Bombers defensive armament: a misconceived idea?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

the lancaster kicks ass said:
that should actually be aeroplanes.........

and the lanc was an extremely attractive aeroplane...............

The Lanc certainly wasnt as ugly as the Stirling! :lol: Although I do have a soft spot for the Halibag. Ive never seen a flyable one for any sim either - which is a shame :rolleyes:
 
The Wellington Mk2 onwards had the same defensive arnament as all the British heavies ie: 2 Machine guns in a forward turret, 4 in a rear turret, and 2 machine guns mounted on the beam, 1 on each side where the window is situated along the side instead of the mid Upper Turret.

The Lancaster was so manouverable that Alex Henshaw could and did as part of of test flights do a barrel roll, and at some point during this roll negative G was attained, he did this once while demonstrating the Lanc to some USAF Generals, and they couldn't believe that a bomber that size could do a barrel roll.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Andrew said:
The Wellington Mk2 onwards had the same defensive arnament as all the British heavies ie: 2 Machine guns in a forward turret, 4 in a rear turret, and 2 machine guns mounted on the beam, 1 on each side where the window is situated along the side instead of the mid Upper Turret.

True, but by the same token, this left all of the British heavies vulnerable to the nightfighter's most lethal weapon, the Schrage Musik installation. A ball turret would have rendered this lethal system useless, as even the least able gunner could have destroyed the night fighter while it moved into position. I still find it surprising that the RAF took no interest at all in making this modification :confused: Also, the nose turrer was of dubiously value on aircraft operating at night. It would have been pretty foolish of a nightfighter pilot to try head-on pass in the dark, and in any case, the gunner would have had only a split-second to fire at him. With two guns, it would have been a farly pointless exercise anyway.

*EDIT: Edited my spelling because I seem to have lost all ability to write in English tonight! :p *
 
Yeah, great stuff BombTaxi. Even without installing a turret, you'd think that a pair of ventral MGs would have done the job.
 
I agree. Some ventral mg's would have made a lot more sense than the nose turret.

But, the Brits should have upgraded to .50 caliber in 1942. There was no shortage of them available from the USA, and ammo was also quite readily availble. .303's don't pack much punch, but .50's can rip through any fighter easily, and pack enough incediary to make um burn.

=S=

Lunatic
 
RG_Lunatic said:
I agree. Some ventral mg's would have made a lot more sense than the nose turret.

But, the Brits should have upgraded to .50 caliber in 1942. There was no shortage of them available from the USA, and ammo was also quite readily availble. .303's don't pack much punch, but .50's can rip through any fighter easily, and pack enough incediary to make um burn.

=S=

Lunatic

I absolutely agree, the rifle-calibre mg was obsolecent by 1942 at the very latest. The only explanation I can find is that the War Department felt it better to keep churning bombers as they were rather than messing about with turrets (which would have to be redesigned for the new weapon), and the complexity of delivering two kinds of ammo during the inevitable change-over period :confused:

Having said that, I'd swear that I read somewhere, a loooong time ago, about RAF heavies having .50cal turrets, maybe just as a trial? My books are split between here (uni digs) and my parents house (100 miles or so away), so I cant be sure, but I'll see if I can dig anything up!
 
Indeed, some Lancasters did sport a pair of .50's in the rear turret instead of the 4 x .303 armament.
 
Bomb Taxi Wrote
True, but by the same token, this left all of the British heavies vulnerable to the nightfighter's most lethal weapon, the Schrage Musik installation. A ball turret would have rendered this lethal system useless, as even the least able gunner could have destroyed the night fighter while it moved into position. I still find it surprising that the RAF took no interest at all in making this modification

The Early Lancasters were fitted with a Ball Turret, but it was not fitted to later production models, and those that did have the Ball Turret fitted had it removed, this I can only presume was because of drag, and the speed reduction involved with it.

RG Lunatic Wrote

But, the Brits should have upgraded to .50 caliber in 1942. There was no shortage of them available from the USA, and ammo was also quite readily availble. .303's don't pack much punch, but .50's can rip through any fighter easily, and pack enough incediary to make um burn.

In Late 1944 early 1945 Lancasetr Bombers were coming off the production line with 2 X 20mm mounted in the rear turret, these turrets were also fitted with radar control, and I think automatic fire control but I am not sure about that, these Radar fitted rear turrets also had IFF so that no freindly bombers were shot down

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
From the findings it was soon obvious Lancaster HK620 came in a shallow dive, so no large parts were to be recovered. However, an oleo leg was found more or less intact, as well as lots of window strips (dropped to disturb the German radar installation) and the remains of a few .50 caliber rounds - the proof that this Lanc was equipped with the American heavy machine gun.
http://users.pandora.be/airwareurope/en/bergingen/lancaster_wauthier_e.htm

I know I've seen more evidence for .50's in the Lanc, but I cannot locate it now. I don't think there were many fitted with .50's, but there were some.

=S=

Lunatic
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back