Everyone had them:Stukas,Devastators,Kates,Sturnovicks etc.Was the "back-seater"trained to fly or just a machine-gunner?Did the machinegun really off set the extra weight [speed,heavier bomb]?Especially in say '45,when the allies had air suppremacy.And the axis low on man-power.It seems a fighter could just attack from bottom,front,side and top to avoid the rear gun.
The gunner was just that - not a pilot. The gunner was was usually given a rifle-calibre MG which was not very effective, and his main value was probably in keeping a look-out to warn the pilot when an attack was imminent. The first Il-2 Stormoviks were issued as single-seaters, but their losses were so horrific that a rear gunner was hastily added (with a powerful 12.7mm gun). This seemed to reduce the losses, although the gunners suffered high death rates as they were outside the armour. Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
To add to what Tony said, the gunner with a hand held machine gun was not much use if the aircraft manurvered to evade an enemy aircraft as the G forces kept the gunner from being able to aim the machine gun on the enemy aircraft. If the gunner was in a turret such as in the TBM Avenger then he could aim better but he only had one gun to use on the enemy aircraft. He was mostly for moral support. After the war everyone started making single seat attack aircraft. [ 11. March 2004, 01:04 AM: Message edited by: TA152 ]
The tail gunner, while as already pointed out was marginally effective in terms of firepower, did provide a substancial benefit in terms of a moral and visual distraction. An attacker under fire could be distracted by return fire and might be persuaded to attempt an attack from another angle where return fire did not exist. On many aircraft the rear seater was also the radio operator, navigator or, provided other useful activities when not engaged in firing his gun. For instance, the Ju 87's back seater was provided with the radio equipment and a map table to perform navigation on. On naval aircraft this was very important as over water navigation required substancial skill to do accurately. Fighter aircraft often relied on the bombers they escorted to get them back to their carrier or base in such circumstances. In a few cases rudimentary controls were provided for the back seater to fly the aircraft. This was usually done more as morale benefit than something that was expected to actually be used. Imagine for example trying to land an A-20 from the back seat (yes, the gunner had basic flight controls due to the inability of anyone to get into the pilot seat in flight should he become incapacitated). Instead, these controls did allow the rear seater to keep the plane flying in the case of loss of the pilot until the crew could bail out.
Thanks Guys! So you think during the last months of the war,the Axis "skimped"on the back seater?Manpower shortage being what it was.Also,and I've read this in a couple books.The back seater[gunner]in the Stormovick's were soldiers who "ran from the enemy"and this was their punishment.
Yep, I think this was discussed a long time ago, but the Il-2 machine gunner in the back was often ( if not always ) put there for punishment. I´m not sure but I think the Il-2 armor was quite tough as well and until the Germans got the 2 cm cannon more often available shooting down the Il-2 was not an easy task at all ( got this from reading ostfront books ). I´m not sure when the thick armor was introduced to Il-2 though. The Germans were also too fond of the dive bombing technique and all the planes were prepared for this action and this meant quite a load of strentghening of planes and making them heavier and slower. I think this was quite unfortunate for German bomber planes in the end.
The Il-2 was designed around its armour, it wasn't added later. From 'Flying Guns: World War 2', concerning the TsKB-55 2-seat prototype. Armour for the gunner was deleted in the initial single-seat production version: "Armour protection was primarily provided by an alloy steel shell or "bathtub" enclosing the engine and crew. It was an integral part of the aircraft's structure and varied in thickness from 4-5 mm around the engine and cooling system to 6-8 mm around the pilot and gunner. Armoured glass was used in the canopy. This level of protection was sufficient against small-arms fire and could even deflect 20 mm projectiles provided they struck at a shallow enough angle." Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
I read someplace that on the single seat Il-2 there was an auxuallry gas tank right behind the pilots head rest and that one german pilot used to aim at that to shoot down the plane since it was not armored. The german pilot said the rest of the plane was very difficult to bring down due to all the armor.
there was a rear gunner/radio operator always in the Ju 87D and G's till war's end. At night the Ju 87D-5 were very effective as night intruders as Allied a/c interceptors nearly stalled to follow at such a slow rate of speed. So yes the old crate Ju 87 was still needed. E ♠
This is quite correct, one way used to punish Il-2 pilots (or possibly any pilot, dunno) was to let them fly a number of missions as Il-2 gunner, as this was perceived to be a very dangerous position. Don't know if this was an actual fact for the later part of the war. The initial two-seater Il-2s were field modified with the gunner seat, and as such the position did NOT fit inside the armoured "tub" with the pilot and engine. So the gunner was stuck on a stretched piece of canvas without even a decent cockpit to protect him from the elements, much less enemy fire. The modification was quickly incorporated into factory production, but since the Germans were knocking at the gates there wasn't time to redesign the aircraft enough to put the gunner inside the armoured compartement. This only happened during the second half of 1942 if I remember correctly. The main vulnerability found on the Il-2 was the oil radiator located under the aircraft. The Germans often gunned for this since it was a (relatively) easy way to bring down the heavily armoured aircraft. Edit: See now that Tony already mentioned most of this. Duh! [ 15. March 2004, 01:19 AM: Message edited by: Heartland ]
Erich, I was wondering if you had any data on the weight and speed of German planes after strengthening for dive bombing? It seems to me this made especially the bigger planes really lose their speed?
I'm writing somewhat off-hand as I'm at the office, and in any case my books are still packed from the house move, but I'd still like to leave these notes. The normal pattern for a level bomber is just that: fly level. Take off heavy, fly level to target, drop your payload, return and land light. If you have to restress any plane for the kind of manoeuvering involved in dive bombing, you have to add quite a lot of structural weight in the wing spars, engine area, add dive flaps or dive brakes, do crazy things with bomb suspension, possibly restress the rear fuselage, etc. So you end up with a heavier plane than the one with the "diveless" spec, and a heavier plane means it will be draggier, slower, and thirstier. If you keep the same wing geometry, if you are carrying more weight, you will need to fly at a higher coefficient of lift, which normally means a higher angle of attack. This will entail higher drag, and if you then keep to the same optimum engine cruise rpm (and why shouldn't you?) you will fly slower. If you fly slower then you'll take longer to reach the target, therefore at the same rpm you'll spend a lot more fuel. So if you need to add more fuel you'll make your plane slower and etc etc. So for this and other reasons (longer development time etc) making Stukas out of anything else was a lousy idea. Cheers,
