Bomber defense

[zintintin]

I'm designing a late WW2 bomber style for an academic exercise, and I'm torn on having remote or manned turrets. The remote turrets with the centralized sighting systems it makes it difficult to cover the bottom of a flying wing design. So I ask you this are there are any major advantages to a remote turret over a manned turret and how could you make one effectively upside down without asking the gunner to sit on his head or have a huge blister on the bottom of the aircraft

As I have it now it's got more a B-17 style top/ball turrets on the body and a B-24 style chin/tail turret. However I cannot decide whether to keep this layout or switch them out for remote turrets like on the B-29. The aircraft doesn't need to be pressurized. If you say remote where would you put the fire control blisters on a flying wing to cover the bottom and how would the opperator access it.

So what are the pros cons of each type, and which do you think is better.
Thanks.

 

[davebender]

If aircrew are grouped together they can be protected by an armored cocoon like Germany did with Ju-88 and Me-410. Support for oxygen mask, radio connections etc. are also simpler and protected along with crew.

 

[Coyote]

If aircrew are grouped together they can be protected by an armored cocoon like Germany did with Ju-88 and Me-410. Support for oxygen mask, radio connections etc. are also simpler and protected along with crew.

However one malfunction or one good flak hit can knock out your entire defensive system.

 

[davebender]

One large size flak hit in cockpit area which penetrates protective armor will destroy the aircraft. So what difference does it make if gunner(s) also die?

 

[tyrodtom]

It would make a lot of difference to the gunners, they might survive and take to parachutes.

 

[Procrastintor]

Yeah Dave, it's better if a remote control system "dies" than a gunner.