20mm rear/tail gun: did it made any difference?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I was told by an old neighbor who was a B-17 F/E (Top Turret) that the tail gunner had the best chances of shooting down an opponent, but also had a bad survival rate (obvious reasons). I don't think it would be the size of the gun but rather the effectiveness and reliability of it at the tail position.
model299
Airman 1st Class
Here's an interesting website about the B-29 gunnery system.
Central Station Fire Control or Remote Control Turret System as used in the B-29, A-26 and the B-50
I discovered that the rear right and left blister gunners had the ability to control the tail turret. Something I hadn't known before. (And I thought I knew my WW2 heavies!) There's a lot of interesting information and recollections from former B-29 gunners here.
Central Station Fire Control or Remote Control Turret System as used in the B-29, A-26 and the B-50
I discovered that the rear right and left blister gunners had the ability to control the tail turret. Something I hadn't known before. (And I thought I knew my WW2 heavies!) There's a lot of interesting information and recollections from former B-29 gunners here.
Last edited:
model299
Airman 1st Class
The original B-17 tail turret was a cramped affair, with limited gun travel and smallish windows. The later Cheyenne turret offered more room, greater visibility, and much improved gun travel. A (Since deceased. RIP Gail!) neighbor of mine from my old neighborhood who served as radioman told me that the gunner in their plane preferred to ride in the waist during takeoff and formation. The pilot would lower the tail wheel when asked so he could crawl back to his station when they approached the channel. He said the guy didn't like riding back there during takeoff and climb out as the bouncy ride made him nauseous. Their pilot eventually became group leader, (With about 10 missions left in their tour, IIRC.) and the tail gunner was forced to get in the turret before takeoff to keep the pilot informed as to the group's disposition during formation. He was forced to keep a bucket with him, and used it often. He would also line the floor of his station with flak jackets in an effort to ward off flak bursts and bullets from below. He "nicked" a few German fighters, and claimed one probable.
Now what I recall
the rear 20mm gun in H6K Mavis and in G4M Betty was effective against US fighters attacking directly behind, like when USS Lexington tried to raid Rabaul in Feb 42. Or during the first combat between Bettys and Lightnings over Aleutians. But the firing sectors of those Japanese guns were narrow and by using deflection shooting Japanese bombers like Betty and Ki-49 Helen and Mavis became fairly easy targets to Allied fighters. So 20mm tail gun alone didn't give good protection but made the easiest attack line, from dead astern, risky. Was they markedly more effective than mgs, now other gun positions in Mavis, early Bettys and Ki-49s were armed with single lmgs and Allied fighter pilots found them fairly ineffective but on the other hand the F4F shot down by a Mavis during the Lex operation in Feb 42 was hit into the unarmoured windscreen so even lmg bullet(s) might well have done the job. The junior USN pilot simply used wrong attack tactic even if instructed against using it.
Juha
the rear 20mm gun in H6K Mavis and in G4M Betty was effective against US fighters attacking directly behind, like when USS Lexington tried to raid Rabaul in Feb 42. Or during the first combat between Bettys and Lightnings over Aleutians. But the firing sectors of those Japanese guns were narrow and by using deflection shooting Japanese bombers like Betty and Ki-49 Helen and Mavis became fairly easy targets to Allied fighters. So 20mm tail gun alone didn't give good protection but made the easiest attack line, from dead astern, risky. Was they markedly more effective than mgs, now other gun positions in Mavis, early Bettys and Ki-49s were armed with single lmgs and Allied fighter pilots found them fairly ineffective but on the other hand the F4F shot down by a Mavis during the Lex operation in Feb 42 was hit into the unarmoured windscreen so even lmg bullet(s) might well have done the job. The junior USN pilot simply used wrong attack tactic even if instructed against using it.
Juha
Last edited:
Most 20mm guns i've seen have pretty massive breeches on them, if they're installed in a turret like most tail turrets, you're gonna up up with very little traverse, because you've got very little room in the tail to swing that breech around in.
Unless it had a tail turret like a Landcaster, or B-24, then it would have to be a very large diameter, and sturdy turret to fit a 20mm . I think some varients of the He177 had a 20mm dorsal turret.
Unless it had a tail turret like a Landcaster, or B-24, then it would have to be a very large diameter, and sturdy turret to fit a 20mm . I think some varients of the He177 had a 20mm dorsal turret.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Primary purpose of a tail gunner is to force enemy fighter aircraft to break off or at least screw up their aim. That allows the bomber to survive and (maybe) continue its mission. Shooting the enemy down is not necessary. It's just a bonus.
A fighter pilot would need nerves of steel to ignore rounds pelting his aircraft. So IMO the best way to deter an enemy fighter aircraft is to land some hits on his aircraft even if they aren't fatal. High rate of fire and high velocity (in that order) provide the best chance to score hits.
By 1941 most aircraft were relatively well protected against .30cal projectiles. .50cal / 13mm is probably the minimum effective size. So any fast firing weapon at least .50cal in size should work for a bomber defensive gun.
A fighter pilot would need nerves of steel to ignore rounds pelting his aircraft. So IMO the best way to deter an enemy fighter aircraft is to land some hits on his aircraft even if they aren't fatal. High rate of fire and high velocity (in that order) provide the best chance to score hits.
By 1941 most aircraft were relatively well protected against .30cal projectiles. .50cal / 13mm is probably the minimum effective size. So any fast firing weapon at least .50cal in size should work for a bomber defensive gun.
Jerry W. Loper
Airman 1st Class
- 121
- Oct 2, 2007
Hits from a 20-mm. tail gun would've been devastating to a fighter approaching from the bomber's 6 o'clock. Trouble is, since the rate of closure from the rear was slower than any other aspect, smart fighter pilots preferred headon or beam attacks.
Pilots I read often did not even notice the hits until the engine started to act funny. On the other hand, the hail of tracers did large pschylogie effect.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
IMO the Me-210 got this about perfect. A pair of remote control barbettes. Each contained a 13mm MG firing @ 900 rpm. 1,800 rpm for both weapons. The gunner sits in the armored cockpit section.
Last edited:
razor1uk
Staff Sergeant
I hazzard to think that if the fire is coming towards you, it'd be most improbable that you'd see the tracers glowing... even if the muzzle-flash was negligable.
Last edited:
How many aircraft did these perfect guns shoot down ?
razor1uk
Staff Sergeant
Certainly not as many as they wounded/damaged - I'd guesstimate the RHAF could/would-'ve had better statistics for this (assuming the info survived the Soviet era) since they liked it more than the 'Waffe.
Last edited:
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Exactly what a tail gun is supposed to do. Force the enemy fighter to break off his attack.
beaupower32
Tech Sergeant
I think you maybe thinking of the Ju 188.
drgondog
Major
I'm pretty sure Tyrodtom is correct.
Two of the obvious reasons a tail gun position Should be more effective... one, the rate of closure/relative airspeeds between the gunner and the closing fighter is at the minimum, and two, the deflection angles are also at a minimum - taking deflection out of the equation. For a B-17 the Cheyenne turret also added some incremental rigidity as a gun platform and the computing gunsight also increased its capability - ditto B-29.
Two of the obvious reasons a tail gun position Should be more effective... one, the rate of closure/relative airspeeds between the gunner and the closing fighter is at the minimum, and two, the deflection angles are also at a minimum - taking deflection out of the equation. For a B-17 the Cheyenne turret also added some incremental rigidity as a gun platform and the computing gunsight also increased its capability - ditto B-29.
drgondog
Major
Juha/Vick - I stand corrected.
I don't think most pilots, i'm talking in particular the Luftwaffe pilots, were overly worried about the individual turrets in any one bomber. Once they had a straggler separated from the rest of the formation, it was usually not long for this world.
But when formations were tight, they had to content with a gauntlet of fire, gunners shooting at them from all directions.
Once a fighter would concentrate on one bomber, and was heading for one gunners position, that fire would be just as potentially distracting for that gunner as the fighter pilot. But the fighter has a lot more guns, and usually better armor too.
But when formations were tight, they had to content with a gauntlet of fire, gunners shooting at them from all directions.
Once a fighter would concentrate on one bomber, and was heading for one gunners position, that fire would be just as potentially distracting for that gunner as the fighter pilot. But the fighter has a lot more guns, and usually better armor too.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
