Tango01  | 12 Nov 2020 8:41 p.m. PST |
"The air war over Vietnam saw some incredible dog fights, but it still may surprise you to learn that the mighty B-52 heavy bomber successfully shot down not one but two Vietnamese Mig 21 fighter jets near the tail end of the conflict. The venerable Boeing B-52 Stratofortress has been flying since 1952, and thanks to a series of upgrades, will continue to for decades to come. The massive jet bomber may have been designed in the 1940s (in fact, it was designed almost entirely in a single weekend), but its massive airframe and eight jet engine-design have proven so capable over the years that the B-52 is now expected to outlast newer bombers that were developed to replace it. As the B-21 Raider inches toward production, both America's B-2 Spirit (stealth bomber) and B-1B Lancer (supersonic bomber) are expected to be put out to pasture, while the legendary B-52 keeps right on flying…."
Main page
link
Amicalement
Armand
|
 The Virtual Armchair General  | 13 Nov 2020 12:21 p.m. PST |
I had no idea! That MIG pilot must have been mightily surprised in what were likely the last moments of his life. TVAG |
 Legion 4 | 13 Nov 2020 4:46 p.m. PST |
Yes that is what those tail guns are there for. |
| JMcCarroll | 13 Nov 2020 4:50 p.m. PST |
|
| Thresher01 | 13 Nov 2020 5:57 p.m. PST |
Or, quad .50s early on, IIRC, for some Buff models. |
| Legion 4 | 14 Nov 2020 9:49 a.m. PST |
Yes IIRC it was 4 x.50s then 20mm. Nearly all of the B-52 variants featured a radar-assisted tail position with four M3 machine guns, each firing at a rate of 1,200 rounds per minute. The ultimate version, the B-52H, came with a single 20mm M61 Vulcan cannon, able to spit out up to 100 shells every second, in their place. |
| Tango01 | 14 Nov 2020 12:25 p.m. PST |
|
 deadhead | 14 Nov 2020 2:59 p.m. PST |
100 cannon shells a second….. I suspect many a Lancaster tail ender would have taken that. As I recall not one single B52 went down to a fighter attack. Bit different to WWII then. Am I right that they went in with no close fighter escort? I guess that my first sentence shows that the "little brothers" were not needed, again unlike WWII. |
| Legion 4 | 14 Nov 2020 4:53 p.m. PST |
100 cannon shells a second….. Well it is a mini-gun … Am I right that they went in with no close fighter escort? IIRC … Generally and there some ECM aircraft too at times. |
| Skarper | 15 Nov 2020 12:38 a.m. PST |
link They claim one air-to-air kill by Mig-21. It's impossible to verify independently, however. The B-52s flew higher and faster than WW2 bombers and getting an interceptor within range was a challenge. Missiles were most effective. AAA could not reach the altitudes to effectively engage. As for close escort it was established late in WW2 that engaging enemy fighters on the ground or before they could intercept was much more effective. Hanging around the airfields to catch them landing was also more lucrative. The B-52s lost their tail guns in 1991. |
| Legion 4 | 15 Nov 2020 10:34 a.m. PST |
B-52s and even F-111s had to be more concerned about SAMs, generally. And as I said, B-52s had no Fighter escort, as mentioned, they really didn't need it. And as we know many Fighter/Bombers were use for CAS. E.g. F4s, A4s, etc. But many dogfights did occur. When the CAP engaged the NVAF when the Strike Group was heading for the target(s). Leading the Strike Package were "Wild Weasels", i.e. Fighters carrying radar homing missiles. To take out SAMs and AAA before the Strike Package got there. Yes, I believe it was '91 that the B-52s lost there tail guns. Based on much of the fact the Cold War was over. And the former USSR were our "friends" now … right … |
| Skarper | 15 Nov 2020 10:49 a.m. PST |
Removing the tail guns probably had more to do with them being useless against Air-to-air missiles. The 1-2 kills claimed by a Mig21 [unconfirmed] were with missiles. Of course, the VPAF do not admit to losing any Migs due to B-52 rear guns. |
| deadhead | 15 Nov 2020 11:41 a.m. PST |
Takes real cold courage to fly relatively slow (however high level) huge bombers against targeted anti aircraft rocketry and relying on ECM for your only defence. OK, B17s or B24s over Europe it was a random chance if AAA got you. I think this is different and colder. I am sure the folk on the ground had a different view, but I recall my admiration for these crews in the early 70s (and I had hair almost to my costal margin back then and my views were not exactly popular locally) |
| Legion 4 | 15 Nov 2020 4:49 p.m. PST |
Removing the tail guns probably had more to do with them being useless against Air-to-air missiles. I'm sure that was a factor too. But one of our biggest adversaries were our friends … now … They were one of the few that had the ability to go after our B-52 with other aircraft. But as we see SAMs really became the primary AAA system for many … |
| Tango01 | 20 Jun 2021 10:15 p.m. PST |
B-52 Busters – Vietnam War Communist Commando Raids
YouTube link
Armand
|
| Legion 4 | 21 Jun 2021 9:31 a.m. PST |
And some considerably upgraded "BUFFs" are still flying … |
| Skarper | 21 Jun 2021 4:27 p.m. PST |
They're projected to have a service life of 100 years…which if true must be some kind of record. |
| Legion 4 | 21 Jun 2021 4:31 p.m. PST |
I hope so ! 100 years !!! GO BUFFs !!!! |
| Pyrate Captain | 22 Dec 2022 2:41 p.m. PST |
From the two accounts I read, once radar locked on, all the gunner had to do was wait for range and squeeze the rigger. It's the reason the BUFF was named the Stratofortress. Alas, all gunners were unceremoniously fired in 1991. The Air force claimed it was because A2A missiles made the gunner obsolete, but it did follow a gunner incident bringing down a friendly, and Chief of Staff McPeak was determined to destroy SAC (and the Air Force), and he succeeded. Perhaps the moral of this story is never let a former FAC make strategic decisions. |
paints 
