Were there experiments with rear-firing machine guns on fighter planes in WW2?

by Notthezodiackiller69

In a lot of WW2 media having an enemy "on your tail" seems like a real concern for pilots. I know that some bombers like the German Ju-87 had rear-facing turrets, and the B-17 had its iconic ball turrets but my question is specifically about single-seat monoplanes (eg. the Spitfire, Me-109, Mustang etc.)

Did any side try equipping its (fighter) pilots with rear-facing guns (not turrets) in order to dissuade pursuers? Or is there some technical reason why this simply cannot be done?

Bigglesworth_

I don't believe the idea was ever tried on a single-seat fighter. Multi-crew aircraft might get a 'scare gun' even if not originally fitted with such (as I mention in a previous answer on turret gunner effectiveness), but rigging something up in a single seat fighter would have been more complex, adding unnecessary weight and adversely affecting performance, and been all but useless. Surprise was the dominant factor in air combat - according to Mike Spick's Allied Fighter Aces of World War II "... in four out of five air combat victories the victor achieved a position of advantage before the victim became aware that he was under attack". Rearward visibility was always an issue, just seeing an enemy aircraft difficult enough, let alone trying to aim in any way using mirrors or similar.

Some Luftwaffe bombers used more extreme 'scare' weapons - rear facing flamethrowers, but these were limited to a small number of trial installations (a couple of Junkers 88s that actually flew on operations, and a Dornier 217 that didn't; "Perhaps not unexpectedly, the Dornier involved in the ground tests caught fire and it is not known if any air tests took place"- Robert Forsyth, Luftwaffe Special Weapons 1942-45).