I do know that the latter B-bombers had remote controlled gun turrets. But watching the history channel regarding these bombers, a gunner commented that migs were simply too fast to track with the guns.
This suggests to me that jet fighters made defensive guns obsolete. Is this true?
For the most part yes, jets made defensive machine guns obsolete. But I do seem to recall that B-29 tailgunners did bag five Migs in Vietnam, and, without even researching it, I’m sure B-29 gunners did knock down some Japanese fighters during WWII.
From Boeing B-29 Superfortress Bomber – A Snapshot History:
B-29s were also used in Korea and I don’t know how their gunners fared there.
The B-29 “Command Decision” was the only bomber “fighter ace”, with 5 MiG kills in Korea.
Ringo, I think you meant B-52, not B-29, in Vietnam.
Yes, I meant B-52 in Vietnam.
I had a JROTC instructor in high school who used to fly B-52s in Vietnam, he said that while he didn’t think the tail guns were any good at actually shooting anything down, they did “keep 'em honest.”
He also said that the tailgunners in an older B-52 (which still had a tail gunner’s cockpit, rather than the newer ones with either had remote controlled guns or none at all), for some weird reason, could see far more of their own airplane than the pilots could, and could thus relay valuable information such as “Uhm, Sir? I think we’re on fire.”
A 29 bagging five MiGs over 'Nam sure woulda been boss, though, wouldn’t it?
Do you have something more authorative as a cite for this? I had a quick google but couldn’t find anything, and for some reason this quote makes my BS detector go ‘ping’. Probably the fact that 12 kills on a single mission sounds like something Dan Dare would achieve.
Given that by the end of the war many B29s had their gun turrets removed to allow heavier bomb loads and were being used at night to avoid fighters, I find it hard to believe their defense system was so effective.
A B-52 was credited with an air victory over vietnam during a night time raid.
My father (a KC-135 pilot) had the story relayed to him by a crew member of the bomber. Apparently when the tail gunner opened fire, the pilot panicked a bit and basically yelled at him “What the Hell are you firing at?”
The tailgunner yelled “There’s a god$#@* mig back here!”
And then another crew member saw a fireball tumbling down. “Whatever it is, it’s going down.”
The pilot was convinced they had shot down one of their phantom escorts while the gunner was convinced he had bagged a Mig.
The Air Force backed the tailgunners claim. Apparently there was so much radar jamming occuring, the Migs were basically flying blind. One happened to lumber in behind the Buff and almost collided with it before being shot down.
Vietnam disputes the claim saying that the Americans did shoot down one of their own fighters.
This website Holds that B-52’s shot down a total of 2 Migs during operation Linebacker II.
Growing up, I had a neighbor that had been a B-29 tailgunner in the Pacific. He had three kills. So yes, B-29 did shoot down other airplanes
[slight hijack] When I moved into my first house I had a neighbor that was a gunner on a B-29. he never saw combat as his crew was training to do close air support for the invasion of Japan when the bombs were dropped. He talked about it often. Picture a B-29 at tree to level flying in over the surf dropping bombs on Japanese emplacements just behind the the beach. Now that would have been a sight to see. He also talked about gunnery practice, and how accurate the guns were, using what amounted to an analog computer to aim the guns.
[/sh]
AFAICT, the airplane mentioned in my link was A52 Irish Lassie 42-65246 of the 871st Squadron of the 497th Group of the 73rd Bombardment Wing based out of Saipan and flown by Lieutenant Lloyd Avery.
A 73rd BW member’s diary tells the story of The Final Flight of the Irish Lassie.
It sounds like a hell of a mission, but I only counted five Japanese planes downed by Irish Lassie in that narrative.
A mission summary includes:
In the course of searching for stats I encountered several other accounts of B-29s knocking down Japanese planes with gunfire. But, while I came upon total kill stats for several fighters, I was unable to locate such for the B-29.
This site lists 34 kills by B-29s during the Korean War, but I don’t know where the data came from, or what they were. Another, difficult to read site, Korean Air War and Surrounding Events lists a chronology of aviation kills and seems to indicate that B-29s did shoot down a few Mig-15s.
IIRC, later in the war, most of the opposition the bombers would have faced would come from anti-aircraft batteries, especially since they had P-51 escorts later on, so they may have simply gotten rid of the guns because whoever was in charge (General Curtis LeMay, who, from what I’ve heard, was bat guano insane anyways) decided that the risk the bombers faced from fighters was less important than the added payload they’d get without the guns and ammo.
Also, the USAAF bombing campaign in Japan wasn’t the pickle-barrel precision stuff that they were doing in Europe. Due to the way Japanese industry was spread out, it was decided that firebombing entire cities would be a more effective means of getting rid of the factories, so the added accuracy of bombing in daylight was far less important than the added safety of bombing at night.
What’d they have to shoot at later? The Japs had few planes that could get that high, no radar to detect nite raids, and the USA had almost complete air superiority.
If the B29 had been around during the daylight raids over Germany, then we’d know. However, the guns on b-24s & B17 sure weren’t useless, although nowhere good as fighter escort. Thus, the “more and better” guns of the B29 would likely have been very handy.
Too bad the B36 never saw combat…
I’ve read varying accounts of the changes LeMay ordered after taking over in January of 1945 - both that he had all gunners removed with broomsticks masquerading as gun barrels (it doesn’t seem that would be effective for long against Bushido ethic Japanese pilots) or that only the tail gunners remained, as they accounted for something like 75% of bomber air-to-air kills.
Besides upping the bomb load and going to incendiaries, LeMay had them going in to their bomb runs at 8,000-12,000 feet. Previously, they’d bombed from 28,000’ and above, and the winds between them and the ground had made accuracy a problem (that’s also part of why they went to incendiaries).
One way or another, the question’s been answered - yes, B-29s and B-52s have successfully shot down enemy fighters, including jets.
I believe Freeman Dyson ( he worked with the military in WWII ) said he was told that the guns increased casualties by slowing the bomber due to drag; they were purely a morale booster. IIRC, he said this in Infinite in All Directions. If he’s right, the guns were always obsolete.
Dyson’s explanation in his autobiography (Disturbing the Universe, Basic, 1979, p25):
He then mainly blames bureaucratic inertia for the idea not being tried, though the prevalent notion that crew morale had to be protected, whatever the known realities, is a major theme of the chapter and he also detected an element of that in this case.
I used to play an online WW2 combat sim called Aces High. An extra 50 mph at ‘night’ would not have saved a Lancaster there against a fighter that spotted it. The fighters would still have had the speed advantage unless they were up in something awful. What did save them were the gunnery turrets and flying in formation. So I’d suggest that it was more important that the Lancs were not noticed on radar than that they were flying faster.
And in AH, the Lancs had three turrets: front, top, and rear.
You’re utterly misunderstanding Dyson’s argument. He wasn’t concerned about an individual fighter sighting an individual bomber as it closed in to attack. In terms of his argument, that was too late. (And he’d no doubt acknowledge that the turrets might be making a difference from that point on.) The issue he was identifying as crucial was how efficiently the overall German air defence system could direct their night fighters to the point where they could do so. Indeed, to flip the problem, it was a crucial lesson of British operational research during the Battle of Britain to learn how to directly point our limited fighter resourses onto the attacking Luftwaffe forces. Once the fighters had actually sighted the enemy formation then it was (on both sides) largely (but not entirely) left to them to decide how to attack. What the OR guys had to do was either decide how best to get our fighters into that position against attacking bombers or how best to avoid the enemy fighters getting the same chance against ours.
Dyson elsewhere in the same chapter suggests that Lancasters were particularly vulnerable to attacks from below, to the point where they were completely blind and helpless. It does strike me that formations might have ameliorated the vulnerability, but he doesn’t address this specific point.
You’re right, though I suspect this merely shows that Dyson has remembered the general conclusions he was tasked to draw at the time better than the details.
And did your flight sim experience shed any light on the ease or otherwise of flying in formation at night and doing anything useful with the guns? If it was clear and moonlit enough to fly in formation and use the guns, it would be clear enough for the Luftwaffe to reprise their (successful) tactics against the much more heavily armed and higher-flying USAAF day bombers. If it was dark enough to hide the bombers, you wouldn’t be able to see enough to fly in formation or use (.30 cal) guns very effectively. Hence the ‘bomber stream’ concept where everyone navigated the route (and bombed) independently
As per Bonzer, Lancasters were essentially defenceless from below, hence the ‘Jazz Music’ upward-firing cannon fitted to later night fighters. If the controllers managed to vector a night fighter into the bomber stream, it could pretty much kill with impunity until it ran out of ammo or fuel. The RAF ended up sending Mosquito night fighters to protect the bombers. An extra 50mph cruise speed might have added enough potential variables to the defensive coordinator’s role to improve the survival rate enough to negate the loss of the guns.
Incidentally, the only defensive gun position that ever proved seriously effective in any plane was the tail gun, which prevented a fighter lining up an almost certain-kill strafing run from behind and the relative speeds made for easier targeting. Even at night tail-end charlie could make a difference, and I am assuming Dyson would have wanted to keep these, hence the discrepancy. In a Lancaster they had IIRC four .303 machine guns, and minimal aerodynamic consequences since it was set into the end of the fuselage.
Usually another player took the guns. Flying in formation wasn’t too much of a problem.
Yes, though some players scored the odd kill by dropping a bomb on an attacker.
I believe the best defence is to not get spotted in the first place. Another defence - much harder but which you see in some war films - is to fly at very low level most of the way there, so enemy fighters can’t get underneath you. This worked quite well in Aces High because you didn’t show up on radar if you kept below 500 ft, perhaps less.
Nose guns are surprisingly effective.
I think that in AH, they’re 50 cal.
Anyway, this was just a sim - real life is a wholly seperate story.