Came across this article about the life of a Rear Gunner in a Lancaster. Seems they had it really tough alright: The loneliness of the rear gunner | Mature Times
My F-i-L was a tail gunner in 357 Sqn Libs and this made me think of him. I recall talking to a ground crew fellow once who said, "Tail Gunners! We used to hose them out of the turret." I recall reading that their life expectancy was 90 minutes in combat conditions. Something like that of a FOO. Anyway, thanks. Good post. cheers, phil
Hi Phil and thanks for the post. I remember hearing about that too but I heard that comment in relation to Ball Turret Gunner in the USAAF. Was the Tail Gunner the worst position to be in with regard to escaping the aircraft?
When my Dad went to join up this was he wanted to do, but they found he had a slight colour blindness, so he never became one and going by those stats just as well.
Some nice rear gunner training movies here. YouTube - bionicg's Channel YouTube - bionicg's Channel YouTube - bionicg's Channel YouTube - bionicg's Channel
Hi Phil and thanks for the post. I remember hearing about that too but I heard that comment in relation to Ball Turret Gunner in the USAAF. Was the Tail Gunner the worst position to be in with regard to escaping the aircraft? I talked to a tail gunner from a Lanc who went out over Holland, I believe. His boots caught and he did a funny dance in the slipstream for a moment before deciding to pull his chute. He, fortunately, popped out of his flight boots like a cork out of a bottle, and landed without anything on his feet. He was captured soon afterward and was threatened with execution as a spy. The war has never left him. Perhaps the broader question for a thread is which aircraft was the worst to get out of? They are all quite difficult I should say when time is of the essence. I knew a guy who punched out of his jet, fortunately horizontally, at under a five hundred feet and survived with minimal injuries. God bless 'em all whose want is to leave the comfort of terra firma. cheers, phil
I suppose that the tactics against the Lancaster were to knock out the rear gunner first, as this meant that the fighter could attack from behind and slightly under without fear of being shot at from the plane targeted. I believe a high percentage of bombers were shot down from attacks below and behind. The rear turret on the lancaster had 4 .303's instead of two, which provided the tail with a little more sting. O.5 calibre Brownings would have been better, that that is a completely different story. Regards Tom
I have seen many accounts from rear and mid upper gunners who claim never to have fired a shot in anger despite many combat sorties. Probably because they were so undergunned, many crews felt it was better that they, first and foremost, acted as lookouts and alerted the pilot when an enemy fighter was near and when to initiate evasive action. They also felt that the tracer bullets gave their position away to everyone in the vicinity, including flak sites. The only rear gunner I ever met (on an RCAF Halifax) lost a running, one-sided battle to a JU 88 in 1943 and ended up in the channel minus his right arm. His crew plucked him from the water and they all became POW's.
Just finished this book and highly recommend it. It contains several very interesting veteran perspectives, including tail gunners.
This is interesting. The first is an actual recording of a Lancaster bombers crew intercom talk during a mission. The uploader has set it to scenes from the Dambusters movie. The second is again an actual recording of a Lancaster crew as they make their bombing run over the target. YouTube - LANCASTER BOMBER CREW AUDIO YouTube - Canadian Lancaster Crew Voice Recording
Hi Phil and thanks for the post. I remember hearing about that too but I heard that comment in relation to Ball Turret Gunner in the USAAF. Was the Tail Gunner the worst position to be in with regard to escaping the aircraft? The Rear Gunner had an isolated station.Communication via the intercom was prone to failure on the aircraft being attacked.It is not unknown for a Rear Gunner not to have heard a bale out call,although having said that, aircrews were aware of R.G's vunerablity and tried to have some form of communication should the intercome fail.MU Gunners would take on this responsibility as one of the norms of team work. To escape from a rear turret,the gunner would have to rotate the turret in order to leave the aircraft back first.If the hydraulics failed,then the tureet would have to be rotated manually.In practice, the likelihood of the turret hydraulic control being damaged and made u/s, occurred frequently, leaving the gunner difficulty in escaping, should that be necessary.Aircraft did return with Rear Gunners wounded or worse,still in their turrets. There an improvement in the lot of the Rear Gunner in the summer of 1944 with the advent of the Rose turret equipped with twin .5 inch Brownings which went on the be installed in the majority of No1 Group Lancasters, starting with No 101 Squadron at Ludford Magna in June. These turrets gave a greater firepower at the rear end.Moreover,exiting the turret was relatively easy as clearance was designed adequately between the twins Brownings for a crew member to escape and bale out as the case may be. It goes without saying that having an eye at the rear end became the difference between life and death.Many a Rear Gunner saved his crew by the his early warning of hostiles on the tail of an aircraft and directing his pilot to corkscrew left or right to counter the rear end attack. As some experienced pilots found out and reported back on debriefing,Monica was useless in detecting enemy aircraft if it betrayed ones presence and it did.Many switched off the device before the official order was released to decommission the equipment.
I liked this: Couldn't agree with you more on that, Za. One of my favourites in the personal library. Shows the office of many of these chaps in brilliant form. I also particularly like the images of the FN50 turret. cheers, phil
interesting thread gents, the same can be said of the worst position on the US heavy was the tail position which from early 44 till wars end was always attacked first to get rid of the "eyes"
Here's the story on the TG whose boots got caught when he was trying to leave his ride. Truly, one of the heroes I have spent some time with. Sorry that you have read one, then 3, two then 4. Could not get my tech brain around that problem. cheers, phil
A friend of mine talked to an ex-aircrew of Lancs. When the BofB flight went over one day he was asked if that brought back memories, the old boy turned round and said, 'Aye of being s**t scared.'
In "The Forgotten 500" it appears that being a Ball-Turret Gunner was the worst place to be in (hanging below the plane) for several reasons. The first being that the ball had to be lifted into the plane for takeoff and landing (the turret would be crushed otherwise). Apparently there are many instances where the ball turret was jammed for one reason or another (manual and machine crank not working) and the gunner was forced to face his rather grisly fate. There is also one instance in the book where the crew had to bail out, but the mechanics failed in the ball turret which meant that the gunner had to manually crank the turret back up (the only way to bail out was when the ball was in the 'up' position). By the time this particular gent managed to crank it back up and get out, the rest of the crew had already bailed. He soon joined them and was the only member not to get captured by the Germans due to the delay in time between his jumps. I for one would rather not be a tail or ball turret gunner - each have their dangers and the mechanical aspects of both positions seem to fail rather frequently.
Did I not learn from one of my school teachers, himself a WW2 Vet', that the Tail Gunner was doubly 'blessed'. Because, even if he did manage to survive the attentions of enemy fighters, Landing too was time for intense prayer. She came down a little bit heavy and his bubble at the back end would do the rest .....
