Bomber Gunner Aces? (1 Viewer)

[gruad]

An Ace is the killer of 5 or more enemy planes.

Although there is still some obfuscation on claims (claimed by many, crashed in the sea, no witnesses) we know of many fighters aces that made this target.

But bombers still shot down aircraft although not enough to defend themselves without daylight escorts or night stealth.

In USAAF it must have been difficult with the formation generating a wall of lead.

In RAF night attacks where they flew singly it would be easier to attribute a kill to a gunner or gunners, but the gunners had .303 machine guns for most of the time compared to the more powerful 50s of the Americaners.

I would be interested to hear what the forum has to say on this. Thank you.

 

[GTX]

The Aces That History Forgot | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Aerial gunners have been shooting down enemy aircraft since World War I, but their victories are seldo

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[Greg Boeser]

PFC John Foley of the 19th BS, 22nd BG was credited with 5 Zeroes as a gunner on a B-26 Marauder in 1942. His exploits were immortalized in song with the hit Johnny Zero.
The Song Spinners - JOHNNY ZERO - YouTube - YouTube

 

[fubar57]

PFC John Foley of the 19th BS, 22nd BG was credited with 5 Zeroes as a gunner on a B-26 Marauder in 1942. His exploits were immortalized in song with the hit Johnny Zero.
The Song Spinners - JOHNNY ZERO - YouTube - YouTube

That song always comes up on the '40s channel on SiriusXM, love it

 

[pathfinder44]

The fundamental problem with air gunner aces is confirming kills. The problem is an order of magnitude greater than that of fighters, which is already enough to make aviation historians tear their hair out. Bomber gunner claims are much harder to confirm and verify than fighter claims.

Part of this is purely the situation; large bomber formations with large amounts of gunners create a situation where if an enemy is hit, multiple gunners will claim a hit/kill. In a bomber box of 20 aircraft, as many as 10-15 gunners could all claim the perceived kill.

Add to this aircraft already damaged/trailing smoke coming through a formation, the tendency of aircraft engines to emit smoke when pushed to full throttle, the habit of pilots to dive away from defensive fire, the general impossibility of bomber gunners witnessing a chute/ground impact, no gun cameras on bomber defensive guns and you can see the problem with confirming the number of aerial gunner claims.

The RAF estimated USAAF bomber gunners in Europe over claimed at a minimum of 6:1 in 1943. There are multiple instances of unescorted/minimally escorted USAAF bomber missions into France/Low Countries/Germany where claims are upwards of 15 times actual German losses. This was confirmed by Luftwaffe records postwar.

 

[Dimlee]

Sergeant Karymshakov in VVS, Il-2 gunner. 7 "confirmed" kills. Allegedly, one kill (or damage) by an MP-40 that he kept in the cockpit.

Карымшаков, Абдыкасым — Википедия

url-shortener.me

 

[gruad]

This is awesome Lancaster shoots down V1!


View: https://youtu.be/6kw-r_BcgEI?si=FRNTr4BjcRpUKTtx

Not an ace but fantastic shooting!

 

[GregP]

The fundamental problem with air gunner aces is confirming kills. The problem is an order of magnitude greater than that of fighters, which is already enough to make aviation historians tear their hair out. Bomber gunner claims are much harder to confirm and verify than fighter claims.

Part of this is purely the situation; large bomber formations with large amounts of gunners create a situation where if an enemy is hit, multiple gunners will claim a hit/kill. In a bomber box of 20 aircraft, as many as 10-15 gunners could all claim the perceived kill.

Add to this aircraft already damaged/trailing smoke coming through a formation, the tendency of aircraft engines to emit smoke when pushed to full throttle, the habit of pilots to dive away from defensive fire, the general impossibility of bomber gunners witnessing a chute/ground impact, no gun cameras on bomber defensive guns and you can see the problem with confirming the number of aerial gunner claims.

The RAF estimated USAAF bomber gunners in Europe over claimed at a minimum of 6:1 in 1943. There are multiple instances of unescorted/minimally escorted USAAF bomber missions into France/Low Countries/Germany where claims are upwards of 15 times actual German losses. This was confirmed by Luftwaffe records postwar.

Assuming Luftwaffe summary records are accurate, and that is not a given. Very much of the late-war German claims data was lost due to war damage at the forward fields. It also assumes the loss records themselves were accurate, which is also not a given. There was a real tendency to not give the real data because sometimes the messenger got shot, so to speak. In the USSR, that was likely actual, not so to speak. But it happened in ALL Air Forces to some extent.

It's one of my real disconnects with modern revisionism. They all seem to assume claims were largely false or at leasat filed without good faith, and reports of losses were mostly correct or files in good faith. I'm not too sure about that. If I were a commander who had a pilot taxied a fighter into a hangar after a bad flight and damaged it, I might be inclined to report it as attack damage if the pilot was a decent leader and decent shot in the air. WE did that and I can only assume THEY did, too. There are documented instances of local German units not even reporting the existence of service aircraft, like the six He 219 night fighters they built from parts and never reported to the RLM.