Effectiveness of rear-seat gunners

[swampyankee]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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...

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 ASIN 0674072332View: 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 ASIN 0061146668View: 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]

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]

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

 

[J.A.W.]

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]

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]

deleted

 

[J.A.W.]

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]

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?

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.

 

[Shortround6]

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]

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......