[Birgir Thorisson]

R.L. Dunn.

I see the Bf 110 in 1940 in similar situation as regards relative performance as the P-38 and P-47 in 1943-44. Big, fast at altitude, but sluggish compared to ligther s.e. fighters. (I wonder about the diving charachteristic. Can´t recall any reference to that anywhere). What the Zerstörer had on the P-38 was the rear-gunner.

One light machine gun doesn´t amount to much, BUT, it is a more flexible weapon than fixed guns, and what matters is not the number of bullets fired, but the number of bullets that hit the target. Remember a certain scotsman named Jock McLuckie? He fought off a whole flight from JAAF premier fighter regiment, killing one major ace (Kato), wounding another, (Yasuda), and damaging the plane of the third, (Otani). The rest fled.
From the accounts I have read on the air-warfare (primarily in the early part of WW2, when rear armament is light,) I am struck by the contrast between actions when rear-gunners are a non-factor, and when they are very effective. I can only conclude that it is the skill of individual gunner (vis-a-vis the skill of the attacking pilot) that is the differentiating factor. I cannot recall any instance of effective rear defence by Zerstörer gunners. Thus I suspect that they were little trained, and held in low regard by their respective pilots, but John Vasco should know something about that issue.

Juha. A rear gunner is trying to get a bead on a pursuing plane in horizontal turning contest. Do you know how much he is constrained by G-forces and slipstream? Is there a zone, outside of which he is unable to get his gun to bear on the pursuer. (e.g. 15 degrees, 30, 45, or some other figure.) Is there any known quantification of this window of opportunity?