Bombers defensive armament: a misconceived idea?

the lancaster kicks ass · Dec 5, 2004

3 main ones yes..............

cheddar cheese · Dec 5, 2004

And it was definatley the ugliest of the 3 british heavies

~You realise the last page was all us, except for Cheap Labour?

the lancaster kicks ass · Dec 5, 2004

and the lanc was one of the best looking planes of the war................

cheddar cheese · Dec 5, 2004

If we're comparing it to the plains of Africa and the woodwork tool then yes, air planes no

the lancaster kicks ass · Dec 5, 2004

that should actually be aeroplanes.........

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

cheddar cheese · Dec 5, 2004

Actually some people do call them air planes...

No it wasnt, one day ill make a homepage poll debating the subject...

Cheap Labour · Dec 6, 2004

cheddar cheese said:
And it was definatley the ugliest of the 3 british heavies

~You realise the last page was all us, except for Cheap Labour?

Can't let you have this page, either.

BombTaxi · Dec 6, 2004

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! Although I do have a soft spot for the Halibag. Ive never seen a flyable one for any sim either - which is a shame

Andrew · Dec 6, 2004

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.

cheddar cheese · Dec 6, 2004

The Stirling was the best looking of the 3! Even the lanc will agree with me that it looked cool 8)

the lancaster kicks ass · Dec 6, 2004

it looked cool, just not as good as the lanc.............

cheddar cheese · Dec 6, 2004

Looked much better than the Lancaster 8)

Halifax was pretty ugly too though...

BombTaxi · Dec 6, 2004

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 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! *

cheddar cheese · Dec 6, 2004

Good points 8)

Cheap Labour · Dec 6, 2004

Yeah, great stuff BombTaxi. Even without installing a turret, you'd think that a pair of ventral MGs would have done the job.

Anonymous · Dec 6, 2004

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

BombTaxi · Dec 6, 2004

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

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!

Anonymous · Dec 7, 2004

Indeed, some Lancasters did sport a pair of .50's in the rear turret instead of the 4 x .303 armament.

Andrew · Dec 7, 2004

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

Anonymous · Dec 7, 2004

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

Bombers defensive armament: a misconceived idea?

Major General

Major General

Major General

Major General

Major General

Major General

Airman

Tech Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Major General

Major General

Major General

Tech Sergeant

Major General

Airman

Anonymous

Guest

Tech Sergeant

Anonymous

Guest

Airman 1st Class

Anonymous

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads