Effectiveness of rear-seat gunners

[swampyankee]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[pbehn]

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]

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.

 

[Glider]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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

Quite true; it very nearly ended his fighting career.

 

[Milosh]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

 

[fubar57]

My dad was shot at while wearing a blaze orange jacket