# Gunner kills



## Hunter368 (Jul 31, 2007)

I have never seen a site or book that listed gunner kills. Anyone ever see anything like that where they list the highest gunner kills for each nation? Similar to pilot kills for each nation in WW2.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2007)

Here's a little blip.

http://afehri.maxwell.af.mil/Documents/pdf/gunners.pdf

I've seen a kill list of USAAF Gunners during WW2, I thought the top guy had 9 kills. I'll see if I could find it.

In the link above there is the story of "Johnny Zero," probably one of the more famous gunner aces of WW2.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 31, 2007)

Joe - is there an on-line reference that lists the air to air awards for gunners in WWII?

There was a pilot in the 355th FG/354FS by the name of Charles Spencer that shot down an Me262 and recorded four Japanese meatballs plus the swastika on his canopy rail. I asked him about this and he told me he was a B-17 gunner in the PTO with four credits before becoming a pilot.

It would be interesting to add that bit of history if I can verify it


----------



## Erich (Jul 31, 2007)

side note : Bill do you have the combat report from Spencer on that 262 downing : March 19, of 45 /// send me a private if you would ~ 262 of I./KG (J) 54 over Giebelstadt airfield (Spencer) with another 262 of the same unit damaged, and also another one destroyed by ? 355th fg pilot's.

E ~


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Joe - is there an on-line reference that lists the air to air awards for gunners in WWII?


Not aware of one Bill, but here's an aces page that list aerial gunner aces..

US Army Air Force aces of WW2

This was on the list...


TSgt Arthur J. 'Art' BENKO *9* C.Watry-D.Hall (+ 9 ground) 308BG 15/11/1944 B-24 top turret gunner ace, CBI. MIA. 18; 16 



drgondog said:


> There was a pilot in the 355th FG/354FS by the name of Charles Spencer that shot down an Me262 and recorded four Japanese meatballs plus the swastika on his canopy rail. I asked him about this and he told me he was a B-17 gunner in the PTO with four credits before becoming a pilot.
> 
> It would be interesting to add that bit of history if I can verify it


I tried to look for him on that site...


----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 31, 2007)

Thanks guys, interesting reading. I would be interested in both Allied and Axis records for gunners if anything exists like that.


----------



## renrich (Jul 31, 2007)

Having done quite a bit of wing shooting the difficulty of hitting anything on purpose with a machine gun from a moving bomber in WW2 awes me. The only run a fighter could make where it might be relatively easy would be from directly astern or head on. The rest of the shots what with the bomber moving at 150-175 mph and with the fighter moving at a much higher speed look almost impossible. I suspect that if you took the kills credited to gunners on bombers in WW2 and reduced them by 75-90% you would have a more accurate number.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2007)

drgondog said:


> There was a pilot in the 355th FG/354FS by the name of Charles Spencer that shot down an Me262 and recorded four Japanese meatballs plus the swastika on his canopy rail. I asked him about this and he told me he was a B-17 gunner in the PTO with four credits before becoming a pilot.
> 
> It would be interesting to add that bit of history if I can verify it



Hey Bill, from the site "Little Friends"






44-14563 P-51D 354 WR-Q Spencer Capt. Charles H


----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 31, 2007)

renrich said:


> Having done quite a bit of wing shooting the difficulty of hitting anything on purpose with a machine gun from a moving bomber in WW2 awes me. The only run a fighter could make where it might be relatively easy would be from directly astern or head on. The rest of the shots what with the bomber moving at 150-175 mph and with the fighter moving at a much higher speed look almost impossible. I suspect that if you took the kills credited to gunners on bombers in WW2 and reduced them by 75-90% you would have a more accurate number.



100% agree, fighter pilots from all countries over claimed (honest mistakes). But bomber pilots who flew most often over enemy country way way way over claimed (also honest mistakes).


----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 31, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hey Bill, from the site "Little Friends"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good find Joe


----------



## renrich (Jul 31, 2007)

Agree Hunter, they were honest mistakes. When a gunner was in an airplane in a bomber box and everyone was shooting I don't know how one could tell who hit a fighter when one was hit and only occasionally could anyone see the fighter disentegrate or hit the ground.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 31, 2007)

renrich said:


> Agree Hunter, they were honest mistakes. When a gunner was in an airplane in a bomber box and everyone was shooting I don't know how one could tell who hit a fighter when one was hit and only occasionally could anyone see the fighter disentegrate or hit the ground.



Totally agree


----------



## drgondog (Jul 31, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Good find Joe



I have that photo - it's probably one I sent to peter for the 355th collection.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2007)

drgondog said:


> I have that photo - it's probably one I sent to peter for the 355th collection.


----------



## JoeB (Jul 31, 2007)

renrich said:


> I suspect that if you took the kills credited to gunners on bombers in WW2 and reduced them by 75-90% you would have a more accurate number.


That's the right ballpark from what I know. Intelligence assumption AIUI in ETO was reduce confirmed bomber kills by 75% to get German fighters lost. Checking the Japanese losses v US B-29 claims in Henry Sakaida's "B-29 Hunters of the JAAF" it was a little better than that, but some of those Japanese fighters were ramming on purpose, hard to mistake their destruction. Another example was the Korean War where I found Soviet accounts of all their attacks on B-29's and found 3-4 actual MiG-15 kills by B-29's v 27 credited victories, and at most 1-2 of those downings actually corresponded to a credited victory, the other 2 gunners downed MiG's they *weren't* credited with! (one victory was over a Chinese MiG, they claimed no B-29's so it's unlikely any other B-29 credits were their a/c, the NK's didn't fly MiG's till after the B-29's gave up operating in daylight).

Besides the difficulty of shooting down a fighter from a bomber (all the more for a MiG-15), formations of bombers had an inherently much more difficult task in eliminating duplicated claims than fighters did. It was, apparently, impossible to do that accurately. And even with benefit of opposing records it would not generally be possible to say which fighter was downed by which gunner, or sometimes whether bombers or friendly fighters were responsible, unless the opposing records say which.

On 'honest' it should IMO go without saying that overclaiming had little to do with honestly; discussions shouldn't get sidetracked on that, and most of all claims should not be taken at face value on the belief that it's somehow disrespecting the claimants to try to find out what really happened. There were surely (and demonstrably in cases) individuals who deliberately overstated their achievements, that's part of the human condition. But it's pretty clear that the virtually across the board phenomenon of overclaiming was due to limitations in human perception under stress, not about honesty. That said, different tactical situations, different verification processes, and probably different cultural tendencies too, resulted in a very wide range of overclaims, which can only be determined by correlation with opposing records.

Joe

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2007)

JoeB said:


> On 'honest' it should IMO go without saying that overclaiming had little to do with honestly; discussions shouldn't get sidetracked on that, and most of all claims should not be taken at face value on the belief that it's somehow disrespecting the claimants to try to find out what really happened. There were surely (and demonstrably in cases) individuals who deliberately overstated their achievements, that's part of the human condition. But it's pretty clear that the virtually across the board phenomenon of overclaiming was due to limitations in human perception under stress, not about honesty.
> 
> Joe



So Joe, with all that said, which gunner listed do you want to take a kill or two away from? Art Benko who was credited with 9 kills and eventually became MIA or maybe the Famous "Johnny Zero" who had a half of dozen witnesses verify that he shot down 5 aircraft? Or maybe you could pick out one or two Korean war vets who flew B-29s and pluck away the greatest achievement an enlisted airman could be credited for. There is no doubt there were overclaims in ww2 and Korea and I think its clear that all of us like to see accuracy achieved, but where do you draw the line? I've met some of these gunners who flew in Korea, would you go up to them and question their "kill?"

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## renrich (Aug 1, 2007)

Good post Joe and good analysis. I would not question anyone's "kills" because if they were "there" that is plenty of reason to respect them. I knew a fellow here in CO who was a flight engineer and top turrent gunner on a Marauder in WW2 and he was quite a shooter and hunter. Questioned him about defending a B26 with MGs and he said it was really difficult to hit anything and he wasn't sure if he ever shot anything down. I expect their main goal was to upset the fighter pilots so they could not aim properly.


----------



## JoeB (Aug 1, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> So Joe, with all that said, which gunner listed do you want to take a kill or two away from? Art Benko who was credited with 9 kills and eventually became MIA or maybe the Famous "Johnny Zero" who had a half of dozen witnesses verify that he shot down 5 aircraft? Or maybe you could pick out one or two Korean war vets who flew B-29s and pluck away the greatest achievement an enlisted airman could be credited for. There is no doubt there were overclaims in ww2 and Korea and I think its clear that all of us like to see accuracy achieved, but where do you draw the line? I've met some of these gunners who flew in Korea, would you go up to them and question their "kill?"


I've interviewed a number of B-29 crewmen from Korea, as well as many fighter pilots. Some I've talked to have volunteered their lack of certainty about what they or others were credited with (aerial victories, real effectiveness of their bombing, etc). They mentioned it first, otherwise it wasn't discussed. When conversing with a stranger, particularly older, you give them information pertinent to them only if they bring it up first. That's politeness, it doesn't change what the information is. I was talking about what the information is, clearly because that's what a forum is for or it's useless. So your point about 'what would I say to them?' is an irrelevant tangent, frankly. As is the question about changing personal official credits, I never suggested that; I specifically said it's not generally possible to determine who shot down who individually. You're reading selectively, as you often do.

Let's get back to the point. Renrich gave his estimate of that bomber gunner credits 10-25% accurate, I said yes that's probably about right for US in WWII, and gave what I found specifically for Korea. It's lower to much lower than contemporary fighter claim accuracy, so bomber gunner claims should be viewed differently. If you have contrary evidence, please present it.

It's probably best to consider the issue from the other direction: sometimes somebody's specific claim is clearly verified as a loss in opposing records. Shouldn't we say that? but if we do it's calling attention to the claims less clearly supported, or ruled out, by opposing records. We can't have that both ways.

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2007)

JoeB said:


> I've interviewed a number of B-29 crewmen from Korea, as well as many fighter pilots. Some I've talked to have volunteered their lack of certainty about what they or others were credited with (aerial victories, real effectiveness of their bombing, etc). They mentioned it first, otherwise it wasn't discussed. When conversing with a stranger, particularly older, you give them information pertinent to them only if they bring it up first. That's politeness, it doesn't change what the information is. I was talking about what the information is, clearly because that's what a forum is for or it's useless. So your point about 'what would I say to them?' is an irrelevant tangent, frankly. As is the question about changing personal official credits, I never suggested that; I specifically said it's not generally possible to determine who shot down who individually. You're reading selectively, as you often do.


Fair enough....


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 1, 2007)

JoeB said:


> You're reading selectively, as you often do.



Flyboyj answered you fairly, you have a point and he understands that. 

I don't think the above line, you posted, needed to be added. You made your point, you need not add that sort of comment.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2007)

Appreciate that Hunter, but I did read selectively and I purposely wanted to hear the response. I've worked around pilots and gunners who had aerial kills to their credit. Although informative, they would take a lot of the "statistics" and so called research by historians and others with a grain of salt. As one former AD driver who works with me once said, "I was there and that's the way I remember it."


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 1, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Appreciate that Hunter, but I did read selectively and I purposely wanted to hear the response. I've worked around pilots and gunners who had aerial kills to their credit. Although informative, they would take a lot of the "statistics" and so called research by historians and others with a grain of salt. As one former AD driver who works with me once said, "I was there and that's the way I remember it."



I understand 100% your first post, you might of been putting out your feelers to see what he was going to say.....maybe you missed a little of the intent of the post. I also agree with your above post 100%.

I understand fully his post also and agree.


The one thing what I felt was not needed was the comment about you "You're reading selectively, as you often do." I think that was too much. You are one of the most accurate and factual posters here. I think he is lucky Dan did not see that comment towards you......he might of answered a little more harsh then I did. You made a small over sight to a degree......no need to rub your nose in it with a comment like that. You were not being rude to him.

But if you are fine with it then I will let it go at that. You sure don't need anyone sticking up for you, if he had ticked you off......he would of heard about it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 1, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> I understand 100% your first post, you might of been putting out your feelers to see what he was going to say.....maybe you missed a little of the intent of the post. I also agree with your above post 100%.
> 
> I understand fully his post also and agree.
> 
> ...


----------



## JoeB (Aug 2, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> 1. The one thing what I felt was not needed was the comment about you "You're reading selectively, as you often do." I think that was too much.
> 
> 2. I think he is lucky Dan did not see that comment towards you......he might of answered a little more harsh then I did... if he had ticked you off......he would of heard about it.


1. I'll say fair enough too. Although as you see he admits he was doing it. Flyboyj and I have some history, at least recent history of my posts here, of sparring on basically this issue, facts of claims and losses v 'supporting the vets' (but you can only do that from one side at a time ). I understand his viewpoint also, but as I've repeatedly said I've talked to many (US) KW vets and am not aware of any who have a problem with my research approach. But even so at some point, facts are facts, whether 'you were there' or not or the people 'who were there' like them or not. But I think he does read into my posts things that aren't there, not just this time, though I never commented on it directly before. Maybe it's to promote lively discussion, no big problem anyway, but again as you see he admits it so again I accept your view but it doesn't seem in fact my statement was so far out of line.

2. Dan (whoever that is, with all due respect to him), you or anybody else can say anything civil to me based on facts or what I actually posted, without worry about my delicate feelings; I'm a lucky man in many ways but not the way you say, particularly 

Joe


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 2, 2007)

JoeB said:


> 1. I'll say fair enough too. Although as you see he admits he was doing it. Flyboyj and I have some history, at least recent history of my posts here, of sparring on basically this issue, facts of claims and losses v 'supporting the vets' (but you can only do that from one side at a time ). I understand his viewpoint also, but as I've repeatedly said I've talked to many (US) KW vets and am not aware of any who have a problem with my research approach. But even so at some point, facts are facts, whether 'you were there' or not or the people 'who were there' like them or not. But I think he does read into my posts things that aren't there, not just this time, though I never commented on it directly before. Maybe it's to promote lively discussion, no big problem anyway, but again as you see he admits it so again I accept your view but it doesn't seem in fact my statement was so far out of line.
> 
> 2. Dan (whoever that is, with all due respect to him), you or anybody else can say anything civil to me based on facts or what I actually posted, without worry about my delicate feelings; I'm a lucky man in many ways but not the way you say, particularly
> 
> Joe



Joe, 

I have no problem with you. I was not aware that you and Flyboyj (his name is also Joe) have history. It does not seem to be a problem for either of you so its none of my business either.

The only reason I said anything was that Flyboyj is a long time and highly respected member of our forum and I thought you crossed the line with that one comment. But if Flyboyj is fine with it then so am I. Its dropped as far as I am concerned.

"Dan" is also a Mod here, he is the "bad cop" of the site. 

But like I said before......its over and dropped by me.


----------



## Cub Driver (Aug 2, 2007)

The aerial battles over Rangoon at Christmas 1941 are particularly well covered in Japanese histories, even unto diagrams showing how formations lost bombers, mile by mile and minute by minute. So I did a quick calculation on Japanese overclaiming, and it came to 5 to 1, as opposed to the American Volunteer Group pilots, who overclaimed something like 2.75 to 1. The difference is probably almost entirely attributable to the fact that a majority of Japanese planes over Rangoon were bombers, and that the bomber gunners were the most optimistic about their kills, for all the reasons cited above. 

Especially with the AVG's boom zoom tactic, all the bomber gunner is going to see is a fighter slashing past. (Not all the AVGs used diving attacks this early in the war, but many did.) Then later he might see a fighter in flames. He's naturally going to think that it's the enemy fighter, whether or no, and that _he_ shot it down.

(That said, it's also true that Japanese fighter pilots overclaimed at a higher rate than did the Allied pilots, as a consequence of their system of tallying victories as a group endeavor.)

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Coming August 21: Flying Tigers: Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2007)

JoeB, Hunter, it's all good....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 2, 2007)

Cub Driver said:


> The aerial battles over Rangoon at Christmas 1941 are particularly well covered in Japanese histories, even unto diagrams showing how formations lost bombers, mile by mile and minute by minute. So I did a quick calculation on Japanese overclaiming, and it came to 5 to 1, as opposed to the American Volunteer Group pilots, who overclaimed something like 2.75 to 1. The difference is probably almost entirely attributable to the fact that a majority of Japanese planes over Rangoon were bombers, and that the bomber gunners were the most optimistic about their kills, for all the reasons cited above.
> 
> Especially with the AVG's boom zoom tactic, all the bomber gunner is going to see is a fighter slashing past. (Not all the AVGs used diving attacks this early in the war, but many did.) Then later he might see a fighter in flames. He's naturally going to think that it's the enemy fighter, whether or no, and that _he_ shot it down.
> 
> ...




I finally got through reading "Bloody Shambles" and based on what I read in Vol. 1, I agree......


----------



## Mangrove (Aug 4, 2007)

This is a complete list USSR aeroplanes claimed by Finnish gunners during 1939-1945. All kills were archived with single .30 Browning / Vickers and they have been confirmed as real kills. Plane they were flying on was Bristol Blenheim. 

List from "Suomen Ilmavoimien historia 19: LeR4" by Keskinen and Stenman.

_Sergeant V. Mörsky (Two Victories):_

20th December 1939 at Mantsi Island. Polikarpov I-16.
1st March 1940 at Koivisto Island. Polikarpov I-16.

_Corporal T. Hämäläinen (One Victory):_

10th March 1940 at Muhulahti. Polikarpov I-153.

_Corporal Y. Hammaren (Two Victories): _

11th March 1940 at Kiiskilä. Polikarpov I-153
11th March 1940 at Suur-Merijoki. Polikarpov I-153

_Corporal M. Pohja (One Victory):_

2th July at Valkjärvi. Polikarpov I-16

_Corporal M. Rimpivaara (One Victory):_

18th July at Vieljärvi. Polikarpov I-16 from 155 IAP.

_Corporal R. Räty (One Victory)_

21th July at Petroskoi. Polikarpov I-16 from 155 IAP.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 4, 2007)

Thanks for that info...


----------



## lucanus (Aug 4, 2007)

In talking to my Uncle Levi, who flew 32 missions in a B-17 as TT/Eng...
I asked him how many did you shoot down? His reply was " I just tried to
make the GO AWAY! He also stated that it depended on where in the bomber
stream you were, whether you were attacked by fighters heavily or not..
Lead was always hammered as well as Low.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 4, 2007)

lucanus said:


> In talking to my Uncle Levi, who flew 32 missions in a B-17 as TT/Eng...
> I asked him how many did you shoot down? His reply was " I just tried to
> make the GO AWAY!"


----------



## Heinz (Aug 5, 2007)

Whats easier to fire from do you guys reckon?

Turrets or waist positions.....basing this question on the b 24 and B 17.

I actually think the waist position may find it easier as the turrets didn't turn particualary quickly. However they had twice the fire power......hmm


----------



## renrich (Aug 7, 2007)

I believe the top turretgunner would have the best chance of hitting anything during a head on run or an overhead run. the waist gunners never had anything but considerably more difficult than a deflection shot.


----------



## Erich (Aug 7, 2007)

with all due respect...........puke ! it took many gunners from forts and libs to knock down the LW either from the sides, front or rear and it should not at all be surprising to anyone that the gunners claims were just that and over-inflated, LW single engines in 43 woudl bear their bellies after firing the manuever would congest the fuel lines and the smoke would pour from both 109 and Fw thus causing the cry from the gunners" I got em !", when it reality it was another story as the same LW a/c would go after another bomber to the rear or ahead

E `


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 7, 2007)

renrich said:


> I believe the top turretgunner would have the best chance of hitting anything during a head on run or an overhead run. the waist gunners never had anything but considerably more difficult than a deflection shot.


Actually the rear gunner had the best chance of hitting something as well as being hit...


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 7, 2007)

I had the opportunity at our recent airshow with the Russell Group and I had a private tour of the 17 the pilot turned the power on for the upper turret and I played with it for a few minutes . What struck me was the absolutely horrible vis it is very limited in all directions the guns take up about 75% of the view and I don't understand how anyone hit anything . The servos are not at all like the sensitive ones we are used to today and would personally think any hit would be a chance hit . I'm 6'5" and possibly to tall for the turret so this may slant my opinion but certainly elevated my opinion of the gunner . I would opt for the waist but the gunners bumping into one another in that small area as they tracked there targets wouldn't help either


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 8, 2007)

I gotta agree with Erich and pB here...

However, I would never want to be in that open, unarmoured space they called the waist gunner posistion...


----------



## Heinz (Aug 8, 2007)

I have to agree les!


----------



## renrich (Aug 8, 2007)

I agree flyboy but I was answering the question whether a turret gunner or waist gunners had easiest shots and I don't believe the B17 tail gunner was a turret. I do agree that the tail gunner position was most likely to hit something and get hit. Trying to hit anything from one of those gunner positions to me would be like trying to go dove hunting with a shotgun from an open car traveling at 60mph.


----------



## Parmigiano (Aug 8, 2007)

Don't know how to refer a thread, so I copied here a post I made about the Italian 'gunner ace'

In this case, there is no problem of many gunners claiming the same target: the seaplane was always alone against one or more fighters... 



Pietro Bonannini Seaplane gunner 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did somebody have some more material about this guy?

He is credited with 9 victories as a rear gunner, other sources reports 'only' 8 Info below are taken by a post from 'Arrigoni_61' in the IL-2 forum


Oct 25, 1941 - 1 Hurricane
PB is rear gunner of Cant Z 506B, 1 x Scotti 12.7
lone 506B patrolling, 3 hurri attack from rear. First one is hit by PB burn and dive into sea, the other two disengage

Dec 13, 1941 - 1 Spitfire
PB is rear gunner of Cant Z 506B, 1 x Scotti 12.7
lone 506B attacked by two Spit. One Spit downed, the other disengage

Dec 20, 1941 - 1 Spitfire
PB is rear gunner of Cant Z 506B, 1 x Scotti 12.7
lone 506B attacked by 3 Spit - PB downs the first of the line, the other 2 damages the 506 on a wing and turn for 2nd pass. PB's Scotti is jammed, he take the Breda 7.7 from ventral position and fire at the 2 fighters. Fighters apparently damaged, anyway they break the attack and turn away.

1942, date and details unknown - 1 Blenheim

9 May 1942 - 2 Spitfire
PB is rear gunner of Fiat RS14, 1 x Safat 12.7
isolated RS14 attacked by 2 spit probably from carrier Wasp
One Spit damaged, banks sharply and collide with the other. Both dive into sea

Summer 1942, date and details unknown - 1 Blenheim

6 Nov 1942 - 1 Beaufighter damaged
PB is rear gunner of Fiat RS14, 1 x Safat 12.7
Seaplane attacked by 2 beau, one damaged, RS14 takes about 30 hits, PB wounded


5 Jan 1943 - 2 Blenheim
PB is rear gunner of Cant Z 506B, 1 x Scotti 12.7
2 Blenheim attack the solitary Cant. At first pass one is hit, banks and ive to sea. The other press a second attack, but is also hit and slowly lose height until crashes into sea. PB is wouded in the leg


Bonannini survived the war and died in 1961 in a civilian flight accident with a friend.


----------



## Graeme (Aug 8, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually the rear gunner had the best chance of hitting something as well as being hit...



And there is nowhere to hide in a turret. My father once told me that some returning Lancasters had so many hits on the rear turret area that the only way to extricate the gunner was to 'hose' the remnants out.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 8, 2007)

My mother's friends father was an old Polish guy who trained as an RAF gunner in the last weeks of the WW2. He missed combat by a few weeks.

His opinion was that the gunners were there to stop the nightfighters coming up the exhaust pipes.

On one occasion, he said he and his pals were hosing a towed target and the target didn't regsiter a single hit. He didn't rate ariel gunnery as anything more than hit and hope.

He had a chance to be a pilot but chose gunner as it got him in the war faster and he wanted a few German scalps 

He's deed now so that ends that line of inquiry8)


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 8, 2007)

I've read tales where the gunner was ordered by the pilot not fire his weapons at a visible target at night so as not to alert the foe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 8, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> I've read tales where the gunner was ordered by the pilot not fire his weapons at a visible target at night so as not to alert the foe



That was done during the Korean War for a while as well.


----------



## Graeme (Aug 8, 2007)

Tracer being the problem?


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 8, 2007)

Not so much tracer as 303's vs 20mm why alert some one that can sit back and lob from afar . Why alert the sleeping dragon


----------



## Graeme (Aug 9, 2007)




----------



## The Basket (Aug 9, 2007)

From what I've read, the gunners on a Lanc would fire on any fighter they get to see. The idea was to wave them off.

A Me 110 nightfighter was sluggish performer and you needed a bit of surprise on your side to help out. A fully alerted crew was a bit of a nut to crack so find another Lanc with crew asleep and job jobbed.

Remember that a Lanc could do a spiral and even evade a nightfighter.

The .303s were not exactly heavy but fast firing and certainly earned its fair share.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 9, 2007)

The Basket said:


> From what I've read, the gunners on a Lanc would fire on any fighter they get to see. The idea was to wave them off.
> 
> A Me 110 nightfighter was sluggish performer and you needed a bit of surprise on your side to help out. A fully alerted crew was a bit of a nut to crack so find another Lanc with crew asleep and job jobbed.
> 
> ...


Bomber Command flew mostly at night because of the stealth factor why would you want to announce your position


----------



## Heinz (Aug 9, 2007)

Well Australian gunners kept pretty quiet from a few books I've read. Like PB said stealth they didn't exactly want to draw attention to the nightfighters.

I read they had a clear shot at a 'Moskito' but decided against it even thought they were at an advantage with their position at the time.


----------



## Glider (Aug 9, 2007)

At the ranges the night bombers could see the 303 was pretty effective. After all at the end of the day the job of a bombers guns is to stop the bomber being shot down. If a NF is hit by any bullets then they are not going to keep coming in.
If the bomber saw any twin coming at them, then it was shoot first and ask questions later. If the bomber saw the Twin and it wasn't in an attacking position it was stay shum and let him go away.

Note I said twin, it didn't matter if it was friendly or not.

Interestingly British NF's had Ross night glasses that worked very well up to about 250 yards to help identify the target before firing. I don't believe these were issued to bomber crews.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 9, 2007)

If the rear gunner saw a NF coming up then he would certainly give the full squirt. After setting a German city ablaze then stealth probably goes out the window.

RAF bomber crews suffered the highest loss rates of any regular UK forces. 

Question...did any bomber such as the B-17 or Lanc or Ju-88 survive with a sky filled with enemy fighters?

Did defensive armament really make the bomber survivable?

I would have to vote for the fighter...for example...the Battle of Britain...The Ju 87 was defenseless against a 8 gun fighter and the rear gunner was ballast. He is shooting one gun which he has to aim with 8 guns incoming. Not even close.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 9, 2007)

The Basket said:


> If the rear gunner saw a NF coming up then he would certainly give the full squirt. After setting a German city ablaze then stealth probably goes out the window.
> 
> RAF bomber crews suffered the highest loss rates of any regular UK forces.
> 
> ...


The one case I mentioned the 88 night fighter was slightly asterm and to the starboard they flew in this formation for a few minutes before the 88 peeled off having never seen the the possible target . Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour and dying for King and country for naught is a fools errand . All i know is that if in the same position I might be prone to keep quiet mind you the weapons would have been trained on the target


----------



## drgondog (Aug 9, 2007)

The Basket said:


> Question...did any bomber such as the B-17 or Lanc or Ju-88 survive with a sky filled with enemy fighters?
> 
> Did defensive armament really make the bomber survivable?



The answer to both is yes. There are many documented examples of Lancs and B-17s and B-24s surviving, individually, against attacks by several to many enemy fighters. 

An example - Shorty Wheless survived an attack by 15+ zeros plus a twin engine Nate over Rabaul to earn his Medal of Honor along with Zarnoski (sp?), his navigator and nose gunner, who was KIA. Allegedly they shot down seven on this single ship recon mission in daylight. That B-17 never flew again after returning to base.

There were quite a few survivors that were cut out of formation and survived many s/e attacks to RTB in the 1942/1943 timeframe

So the question is define 'sky filled' and what periods are we talking about

The obvious is that these occasions went to diminishing cases with the arrival of Fw190A8's, etc.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 10, 2007)

drgondog said:


> The answer to both is yes. There are many documented examples of Lancs and B-17s and B-24s surviving, individually, against attacks by several to many enemy fighters.
> 
> An example - Shorty Wheless survived an attack by 15+ zeros plus a twin engine Nate over Rabaul to earn his Medal of Honor along with Zarnoski (sp?), his navigator and nose gunner, who was KIA. Allegedly they shot down seven on this single ship recon mission in daylight. That B-17 never flew again after returning to base.
> 
> ...



Good point. Lets say one B-17 against a Fw190A8 one on one late 43. Not likely as there would be more. Or a Emil against a Blenhiem in 1940. Or even a MiG-15 against a B-29 in Korea.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 11, 2007)

The Basket said:


> Good point. Lets say one B-17 against a Fw190A8 one on one late 43. Not likely as there would be more. Or a Emil against a Blenhiem in 1940. Or even a MiG-15 against a B-29 in Korea.



The Basket - not likely to be an A8 in 1943.. but I suppose I could dig out some personal first hand accounts of B-17s or 24s carved out of formation and limped home on the deck while battling Fw190s and Me109s.

Is that what you are looking for or just reference to the fact that they did encounter German fighters one on one (or more) and did prevail? You know there are also occasions of Forts having mid air collisions with German fighters and bringing them home?


----------



## fer-de-lance (Aug 25, 2007)

> An example - Shorty Wheless survived an attack by 15+ zeros plus a twin engine Nate over Rabaul to earn his Medal of Honor along with Zarnoski (sp?), his navigator and nose gunner, who was KIA.



You are referring to 2dLT Joseph Raymond Sarnoski, MoH who was the bombardier and Jay Zeamer, MoH the pilot?

The twin engine fighter was actually a J1N1 "Gekko" or "Irving" night fighter of the 251st Kokutai. The Zero-sen attacking the "Eager Beavers" were also from the 251st. One was lost (pilot recovered from the sea) and another severely damaged.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## lucanus (Aug 30, 2007)

Here is an interesting story told by SSgt(T) Lester Levi 'Slip'
Davis, TT/Eng 544th BS 384th BG:
Sometime in late 43 or early 44, a B17 from the 91st BG was
trying to make its way back to 'Blighty' on the deck - The aircraft
is experiencing engine trouble...As they were deing harried by a 
couple of fighters and seeming to lose the battle to stay in the air,
the pilot lowered his landing gear signaling to their harassers they were
surrendering, this action had the desired effect - the fighters
backed off...and just as it looked like 10 men were headed to a POW
cage...Presto!! The engine trouble was fixed - the landing gear was
retracted and the gunners shot down one of the fighters and drove the
other one off trailing smoke!!!
SSgt Davis related that the 17 made it home, but that from then on
whenever the LW found the 91st BG on a raid, they would try to shoot
down as many as they could ignoring all other BGs and that most crews
of these other BGs were worried that using the _universal signal of_
_surrender_ (lowering the undercarriage) would not be abided by hence
forth....


----------



## Erich (Aug 30, 2007)

Lucanus the same thing happend with the bloody 100th bg and another 8th AF bg. more myth than fact. In no way shape or form did the Lw ground controllers pick out any certain 8th or 15th heavy bg even under LW Gruppenkommandeur air supervision, if a bomber pulk - group, seemed out of formation or tail end Charlie then it was usually attacked it was given up to the LW formation leader under his strict discretion whether to attack an easy prey if we want to use such a word or attack whereever even up several groups or not. no-one under any circumstance using the tail colours as ID was picked out for a extreme going over and with that I know perfectly well ever since wars end it has been reputed that is exactly what the LW did time after time but it is untrue. there was no time during a set up of attack to go looking for "special" bomb groups to pounce on, not whenAllied escorts were about .........even in 1943

good story though - thanks


----------



## fer-de-lance (Sep 1, 2007)

According to a survey compiled by Jim Sawruk, USN PB4Y gunners were credited with 313 air-to-air victories. 

Of these, over 120 were multi-engine aircraft. Many were enemy patrol planes that were actively hunted down by the PB4Y. Some were confirmed with photos of the wreckage in the water. Many of the original combat reports were scheduled for destruction since they had not been declassified after the war. Thanks to the efforts of Bob Cressman, most were preserved (and declassified and made available for research).

Jim launched into this project following a casual conversation about how it was "amazing that PB4Y's had been credited with shooting down many enemy aircraft but very few published accounts exist ..."

This has been a tremendous effort. Where details were lacking in the official report, Jim had filled in the gaps with things like the a diary kept by the commanding officer. 

http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-vol2/Appen4.pdf

Late in the war, PB4Y-2 conducting mining and antishipping strike missions out of Okinawa frequently encountered JAAF and JNAF fighters from Korea and Japan. The PB4Y-2 generally defended themselves very well, scoring a number of kills that can be confirmed in Japanese records.

Some examples:

May 17, 1945 off Nagasaki: two VPB-109 PB4Y-2 fought off attacks by 11 Kawanishi N1K2 Shiden-Kai from the 343th Kokutai, JNAF, shooting down two (killing both pilots). Both PB4Y-2 were damaged with 3 crewmen injured but returned to Okinawa safely.

May 31, 1945 southern coast of Korea north of Cheju-do: two VPB-123 PB4Y-2 combined to shoot down the Ki-84 Hayate killing the command officer of the 22nd Sentai based in Suwon. Both PB4Y-2 returned safely to base.

June 17(USN record)/18 (JAAF record; discrepancy due to international date-line), 1945 near Kunsan: two VPB-102 PB4Y-2 shared in the downing of a Ki-44 "Shoki" from the 85th Sentai killing the pilot. Both PB4Y-2 returned safely to base.

July 24, 1945 north of Cheju-do: two VPB-124 PB4Y-2 combined to shoot down a Ki-84 Hayate of the 25th Sentai based at Kunsan. The JAAF pilot was killed and both PB4Y-2 returned safely to base.

There is also a curious case of the JAAF 12th flight training unit based in Suwon, Korea losing a pilot on June 5, 1945 (Japan time) while intercepting PBY (sic) off Kunsan. This loss does not match with any claim in Jim Sawruk's survey. A June 4th (US time) claim for a "Jack" (J2M) shared by two VPB-102 PB4Y-2 occurred off the east coast of Japan. There were no claims on June 5th US time.

Looks like the PB4Y-2 gunners had a pretty good success rate in late 1945. Wonder how it compared against the B-29 gunners during the same period. Would appreciate JoeB's insights here.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## JoeB (Sep 12, 2007)

fer-de-lance said:


> The PB4Y-2 generally defended themselves very well, scoring a number of kills that can be confirmed in Japanese records.
> 
> Some examples:
> 
> ...


I was wondering the sources for each. 1. is in "Genda's Blade" by Sakaida, the US side is also given in "The Reluctant Raiders" by Carey about VPB-109. 2 and 4 are implied by the pilot casualty info in Hata/Izawa/Shores "JAAF Fighter Units and their Aces", but how about 3 and 5, or other sources for the others?

Another interesting success by Privateers against fighters happened in the Korean War era though not Korean War itself. Per Chinese official chronologies one of their MiG-15's and pilot were lost to return fire from a P4Y-2 (as by then designated) off the Chinese coast Nov 22 1952, although the VP-28 a/c attacked didn't make a claim. The 'B-29' claimed Sept 20 '52 over Shanghai as first homeland defence MiG-15 victory by the PLAAF was also a VP-28 a/c which escaped (web sources). PB4Y-2's had only one air combat in the Korean War itself I'm aware of, a Privateer of an unknown unit was briefly attacked by a probably NK prop fighter Feb 27 1952 (original records); their main role in actual Korean ops was as flare dropping a/c for Marine night attack a/c.

PB4Y-2's generally faced enemy a/c in tactical situations that facilitated accurate claiming, few on few; there are many dramatic photo's of the victims falling and there was less opportunity for duplication. Also in many cases the attackers were few, or as mentioned the PB4Y-2's were the aggressors. As in Aug 3 '45 incident described in Sakaida's "Pacific Air Combat", where 2 VBP-121 PB4Y-2's attacked and shot down a pair of F1M 'Pete' floatplanes of the Tateyama Kokutai which were trying to bomb the sub USS Aspro, which was trying to pick up a US pilot in Tokyo Bay, as one part of that strange multi-stage combat). PB4Y-2 claims appear to have been far more accurate than those of B-29's.

Joe

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fer-de-lance (Sep 13, 2007)

2, Hata/Izawa (JAAF Fighters), Japanese edition, p80 description of 22 Sentai commander attack "PBY" alone and failing to return

3. Hata/Izawa (JAAF Fighters), Japanese edition, p392 pilot casualty table

4. Hata/Izawa (JAAF Fighters), Japanese edition, p100 description of 25 Sentai engaging 2 "PBY" off Cheju-do July 24, claiming to shoot down both but losing Sgt. Yamaguchi

5. Hata/Izawa (JAAF Fighters), Japanese edition, p392 pilot casualty table notes: "PBY interception"

Yes, the engagement against MiG-15's of the PLAAF 2nd Division, 6th Regiment is almost certainly the last P4Y-2 air-to-air kill. (I was going to post it in the prop vs jet post-war thread  The PLAAF pilot killed was He, Zhong-dao (何中道). Jim Sawruk had looked for the name of the USN crew involved but found that the information had not be declassified.


----------



## Glider (Sep 13, 2007)

A slightly different type of gunner kills. L/Cpl Tom Neill and his gun team were credited with destroying or damaging 20 german aircraft during the battle for Crete.
It was unusual for a gound crew to see the crash of a plane that they hit hence the lack of detail, but as it was a 40mm, its safe to say that a number of the planes didn't make it home.


----------

