While in the USAF, I saw many B-52's and guarded some, although I was primarily assigned to base patrol and to protecting classified assets in certain buildings, like the Air Intelligence School and the Nuclear Weapons School.
I was always impressed to see those big birds lumber aloft.
At Goose Bay AFB, Labrador, I saw Vulcans launch from the RAF side of the base and was amazed at how quickly they got their noses up and climbed fast. It was quite a contrast to the B-52's.
I feel sorry for that tail gunner. He must have felt pretty miserable much of the time.
Someone raised the question about having only tail guns in bombers. That's bothered me, too. And I read that German fighters often decided to attack Allied bombers head-on even though they then had more guns, inc. some in the nose and top turrets that could engage incoming fighters. The RAF crews were stuck with .303's and they seem to have wished for the more effective .50's of the US bombers. Even though most of their missions were at night, the heavier guns were logically wanted.
I think Lemay started this tail gun-only business after seeing B-29's damage other US aircraft by firing carelessly over Japan.
Of course, other US bombers retained their heavier armament and B-25's in particular often conducted strafing missions with extra guns mounted on the forward fuselage. One variant even housed a 75mm cannon that John Masters said was very impressive when fired. He was on a US B-25 over Burma to study the ground before committing to an offensive and the crew fired that big banger.
Japanese sometimes classified the gun-bristling B-17 as a four-engined fighter!
I realize that the B-52 and other later US bombers do not have that mission, sometimes low level attacks like the B-25's made in strafing and skip bombing. But I bet the crews wish for at least a top turret.
Navy bombers in Vietnam also needed guns. An A-6 Intruder pilot who became a successful novelist said that he often wished for a gun. He could have engaged targets on the ground as well as defended better if Phantom cover aircraft weren't where needed when MiG's showed up. That was of course, Stephen Coonts. I recommend his books.
The first, "Flight of the Intruder", also became a really good movie.
I'd feel vulnerable in a big bomber, having to stay on course as FLAK and missiles and fighters came my way. I'm more oriented to being a fighter pilot. Kind of academic, as my actual weapons were a pistol and a night stick...rarely, a carbine or an M-16 as well, or a shotgun. My only flying has been as a passenger. But it is sort of exhilarating.
