B24 takes pic of emily while attacking it

[colmbo]

My original comment was not a criticism of AH, it was about the value of gunners in WWII bombers. I really think that they were next to useless

I'm not sure the pilots flying against our bombers would agree with you.  I certainly agree with your points regarding how hard it would be manning a bomber gun.  I was fortunate enough to meet a 190 pilot who had been credited with 13 B-17 kills.  He said that attacking a formation of bombers was "formidable".  He preferred a head on attack because it minimized his risk, placing him at the mercy of the gunners for a shorter time.

[dirtdart]

AKDogg and I once had a Lancaster vs. B24 Duel. We laughed about it all of the way to the tower. Nice post AKAK, thanks!

[BnZs]

I would not say useless either but the unavoidable instability of flying through even the calmest air would introduce a great deal of extra dispersion to any gun, whereas in AHII when a plane is on auto-level the plane might as well be parked on the ground from the standpoint of platform stability.

[bozon]

I'm not sure the pilots flying against our bombers would agree with you.  I certainly agree with your points regarding how hard it would be manning a bomber gun.  I was fortunate enough to meet a 190 pilot who had been credited with 13 B-17 kills.  He said that attacking a formation of bombers was "formidable".  He preferred a head on attack because it minimized his risk, placing him at the mercy of the gunners for a shorter time.

I've seen a few such comments from LW pilots. No doubt it was scary and dangerous too, but in a very random way - so many slugs in the air flying in all directions, some stray bullets are bound to hit something, just not necessarily the something they were aimed at. I wonder how many B17s came back with 0.5 holes from friendly gunners. Or, imagine how it was on the ground beneath the bomber stream - the rain of stray bullets, empty cartridges, drop tanks, and plane debris coming down. I have not read enough LW pilot biographies that talk about bomber interceptions, so I may be ignorant about this. Are there any anecdotes of 190/109 getting show down in a HO attack? or from anything other than the tail gunner?

From the opposite side, I've read so many reports of allied pilots flying right up to 110 from behind and shooting it down without suffering any damage from the gunner and even catching it by surprise, that I wonder why they even bothered carrying gunners. Ballast?

[-ammo-]

I've seen a few such comments from LW pilots. No doubt it was scary and dangerous too, but in a very random way - so many slugs in the air flying in all directions, some stray bullets are bound to hit something, just not necessarily the something they were aimed at. I wonder how many B17s came back with 0.5 holes from friendly gunners. Or, imagine how it was on the ground beneath the bomber stream - the rain of stray bullets, empty cartridges, drop tanks, and plane debris coming down. I have not read enough LW pilot biographies that talk about bomber interceptions, so I may be ignorant about this. Are there any anecdotes of 190/109 getting show down in a HO attack? or from anything other than the tail gunner?

From the opposite side, I've read so many reports of allied pilots flying right up to 110 from behind and shooting it down without suffering any damage from the gunner and even catching it by surprise, that I wonder why they even bothered carrying gunners. Ballast?

Read "the First and the Last" by Adolph Galland

[BnZs]

From the opposite side, I've read so many reports of allied pilots flying right up to 110 from behind and shooting it down without suffering any damage from the gunner and even catching it by surprise, that I wonder why they even bothered carrying gunners. Ballast?

Better than nothing. OTOH if a decent shot in a 110 cares to trade the destruction of his plane for oiling yours with the rear gun, he often can.

[Oldman731]

From the opposite side, I've read so many reports of allied pilots flying right up to 110 from behind and shooting it down without suffering any damage from the gunner and even catching it by surprise, that I wonder why they even bothered carrying gunners. Ballast?

An extra pair of eyes watching for unfriendlies.

- oldman

[Brooke]

Also, TBM's are not as formidable in defensive armament as B-17's, but even a formation of those was not what Saburo Sakai wanted to attack from the rear.

[Rich46yo]

For a period of time in the SWPA, the Japanese were losing scout planes at an alarming rate to "unknown enemy activities" as the scout planes were shot down before they were able to radio in a full report.  Turns out that a lot of these Japanese scout planes were lost due to being shot down by US scout planes, in most cases bombers like the B-24 and B-17.

I was always under the impression the IJN lost these precious air craft due to their silly insistence on using them as scouts for USN CV groups. They seemed to underestimate American radar and the USN fighters were vectored in on top of them before they even knew what was going on. I would bet long range P-38s played a part as well. I'd be interested to know what the kill ratio was Emilys vs CV born fighters.

Were lucky the IJN didnt use these dangerous flying boats the way they should have been used. USN submarines sunk 1/2 the Japanese convoy fleet and if these Bombers would have been used more again our subs we would have taken much heavier losses. It seems they just hung their convoy tonnage out to dry and hoped for the best and its often hard to understand exactly what they were thinking.

[GScholz]

If they didn't know about the US radar advantage it wasn't silly of them to use them as scouts. Their failure to counter the Allied subs was critical however.

[bozon]

Read "the First and the Last" by Adolph Galland

Thanks for the tip. I'll look for it once I'm done with my current stack of books.

Better than nothing. OTOH if a decent shot in a 110 cares to trade the destruction of his plane for oiling yours with the rear gun, he often can.

A useless gunner is not better than nothing - it is worse. A gunner and all the equipment that comes with it is a lot of weight. The turret slows the plane down. De Havilland proved that very well when they tested the mosquito prototype with a turret and decided it is a deal breaker. The heavy bombers carried a lot of bomber for a small useful bomb load. Against a non-maneuvering 110 in AH from dead 6, all the attacker has to do is to drop 10 feet below the level of the 110 to be completely safe.

An extra pair of eyes watching for unfriendlies.

It seems that on some occasions they failed that job miserably. One example: 2 mosquitoes from Banff strike wing on patrol came across a formation of 4 110s over the Norwegian coast. They caught up with them, shooting down two on the initial attack and then another. The 4th escaped. I can look up the exact details. It puzzles me what were 4(!) gunners doing that they did not spot two mosquitoes closing on them from behind. I can find more such examples.

Also, TBM's are not as formidable in defensive armament as B-17's, but even a formation of those was not what Saburo Sakai wanted to attack from the rear.

In a zeke, even a gunner using a rubber band and paper-clips to shoot back can be dangerous
Tail gunners are the only ones that seem to have been moderately effective. From my small and heavily biased sample of books, the only occasions that I recall of damage from gunners was in dead 6 situation and (probably) close range.

[Oldman731]

It seems that on some occasions they failed that job miserably. One example: 2 mosquitoes from Banff strike wing on patrol came across a formation of 4 110s over the Norwegian coast. They caught up with them, shooting down two on the initial attack and then another. The 4th escaped. I can look up the exact details. It puzzles me what were 4(!) gunners doing that they did not spot two mosquitoes closing on them from behind. I can find more such examples.

As we have often discussed, typically in connection with no-icons settings, spotting aircraft in flight is difficult, especially if you don't know where to expect to see them.

- oldman

[Karnak]

If they didn't know about the US radar advantage it wasn't silly of them to use them as scouts. Their failure to counter the Allied subs was critical however.

The Japanese also failed to use their excellent submarines against our supply lines, instead being locked into a stupid Samurai warrior vs warrior mentality. That gave some impressive strikes, including the most expensive submarine attack in history, but was poor for affecting the war outcome.

Given my grandfather was in the merchant marine in the south Pacific I am glad they didn't target cargo ships.

As we have often discussed, typically in connection with no-icons settings, spotting aircraft in flight is difficult, especially if you don't know where to expect to see them.

- oldman

Not that hard.

[wpeters]

I've seen a few such comments from LW pilots. No doubt it was scary and dangerous too, but in a very random way - so many slugs in the air flying in all directions, some stray bullets are bound to hit something, just not necessarily the something they were aimed at. I wonder how many B17s came back with 0.5 holes from friendly gunners. Or, imagine how it was on the ground beneath the bomber stream - the rain of stray bullets, empty cartridges, drop tanks, and plane debris coming down. I have not read enough LW pilot biographies that talk about bomber interceptions, so I may be ignorant about this. Are there any anecdotes of 190/109 getting show down in a HO attack? or from anything other than the tail gunner?

From the opposite side, I've read so many reports of allied pilots flying right up to 110 from behind and shooting it down without suffering any damage from the gunner and even catching it by surprise, that I wonder why they even bothered carrying gunners. Ballast?

The reason was more to do with the mind, One was they could be using evasive action while the gunner fired.  Anytime bullets are flying your way you are going to hesitate.  Hesitation can kill you or make you loose your nerve (natural instinct is to run) or even lose your quarry..  I think the biggest thing most of you guys forget was they had only one chance to make it right.  Everytime you attacked any type of plane with a machine gun in the back you where gambling your life.

In the game small thing hit by a bullet are not shown.  One 7.7mm bullet could sever flight control wires.  One the early planes they did not have bullet proof glass. SO one bullet could kill the pilot.  A bullet could jam a control surface.   One bullet could destroy you instruments.

On the P40 which had iron sights at the start of the war, the sights could be shot off. One bullet could destroy your prop.   

MOst times this didnt happen but when it did it gave other pilots some second thoughts or should I say missed with their minds, because in the end THEY WERE GAMBLING THEIR LIVES.   THat is why most of us can do manuver and stunts is we are worried some thing will go wrong and we will loose are life. 

In the end it takes big balls to do that.

  To all men of that caliber

[DaveBB]

The reason was more to do with the mind, One was they could be using evasive action while the gunner fired.  Anytime bullets are flying your way you are going to hesitate.  Hesitation can kill you or make you loose your nerve (natural instinct is to run) or even lose your quarry..  I think the biggest thing most of you guys forget was they had only one chance to make it right.  Everytime you attacked any type of plane with a machine gun in the back you where gambling your life.

In the game small thing hit by a bullet are not shown.  One 7.7mm bullet could sever flight control wires.  One the early planes they did not have bullet proof glass. SO one bullet could kill the pilot.  A bullet could jam a control surface.   One bullet could destroy you instruments.

On the P40 which had iron sights at the start of the war, the sights could be shot off. One bullet could destroy your prop.   

MOst times this didnt happen but when it did it gave other pilots some second thoughts or should I say missed with their minds, because in the end THEY WERE GAMBLING THEIR LIVES.   THat is why most of us can do manuver and stunts is we are worried some thing will go wrong and we will loose are life. 


Lighten up, Francis.


In the end it takes big balls to do that.

  To all men of that caliber