Night fighter rear gun: was it worth it

[tomo pauk]

Fellas,
Was the rear-firing gun of (german mostly) night-fighters of any use? Did it really shot down any planes?

[freebird]

Originally Posted by tomo pauk

Fellas,
Was the rear-firing gun of (german mostly) night-fighters of any use? Did it really shoot down any planes?

Good question. I'm interested to hear what the experts say...

[Erich]

YES, more later .............. several Mosquito NF's were shot down, a P-61 was hit and trashed by rear gunner in a He 177 and at least 2 were junked by the twin .30cals of the Ju 87D NSGr craft in 45.

obviously I am not just talking of German NF rear defenses but all German craft with pop guns did do damage as protection devices

[Haztoys]

I would think that any gun at the rear would get the attacker all worked up once you start to see the flashes of flame coming out of the plane your trying to down...I'm sure the rear gunners did not down alot of plnes ...But I bet they sure keep some planes from being downed..

[pbfoot]

I might think the gunners role might be also an extra set of eyes

[buzzard]

I guess that having extra eyes and guns in a nightfighter will come in handy once in a while, but the inevitable performance penalty may out-weigh such an 'advantage' The Mosquito NF certainly seemed to be able to cope without it...

When you compare the P-61 with the aerodynamically cleaner F-15 Reporter variant, you can't help but wonder if the P-61 might have benefited by the reduction of weight and drag that the quad .50 turret and gunner necessarily imposed upon the AC. The 'fifties' seem redundant as offensive weapons. Really, if you can't knock down an AC with the concentrated firepower of 4 20mm cannons...

It's a question of priorities.

JL

EDIT: Does anyone know if the He-219 A-6 (the planned stripped-down 'Mosquito-hunter' version) retained the defensive gunner?

[pbfoot]

I think the xtra set of eyes would be very beneficial especially with the spotty sevicability record of the radars

[Erich]

in the ETO the upper .50 cal guns were removed from the P-61 this is fact in the 9th AF from previous interviews I have done over many years .

there never was an He 219A-6 mosquito hunter put into production.

back to German NF's yes an extra pair of eyes was essential to confirm the downing of RAF heavies, lets look at reality shall we, as the German NF's were being hampered by fule and in some cases marauding Mossie NF's it was of high value to have a rear gunner if not firing watching the Mossie in turn make their set up for rear attack(s) ` result to contact the German pilot to where to make his turns

[kool kitty89]

Just like the Bf 110, a single (or even twin) RCMG is't worth the performance penalty, an the extra set of eyes wasnt too useful for a day fighter...

[buzzard]

Erich,

Yes, I know the top turret was removed in the ETO (due to buffeting problems I think. It was restored in later models). My point was that it was designed into the AC primarily as a defensive measure. Or so it seems, given the offensive power of the cannons.

All else being equal, more wetted area=more drag, and hence lower performance. The P-61 had a cavernous fuselage compared to the Reporter, and while the sheer bulk of the early AI equipment may have necessitated a somewhat larger fuselage than the Reporter had, the turret and gunner accomodation were mainly responsible for the P-61's extra bulk. I'm well aware that I have the benefit of hindsight when second-guessing those who laid out the specs for the 'Widow, but I still think it would have made a better nightfighter sans gunner/turret.

I'm aware that the He-219 A-6 was never produced. that's why I wrote 'planned'...I was simply wondering if anyone had the specs to those plans.

My argument is not, that extra eyes and guns are useless. Of course they are, but all combat aircraft are compromises...You can't load up on armor, guns, and people without paying a performance penalty. You have to decide if the risks out-weigh the benefits, and in the case of NF vs NF combat, I believe that superior performance and agility will save more lives (and allow more kills) than a rear gunner. The German nightfighter gunners may have shot down or drove off a few Mossies, but I think most of the Nachtjaeger pilots would have gladly left them on the ground in exchange for Mosquito-like performance.

JL

[Erich]

to your last paragraph, every Nachtjagd pilot I interviewed was thankful for his rear gunner. early war these were the radio operators as well so yes needed, the guns and ammo was not a concern to the Luftwaffe night force during the war. in fact several Ju 88G-6 rear gunners shot down RAF 4 engine bombers with the single MG 131 due to the jamming or running out of ammo for the single/twin Schräge Musik position and in one case 3 were shot down on one night by one crew due to the Ju 88G-6 not having any fixed upward firing weapons the forward four 2cm weapons were out of ammo so he let the experienced Bördfunker fire away with the Mg 131 while the rear gunner in this case moved from his position to help the other radar operator (yes there were two) put out a radio fire.

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

The P-61 was a great fighter, I guess you could argue the P-38 as a nightfighter did alright, and it didn't have a rear gunner.

[Erich]

as for the P-38 it was the day fighter used in the evening role, I have mixed feelings about the P-61 personally think it was a dog but I feel the same way about the He 219A as well

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by buzzard

My argument is not, that extra eyes and guns are useless. Of course they are, but all combat aircraft are compromises...You can't load up on armor, guns, and people without paying a performance penalty. You have to decide if the risks out-weigh the benefits, and in the case of NF vs NF combat, I believe that superior performance and agility will save more lives (and allow more kills) than a rear gunner. The German nightfighter gunners may have shot down or drove off a few Mossies, but I think most of the Nachtjaeger pilots would have gladly left them on the ground in exchange for Mosquito-like performance.

JL

The thing is nightfighter did not for the most part have to worry about performance to any great degree . The attacks were made with stealth . I'm going to state most bombers were not even aware they were umder attack until it occured . Everything I've read indicates radar was u/s about 30% of the time and rarely worked as asvertised or to it's true potential. It wasn't solid state but tubes with balky connections enhanced by the mode of use such bouncing on take off rough air etc . The gunner was the perfect back up

[Kruska]

A rear gunner was surely an asset in regards to additional “eyes”. As an attack/defensive advantage I would doubt very much the overall contribution, especially in regards to a 7.92mm caliber). I would even tend to say that a couple of thousand rear gunners (equivalent to a or two Luftwaffe field brigades) could have contributed more in the ground combat role than in that of a sporadically used a/c crewmember.

Since the LW didn’t have a single “ultimate” night fighter such as a Mossie or the unfortunately never into service brought He 219 or Ta-154, they had to rely on bombers (since they didn’t have enough fighters) pressed into Nachtjagd duties which automatically brought their existing crews along (since no one would have volunteered for an infantry role instead). The LW bombers (incl. Ju87’s) all originate from a viewpoint or strategy that dated back to the middle/end 1930’s were fighters were not considered to be such a thread due to less difference in speed and low caliber armament and as such making sense for a defensive capability of a LW bomber with his “poor” (7.92mm) defensive armament. – Not comparable at all with the defensive capability of a Lancaster or B-17, B-24 etc.

If I am not mistaken, the RAF gave up very fast on the Paul Defiant once they had enough Spits and Mossies.

Regards
Kruska