special ed
1st Sergeant
- 4,847
- May 13, 2018
The Arisaka aerial sight was not for use in the air but it was for the ground pounder to sight a strafing aircraft more accurately, i.e. lead.
BAR used in air-to-air role
- Thread starter BlackSheep
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
There's a reason why pintle-mounts, Scarff rings, and later, turrets, were invented. There's also a reason why "loose cannon" is a metaphor for trouble coming from inside.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
It just have been a terrible sight, when a cannon broke loose from it's ties and rampaged a gun deck in rough seas.
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
Sure. Now let's imagine a guy, unstrapped, shooting an unsecured automatic weapon in a maneuvering airplane.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
"HEY! That's me you idiot! Do Look liked a Messerschmidt?"
Can't argue with that. Especially since the rounds fired by an infantry rifle or light machine guns were hopelessly underpowered against a modern airplane of the time. Many nations started the war with aircraft mounting machine guns derived from those used on the battlefield, and that fired rifle rounds, only to switch to heavy machine guns or cannons soon afterwards.
Anyway, here's a shot of the complicated rear sight of an Arisaka Rifle. Maye it was good for hunting volatiles and procuring a meal?
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
It turns out that the rifle calibre machine gun on the rear of a "Val" was effective against Fairey Fulmars. Most WWII fighters had the speed to pounce on bombers and get in and out of range of the defensive armament. The Fulmar was barely faster than the "Val", so the gunner had time to take aim and do damage.
Chasing down an aircraft you are marginally faster than, could be dangerous, even if they are armed with a bolt action rifle.
strider190
Airman
- 31
- Oct 30, 2019
In RL Scotts God Is My Co Pilot he talks about having Thompsons as def weapons while flying the Hump.
Much easier weapon to manage inside an in-flight aircraft. Kinda limited on range, though.
I think it, a BAR, or any other handheld weapon was more "comfort" oriented than capable.
Just my opine.
Cheers,
Biff
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
It would be better than the roll of toilet paper noted above.
Shortround6
Major General
The Val was using a Lewis machine gun (license built) with a 97 round drum. The BAR used a 20 round magazine. With a BAR without a 2nd crewman our intrepid gunner would probably be at using at 3-6 seconds to change magazines, if he was lucky.
The Val had a mounted for the machine gun, gunner wasn't trying to hold the 16-20lb gun in his hands as the gun bounced around.
The Val Gunner had enough problems with the slipstream moving the gun around and the gun vibrating on the mount.
I am sure that somewhere, somebody managed to stick a BAR into airplane for an unarmed crewman to use, but it was a not a very effective weapon to use.
special ed
1st Sergeant
- 4,847
- May 13, 2018
Don't forget that most C-47s had gun ports in side windows just for firing rifles at the bad planes attacking your ride. There is little info on how they did driving away attackers or how bad they shot up their own plane.
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
I don't think anybody is claiming that BARs, Tommy guns and rolls of toilet paper are effective, desirable weapons. You use what you have.
Shortround6
Major General
True, but an effective, desirable weapon is part of a package.
And a package is much more than just rate of fire or or the ability to fire for 3 seconds.
The Tommy gun was much less powerful but it may well have been easier to use in an aircraft cockpit for example.
How long do you think anyone firing from a " side window" would have anything in range and in sight to shoot at ?
Unless the attacking pilot was dumb enough to fly formation with you, you'd only be able to shoot at him maybe a second or so per pass anyway.
Unless the attacking pilot was dumb enough to fly formation with you, you'd only be able to shoot at him maybe a second or so per pass anyway.
special ed
1st Sergeant
- 4,847
- May 13, 2018
I didn't put the portholes in the windows. I suppose it was for morale, to give the men something to do while being attacked.
The portholes were better than doing nothing.
If it was transporting armed troops, you could have a gun barrel sticking out each porthole.
That's a big step above being defenseless .
Remember early in the war, most axis aircraft only had 2 rifle caliber MGs for the cowl guns. Several had bigger weapons on the wings.
Early WW2 Oscars, and all Nates only had 2X.30 cal for armament.
If it was transporting armed troops, you could have a gun barrel sticking out each porthole.
That's a big step above being defenseless .
Remember early in the war, most axis aircraft only had 2 rifle caliber MGs for the cowl guns. Several had bigger weapons on the wings.
Early WW2 Oscars, and all Nates only had 2X.30 cal for armament.
- Thread starter
- #39
BlackSheep
Banned
- 443
- May 31, 2018
I guess it is a case of I'm willing to try anything to save my hide vs "why try it probably won't work". Mark me down on the side of "willing to try anything".
The main problem with side guns in a plane is that both the platform in which the gunner is travelling and the target are moving at non negligible speeds
Typical rifle round speed is around 800m/s. A bomber or transport travelling at 360Km/h (200kts) is making 100m in a second. An attacking fighter is good for 150m/s or more.
The waist gunner would need to come up with the correct lead to compensate both his speed and that of the attacker (which would be attacking from an oblique position, making things even more complicate). And then there's also the bullet drop due to gravity. The introduction of tracer rounds made things a bit easier because the gunner could see where his shots were going and adjust the aim while firing.
But this is possible only a) if you have tracer bullets b) you can fire bursts long enough to give you time to adjust your aim. These are additional factors working against the effectiveness of having a transport plane full of angry infantrymen shooting outside their windows. In desperate times of need, anything that boosts morale and confidence is welcome and maybe it could have been also a psychological deterrent if, among the attackers, there were also some 'green' pilots on their first mission against bombers/transports.
Typical rifle round speed is around 800m/s. A bomber or transport travelling at 360Km/h (200kts) is making 100m in a second. An attacking fighter is good for 150m/s or more.
The waist gunner would need to come up with the correct lead to compensate both his speed and that of the attacker (which would be attacking from an oblique position, making things even more complicate). And then there's also the bullet drop due to gravity. The introduction of tracer rounds made things a bit easier because the gunner could see where his shots were going and adjust the aim while firing.
But this is possible only a) if you have tracer bullets b) you can fire bursts long enough to give you time to adjust your aim. These are additional factors working against the effectiveness of having a transport plane full of angry infantrymen shooting outside their windows. In desperate times of need, anything that boosts morale and confidence is welcome and maybe it could have been also a psychological deterrent if, among the attackers, there were also some 'green' pilots on their first mission against bombers/transports.
Last edited:
