Sounds like BS. What would be so special about the IL-2 to dispense with the GIB so happily whil all the other planes kept it? Say, the Me-110, Dauntless, Avenger, Beaufighter, a long list really. Besides the rear gun was a proper thing, 13.2mm if not a 20mm cannon in later versions, not rifle calibre as in so many others. God, what caliber is 13.2???? It was a 12.7x108mm caliber (a.k.a. "Russian .50cal") HMG
Yee-haa Now that's size for you. That bloke looks well happy, flip-flops and Degtyarev-Sphagin in hand Fixed it for you Nice pedigree on both sides, by the way!
Here's one of the first "BS" references to the rear gunner in Red Star against the Swastika. I'll poke around a bit and try to locate some more BS for you from the guy that flew the plane.
Although there were many types produced during the war, I can't think of any that could rely on the rear gunner solely for defense. The Ju 87 was withdrawn from the Battle of Britain as a result of the losses it suffered and the so called Zerstorrer itself required an escort. The only thing that could really protect the IL-2 from fighter attack was a strong escort.
Even so, where is the outcry concerning all the other non-turreted rear gunners who most likely all suffered from the same?
Stig, I don't want to seem offensive to you, only I find this is a discrepancy with the practice in other air forces with the same problem in theory. Also the VVS had other planes with rear gunners but this particular folklore (I insist, sorry) is only described in an Il-2 context. Why? There is also a folklore bit describing postint at the Il-2 gunner position as punishment, though I'm afraid I can't locate it now. I think we should take a pinch of salt.
Yes, it was a 12.7 Berezin. I was mixing up with the DShK 13.2 HMG. Small, eh? Za! Either I am missing something you don't know, or you are mixing something up, but DShK was produced in 12.7x108 and in 14.5x114 (not sure about the later, though), but 13.2x92 is a 1918 Mauser cartridge (T-Gewehr), and 13.2x96 is a French cartridge! As far as I know Russians did not use 13.2mm cartridges...
Well Za, I wasn't totally sure if you were saying I was BSing you with regards to the IL-2 rear gunner or if the IL-2 pilot himself was full of BS. I know and perhaps now you do as well that I wasn't making the story up (unless I was able to fabricate those scans) and I personally would hesitate to tell a distinguished IL-2 pilot that he is wrong. I was going to copy a few exerts from Hartmans book "The Blond knight of Germany" where he describes his method for attacking this type of aircraft and the particular references to the rear gunner. (He describes attacking from beneath and shooting at the oil cooler or attacking from 15 to 20 degrees to port or starboard, to avoid the gunner, and aiming his fire at the wing roots. I can also look up how many IL-2s he has claimed. I believe that trying to shoot at a moving target, who is likely shooting at you, from a moving aircraft is not very easy. Additionally, it appears the gun only had about 150 rounds. Undoubtedly there were fighters that were lost to rear gunners of almost any type, maybe even one of the gunners of the 37 of 41 TDB Devastators shot down by Zeros during the battle of Midway also shot down a Zero, but the fact remains that without fighter cover, these planes were very vulnerable to single seat fighters. My suspicion is that the rear gunner position was a relic from the First World War. During that time the planes were a lot slower and also a lot more fragile and totally unarmored. At that time the rear gunner probably had a better chance of doing some damage and possibly surviving but by WW2 the planes were 2 to 3 times faster and considerably more rugged. Therear gunners chances were considerably reduced. Gradually the designers learned that the best defense for bombers was speed, not guns.
Well Stig, B-52s shot down MiG-21s in Vietnam with the rear gun. Okay, it is not the same scale of comparison, but still.
Stig, I wasn't saying you were saying BS, what I was meaning was that the stories by others that you were reporting contained some element of BS. Again, we can debate how effective these non-turreted rear guns were or not, but I don't see any reason for the IL-2 to be very much less effective that the similar others in this context. Binging Hartmann into the discussion is unfair since he was the best Anyway it is revealing in that He describes attacking from beneath and shooting at the oil cooler or attacking from 15 to 20 degrees to port or starboard, to avoid the gunner, and aiming his fire at the wing roots. I can also look up how many IL-2s he has claimed. If the rear gunner was so useless why would a great shot like Hartmann take the trouble to get into his blind angle at all? Can you see the contradiction?
Binging Hartmann into the discussion is unfair since he was the best Anyway it is revealing in that If the rear gunner was so useless why would a great shot like Hartmann take the trouble to get into his blind angle at all? Can you see the contradiction? I do know that Hartman was the best, the reason I mention him is that; 1) I have his book here and 2) he actually describes the technique used The techniques he used were undoubtedly well known and illustrated the distinct limitations of the defensive armament. Hartman huge score wasn't the result of great marksmanship, his success stemmed more from his skill as a pilot and his ability to get so close to the target that he was shooting from what we call point blank range. He would frequently down planes with the minimum of shots because all of his cannon rounds were hitting the target. The desire to shoot from the blind spots was clearly designed to increase his own chances of survival. I doubt that his fellow pilots gave him a hard time about it " Hey, Eric, why do you always attack those Sturmoviks from the side, how fair is that?" .:biggrin:
Well Stig, B-52s shot down MiG-21s in Vietnam with the rear gun. Okay, it is not the same scale of comparison, but still. That probably wasn't with a hand held MG though.
That probably wasn't with a hand held MG though. True. Automatic aiming device for a four-gun .50cal turret, or a single 20mm Vulcan...
Just riffled through Osprey's Combat Aircraft "Il-2 Shturmovik Guards Units" and 4+ Pubs on the Il-2 as well. Not a single negative mention concerning the rear gunner position. In Squadron Signal's "Il-2 Stormovik in Action" we read The most serious problem with the Il-2 was its lack of the rear protection. German fighter pilots quickly learned that the aircraft could be easily downed by an attack from the rear and this quickly became the standard tactic tor attacking ll-2s. The May 1940 decision to remove the rear gun position from the TsKB-55 in favor of additional fuel and range, led to serious losses, but proved that llyushin's original two seat configuration was the best configuration for an assault aircraft. Endless complaints about the alarming attrition rate were sent from front-line regiments to the Ilyushin Design Bureau. In their battle reports, Il-2 pilots bitterly complained about the complete lack of rear defense. … The rear gunner position had a dramatic boost in the combat effectiveness of the Assault Aviation Regiments. The Il-2M had not only a rear defense, but a second set of eyes to warn the pilot of fighter attacks coming from the rear, so that evasive action could be taken in time. Il-2M gunners were sometimes quite successful - if they survived long enough to become an ace. Rear gunner A. Kuramshakov was credited with seven kills during 189 combat missions. Rear gunner N. Turbin claimed five kills, although two of them were shared kills. During his first mission, Sergeanl N, Ryaboshapko of the 299tb Assault Aviation Regiment, succeeded in shooting down a Focke Wulf Fw 189 twin engined reconnaissance aircraft. But the lack of adequate armor protection cost the lives of hundreds of rear gunners. Statistics show that dur-ing the Great Patriotic War seven gunners lost their lives for every pilot killed in action. A number of Assault Aviation Regiments had female rear gunners, such as the 804th Assault Aviation Regiment which served on the Kalinin front in May of 1943 . The element of surprise for the rear gunners did not last long and Luftwaffe fighter pilots quickly developed tactics to counter the rear gun. Casualties among gunners soon reached alarming proportions and it became evident that, once the gunner was silenced, the II-2M pre¬sented an even easier target than its single-seal predecessor. Using explosive ammunition, Luftwaffe fighter pilots attacked in a narrow arc immediately behind the tail of the II-2M. which was not covered by the rear gun. either concentrating on the vulnerable wooden tail section and control surfaces, which disintegrated rapidly, or endeavoring to silence the gun¬ner. Once silenced, they could attack ill leisure from aft and above. Experienced pilots could fly advanced aerobatics in the Il-2M and could engage in one-vs-one dogfights with enemy fighters hut, unfortunately, most rudimentary trained Stormovik pilots were not aware of the maneuverability of their aircraft and none were trained in air combat skills or defensive combat flying techniques. Many of the new pilots arrived at the front with just ten hours of type experience and became easy prey for Luftwaffe fighter pilots, which enjoyed, at the lime the two seat II-2M entered combat, much better training in combat. Based on the combat experiences, the VUB-3 gun mount post was developed which increased the 12.7MM machine guns angle of fire to 45 degrees elevation. 12 degrees depression and 35 degrees deflection. Initially the ammunition supply of the I1-2M was some 200 rounds; however, to save weight, this was later reduced to only 150 rounds. Late production batches of ll-2Ms, built in late 1942, shortly before the production was switched to the Il-2 Type 3, were modified to give the gunner a glazed rear canopy to protect him from the elements. Often, this rear glazing was removed in the field, since it cut down on the gunner's field of view. Amazing how many planes and tanks the Soviets had named after me
