Dale wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

chutes (in
That's another reason why ball turret
gunners
had such a high casualty rate; there was no room in the turret for them to
have
their chutes, so they had to first make it back up into the fuselage, get
their
chute and put it on before they could jump. The waist gunners had it far
easier.

Hmmm. From what I've been told statistically the ball was one of the more
survivable positions..regarless of what the silly History Channel "Suicide
Mission" show stated.

I've seen claims of that, but the stats don't seem to back it up, at least for the
B-17.

And if you think about it, it makes sense. The ball gunner has more steel
around him than say the waist gunner and he's in the fetal position making for a
smaller target, not standing upright like a waist gunner or top turret gunner
(some of which were on seats as in the B-26).

As I understood Art, his question wasn't so much about casualty rates, as it was
survival rates. The ball turret gunner had the hardest time getting out of the a/c,
because he first had to get back IN to the a/c, then put on his chute, then bail
out. If the turret was damaged it was often difficult or impossible to rotate it so
that the hatch faced the proper direction, even with help from the crewmembers
inside the a/c. Ideally, the ball turret gunner could have worn his chute in the
turret, and just open the hatch and fall out backwards; I've read one case of a
really small man (even among ball turret gunners) who was able to wear his chute in
the turret, but he seems to be the exception.

Guy