Lack of suitable training?

[SunTracker]

From what I gather, aerial gunners did a poor job on U.S. bombers in World War II.  Excluding B-29s, the only gunners who even had a chance of hitting an enemy plane were those in powered turrets.

But did the poor accuracy of the aerial guns really account for this poor performance?  I am beginning to think that it was lack of experience.  Certainly a gunner couldn't become a better aim through flying missions, enemy fighters were only in firing range for a few seconds.  And I have never read about gunners recieving training in England, only at gunnery schools the U.S.  

The realistic aerial training that I have read about consisted of firing .30 cal machine guns from a bomber.  The rounds were constructed to break apart upon impact with the training aircraft.  These weapons probably had different ballistics than the heavier 50 cal machine guns used in combat.

[rshubert]

the WW2 gunners by the tactics used here in AH.  Here, all guns that bear on three planes shoot at the same target, and we typically get a nice slow closure rate from six o'clock.

In the real world, the fighters flew smarter, did slashing attacks, and not all gunners shot at the same plane.  That's a lot more difficult.

Have you ever fired a .50 cal MG?  I have, and the damned thing will teach you all about vibration, believe me.  WW2 gunners had to fire in short bursts, since they could not keep the sights anywhere near the target for a long burst.  Even turret mounted, electrically or hydraulically trained guns shook like crazy.

[SunTracker]

I'm not judging by the game here.  I am judging by the fact that bomber losses were so high (due to fighters) that the Strategic Bombing Campaign had to be stopped.

I've never fired a 50 cal before, but I have been in the top turret of a B-17.

[HoHun]

Hi Suntracker,

>But did the poor accuracy of the aerial guns really account for this poor performance?  

The dispersion of the guns, fired from a stationary bomber on the ground at stationary targets on a firing range, was considerably worse than that of the same guns mounted in a fighter aircraft.

Accordingly, even with perfect aim, the gunners could only shoot very inaccurately.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[dedalos]

According to AH standards, we inly lost 4 LANCs, 3 B29s, 1 B24 and 0 B17s during WWII.  The bombers scorred 100s of german fighter kills each.

On a more serius note, I have seen some gun cams from German fighters attacking bombers nice and slow from 6 o'clock and just taking their time firing short bursts.  Some of them up to 30 secs.  Where those guns/gunners that bad?

[storch]

It was plenty hard to hit a small fighter from a bomber, however the LW tactics were to HO or to lob rockets from out of gun range from astern.  The LW respected the American bombers defensive armament.  Even with the B17G and B24H with the Chin turrets it was still healthier to attack from a front quarter climbing than from the six.  It even works in the game, though sadly not too well for me.  All I manage to hit is the ground.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by rshubert

Have you ever fired a .50 cal MG?  I have, and the damned thing will teach you all about vibration, believe me.  WW2 gunners had to fire in short bursts, since they could not keep the sights anywhere near the target for a long burst.  Even turret mounted, electrically or hydraulically trained guns shook like crazy.

I've fired tens of thousands of rounds through M2HB .50 cal MGs. These were mounted on tripods, and pintle mounts. Accuracy is nothing like we have in AH2. The chances of anyone shooting the wing off of a fighter with a M2HB is almost nil. Yeah, you may get a few hits, you might even hit something vital, but you simply will not saw off wings and tails like we see in the game. Accuracy is marginal when using a flexible mounting (a mounting that allows the weapon to aimed by hand, and is free you move up, down and side to side) when firing at stationary targets on the ground. As you said, there is a LOT of recoil vibration (the BMG harnesses recoil for its operating system), requiring short bursts to maintain something close to accuracy, especially out beyond several hundred yards. Now, add in the dual factors of shooting from a moving platform at a moving target while both are moving in 3 dimensions and the chances of obtaining more than a few hits go up by an order of magnitude. Finally, you must aim this weapon with rudimentary ring and bead sights.

All the gunnery training in the world won't help you overcome the basic limitations of the weapons and the environment. This is why the bomber formations relied on the massive volume of fire, not its accuracy to shoot down enemy fighters.

My regards,

Widewing

[SunTracker]

Someone on here was talking about their grandfather who flew P39s in a training squadron.  The P39 was part of an aerial gunnery training group, and was armored.  Now this P39 pilot said he could definately tell when an instructor gunner was firing, as his plane would recieve many hits.

I think gunners were rushed through schools, then not given a chance to practice after being shipped to England.

[Furball]

The sheer weight of fire from a bomber formation, rather than accurate, aimed fire was responsible for downing the fighter aircraft, it is almost the same for ship defense - you put enough lead in the air, something is bound to hit it sooner or later.

Even with this weight of fire, un-escorted bomber formations got mauled, oh and never believe the US gunners' claims, if a fighter was shot down in a formation, about 50 different gunners would claim a kill, if you compare kill claims compared to LW losses it is ridiculous.

[Angus]

I once shot a flying raven with my hand through a broken window with a .22 single shot handgun.
Range: 7 yds
Results: dead raven
Funny side: I couldn't aim properly, just sort of guessed.

Anyway, enough lead, and a dead 6 attack should bring you some luck....

[HoHun]

Hi Suntracker,

>Now this P39 pilot said he could definately tell when an instructor gunner was firing, as his plane would recieve many hits.

Oh, the instructors were selected from the gunnery training courses because they were way above average. I'm not surprised these guys, with the advantage of a lot of practice in a simplified, standardized gunnery situation, did a lot better than the nugget gunners half-way through their training.

Read "Operation Pinball" foor a good account of the frangible bullet gunnery training program.

The "Pinball" pilots mention that they had to fly carefully coordinated pursuit curve attack runs to very close range in order to give the pupils a chance of hitting the Pinball plane. To throw off the gunners' aim completely, it was enough to skid a little during the fighter's approach.

(One reason the fighters had to come in slow and close was to compensate for the different ballistics of the frangible bullets, but the Pinball pilots also tell of violating the minimum safety distance purposefully in order to "collect" hits.)

Real life tactics as used by the Luftwaffe were vastly different.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Jester]

Originally posted by SunTracker
From what I gather, aerial gunners did a poor job on U.S. bombers in World War II.  Excluding B-29s, the only gunners who even had a chance of hitting an enemy plane were those in powered turrets.

For the record Suntracker - USAAF Gunners are "Officially" credited with shooting down more German planes than the USAAF Fighter Pilots.

[Angus]

Well, for the record as well, US bomber crews claimed about 10 times as much as proved to be the real number.

[Jester]

That figure is Actual - not "Claimed."

[HoHun]

Hi Jester,

>That figure is Actual - not "Claimed."

You have to understand the number number of claims the USAAF granted their gunners as confirmed during the war is pure fantasy.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)