Bomber Gunner Aces?

gruad

Airman 1st Class
217
131
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Location
London
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Flight Sergeant Peter Engbrecht, RCAF
Mennonite, born in Russia, ethnically Dutch, family moved to Canada when he was two or three.

In their Halifax III (HX316 then MZ802) the gunnery team formed by Engbrecht (mid-upper gunner) and Flight Sergeant Gordon Gillanders (rear gunner) accounted for 9 enemy night fighters destroyed and 2 probable. Engbrecht's personal tally was 5½ destroyed.

During the action in which he destroyed his first two aircraft he was awarded the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal.

Citation:
As mid-upper gunner this airman has participated in several sorties and has proved himself to be an exceptionally cool and confident member of aircraft crew. On one occasion during a sortie his aircraft was subjected to 14 separate attacks by fighters. In the ensuing fights, Sergeant Engbrecht defended his aircraft with great skill and 2 of the attackers fell to his guns. In June, 1944, he took part in an attack on a target in Northern France. On the return flight, his aircraft was attacked on 2 occasions by fighters. Sergeant Engbrecht engaged the enemy aircraft with deadly effect each time and his brilliant shooting caused their destruction. His feats have been worthy of the greatest praise.

Combat report excerpt:
The enemy fighter made a bow attack and the first warning received was his trace, the pilot immediately going into a corkscrew and the mid-upper firing at the trace. The aircraft itself was not sighted, consequently no ranges could be given but the bomb-aimer had a glimpse of the fuselage as it went down and is of the opinion that it was an Me110. The fighter appeared to drop off on one wing and went on down in flames, a petrol tank exploding on the way down and another heavy explosion upon impact with the ground which was witnessed by the pilot, engineer, and bomb aimer.

Continuous attacks followed, mainly by three aircraft operating together, a Ju88 with two Me109's on either quarter. On this first attack three guns of the mid-upper turret packed up and all guns in the rear turret. The one gun from the mid-upper turret was the only one serviceable for the rest of the sortie with the exception of one gun working from the rear turret towards the end of the trip and very few rounds were fired from this gun. The attack given on this pro-forma came after several sightings and through the corkscrewing, the aircraft was below the height of the main stream.

After further attacks after the above first mentioned attack, an Fw190 attacked from the port quarter up and started to break away on the port beam, the mid-upper gunner firing almost continuously and observing the fighter to blow up in his sights, observed by the pilot, engineer, and rear gunner. The attacks were kept until reaching the English coast. Types seen were Ju88, Me109, nearly all operating in threes. The mid-upper gunner had no time to clear his guns and used only the one to shoot the second machine down. Further hardship was caused by intercom failure from the turret, combat manoeuvres being passed on and given by the rear-gunner.

May 27/28 '44 - Me 110 destroyed
May 27/28 '44 - Fw 190 destroyed
June 10/11 '44 - Me 110 shared
June 10/11 '44 - Me 109 destroyed
Aug 7 '44 - Me 410 destroyed
Aug 7 '44 - Ju 88 shared
Aug 12/13 '44 - Me 210 shared
Aug 12/13 '44 - Ju 88 probable
Aug 16/17 '44 - Me 262 probable
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back