Gunner kills

Graeme · 08-08-2007, 08:31 PM

Tracer being the problem?

pbfoot · 08-08-2007, 08:48 PM

Not so much tracer as 303's vs 20mm why alert some one that can sit back and lob from afar . Why alert the sleeping dragon

Graeme · 08-09-2007, 01:06 AM

The Basket · 08-09-2007, 02:17 AM

From what I've read, the gunners on a Lanc would fire on any fighter they get to see. The idea was to wave them off.

A Me 110 nightfighter was sluggish performer and you needed a bit of surprise on your side to help out. A fully alerted crew was a bit of a nut to crack so find another Lanc with crew asleep and job jobbed.

Remember that a Lanc could do a spiral and even evade a nightfighter.

The .303s were not exactly heavy but fast firing and certainly earned its fair share.

pbfoot · 08-09-2007, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Basket

From what I've read, the gunners on a Lanc would fire on any fighter they get to see. The idea was to wave them off.

A Me 110 nightfighter was sluggish performer and you needed a bit of surprise on your side to help out. A fully alerted crew was a bit of a nut to crack so find another Lanc with crew asleep and job jobbed.

Remember that a Lanc could do a spiral and even evade a nightfighter.

The .303s were not exactly heavy but fast firing and certainly earned its fair share.

Bomber Command flew mostly at night because of the stealth factor why would you want to announce your position

Heinz · 08-09-2007, 08:06 AM

Well Australian gunners kept pretty quiet from a few books I've read. Like PB said stealth they didn't exactly want to draw attention to the nightfighters.

I read they had a clear shot at a 'Moskito' but decided against it even thought they were at an advantage with their position at the time.

Glider · 08-09-2007, 11:56 AM

At the ranges the night bombers could see the 303 was pretty effective. After all at the end of the day the job of a bombers guns is to stop the bomber being shot down. If a NF is hit by any bullets then they are not going to keep coming in.
If the bomber saw any twin coming at them, then it was shoot first and ask questions later. If the bomber saw the Twin and it wasn't in an attacking position it was stay shum and let him go away.

Note I said twin, it didn't matter if it was friendly or not.

Interestingly British NF's had Ross night glasses that worked very well up to about 250 yards to help identify the target before firing. I don't believe these were issued to bomber crews.

The Basket · 08-09-2007, 05:17 PM

If the rear gunner saw a NF coming up then he would certainly give the full squirt. After setting a German city ablaze then stealth probably goes out the window.

RAF bomber crews suffered the highest loss rates of any regular UK forces.

Question...did any bomber such as the B-17 or Lanc or Ju-88 survive with a sky filled with enemy fighters?

Did defensive armament really make the bomber survivable?

I would have to vote for the fighter...for example...the Battle of Britain...The Ju 87 was defenseless against a 8 gun fighter and the rear gunner was ballast. He is shooting one gun which he has to aim with 8 guns incoming. Not even close.

pbfoot · 08-09-2007, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Basket

If the rear gunner saw a NF coming up then he would certainly give the full squirt. After setting a German city ablaze then stealth probably goes out the window.

RAF bomber crews suffered the highest loss rates of any regular UK forces.

Question...did any bomber such as the B-17 or Lanc or Ju-88 survive with a sky filled with enemy fighters?

Did defensive armament really make the bomber survivable?

I would have to vote for the fighter...for example...the Battle of Britain...The Ju 87 was defenseless against a 8 gun fighter and the rear gunner was ballast. He is shooting one gun which he has to aim with 8 guns incoming. Not even close.

The one case I mentioned the 88 night fighter was slightly asterm and to the starboard they flew in this formation for a few minutes before the 88 peeled off having never seen the the possible target . Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour and dying for King and country for naught is a fools errand . All i know is that if in the same position I might be prone to keep quiet mind you the weapons would have been trained on the target

drgondog · 08-09-2007, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Basket

Question...did any bomber such as the B-17 or Lanc or Ju-88 survive with a sky filled with enemy fighters?

Did defensive armament really make the bomber survivable?

The answer to both is yes. There are many documented examples of Lancs and B-17s and B-24s surviving, individually, against attacks by several to many enemy fighters.

An example - Shorty Wheless survived an attack by 15+ zeros plus a twin engine Nate over Rabaul to earn his Medal of Honor along with Zarnoski (sp?), his navigator and nose gunner, who was KIA. Allegedly they shot down seven on this single ship recon mission in daylight. That B-17 never flew again after returning to base.

There were quite a few survivors that were cut out of formation and survived many s/e attacks to RTB in the 1942/1943 timeframe

So the question is define 'sky filled' and what periods are we talking about

The obvious is that these occasions went to diminishing cases with the arrival of Fw190A8's, etc.

The Basket · 08-10-2007, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgondog

The answer to both is yes. There are many documented examples of Lancs and B-17s and B-24s surviving, individually, against attacks by several to many enemy fighters.

An example - Shorty Wheless survived an attack by 15+ zeros plus a twin engine Nate over Rabaul to earn his Medal of Honor along with Zarnoski (sp?), his navigator and nose gunner, who was KIA. Allegedly they shot down seven on this single ship recon mission in daylight. That B-17 never flew again after returning to base.

There were quite a few survivors that were cut out of formation and survived many s/e attacks to RTB in the 1942/1943 timeframe

So the question is define 'sky filled' and what periods are we talking about

The obvious is that these occasions went to diminishing cases with the arrival of Fw190A8's, etc.

Good point. Lets say one B-17 against a Fw190A8 one on one late 43. Not likely as there would be more. Or a Emil against a Blenhiem in 1940. Or even a MiG-15 against a B-29 in Korea.

drgondog · 08-11-2007, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Basket

Good point. Lets say one B-17 against a Fw190A8 one on one late 43. Not likely as there would be more. Or a Emil against a Blenhiem in 1940. Or even a MiG-15 against a B-29 in Korea.

The Basket - not likely to be an A8 in 1943.. but I suppose I could dig out some personal first hand accounts of B-17s or 24s carved out of formation and limped home on the deck while battling Fw190s and Me109s.

Is that what you are looking for or just reference to the fact that they did encounter German fighters one on one (or more) and did prevail? You know there are also occasions of Forts having mid air collisions with German fighters and bringing them home?

fer-de-lance · 08-25-2007, 10:39 PM

Quote:

An example - Shorty Wheless survived an attack by 15+ zeros plus a twin engine Nate over Rabaul to earn his Medal of Honor along with Zarnoski (sp?), his navigator and nose gunner, who was KIA.

You are referring to 2dLT Joseph Raymond Sarnoski, MoH who was the bombardier and Jay Zeamer, MoH the pilot?

The twin engine fighter was actually a J1N1 "Gekko" or "Irving" night fighter of the 251st Kokutai. The Zero-sen attacking the "Eager Beavers" were also from the 251st. One was lost (pilot recovered from the sea) and another severely damaged.

lucanus · 08-30-2007, 01:26 PM

Here is an interesting story told by SSgt(T) Lester Levi 'Slip'
Davis, TT/Eng 544th BS 384th BG:
Sometime in late 43 or early 44, a B17 from the 91st BG was
trying to make its way back to 'Blighty' on the deck - The aircraft
is experiencing engine trouble...As they were deing harried by a
couple of fighters and seeming to lose the battle to stay in the air,
the pilot lowered his landing gear signaling to their harassers they were
surrendering, this action had the desired effect - the fighters
backed off...and just as it looked like 10 men were headed to a POW
cage...Presto!! The engine trouble was fixed - the landing gear was
retracted and the gunners shot down one of the fighters and drove the
other one off trailing smoke!!!
SSgt Davis related that the 17 made it home, but that from then on
whenever the LW found the 91st BG on a raid, they would try to shoot
down as many as they could ignoring all other BGs and that most crews
of these other BGs were worried that using the universal signal of
surrender (lowering the undercarriage) would not be abided by hence
forth....

Erich · 08-30-2007, 01:54 PM

Lucanus the same thing happend with the bloody 100th bg and another 8th AF bg. more myth than fact. In no way shape or form did the Lw ground controllers pick out any certain 8th or 15th heavy bg even under LW Gruppenkommandeur air supervision, if a bomber pulk - group, seemed out of formation or tail end Charlie then it was usually attacked it was given up to the LW formation leader under his strict discretion whether to attack an easy prey if we want to use such a word or attack whereever even up several groups or not. no-one under any circumstance using the tail colours as ID was picked out for a extreme going over and with that I know perfectly well ever since wars end it has been reputed that is exactly what the LW did time after time but it is untrue. there was no time during a set up of attack to go looking for "special" bomb groups to pounce on, not whenAllied escorts were about .........even in 1943

good story though - thanks