Tail gunner worth?

Micdrow · 12-25-2006, 05:15 PM

Im guessing on this but if enough research is done Im sure that there has to be at least one ace out there as a tail gunner with 5 or more confirmed kills. I do think for the most part we all agree having a second set of eyes are for the best though.

Micdrow

lesofprimus · 12-25-2006, 05:16 PM

And there has been many many instances where the attacking pilot comes into attack posistion, and in the excitement forgets all about the pop gun....

Uncle Swede took several rounds for doing this same thing with VF-10... Imagine the amount of adrenaline thats pumping through ur body as u bounce 4 Judys or Stukas....

lesofprimus · 12-25-2006, 05:18 PM

Quote:

there has to be at least one ace out there as a tail gunner with 5 or more confirmed kills.

There are as a matter of fact... But take into account how many rear gunners died sittiing in that unarmoured death box.... If Im not mistaken, Rudel went through a dozen or so rear gunners in his conquests...

Micdrow · 12-25-2006, 05:34 PM

But take into account how many rear gunners died sittiing in that unarmoured death box....

Diffenently agree with you on that. I wouldnt want to be sitting in an airplane, say a stuka and have a P-51 or a P-47 with six 50 cal's or a eight with the P-47 shooting at me and my only offense was a pair of pop guns and very little armor protection.

exec228 · 12-25-2006, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Insane scores were run up by the Luftwaffe boys on IL-2s.... Hit em in the oil resevoir and they're done...

quite a tiny target (50cm of 16.60m span) for nervous situation, eh?
some unique aces could manage that and even describe it in memoirs, but it's hard to believe this trick was used "en mass".

exec228 · 12-25-2006, 05:56 PM

il-2's armoured cockpit could be penetrated only by 20mm. dunno about high-power UB and .5Brownings, but MG 131 almost could not harm Il-2's pilot from rear.
but the later added gunner was protected very miserably. indeed. with low power/wt ratio of AM-37/Il-2 another crewman with heavy UB seriously decreased plane's performance. but anyways, during 1942 crews made field modifications to accomodate a gunner with ShKAS, UB or even DShK.
in late october of 1942 a serial production two-seaters entered action under stalingrad. the situation improved when more powerfull AM-38F could carry two-seaters since 1943-01.

comiso90 · 12-25-2006, 07:09 PM

Even with a tail gunner, some aircraft destined to be destroyed - Devestator, stuka, kate and val. I cant help but think that man power could have been better used.

exec228 · 12-25-2006, 11:18 PM

yup. with twin 12.7 more effective.

the lancaster kicks ass · 12-26-2006, 06:35 AM

then surely the trade off becomes which would you prefer

a fast attack bomber, single seat, kinda like a fighter/bomber but with less of the fighter element, hoping your speed will get you through, a concept that only works if you're talking a seriously fast bomber, of which there are few........

or a more traditional dive-bomber with a rear gunner, his sprey and prey will do little to protect you but he is a second pair of eyes, but against a decent attacker even that wont save you, and the extra weight will make one seriously slow bomber, and of course the extra guy could've been piloting another aircraft somewhere safe from harm, so which is it?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-26-2006, 10:52 AM

Either way if I was in a Stuka or some other kind of dive bomber than again what I would want the gunner for is the second set of eyes watching out for predators from the rear and high. Sure the guns would be nice, but the extra set of eyes is the advantage.

Not that it mattered though, the slow cumberson dive bombers were easy prey either way.

Udet · 12-26-2006, 02:18 PM

"but it's hard to believe this trick was used "en mass"...."

It might be hard to believe but battle records make a clear indication German fighter pilots, wether seasoned or rookies, learned how to destroy IL-2s in huge quantities as pointed out by Primus.

Have Luftwaffe guncamera footage showing the two seat version of the IL-2 getting brutally gutted, with huge pieces and chunks of fuselage, wings, cockpit, pilots and incinerated rear gunners flying all over the camera sight. A view that should be similar if not more brutally abhorrent when compared with images of B-17s and B-24s getting processed by German fighters.

I have always commented that if such a huge piece of work like the B-17, sound, radial engined, 12 or more .50 cal defensive guns got slaughtered en mass by Fw 190s and Bf 109s, how is it that there are people believing the IL-2 was some sort of "terribly difficult" target.

The most confident comments you will find from German pilots are likely to say "we could outmanouver the enemy", or "our guns and cannons proved very effective and we destroyed the targets..", and that´s about it. No jokes or laughing at the allied planes and pilots.

If anyone might comment it is German pilots themselves affirming the Shturmovik was a "tough target" then my response will be "have you heard of any German pilot mocking or diminishing any allied plane (bomber or fighter alike)?

Unlike so many pilots from the victorious club who mock and ridicule German planes, i do not think you will find any evidence of German pilots commenting anything similar about allied hardware.

Cheers!

Erich · 12-26-2006, 02:30 PM

well it is true that tail gunners have proved their worth during the heat of battle. have accounts of the US and the German side of things when an He 177 tail gunner took on a P-61. the P-61 was lucky to get away and crack up on landing with only the crew shaken. The He 177 tail gunner received the EK for the action saving his crews butt big time as they were going to easily be dog meat, but the rear gunner got the jump on the Widow

Chingachgook · 12-26-2006, 04:02 PM

Zero vs. SBD - kill ratio was 1 to 1 (by loss record - source unknown due to Chings' bad memory).

I am not sure how many could be attributed to the stinger, but it must have been significant because the SBD couldn't outfly the Zero.

FLYBOYJ · 12-26-2006, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chingachgook

Zero vs. SBD - kill ratio was 1 to 1 (by loss record - source unknown due to Chings' bad memory).

I am not sure how many could be attributed to the stinger, but it must have been significant because the SBD couldn't outfly the Zero.

Actually once clear of their bombs the SBD was quite maneuverable. Several SBD drivers (Stanley W Vejtasa) had multiple kills while flying the SBD.

comiso90 · 12-26-2006, 11:27 PM

cool. I didn't know that about the Dauntless.... one more reason to like it!