Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 904
- Feb 16, 2013
I would love to see an explanation on how those things worked. Seems like a really cool idea
Best execution of the Bf 110 layout?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Just Schmidt
Senior Airman
As the 410 do not strictly adhere to the Admirals requirements, I apologize if I collaborate in thread drift, even if we are close.
It seems like they got the barbettes to work well, but how much does that benefit the aircraft?
Roughly comparable to an American 0.5, lets just consider the instance of a fight between a Me-410 and a P 51D, and assume the two aircraft spot each other. Outside very exceptional circumstances, the mustang has six times the firepower (well they don't as the two guns do not have the same characteristics, but indulge me), and while the bigger aircraft may stand better up to punishment it also has more vulnerable stuff (especially two engines with coolers).
Then there is the question about the relative accuracy of the two set ups. Already in ww1 consensus was reached that it was more effective to aim with the whole aircraft than with flexible guns, even the turret fighter concept did mostly envisage a fighter vs bomber situation. If both aircraft are manouvering, the defensive gunner does not know what exactly his own pilot is going to do next. Even for fighter bombers I suppose flying straight and level in large formations covering each other with defensive guns is out of the question. Of course the single engined fighter will have a far easier time getting the twin in his sight than the other way around.
On balance I do not believe it is worth it with the barbettes or even a turret on an aircraft operating as heavy fighter or fast bomber. The saved weight and drag can be used to enhance speed or other aspects, though matching a lighter fighter in agility is pretty much out of the question. If you do not spot your enemy first and manage to ambush ,I believe speed and climb to be the best defense, even if a defensive gunner may get lucky or make the attacker more cauitious. If you're seriously behind your enemy in horsepower, you're in a very tough spot indeed. Then slow and very well armed may work better, an idea I believe many flying boats expressed, if rather on account of more than average drag than less than average engine power. But we're getting far away from the Bf-110 layout now.
It's very difficult to quantify this, but I hope the logic holds up.
It seems like they got the barbettes to work well, but how much does that benefit the aircraft?
Roughly comparable to an American 0.5, lets just consider the instance of a fight between a Me-410 and a P 51D, and assume the two aircraft spot each other. Outside very exceptional circumstances, the mustang has six times the firepower (well they don't as the two guns do not have the same characteristics, but indulge me), and while the bigger aircraft may stand better up to punishment it also has more vulnerable stuff (especially two engines with coolers).
Then there is the question about the relative accuracy of the two set ups. Already in ww1 consensus was reached that it was more effective to aim with the whole aircraft than with flexible guns, even the turret fighter concept did mostly envisage a fighter vs bomber situation. If both aircraft are manouvering, the defensive gunner does not know what exactly his own pilot is going to do next. Even for fighter bombers I suppose flying straight and level in large formations covering each other with defensive guns is out of the question. Of course the single engined fighter will have a far easier time getting the twin in his sight than the other way around.
On balance I do not believe it is worth it with the barbettes or even a turret on an aircraft operating as heavy fighter or fast bomber. The saved weight and drag can be used to enhance speed or other aspects, though matching a lighter fighter in agility is pretty much out of the question. If you do not spot your enemy first and manage to ambush ,I believe speed and climb to be the best defense, even if a defensive gunner may get lucky or make the attacker more cauitious. If you're seriously behind your enemy in horsepower, you're in a very tough spot indeed. Then slow and very well armed may work better, an idea I believe many flying boats expressed, if rather on account of more than average drag than less than average engine power. But we're getting far away from the Bf-110 layout now.
It's very difficult to quantify this, but I hope the logic holds up.
-Aereodynamics
-A gunner can operate more/heavier guns (not specifically this case but it's a possibility)
-Gunner can sit in a less exposed position or behind armor
-More sophisticated aiming devices instead of a simple cross. (improving accuracy)
Just Schmidt
Senior Airman
If I came across as doubting the barbettes in comparizon with a hand held machine gun, that was not my intention. In the three options - handheld, powered turret, remotely controlled barbette - the last certainly is the best, provided it is working satisfactorily. To your list may be added the possibility of installing the gun in places with better fields of fire (as per the P-108), though I'm far from certain what the distance between the aimer and the gun means for aiming.
Still I'm suspecting that the fourth option, no defensive gun, may be preferred for aircraft with role and relative performance as a Bf-110 in 1940 or a Me-410 in 1943/44.
I do find the problem of usefulness of defensive armament both interesting and challenging. A B-29 with four heavy machine guns in one turret does indeed pack considerably more punch relative to an attacking fighter (for the moment disregarding the four times 20 mil setup), even then LeMay decided to remove them. However, that does not show them to be inefficient in them selves, but only not needed for the new mission profile, night bombing. That context clearly matters makes it so much harder to come up with a general answer. If the Japanese had had a night defence comparable to the Germans of early 1944, and if the defensive guns were radar assisted (were they beginning to be already?) things may have been very different.
- Thread starter
- #26
Admiral Beez
Major
I always figured that's why, unlike (a few units of) the earlier Fulmar the rear seat on the Firefly never got a gun.
I've been reliably informed by a former Beaufighter radio operator that the gun in the cupola was little more than a scare thing and had a tendency to wap the radio operator on the head. They were often removed altogether. Many of the Coastal Command strike operations had fighter escort when they flew into the North Sea and Norwegian waters so it became irrelevant. The gun had limited traverse at any rate, the opening was two curved panels in the lower rear framework of the bubble that slid forward and the opening wasn't very wide.
It is an interesting subject that frequently gets overlooked. Obviously, the effectiveness of defensive armament does depend on different factors, such as installation and the environment the aircraft operates in. With the Bf 110 operating in a high threat environment over Britain and North Africa, I'm sure the radio operator felt a degree of comfort for having a machine gun, but how effective was it as a weapon? It can be argued that turrets and barbettes were little more than added weight to a twin-engined attack aircraft. Such installations add weight and complexity, as well as increased hydraulic and/or electrical power demand on the aircraft's systems, was it worth it? Could the presence of fighter escorts nullify the need for defensive armament? Would the deletion of extra weight and in some cases drag improve performance even by a small margin that could be useful?
Last edited:
I don't think the gunner's position in the Bf 110 was god's gift to aircraft defence either -- so the Beaufughter is somewhat in keeping with 'the Bf 110 layout' in this respect.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
At least with the Beaufighter, the rear gunner had a single horizontal stab. to avoid, with the Bf110, it was double the fun...
single vertical???
Shortround6
Major General
I want to see the 110 with the biplane tail. 
Pictures please.
Pictures please.
soulezoo
Senior Airman
There was some battle damage and an old Caproni was all there was to cannibalize.I want to see the 110 with the biplane tail.
Pictures please.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
LMAO!!
I'm not going to fix that, because it's a stunning example of the epic battle between me and this phone's autocorrect. I hate this phone and it clearly hates me back.
I'm not going to fix that, because it's a stunning example of the epic battle between me and this phone's autocorrect. I hate this phone and it clearly hates me back.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
My phone has been wonky since I got a desktop. I think the phone is jealous.
Shortround6
Major General
To me (opinion) the barbettes in the 210/410 were too much of a good thing.
A lot of weight and complexity for not a lot of improvement.
99% of the time only one MG 131 is going to bear on an attacking aircraft. Yes the barbette does offer an extraordinary field of fire. But the MG 131 is the least powerful heacy machine gun used in WW II.
The BF 110 went from one MG 15 out the back (somewhat better than a Lewis gun) to the MG 81z which is a 28lb twin gun with a rate of fire of 2800-3200rpm and feed by belts.
Granted the gunner still has to manually aim the gun/s but it has 3 times the rate of fire of the MG 15 for not even twice the weight and less time spent reloading. A lot more dangerous for not much change in impact on performance or aircraft structure.
A lot of weight and complexity for not a lot of improvement.
99% of the time only one MG 131 is going to bear on an attacking aircraft. Yes the barbette does offer an extraordinary field of fire. But the MG 131 is the least powerful heacy machine gun used in WW II.
The BF 110 went from one MG 15 out the back (somewhat better than a Lewis gun) to the MG 81z which is a 28lb twin gun with a rate of fire of 2800-3200rpm and feed by belts.
Granted the gunner still has to manually aim the gun/s but it has 3 times the rate of fire of the MG 15 for not even twice the weight and less time spent reloading. A lot more dangerous for not much change in impact on performance or aircraft structure.
buffnut453
Captain
I don't disagree...but was the Beaufighter rear gun installation any worse than that of the Me110? I don't think either was particularly effective.
I think I raised that very point in the very next post, Mark.
I've read that one of the problems with the handheld gun of a plane like the Bf-110 is that the gunner's aim is thrown off by his being tossed around during violent maneuvers. I question how accurate his aim would be under those conditions, even if he were somehow fastened in place so that he didn't get tossed around. The barbette gun emplacement of the Me-410 supposedly solved this problem, but I don't really see how.
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
It is fairly difficult to look out of an ADF antenna fairing
