed Allied aircrewmen.

 

[HoHun]

Hi,

I must further wonder if the lack of a German strategic bomber force also played a role. The schnell bombers were supposed to be light and fast, a requirement not very conducive to gun turrets.

In my opinion, it's the choice of targets that makes a bomber strategic or not. The pre-war Luftwaffe doctrin included attacks against the enemy air force bases and against the sources of its air power the first stage for winning the war, and the attack against a broad range of strategic targets the second phase (see "Spearhead for Blitzkrieg" by Deichmann/Price).

They did not have four-engined bombers, but the twin-engined bombers they had could deliver a comparable payload, albeit only over a shorter range. Here's a diagram I prepared, comparing an early-war Ju 88 with a contemporary (thus, early) model of the B-17 ... the Ju 88 can't penetrate as deeply as the B-17, but at shorter ranges, it delivers a comparable payload:



(Caen-Newcastle requires a penetration depth of 670 km, Caen-London only 260 km. Cologne-Paris, 420 km.)

I believe the Germans actually abandoned the Schnellbomber formula deliberately, after Junkers designed the Ju 88 to be only slightly bigger (and, probably, only slightly slower) than a pure Schnellbomber, but with the load capacity and (light) defensive armament of a more conventional medium bomber. I don't have the book handy, but in "Vom Original zum Modell - Junkers Ju 88", there is a slide from an original Junkers presentation overlaying the silhouettes of the Ju 86 and the much more compact Ju 88, and basically stating that their new design has made the Schnellbomber concept obsolete.

Of course, the Germans might have had illusions about the effectiveness of their defensive armament, just as the British and the Americans (and probably everyone else) had, too. In the case of the British, they seem to have undertaken actual firing tests with powered turrets though, probably with the Boulton-Paul Overstrand I guess. In an old Flugrevue article on the Defiant, Hans Redemann pointed out that the British figured that an enclosed, powered turret would allow the gunner to score a multiple of the hits he'd achieve with a hand-held gun fired from an open position. So to be fair, the RAF had somewhat of an empirical basis for their optimism, even if that failed to translate into a corresponding capability advantage.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[DWG]

Remember, powered turrets are advanced technology at this point in time. Even unpowered turrets are new-ish. The reason the He-111 didn't have any may simply be there were none readily available at the point it was designed, or the case for including them wasn't considered proven.

Our picture of WWII turrets is often the two or four gun .303 Browning turrets on Lancasters, or the twin .50 turrets on US bombers, but early turrets were often fitted with a single Vickers K, with the gunner needing to dive into the fuselage for a new pan magazine every time he emptied the one on the gun. Even the Wellington, usually seen with two and four gun powered turrets at nose and tail, actually started out with Vickers designed 'turrets' that were actually fixed glazed positions, with the guns rotating along a fixed track running around their middle. Similarly the B-17A was not the turret-festooned Fortress of later versions.

 

[tomo pauk]

That definitely helps. I must further wonder if the lack of a German strategic bomber force also played a role.

German strategic bombers' force was part and parcel of Luftwaffe. It comprised mostly of He 111s.
In the same time at RAF, their strategic bomber force comprised of Wellingtons, Whitleys and Hampdens.

 

[Phantom Fanatic]

German strategic bombers' force was part and parcel of Luftwaffe. It comprised mostly of He 111s.
In the same time at RAF, their strategic bomber force comprised of Wellingtons, Whitleys and Hampdens.

Yes but the He-111 is not a strategic bomber it is a two engine medium bomber. When I said that Germany did not have a strategic bomber force what I meant was that they did not have a force of four engined heavy bombers.

 

[tomo pauk]

Yes but the He-111 is not a strategic bomber it is a two engine medium bomber. When I said that Germany did not have a strategic bomber force what I meant was that they did not have a force of four engined heavy bombers.

Internet is a lousy medium to convey thoughts, but it usually works for words

On a serious note - you are mixing up the role of an aircraft with the layout & weight/size of an aircraft. He 111 was capable to bomb Northern Ireland from the continental Europe, that it did several times. Even the stuff that was bombed in England by the He 111 was hundreds of miles away from the German army, and included factories, marshaling yards, indeed civilian/apartment buildings, along with the different military installations.
Thus the He 111 was a strategic bomber. Same as the Wellington was a strategic bomber, supposed to bomb German from the UK when it was being introduced, together with Whitley and Hampden.

For tactical tasks, LW intended to use and it used the likes of Hs 123 and Ju 87.
Yes, sometimes the long-range bombers were used to attack the tactical targets.

 

[Phantom Fanatic]

Internet is a lousy medium to convey thoughts, but it usually works for words

On a serious note - you are mixing up the role of an aircraft with the layout & weight/size of an aircraft. He 111 was capable to bomb Northern Ireland from the continental Europe, that it did several times. Even the stuff that was bombed in England by the He 111 was hundreds of miles away from the German army, and included factories, marshaling yards, indeed civilian/apartment buildings, along with the different military installations.
Thus the He 111 was a strategic bomber. Same as the Wellington was a strategic bomber, supposed to bomb German from the UK when it was being introduced, together with Whitley and Hampden.

For tactical tasks, LW intended to use and it used the likes of Hs 123 and Ju 87.
Yes, sometimes the long-range bombers were used to attack the tactical targets.

So what you are saying is that the He-111 was a medium bomber used strategically? I am aware that it was used for further away targets. What I was attempting to get across was that the Germans did not have as capable a force of bombers to be used strategically compared to what the Americans and British would achieve. The range and bomb loads for western allied machines quickly outstripped what the Germans have. I was trying to get at the fact that most German aircraft suffered from range and payload limitations compared to allied models. The He-177 did have a pretty heavy payload but it had major reliability issues.

Speaking of the He-177, it did have remote turret mounted on it, proving an earlier point made about the Germans adopting remote turrets eventually.

 

[tomo pauk]

So what you are saying is that the He-111 was a medium bomber used strategically?

For the time period of 1936 to 1940, what bomber aircraft in regular service use could we call a 'heavy bomber'?

What I was attempting to get across was that the Germans did not have as capable a force of bombers to be used strategically compared to what the Americans and British would achieve. The range and bomb loads for western allied machines quickly outstripped what the Germans have.

Keyword is 'would'.
Unlike the USAAF 8th air force for example, Europeans were waging the air war already by late Summer of 1939. That means half of the ww2. In the 1st two years of ww2, premier bomber force was that of the Luftwaffe, both in numbers, lift capacity, experience and night bombing ability (that only British were eventually able to mess with). Soviets were thereabout in numbers of bombers and possibly in lift capacity; in 1939 they were probably the best in these two categories.
What the LW lacked in that time was a long range fighter force, that is able to overcome RAF specifically. Without that, LW suffered in the major way during the BoB, even if they emerged victorious over many other air forces and eventually countries.

I was trying to get at the fact that most German aircraft suffered from range and payload limitations compared to allied models. The He-177 did have a pretty heavy payload but it had major reliability issues.

Compared with the later Allied models. Before the 4-engined bombers became the norm, the Allied 2-engined bombers were in the ballpark with the German bombers.
Agreed with the assessment of the He 177. Going with twinned engines was a major self-inflicted would, that robbed the Germans a chance to have a usable force of the next-gen bombers, and forced them to use Ju 88s, Do 217s and He 111s even in 1944 - just imagine RAF in 1943-44 with only Welligtons and Hampdens, or the USAF with only B-18s and B-25s flying daylight missions against German/Axis targets 600 miles deep from England or Foggia.

Speaking of the He-177, it did have remote turret mounted on it, proving an earlier point made about the Germans adopting remote turrets eventually.

True that.

 

[Phantom Fanatic]

For the time period of 1936 to 1940, what bomber aircraft in regular service use could we call a 'heavy bomber'?

This relates to your “would” reply. From 1936 to 1940 the Americans were working on the B-17 and the Brits working on the Manchester which would eventually lead to the Lancaster. So while perhaps there were not any yet any heavy bombers the Allie’s were heading in the right direction while the Germans, apart from the He-177, were focused on twin engined models like the Ju-88 and He-111. So I would say while no heavy bombers were around at the time the Allies had the basis of what would become their heavy bombers

Ironically enough the Germans too looked on the brink of a future heavy bomber development in the late 1930s with the Ju-89 which did lead to Ju-90, 290, and 390. But these aircraft were not built in any significant numbers.