The WWII Ace that wasn't a Pilot

[Navalwarrior]

5 July 1943: shot down seven (7) Nazi fighters in a single engagement. However, he wasn't a pilot. He was right waist gunner on a B-17. One of 30 B-17s that flew out of a base in North Africa. Their target for the day was the Axis air bases around Gerbini on the German fortress island of Sicily.
He is listed within the massive records of USAAF 'Aces', those who have shot down 5 or more enemy planes in air-to-air combat.
Staff Sergeant Benjamin F. Warner, 12AF, 9 enemy planes
The seven air-to-air kills in a single mission were verified by other crew members. They were counting out loud as Warner fired his Browning 50 cal MG. They were ME 109s and 110s.
His words: "They just kept flying into my sight, and I kept pulling the trigger and bagging them as fast as they came. Any fair duck hunter could have done it."

 

[Barrett]

"If he didn't have his hands on the stick and throttle he wasn't an ace." That was the early decision of the American Fighter Aces Assn c. 1960.

Bomber claims for e/a destroyed were/are notoriously exaggerated, which is understandable (like totally) owing to the many shooters and unavoidable confusion. Heaven knows it's bad enough among fighter units!

 

[Navalwarrior]

"If he didn't have his hands on the stick and throttle he wasn't an ace." That was the early decision of the American Fighter Aces Assn c. 1960.

Bomber claims for e/a destroyed were/are notoriously exaggerated, which is understandable (like totally) owing to the many shooters and unavoidable confusion. Heaven knows it's bad enough among fighter units!

Resp:
I was just sharing a published story. I didn't expect many would believe it. It seems if one exaggerated, all did. They didn't have escorts, so I guess the planes just exploded on their own. LOL!

 

[Barrett]

If you look at combat film footage, you'll note some German fighters appear to have a small fire onboard. That was mostly engine exhaust due to the low quality (often synthetic) fuel the Luftwaffe used, increasingly from 42-43. Understandable how optimistic, scared gunners could make the unwarranted assumption. Goering anticipated the problem and began pushing for synthetics in 1938, as I recall (addressed the subject in "Forgotten Fifteenth" but would have to search for the passage.)

 

[parsifal]

Resp:
I was just sharing a published story. I didn't expect many would believe it. It seems if one exaggerated, all did. They didn't have escorts, so I guess the planes just exploded on their own. LOL!

.



Most commonly shoot down claims were in error because gunners would claim the same aircraft. Often they would claim a shoot down when in fact it was just damaged. there is no way for the bomber to follow the target and observe it crashing


Bomber claims were out by as much as 8:1 because of these issues

 

[GrauGeist]

If you look at combat film footage, you'll note some German fighters appear to have a small fire onboard. That was mostly engine exhaust due to the low quality (often synthetic) fuel the Luftwaffe used, increasingly from 42-43. Understandable how optimistic, scared gunners could make the unwarranted assumption. Goering anticipated the problem and began pushing for synthetics in 1938, as I recall (addressed the subject in "Forgotten Fifteenth" but would have to search for the passage.)

The German's aviation fuel was of good quality, compared to Japanese, Italian or Soviet.
Virtually all inline engines (Allied or Axis), who's exhaust stacks unload directly off the cylinder head, emit "small fires", which is why Night Fighters had extended exhaust cans.

 

[michael rauls]

A couple thoughts. Yes bomber gunner claims seem to have been exaggerated by a factor of 7 or8 to 1, or so I have read but if this guy had multiple witnesses that saw the same thing that certainly adds credence to his claims. There were pilots that had marksmanship far above and beyond most others so I don't find it hard to believe that that the same dynamic could exist with some gunners. Of course we'll never know for sure If this was one of those cases but those cases certainly did exist.
Also, for me at least, an association of any kind doesn't get to decide whether someone achieved something or not. If he did indeed shoot down 5 enemy aircraft then he is an ace, at least in my book.
Would be interesting to check and see if German loss records back up or at least allow for the possibility of this guys claims.

 

[GrauGeist]

There were also other classes of "Aces" who weren't involved with aircraft.
Tankers, anti-tank gunners, Submarine commanders and so on.
Several notable bomber gunners were confirmed as having downed five or more enemy attackers during their deployment and while it might not be as glorious as a fighter on fighter engagement, it is a remarkable achievement, considering their mortality rate.

 

[parsifal]

A couple thoughts. Yes bomber gunner claims seem to have been exaggerated by a factor of 7 or8 to 1, or so I have read but if this guy had multiple witnesses that saw the same thing that certainly adds credence to his claims. There were pilots that had marksmanship far above and beyond most others so I don't find it hard to believe that that the same dynamic could exist with some gunners. Of course we'll never know for sure If this was one of those cases but those cases certainly did exist.
Also, for me at least, an association of any kind doesn't get to decide whether someone achieved something or not. If he did indeed shoot down 5 enemy aircraft then he is an ace, at least in my book.
Would be interesting to check and see if German loss records back up or at least allow for the possibility of this guys claims.

No they did not "see" anything. at best they "saw" an enemy aircraft take hits and disengage. not one of them could possibly follow the aircraft down to the deck and watch it crash.

How many aircraft might lose control, break off, then recover. We don't know. We do know that collectively an aircraft in trouble like that might be visible for 1 or 2 seconds

 

[michael rauls]

No they did not "see" anything. at best they "saw" an enemy aircraft take hits and disengage. not one of them could possibly follow the aircraft down to the deck and watch it crash.

How many aircraft might lose control, break off, then recover. We don't know. We do know that collectively an aircraft in trouble like that might be visible for 1 or 2 seconds

Didn't say they followed the aircraft down and saw it crash. Said if others backed up his story that would lend some credence to it.
Also ive seen footage of bomber gunners shoot down planes that came apart in the air in full view of everyone onboard. Or at least those facing the rear of the plane.
Pretty sure if a wing flies off that one is going down.

 

[tyrodtom]

Without a detailed writeup of the incident none of us on this forum should try to judge what did or what didn't happen.
We weren't there.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I used to be involved in training F4 crews in air-to-air, and aware of the teamwork it takes to fight that kind of a machine, but personally, I'm with the Aces Association: no stick, no throttle, no ace. RIOs, WSOs, GIBs, and other non-pilots may contribute materially to the victory, but they're not driving the machine, pulling the maneuvers, or aiming and firing the weapons. Likewise, in my book, these backseat types have no business commanding squadrons or air wings.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[parsifal]

Without a detailed writeup of the incident none of us on this forum should try to judge what did or what didn't happen.
We weren't there.

Your right, but is there a detailed account of the incident. There should be an after action report, surely

 

[special ed]

This story concerns a man I met many years ago. He was one of a group of ww2 vets that got together for coffee and bull sessions and since two of them were my friends, I often tagged along. One of the five had been a tail gunner on a B-17. He did not talk of combat except to say he could see through clouds and he had to fly in the lead ship. His story was that he had better than 20-20 vision. In those days a person didn't know how much better, only that he could read the smallest line on the chart. On missions when they ran into a cloud deck near the IP, he would be called up to the bombardier's to try to see through. He said if the cloud deck wasn't too thick he could see features that appeared on the ground but looked like solid clouds to others. All I remember about him was his eyes were so pale blue they looked almost white and he didn't own any glasses. I had seen him look up a phone number in the book without glasses. His buddies all confirmed his eyesight was much better than theirs and two of them were navy ww2 fighter pilots.

 

[Navalwarrior]

No they did not "see" anything. at best they "saw" an enemy aircraft take hits and disengage. not one of them could possibly follow the aircraft down to the deck and watch it crash.

How many aircraft might lose control, break off, then recover. We don't know. We do know that collectively an aircraft in trouble like that might be visible for 1 or 2 seconds

Resp:
I am hesident to make such a claim that his record is false. His B-17 was on the outer right (starboard) of the formation. His position was RIght Waist. Several of the German aircraft blew up 'in plan view' of his waist port. Hindsight isn't always more accurate, only a later version. Believe what you wish

 

[parsifal]

I believe this story is based on claims data. Claims data is known to be inaccurate, and claims data from bombers is particularly so. there is nothing in this story to suggest a different set of circumstances were at play. So, the onus of proving the claim rests with those making the claim. Until then the USAAC claims are just that.....a claim that is highly suspect


The conclusiuion to make from that is that the data must be treated as unreliable. what we need are the loss reports from the LW as well. A startingpoint would be to identify the units being shot at.

 

[Navalwarrior]

I believe this story is based on claims data. Claims data is known to be inaccurate, and claims data from bombers is particularly so. there is nothing in this story to suggest a different set of circumstances were at play. So, the onus of proving the claim rests with those making the claim. Until then the USAAC claims are just that.....a claim that is highly suspect


The conclusiuion to make from that is that the data must be treated as unreliable. what we need are the loss reports from the LW as well. A startingpoint would be to identify the units being shot at.

Resp:
Believe what you want, but don't tell me what to believe, please! The aircraft were recorded by his unit as 'kills.' The unit gave him 'ace' status. It was their call, not someone sitting at a desk in 1960.

 

[Navalwarrior]

If you look at combat film footage, you'll note some German fighters appear to have a small fire onboard. That was mostly engine exhaust due to the low quality (often synthetic) fuel the Luftwaffe used, increasingly from 42-43. Understandable how optimistic, scared gunners could make the unwarranted assumption. Goering anticipated the problem and began pushing for synthetics in 1938, as I recall (addressed the subject in "Forgotten Fifteenth" but would have to search for the passage.)

Resp:
Interesting note on engine exhaust fire. These were ME 109s and 110s. From what model aircraft and angle can one see the fire?

 

[GrauGeist]

There was a pretty good thread several years ago that covered the Allied and Axis gunner "aces".

Air Gunner Aces

 

[Navalwarrior]

There was a pretty good thread several years ago that covered the Allied and Axis gunner "aces".

Air Gunner Aces

Resp:
And Benjamin Warner is on that list, with 9 kills as Waist Gunner. Thanks much.