# Effectiveness of rear-seat gunners



## swampyankee (Dec 11, 2017)

Many WW2 attack aircraft (Ju87, SBD, Aichi D3A, etc) and catapult aircraft (SO3C, OS2U, etc) had gunners operating a single or paired machine gun, usually rifle caliber, as a self-defense weapon.

Are there any studies evaluating their effectiveness? I know the USN, during WW2, eliminated them from the generation of aircraft that would include the AD Skyraider and AM Mauler, and they did not appear on the RN's post-war carrier-based attack aircraft either, both services seeming to have concluded that the rear gunner wasn't sufficiently effective to be a design element. 

What studies did the USN and RN use to determine this? Are they available?

I'm asking for two reasons. One is general curiosity, as many groups seem to fall into patterns of thought that they _assume_ to be true without ever looking to see if they make sense (restricting this to militaries: cavalry being trained near-exclusively for mounted fighting with sword and lance well after repeating rifles and even machine guns enter service)


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 11, 2017)

A very interesting question.

I would note that by midway through the war the Americans and British, when planning for future strike aircraft _might _have been planning on a large number of escorting fighters to accompany the strike group/s.


----------



## mikewint (Dec 11, 2017)

Name - kills - Unit - AF - Aircraft

British/Commonwealth:
Frederick Barker- 13- 264- RAF- Defiant
Albert Lippett- 12- 264- RAF- Defiant
John Roberts- 12- 108- RAF- Blenheim
S. B. Johnson- 11- 264- RAF- Defiant
Frederick King- 10- 264- RAF- Defiant
Henry Jacobs- 8- 219/600- RAF- Blenheim
P. Lillie- 8- 264- RAF- Defiant
Wallace McIntosh- 8 – 207- RAF- Lancaster
L. H. Hayden- 7- 264- RAF- Defiant
C. Sutherland- 7- 207- RAF- Lancaster
?. Bradford- 6- 57- RAF-Lancaster
Peter Engbrecht- 6- 424- RCAF- Halifax(Top Turret)
Robert Turner- 6- 264- RAF- Defiant
Fred Gash- 5- 264- RAF- Defiant
?. Martain- 5- 264- RAF- Defiant
F.W. Wake- 5- 264- RAF- Defiant
J.E.M. Williams- 5- 264- RAF- Defiant

*USAAF/US Navy:*

S/SGT Michael Arooth- 17- 527 BS 379 BG 8 AF- USAAF- B-17(Tail Gunner)
S/SGT Arthur J. Benko -16- 374 BS 308 BG 14AF- USAAF- B-24(Top Turret)
S/SGT Donald Crossley-12- 95 BG 8 AF- USAAF-B-17 (Tail Gunner)
S/SGT Benjamin F Warner- 9 – 99 BG 12 AF-USAAF- B-17 (Waist Gunner)
S/SGT John B Quinlan -8- 324 BS 91 BG 8 AF/20 AF-USAAF- B-17(5),B-29(3)(Tail Gunner)(Gunner on Memphis Belle)
T/SGT Thomas Dye -8- 51 BS 351 BG 8 AF -USAAF-B-17(Ball Turret)
S/SGT John D. Foley-7+8 prob- 22ND BG 5 AF- USAAF-B-26(Top Turret)
S/SGT John A. Murphy-6- 500 BS 345 BG 5 AF- USAAF- B-25(Top Turret)(all Zero’s)
T/SGT Weston (Wes) Loegering-5 -574 BS 391 BG 9 AF -USAAF-B-26 (Top Turret)
SFC Richard H Thomas-5- VPD 117- US Navy-PB4Y (B-24)(Front Turret)
ARM2 Paul Ganshirt-5- VD 3-US Navy-PB4Y(B-24)(Top Turret)


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 11, 2017)

Interesting information, but I was specifically looking at the rear seat gunners in two-seat aircraft, not multi-seat bomber.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 11, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Interesting information, but I was specifically looking at the rear seat gunners in two-seat aircraft, not multi-seat bomber


From other threads recently the (for example) Me110 rear gunner was also a radio operator/observer who would have been there anyway, the rear gun was just additional defence. For the info that mikewint posted, the turret of the defiant was its main armament.


----------



## mikewint (Dec 11, 2017)

Going to be tough to determine. As for "kill to death ratios," those don't exist in real life. You only get 1 death. Comparing rear gunner kills to rear-gunner airplanes shot down is also useless - those airplanes' missions weren't to get air-to-air kills, rather to hit ground targets with bombs and guns. The rear gun was there to keep it alive longer (air-to-air kills were a byproduct, not a definition of the plane's success)

Finding such stats is going to be tough. Even if they were kept, they might not be very accurate. Unlike fighter kills, which were often verified with gun camera footage, rear gunner claims could not be backed up with objective proof.

Really the point of a tail gunner was more to deter attack from the rear rather than shoot down planes. In a torpedo run, or a dive bomber feeling the attack, the best position for a kill would be directly behind and from above. The tail gunner was position so that the dive bomber would be less of a sitting duck.

Hans Rudel's book is interesting in that he frequently mentions what his tail gunners said and did. Rudel speculates that his gunner, Ernst Gadermann, might have even shot down Soviet ace Lev Shestakov. If true, this would be a very rare event for a tail gunner.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Dec 11, 2017)

I suspect that the main purpose of the rear gunner is to put off the attacking fighter not to shoot anyone down. They certainly did get some kills but more importantly they reduced losses. The best example I can think of is the Il -2 which originally didn't have a rear gun and simply became target practice for the German fighters but quickly reintroduced them. Beaufighters were also often given a rear gun for a similar reason.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 11, 2017)

Had a chance once to look at a WAG's log book. During training in the turret of a Bolingbrook scored 5% on a drogue target. The instructor wrote excellent in red in the log book.

If a turret gunner, grant it was in training, get 5% then what would a hand held mg score be?


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Dec 11, 2017)

Milosh said:


> Had a chance once to look at a WAG's log book. During training in the turret of a Bolingbrook scored 5% on a drogue target. The instructor wrote excellent in red in the log book.
> 
> If a turret gunner, grant it was in training, get 5% then what would a hand held mg score be?


What's the corresponding 'excellent' rating for fixed forward-firing guns? 5% might be a pretty good hit rate in general.


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 11, 2017)

Me 110 in long range marine patrols were at one point operated with the rear seat replaced by a fuel tank. It supposedly left the aircraft very vulnerable. I just can’t find where I read that.


----------



## rednev (Dec 12, 2017)

Glider said:


> I suspect that the main purpose of the rear gunner is to put off the attacking fighter not to shoot anyone down. They certainly did get some kills but more importantly they reduced losses. The best example I can think of is the Il -2 which originally didn't have a rear gun and simply became target practice for the German fighters but quickly reintroduced them. Beaufighters were also often given a rear gun for a similar reason.


 was not saburo sakai's day ruined by a rear seat gunner ?


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 12, 2017)

mikewint said:


> Going to be tough to determine. As for "kill to death ratios," those don't exist in real life. You only get 1 death. Comparing rear gunner kills to rear-gunner airplanes shot down is also useless - those airplanes' missions weren't to get air-to-air kills, rather to hit ground targets with bombs and guns. The rear gun was there to keep it alive longer (air-to-air kills were a byproduct, not a definition of the plane's success)
> 
> Finding such stats is going to be tough. Even if they were kept, they might not be very accurate. Unlike fighter kills, which were often verified with gun camera footage, rear gunner claims could not be backed up with objective proof.
> 
> ...



I think your comment about statistics is spot-on. Even if somebody were to get hold of the war records of every squadron operating attack aircraft with rear gunners, it would probably be impossible to determine, with any kind of reliability, the cases where the plane was saved by its gunner's shooting, lost despite the gunner, unable to perform a mission due to the gunner, or whether there is a net increase in casualties even if the gunner reduces the loss rate due to enemy fighters.



Glider said:


> I suspect that the main purpose of the rear gunner is to put off the attacking fighter not to shoot anyone down. They certainly did get some kills but more importantly they reduced losses. The best example I can think of is the Il -2 which originally didn't have a rear gun and simply became target practice for the German fighters but quickly reintroduced them. Beaufighters were also often given a rear gun for a similar reason.



The gunner could reduce losses in two ways, one of which is simply an extra pair of eyes searching for attackers, the other being a single rifle-caliber machine gun being a deterrent. Similarly, the gunner could increase losses by making the aircraft less effective, requiring more sorties to perform the same mission, and with the increase in crew size causing more casualties when the aircraft is lost.



rednev said:


> was not saburo sakai's day ruined by a rear seat gunner ?




Quite true; it very nearly ended his fighting career.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 12, 2017)

rednev said:


> was not saburo sakai's day ruined by a rear seat gunner ?



Yes but he thought he was attacking a single seat a/c.


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 12, 2017)

Milosh said:


> Yes but he thought he was attacking a single seat a/c.




Which is an excellent point made elsewhere on several threads here. It goes to show you that it's easy to miss ID another aircraft in the heat of battle even by a pro.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2017)

BiffF15 said:


> Which is an excellent point made elsewhere on several threads here. It goes to show you that it's easy to miss ID another aircraft in the heat of battle even by a pro.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



Even happens today still. My old unit had two Blackhawks (before my time) shotdown by USAF F-15C’s that were misidentied at Iraqi Hinds. 

1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident - Wikipedia


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 12, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Even happens today still. My old unit had two Blackhawks (before my time) shotdown by USAF F-15C’s that were misidentied at Iraqi Hinds.
> 
> 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident - Wikipedia



My 4-month deployment to Incirlik ended just before this incident. I knew the 2 Brits and the USAF intel officer who lost their lives in this tragic event. I have some strong opinions on this topic...but am going to apply the Thumper principle and say nuthin' ('cos what I would say wouldn't be nice).


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 12, 2017)

There was quite a bit of fallout in the Eagle community because of that incident. Changed the underlying principles of some of our comm as well as increased VID training of helicopters. I knew the wingman and he was both sharp and a strong flyer. People can and do make mistakes and that one cost lives.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 12, 2017)

Hi Biff,

I'd be interested in chatting with you about this topic. People do make mistakes but there was a more general mentality at play, not just within the F-15 fleet, that (IMHO) directly contributed to this incident. I'd be interested to learn whether the issue I detected was factored into the changes made within the Eagle community.

Feel free to ping me if you're interested/able to chat.

Cheers,
Mark


----------



## Greyman (Dec 12, 2017)

I think there's more at play (psychologically) in these types of things than just aircraft identification. The brain really does play tricks on you at times. A 600 lb elk looks nothing like a human being, but reading testimony from hunters who have shot another will swear up and down their mind saw an elk (or other beast that looks a hell of a lot less like a human than a 109 vs a Spitfire - or Hind vs a Blackhawk).

D-Day stripes:

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 12, 2017)

My dad was shot at while wearing a blaze orange jacket


----------



## mikewint (Dec 12, 2017)

My uncle had a farm in Wisconsin and I used to go there every chance/vacation I had. Got to do NEAT things like drive tractors, trucks. shoot guns, no mother, ect. a young boys (well me anyway) dream. Every fall Unk would have at least one cow shot, a tractor shot, a truck shot, and several times had bullets pass through the barn while he was working there. In general it was city-type folk on their once-a-year country hunt shooting at a moving bush or movement out of the corner of their eye. Just plain carelessness figuring that in the wide-open country spaces there was nothing to hit. Same clowns that shoot in the air on the 4th and New Years.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 12, 2017)

I remember reading about Blackburn Skuas being attacked by 110s and 109s during the Norway campaign. The best method of defense for the 225mph a/c against 350 mph a/c was not the rear MG but flying at sea level and the gunner/observer telling the pilot when the attacker was getting close enough to fire and the pilot dropping the dive brakes. The rather startled German pilot then found his windscreen suddenly full of dive bomber seemingly reversing at him at high speed and broke off the attack, probably with brown underpants.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 12, 2017)

mikewint said:


> My uncle had a farm in Wisconsin and I used to go there every chance/vacation I had. Got to do NEAT things like drive tractors, trucks. shoot guns, no mother, ect. a young boys (well me anyway) dream. Every fall Unk would have at least one cow shot, a tractor shot, a truck shot, and several times had bullets pass through the barn while he was working there. In general it was city-type folk on their once-a-year country hunt shooting at a moving bush or movement out of the corner of their eye. Just plain carelessness figuring that in the wide-open country spaces there was nothing to hit. Same clowns that shoot in the air on the 4th and New Years.



Usually the city slickers aren't shooting up in the air. They'd expect to be arrested for firing a gun within 500 ft of a residence.

I'm not arguing about any other part of your story. My father stopped hunting -- he was never a big fan in any case -- when he decided he was in more danger from other hunters than he had been in Borneo in 1944.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 12, 2017)

I think as the fighters moved to heavier guns like the .50 and cannons, the ability to manually handle a larger gun to counter in a back of a plane was not practical. You could add a turret of some type but that meant a lot more weight.

I can understand why they disappeared in the smaller aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 12, 2017)

vikingBerserker said:


> I think as the fighters moved to heavier guns like the .50 and cannons, the ability to manually handle a larger gun to counter in a back of a plane was not practical. You could add a turret of some type but that meant a lot more weight.
> 
> I can understand why they disappeared in the smaller aircraft.



I think that's one factor. Other related factors include the increasing speed of fighter aircraft, which made it much harder for a human-aimed defensive weapon to track those fighters, and the removal of "light bomber" as an aircraft classification because the more powerful single-seat fighters could also assume the role of light bombers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Dec 13, 2017)

I think range played a part. If the fight is at 50-100m, a rifle caliber LMG is as good as anything at hitting an assailant. however if the attacking fighter is engaging at 400m, an LMG being fired in a buffeting aircraft over open sights basically has little chance of doing anything, even if it scores the odd hit or two

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 13, 2017)

from a firepower stand point, many of the early WWII strike aircraft were designed at a time (late 30s) when attacking enemy planes were likely to have 2-8 rifle caliber machine guns (the 8 being the British and rather exceptional) or a single slow firing 20mm cannon and 2-4 machineguns. Within a few years the Americans were sticking six 50 cal machine guns into practically anything that would fly. When you are looking at attack/strike aircraft that started the design process in 1942/43 be aware that the fighters that started design at that time (well after the P-51, Tempest and FW 190D) were projected to have eight of more .50s or 4 fast firing 20mm guns or some other heavy armament that single rearward firing weapons stations could not hope to match.


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 13, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Even happens today still. My old unit had two Blackhawks (before my time) shotdown by USAF F-15C’s that were misidentied at Iraqi Hinds.
> 
> 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident - Wikipedia




Presumably this happened with modern IFF technology. HMS _Sheffield_ almost got torpedoed by the Swordfish sent after the _Bismarck_.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 13, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Presumably this happened with modern IFF technology. HMS _Sheffield_ almost got torpedoed by the Swordfish sent after the _Bismarck_.



In the fog of war, I can understand how that may have happened.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 13, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> Presumably this happened with modern IFF technology. HMS _Sheffield_ almost got torpedoed by the Swordfish sent after the _Bismarck_.


As I read it HMS Sheffield was attacked by mistake, it dodged three torpedoes and others exploded in the wake, as a result they returned to and re armed with contact fuses.


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 13, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> A very interesting question.
> 
> I would note that by midway through the war the Americans and British, when planning for future strike aircraft _might _have been planning on a large number of escorting fighters to accompany the strike group/s.


That's one thing that improved the survivability of the Vultee Vengeance: The fact that they realized they'd do a lot better with fighter cover



pbehn said:


> From other threads recently the (for example) Me110 rear gunner was also a radio operator/observer who would have been there anyway, the rear gun was just additional defence.


Why would you need a specialized radioman for a fighter? It sounds like a great way to make a plane considerably heavier and larger for the same range (and possibly a little slower), plus the Me-109, Fw-190 (as well as the RAF's Hurricane, Spitfire, et. al) all had one pilot flying the plane and operating the radio...



mikewint said:


> Going to be tough to determine. As for "kill to death ratios," those don't exist in real life.


I guess it matters more that the plane goes down in flames and stops posing a threat...



Glider said:


> I suspect that the main purpose of the rear gunner is to put off the attacking fighter not to shoot anyone down.


I figured it was a bit of both.



fubar57 said:


> My dad was shot at while wearing a blaze orange jacket


That's almost certainly a war-crime (shooting up shipwreck survivors).

Of course the reason for the jacket is it's one of the easiest colors to pick up with the eyes: My vision's around 20/40 to 20/80 without glasses (up close, I can see fine, at longer distances it gets blurrier), but I remember seeing this woman wearing an orange bathing suit (it was a bikini, so it has very little surface area), and from a distance, I couldn't make out any major detail (i.e. facial) except basic bodyframe, coloring (she had blonde hair and was fairly light), and the bathing suit.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 13, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Why would you need a specialized radioman for a fighter? It sounds like a great way to make a plane considerably heavier and larger for the same range (and possibly a little slower), plus the Me-109, Fw-190 (as well as the RAF's Hurricane, Spitfire, et. al) all had one pilot flying the plane and operating the radio...


The Bf 110, in it's role as a long range fighter, needed a long range radio. It was fitted, rightly or wrongly, with the same radio as the He 111. 

Please remember (or look up) that radios changed considerably from the late 30s through WW II. Some 109s in the Battle of France and BoB had radios with a single channel (frequency). Some British fighters had radios with four pre-selected channels (frequencies) which could be selected by a switch. 

Using a "key" could give roughly 3 times the range of voice radio. Pilots trying to use code keys 





was probably not a good idea in combat 

radios that needed somebody to turn dials to "tune" the radio to a specific frequency were very common, especially for long range work.





Is that a code key on the right side of cockpit coaming?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 13, 2017)

How would you like to be in the rear seat, just there as a observer, or radio man, and not armed ?

I think they might have armed him more as a pacifier, than how effective he was at shooting down aircraft.

If you've got to have someone in the rear seat, just how much additional weight does it add to have a seat that can be swiveled around, and then arm him with a .30 cal and a few hundred rounds ?

Some of the later Dauntless, Stuka, and some other aircraft had twin fast firing .30 cals, some had a combined rate of fire of 2400 rpm, that's 40 bullets a second. That's going to be a little more than just a nuisance to anyone hostile approaching from the rear.


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 14, 2017)

There is an analysis of how many RAF fighters were shot down by Luftwaffe bombers versus fighters in the BoB somewhere. It’s not much, maybe 2%.

That would give you an idea for the effectiveness of the rear gunner versus fighters. I sat next to a kid at school who’s fathers Hurricane had been shot down by the dorsal gunner of a He 111. He said the gunners were fast.

This doesn’t mean the Luftwaffe armament didn’t work at reducing Luftwaffe losses. I expect that Luftwaffe gunners put a lot of rifle caliber rounds into Spitfires and Hurricanes, just not enough to shoot them down. 

In addition the bullet proof wind shield subtracted about 10 mph in speed I believe.


Given the IL-2 Sturmovik introduction of a rear gunner who because of the belated design modification didn’t have Armour suffered 7 times the casualty rate of the pilot there must have been value in it.

I suspect nothing less than 20mm Defensive guns, power drive and a computing gun sight would do. You would need the lethal punch of a 20mm gun.


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 14, 2017)

I've been in a chopper when it was hit by ground fire, you may not know where you've been hit, but you hear/feel each hit.

I doubt that a aircraft would be very different, except for hits in fabric covered areas,and extremities of the aircraft. When they got hits in the fuselage, they'd know they were getting hit.

That, and the muzzle flash, tracers of the gunner's fire has to have some influence on the attacking pilot's concentration .


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 14, 2017)

I think the biggest value of a rear gunner perhaps is helping to throw off the attacking fighter pilot's aim.


----------



## Barrett (Dec 14, 2017)

the USN aviation statistics released in 45 shows number of e/a credited to various aircraft types but no breakout as to gunners in two-seat aircraft. That info can be derived from vast scrutiny of Frank Olynyk's encyclopedic survey of USN victory credits (no longer available.) The top SBD gunner(s) had 4 credited.

Ref. the Eagles v. Black Hawks: got some insight via some Red Flag operators. The F-15 community was considered notorious for going score-happy even on escort. Some Prowler bubbas were notched by F-5 adversaries when the Eagles went prowling. In the debrief the BG running the show asked WTF? The Eagle guys said, well yeah, we lost the Prowler and some strikers BUT LOOK AT THE KILL BOARD. I am not saying that happened routinely but it was often enough for USN and NATO participants to take note. In the Iraq event, the lead shooter had bagged one of Saddam's helos and seemed primed to repeat. Reportedly the fighter community tried to blame the AWACS but Ron Fogelman put an end to that when he investigated and found the fighters had made two VID passes and still shot...


----------



## billrunnels (Dec 14, 2017)

vikingBerserker said:


> I think the biggest value of a rear gunner perhaps is helping to throw off the attacking fighter pilot's aim.


I think it would be difficult to hit anything from the back seat. However, the tail gunners on the B-17 were very successful but they were shooting from a more stable platform.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 14, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Using a "key" could give roughly 3 times the range of voice radio. Pilots trying to use code keys
> View attachment 475881
> 
> was probably not a good idea in combat


Morse code?


----------



## billrunnels (Dec 14, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Morse code?


I would think so


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 14, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> Morse code?



The FAA had a position called 
telegraphist air gunner

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 14, 2017)

SR6: Why not just dial in a different frequency?


----------



## Milosh (Dec 14, 2017)

Zipper730 said:


> SR6: Why not just dial in a different frequency?



There was a crystal for each frequency.


----------



## yulzari (Dec 14, 2017)

fubar57 said:


> The FAA had a position called
> telegraphist air gunner


Indeed. Their principal task was the telegraphist one. They got a gun as they were there anyway. By the time of the Fulmar Fairey had worked out that the aerodynamic benefit of a smooth rear fuselage was worth more than giving the TAG a weighty gun. They were well aware of the trouble Fairey Battle gunners had trying to manually move the gun in a 200mph+ slipstream. When the Swordfish carried the in rear cockpit extra range fuel tank, for tasks like mining off the Netherlands from East Anglia, they dropped the TAG and kept the navigator.


----------



## K5083 (Dec 15, 2017)

The highest scoring fighter pilot to be KIA was shot down by the rear gunner of an IL-2 using a 12.7mm handheld Beresin. Otto Kittel.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 15, 2017)

we cant get a complete dataset but Id be interested if anyone can come up with a way of achieving an indicative random sample of engagements as to the level of success enjoyed.

to make the sample as unadulterated as possible, you would probably need to specify engagements where there were no fighter escorts to unbalance the results. I can think of several instances like this on the eastern front and one instance during the BoB. There were also one or two episodes in the Pacific. I'm unsure though if these could a a "random sample" or just me remembering some spectacular episode.


----------



## rednev (Dec 15, 2017)

parsifal said:


> we cant get a complete dataset but Id be interested if anyone can come up with a way of achieving an indicative random sample of engagements as to the level of success enjoyed.
> 
> how do you define success, shooting down the attacking fighter or just putting off his aim enough to live to fight another day


----------



## billrunnels (Dec 15, 2017)

My vote would be "live to fight another day".

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## daveT (Dec 15, 2017)

here is some info about the original question, especially weight saving
*Was having a tail gunner really that effective?*
Was having a tail gunner really that effective?


----------



## billrunnels (Dec 16, 2017)

billrunnels said:


> My vote would be "live to fight another day".


One of the values taught throughout training was " a dead shoulder was of no value". In other words do nothing foolish.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 16, 2017)

billrunnels said:


> One of the values taught throughout training was " a dead shoulder was of no value". In other words do nothing foolish.



I think Patton said, to his soldiers, something to the effect of "your job isn't to die for your country; it's to make the other guy die for his."

In a large conflict, casualties can be crippling to a military, but in a small one they can be used by the most cynical of politicians to keep the conflict going.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## billrunnels (Dec 16, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> I think Patton said, to his soldiers, something to the effect of "your job isn't to die for your country; it's to make the other guy die for his."
> 
> In a large conflict, casualties can be crippling to a military, but in a small one they can be used by the most cynical of politicians to keep the conflict going.


WWII was to end all wars and bring a lasting peace. It didn't happen. I am of the opinion that lasting peace can not be achieved through conflict. Rather, it must be the will and desire of leaders of our great Countries supported by the people they represent. Will it ever happen? I sure hope so!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 16, 2017)

billrunnels said:


> WWII was to end all wars and bring a lasting peace. It didn't happen. I am of the opinion that lasting peace can not be achieved through conflict. Rather, it must be the will and desire of leaders of our great Countries supported by the people they represent. Will it ever happen? I sure hope so!



I had always been told that was World War I.

Politicians, in general, use the "sunk cost" fallacy very often in small wars, _e.g._, colonial or colonial-like conflicts, especially, it seems when those costs are human lives (just not human lives they care about; at least the pre-19th Century crowned heads would expect their sons to be out with the army in the field, not at home boffing the servants): "we can't leave Lower Elbonia because so many of our boys have died fighting the menace of big-enders."

I've become more and more of the opinion that national governments need wars to justify their existence, so they'll fabricate them as needed.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 16, 2017)

billrunnels said:


> WWII was to end all wars and bring a lasting peace. It didn't happen. I am of the opinion that lasting peace can not be achieved through conflict. Rather, it must be the will and desire of leaders of our great Countries supported by the people they represent. Will it ever happen? I sure hope so!



These “war to end all wars” are based on the premise that the German people or Nazis or some unique behaviour of them were the fundamental cause of these conflicts and that defeating them would end future ward. They weren’t. There are other fundamental forces at play both in the broader sense (in regards to human nature, ecology) and the narrow sense (the behaviour of France, Britain, Russia). World war 1 was a mouse trap ready to go off but it was no accident.

Several nations or elements within wanted war. No one was trying harder to avoid war than Kaiser Wilhelm in the final days. The Tsar and Kaiser had signed a peace treaty, something undermined by their staffs several, years prior to ww1.

Germany usually gets the blame because it invaded neutral Belgium in an attempt to shorten the conflict (something Germanys chancellor, who opposed it, declared was wrong and they would redress) however Britain would have entered the war anyway because of the Entente Cordial of 1904 and it’s strengthening in 1912 that brought Britain’s Navy in on the Side of France automatically. (it must be said the British cabinet were not given this information outside of Churchill who knew and I suspect must have have been relieved he didn't need to use the 1912 Anglo French Naval treaty to get Britain into the war)

Belgium merely gave the elements of the British Government that wanted a war an moral excuse they could use to evade responsibility for their key part in the carnage they were equally responsible for. These treaties were not allegiances about national security, they were fundamentally driven by malevolence, hubris and greed and they created insecurity not sevurity. 

France was specifically asked by the German government if it would stay neutral in event of a German war with Russia. They said no, hence a German war with Russia meant a France would get involved against Germany. A French war with Germany meant Britain would join with France. The US entered WW1 just as everyone was running out of money and blood and would need to make peace.

The US entry into, WW1, was for moral reasons and essentially the result of a very successful and prolific British Governmnt propaganda and smear campaign.. (fabrications of German soldiers bayoneting babies, raping nuns)

The Germans had to be blamed for it soley because if they weren't then who else was to blame? That's why the allies, quite extraordinary it was, wrote German guilt into the treaty of Versailles. They were guilty of invading Belgium, but something that voluntiered before the war. They were however not responsible for WW1 alone. The Austrian Government was particularly culpable in that it lied to the German Government about its list of demands to Serbia after Archduke Ferdinand's assassination. The Germans would have moderated these but they lied and told the Germans they were still being drafted when they had in fact already been delivered.

This is the war that started the end of our civilisation not the war to end all wars.

WW2 was Germans trying to protect and recover populations as well as territory and create trade options and markets denied to them after WW1.. It's quite likely that war would have happened without Hitler in my view.

A big part of avoiding war is to hold the media accountable.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 16, 2017)

During the Battle of Britain if I was in the rear seat of a Bf 110 without a gun and was being attacked from the rear I would probably jump into a Kent hop field instead of just boosting the pilots protection.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 16, 2017)

I think we should tend to avoid the sort of revisionism that tries to absolve the German governments of any responsibility for either WW1 or WW2. I also think we should get thread back on topic, which is not some pseudo-debate about who and why WW1 and WW2 started in Europe, which is really not particularly relevant to whether the gunners in the rear seats of attack and catapult aircraft were effective.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
7 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Dec 16, 2017)

Different services had different expectations of their rear-seaters. 
In US service, the rear-seater was an enlisted radio operator/gunner.
In Japanese service he may well be the aircraft commander.
Germany was a mixed bag like Great Britain with enlisted w/o-gunners in some cases and senior crew in others. Recon often had enlisted pilots and officer observers.
My guess is the rear-seater provided as much or more protection just by being a dedicated pair of eyes looking for threats. Any kills by defensive gunnery were just icing on the cake.
From what I've read, the kill claims of rear gunners are highly suspect. Case in point, in the first nine months of operations, April 1942 to January 1943, the 22nd BG put in claims for 94 defensive gunnery kills. Luca Ruffato, in his book _Eagles of the Southern Skies,_ which covers the Tainan Air Group from April to November 1942, can only identify one Tainan loss to the 22nd, and that was a collision.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 17, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> I think we should tend to avoid the sort of revisionism that tries to absolve the German governments of any responsibility for either WW1 or WW2. I also think we should get thread back on topic, which is not some pseudo-debate about who and why WW1 and WW2 started in Europe, which is really not particularly relevant to whether the gunners in the rear seats of attack and catapult aircraft were effective.



Sure we can continue the discussion on topic but maybe you can read my post again and prarphrase it and represent me accurately.

I did not absolve the German government. 

I’m rating the so called allied governments equally responsible. These guys got of scott free despite their incompetence and dishonesty and continued their behaviour. Wars start with malevolent intent and setting up a threatening situation. 

In regards to “revisionism” Now that the 100 year limits on release of state secrets are up are we not allowed to revise 1914-18 as the documents trickle out?.

In another example. The so called “von Schliefen plan”, often used as proof of the Germans to wage a two front war of world conquest, was thought lost when a US bombing raid in 1945 hit German Army archives. However in 1984 with the fall of the Berlin Wall a copy that the Russians had found was returned to the East German Government was recovered.

It turns out that von Schleifens plan was not an plan but an 1904 academic study only and considered the scenario for a war with France only.

So how did the von Schliefan plan get “invented”. Simply because as Moeltke hurriedly got his plan together as war loomed he referenced parts of von Schleifens study. Sloppy or agenda driven historians invented the rest citing each other to the point they worked in an echo chamber of unreality.

See Terrence Zubehors book “The real German War Plan”

Zubehor utilized these documents, along with several of Schlieffen's war games in the Bavarian army archive in Munich to produce a fundamental reappraisal of Schlieffen's planning in 'The Schlieffen Plan Reconsidered' in War in History,-5 and in Inventing the Schlieffen Plan: German War planning 1871 -1914 in 2002.9 

*He pointed out that the Schlieffen plan was for a one-front war against France* only, which was unlikely in 1906 and impossible in 1914. Even in this one-front war, the plan required twenty-four divisions that existed neither in 1906 nor in 1914. *Schlieffen's purpose was not to write a war plan using 'ghost divisions' but as one more proposal to realize full conscription. He wanted to show that even a one-front war against France, and even with twenty-four non-existent 'ghost divisions', the German army was going to have its hands full.*

Incongruously, in August 1914 the original text of the “great plan” was the property of Schlieffen's daughters and was being stored with the family photos! None of Schlieffen's surviving war games tested the Schlieffen plan. Infact, Schlieff'en's actual war plans and war games were based on using Germany's interior position and rail mobility to counter-attack against the expected French and Russian offensives, and was not a desperate attempt to invade France.
*
His conclusion, that there never was a Schlieffen plan met with considerable hostility. The existence of a Schlieffen plan had become dogma. An enormous body of historical explanation, including German war guilt, was based on the Schlieffen plan. Many in the historical establishment were on the record confirming the importance of the Schlieffen plan and were outraged that their sacred cow had been slaughtered.*


It reminds me of my one and only jury duty. The man on trial had gotten involved in one of those stupid road rage incidents where whomever cuts off whomever and ended up being followed by the other car. He turned down a street to get away but it ended up being a one way street. They all got out of their cars; he alone the other 4 guys. He struck the first blow and hospitalized 2 of them.

We found him not guilty.

I’ve had my say. You can have yours I’ll stay on topic now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Dec 17, 2017)

The problem is much fold.
1 gunner can not point weapons under heavy manoeuvring (power assist needed)
2 gunner can not reload due to heavy manoeuvring
3 gunner needs computing bombsight to achieve accuracy
4 in a turning fight the attacking fighter ends up below and the gunner can not aim at the attacking fighter.
5 firepower of the rear gun is typically 1/10th that of attacking fighters.

Consider the scenario of the Me 410 setup below. It had a computing sight.

The 13.2mm MG 131, probably the equal of two 303 brownings with a relatively heavy explosive projectile.

Imagine a Tempest V (4 x 20mm Hispano) or a P47 (8 x 0.5 inch browning) attacking.

The defending gunner may only get 4 seconds of shooting before the powerful guns of the fighter are upon him.

Scenario 1: a 4 second burst shoots 16 rounds/sec ie 64 total of 0.5 inch MG and gets 5% hits. The attacking fighter is hit by 3.2 rounds.

Scenario 2: a 4 second burst shoots 12 rounds/sec ie 48 of 20mm cannon shells total and gets 5% hits. The attacking fighter is hit by 2.4 rounds.

In scenario 1 the attacking fighter is hardly disturbed unless the win shield armour glass is cracked. It’s only shot down in a hit on the oil cooler.

In scenario 2 the 2 or 3 20mm rounds can penetrate the armour glass, blow of a prop blade, severe the main spar, blow of a cylinder head.

If the below guns were 20mm this would be a credible defence. The gun sight had computing capability.







It typically required 4 x 20mm hits to bring down a fighter.


----------



## Greyman (Dec 17, 2017)

Koopernic said:


> 4 in a turning fight the attacking fighter ends up below and the gunner can not aim at the attacking fighter.



I think the most common position for an attacking fighter in this case would be in the gunner's arc of fire. If anything too 'high', if he's allowing a lot of deflection.

Lag pursuits to sneak in under the gunner's field of fire are always a possibility, but I think the most intuitive attack would be the standard 'turn inside him and let him have it'.


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 17, 2017)

Almost certainly, the Me410 (or Me110) will have significantly worse maneuverability than an attacking single-engined fighter, the pilot of which would be able to chose the attack vector. The gunner, in a single-engined aircraft, will be close to the center of mass and the aim point, so in addition to dealing with a heavy machine gun, probably without power assistance, an aiming system that's basically by-guess-and-by-God, he's going to believe he, personally, is the target. This is unlikely to improve his state of mind.


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 17, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> I think Patton said, to his soldiers, something to the effect of "your job isn't to die for your country; it's to make the other guy die for his."


I'd have hated serving under him, but I gotta say: It's hard not to love his quotes...


> In a large conflict, casualties can be crippling to a military, but in a small one they can be used by the most cynical of politicians to keep the conflict going.


Yeah, I remember hearing something about Nixon (via Kissinger) deliberately crippling Johnson's attempts to bring the war to a peaceful conclusion in order to get elected.


> Politicians, in general, use the "sunk cost" fallacy very often in small wars, _e.g._, colonial or colonial-like conflicts, especially, it seems when those costs are human lives (just not human lives they care about; at least the pre-19th Century crowned heads would expect their sons to be out with the army in the field, not at home boffing the servants): "we can't leave Lower Elbonia because so many of our boys have died fighting the menace of big-enders."


I think that's the case with most all wars: And modern day, ironically it's easier for politicians to adopt the mind-set because they stand to lose nothing to lose of their own (their kids don't fight, and even if they served in uniform, they'd probably be far from the front lines).

Sure numerous young guys who aren't so lucky (many of them without enough money to go to college) get sent off to get their limbs blown off, and when they come back, they get a nice prosthetic arm, but rather than be allowed to go back home and chill out; they get sent off (seemingly for no other reason than) to get something else shot off/blown off.


> I've become more and more of the opinion that national governments need wars to justify their existence, so they'll fabricate them as needed.


Depends on the nation: Iceland has managed to be pretty mellow, but some nations can't seem to keep their nose out of other's business, they usually have considerable proportions of their industry built for war, heavily funded by powerful financiers who have long since learned the Golden Rule (That's right: "Them that's got's the gold makes the rules") and often finance both sides, and profit handsomely -- they almost never manage to get tried for anything like treason or trading with the enemy (something that mere mortals like you or me would be strung up for), because they operate through intermediaries, are smart enough not to blab about it, often have ties to the various intelligence services, as well as strings of corrupt politicians (held in line by indebtedness and compromising secrets), and can create tragedy on demand (using all the above) if they get even remotely close to being cornered.



billrunnels said:


> WWII was to end all wars and bring a lasting peace. It didn't happen.


Technically that was believed to be true of both WWI and WWII...


> I am of the opinion that lasting peace can not be achieved through conflict. Rather, it must be the will and desire of leaders of our great Countries supported by the people they represent. Will it ever happen? I sure hope so!


You're basically right, though I'm not sure if it's possible to have peace in terms of no conflict (conflict seems invariable to some extent), but I think it's possible to reduce the frequency, the scope, and intensity of them. I think much of the conflicts occurring around the globe could be settled in much more level-headed ways if powerful people with nothing to lose weren't funding both sides and profiting hand over fist.


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 29, 2018)

Koopernic said:


> Sure we can continue the discussion on topic but maybe you can read my post again and prarphrase it and represent me accurately.
> 
> I did not absolve the German government.
> 
> ...




I do apologize for misunderstanding your comments; my personal opinion is that WWI was largely the result of too many people thinking that war would be a cleansing, improving experience. 

On the other hand, I think that Serbia lit the fuze, Austria-Hungary threw on the gasoline; Russia and Germany could have stopped it. No one in authority seemed to want to.


----------



## JAG88 (Apr 9, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> Why would you need a specialized radioman for a fighter? It sounds like a great way to make a plane considerably heavier and larger for the same range (and possibly a little slower), plus the Me-109, Fw-190 (as well as the RAF's Hurricane, Spitfire, et. al) all had one pilot flying the plane and operating the radio...



Well, the Bf 110 wasnt a fighter but a Zerstorer, meaning a multirole aircraft, lightbomber/heavy fighter, it was a THREE-seater (which is why eventually would be able to be adapted as a night fighter), the third man was a bombardier (supposed to have an internal bomb bay, but Messerschmitt cheated and omitted it, thus handily beating the competitors that adhered to the specification).

Fatso liked it and decided it was a pure fighter... HIS fighter...

So, any time you want to compare the 110 to something, well, you would have to mash together a Blenheim and a Fulmar to make somethin similar, or a P-38 and an Avenger...



swampyankee said:


> On the other hand, I think that Serbia lit the fuze, Austria-Hungary threw on the gasoline; Russia and Germany could have stopped it. No one in authority seemed to want to.



Serbia wanted AH gone, AH wanted Serbia gone, Saratov wanted Constantinople and to regain Russia's prestige, destroyed by the "yellow midgets" in 1905 (just think what it meant for the Russians, already widely mocked in Europe for being a backward people and "half Asian" to be beaten by Japan...), Bethmann-Hollweg wanted to score a diplomatic victory, Moltke saw Germany's military position deteriorate year by year and believed "better now than later"...

The French wanted war, Grey was an appeaser and an idiot...

Great mix...

Take a look at:

Amazon product
_View: https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Origins-First-World-War/dp/0674072332/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1523309557&sr=8-3&keywords=mcmeekin_


Amazon product
_View: https://www.amazon.com/Sleepwalkers-How-Europe-Went-1914/dp/0061146668/ref=pd_sbs_14_4?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0061146668&pd_rd_r=20BEG7CFWTJA1DE97R6X&pd_rd_w=vh7LO&pd_rd_wg=8A96I&psc=1&refRID=20BEG7CFWTJA1DE97R6X_


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 9, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> I do apologize for misunderstanding your comments; my personal opinion is that WWI was largely the result of too many people thinking that war would be a cleansing, improving experience.


Cleansing and improving?


----------



## Greg Boeser (Apr 9, 2018)

Yeah, you know, kinda cathartic. Nothing improves the self esteem like slaughtering your annoying neighbors.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 12, 2018)

Stuka ace Rudel certainly gave his skilled rear-gunners due credit for their share in his combat success,
& didn't a B-52 tail-gunner bag a MiG 21 while hammering targets around Hanoi?


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 12, 2018)

Greg Boeser said:


> Yeah, you know, kinda cathartic. Nothing improves the self esteem like slaughtering your annoying neighbors.



Alas, true. The Europeans had been practicing in Africa and wanted to bring their mission to civilize the natives to their misbegotten neighbors.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 12, 2018)

deleted


----------



## J.A.W. (Apr 12, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Alas, true. The Europeans had been practicing in Africa and wanted to bring their mission to civilize the natives to their misbegotten neighbors.




& the awful consequences of a real 'total-war' military-industrial conflict,
viz the US/CS Civil War - was still within living memory,
unlike those mere 'professional army' skimishes undertaken in Europe, since Napoleon.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 12, 2018)

J.A.W. said:


> Stuka ace Rudel certainly gave his skilled rear-gunners due credit for their share in his combat success,
> & didn't a B-52 tail-gunner bag a MiG 21 while hammering targets around Hanoi?





J.A.W. said:


> Stuka ace Rudel certainly gave his skilled rear-gunners due credit for their share in his combat success,
> & didn't a B-52 tail-gunner bag a MiG 21 while hammering targets around Hanoi?


I recently read "Don't Call Me A Hero" by a Midway Dauntless pilot, he certainly gave a lot of credit to his rear seat gunner. He was saved from getting shot down more than once by his gunner.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 12, 2018)

tyrodtom said:


> I recently read "Don't Call Me A Hero" by a Midway Dauntless pilot, he certainly gave a lot of credit to his rear seat gunner. He was saved from getting shot down more than once by his gunner.




And here we have the real question of effectiveness.

The real measure of effectiveness is how many planes did the rear gunners keep from being shot down, not how many enemy fighters _they_ shot down. 
But the first is very hard to measure, the 2nd is not.


----------



## yulzari (Apr 12, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> And here we have the real question of effectiveness.
> 
> The real measure of effectiveness is how many planes did the rear gunners keep from being shot down, not how many enemy fighters _they_ shot down.
> But the first is very hard to measure, the 2nd is not.


This is why clever businesses spend money on good statisticians and dim ones get statisticians who will tell you that drunk drivers kill half as many as sober ones do so you can halve the road death rate by requiring drivers to drink alcohol......


----------

