Did aircraft fly without gunners?

[JaffaCake]

I am not sure if there would be a historical premise for this, but even if rare (i.e. lagg-3 23mm vya cannon kind of rare), did aircraft with gunners ever fly with partial crew complement?

 

I could imagine how one could decide to not take a gunner / rear gun into a mission to gain more speed and climb, with COM being the only concern for the aircraft.

 

Unfortunately I am not a history nut, so I would appreciate if more knowledgeable people could pitch it!

[Cpt_Siddy]

IL-2's with back gunners occasionally flew gunner seat empty. 

 

Mainly due to high attrition rate. 

Edited August 21, 2018 by Cpt_Siddy

[MiloMorai]

Ask yourself if 200lb/90kg would make that much of a difference in a big bomber type a/c performance?

[JaffaCake]

4 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

Ask yourself if 200lb/90kg would make that much of a difference in a big bomber type a/c performance?

 

 

Parachute, flak jacket, ammo for the gun, the gun itself... I'd say that easily adds up to 120-170kg per gunner seat. That is extra 200l of fuel you can take... And pe2 has 2 gunners, which is basically a bomb equivalent.

 

I did read before that IL2 gunner messed up the COM quite a bit too.

Edited August 21, 2018 by JaffaCake

[MiloMorai]

You only asked about partial crew. A male in the '40s was smaller than a male today. Also if you look at data sheets on a/c you will find that 200lb is the weight listed.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

17 minutes ago, JaffaCake said:

I am not sure if there would be a historical premise for this, but even if rare (i.e. lagg-3 23mm vya cannon kind of rare), did aircraft with gunners ever fly with partial crew complement?

 

I could imagine how one could decide to not take a gunner / rear gun into a mission to gain more speed and climb, with COM being the only concern for the aircraft.

 

Unfortunately I am not a history nut, so I would appreciate if more knowledgeable people could pitch it!

 

 

A lot of gunner positions were removed after being found they were redundant after gaining experience during the war.

 

There was a statistical  study done for the Lancaster that argued if the majority of the gunners were taken out the aircraft would gain performance and at the same time the crew attrition rate if one was to be shot down would be much lower. This seemed like a good idea on paper and most likely was a sound idea but no one had the balls to actuality put it into practice. 

[-SF-Disarray]

I know gunners and guns were left out for very long range missions but this usually coincided with absolute, or nearly absolute, air superiority. The bombers that were making runs on Japan, for example, at times had to shed weight to make the trip when the island hopping hadn't progressed far enough to get serviceable fields close enough. The Enola Gay, as an example, only had a tail gunner when it dropped Little Boy, the plane would have been too heavy with bomb and full crew/equipment; but the threat wasn't exactly all that pressing as the only thing flying above Japan at that time was USAAF.

[LukeFF]

29 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

IL-2's with back gunners occasionally flew gunner seat empty. 

 

Mainly due to high attrition rate. 

 

Source?

[69TD_Hajo_Garlic]

I think me410s did due to difficulties bailing and using the rear guns but dont quote me

[Cpt_Siddy]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

Source?

Oral reports of a pilots, who refused to take new back gunners after enough  died on them.

 

One of those pilots is a grandfather of a certain Russian player in around here. Ill try ask on Russian forums about him if you are so interested.  

Edited August 21, 2018 by Cpt_Siddy

[LukeFF]

10 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

Oral reports of a pilots, who refused to take new back gunners after enough  died on them.

 

One of those pilots is a grandfather of a certain Russian player in around here. Ill try ask on Russian forums about him if you are so interested.  

 

Yes, that would be good. 

[Art-J]

On 8/21/2018 at 6:31 PM, Disarray said:

The Enola Gay, as an example, only had a tail gunner when it dropped Little Boy, the plane would have been too heavy with bomb and full crew/equipment

 

Not surprising, given the fact that the plane only had a tail gun station. With remaining four turrets removed, the other gunners wouldn't have much job to do would they ? ?

 

Same armament configuration on 300+ B-version Superforts for the reasons you mentioned, so I agree with the rest of your post.

[Elem]

Doolittle's Raiders (B-25) being a prime example.

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, Elem said:

Doolittle's Raiders (B-25) being an extreme example.

 

FIFYA

[SCG_Schneemann]

My moronic gunners never seem to fire, so leaving them at home would be a great option...

[Garven]

57 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

FIFYA

Even then the Doolittle Raiders still had a manned upper turret.

[richard23]

On 8/21/2018 at 4:57 PM, JaffaCake said:

I am not sure if there would be a historical premise for this, but even if rare (i.e. lagg-3 23mm vya cannon kind of rare), did aircraft with gunners ever fly with partial crew complement?

 

I could imagine how one could decide to not take a gunner / rear gun into a mission to gain more speed and climb, with COM being the only concern for the aircraft.

 

Unfortunately I am not a history nut, so I would appreciate if more knowledgeable people could pitch it!

Not exactly what you mean possibly but certainly the RAF flew without gunners when delivering new aircraft to units....And the pilot was often a woman.

 

Going back to WW1, the RE.8 had to be flown with a gunner/observer or it wouldn't recover from a spin. It was so dangerous that......."DO NOT FLY WITH LESS THAN 80 lbs IN REAR SEAT" was stencilled on the side.... If it was single crewed, 100 lbs sandbags were placed in the rear seat.

[Lusekofte]

IL 2 Sturmovik squadrons did fly without gunners in some planes in formations. I read about this several times. This was due to lack of gunners . Life expectancy on those gunners was half of the pilot. But I understood this was in periods until replacements came 

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

Life expectancy on those gunners was half of the pilot.

 

That's a myth. If the gunner was killed, the pilot usually was killed as well. 

[Lusekofte]

Luke Lifeexpectancy was lower than half of pilots, your  confidence on own wisdom, on all things is not really a factor . If I had it from only one source I would have given it to you , but for christ sake .. and I did not speak of all the time , I said in periods, because the articles I refer to , was about situations. I do not know statistics on this from 41 to 45. 

I can refer to some documentaries made by Russian Television Wings of... series , several Flypast magazines and even approved History books. 

And all IL 2 attacked did not go down , I think you are spreading myth more than stopping them

Edited October 26, 2018 by LuseKofte

[LukeFF]

11 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

Luke Lifeexpectancy was lower than half of pilots, your  confidence on own wisdom, on all things is not really a factor . If I had it from only one source I would have given it to you , but for christ sake .. and I did not speak of all the time , I said in periods, because the articles I refer to , was about situations. I do not know statistics on this from 41 to 45. 

I can refer to some documentaries made by Russian Television Wings of... series , several Flypast magazines and even approved History books. 

And all IL 2 attacked did not go down , I think you are spreading myth more than stopping them

 

My sources are pilot interviews and the loss list for a regiment's entire WWII combat history. I don't give a care if you believe me or not. I know what I've read. 

[Lusekofte]

Mine too, and you are a direct lier for what I am conserned. If you claim what you did and say you have sources covering all theaters of eastern front. That simply is a lie. You have this patronizing tone too many times, and think you get away with it.  "your sources is not more reliable than anyone else. And clearly in the light of what you said , you have no idea what you talk about.

 

There wher many instances where operations was called off due to lack of aircrew, RAF had problems filling up observers in North Africa for a while. I read many books and magazines , many interviews. Not one have I ever come over where people tell what did not happend. There are however clear statistics on mortallity on Bomber command, do you claim them to be untrue and a myth

Edited October 26, 2018 by LuseKofte