Gunner kills

lucanus · 08-04-2007, 11:43 AM

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 · 08-04-2007, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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!"

Heinz · 08-05-2007, 04:18 AM

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 · 08-07-2007, 05:57 PM

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 · 08-07-2007, 09:04 PM

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 · 08-07-2007, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

pbfoot · 08-07-2007, 10:10 PM

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 · 08-08-2007, 05:47 AM

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 · 08-08-2007, 07:57 AM

I have to agree les!

renrich · 08-08-2007, 08:13 AM

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.

Parmigiano · 08-08-2007, 10:46 AM

Don't know how to refer a thread, so I copied here a post I made about the Italian 'gunner ace'

In this case, there is no problem of many gunners claiming the same target: the seaplane was always alone against one or more fighters...

Pietro Bonannini Seaplane gunner

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did somebody have some more material about this guy?

He is credited with 9 victories as a rear gunner, other sources reports 'only' 8 Info below are taken by a post from 'Arrigoni_61' in the IL-2 forum

Oct 25, 1941 - 1 Hurricane
PB is rear gunner of Cant Z 506B, 1 x Scotti 12.7
lone 506B patrolling, 3 hurri attack from rear. First one is hit by PB burn and dive into sea, the other two disengage

Dec 13, 1941 - 1 Spitfire
PB is rear gunner of Cant Z 506B, 1 x Scotti 12.7
lone 506B attacked by two Spit. One Spit downed, the other disengage

Dec 20, 1941 - 1 Spitfire
PB is rear gunner of Cant Z 506B, 1 x Scotti 12.7
lone 506B attacked by 3 Spit - PB downs the first of the line, the other 2 damages the 506 on a wing and turn for 2nd pass. PB's Scotti is jammed, he take the Breda 7.7 from ventral position and fire at the 2 fighters. Fighters apparently damaged, anyway they break the attack and turn away.

1942, date and details unknown - 1 Blenheim

9 May 1942 - 2 Spitfire
PB is rear gunner of Fiat RS14, 1 x Safat 12.7
isolated RS14 attacked by 2 spit probably from carrier Wasp
One Spit damaged, banks sharply and collide with the other. Both dive into sea

Summer 1942, date and details unknown - 1 Blenheim

6 Nov 1942 - 1 Beaufighter damaged
PB is rear gunner of Fiat RS14, 1 x Safat 12.7
Seaplane attacked by 2 beau, one damaged, RS14 takes about 30 hits, PB wounded

5 Jan 1943 - 2 Blenheim
PB is rear gunner of Cant Z 506B, 1 x Scotti 12.7
2 Blenheim attack the solitary Cant. At first pass one is hit, banks and ive to sea. The other press a second attack, but is also hit and slowly lose height until crashes into sea. PB is wouded in the leg

Bonannini survived the war and died in 1961 in a civilian flight accident with a friend.

Graeme · 08-08-2007, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

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

And there is nowhere to hide in a turret. My father once told me that some returning Lancasters had so many hits on the rear turret area that the only way to extricate the gunner was to 'hose' the remnants out.

The Basket · 08-08-2007, 05:46 PM

My mother's friends father was an old Polish guy who trained as an RAF gunner in the last weeks of the WW2. He missed combat by a few weeks.

His opinion was that the gunners were there to stop the nightfighters coming up the exhaust pipes.

On one occasion, he said he and his pals were hosing a towed target and the target didn't regsiter a single hit. He didn't rate ariel gunnery as anything more than hit and hope.

He had a chance to be a pilot but chose gunner as it got him in the war faster and he wanted a few German scalps

He's deed now so that ends that line of inquiry

pbfoot · 08-08-2007, 06:46 PM

I've read tales where the gunner was ordered by the pilot not fire his weapons at a visible target at night so as not to alert the foe

FLYBOYJ · 08-08-2007, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbfoot

I've read tales where the gunner was ordered by the pilot not fire his weapons at a visible target at night so as not to alert the foe

That was done during the Korean War for a while as well.