Why did Soviet transport planes retain tail guns?

Why did Soviet-built transport airplanes (Antonov and Ilyushin) retain tail gun turrets far later than NATO military aircraft?
For example, the first Il-76 prototype flew in 1971 with a rear turret containing a pair of AM-23 cannon firing 23 x 115 mm ammo.
Initially AM-23 cannon fired the usual variety of anti-aircraft ammo, but late in the process fired special flare and chaff ammo to confuse AAA. I suspect that flares and chaff were merely an attempt to prolong the service life of tail turrets.

Similarly, why did Soviet transports retain glassed in navigators' stations - under the nose - long after NATO converted to radomes?
 
At a guess it has something to do with a perceived dual-role as bombers. Their WW2 experiences had a pronounced effect on the Soviets in all sorts of ways, and it would not surprise me at all if someone had decided that transports ought to be capable of being used in that way if a similarly desperate need arose. There was probably a document somewhere detailing what equipment they needed, and on that list there was "tail guns" and "visual bomb-aiming station" (no matter how much - or little - sense it made).
 
I know very little about air combat, but couldn't it simply be to give transports a way of protecting themselves from attack. If a western transport aircraft is attacked, how doe it defend itself?
 
indeed, could be just a difference in doctrine.
and the glass nose, for visual navigation, see landmarks, or pick out a landing or dropzone for your cargo
 
I know very little about air combat, but couldn't it simply be to give transports a way of protecting themselves from attack. If a western transport aircraft is attacked, how doe it defend itself?
It is a question because these aircraft were developed in the missile age, where defensive guns are of minimal use. Transport aircraft are not meant to be attacked; if a western transport is taking fire, somebody screwed up royally.

My guess is that since those last aircraft with tail gunner positions (ie. IL-76, An-8, Tu-95, B-52 etc.) were all developed in the 1960s-1970s when missile technology was still maturing (and very inaccurate), it was thought worthwhile in case an enemy fighter went for a gun kill. The Soviets were probably less convinced of achieving air superiority and wanted to use such transports for combat paradrops, hence defensive armament. Nowadays, missiles are much more reliable and accurate, so tail guns make even less sense (all B-52s had them removed).
 
I know very little about air combat, but couldn't it simply be to give transports a way of protecting themselves from attack. If a western transport aircraft is attacked, how does it defend itself?

...............................................................................

If you look closely at the back end of a NATO modern military aircraft, you will see a variety of after-market bumps and lumps. Some of those bumps are sensors that detect hostile radar or infrared seekers. Other bumps distract incoming missiles by sending decoy radar or infrared signals. Other bumps launch chaff (radar) or flares (IR) decoys.
These ectronic counter-measures are standard on military combat (fighters, bombers, recce, etc. aircraft and optional on transports. ECM is sometime concealed in airliners and business aircraft that visit "contested" airports. It is rumoured that El Al installs ECM in their airliners.
Recce aircraft routinely scan for AAA radar and such.
Meanwhile airport grojnd security forces have a variety of scanners (hopefully) tuned to bad guys' AAA frequencies.
 
Maybe they thought that since that some of the American B-52 bombers had tail mounted 50. cal or 20mm cannons... they do will emulate that...

maybe.:confused:
 
Top