Was having a tail gunner really that effective?

[bozon]

Gunners where effective every now and then but not even heavy bomber formations with hundreds of gunners where enough to protect bombers from fighters.

I have a very strong feeling that all those gunners with exceptions of the rear gunner were totally useless, except for the false feeling of protection that they gave the other crew and some "fear effect" towards the attacking LW. Unlike in AH, hitting a fighter flying above or to the side of the bomber means shooting through a 200 mph crosswind at variable angles, variable elevations and variable amount of lead required. They probably could not hit anything from these directions unless it was flying in formation with the bomber. The rear gunner at least had a much smaller cross-wind component, typically were shooting at small elevation angles and at planes coming straight at them (no lead required), so he stood some chance of hitting an aimed shot.

I would love to see some statistic about % of claims (as unreliable as they are) by B17/24 gunners split by gunner position. Or alternatively, some statistic about damage received by LW fighters by aspect of attack. The only hits on fighters that I read about in pilot stories were obtained by (with high probability) the rear gunner, though I must say that I read mostly allied pilot books and LW bombers did not have many side/top/ball gunner shooting in other directions.

[bustr]

Consider the problems a LW pilot had aiming while in a 4 engine bomber's prop wake.

[Zimme83]

Problem for gunner is that they have very little time to aim and land hits on a fighter. Tail gunners had the easiest job of aiming but where also more likely to get hit by fire from fighters. Bomber formations downed/damaged a lot of fighters but usually not until after the fighters had land hits on the bombers. Its a little hard to sort out exact figures but on early B-17 raids it seems like around 3-5 bombers where downed for every fighter downed by gunners.
But its pretty clear that unescorted bombers cannot rely to their own fire power to survive against fighters.

Its however not the same as in AH, where gunners are far more experienced and fighters usually attack one at the time (too often from dead 6), in ww2 bombers where outnumbered by 2-3:1 and fighters mostly HO:ed the bombers in order to hit the more vulnerable and less protected front area.  

[artik]

... and it was an SBD gunner that shot Saburo Sakai in the face...

According to Saburo Sakai's memories it was TBM (actually formation of them). He realized that it was well armed TBMs when he was way too close...

[Oldman731]

According to Saburo Sakai's memories it was TBM (actually formation of them). He realized that it was well armed TBMs when he was way too close...

Post-war research, which was able to compare American records with Sakai's account, established that it was a Dauntless formation.  I'm not sure Fletcher's task group even had TBFs in early August of 1942.

- oldman

[Muzzy]

Post-war research, which was able to compare American records with Sakai's account, established that it was a Dauntless formation.  I'm not sure Fletcher's task group even had TBFs in early August of 1942.

- oldman

Yeah they had them. TBF's flew from Midway in their first action and replaced the Devastator immediately after the battle, but yeah, it was Dauntlesses. I believe Sakai actually met the gunner that shot him after the war.

[artik]

Thanks for the info!