How effective were tail gunners in dive bombers.

[[SC] Arachnicus]

I have basically no knowledge of dive bombers that had tail gunners, so how effective were they when attacked by a enemy fighter? I saw a episode of Dogfights where a Dauntless faced a couple Zeros and I remember the pilot saying that the tail gunner couldn't do anything because he was being thrown around too much.

Also, I am building a scale model Stuka and while building, asked myself the question of how easy it would be to accidentally shoot up your own tail of the plane?

 

[tyrodtom]

Any aircraft that had a tailgun had interupters that wouldn't let the gun fire when it was pointed at the tail assembly.
Even some WW1 aircraft used a post that wouldn't let the gun point at the tail, you had to go up and over it.

 

[[SC] Arachnicus]

Interesting and thanks for the info.

 

[tomo pauk]

I have basically no knowledge of dive bombers that had tail gunners, so how effective were they when attacked by a enemy fighter? I saw a episode of Dogfights where a Dauntless faced a couple Zeros and I remember the pilot saying that the tail gunner couldn't do anything because he was being thrown around too much.

Also, I am building a scale model Stuka and while building, asked myself the question of how easy it would be to accidentally shoot up your own tail of the plane?

In Dogfights episode, the SBDs are without bombs, in an anti-torpedo-plane duty, or something as an auxiliary fighter. As such they were not carrying any bombs, so they could try some dogfight vs. IJN fighters (that Swede Vejtasa succeed, should not fool anybody to think that SBD was also a good fighter). In dogfights, it's not hard to imagine that a rear gunner was of no use, apart to provide warning that someone is at own 6 o clock.
The bomb-carrying planes need a rear gunner to disrupt the enemy fighter from gaining an easy kill, they cannot count on getting the enemy fighter. Even so, when matched with equal number of properly positioned fighters, the dive bombers suffered accordingly. Even the speedy Judys vs. Hellcats.

 

[davebender]

I think tail guns on dive and torpedo bombers were most effective at low altitude where fighter aircraft cannot take advantage of high speed and vertical maneuvers.

 

[VBF-13]

I have basically no knowledge of dive bombers that had tail gunners, so how effective were they when attacked by a enemy fighter? I saw a episode of Dogfights where a Dauntless faced a couple Zeros and I remember the pilot saying that the tail gunner couldn't do anything because he was being thrown around too much.

My Dad trained on SBDs and a good buddy of his trained on TBMs. In fact, my Dad took his carrier qualifications in Lake Michigan on an SBD. The primary purpose of the rear gun on both those aircraft was defense. They didn't send dive-bombers or torpedo-bombers into combat to dogfight, they sent the fighters in for that. Once the dive-bombers and torpedo-bombers did their job, they were instructed to get the hell out of there. I read on the Internet, I forget where, that "SBD" stands for "Slow But Deadly." How adorable. I'll bet it didn't take a whole lot of brains to come up with that one. Actually, the SBD was referred to as, the "Speedy D." And, that's the truth. Go figure...

 

[Francis marliere]

In early 1942, the US carriers had only 18 fighters, not enough for maintening a strong CAP around the Task Force and escort the strike aircrafts. Hence, during the battle of the Coral Sea, some SBD were pressed on anti-torpedo patrol. If my memory is good, they were credited with 7 Kates but lost 7 planes to Zeroes and tail gunners. As far as I know, it was the only time that SBD were used in this role.

Best,

Francis Marliere

 

[VBF-13]

In early 1942, the US carriers had only 18 fighters, not enough for maintening a strong CAP around the Task Force and escort the strike aircrafts. Hence, during the battle of the Coral Sea, some SBD were pressed on anti-torpedo patrol. If my memory is good, they were credited with 7 Kates but lost 7 planes to Zeroes and tail gunners. As far as I know, it was the only time that SBD were used in this role.

Best,

Francis Marliere

I can understand that. While the SBDs weren't by any stretch of the imagination the bombing-fighting aircraft the later F6Fs were, when pressed, they were designed to "mix it up" with the enemy aircraft, as such, that's what those .50s on the nose were for.

Edit: Although, that said, its not surprising, being deployed to that secondary role, the Zeroes and tail gunners got them...

 

[[SC] Arachnicus]

What a horrible job being a tail gunner. Not a pleasant feeling looking at the nose of the enemy with completely unnecessary sized rounds to remove parts of you.

 

[meatloaf109]

It comes down to this; All war sucks. Someone has to be the poor bastard in the rear cockpit, and someone has to be the poor bastard that spent three years on a rock in the middle of the Pacific typing endless reports. But never think that the one was more important than the other. We owe them all so much, They were the greatest generation. And they are going away fast. Find one and say "Thank you"!

 

[Capt. Vick]

Ask Saburō Sakai how effective SBD rear gunners were:

From Wiki: Sakai was seriously wounded in a failed ambush near Tulagi of eight SBDs, a mixed flight from Bombing Squadrons Five and Six (VB-5 and VB-6).[10] Mistaking the SBDs for more Wildcat fighters, Sakai approached from below and behind, targeting a VB-6 Dauntless flown by Ens. Robert C. Shaw. The sturdy dive bombers with their rear-mounted twin 7.62 mm (0.3 in) machine guns proved tough adversaries, and a blast fired by one or more of the SBDs' rear gunners, possibly including Shaw's gunner, AO2/c Harold L. Jones, shattered and blew away the canopy of Sakai's Zero.[11]

The description of this aerial battle from Saburō Sakai is different.[12] He spotted eight planes in two flights of four and initially identified them as F4F Wildcat fighters. When he attacked - followed by three other Zero fighters, he discovered that the airplanes were TBF Avengers because he clearly distinguished the top turret and the ventral machine gun. He put in flames and shot down two of the TBF Avengers and these two victories (61st and 62nd) were verified by the other three Zero pilots but during this day, no TBF Avengers were reported lost.[12] This is an example how even an experienced pilot during the heat of battle, may not identify correctly enemy airplanes or receive verified credit for airplanes not shot down.

 

[Barrett]

Sakai's book was coauthored by a Japanese-American reporter (Fred Saito) and marketed here by Martin Caidin who assigned himself coauthor status. Giving Sakai the benefit of the doubt, it's possible that he misidentified the SBDs as F4Fs and Caidin undoubtedly "corrected" that to TBFs. "Samurai" contains some demonstrably inaccurate statements with some aliases or people who did not exist. But it remains a classic of aviation literature. Henry Sakaida straightened out the whole thing in the 80s when we published "Winged Samurai" at Champlin Press. I won't itemize Caidin's flaws here, but he was not at all happy when I corrected his errors in the introduction to the Naval Institute Press edition of "Samurai."

 

[BiffF15]

Sakai's book was coauthored by a Japanese-American reporter (Fred Saito) and marketed here by Martin Caidin who assigned himself coauthor status. Giving Sakai the benefit of the doubt, it's possible that he misidentified the SBDs as F4Fs and Caidin undoubtedly "corrected" that to TBFs. "Samurai" contains some demonstrably inaccurate statements with some aliases or people who did not exist. But it remains a classic of aviation literature. Henry Sakaida straightened out the whole thing in the 80s when we published "Winged Samurai" at Champlin Press. I won't itemize Caidin's flaws here, but he was not at all happy when I corrected his errors in the introduction to the Naval Institute Press edition of "Samurai."

Barrett,

Thanks for the info I just picked up a copy off of Amazon,

Cheers,
Biff

 

[swampyankee]

I suspect that naval WW2-era dive bombers were very maneuverable when lightly loaded, because their wings were sized for low takeoff speeds from pre-catapult carriers. The SBD even had leading edge slots, so it would retain roll control when a good chunk of the wing was stalled.

 

[Shortround6]

The TBF also had slots. However being expected to land on board with the torpedo means you want all the low stall speed and low speed control you can get

 

[Conslaw]

John Lundstrom determined that the planes that shot up Sakai were SBDs from Bombing 6 and Scouting 5 rather than TBFs. It would make sense that it would be a SBD. It would be much harder for Sakai to have survived a .50 caliber bullet from the top turret of a TBF as compared to a .30 caliber round from an SBD. BTW, this was the first battle between the Tainan air group and the United States Navy. The naval planes were not wholely familiar to the Japanese aviators.

 

[swampyankee]

While Caidin's book on Sakai has a lot of flaws — Caidin was a much better story teller than historian — it did, I think, do a lot to humanize the Japanese military personnel, who were far more dehumanized than those of Germany, even those in the Einzatcommando.

 

[wlewisiii]

Sakai's book was coauthored by a Japanese-American reporter (Fred Saito) and marketed here by Martin Caidin who assigned himself coauthor status. Giving Sakai the benefit of the doubt, it's possible that he misidentified the SBDs as F4Fs and Caidin undoubtedly "corrected" that to TBFs. "Samurai" contains some demonstrably inaccurate statements with some aliases or people who did not exist. But it remains a classic of aviation literature. Henry Sakaida straightened out the whole thing in the 80s when we published "Winged Samurai" at Champlin Press. I won't itemize Caidin's flaws here, but he was not at all happy when I corrected his errors in the introduction to the Naval Institute Press edition of "Samurai."

I remember reading the book as a teen. His (Sakai's) comments on the P-40 were the first inkling I had that the plane was better than it's post-war reputation made it out to be. Still I would like to see a corrected version, I'll have to find a copy of the Naval Institute Press edition. Thank you for your work on it and your post here.

 

[Dimlee]

Sorry, wrong thread. How to delete this post?

 

[Conslaw]

Although this is not 100% on point as to the effectiveness of tail gunners, anyone reading this thread will probably find this article interesting. -Interviews with tailgunners who fought at Midway. Rear-Seat Gunners at Midway | U.S. Naval Institute