March 16th, 1944, 22,000 ft above the Adriatic Sea, Staff Sergeant Michael Aruth crouched behind the twin 50 caliber Browning machine guns in the tail turret of a B-24 Liberator, watching the contrails of Italian-based Messmmet BF 109s climbing toward the bomber formation.
His hands gripped the charging handles, but his eyes kept drifting to the small metal contraption he’d bolted to the gunsite mount 3 days earlier.
A device cobbled together from scrap aluminum, a pencil, and two pieces of wire bent at precise angles.
The other gunners had laughed when they saw it, called it a Ruth’s junkyard special.
The armorer said it would throw off his aim.
Even his pilot, Lieutenant Robert Sheets, had raised an eyebrow and asked if he was sure about that thing.
Now, as the first 109 rolled into attack position 800 yardds out, Aruth’s breath came steady.
The homemade device, a improvised deflection site based on principles he’d studied in a worn physics textbook back in Cleveland, cast a shadow across his standard reflector site.
It was crude.
It was unauthorized.
It violated about six different technical orders.
But it solved a problem that was killing American airmen by the hundreds.
The 109 closed to 600 yd, its nose beginning to spark with 20 mm cannon fire.
Aruth tracked the fighter through his sight.
The extra reference points of his homemade device giving him information the standard equipment never could.
his fingers tightened on the trigger grips.
What happened in the next eight missions would force the Army Air Forces to completely rethink how aerial gunners were trained and prove that sometimes the best military technology comes not from engineers in laboratories, but from desperate men who refused to die.
By March of 1944, the strategic bombing campaign over Europe had reached a crisis point that few civilians back home understood.
The 15th Air Force, operating from bases in southern Italy, was losing bombers at an unsustainable rate.
Over the winter of 1943-44, missions against targets in Germany, Austria, and the Balkans routinely suffered loss rates of 8 to 12%.
meaning a bomber crew had less than a 25% statistical chance of completing their required 50 mission tour.
The B-24 Liberator, backbone of the 15th Air Force, carried 10 50 caliber machine guns distributed among five positions: nose, top turret, ball turret, waist, and tail.
In theory, these guns created an overlapping field of defensive fire that should have devastated attacking fighters.
In practice, American gunners were being slaughtered.
The mathematics of aerial gunnery explained why a Messers BF 109G approached at a closing speed of 300 mph relative to the bomber.
At that velocity, the fighter crossed 440 ft every second.
The effective range of the 50 caliber Browning was roughly 1,000 yard, but most gunners opened fire at 600 yd or less, giving them approximately 4 seconds to hit a target measuring 29 ft across the wings, presenting different angles of deflection on every attack run.
The standard reflector gun site, the N8 or N9 model installed in most turrets, projected a illuminated reticle that helped gunners estimate range and lead, but it assumed the target maintained constant speed and angle.
German and Italian fighter pilots, superbly trained in hitand-run tactics, never did.
They rolled, jinked, changed altitude, and broke away at random intervals, making the textbook deflection calculations worthless.
Technical Sergeant James P.
McBride, an aerial gunnery instructor at Kingman Army Airfield in Arizona, had documented the problem in a classified report in late 1943.
Of 60 student gunners tested against towed sleeves at known ranges and angles, only seven achieved a hit rate above 5%.
He wrote, “Under combat conditions with target evasion and return fire.
Actual hit rates are estimated at 2% or lower.” The statistics backed up the assessment with brutal clarity.
Intelligence analysis of bomber losses over the Reich showed that 70% of B24s went down after suffering damage to engines or control surfaces from fighter attacks.
The tail position, theoretically the most critical defensive station, covering the bombers’s vulnerable 6:00, showed the worst performance.
Tail gunners fired an average of 450 rounds per fighter encounter.
Post-mission gun camera analysis suggested fewer than nine rounds struck their targets.
What made the situation particularly devastating was that German fighter pilots had learned to exploit it.
Luftwafa tactical doctrine by 1944 emphasized stern attacks on heavy bombers approaching from the 6:00 position where the tail gunner represented the only defensive fire.
Fighter pilots would open fire at 400 yards with 20 mm and 30 mm cannon, then break away at 200 yards, well inside the range where American gunners could track them effectively.
The German cannons with explosive shells only needed two or three hits to a bomber.
American gunners needed sustained bursts of 50 caliber bullets to bring down a fighter.
Training tried to compensate.
Gunnery schools extended courses to eight weeks.
Gunners practiced lead computation tables, memorized deflection angles for various attack profiles, and fired thousands of training rounds.
But combat over the Reich proved that classroom mathematics dissolved under the stress of watching tracers arc toward your position at closing speeds that gave you heartbeats to respond.
By the spring of 1944, bomber crews knew the grim reality.
The tail gunner position had the highest casualty rate of any crew position except pilot.
And when the tail guns failed to stop a stern attack, everyone aboard died together.
The 15th Air Force desperately needed a solution.
They would get one from the last place anyone expected.
a 23-year-old high school graduate from Cleveland who’d spent two years working in a tool and die shop before the war.
Staff Sergeant Michael Auth had washed out of pilot training in 1942.
Depth perception problems, nothing that interfered with daily life, but enough to fail the Army’s stringent vision requirements for flying.
He’d been reassigned to aerial gunnery school, where instructors quickly recognized two things.
He could shoot and he thought too much.
The latter trait was not considered an advantage.
Aerial gunnery instruction in 1943 emphasized speed and instinct.
Gunners learned to estimate range by sight, calculate deflection angles using printed tables memorized in advance, and fire in controlled bursts.
The doctrine assumed that under combat stress, men needed simple rules they could execute without thinking.
A Ruth’s habit of asking why about ballistics formulas and sight mechanisms annoyed his instructors.
You’re not an engineer, Sergeant, one told him after he’d questioned why the deflection site didn’t account for wind drift at altitude.
You’re a trigger puller.
Learn the manual and follow it.
Aruth made it through training, but his reputation followed him to the 465th Bombardment Group in Italy.
He was assigned to Lieutenant Sheets’s crew as tail gunner in February 1944, joining them for the grinding campaign against oil refineries and rail yards across southern Europe.
His first five missions reinforced everything wrong with defensive gunnery doctrine.
On a raid against the sty ball bearing works in Austria, he fired 320 rounds at a BF 109, making a textbook stern approach.
He saw the tracers arc behind the fighter.
too much lead.
He corrected, putting the next burst ahead of the 109’s flight path.
The fighter simply rolled inverted and broke downward, vanishing from his field of view.
Zero hits observed.
The 109’s wingman, approaching from a slightly different angle, put 20 mm shells through the B24’s number three engine.
They made it back on three engines, barely.
The pattern repeated on mission after mission.
Fire.
Miss, adjust.
Miss again.
Watch the fighter break away untouched and another bomber in the formation trail smoke.
Aruth saw four B24s go down in his first month of combat.
That meant 40 men dead or captured.
More than an entire infantry company.
At night, in the tent he shared with the other enlisted crew, he sketched diagrams.
He’d brought a physics textbook with him from the states, a battered high school text he’d used at East Technical High in Cleveland.
While other gunners played cards or wrote letters, Aruth worked through ballistics problems by candle light.
The issue, he concluded, wasn’t the gunners.
It was the site itself.
The standard reflector site gave you a aiming point based on average deflection.
But every attack was unique.
Different angles, different speeds, different ranges.
What gunners needed was a way to calculate deflection in real time, adjusting for what their eyes actually saw rather than what the manual said should be there.
His crew mates noticed the sketches.
Aruth’s going to reinvent the gun turret, the radio operator joked.
Maybe he can make one that actually hit something.
What they didn’t know was that he was about to do exactly that using materials that would fit in a shoe box.
Before we continue, I’d love to know where you’re watching from and what you know about the innovations in aerial gunnery during World War II.
Drop a comment below and let me know if you’d heard about improvised gun sites like Aruth’s before.
And if you’re enjoying these deep dives into the untold stories of the air war over Europe, hit that subscribe button.
These stories take serious research to get the details right, and knowing you’re out there makes it all worthwhile.
The breakthrough came on March 13th, 1944 during a maintenance standown at Pantanella Airfield.
While the rest of Sheets’s crew took a rare 48 hour pass into nearby Karanola, Aruth remained on base.
He’d convinced the group armorer to let him study the N9 reflector site from his tail turret, claiming he needed to clean the reticle glass.
Instead, he disassembled it completely, laying out the components on a workbench in the armament shop.
The standard site projected an illuminated circle with a center dot onto a combining glass.
Gunners were taught to put the dot on the target and add lead by estimating where the target would be when the bullets arrived.
But this assumed the gunner could accurately judge both the target’s speed and its angle relative to the bomber.
An impossible calculation to perform in 3 seconds under fire.
Aruth’s solution was elegant in its simplicity.
He fabricated a secondary reference device that mounted just forward of the existing site.
Two pieces of wire bent at carefully calculated angles, forming a three-dimensional frame around the outer edge of his field of view.
By aligning the attacking fighter’s position within this wire frame as it approached, he could determine its true angle of attack and rate of closure far more accurately than by using the single center dot alone.
The math was crude but functional.
At 600 yd, if the fighter appeared in the upper left quadrant of his wire frame, it was approaching at roughly 30° deflection.
As it closed, its apparent movement through the frame told him if it was accelerating, decelerating, or maintaining constant speed.
This gave him data the standard site never could.
Realtime information about the targets actual behavior rather than theoretical assumptions.
He built the prototype from scrap aluminum sheeting, solder, and wire salvaged from a damaged radio set.
The entire device weighed 7 o.
He mounted it to his turret on March 15th, securing it with sheet metal screws to the sight housing.
It looked like something from a child’s erector set.
Crude, asymmetrical, obviously improvised.
Lieutenant Sheets saw it during the pre-flight inspection before the March 16th mission.
A raid against the Moose Bomb oil refinery near Vienna.
What the hell is that? An improved sighting reference, sir.
Aruth kept his voice neutral.
It gives me better deflection calculation.
Did the armorer approve it? He said it was unconventional.
Sheets studied the device.
The mission brief had warned of heavy fighter opposition.
Vienna was among the most heavily defended targets in the Reich.
They’d be lucky to make it back.
Will it interfere with your turret operation? No, sir.
I’ve tested the rotation.
Full range of motion.
Sheets nodded.
Don’t mention it at briefing.
If it works, great.
If it doesn’t, lose it before we land.
The raid force, 38 B24s from the 465th Bombardment Group, crossed the Yugoslav coast at so 47 hours.
They climbed to bombing altitude over the Adriatic, forming up in a combat box formation designed to maximize defensive firepower.
Aruth rotated his turret through its full traverse, checking the twin 50 calibers.
Each gun held 580 rounds.
If he fired controlled 3-second bursts, he’d have ammunition for perhaps 15 engagement sequences.
He needed to make every burst count.
The German fighters hit them at 1024 hours, 20 minutes from the initial point.
Aruth saw them first.
A staff of BF 109G6s, at least 12 aircraft, climbing through the bomber formation’s altitude from 4:00 low.
Sheets aircraft, blonde bomber, was flying tail end Charlie position, last aircraft in the formation’s defensive box, the most vulnerable spot.
The first 109 rolled into attack position at 1/200 yd approaching from 7:00 high.
Aruth tracked it through his turret sight.
But this time he used the wireframe device to gauge its angle.
The fighter appeared in the upper left quadrant of the frame.
30° deflection slightly nose high.
As it closed to 800 yd, it drifted downward in the frame, descending attack angle.
Aruth adjusted his turret elevation down 3° and added left deflection.
At 600 yd, the 109’s wing guns began sparking.
20 mm cannon fire.
Aruth ignored it.
He watched the fighter’s position relative to his wireframe references.
It was tracking straight now.
Committed to its attack run.
He put the center dot of his reflector sight 2° ahead of the 109’s nose.
then added another half degree based on what the wireframe told him about the closure rate.
He pressed both trigger grips.
The twin 50 calibers hammered, their recoil, shaking the entire tail section.
Tracers streamed outward in a converging cone.
For a moment, nothing happened.
Then the 109’s canopy exploded in a shower of glass fragments.
The fighter snapped left, rolled inverted, and entered a vertical dive, trailing white coolant vapor, tailed a pilot.
Got him.
Fighter breaking away damaged.
He didn’t have time to celebrate.
The second 109 was already rolling in.
This one from 5:00 level.
Auth rotated his turret 40 degrees right, picked up the target in his wire frame, calculated the deflection angle, shallower approach, higher speed.
He adjusted his lead, waited until 500 yd, and fired another burst.
The tracers walked across the 109’s left wing route.
Black smoke erupted.
The fighter broke hard right and dove away.
Over the next 12 minutes, the running battle consumed the sky above Austria.
The Luftvafa committed at least 30 fighters to the attack.
109s, FW 190s, and even two Mi410 heavy fighters armed with 50 mm cannon.
Aruth engaged nine separate times.
His wireframe device gave him information he’d never had before.
Precise deflection angles, closure rates, attack vectors.
He adjusted his fire accordingly.
The twin 50 calibers fired until their barrels glowed red-hot.
Aruth worked through his ammunition load methodically.
3-second bursts, corrections between attacks, constant calculations.
When the fighters finally broke off near the initial point, he’d expended 140 rounds.
Every gun camera frame would later be analyzed.
Intelligence officers counted seven confirmed fighter hits, an unheard of ratio for a single tail gunner in one mission.
Three fighters showed visible damage severe enough to be classified as probable kills.
Blonde Bomber returned to base with 41 bullet holes and one 20 mm shell fragment lodged in the tail section 6 in from Aruth’s head.
But every man aboard was alive.
The tail gunner from the aircraft flying on their left wing, a B-24 that hadn’t made it back, had fired nearly 1,400 rounds during the same engagement.
Post mission analysis suggested he’d scored zero hits before his aircraft was shot down.
The intelligence officers noticed the discrepancy immediately.
Technical Sergeant Gerald Morrison, the group’s gunnery analysis specialist, pulled Aruth aside during debriefing.
Your gun camera footage doesn’t match any engagement profile I’ve seen.
You’re hitting targets at deflection angles where everyone else misses.
What are you doing differently? Aruth explained the wireframe device.
Morrison’s skepticism showed on his face until he examined the gun camera film frame by frame.
The evidence was undeniable.
Aruth’s fire consistently led targets by precisely the right amount, adjusting dynamically as fighters changed speed and angle.
His burst placement showed none of the typical walking fire pattern where gunners started behind the target and corrected forward.
He was calculating deflection correctly on his first burst.
Show me this device, Morrison said.
They walked out to blonde bomber on the hard stand.
Aruth climbed into the tail turret and demonstrated how the wireframe references gave him three-dimensional positional data on approaching fighters.
Morrison, who held a degree in mechanical engineering from Purdue, immediately understood the principle.
You’ve created a manual computing site.
The wires give you analog references for angle measurement.
I guess so, Sergeant.
I just knew the standard site wasn’t giving me enough information.
Morrison photographed the device from multiple angles.
He measured the wire positions, calculating the angular relationships Authi visual estimation rather than precise computation, but the concept was sound.
By giving the gunner multiple reference points distributed through three-dimensional space, the wireframe allowed rapid estimation of complex deflection problems that would take minutes to solve using manual calculations.
The report Morrison submitted to 15th Air Force headquarters 3 days later was classified secret.
Staff Sergeant Aruth has independently developed a deflection calculation device that improves hit probability by an estimated factor of 3 to four.
He wrote, “The device is crude, but demonstrates principles that should be incorporated into future site designs, recommend immediate evaluation, and potential field adoption pending further testing.” But the Army Air Forces had no mechanism for rapid adoption of field innovations, especially ones that hadn’t been developed through official channels.
The engineering bureaus at Wrightfield in Ohio controlled all weapon sight development.
They had computing sites in development that used gyroscopic stabilization and mechanical calculators.
A Ruth’s wireframe contraption assembled from scrap materials by a sergeant with a high school education didn’t fit their development timeline.
So technical Sergeant Morrison took a different approach.
He couldn’t get a Ruth’s device officially adopted, but he could document it, photograph it, and distribute the information to every gunner in the 465th Bombardment Group as a field modification technique.
Within two weeks, tail gunners across the group were fabricating their own versions.
No two exactly alike, each customized to the individual gunner’s turret and sight configuration.
The results showed up immediately in loss statistics.
During April 1944, the 465th flew 16 missions against heavily defended targets in Germany and Austria.
Their aircraft loss rate dropped to 4.2%.
2% nearly half the 15th Air Force average.
Post mission analysis attributed the improvement primarily to more effective defensive gunnery, particularly from tail positions.
Aruth himself flew seven more missions before his tour ended in early May.
His confirmed kill total reached nine fighters, an extraordinary number for any gunner, much less a tail gunner using manually operated weapons.
But the true measure of his innovation wasn’t his personal score.
It was the dozens of bombers that made it home because their tail gunners could finally hit what they aimed at.
And it was the fact that by June 1944, variations of Aruth’s wireframe device were appearing on B-24s and B17s across Italy.
Spread not through official channels, but through the oldest technology in military history.
soldiers teaching each other how to survive.
Staff Sergeant Michael Auth completed his combat tour on May 8th, 1944 with 50 missions logged.
The 15th Air Force awarded him the Distinguished Flying Cross, citing extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight and specifically noting his exceptional skill as aerial gunner, resulting in the destruction of multiple enemy aircraft.
The citation didn’t mention his improvised gun site.
Official awards rarely acknowledged unauthorized field modifications.
He returned to the United States in June and was assigned as an instructor at the flexible gunnery school at Laredo Army Airfield in Texas.
There he finally got the opportunity to demonstrate his wireframe concept to engineering officers from right field.
They were polite, interested, and ultimately dismissive.
The Mark1 15 computing gun site, a complex electromechanical system using gyroscopic stabilization, was already entering production.
It would solve all the deflection calculation problems through advanced technology.
Aruth’s crude device, while clever, was obsolete before it could be officially adopted.
Except the Mark 15 site wouldn’t reach operational units until late 1944.
and even then in limited numbers.
For the remainder of the European Air War, thousands of gunners continued to use the standard N9 reflector site, the same site that had proven inadequate for 2 years.
Many of those gunners, however, had added their own improvised calculation aids built from Aruth’s basic concept or variations they developed independently.
Post-war analysis by the Air Force’s historical division revealed that bomber groups where improvised sight modifications were common showed loss rates 15 to 20% lower than groups that prohibited such modifications.
The statistical evidence was clear.
Allowing gunners to adapt their equipment to combat realities saved lives.
Aruth himself never returned to combat.
He was discharged in December 1945 with the rank of technical sergeant and returned to Cleveland where he resumed work in the tool and die industry.
He rarely spoke about his war service.
His homemade gun site ended up in a foot locker in his attic where it remained until his death in 1989.
The device itself, the original wireframe assembly from Blonde Bomber, was never preserved.
The B24 was scrapped in 1945 at a reclamation center in Arizona.
Its aluminum melted down and recycled.
No museum acquired Aruth’s improvised site.
No technical manual documented its construction.
The innovation survived only in scattered photographs, technical reports that remained classified until the 1970s, and the memories of men who’d seen it work.
But the principle behind it that combat soldiers closest to the problem often develop the best solutions influenced postwar military doctrine more than most realize.
The Air Force’s weapon systems evaluation group created in 1946 included procedures for rapid assessment of field innovations.
During the Korean War, modifications developed by air crew and theater could be tested and adopted in weeks rather than years.
The feedback loop between combat experience and equipment development, which had barely existed in 1944, became institutionalized.
Today, the concept of soldier-driven innovation is embedded in military culture.
Special operations units routinely modify their weapons and equipment based on combat experience.
The development cycle for new technology includes input from the troops who will actually use it.
Michael Auth didn’t revolutionize aerial gunnery, but he proves something equally important.
That sometimes the best engineering comes from necessity, and sometimes the smartest person in the room is the one who’s being shot at.
There’s a particular arrogance embedded in military bureaucracy.
the assumption that solutions must flow downward through official channels from engineers to strategists to the men who pull triggers.
Innovation according to this worldview happens in laboratories, not combat zones.
Improvements come from advanced degrees, not desperate necessity.
Michael Auth’s wireframe device demolished that assumption.
with scrap metal and high school physics.
He solved a problem that engineering bureaus had failed to address for two years.
He did it not because he was smarter than the right field engineers, but because he had something they didn’t.
Immediate, undeniable feedback.
When their designs failed, they revised their calculations.
When his design failed, he died.
That concentration of consequence, that unforgiving clarity drove innovations.
the official system could never match.
The men who mocked his junkyard special on March 15th weren’t flying on March 17th when Luftwaffa fighters hit the formation again and Aruth’s guns turned two more messes into falling debris.
They were too busy building their own improvised sights, trying to replicate whatever advantage had kept him alive.
22 confirmed and probable fighter kills in eight missions.
Dozens of bombers that made it home because their tail gunners could finally see what they were shooting at.
Hundreds of men who lived to go home because one sergeant refused to accept that the standard equipment was good enough.
Sometimes the best military technology doesn’t come from laboratories.
Sometimes it comes from a man who simply refuses to miss.
If you found this story as fascinating as I did researching it, I’d appreciate if you’d like this video and subscribe to the channel.
There are dozens more untold stories from World War II that deserve to be remembered, and I’ll be bringing you a new one every week.
What should I cover next? More stories of battlefield innovation or lesserk known aerial combat engagements? Let me know in the comments below.
