Was having a tail gunner really that effective?

[bozon]

As in Lancasters also in 110s and Ju87s (that I know of) the tail gunner gave the initial warning of the danger and coordinated timing of evasive actions so he was considered "worth his weight" in the plane, whether or not he had a gun. Maybe that explains why the Beaufighters had the GIB too, even if he did not have a gun.

Exactly.
In the Beau and the Mossie, the second crewman had more jobs than just looking backwards. They were doing navigation, spotting, radar operation (night fighters), bombardier (bomber mossie) and photographer (PR . mossies). They were essential to the mission even without a gun.

So why not give them a gun? Having a gun had a lot of disadvantages. It adds weight. It adds drag. In a fight, if the gunner is looking through the sights at one bandit he does not see the others (loss of SA). de Havilland absolutely insisted that mounting a gun turret to the mossie will destroy the whole concept of the plane (he was still forced to test it on a prototype). Extra drag not only means a slower plane, it also means less fuel efficient which reduces the range or requires extra fuel on board at the expense of useful payload. In addition to the drag, the weight of the guns+mount+ammo lowers the efficiency of the bomber (less range, less payload). DH also figured out that if you are the fastest plane in the sky you do not need to look back so much... and the 2nd crewman can perform his more important duties better if he sits next to the pilot instead of in the tail.

[MK-84]

Yes, but even the Me410 has a tail gunner. Even the Me-410 had a tail gunner.  What was their fixation with tail gunners for attack aircraft?

To lay down suppressing fire as the plane egresses?

[Sombra]

Bf 110 without gunner, sleeker... maybe it's losing competitor, the original Fw 187 concept, is the closest thing you could find.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_187

In order to improve performance compared to the Bf 110, the fuselage was made as small as possible, so small that there was no room on the instrument panel for the complete set of engine instruments, which were instead moved to the inside faces of the engine nacelles, as would be done for the Hs 129 ground attack aircraft and some versions of the Bf 110.

The first prototype, Fw 187 V1 (D-AANA) flew for the first time in late spring 1937, with Hans Sander at its controls. In testing it demonstrated 523 km/h (325 mph) despite the use of the low-powered Jumo engines. In fact, it was 80 km/h (50 mph) faster than the contemporary Jumo-powered Messerschmitt Bf 109B, despite having twice the range, more than twice the weight, and using two of the same engines. Members of the RLM complained that this was due to faulty flight instruments, but further testing ruled this out.

[Karnak]

The Fw187 is one of those neat "what if" questions of WWII aviation.

[Charge]

I can't see what it could have offered. Short range, one man, not room for guns (but of course a pair of MK103 would have been more than enough IF it could carry them and enough ammo). The whole concept resembles Whirlwind too much and even that was abandoned quite early on. I'm sure it could have been a delight to fly but strategically it would have been a bad choice. Add loadout capability with a set of pods and the speed advantage you may have had would be gone.

If you put two engines in a plane it means you have to use that double power for something useful and that is why these twins were built with lots of room for fuel for different multipurpose loadouts. I'd say that Mossie, Beau and 410 were rather logical choices after all.

These medium bombers/ strike aircraft also fall into category 2 if we place interceptors, escort fighters and heavy four engine bombers into category 1, i.e. the most significant assets to have in a war. Category 3 would be specialized aircraft which really cannot do much more that the specific task they were built for i.e. Hs129, and I only see a more streamlined Hs129 in that Fw187.

-C+

[bozon]

If you put two engines in a plane it means you have to use that double power for something useful and that is why these twins were built with lots of room for fuel for different multipurpose loadouts. I'd say that Mossie, Beau and 410 were rather logical choices after all.

That is a very good point. The Beau and then Mossie took on all the jobs that single seat, single engine fighters could not do (or do with limited capacity). The RAF was not very interested in twin-engine short range fighters - they are more expensive, take longer to manufacture and did not offer anything significant that a cheaper Spitfire could not do. This is one reason the Whirlwind program was abandoned even though it proved to be a good day fighter/fighter-bomber.

What twin engines do offer to a fighter is range and cruise speed. de Havilland calculated that twin-engine configuration will achieve the best combination of range, speed, and useful loadout carrying capacity. This is why they pushed for a small twin engine bomber as a more efficient method of delivering bombs than 4-engine bombers. The P-38 in the PTO demonstrated quite well that a twin-engine fighter can achieve great ranges with higher speed cruise than single engine fighters. Indeed the RAF showed interest in a long-range single-seat fighter version of the mossie, but the need for such a fighter quickly faded away as the war progressed (for various reasons), while the demand for Mossie variants was very high. Eventually, post-war, they got the DH Hornet as the evolution of the Mossie single seat fighter program.

[tuton25]

I think the biggest downfall of the Bf-110, Me-410, and similar multi-role aircraft is that they tried to fill to many roles. The Mossie, to me anyway, is more of an exception than a rule. The Mossie excels in roles that the 410 and 110 are simply mediocre in is because of its construction. The lightness of the wooden construction, the power of twin Merlins, and the awesome firepower of Hispanos 20mm means the Mossie was the pinnacle of peers. However even Mossies are tooled for their respective roles. The high powered late war aircraft like the F-4U, P-47, and P-38 finally put the last nail in the coffin for dedicated multi-role aircraft.

P.S. Bozon, thanks for the help in the Mossie 6!!!

[BaldEagl]

I find it curious that no one in this thread has mentioned the use of rear gunners in American planes (TBM/TBF).

[Zimme83]

They fall into the same category as for ex Il-2, every now and then they killed a Japanese plane but they vere much more valuable as scouts keeping an eye on the 6.

[bozon]

I find it curious that no one in this thread has mentioned the use of rear gunners in American planes (TBM/TBF).

Torpedo bombers are in the same boat as the heavy level bombers - they have to fly slow and steady for an extended period and thus defense by maneuverability or speed is out of the question. They have no choice but to defend themselves with gunners, until they make the drop.

I think the biggest downfall of the Bf-110, Me-410, and similar multi-role aircraft is that they tried to fill to many roles. The Mossie, to me anyway, is more of an exception than a rule. The Mossie excels in roles that the 410 and 110 are simply mediocre in is because of its construction. The lightness of the wooden construction, the power of twin Merlins, and the awesome firepower of Hispanos 20mm means the Mossie was the pinnacle of peers. However even Mossies are tooled for their respective roles. The high powered late war aircraft like the F-4U, P-47, and P-38 finally put the last nail in the coffin for dedicated multi-role aircraft.

I dont think any of these planes were designed with so many roles in mind. They were converted either because they happened to be the best suited for the job out of all the other planes not intended for the job, or they were removed from some of their original duties and were simply available for other jobs. The 110 as far as I know was intended to be a day-time heavy fighter and optimized for that role. The P-38 was supposed to be an interceptor?

The Mossie was conceived as an unarmed bomber and in that respect it is perhaps more similar to the Ju88 than the 110. However unlike the others, its potential for other roles was recognized early and reconnaissance and night fighter variants were developed in parallel. In fact, the unarmed bomber was only the 3rd to enter service after the photo-recce and night fighter. The Fighter-bomber variant was branched off from the night fighters prototype and ended up being the most produced variant by far (roughly 2/3 of all mossies). Just because it was intended for many roles during development it could be optimized and thoroughly tested for each. DH were smart not to include a day fighter as a design consideration due to the extreme demands from such a role that would have required a lot of sacrifices in the others.

Back to the TBM and tail gunners - the mossie eventually even became a torpedo bomber, though I think that for that specific role it was not well suited. It was a role forced uppon it, that it was not designed for. A tail gunner would have been useful - speed and maneuverability does not help a torpedo bomber much as defense until it drops the fish.

P.S. Bozon, thanks for the help in the Mossie 6!!!

You are most welcome Fish. I rarely go to the DA and I hope that was helpful. If you fly on the rook side you are welcome to join me so we can put the Mossie 6 to the one role it was not designed for (though performed decently when pushed to it)
It is nice to have another mossie flying around - I get ganged by only half the enemies  

[save]

The 110 was a success as a Night-fighter, you need someone handle the on-board radar, and also one pair of extra eyes in the night.
Heavy armament, long range and radar, and extra pair of eyes made it as success.

[Guppy35]

From all I've read on the Beaufighter there seems to be no consensus on the value of the rear gun.  It started without.  Had it added when they started doing daylight ops, and in the end it was basically left up to the crew if the wanted to carry it or not.  Some chose not to for the reasons some have already posted.  They felt it was better to have the second pair of eyes telling the pilot where the threat was an let him evade instead of trying to stay steady for shooting purposes.

[Bino]

Something else to look at, as regards all-out top speed: airfoil.  Wing design went through a major evolution during the war.  Many wing designs of the 1930's were notably slower than the laminar-flow airfoils of the 1940's.

[Muzzy]

With regards to the American carrier planes (TBM's SBD's and SB2C's), I'm at a loss to recall an instant post-Guadalcanal where these planes had to defend themselves against serious fighter opposition. Were the gunners worth the extra weight? A rear gunner might be enough to scare away an enemy fighter if he landed some hits, and it was an SBD gunner that shot Saburo Sakai in the face. In the end, however, it was pretty obvious from Midway that a rear gunner wasn't enough to save a bomber, and perhaps using bomb-loaded corsairs and hellcats might have been more effective.

[Zimme83]

Most attack aircraft with tail gunners where replaced with fighter bombers during the 2nd half of the war, Typhoon, 190F etc so it seems that the conlusion during the war was that speed was better than a gunner. Gunners where effective every now and then but not even heavy bomber formations with hundreds of gunners where enough to protect bombers from fighters.