WWII bomber guns versus fighter guns?

A fascinating read Teekay – I’m surprised no-one else has commented on this…..Flying Vampires & Meteors, would you have been at a disadvantage given (I suspect) the slow to respond early jet engines compared with a piston engined fighter?

Yes, those early jets were indeed slow to respond, but I don’t think it mattered when attacking bombers, although maybe on occasion in a dogfight.

Sorry, don’t have any photos of the Lincolns etc.

Flying Vampires & Meteors, would you have been at a disadvantage given (I suspect) the slow to respond early jet engines compared with a piston engined fighter?

Didn’t they soon realise that keeping speed up was the way to use the advantages of the early jets?

When I was a Pilot Attack Instructor (PAI) at the Central Gunnery School (Leconfield) in the early 1950’s they were still training turret gunners in Lincolns using attacking Spitfires as targets.

One day we had a contest. The turret gunnery instructors manned the Lincoln turrets and were attacked by us PAI instructors flying Meteors and Vampires, all using gunsight cameras to record the results. The Lincoln pilots (mainly wartime veterans from Bomber Command) flung the Lincolns all over the sky, corkscrewing and almost doing aerobatics, just as they probably had done in Lancasters in WW2 when desperate. It was an amazing sight.

Afterwards we all watched while the camera films from the turret gunners and fighters were screened. There were no cheers, mainly subdued silence, as results were clear. The turret instructors were almost all wildly off target while the fighter footage showed attack after attack that would clearly have shot down the bombers in real life. I expect the results would have been the same if we had been flying 109s, FW190s or Spitfires instead of jets.

My hat is off to anyone who flew bombers in WW2. I believe they stood little chance against experienced fighter pilots.

A fascinating read Teekay – I’m surprised no-one else has commented on this.

It must have been quite an experience – even just to watch the Lincolns being thrown about the sky!
Flying Vampires & Meteors, would you have been at a disadvantage given (I suspect) the slow to respond early jet engines compared with a piston engined fighter?

Great stuff – any pics you’d care to share please?

Hats off to all of them but especially the chap who did it from Blenheims.
(Edit; it seems that a number of his claims were as Radar Operator, still a fine record though.)

Interesting list

Below is a list of air gunner aces – not many have considered these guys but now you can change that. And then scroll through the images of the air gunners and give them a salute. Amazing men. An amazing time.

Rank- Name- Kills- Unit- Airforce- Aircraft- Gun position

British/Commonwealth:

Frederick Barker- 13- 264- RAF- Defiant
Albert Lippett- 12- 264- RAF- Defiant
John Roberts- 12- 108- RAF- Blenheim
S. B. Johnson- 11- 264- RAF- Defiant
Frederick King- 10- 264- RAF- Defiant
Henry Jacobs- 8- 219/600- RAF- Blenheim
P. Lillie- 8- 264- RAF- Defiant
Wallace McIntosh- 8 – 207- RAF- Lancaster
L. H. Hayden- 7- 264- RAF- Defiant
C. Sutherland- 7- 207- RAF- Lancaster
?. Bradford- 6- 57- RAF-Lancaster
Peter Engbrecht- 6- 424- RCAF- Halifax(Top Turret)
Robert Turner- 6- 264- RAF- Defiant
Fred Gash- 5- 264- RAF- Defiant
?. Martain- 5- 264- RAF- Defiant
F.W. Wake- 5- 264- RAF- Defiant
J.E.M. Williams- 5- 264- RAF- Defiant

USAAF/US Navy:

S/SGT Michael Arooth- 17- 527 BS 379 BG 8 AF- USAAF- B-17(Tail Gunner)
S/SGT Arthur J. Benko -16- 374 BS 308 BG 14AF- USAAF- B-24(Top Turret)
S/SGT Donald Crossley-12- 95 BG 8 AF- USAAF-B-17 (Tail Gunner)
S/SGT Benjamin F Warner- 9 – 99 BG 12 AF-USAAF- B-17 (Waist Gunner)
S/SGT John B Quinlan -8- 324 BS 91 BG 8 AF/20 AF-USAAF- B-17(5),B-29(3)(Tail Gunner)(Gunner on Memphis Belle)
T/SGT Thomas Dye -8- 51 BS 351 BG 8 AF -USAAF-B-17(Ball Turret)
S/SGT John D. Foley-7+8 prob- 22ND BG 5 AF- USAAF-B-26(Top Turret)
S/SGT John A. Murphy-6- 500 BS 345 BG 5 AF- USAAF- B-25(Top Turret)(all Zero’s)
T/SGT Weston (Wes) Loegering-5 -574 BS 391 BG 9 AF -USAAF-B-26 (Top Turret)
SFC Richard H Thomas-5- VPD 117- US Navy-PB4Y (B-24)(Front Turret)
ARM2 Paul Ganshirt-5- VD 3-US Navy-PB4Y(B-24)(Top Turret)

Just to quote from a variety of sources.
For a variety of purely practical reasons,the USAAC quickly adopted the ‘Lead Bombing’ tactic both for visual bombing and ‘Mickey'(H2X) bombing.
I have included the Formation image – with close formation tactics one can clearly see the folly of having 18 separate bombardiers all converging on the same aiming point,it would have been chaos.
The NBS (Norden Bombsight) was a very complicated piece of kit and the various manufacturers really struggled to build them in quantity whilst retaining the accuracy of the original Norden built units,so very practical to just have (say) 4 Nordens in a group formation.
Also it was pragmatic to use non bombardier ‘toggliers’ when the ‘Lead Bombing’ tactic was adopted,the bombardiers were highly skilled and qualified guys,so why risk them all the time when the group was bombing on the leader.The ‘proper’ bombardiers would be future possible bomb leaders.

It was getting late last night and time to get horizontal :D.

We have been round the block on this issue many times in the past.
Here are a few quotes from some previous threads (re quoting my own posts).
I have often had a chuckle at the idea of 18 Bombardiers all flying the aircraft in close formation and using the same aiming point ; ),obviously the squadrons could fly closer formations if the pilots were concentrating on their leaders and the bombs were dropped by ‘toggling’ when the leaders dropped.

Most bombardiers from 1943 on
served as “Toggliers” (I’ve always thought this should be “toggeliers”),
dropping on the lead. There were typically only four Nordens in a whole heavy
bomber group formation: group lead, deputy lead, and the high and low squadron
leads (the last three in case the group lead a/c was shot down or otherwise
unable to do his job). By 1944, at least in the 8th, they often trained a
gunner as togglier to drop the bombs in the non-lead a/c.

I can only speak for my crew in the Mediteranean….99 BG (B17G).

The armorer on my crew was the left waist gunner…and he was selected to function as the togglier.

As to training….it was a simple matter of a checkout on the bomb bay door switches and bomb release intervalometer.

If a crew flew without the Bombardier, the armorer funtioned as the togglier. Shortly before reaching the target, the Navigator notified the armorer/togglier to come forward to the Bombardier’s position and work the bomb release controls.

After “Bombs Away”, he returned to the left waist gunner position.

When a crew was selected for the lead, a Bombardier (usually the Squadron Lead Bombardier who was the most expert) flew and the otherwise togglier stayed in his left waist position.

There was a change in tactics which was felt to be more accurate in having one Bombardier to drop from the lead ship and the rest of the formation to open the bomb bay doors when the lead ship opened its bomb bay doors and drop when the lead ship dropped.

This meant that the other 5 a/c in the formation had toggiliers.

Question….what kind of bombsights did the RAF use at night?
Were the bomb aimers really aiming or just toggling on what was marked by pathfinders?

Bit of both really – would depend on the type of raid/aircraft/squadron/role

Question….what kind of bombsights did the RAF use at night?

Were the bomb aimers really aiming or just toggling on what was marked by pathfinders?

Mostly the Mk14.

In the early part of the war the crews had to find and identify the target and then drop the bomb load on it. The results as we know are that some cities that were attacked didn’t even know they were the target.

Once the pathfinder tactic was introduced it simplified the find and identify, all the bomb aimer then had to do was to aim the bombs on the marker. But they were still aimed and the results monitored by photograph. So no, not just toggling, actually aiming.

Moggy

“Quickly”? I think not.
They still had bombardiers (notably college educated commissioned officers, like the pilots to give one a perspective of hw they were viewed) until the end of the war.
The “togglers” came on board only very late.

Toggliers were used by 1943 owing to a variety of factors,they were usually gunners/armo(u)rers trained to open bomb doors and select bombs.
One of the critical factors was shortage of the ‘Norden’ Bombsights,and anyway if you are flying close formation would you really want the bombardier controlling the aircraft ?? Nah !!

Fortress snobbery. The B24 was there too you know.

Yes, of course, the B-24 was, in many ways, a better aircraft than the B-17, it was also a younger design but the fitting of 30mm cannon to Luftwaffe fighters was intended, I believe, primarily to combat the legendary toughness of the B-17.

I think it was reckoned to take five 20mm cannon-shells to bring-down a bomber whereas a single 30mm cannon-shell would do the same job; of course, these represent unrealistically ‘average’ figures and they don’t take account of where the hits are but I think it shows how fleeting a target the bombers were if the attacking fighters can only rely on getting a single 30mm round into the target.

You don’t think the fact that they quickly gave up the idea of having a bomb aimer on each aircraft and just gave them a ‘Togglier’ indicates a certain amount of realism as to how much ‘precision’ they could actually achieve?
Moggy

“Quickly”? I think not.
They still had bombardiers (notably college educated commissioned officers, like the pilots to give one a perspective of hw they were viewed) until the end of the war.
The “togglers” came on board only very late.
As I understand it, everyone dropping bombs when the first aircraft did didn’t do much good if you were the last in line. Hence, all aircraft had bombardiers…until the aforementioned togglers arrived.
By that time of the war, many targets didn’t need precision work…hitting a rail yard was easier than an aircraft factory.

Question….what kind of bombsights did the RAF use at night?
Were the bomb aimers really aiming or just toggling on what was marked by pathfinders?

Ah.. but it was..and the USAAF did not.
Ross

The Merlin P-51B was operational in late 43. The Allison aircraft had the range, but not the performance necessary to combat German fighters.

Each combat-box had several bombardiers, to allow for losses, and would bomb independently, well, relatively; there was a system for synchronising bombing between the aircraft of a box, by radio I think, and the formations also changed for bombing.

But, you’re right, it could all go horribly wrong; at Schweinfurt, for example, the third wave couldn’t see the target because of smoke from the bombs of the first two waves. You can’t bomb what you can’t see!

And the USAAF also bombed through cloud on H2S radar (or H2X?) in poor weather; in these cases, and I couldn’t say what percentage these formed, they were ‘area bombing’ just like the RAF (at night).

But if you look at the area that a typical USAAF raid formation covered in flight toggling, even if the lead bombardier was aiming at a factory, was effectively area bombing in everything but name.

Moggy

Yes, as I said, ‘precision’ bombing, as opposed to ‘area bombing’; not what we would call precision bombing today but at least they were trying to hit the factory targets within the limits of the technology available, and more importantly the weather.

Plus, of course, to overcome the inherent strength of the B-17 bomber.

Fortress snobbery.

The B24 was there too you know.

.. the Americans never gave-up on ‘precision’ daylight bombing

You don’t think the fact that they quickly gave up the idea of having a bomb aimer on each aircraft and just gave them a ‘Togglier’ indicates a certain amount of realism as to how much ‘precision’ they could actually achieve?

Moggy

Merlin Mustang X were handed over to Spaatz for evaluation Autumn 1942 and led to P.51B/C Packard production Spring/Summer 1943.

RAF Mustang I escorted a daylight Wellington raid to Germany Oct 22 1942 as a result of the Polish demo.

Ross

Ah.. but it was..and the USAAF did not. Neither did the RAF…

But was the Mustang available with an effective engine for high-level escort missions?

It is not as if the USAAF didn’t appreciate fighter-escort; the P-47 and P-38 were both available, and used, before the P-51 arrived and took-over.

When I was a Pilot Attack Instructor (PAI) at the Central Gunnery School (Leconfield) in the early 1950’s they were still training turret gunners in Lincolns using attacking Spitfires as targets.

One day we had a contest. The turret gunnery instructors manned the Lincoln turrets and were attacked by us PAI instructors flying Meteors and Vampires, all using gunsight cameras to record the results. The Lincoln pilots (mainly wartime veterans from Bomber Command) flung the Lincolns all over the sky, corkscrewing and almost doing aerobatics, just as they probably had done in Lancasters in WW2 when desperate. It was an amazing sight.

Afterwards we all watched while the camera films from the turret gunners and fighters were screened. There were no cheers, mainly subdued silence, as results were clear. The turret instructors were almost all wildly off target while the fighter footage showed attack after attack that would clearly have shot down the bombers in real life. I expect the results would have been the same if we had been flying 109s, FW190s or Spitfires instead of jets.

My hat is off to anyone who flew bombers in WW2. I believe they stood little chance against experienced fighter pilots.