cheddar cheese
Major General
That makes sense.
Most Dangerous Position on a Bomber....?
- Thread starter bronzewhaler82
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
evangilder
"Shooter"
That is true archangel. An attack from the rear has many advantages, especially with time to shoot. Like I said, I can only speculate.
mosquitoman
Master Sergeant
But in a box formation as the 8th airforce did, you'd be looking at the wrong end of about 20 machine guns
evangilder
"Shooter"
In any box formation, you would be looking at alot of guns facing you. You had the top turret (or ball turret, depending on your angle) and front guns from a frontal attack. The rear you had the 2 x .50s from the tail gunner, plus possible the ball or top turret. From other bombers you could have waist position gunners as well. All in all, not a place that I would want to be.
They said the tighter your box formation, the safer you would be. It is partly because if you kept a tight formation, the fighters couldn't fly through the middle of your formation and break it up. Robert Morgan talks about that in his autobiography. He attributed that as one of the reasons that the Memphis Belle made it through 25 missions. That and luck.
They said the tighter your box formation, the safer you would be. It is partly because if you kept a tight formation, the fighters couldn't fly through the middle of your formation and break it up. Robert Morgan talks about that in his autobiography. He attributed that as one of the reasons that the Memphis Belle made it through 25 missions. That and luck.
Chocks away!
Senior Airman
It must have been great flying an arado jet bomber 8)
mosquitoman
Master Sergeant
except for the fact that there's no defensive armament on an Ar-234
Erich
the old Sage
correction there are two MG 131's facing rearward on the jet.
now yes lets get back to an earlier posting of mine concerning US bombers and German SturmFw attacks from the rear. From the fall through the winter all German attacks were suppose to begin by attacking the rear of the bomber formations and knocking out the tail gunner and closing to destroy the engines. Yes if the Rotte was attacking alone they would face the onslaught of many .50's but that was not the case on nearly all missions. Only after the first pass of the Gefectsverband was it allowed then to attack from any angle to throw off the US pilots and US gunners, as there would be too many targets to contend with. This was in theory of course. Also the leader of the gruppe or the Staffelkapitän if he was leading or flying was to form up on him and go in for another attack if it was called by him to be a concentrated one in Staffel form of up to 12/15 a/c in line abreast. with only about 12 or so cases where this did come about the US P-51 escorts were there in droves to pounce upon any a/c with German crosses. Even during those fateful rear attacks the P-51 did get a jump from above and lessened the amount of German Fw's and 109's to attack from the rear initially.
Can U all imagine what it was felt like flying tail end Charlie thinking that after seeing some 100 German a/c before your eyes lined up in single abreast in 4 waves............. the whole fricking German air force is going to attack me !! It's true and this is what they thought.
E ♪
now yes lets get back to an earlier posting of mine concerning US bombers and German SturmFw attacks from the rear. From the fall through the winter all German attacks were suppose to begin by attacking the rear of the bomber formations and knocking out the tail gunner and closing to destroy the engines. Yes if the Rotte was attacking alone they would face the onslaught of many .50's but that was not the case on nearly all missions. Only after the first pass of the Gefectsverband was it allowed then to attack from any angle to throw off the US pilots and US gunners, as there would be too many targets to contend with. This was in theory of course. Also the leader of the gruppe or the Staffelkapitän if he was leading or flying was to form up on him and go in for another attack if it was called by him to be a concentrated one in Staffel form of up to 12/15 a/c in line abreast. with only about 12 or so cases where this did come about the US P-51 escorts were there in droves to pounce upon any a/c with German crosses. Even during those fateful rear attacks the P-51 did get a jump from above and lessened the amount of German Fw's and 109's to attack from the rear initially.
Can U all imagine what it was felt like flying tail end Charlie thinking that after seeing some 100 German a/c before your eyes lined up in single abreast in 4 waves............. the whole fricking German air force is going to attack me !! It's true and this is what they thought.
E ♪
evangilder
"Shooter"
What a helpless feeling that must have been!
mosquitoman
Master Sergeant
Erich said:
From a good deal of footage I´ve seen I can say the behavior of many defensive gunners on the B-17s and B-24s was kind of odd.
In many many shots, the bombers appear to be in very good condition , with no visible much less heavy damage, allowing the German interceptors to get extremely close -kind of point blank range- and get pounded like hell.
I ve seen guncamera attacks from the rear, head on attacks, attack from underneath and even a few from the sides -perhaps from rookie pilots?- and in most cases I can say I am not able to detect any defensive fire from the .50 cals, you can also detect other bombers in the foreground of the camera telling you it is a box being attacked.
It would appear to me the crews were not that effective manning their defensive toys.
Yep, I ve seen lots of cases of heavy bombers which are clearly damaged beyond redemption but still flying, surely stragglers, getting intercepted and receiving the final hammer. I am sure most of those badly damaged stragglers had many dead and/our wounded inside, the machine gun positions torn apart or simply they were out of ammo -or the combination of any of those-, and of course, no defensive fire is detected there at all.
But what of the cases when the bombers are in very good condition?
Defensive gunners of the USAAF would claim up to 10 or 11 times more enemy fighters than were actually brought down.
Of course the B-17s and B-24s shot down a number of German fighters, but it was never what they said and claimed.
I recall someone saying many of the crewmen could not operate the defensive machine guns properly and that hitting a German plane passing by at speeds surpassing 600km/hr was simply impossible. It was more the messy barrage the box could launch which brought the more German fighters down, rather than the individual skill of gunners.
In many many shots, the bombers appear to be in very good condition , with no visible much less heavy damage, allowing the German interceptors to get extremely close -kind of point blank range- and get pounded like hell.
I ve seen guncamera attacks from the rear, head on attacks, attack from underneath and even a few from the sides -perhaps from rookie pilots?- and in most cases I can say I am not able to detect any defensive fire from the .50 cals, you can also detect other bombers in the foreground of the camera telling you it is a box being attacked.
It would appear to me the crews were not that effective manning their defensive toys.
Yep, I ve seen lots of cases of heavy bombers which are clearly damaged beyond redemption but still flying, surely stragglers, getting intercepted and receiving the final hammer. I am sure most of those badly damaged stragglers had many dead and/our wounded inside, the machine gun positions torn apart or simply they were out of ammo -or the combination of any of those-, and of course, no defensive fire is detected there at all.
But what of the cases when the bombers are in very good condition?
Defensive gunners of the USAAF would claim up to 10 or 11 times more enemy fighters than were actually brought down.
Of course the B-17s and B-24s shot down a number of German fighters, but it was never what they said and claimed.
I recall someone saying many of the crewmen could not operate the defensive machine guns properly and that hitting a German plane passing by at speeds surpassing 600km/hr was simply impossible. It was more the messy barrage the box could launch which brought the more German fighters down, rather than the individual skill of gunners.
Erich
the old Sage
Udet, others you mean something like this.....
2 examples.
10 Octboer 1943, 8th Air Force claims a total of 202 German fighters destroyed. In reality the Luftwaffe lost 27.
14 October 1943, 8th Air force claims a total of 199 German fighters destroyed. In reality the Luftwaffe lost 38.
although obvious overclaiming and not used to the split-S dive tactics early in the Air campaign it does show the total chaos involved during an air battle where seconds to minutes could mean sudden death....
E ~
2 examples.
10 Octboer 1943, 8th Air Force claims a total of 202 German fighters destroyed. In reality the Luftwaffe lost 27.
14 October 1943, 8th Air force claims a total of 199 German fighters destroyed. In reality the Luftwaffe lost 38.
although obvious overclaiming and not used to the split-S dive tactics early in the Air campaign it does show the total chaos involved during an air battle where seconds to minutes could mean sudden death....
E ~
Erich:
Right! You ve got the point. Even by knowing there were not enough German interceptors to intercept every heavy bomber formation sent out, i wonder if such claim reports of the bomber crews ever made a double edged knife. "More than 400 hundred German fighters that we shot down in a few days, and they keep coming in numbers enough to cause us so heavy losses?". I wonder if moral was ever affected.
Many German pilots right at the moment of banking away from the attacked bomber would open the throttle at maximun with the obvious exhaust...so many gunners when seeing the smoke yelled "I got it!"
Adding more to what I´ve said, the very high altitude flying of many formations involved freezing temperatures with the obvious consequences on the body. Yes, i am not an ignorant, I know the crews were provided with extra-clothing (jackets, gloves, etc.) which impaired mobility of the gunner -especially the waist gunners-, armor plate for the torax, helmets, etc., so it was everything but an easy task to operate the machine guns, with the consequent low numbers of German fighters shot down in comparison with the very high number of bombers that got destroyed by the Luftwaffe.
Right! You ve got the point. Even by knowing there were not enough German interceptors to intercept every heavy bomber formation sent out, i wonder if such claim reports of the bomber crews ever made a double edged knife. "More than 400 hundred German fighters that we shot down in a few days, and they keep coming in numbers enough to cause us so heavy losses?". I wonder if moral was ever affected.
Many German pilots right at the moment of banking away from the attacked bomber would open the throttle at maximun with the obvious exhaust...so many gunners when seeing the smoke yelled "I got it!"
Adding more to what I´ve said, the very high altitude flying of many formations involved freezing temperatures with the obvious consequences on the body. Yes, i am not an ignorant, I know the crews were provided with extra-clothing (jackets, gloves, etc.) which impaired mobility of the gunner -especially the waist gunners-, armor plate for the torax, helmets, etc., so it was everything but an easy task to operate the machine guns, with the consequent low numbers of German fighters shot down in comparison with the very high number of bombers that got destroyed by the Luftwaffe.
evangilder
"Shooter"
Hitting a moving target while getting shot at and possibly turbulence and a number of other factors is difficult. Add the things you mentioned and you have a less than ideal situation for those gunners. Overclaims are common for all sides. Seeing the return fire may be difficult from the guncam footage. I wouldn't think the Luftwaffe fighters went on the attack unopposed. The accuracy, or lack of, by the gunners in the bombers certainly was good for the attackers.
Evan:
Of course i did not suggest, at all, the bombers did not counterfire!
My point is that I ve seen many guncamera shots -of excellent quality- showing bombers which appear to be unharmed and the fighters got very very close and delivered their lead into the bombers, unlike some others when the defensive fire is visible.
Of course i did not suggest, at all, the bombers did not counterfire!
My point is that I ve seen many guncamera shots -of excellent quality- showing bombers which appear to be unharmed and the fighters got very very close and delivered their lead into the bombers, unlike some others when the defensive fire is visible.
evangilder
"Shooter"
Hmm..I don't know why, but perhaps the camera shot were not the first aircraft to approach the bomber formations and the rear gunner was already dead. I am only speculating, of course. I am sure there could be many reasons.
Erich
the old Sage
you may be quite correct Evangilder as footage from German gun cams were screened and then sent off for further investigation with the proper authorities. If the gun cams were in good order and clear and sharp they then were used for training purposes and lastly for propaganda to boost morale showing up in the extensive Deutsche Wochenschau films that still can be purchased today...........
KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
I have not gone through all the pages so excuse me if this has been mentioned before.
I don't have the book but I think I remember reading in Gunner" ISBN 1-55046-332-2 that the most dangerous position in the B-17 and B-24 was the waist gunners. Believe or not it said the ball turret was the safest.
from the same book though I think I made some errors in copying(does not add to 100%)
Attacks in reference to azimuth direction only.
B-17 - 3585 attacks, 441 hits (12.3%)
clock position - % of # of attacks - % hits
1 - 12.5 - 9.3
2 - 5.9 - 6.7
3 - 4.5 - 3.9
4 - 5.7 - 4.0
5 - 9.0 - 9.1
6 - 20.7 - 15.6
7 - 8.9 - 6.6
8 - 3.8 - 2.7
9 - 3.9 - 2.9
10 - 3.7 - 3.9
11 - 10.4 - 10.3
12 - 20.2 - 15.6
B-24 - 1042 attacks, 102 hits (9.8%)
clock position - % of # of attacks - % hits
1 - 12.7 - 8.7
2 - 3.9 - 5.2
3 - 2.9 - 5.4
4 - 3.0 - 3.6
5 - 7.8 - 7.7
6 - 19.6 - 20.6
7 - 11.0 - 6.9
8 - 3.1 - 2.0
9 - 2.8 - 3.9
10 - 6.9 - 3.4
11 - 11.9 - 7.8
12 - 21.6 - 17.6
Erich,
I can find no reference to any rear firing weapons being mounted in the 234B. The 234C, of which few were made, was to have a pair MG151/20s.
ref. Arado 234 Blitz, Smith/Creek
I don't have the book but I think I remember reading in Gunner" ISBN 1-55046-332-2 that the most dangerous position in the B-17 and B-24 was the waist gunners. Believe or not it said the ball turret was the safest.
from the same book though I think I made some errors in copying(does not add to 100%)
Attacks in reference to azimuth direction only.
B-17 - 3585 attacks, 441 hits (12.3%)
clock position - % of # of attacks - % hits
1 - 12.5 - 9.3
2 - 5.9 - 6.7
3 - 4.5 - 3.9
4 - 5.7 - 4.0
5 - 9.0 - 9.1
6 - 20.7 - 15.6
7 - 8.9 - 6.6
8 - 3.8 - 2.7
9 - 3.9 - 2.9
10 - 3.7 - 3.9
11 - 10.4 - 10.3
12 - 20.2 - 15.6
B-24 - 1042 attacks, 102 hits (9.8%)
clock position - % of # of attacks - % hits
1 - 12.7 - 8.7
2 - 3.9 - 5.2
3 - 2.9 - 5.4
4 - 3.0 - 3.6
5 - 7.8 - 7.7
6 - 19.6 - 20.6
7 - 11.0 - 6.9
8 - 3.1 - 2.0
9 - 2.8 - 3.9
10 - 6.9 - 3.4
11 - 11.9 - 7.8
12 - 21.6 - 17.6
Erich,
I can find no reference to any rear firing weapons being mounted in the 234B. The 234C, of which few were made, was to have a pair MG151/20s.
ref. Arado 234 Blitz, Smith/Creek
Erich
the old Sage
the recon versions of the B 234 had twin rear mounted mg's. whether they fired in anger is another story as my interviews with P-51 pilots that shot these down say nothing of return fire. I suspect that the Arado jet pilots thought themselves immune to interception.
I find that waist attacks on heavy bombers during 1943 and first part of 1944 as the Luftwaffe attacks then were ordered to be from the rear as the defensive fire would only be from the tail position, once eliminated the German pilot was free to deliver the death blows privided he slow down and not fly through the defensive fire of the bomber pulk..........and that was the problem for the Luftwaffe pilots, especially the inexperienced
I find that waist attacks on heavy bombers during 1943 and first part of 1944 as the Luftwaffe attacks then were ordered to be from the rear as the defensive fire would only be from the tail position, once eliminated the German pilot was free to deliver the death blows privided he slow down and not fly through the defensive fire of the bomber pulk..........and that was the problem for the Luftwaffe pilots, especially the inexperienced
KraziKanuK
Banned
- 792
- Jan 26, 2005
Erich, those weapons went were the cameras were installed. Not much room there for both.
- Status
