Effectiveness of B-17 gunners?

Someone who was VERY close to me flew 77 missions in B 17's in Europe, and seven in the pacific before that. When he became group commander of the 305th he (when he could) leave the waist gunners off. According to him they really never hit anything. (except for the occasional B 17) I kid you not. He later went on to fly ramrod missions. Also got in seven missions in Lancasters, and flew a couple in Mossies. He went on to become the first commander of Vandenburg when they deployed ICBM's

When he passed away, he was the first air force officer to ever have a B 2 flyover at his funeral. I will never forget that day ever. I wish I could remember all the stories he told us.

His name was General William S. Rader

There are some books which cover this sort of thing. There was one I read as a kid called "I Flew for the Fueher" by Heinz Knopke where he said he found out the hard way that a B-17 gunner (waist I think) could hit an Fw-190 in a head on attack at 1200 yards. Shot him down and got his attention, so he never made any smooth curving passes at Fortresses again.

Some of the gun camera footage also shows the first thing the Germans shot at were the gun positions, especially tail and belly.

Cookie Sewell

i've read a lot of accounts from fighter jocks who all said they gave the tail gunner a lot of respect and tried to steer clear. many accounts quote the fighter being lost to the rear gunner, especially german but japanese, too. the 50 cal is a real weapon to avoid. don't forget that late in the war, lancs and hallibags were often given a pair of 50's to improve their chances. seems a lot of luftwaffe boys were surprised by this. the pop guns normally carried just didn't have the punch, you needed to put a lot of lead on target. i personally shredded a refrigerator with a ma duece. i was a respectable distance away and in about 5 3 shot bursts turnd it into scrap metal. i mean it was destroyed, totally.

AM wrote in news:2YydnSNJh5zE21zUnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

I'm not surprised about that. Whenever I see real combat footage out the waist window I wonder how they didn't hit each other. Maybe that answers my question.

on 3/18/2009 8:04 PM (ET) Gray Ghost wrote the following:

They did hit each other, and 'friendly fire' deaths were numerous in all phases of military action. During kamikazi attacks, warship guns followed the planes into the sea with other friendly warships directly in the line of fire behind.the planes. We probably have seen the footage of the B-24 that got its wing torn off by the falling bomb of another B-24 overhead. I wonder how many of our military were killed by friendly fire and never reported as such.

snipped-for-privacy@some.domain wrote in news:2Ybwl.8876$ snipped-for-privacy@en-nntp-05.dc.easynews.com:

I read some accounts of Luftwaffe pilots. One guy said something along the line of the terror they felt "curving in on the Boeings". He and I think Galland talked of squadrons of neophyte pilots near the end of the war making approaches from the rear because it was easier for the newbies to attack that way. And how the squadron would pass through the B-17 formations and only a couple of planes would make it through, usually just the squadron leader and his wing man who were both experienced. That had to very demoralizing to the survivors.

Makes sense the tail gunners would get the best scores. The closure rate is much lower than a head on and would give the gunner more time to get on the fighter and hose it down.

Frank

willshak wrote in news:85GdnRCMGtPOy1_UnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@supernews.com:

Indeed, I started thinking about that and another of the History shows even mentioned it, 5 inch shells from one carrier hitting another. That's gotta suck.

I hate that footage. My stomach always drops when I see it.

yeah, more range then any other position. the upper turret guys got shot up, the tail guys had bad angles and the sides were useless. brave, tough guys, but not that effective. but i would still s*it to see a mass of flame with cannon shells pouring out at me.

wasn't the whole crew lost from that ac? also the footage of the two b-17's colliding and exploding rips up my guts. or the one going strait down with a few guys leaking out through the tails and bomb bays. i think 3 out of 10 made it. way too many crew on 17's.

on 3/19/2009 6:57 PM (ET) snipped-for-privacy@some.domain wrote the following:

Back in the early 80s when I was modeling with an intensity, I was buying WWII reference books as well. There was a mention of one tail gunner who survived when his B-17 was shot down. The story said that his plane fell apart as it fell after being hit and he couldn't get out of his position in the tail. The tail section separated from the rest of the plane and the section fluttered down until it landed hard in some German farmland. He sustained injuries but none were life-threatening. He was captured and spent the rest of the war in a prison camp. It sounds far fetched, but maybe it was true.

There was a B-17 that was outfitted with extra guns as a test, after a few missions, went back to old configuration.

Most of the writings from the period note that flying a tight combat box was the best protection.

Now its all ECM and flying low or fast and knowing you have more fuel. Last guns were removed from the B-52 at least late 80s might be before that. Don't remember when last tail gunner retired.

there was the story of the 10,000 feet no chute fall that's supposed to be true. i suppose it has to happen once.

I have modeled the Monogram B-36 in SEA scheme with a gloss black underside. The thing is awesome looking, even with parts broken and attacks from the cats. I also fitted the bomb bay with lots and lots of

The B-52D has two recorded kills over North Vietnam. There are also stories that tail gunners were able to shoot down SA-2's, nothing that is confirmed though.

snipped-for-privacy@some.domain said the following on 20/03/2009 04:21:

wrote: [snipped]

Or a few times!

I'm sure the Flypast magazine produced pictures of the Halifax gunner holding a certificate and flanked by Nazi officers, some years back.