Gunner kills

[FLYBOYJ]

Appreciate that Hunter, but I did read selectively and I purposely wanted to hear the response. I've worked around pilots and gunners who had aerial kills to their credit. Although informative, they would take a lot of the "statistics" and so called research by historians and others with a grain of salt. As one former AD driver who works with me once said, "I was there and that's the way I remember it."

 

[Hunter368]

Appreciate that Hunter, but I did read selectively and I purposely wanted to hear the response. I've worked around pilots and gunners who had aerial kills to their credit. Although informative, they would take a lot of the "statistics" and so called research by historians and others with a grain of salt. As one former AD driver who works with me once said, "I was there and that's the way I remember it."

I understand 100% your first post, you might of been putting out your feelers to see what he was going to say.....maybe you missed a little of the intent of the post. I also agree with your above post 100%.

I understand fully his post also and agree.


The one thing what I felt was not needed was the comment about you "You're reading selectively, as you often do." I think that was too much. You are one of the most accurate and factual posters here. I think he is lucky Dan did not see that comment towards you......he might of answered a little more harsh then I did. You made a small over sight to a degree......no need to rub your nose in it with a comment like that. You were not being rude to him.

But if you are fine with it then I will let it go at that. You sure don't need anyone sticking up for you, if he had ticked you off......he would of heard about it.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I understand 100% your first post, you might of been putting out your feelers to see what he was going to say.....maybe you missed a little of the intent of the post. I also agree with your above post 100%.

I understand fully his post also and agree.


The one thing what I felt was not needed was the comment about you "You're reading selectively, as you often do." I think that was too much. You are one of the most accurate and factual posters here. I think he is lucky Dan did not see that comment towards you......he might of answered a little more harsh then I did. You made a small over sight to a degree......no need to rub your nose in it with a comment like that. You were not being rude to him.

But if you are fine with it then I will let it go at that. You sure don't need anyone sticking up for you, if he had ticked you off......he would of heard about it.

 

[JoeB]

1. The one thing what I felt was not needed was the comment about you "You're reading selectively, as you often do." I think that was too much.

2. I think he is lucky Dan did not see that comment towards you......he might of answered a little more harsh then I did... if he had ticked you off......he would of heard about it.

1. I'll say fair enough too. Although as you see he admits he was doing it. Flyboyj and I have some history, at least recent history of my posts here, of sparring on basically this issue, facts of claims and losses v 'supporting the vets' (but you can only do that from one side at a time ). I understand his viewpoint also, but as I've repeatedly said I've talked to many (US) KW vets and am not aware of any who have a problem with my research approach. But even so at some point, facts are facts, whether 'you were there' or not or the people 'who were there' like them or not. But I think he does read into my posts things that aren't there, not just this time, though I never commented on it directly before. Maybe it's to promote lively discussion, no big problem anyway, but again as you see he admits it so again I accept your view but it doesn't seem in fact my statement was so far out of line.

2. Dan (whoever that is, with all due respect to him), you or anybody else can say anything civil to me based on facts or what I actually posted, without worry about my delicate feelings; I'm a lucky man in many ways but not the way you say, particularly

Joe

 

[Hunter368]

1. I'll say fair enough too. Although as you see he admits he was doing it. Flyboyj and I have some history, at least recent history of my posts here, of sparring on basically this issue, facts of claims and losses v 'supporting the vets' (but you can only do that from one side at a time ). I understand his viewpoint also, but as I've repeatedly said I've talked to many (US) KW vets and am not aware of any who have a problem with my research approach. But even so at some point, facts are facts, whether 'you were there' or not or the people 'who were there' like them or not. But I think he does read into my posts things that aren't there, not just this time, though I never commented on it directly before. Maybe it's to promote lively discussion, no big problem anyway, but again as you see he admits it so again I accept your view but it doesn't seem in fact my statement was so far out of line.

2. Dan (whoever that is, with all due respect to him), you or anybody else can say anything civil to me based on facts or what I actually posted, without worry about my delicate feelings; I'm a lucky man in many ways but not the way you say, particularly

Joe

Joe,

I have no problem with you. I was not aware that you and Flyboyj (his name is also Joe) have history. It does not seem to be a problem for either of you so its none of my business either.

The only reason I said anything was that Flyboyj is a long time and highly respected member of our forum and I thought you crossed the line with that one comment. But if Flyboyj is fine with it then so am I. Its dropped as far as I am concerned.

"Dan" is also a Mod here, he is the "bad cop" of the site.

But like I said before......its over and dropped by me.

 

[Cub Driver]

The aerial battles over Rangoon at Christmas 1941 are particularly well covered in Japanese histories, even unto diagrams showing how formations lost bombers, mile by mile and minute by minute. So I did a quick calculation on Japanese overclaiming, and it came to 5 to 1, as opposed to the American Volunteer Group pilots, who overclaimed something like 2.75 to 1. The difference is probably almost entirely attributable to the fact that a majority of Japanese planes over Rangoon were bombers, and that the bomber gunners were the most optimistic about their kills, for all the reasons cited above.

Especially with the AVG's boom zoom tactic, all the bomber gunner is going to see is a fighter slashing past. (Not all the AVGs used diving attacks this early in the war, but many did.) Then later he might see a fighter in flames. He's naturally going to think that it's the enemy fighter, whether or no, and that he shot it down.

(That said, it's also true that Japanese fighter pilots overclaimed at a higher rate than did the Allied pilots, as a consequence of their system of tallying victories as a group endeavor.)

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Coming August 21: Flying Tigers: Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942

 

[FLYBOYJ]

JoeB, Hunter, it's all good....

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The aerial battles over Rangoon at Christmas 1941 are particularly well covered in Japanese histories, even unto diagrams showing how formations lost bombers, mile by mile and minute by minute. So I did a quick calculation on Japanese overclaiming, and it came to 5 to 1, as opposed to the American Volunteer Group pilots, who overclaimed something like 2.75 to 1. The difference is probably almost entirely attributable to the fact that a majority of Japanese planes over Rangoon were bombers, and that the bomber gunners were the most optimistic about their kills, for all the reasons cited above.

Especially with the AVG's boom zoom tactic, all the bomber gunner is going to see is a fighter slashing past. (Not all the AVGs used diving attacks this early in the war, but many did.) Then later he might see a fighter in flames. He's naturally going to think that it's the enemy fighter, whether or no, and that he shot it down.

(That said, it's also true that Japanese fighter pilots overclaimed at a higher rate than did the Allied pilots, as a consequence of their system of tallying victories as a group endeavor.)

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Coming August 21: Flying Tigers: Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942

I finally got through reading "Bloody Shambles" and based on what I read in Vol. 1, I agree......

 

[Mangrove]

This is a complete list USSR aeroplanes claimed by Finnish gunners during 1939-1945. All kills were archived with single .30 Browning / Vickers and they have been confirmed as real kills. Plane they were flying on was Bristol Blenheim.

List from "Suomen Ilmavoimien historia 19: LeR4" by Keskinen and Stenman.

Sergeant V. Mörsky (Two Victories):

20th December 1939 at Mantsi Island. Polikarpov I-16.
1st March 1940 at Koivisto Island. Polikarpov I-16.

Corporal T. Hämäläinen (One Victory):

10th March 1940 at Muhulahti. Polikarpov I-153.

Corporal Y. Hammaren (Two Victories):

11th March 1940 at Kiiskilä. Polikarpov I-153
11th March 1940 at Suur-Merijoki. Polikarpov I-153

Corporal M. Pohja (One Victory):

2th July at Valkjärvi. Polikarpov I-16

Corporal M. Rimpivaara (One Victory):

18th July at Vieljärvi. Polikarpov I-16 from 155 IAP.

Corporal R. Räty (One Victory)

21th July at Petroskoi. Polikarpov I-16 from 155 IAP.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Thanks for that info...

 

[lucanus]

In talking to my Uncle Levi, who flew 32 missions in a B-17 as TT/Eng...
I asked him how many did you shoot down? His reply was " I just tried to
make the GO AWAY! He also stated that it depended on where in the bomber
stream you were, whether you were attacked by fighters heavily or not..
Lead was always hammered as well as Low.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

In talking to my Uncle Levi, who flew 32 missions in a B-17 as TT/Eng...
I asked him how many did you shoot down? His reply was " I just tried to
make the GO AWAY!"

 

[Heinz]

Whats easier to fire from do you guys reckon?

Turrets or waist positions.....basing this question on the b 24 and B 17.

I actually think the waist position may find it easier as the turrets didn't turn particualary quickly. However they had twice the fire power......hmm

 

[renrich]

I believe the top turretgunner would have the best chance of hitting anything during a head on run or an overhead run. the waist gunners never had anything but considerably more difficult than a deflection shot.

 

[Erich]

with all due respect...........puke ! it took many gunners from forts and libs to knock down the LW either from the sides, front or rear and it should not at all be surprising to anyone that the gunners claims were just that and over-inflated, LW single engines in 43 woudl bear their bellies after firing the manuever would congest the fuel lines and the smoke would pour from both 109 and Fw thus causing the cry from the gunners" I got em !", when it reality it was another story as the same LW a/c would go after another bomber to the rear or ahead

E `

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I believe the top turretgunner would have the best chance of hitting anything during a head on run or an overhead run. the waist gunners never had anything but considerably more difficult than a deflection shot.

Actually the rear gunner had the best chance of hitting something as well as being hit...

 

[pbfoot]

I had the opportunity at our recent airshow with the Russell Group and I had a private tour of the 17 the pilot turned the power on for the upper turret and I played with it for a few minutes . What struck me was the absolutely horrible vis it is very limited in all directions the guns take up about 75% of the view and I don't understand how anyone hit anything . The servos are not at all like the sensitive ones we are used to today and would personally think any hit would be a chance hit . I'm 6'5" and possibly to tall for the turret so this may slant my opinion but certainly elevated my opinion of the gunner . I would opt for the waist but the gunners bumping into one another in that small area as they tracked there targets wouldn't help either

 

[lesofprimus]

I gotta agree with Erich and pB here...

However, I would never want to be in that open, unarmoured space they called the waist gunner posistion...

 

[Heinz]

I have to agree les!

 

[renrich]

I agree flyboy but I was answering the question whether a turret gunner or waist gunners had easiest shots and I don't believe the B17 tail gunner was a turret. I do agree that the tail gunner position was most likely to hit something and get hit. Trying to hit anything from one of those gunner positions to me would be like trying to go dove hunting with a shotgun from an open car traveling at 60mph.