Was the hand held single .50 effective? and more

[Felix C]

You know the one used in B-17s, B-24s etc. Was it effective against the piston engine a/c flow by the Germans? Or was it too unstable or inaccurate when in use compared to the power twin .50s?

[Graham Boak]

Yes, fairly obviously a powered twin gun is more dangerous to a fighter than a single hand-held one. None the less, a lot of aircraft were shot down in WW2 by hand-held guns, and not just by the heavier US gun. Even if any single gun may not have been a great threat, the sheer numbers available in an 8thAF formation were.

[Felix C]

Dangerous is not the question but rather were the single hand held guns as stable or accurate as the twin power driven?
Also, if they were effective or only when combined with other guns from the same a/c or other a/c.

[Graham Boak]

A hand-held gun is not as stable or accurate as one in a power turret. That is clear, almost by definition. That stability and accuracy equates to dangerous to the enemy appears obvious to me.

[ahafan]

well a 50' cal. remember a B17 B24 gunner ,solo gun.waist.would he be shakin too.as the german fighters were doin there job.to shoot the bomber down..
so would accrucey be say good.?
more like a lucky round would hit the german.cockpit or engine.?
then water too.
.i read about a waist gunner,on a B17, who was firing with his pal, when his pals head took a direct hit.blowing his head off.with his brains etc all over him.that he just broke down on the spot.
he never got fit again..never flew again as a gunner..he never got well.
he died from shock.many years after...and nightmares he had..
but remember the german fighter pilot was doin his job..
that his All.
.he did not aim for him .personaly..but the - bomber..and yes to disable the guns.gunners too.
sharon

[John Beaman]

Originally Posted by ahafan

well a 50' cal. remember a B17 B24 gunner ,solo gun.waist.would he be shakin too.as the german fighters were doin there job.to shoot the bomber down..
so would accrucey be say good.?
more like a lucky round would hit the german.cockpit or engine.?
then water too.
.i read about a waist gunner,on a B17, who was firing with his pal, when his pals head took a direct hit.blowing his head off.with his brains etc all over him.that he just broke down on the spot.
he never got fit again..never flew again as a gunner..he never got well.
he died from shock.many years after...and nightmares he had..
but remember the german fighter pilot was doin his job..
that his All.
.he did not aim for him .personaly..but the - bomber..and yes to disable the guns.gunners too.
sharon

sharon,

I am trying to understand the relevancy of the second part of your post. The question was the effectiveness of the hand-held .50 MG versus a power turret. Your text has little to do with that question.

[Kryten]

I don't think air gunner accuracy was particularly high during ww2, whether it be pivot mount or powered mount, in effect the volume of fire would have been more the issue to the attacking aircraft, the larger the volume the higher the probability of being hit!
I never understood why they did not use a higher percentage of tracer on defensive weapons, if only for the psychological effect against the attacker?

the nose gunners on the 617 squadron lancs attacking the dams used a very high percentage of tracer to keep the gunners heads down and dazzle them?

[Steve_Fossey]

There was a USAF study of flexible gunnery that found a hit rate in training of about 3% of rounds. I don't have the details of the study but it involved special rounds hitting an armor plated fighter.

Among the problems was the "wagging" of the barrel as the weapon was fired making precise aim at long ranges impossible.

So, it was really a question of massed defensive fire to just get enough rounds in the general location of an attacker.

The B-17G had a rather ungainly chin turret added to replace a single 50 with a twin 50 turret for whatever that observation is worth.

Steve

[SimonE]

Apologies for the thread necromancy, but I was trawling through some of the older threads and have some useful information to add.

These are the results from static tests of bomber defensive positions, from a test firing of 12 rounds at 600 yards. The dispersion is measured in feet and mils of arc (3600 mils in circle).

Boeing B-17:

Ball Turret: 15 ft/8.3 Mils
Sperry upper turret: 21 ft/11.7 Mils
Bendix chin turret: 23 ft/12.6 Mils
Waist K-6 mounts (closed windows): 26 ft/14.3 Mils
Side nose guns: 34 ft/18.7 Mils
Tail turret: 45 ft/25.0 Mils
Tail turret (early Stinger type): 61 ft/33.4 Mils

Consolidated B-24:

Ball turret: 15 ft/8.3 Mils
Martin upper turret: 20 ft/11.2 Mils
Emerson nose turret: 23 ft/12.9 Mils
Waist K-6 mounts (closed windows): 23 ft/12.9 Mils
Motor Products tail turret: 35 ft/19.3 Mils
Motor Products nose turret: 35 ft/19.3 Mils
Waist (open windows): 63 ft/35.6 Mils

Information is borrowed from one of the old Ubi-forum threads, but I believe it originally comes from a book in US turrets. I've seen the same figures reproduced on several different forums by several authors, so I'll assume its reliable until proven otherwise.

[Kutscha]

Simon, it is from a book called 'Gunner', ISBN 1-55046-332-2.

Attacks and hits on B-17s and B-24s, Jan - May 1944

Distribution according to direction of attack origin in azimuth

B-17 % distribution of 3585 attacks and 441 hits whose direction could be determined

12 - 20.2/15.6
1 - 12.5/9.3
2 - 5.9/6.7
3 - 4.5/3.9
4 - 5.7/4.0
5 - 9.1-9.2
6 - 20.7/15.6
7 - 5.9/6.6
8 - 3.8/2.7
9 - 3.9/2.9
10 - 3.7/3.9
11 - 10.4/10.3

B-24 % distribution of 10425 attacks and 102 hits whose direction could be determined

12 - 21.6/17.6
1 - 12.7/8.4
2 - 3.9/5.2
3 - 2.9/5.4
4 - 3.0/3.6
5 - 7.7/7.8
6 - 20.7/15.6
7 - 19.6/20.6
8 - 11.0/6.9
9 - 3.1/2.0
10 - 6.9/3.4
11 - 11.9/7.8