Bombers were nearly defenseless against attacking fighters. There are numerous reasons for this. I've read several of the post war studies. Our own Tony Williams has given excellent information on aerial gunnery. The Strategic Bombing Campaign was stopped dead in it's tracks in 1943 after horrendous losses attacking ball bearing factories. On one of these missions (as reported by Adolph Galand), 60 B-17s were shot down, 100 were damaged, and only 25 German fighters were lost. 23 of the 25 German fighters were lost to escort fighters.
I am not arguing contrary to bombers needing escort and that, if they didn't have it, they suffered big casualties. What I am saying is that the statement "Guns on bombers were almost entirely ineffective at destroying enemy fighters" is not correct. Guns on bombers shot down many German planes and were even more effective against Zeros and Ki-43's.
You give one example to support the "nearly defenseless" claim, but there are many other examples that do not support that. Take the 2nd Schweinfurt raid (with no escorts) as just one example. As it was one of the worst days for bombers with no escort and bad weather that spread the formations out, it is perhaps one of the most-conservative examples I might pick for my point of view. 38 German fighters were shot down and 20 were damaged. That is not none or almost none.
Moreover, I feel that bomber gunnery in AH is not horribly unrealistic. If you feel that it would be more realistic to remove defensive guns from bombers in AH, I completely disagree.
