I am asking about the carrier planes that had a rear gunner, like a dive bomber or torpedo plane. Those types of scenarios where you had to shoot "around" the tail of the plane. I assume there was some kind of Mechanical/Camming device that prohibited the gunner from shooting up his own plane.? Thank You
Yes just as on all land planes that had a mid upper gunner etc. Similar restrictors were usually fitted to AA guns on ships as well although I have seen an account of a hastily armed fishing boat that managed to Lewis Gun its own wheel house.
Were the tails protected against their own rear/upper gunners gunfire? https://www.quora.com/Was-there-any...to-stop-rear-gunners-shooting-off-their-tails During WWII, were there any cases of tail-gunners accidentally shooting off their aircraft's tail? : AskHistorians https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/docume...s/Journal_45_Seminar_conventional_weapons.pdf 87 navigator, an air bomber, a WOp(air), a WOp/AG, a flight engineer and four air gunners). Steven Mason: Turrets again. Am I right in thinking that there was some means of preventing you from shooting off your own tail from the mid-upper? Jefford. Yes. It was most apparent on Lancasters and Stirlings fitted with the FN50 turret where it took the form of the so-called ‘taboo fairing’. There was a feeler arm (that looked as if it might have been borrowed from a Dalek) below each gun and when these came in contact with the fairing they inhibited depression of the gun barrels to prevent the gunner shooting at the airframe; there were also interrupter cut outs to stop him shooting at the fins as the guns traversed across them. Similar, if less obvious, preventative systems were provided in other turret installations. It seems that some aircraft were fitted with a 'taboo fairing' if it was a turret or a 'taboo rail/ring' if fitted with a loose weapon as in the rear of a Dauntless TD
Apparently on one Coastal Command Liberator someone managed to swing a waist gun inboard and then accidentally fire it down the fuselage, fortunately no fatal structural damage occurred and the tail gunner was not on seat
This is one of the saddest stories I've read on this topic. The MU gunner must have spent the rest of his life thinking about this. Sgt. Ken A. Hart R116556 / Fatal accident - Bombercrew.com Forum Regards, Dave
It used to be the gunners responsibility to dismount his guns from the turret for cleaning /maintenance. This would seem to be a legacy from WW1. If one of the dismounted guns fired and killed someone this would have no upper , rear rf front gunner significance.
Bob could you reword the last sentence I know you had the treatment so just assisting with the meaning
It always amazes me....the zhit that went wrong during the war. Some of it "unique" and unforeseen, and some of it just because humans make honest mistakes. And all the other weird. by chance, acts of fate. One pilot might ditch "within view" of his ship and never be recovered, other guys were plucked out of the water, many hours later, by a submarine. Born in 1960, i consider myself extremely lucky to have missed all of that.
Surely not in the air, Bob? Over the Bay of Biscay. Captain might have taken a dim view of that. The round that killed Sgt Gillespie survives in his service file. And, as it transpired, the now-P/O J92710 Kenneth Algar Hart was awarded a DFM in early 1945. He stayed in the RCAF until 1961. Regards, Dave
On a return from flight, Gunners would leave their guns on safe and report any defect to the skipper if he was not aware of them them already.The skipper was responsible for collating the aircraft snags detail and entering the information in the Form 700.This would be acknowledged by the Chiefy i/c groundcrew....groundcrew trades would also carry out an "after flight inspection" and note any snags for clearance...in serious cases it may have led to an extended loss of availability of the aircraft and would be rectified at 1st line serving level,ie if possible within the squadron.If not,the snag would be rectified at 2nd line serving level. ie,off the squadron.After all snags were cleared the aircraft would receive a "pre flight inspection" or a "daily inspection", if not immediately planned for flying.The various tradesman would individually sign the Form 700 themselves and the aircraft would only be available to the aircrew after the Form 700 had been signed by all trades. Handed back to the pilot for operations,the form would be signed by him that the aircraft was accepted as serviceable for air operations. Regarding turret guns,the clearing of gun barrels in situ or the removal of them was conducted by armourers,that was what they were there for and had been trained for.Other similar responsibilities were to ensure that Very pistols were available for use with ample spare cartridges of the appropriate colour. Gun barrel cleaning was conducted not with a pull through device such that for rifles but with a cleaning rod or lance.On the Mid Upper turret, it would be case of the armourer balancing on the top of the fuselage while stroking the barrel.
Best example of this I've sen is a guy named Clark flying a Blackburn Shark III (Bi plane with a semi enclosed cockpit) who flew too low so wheels hit the water and found himself in an under water vertical dive. Puling back on the stick he found that the controls worked submerged and made a safe landing on the sea bed. Bailed out, inflating life jacket and was picked up on the surface by a passing submarine.
Do you really expect a Mid Upper Gunner to climb on the fuselage and perform as you state? Gunners would be trained in operating the gun gear and be able to handle snags occurring during flight ...the gear would be set up by the armourer as a preflight requirement of the Form 700. Obviously it was an advantage that the gunner fully understood the workings of his turret and gunnery such that he could accurately diagnose a malfunction to report it....nothing worse than a defect report arising from an inaccurate diagnosis....leads to an extension of non availability. The armourer would also replenish rounds and prove the feed from the cartridge storage box to the turrets.Gunners would normally test guns during an operational flight at the time chosen by the skipper.Guns would be selected to "Safe"on the ground and for take off. Then as early as possible, selected to "Fire" fired safely...test firing completed,turrets then available for defence of the aircraft. Armourers and pilots as an aside. Guy Gibson records an incident when on No 29 Squadron on night patrol piloting a Beaufighter out of Wellingore,a satellite of Digby. Vectored on to a juicy Heinkel off Skegness,got in a good position to rake the enemy aircraft,pressed the firing tit....nothing,tried several times more and frustrated had to call off the patrol.Landed back at Wellingore and accused the armour of the reason for gunnery malfunction.The aircraft was in a position for the cannons to be fired safely.The armourer climbed into the cockpit and the cannons fired healthily into the night.As the armourer would have pointed out to Gibson, to fire the cannons, the firing control ring had to be rotated from "Safe" to "Fire" before the tit would fire the guns. At least Gibson recorded it but I would think such an incident would have been quickly been circulated among the groundcrew.
