Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

TBM Avenger Bombardier and rear seat gunners

Discussion in 'Air War in the Pacific' started by geahanse, May 14, 2014.

  1. geahanse

    geahanse New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2014
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Was the Bombardier/Radioman on a TBM Avenger an enlisted man or an officer? If he was enlisted, was he usually like a Radioman First or Second Class like the rear-seat gunner on Dauntless dive bombers?

    Which brings me to my other question, I've read that some rear seat gunners on the Dauntless were Aviation Machinist's Mate or the like. What type of ratings were eligible to be rear seat gunners and how did someone become a rear seat gunner? I can't seem to find any information about US Navy training to be a rear seat gunner on aircraft.
     
  2. R Leonard

    R Leonard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,128
    Likes Received:
    780
    Location:
    The Old Dominion
    The “bombardier” in a TBF/TBM was the pilot. The earlier TBD had a Norden bombsight which a third crewman used in level bombing. Of course this only occurred a couple of times before the plane was withdrawn from combat service after Midway. All level bombing in TBDs occurred in the early carrier raids before the Battle of the Coral Sea. As near as I can find, in these instances the “bombardier” was an NAP, that is, a Naval Aviation Pilot - an enlisted pilot. Early TBFs were so equipped, but that was eventually done away with as superfluous; TBF/TBMs did very little level bombing. Certainly there was some over Japan in the last missions of the war, but not much. Most of what I’ve seen indicates that there would be a lead plane in which rides a commissioned AVRS officer (a radar specialist) who makes the call when to drop and all the other pilots in the formation drop when he does. Any other attack mode in a TBF/TBM would call for the pilot to use the sighting equipment sitting in front of him. One might note, however, that unlike the USAAF, most of the bombardiers and navigators in the multi-engine patrol plane (VP and VPB squadrons) business were enlisted, not officers.

    The guys in the back seat, gunners generically, could be anything from a S2c up through CPO. I can thing of a particular instance where the guy in the back seat of an SBD was a Commander and was even credited with downing a Japanese plane, but such an occupant would certainly be the proverbial exception to the rule.

    Rated back seaters were, generally, of four specialties, Radiomen (RM3c. RM2c, RM1c, and CRM) and Aviation Radiomen (ARM3c, ARM2c, ARM1c and CARM), Remember, the assignment was radio-gunner. There were also Aviation Machinist Mates (AMM3c, AMM2c, AMM1c, CAMM) and Aviation Ordnance Mates (AOM3c, AOM2c, AOM1c and CAOM).

    Late in the war one saw aerographer ratings and, as more esoteric equipment came into use radar operator ratings, these two usually found in the TBF/TBM types, and could and did serve as tunnel gunners, but rarely as turret gunners, especially after the establishment of the Aviation Gunners School at NAS Hollywood FLA.

    Notably, back seaters of the Chief Petty Officer variety were almost as rare as commissioned officers, pretty much an early war, like in the first year, phenomena. The Battle of Midway, as well documented as it is offers a really good example of the cross section of specialties and rates as we can find lists of about 175 rear gunners assigned to pilots of SBDs and TBDs on the US carriers, most flew at some point in the battle. One of the first things that jumps out is that all of the SBD and TBD squadron commanders had CPOs as their rear gunners. Perusing the list of backseaters assigned we can get a breakdown of rates and specialties, there were:

    12 Chief Petty Officers - 11 were ACRMs (Aviation Chief Radioman), one of whom was fully rated, six were in acting appointments and four were provisionally appointed (these are just niceties of distinction having mostly to do with the paperwork catching up between the ship and BuNav). The 12th, of course, was Chief Dobbs of VT-8, a Chief Radioman.

    31 first class petty officers - 24 were ARM1c (Aviation Radioman First Class); 3 were AMM1c (Aviation Machinist Mate First Class); 2 were AOM1c (Aviation Ordnance Mate First Class) and 2 were RM1c (Radioman First Class)

    50 second class petty officers - 41 were ARM2c (Aviation Radioman Second Class); 6 were AMM2c (Aviation Machinist Mate Second Class); 1 was AOM2c (Aviation Ordnance Mate Second Class) and 2 were RM2c (Radioman Second Class)

    73 third class petty officers - 54 were ARM3c (Aviation Radioman Third Class); 2 were AMM3c (Aviation Machinist Mate Third Class); 2 were AOM3c (Aviation Ordnance Mate Third Class) and 15 were RM3c (Radioman Third Class)

    9 unrated seamen - 3 Sea1c (Seaman First Class) and 6 Sea2c (Seaman Second Class).

    As far as Aviation Machinist Mates are concerned, from Bureau of Naval Personnel Bulletin, May, 1944:

    "AVIATION MACHINIST’S MATE - Maintains and repairs aircraft engines, propellers, fuel systems, brakes, hydraulic system, gears, starters. Operates machine-shop tools.

    AVIATION MACHINIST’S MATE C (Aviation Carburetor Mechanic) - Maintains, overhauls and tests aircraft carburetors, fuel pumps and fueltank regulators. Installs, repairs and makes necessary adjustments to carburetors.

    AVIATION MACHINIST’S MATE F - (Aviation Flight Engineer) - Checks mechanical and material condition of planes, and efficiency of engines in preflight and flight conditions. Makes repairs and adjustments. Not assigned to other than multi-engine planes.

    AVIATION MACHINIST’S MATE H - (Aviation Hydraulic Mechanic) - Maintains, repairs and tests hydraulic systems and equipment on aircraft.

    AVIATION MACHINIST’S MATE I (Aviation Instrument Mechanic) -Installs, overhauls, cleans and repairs aircraft instruments; adjusts and calibrates them for accuracy.

    AVIATION MACHINIST’S MATE P - (Aviation Propeller Mechanic) - Maintains and overhauls propellers; makes field checks on them. Also straightens, repairs and balances propellers."

    In the early part of the war aviation maintenance ratings and chiefs were mostly assigned to squadrons. Later it became more efficient to assign them to the installation or ship. Thus, by the end of 1943 on carriers you'd find them assigned to ships company for the most part, with only a very few actually assigned to a squadron or air group. Saved a lot of wear and tear on moving people around.

    And serving as gunners? Well obviously from the above, certainly, why not?

    In VB squadrons, more often than not, the guys in the back seats of the SBD’s and SB2C’s were Aviation Radiomen, ARM’s, because they were also radio operators, thus the appellation “Radio-Gunner”. And yes, they were not always ARMs. Sometimes they were just plain radiomen, RM, and as we can see from above it was not all that uncommon for a Chief Aviation Radioman (ACRM) or Chief Radioman (CRM) to sit in the back seat. Not that one could not find an AMM in the backseat of a dive bomber and even an ordinary Seaman either, but usually, back-seaters in dive bombers were ARMs. It should be noted that those sitting in the back seat and not of the ARM/RM ratings had to be perfectly capable of performing the radio operator’s duties or they would not be sitting there. On the other hand, they were not of the radio “fix-it” types that were required of the ARM/RM fraternity. Just as the ARM/RM types did not work on engines as the AMMs, nor did they, nor the AMMs, work with ordnance as did the AOMs.

    The VT business was more varied. In the early days, TBDs with a single rear gunner positions, also most often found this position manned by an ARM. Again using the Battle of Midway as an example, back-seaters in the three VT squadrons flying TBDs showed an even higher percentage of ARMs. In these squadrons ARMs numbered 31 or 75.6%; ACRM’s, 2 for 4.9%; CRM 1 for 2.4%; RMs 3 for 7.3% and Seamen, 4 for 9.8%; not an AMM in the lot.

    In TBFs, with a three man crew (sometimes, on rare occasions, four) there were two defensive positions to be manned, one more-or-less constantly, the .50 cal turret, and then the rear tunnel gun. Disposing of the latter first, the tunnel gun was usually manned by the radio operator, so more often than not one finds this position manned by one of those ubiquitous ARMs . . . another radio-gunner type job. The turret, on the other hand, could be manned by just about anyone deemed qualified. This is where you see a lot of AMMs and AOMs (Aviation Ordnance Mates).

    Looking, for example, at a late-war TBF squadron, VT-86 in 1945, rated enlisted men assigned as combat aircrewmen, as they were known and for which they were entitled to wear the wings of that designation, in the squadron were the Radio-Gunners, a total of 29 ARMs, and the turret gunners 14 AMMs and 15 AOMs. There were, obviously, more crews than aircraft.

    Importantly, just because someone was one of these ratings does not mean he was a combat aircrewman. For example, besides the ratings noted above for VT-86, there were other ratings in the squadron who were not combat aircrewmen, specifically, 1 ACMM, 1 ACRM, 2 AEM, 1 AM, 4 AMM, 2 AOM, 1 ART, 1 PR, and 2 Y.

    And this does not begin to address the ratings in a given aircraft carrier’s V Division of ships’ company, all of the types mentioned above and more. However, as ships company they would not be found riding in the back seat of a dive bomber or sitting in a turret of TBF; these were reserved for the squadron assigned air combat crewmen.

    Bottom line is that it was not all that uncommon to see an AMM rating manning a machine gun in a strike aircraft. Conversely, just because one was an AMM, does not mean one did so, and the majority of them did not.
     
    A-58, rprice, Dave55 and 1 other person like this.
  3. geahanse

    geahanse New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2014
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    I keep reading that the bombardier/Radioman was the ventral gunner who sat in the belly of the tail...
     
  4. geahanse

    geahanse New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2014
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because the TBM avenger had a crew of three. A pilot, rear-seat gunner, and bombardier/radioman
     
  5. Carronade

    Carronade Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    3,278
    Likes Received:
    846
    He was, originally. It was an interesting arrangement; his compartment was directly aft of the bomb bay, and the bombsight faced into the bomb bay through a small window, so he could only see the ground when the bomb bay doors were open. As R L said, it wasn't used very often.
     
  6. R Leonard

    R Leonard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,128
    Likes Received:
    780
    Location:
    The Old Dominion
    S’truth for certes. In fact my trusty TBM-3 pilots’ handbook (Nov 1945 edition), in Section V (Operational Equipment), Paragraph 8 (Bombing Equipment), between pages 71 and 77, has a lot to say about bomb loads and bombing in general, though it is pretty much centering on the pilot’s procedures. On page 75, however, the handbook specifically says in V.8.(3):

    “(3) BOMBARDIER’S CONTROLS.-The bombardier can release the bombs electrically with his firing key in case of emergency.”

    And then proceeds to describe the process for same. This is the only mention in the handbook of the bombardier releasing all or part of a bomb load. I believe the important words in the handbook on the subject are “. . . in case of emergency.” The attached extract may consider part one of three uploads (due to size limitations) which together are paragraph 8 from Section V in its entirety.

    View attachment 20747 View attachment 20748 View attachment 20749
     

    Attached Files:

    Fred Wilson and Slipdigit like this.
  7. R Leonard

    R Leonard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,128
    Likes Received:
    780
    Location:
    The Old Dominion

    Attached Files:

  8. R Leonard

    R Leonard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,128
    Likes Received:
    780
    Location:
    The Old Dominion

    Attached Files:

  9. Gromit801

    Gromit801 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,247
    Likes Received:
    134
    On my uncles' TBF, the radioman/bombardier was an ARM1/c
     
    geahanse likes this.
  10. R Leonard

    R Leonard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,128
    Likes Received:
    780
    Location:
    The Old Dominion
    Yes, it could be most any rating as long as he could operate the equipment . . . the most important of which was the radio. Note, there was no "bombardier" petty officer rating. Still, the ‘bombardier” in a plane such as a TBF/TBM was, by 1944, rapidly becoming an anachronism. The navy was moving away from the concept of a multi seat carrier attack plane. The gent inside the fuselage of the TBF/TBM was becoming more important as a radar operator for long range search and/or night operations. As a crew position, the TBF/TBM bombardier was not even remotely similar to, say, the gent in the nose of a USAAF B-17 who, in the course of mission events, actually took control of the aircraft in the furtherance of the bombing mission. In the USN, this was the pilot’s job and for a variety of reasons, but mostly because he could see what was going on outside the plane. The bombardier position in the TBM’s predecessor, the TBD, and again this position was usually manned by a rated aviator, was in the grand scheme, really a holdover from 1930’s thinking, largely an effort to get something more out of the design that just a torpedo hauler. While the early TBFs had the capability to have a bombsight installed, overtime it became just an optional piece of equipment. Improvements in sighting technology up in front of the pilot and, more importantly, changes in attack doctrine and the nature of the targets being attacked, quickly dispensed with the need for someone to be leaning over a bombsight inside the plane.

    I have always suspected that one of the TBMs competitors, the TBY, largely fell by the wayside because it was perceived as a throwback . . . multi crewed with a bombardier position clearly envisioned, as I read the October 1944 Pilots Handbook for the TBY, as someone who would actually be toggling bombs on a target.

    In the Fleet, as the war went on, the sizes of VB and VT squadrons were going down; this for several reasons, the greatest of which was a need for increased fighter protection, but also because the folks running the show at the pointy end of the stick were reaching the conclusion that a single pilot in a fighter that could easily haul a thousand pounds of bombs was a much more efficient use of resources. This led, in January 1945, to the establishment in the CV air groups of an additional squadron, the fighter-bomber squadron (VBF). Not just a few TBM and SB2C pilots happily traded in their bomb haulers and migrated over to the fighter community as VBF drivers . . . I could name names.

    There was a lot of talk back and forth between CinCPac, ComAirPac, and the Fast Carrier Task Forces on what would be perceived as an optimal strike air group and the single seaters were clearly seen as the way to go with a smattering of VB dive bomber types. The multi seat TBM types were seemingly on their way out the door as strike aircraft. Example of some of the thinking, a message from the folks at sea to the folks back at Pearl in a 12 June 1945 response to an inquiry as to optimal air group composition:

    120245 CTF 38 VIA COM3RDFLT TO COMAIRPAC INFO COM5THFLT, CINCPOA BOTH, COM1STCARTF, COM3RDFLT
    ComAirPac 292035. The early 1942 concept of carrier striking force continues to have undue influence on front line equipment and concomitant supply. Planning should recognize instead the actual needs of present and future operations in this war. CVs will never get far from beachhead when the real invasion begins because they are the only source of close CAP and support. For this work VF and VBF are practically the only useful type. Under the control of CASCU VT and VB now aboard have been used only for supply missions and for bombing and strafing where antiaircraft is ineffective. These types are more vulnerable to AA than are VBF when excursions into strategic activity are made. VBF properly and understandingly handled can carry greater punishment to the enemy over longer ranges than the VB type. The foregoing is the experience of the last year and emphatically of the immediate past. The compelling advantages of single seat bombers (VBF) over multi place bombers (VSB-VTB) in every prospective type of carrier operation are demonstrated in CTF 38 serial 01310 dated 27 May. Even after this war our CV and CVB complements will likely be designed at least for some years for operations in littorals against shore based air rather than against navies.
    Complements of the CVBGs should have the same high proportion of single seaters as is recommended herein and has been recommended previously CVs. The present complement alternate complement and proposals A through D of ComAirPac’s 292035 are not recommended as they do not realistically meet the needs of operations planned for this task force. The single seater will continue to predominate during this war. Production and supply should be altered forthwith to accommodate. Training needs no appreciable change. New and better types of VF are of course welcome. Recommend CVBG and CVG complements to occupy the following proportions of ship capacity. VF (F8F when available) 30%, VBF (F4U) 60%, special (F7F) 10%.

    Those familiar with the dramatis persona and their writings can see the fine hand of one Captain John S. Thach (as in “Jimmie” Thach, as in “Thach Weave”), then operations officer for TF 38 in this missive, and truth be known, having once held that suspicion, I had it confirmed by his own assistant at the time. One might keep also in mind that by the bitter end of the war USN fleet carrier complements consisted of a VT squadron, usually 12 or so TBMs; a VB squadron, 12 to 15 SB2Cs; a VF squadron, usually about 36 F6Fs or F4Us; AND a VBF squadron with 36 or so F6Fs or F4Us. So it is obvious that the use of F6Fs and F4Us in a bombing capacity was not a “hey, let’s hang a bomb on one of these babies and call it a bomber” flippancy. Point in fact, of the tonnage of bombs delivered by USN aircraft in WWII, 22,124 tons were delivered by F6Fs and F4Us, this compared to 35,131 tons delivered by VB squadrons (22,942 by SBDs from January 1942 into July 1945; SB2Cs accounted for the rest except for 5 tons delivered by SB2Us at Midway) and 33,871 tons of bombs delivered VT squadrons (including 1313 torpedoes dropped by TBF/TBM’s and 134 tons of bombs and 106 torpedoes dropped by TBDs). Thach obviously based his recommendation on the simple fact that the Japanese fleet had become extinct, that there were no other likely opponents looming on the horizon who might even come close to being competitive, and that it was apparent that the future would call for aircraft striking shore targets within the range of carrier aircraft operating in the littoral region (sounds like operations off Korea and Vietnam, eh?). Therefore, in the presence of ground fire and the potential for air opposition over targets or air attack on carriers waging war from off shore, the bomb equipped fighter was the weapon of choice and the torpedo plane was simply taking up scarce space.

    Oh, and nice man that I am I shall translate the alphabet soup of US Navy acronyms:

    CASCU is a Combat Air Support Control Unit, of which the USN and USMC had a few – though the Marines dropped the obvious “Combat” at the beginning of the acronym and called them ASCU’s - charged with coordinating air to ground support.

    CVG is an air group assigned to a fleet carrier, usually of the Essex class.

    CVBG is an air group assigned to a large fleet carrier of the Midway class.

    CTF 38 was VAdm McCain, Commander Task Force 38, also known as 2nd Fast Carrier Task Force.

    COM3RDFLT was Adm Halsey, Commander 3rd Fleet.

    COMAIRPAC was VAdm Towers, Commander Naval Air Forces Pacific.

    COM5THFLT was Adm Spruance, Commander 5th Fleet.

    CINCPOA BOTH refers to FAdm Nimitz and his advanced HQ at Guam and his administrative HQ at Pearl Harbor.

    COM1STCARTF was VAdm Mitscher, Commander 1st Fast Carrier Task Force, also known as Task Force 58.

    VBF is a generic reference to an aircraft or squadron type – Bombing/Fighting; in more common parlance “fighter bomber”. VBF squadrons were made up of either F6Fs or F4Us, often largely populated with pilots dragooned from VB or VT squadrons.

    VF is a generic reference to an aircraft or squadron type – Fighting; in more common parlance “fighter”. VF squadrons were made up of either F6Fs or F4Us, except for, there at the very end, VF-19 working up in Hawaii which was equipped with nice new F8Fs.

    VSB is a generic reference to an aircraft or squadron type – Scouting/Bombing. A somewhat archaic construction, at the start of the war US fleet carrier’s, other than USS Ranger, complements included a VS (Scouting) squadron and a VB (Bombing) squadron. Starting in March 1943 all the carrier VS squadrons were re-designated as VB squadrons, often involving a numbering change as well. For examples VS-10 aboard Enterprise became VB-20 and VS-11 at Fiji enroute to the Solomons became VB-21. The shore-based inshore district patrol squadrons lost their distinctive district-detachment designations and adopted the VS designation. Upshot was that after this changeover, carriers no longer carried VS squadrons. The VSB referred to here were VB “Bombing” squadrons equipped with the SB2C.

    VTB is a generic reference to an aircraft or squadron type – Torpedo/Bombing. Reference here is to VT (Torpedo) squadrons operating the TBM which was dual purpose, torpedo and bombing. As the war wore on, the TBM dropped more and more bombs and less and less torpedoes – mostly a function of diminishing worthy targets. In the final strikes on the Japanese home islands by TF 38 in July and August 1945, not a single torpedo was dropped by VT squadrons even on those strikes specifically planned to destroy the remnants of the Japanese Navy, by then TBMs were strictly bomb haulers.

    Further, it would appear that some of this thinking was being taken to heart far from the shooting war, and on the development side somewhat earlier than one might expect, in a couple of ways.

    First, one can look at the development of the Martin XBTM-1 (beginning in 1943 and later designated AM-1) and the Douglas XBT2D (also beginning in 1944, which eventually morphed into the long serving and reliable A1D Skyraider); both were single seaters that could haul anything, and more, faster and farther than could any VB or VT type in the 1945 inventory. Falling by the wayside was the XBTD by Douglas which began as a two seater (XBTD-1) in 1941, but was redesigned as a single seater, the BTD-2, and which was cancelled with the end of the war and in anticipation of the development of the BT2D.

    Secondly, all one has to do is look at the composition of the air groups working up for assignment to the new CVBs in the summer of 1945 . . . typical would be Air Group 74 destined for USS Midway; squadrons of this air group, operating out of NAAF Otis, near NAS Quonset Point, in the 4 August 1945, Aircraft Location Report: VF-74A, equipped with F4Us; VF-74B, with F4Us and FGs; VBF 74A, with F4Us; VBF-74B, with F4Us and FGs; VB-74 with SBWs (these were SB2Cs built under license by Canadian Car & Foundry); and (here’s an eye opener) VT-74, also equipped with SBWs. Not a TBM in sight, nor do TBMs appear in any earlier report for this air group (established 1 May 1945), nor do they appear in any returns for Air Group 75 (established 1 June 1945) destined for USS F D Roosevelt.

    So, we can see the writing on the wall for the three seaters operationally, and development-wise the two seaters were being worked out of the program as well.

    In fairness, in what was later identified as the “Medium Carriers,” these the CV Fleet carrier of the war years, the TBM continued in VT squadron service (and later as an ASW platform) in assigned air groups and in shore based USN and USNR units. By the end of the decade, though, we start to see the phase out of the type. In the June 1948force projection plan for Fiscal 1949, less than three years after the end of the war, we see an expected inventory of 1210 TBMs - - this of the 9806 (2290 TBFs and 7546 TBMs) ultimately produced. The next projection, for Fiscal 1950, issued in May 1949, we see the TBM inventory projection drop to 522.

    The final projection for Fiscal 1951 issued in December 1950 shows the projected TBM inventory at 237, 85% of them in reserve training units. And the numbers apparently just kept going down. The last date a TBM type was reported in active squadron service was 31 October 1954 in VS-27, an ASW squadron. In the 30 September 1956 location report we can find a total of 11 TBMs in inventory, all in service units, 4 in NABS (1 at Atlantic City, 1 at El Centro, 1 at Litchfield Park (in storage, not flyable), and 1 at Fallon. Three were assigned to NART Denver, 3 at O&R Alameda and 1 at O&R San Diego . . . none assigned to active squadrons, with projections calling for all these last holdouts to be gone from the inventory by September 1957.

    Hmmm, got a little carried away, eh?
     

Share This Page