Why were Ju-88 gunners so good?

[Ryan B.]

Reading about combat over Malta and other locales, the rear upper gunners of Ju-88s, seemed to be remarkably efficient at their tasks. This surprises me as, first, they're using what is essentially a 30 cal./ 7-odd mm machine gun which, as Russian pilots and others remark, is good for scratching paint, and, second, accounts of other aircraft and air forces using the same type of weapon seem to show much less defense efficacy. Think, for example, of Japanese dive and torpedo bombers v US Navy fighters, or Blenheim gunners (excluding "Jock" McLuckie).  Could it be a question of training, gun mounting, slower closing speeds with the faster bomber, or is this perception--totally unscientific as it is--mistaken? What sayeth ye?

[Graham Boak]

I doubt that Ju 88 gunners were any better than others, but an awfully large number of WW2 aircraft were shot down with rifle-calibre weapons.

[Ed Russell]

You would have to do a lot of difficult research to show Ju88 gunners were any different to any other aircraft. A few anecdotes isn't nearly enough.

Slightly off topic but I have seen this quoted before

https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-British-have-the-Browning-0-50-caliber-machine-gun-for-use-in-aircraft-in-WWII

about why rifle calibre machine guns were common. Quite a few Ju88's had their paint more than scratched by a cone of eight of them!

 

[noelh]

Perhaps the reason is more to do with the Ju88 itself as you suggest. Compared to the other aircraft mentioned it was a relatively high performance machine often compared to the Mosquito. So it was fast and any attacking fighter would be longer in the sights of the gunner because of the lower closing speed. 

 

Any gunner worth his salt would take advantage of that. 

Edited February 19, 2018 by noelh

[Procopius]

3 hours ago, Ryan B. said:

Reading about combat over Malta and other locales, the rear upper gunners of Ju-88s, seemed to be remarkably efficient at their tasks. This surprises me as, first, they're using what is essentially a 30 cal./ 7-odd mm machine gun which, as Russian pilots and others remark, is good for scratching paint, and, second, accounts of other aircraft and air forces using the same type of weapon seem to show much less defense efficacy. Think, for example, of Japanese dive and torpedo bombers v US Navy fighters, or Blenheim gunners (excluding "Jock" McLuckie).  Could it be a question of training, gun mounting, slower closing speeds with the faster bomber, or is this perception--totally unscientific as it is--mistaken? What sayeth ye?

Well, over Malta, the Ju88s would be able to keep a close formation while heavily escorted by many fighters, meaning that attacks against them would have to be set up and executed rapidly, with little time for maneuvers to limit return fire. When the odds weren't heavily in their favour, they didn't perform nearly as well; I./ZG1 lost four Ju88C-6 without inflicting any losses to the Spitfires of 222 and 485 Squadrons over Normandy on D-Day.

[Smithy]

They weren't.

 

As Noel mentioned the Ju88 had better performance than other contemporary LW bombers, eg He111, Do17, etc, and better performance for a bomber means a better chance of the pilot being able to keep the aircraft in a more advantageous position in relation to an attacking aircraft than a bomber with lesser performance.

 

As Procopius also said, all daylight bombers be they Allied or Axis also tried to use mutual protection as well, the bombers flew in formations where they provided mutual support by overlapping fields of fire which limited how fighters could attack bomber formations. The RAF learnt very quickly during the BoB that it was often better to attack large bomber formations head on or in slashing 3/4 beam attacks, limiting the exposure to defensive fire. Attacking a large bomber force which was stacked up from the rear meant a higher exposure to return fire and the exposure from multiple bombers' fields of fire was much greater. It's one of the reasons why from the BoB right up to the defence of the Reich, defending interceptor fighters used a slashing high side attack to try and knock out bombers in very fast attacks whilst limiting the effects of return fire.

[Pauls9cb]

I suspect that another reason for Allied (British) fightter casualties at the hands of the gunners defending LW medium bombers was the vulnerability of most of the fighters (Brits and LW) in the first couple of years of WW2 to damage to the liquid cooling systems of the high performance Merlins and DB 601s. In some ways, it didn't matter whether it was 7.92 mm or 20 mm if  a stray round punctured the pipes  to/from the glycol tank which kept tthe engines cooled. Under pressure, any breach of this cooling system meant that Spit/Hurris/109s had a very short operating margin once the engine temp started going up. Armoured protection to these vulnerable areas was probably sacrificed at the altar of weight vs performance. This became less of an issue as the war progressed since the FW 190 was air cooled as were many of the Wildcat/Hellcat/Corsairs  that were involved in the Pacific theatre. Ju 88 gunners were in all probability as good as any other, but always faced with a fleeting target except in exceptional circumstances. Paul

[Smithy]

7 minutes ago, Pauls9cb said:

I suspect that another reason for Allied (British) fightter casualties at the hands of the gunners defending LW medium bombers was the vulnerability of most of the fighters (Brits and LW) in the first couple of years of WW2 to damage to the liquid cooling systems of the high performance Merlins and DB 601s. In some ways, it didn't matter whether it was 7.92 mm or 20 mm if  a stray round punctured the pipes  to/from the glycol tank which kept tthe engines cooled. Under pressure, any breach of this cooling system meant that Spit/Hurris/109s had a very short operating margin once the engine temp started going up. Armoured protection to these vulnerable areas was probably sacrificed at the altar of weight vs performance. This became less of an issue as the war progressed since the FW 190 was air cooled as were many of the Wildcat/Hellcat/Corsairs  that were involved in the Pacific theatre. Ju 88 gunners were in all probability as good as any other, but always faced with a fleeting target except in exceptional circumstances. Paul

 

That's an excellent point Paul.

[Plasto]

The MG-15 has a higher cyclic rate that the Browning similar to a Vickers K. So if you’re accurate that equates to more shots on target. 

 

Maybe that is part of the answer if any..

[brewerjerry]

Hi

    MG 81Z may have helped,

the two barrels were very close together

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/mg81z.html

 

http://www.wehrmacht-history.com/luftwaffe/armaments/7.92-mm-mg-81z.htm

 

   cheers

     jerry

Edited February 19, 2018 by brewerjerry

[Selwyn]

Don't know if you claims are backed up by hard figures.

 

But my thought is that judging by the many documented intense air battles that took place over Malta you could argue that the JU88 gunners had more A to A targets to fire at than that would be around  in normal operations,  and due to this gained a lot of first hand practical experience in the techniques air to air gunnery, possibly making them more efficent at their task?

 

Selwyn

[Giorgio N]

What are the figures ? Is there any assessment of the aircrafts downed by Ju-88s over Malta vs. the losses inflicted by other types on attacking fighters ?

If the losses incurred by RAF aircrafts at the hands of Ju-88s are proven to have been higher, then the reasons could be many. Some of them may have to do with the defensive armament of the Ju-88s, others may have to do with shortcomings of the attacking fighters

Regarding the effectiveness in general of the German rifle caliber MGs, these may have not been the most powerful guns available to the Luftwaffe but they were adequate enough to shoot down early war fighter designs like the Hurricane and the Spitfire.

A lot of information on the effectiveness of aircraft armament during the war can be found in the many articles written by Anthony Williams, who has made a good number of these available over the years on his website:

 

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/miltech.htm

[Ryan B.]

Thank you, gentlemen, for many insightful responses. As for the many mentions of no measurable data, you're right, as I acknowledged myself. However, somewhere in Shores'/Culll's/Maliza's excellent "Malta: The Spitfire Year" --and, no, I'm not going through it again to find which page--the pilots themselves warn about the accuracy of the Ju-88 gunners. I notice also, that while small formations of three Ju-88s could sometimes inflict damage on their attackers, equal-sized formations of Cant Z 1007s, similarly escorted, were markedly less successful.

[Smithy]

6 minutes ago, Ryan B. said:

I notice also, that while small formations of three Ju-88s could sometimes inflict damage on their attackers, equal-sized formations of Cant Z 1007s, similarly escorted, were markedly less successful.

 

Ryan, once again this comes back to simple performance. A bomber (or bomber formation) with better performance has a better chance of evading attacks or at least being able to maintain a better position in relation to attackers than a bomber with lesser performance, and that also directly relates to the effectiveness of its defensive fire. That's obviously the reason why aircraft manufacturers were (and are) constantly trying to improve performance of their aircraft: increased horsepower and top speeds; increased ceiling; increased rate of climb; increased manoeuvrability; etc.

 

Bombers with better all round performance will overall fare better (in both combat survival but also the effectiveness of their defensive fire) than bombers with lesser performance.

[Aardvark]

22 hours ago, Ryan B. said:

This surprises me as, first, they're using what is essentially a 30 cal./ 7-odd mm machine gun which, as Russian pilots and others remark, is good for scratching paint,

"In 1936 - 1938 the description of the aviation MG 15 machine gun and a sample of drum shop to him have been received Soviet military intelligence 

and studied by Military and technical bureau. It has been noted that "the machine gun in itself isn't of interest... the double shop of drum type is of interest""

 

So, problem is not in MG 15. It's not a super weapon, is ordinary  machine gun!

10 hours ago, brewerjerry said:

MG 81Z may have helped,

the two barrels were very close together

"Chart "Fighting maneuvering"General assessment
The Ju-88 plane was involved in educational air fights with the "Spitfire I" and "Hurricane II" fighters. On fighters movie cameras have been established. Ju-88 flew without bombing loading with a lump of 10 206 kg (22 000 pounds).

Only one machine gun established on Ju-88 can reflect the attack of the fighter in all cases.

 

Exact firing from a machine gun is complicated because machine guns cope manually.""

 

from "Ju 88. Assessment by the British experts"

 

So, "two barrels were very close together" it's not a problem!

 

And what?

 

Read next charter from "Ju 88. Assessment by the British experts":

 

"The attack in a tail.
The attack in a tail is almost impossible for the fighter. Top - the shooter has very good chance to replace right with the left machine gun and vice versa earlier, than the fighter will pass more to the left of or more to the right of vertical plumage. The lower shooter completely blocks the sectors of a back hemisphere inaccessible for firing from the top machine guns. When flying in one plane the fighter easily is surprised from the top machine guns of the bomber. It is necessary to make the attack from situation slightly below than the stabilizer. As a back part of a cabin is well armored, from machine guns of caliber of 7,7 mm it is necessary to fire only on engines.

Maneuvers of evasion from Ju-88 include sliding, flight on a wavy trajectory, transition to dive, performance of bends. Usually the pilot of the attacking fighter easily finds sliding, but the wavy movement of the bomber creates serious problems when aiming to the pilot of the fighter. At the short-term negative acceleration arising in such flight, engines of the Ju-88 plane continue to work while the Spitfire motor is switched off. Follows the fighter is above a trajectory of flight of the bomber.

The analysis of air fights has allowed to establish the main maneuvers of evasion used by the Ju-88 planes. Ju-88 gained height of 4572 m (15 000 feet), "Spitfire" and "Hurricane" were in mile behind it. Then Junkers dived on full gas, losing 457 m a minute. "Spitfire" it was succeeded to come to a distance of discovery of fire, having lost 2438 m of height and having flown by 32 km. Attacking "Hurricane" has to approach Junkers slightly closer, than Spitfayr. The maximum instrument speed of Ju-88 was 491 km/h. Management of wheels all the time remained very easy, and the back shooter had the good review all the time.

Ju-88 can also evade from the attack by bends, especially with overcast. The plane is easily carried out by a bend even when flying with a high speed. It is very difficult for fighter to hold in a sight the carrying-out bend the bomber. Management of Ju-88 allows to change easily the radius of a bend or to carry out a bend with sliding."

 

Completely the text in Russian is available according to the reference:

http://www.airpages.ru/lw/ju88_2.shtml

So, thus, if efficiency defense maneuver of Ju-88, really had to be, then it can be connected with more best tactical training of crews of Ju-88 in general.... and wrong tactics of the attacks to Ju-88, RAF pilot fighter.

 

B.R.

Serge

 

P.S.

WW2 piston engine  not my subject, but question interesting !

 

P.P.S.

Has to be still:

"Ju 88. Assessment by the NII VVS RKKA". But I haven't found him in the Internet yet.
It is interesting to read the conclusion of Scientific Research Institute Soviet Air Force about opportunities defense of Ju-88.