crew positions for take off in bomber command heavies

[elger]

Hello all,

 

I'm wondering about a thing: were there any specific crew positions in bomber command heavies during starting and takeoff? Obviously the pilot and engineer would be in their respective positions, but what about the other positions? Would gunners be in their stations?

 

The Halifax II/V pilot's manual makes some references to crew positions in the take-off procedure. For instance, with taxiing, it states:

 

Quote

(iii) If FN. 64 mid upper turret is fitted, it must be under control during taxiing, take-off and landing. If the turret is left unattended, the guns may lower to the depressed position, and may foul the ground.

 

And then in section 45 of the manual, describing take-off, in the check list before take-of it includes the point "crew at stations" - but does that mean in turrets etc or at rest stations for example, which is where the crews would gather in case of a crash landing. (Interesting side note- these references to crew positions do not appear in the Halifax III-VII and B.VI manuals).

 

Does anyone have more information?

[11bravo]

Nothing specific but I know on USAAF heavies, the crew that wasn't flying would be seated forward (in the radio room in the case of the B-17).   I can't imagine that the turrets on a Lanc would be manned during take-off/landings.   

[tempestfan]

I seem to recall reading the same re USAAF. In case the battle stations were easy to reach and man in flight there would be little point in everyone being at it - the ball turret gunner in particular would neither want to be in there for 7 or 8 hours, nor for the take-off, as that turret would be a deathtrap in case of a mishap. As no day fighters would be encountered for a large part of the journey, there would be no need for having turrets manned.

RAF may be somewhat different, as the risk of a night fighter or an intruder on the prowl near the bases or at least in English airspace would be much higher.

 

I am a bit puzzled by that quote above - how would the guns of the MID UPPER turret be able to foul the ground when depressing themselves? Or should that actually read "lower"?

[tonyot]

I`ve always believed that Bomber Command crews were in their normal crew positions during take off,........ even in the Halifax whose W/Op and Nav were in the nose, below the pilot. Ditching positions were obviously different, with crew around the centre section braced against the main spar etc. 

[Our Ned]

A glitch somewhere - the FN 64 turret was the one fitted on the underside of the fuselage aft of the bomb bay in some aircraft.

[elger]

thanks all for thinking along!

[Bertie McBoatface]

I once read of a Lanc rear gunner who crewed in and then fell asleep while the raid was delayed due to deteriorating weather at base. The raid was scrubbed and everyone but our man piled out, got on the busses and trundled away. The gunner woke a couple of hours later, by which time the wind was gale force. He was somewhat disorientated and as he heard slipstream (wind) but no engine noise, all the electrics were out and as the intercom was silent, he assumed that they were crashing, possibly over Germany. He manually rotated his turret and threw himself out backwards, falling four feet to the tarmac and knocking himself out, but not before pulling his parachute release. His chute inflated and dragged him the length of the airfield, finally pulling him into a barbed wire fence, where he was found by the guard patrol and nearly shot for a German parachutist!

 

The story suggests that the gunners were to be in their turrets for engine start and take off.

 

However, though it's a nice funny story,  I'm afraid it's complete fiction. There are at least three implausible elements, as far as I can see. The armory would have queried where his guns were. The other gunners would surely have noticed that their mate wasn't on the bus with his guns. And most of all, the rear gunner's parachute wasn't in the turret with him, but stowed in the fuselage.

[Dave Swindell]

1 hour ago, Bertie Psmith said:

And most of all, the rear gunner's parachute wasn't in the turret with him, but stowed in the fuselage.

But the bailing out drill was to open the doors into the fuselage, retrieve the parachute, close the doors, clip the parachute on, rotate the turret, open the doors and bail out, so parachute stowage in the fuselage doesn't rule out the story.

Agreed, probably apocryphal, but there's usually an element of truth behind these stories. 

[593jones]

Miles Tripp, in The Eighth Passenger, mentions an occasion when his aircraft, a Stirling at their training unit, made a crash landing, as a result of which the rear gunner was charged with not being in his correct position, the tail turret, during the landing.  Tripp writes:

 

'He was taken under escort to the Commanding Officer and the rest of us went to the mess to wait for him.  Eventually he reappeared, his head held high and his face taut with well-bred disdain.

There was a chorus: 'How did it go, Harry?'....'What Happened?'

'He asked what I had to say in answer to the charge, and I told him!  I said, 'God, man, if I'd stayed in my turret I'd be dead?  And because I'm not dead, you charge me!'

'What did he say to that?' everyone asked.

'He dismissed the charge,' said Harry.

 

So it would appear rear gunners were required to stay in their turrets.

[Bertie McBoatface]

1 hour ago, Dave Swindell said:

But the bailing out drill was to open the doors into the fuselage, retrieve the parachute, close the doors, clip the parachute on, rotate the turret, open the doors and bail out, so parachute stowage in the fuselage doesn't rule out the story.

Agreed, probably apocryphal, but there's usually an element of truth behind these stories. 

 

Oh I always thought they used the fuselage door. Your way does make more sense.

[Selwyn]

8 hours ago, tempestfan said:

I seem to recall reading the same re USAAF. In case the battle stations were easy to reach and man in flight there would be little point in everyone being at it - the ball turret gunner in particular would neither want to be in there for 7 or 8 hours, nor for the take-off, as that turret would be a deathtrap in case of a mishap. As no day fighters would be encountered for a large part of the journey, there would be no need for having turrets manned.

RAF may be somewhat different, as the risk of a night fighter or an intruder on the prowl near the bases or at least in English airspace would be much higher.

 

I am a bit puzzled by that quote above - how would the guns of the MID UPPER turret be able to foul the ground when depressing themselves? Or should that actually read "lower"?

Even more puzzled , the FN 64 was only fitted to lancasters IIRC!

 

Selwyn

 

[Graham Boak]

Some Stirlings were fitted with ventral turrets, presumably the FN.64.  I've never seen a photo, or drawings   However, In his biography night fighter ace Johnen describes an encounter with one,  presumably a 100 Group aircraft.

[IanC]

7 hours ago, tonyot said:

I`ve always believed that Bomber Command crews were in their normal crew positions during take off.

 

They were. It made little difference to your survival where you were seated in an overloaded Lanc if an engine failed on take off. 

[Selwyn]

3 hours ago, Bertie Psmith said:

I once read of a Lanc rear gunner who crewed in and then fell asleep while the raid was delayed due to deteriorating weather at base. The raid was scrubbed and everyone but our man piled out, got on the busses and trundled away. The gunner woke a couple of hours later, by which time the wind was gale force. He was somewhat disorientated and as he heard slipstream (wind) but no engine noise, all the electrics were out and as the intercom was silent, he assumed that they were crashing, possibly over Germany. He manually rotated his turret and threw himself out backwards, falling four feet to the tarmac and knocking himself out, but not before pulling his parachute release. His chute inflated and dragged him the length of the airfield, finally pulling him into a barbed wire fence, where he was found by the guard patrol and nearly shot for a German parachutist!

 

The story suggests that the gunners were to be in their turrets for engine start and take off.

 

However, though it's a nice funny story,  I'm afraid it's complete fiction. There are at least three implausible elements, as far as I can see. The armory would have queried where his guns were. The other gunners would surely have noticed that their mate wasn't on the bus with his guns. And most of all, the rear gunner's parachute wasn't in the turret with him, but stowed in the fuselage.

 The event actually happened on a Polish operated Wellington (300Sqn?) at Ingham IIRC, not a Lancaster, when a fog set in just before take off. The police thought he was a german as he was speaking (and probably swearing!) in polish.

 

By the way The Armoury would not have missed the guns, In the early days of single  K guns they would be returned, but the idea that a lancaster  after a mission  the rear gunner would dismount and carry four brownings back are ludicrous. How many guns on a lanc? the crew bus would carry several crews out and back,  I mean where would they sit? And in the crowd they could easily miss one man.

 

Selwyn

[Bertie McBoatface]

6 minutes ago, Selwyn said:

 The event actually happened on a Polish operated Wellington (300Sqn?) at Ingham IIRC, not a Lancaster, when a fog set in just before take off. The police thought he was a german as he was speaking (and probably swearing!) in polish.

 

By the way The Armoury would not have missed the guns, In the early days of single  K guns they would be returned, but the idea that a lancaster  after a mission  the rear gunner would dismount and carry four brownings back are ludicrous. How many guns on a lanc? the crew bus would carry several crews out and back,  I mean where would they sit? And in the crowd they could easily miss one man.

 

Selwyn

 

I'd certainly like it to be true. 

[stever219]

I used to work with a lovely young woman whose dad had been a tail gunner on 102 Squadron RAF based in Yorkshire and flying Halifaxes.  At the end of April 1942 the Squadron was tasked to attack Koln and they wee operating from their station’s satellite airfield.  Halifax W7653 taxied out, lined up and began its take off run.  Unfortunately acceleration was slower than target and the pilot soon reached a point where he could no longer stop the aeroplane before the boundary hedge and nor was it showing any signs of daylight under the mainwheels.  Somehow a few inches of daylight did appear, just before the manwheels bashed through said hedge, sending up a spectacular shower of leaves, twigs and branches which was observed at close quarters by our man in the rear turret.  “Blimey skipper, I hope you see the next one before I do!” he called over the intercom.  Unfortunately the pilot could already see it dead ahead in the form of the hangars of their home station which still loomed above the labouring bomber.  Somehow enough altitude was gained to avoid impact and a spectacular cremation and the aircraft flew on towards its target, somewhere in the vicinity of which it was attacked by a night fighter and set on fire.  The order to abandon aircraft was given and the tail gunner was in the throes of complying when he spotted the aggressor returning to administer the coup de grace.  He got back behind his guns and let fly, sending the fighter diving away, before bailing out.  He was one of only three members of the crew to survive.  Sadly Sergeant G H Lee is no longer with us, but I do hope that his daughter is😉.

[Hoppy]

On the 35 sqdn web site the Lancaster crew positions are described and it would appear they were all in their respective positions except for the bomb aimer who they say spent most of the flight sitting next to and assisting as the navigators eyes.  As its the most exposed position in a take off crash , I would not think they would be in the nose for takeoff. 

 

https://35squadron.wordpress.com/2018/03/11/avro-lancaster-crew-positions/

[elger]

Thanks all! It's really looking like the point on the Halifax II/V checklist for take off "crew at stations" should be taken at face value.

[bobmig]

You might find the following excerpt interesting or useful. It’s an excerpt from an old article titled “Story of a Flight”. It is not credited because no one seems to know who wrote it. The original manuscript was typed on paper which has aged and yellowed considerably, and its marginal notes, penned in ink, are also fading. I would estimate that it was written not long after the events described, concerning a Halifax of Polish 1586 (Special Duties) Flight.

 

    “…The pilot extracts the last ounce of power from the bomber's four engines, forcing the overloaded machine off the runway before the ground drops in a steep escarpment to the waves of the Adriatic. Beneath the undercarriage wheels, bearing over thirty tons of plane and war material, the rumble of the metal runway grids increases in volume and pitch, until the wings have gripped enough of the furnace-hot air to lift the clumsy fuselage.

    “The seven members of the crew have gathered for the take-off in the cockpit and anxiously measure the rapidly diminishing distance from the little flags marking the end of the runway. Faster and faster races the sand into oblivion behind the tail wheel whilst power surges into the body of the plane. Just at the edge of the escarpment Wladek pulls the stick gently, the wheels cease their banging, the surf line flashes underneath and the bomber starts to gain height over the blue waters. 

    “After take-off each member of the crew worms his way to his own position. The pilot and engineer are already in theirs, the radio operator dives into his cage under the pilot's cabin, the air gunner and despatcher begin sorting the containers which, for the take-off, have to be placed as near as possible to the pilot's cabin. Rom, navigator and skipper, clambers down to his "office" in the nose, plugs in the intercom to pass the course to Wladek, and checks his instruments….”

[stuartp]

On 1/18/2022 at 5:19 PM, Bertie Psmith said:

...the other gunners would surely have noticed that their mate wasn't on the bus ...

I'd hazard a guess that not only did they notice he was not on the bus, they probably tip-toed off the aircraft very carefully so as not to wake him, no doubt with much sniggering and giggling. 

 

Miles Tripp's book is well with a read. I lent my copy to a colleague whose father had been a wireless op on Halifaxes, he was in tears reading it. 

[Bertie McBoatface]

2 hours ago, stuartp said:

I'd hazard a guess that not only did they notice he was not on the bus, they probably tip-toed off the aircraft very carefully so as not to wake him, no doubt with much sniggering and giggling.

 

Of course they would have. I should have thought of that! Absolutely typical service humour. And they would have had a good laugh with the blokes in the armory about it too. All my objections have been demolished, I'm glad to say, because I told the tale to a mate this very morning.

[Mancunian airman]

In the Lanc for take-off all crews were in their nominated usual positions in the aircraft, many bomb-aimers stayed in the nose despite regulations stating that he should move to the cockpit area for take-off. 

In was probably the same for the Halifax crews . . . 

 

[Johnha]

As I understood it, in the Lanc the bomb aimer doubled up as front gunner - I read somewhere all he had to do was standup to reach the triggers. I presume he may have been in the turret on take-off?