Bombers defensive armament: a misconceived idea?

[Lightning Guy]

The .303 was better for scaring off a fighter. It put out alot of ammo and that was a good thing. The higher ammo count was a minor advantage for a night bomber as it was HIGHLY unlikely a night bomber was going to need 130secs of firing time. If you wanted to shoot down a fighter, the .50cal was far and away the better choice. Most American fighters at the start of the war carried the .30cal but those were replaced with .50cals ASAP. Ditto for the RAF putting 20mm guns in the Spit and Hurricane rather than staying with the all .303 armament. For a NIGHT bomber, .303 wasn't bad but the .50cal was better. In daylight, it was no contest, the .303 was nearly obsolete as an air-to-air weapon.

 

[Anonymous]

The .303 was better for scaring off a fighter. It put out alot of ammo and that was a good thing. The higher ammo count was a minor advantage for a night bomber as it was HIGHLY unlikely a night bomber was going to need 130secs of firing time. If you wanted to shoot down a fighter, the .50cal was far and away the better choice. Most American fighters at the start of the war carried the .30cal but those were replaced with .50cals ASAP. Ditto for the RAF putting 20mm guns in the Spit and Hurricane rather than staying with the all .303 armament. For a NIGHT bomber, .303 wasn't bad but the .50cal was better. In daylight, it was no contest, the .303 was nearly obsolete as an air-to-air weapon.

In general, fighters, especially night fighters, were not scared off by the defensive fire from gunners. If you did manage to get a bead on a night fighter, you would want to kill it quickly before you lost sight of it. .303 ammo would be relatively ineffective on an Me110 or Ju88 night fighter, especially in the relatively few hits you'd be likely to score.

In my opinion, the .303's were there on the night bombers for much the same reason as there were so many .50's on a B-17 - for crew moral.

Also, even before WWII, the USA had pretty much abandon the .30 cal for the .50 cal. They did this in the late 20's or early 30's, which was a big reason why the US did not move up to cannon in WWII. Most other nations had .30 cal class weapons, which were found quite insufficent, and moved up to 20mm or larger after the war began. The USA already had a large investment in the .50 and it was sufficient to the task (though it was found to require 4 or more to be effective). As the war progressed, the .50 began to weaken, but it was bolstered by the introduction of the M8 incendiary round which carried it through the end of WWII.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Lightning Guy]

The USA was relying heavily on the .30cal for designs even into the late thirties. The intitial versions of the P-38, -40, and -51 (just as examples) all featured .30cal weapons.

 

[Anonymous]

The USA was relying heavily on the .30cal for designs even into the late thirties. The intitial versions of the P-38, -40, and -51 (just as examples) all featured .30cal weapons.

Even the YP-38 was designed to have 4 x .50 BMG's and one cannon. The P-40 and P-51 both shared the same weapons spec, with .30 cal's in the wings and .50's in the nose. The .303's were more by influence of the Brits than the USA. On the P-40 this was quickly changed to all .50 cals for American usage (I think by the F model, most of the earlier models having gone to the Brits). On the P-51, again the early versions specified by the Brits had .303's, but for American usage, starting with the A-36 and the P-51A, all guns were .50 caliber.

On the P-47 all guns were .50 caliber from the get-go, as was true of the Wildcat. Pretty much, by the late 1930's all US fighers were armed with .50 caliber guns as a part of the basic design. Only "export" figthers carried .30's or .303's.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[evangilder]

Actually, most YP-38s flew with no guns at all. The specification for them was 2 x .30 caliber, 2 x .50 caliber and 1 x 37mm cannon. There were one or 2 that flew in this configuration. The first P-38 orders from the Army did change out the 2 x .30 calibers for .50s. The 37mm cannon only carried 15 rounds! The 37mm was replaced with 20mm cannons starting with the P-38E. These carried 150 rounds for the 20mm.

The very first version of the P-47, the AP-10 had 2 x .50 calibers in the nose and 4 x .30 calibers in the wing, 2 on each side. None of these were produced. It is interesting that the very first P-47 design was powered by the Allison engine.

The P-40D was the first model to remove the .30 calibers and replace them with .50 calibers. Nose guns were removed altogether from that model onwards.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

The German night fighters could attack from 1000 yards away, the Gunner had to wait until they were within 400 yards before he could get some effective shots in...in this case the think the .50cal was better...

I'm not saying NFs never shot as far away as 1000yards, for me to claim they didn't would be stupid, however they quite often got to within 400 yards, given the need to seek out and identify the target, it was quite common...............

Your figures are off by more than ten fold m8!

sorry, they weren't my figures, i got that figure from a very reliable source................

If you wanted to shoot down a fighter, the .50cal was far and away the better choice.

that is, for the most part, true, however it wasn't the role of the bomber's defensive armorment to shoot down an attacking fighter, merely to "discourage" it from an attack, a job for the .303......................

In general, fighters, especially night fighters, were not scared off by the defensive fire from gunners

that's a big fat pile off bull's excriment, in a 4 second burst the 4x.303 could throw out over 300 rounds, any percentage of which could be tracer, 9 times out of 10, if a attacking fighter even knew he'd been spotted he'd go find another target, no pilot would press home an attack whilst being fired on................

.303 ammo would be relatively ineffective on an Me110 or Ju88 night fighter

as was stated before, it was not the job of the defensive armourment to shoot down an attacking fighter..................

especially in the relatively few hits you'd be likely to score.

you have a much better chance of scoring a hit with the .303 than with the .50cal..................

 

[cheddar cheese]

The .50 cal was the better gun. Pure and simple.

And to say they werent used for shooting down fighters is actually pretty stupid. If the fighter stopped attacking you, hed only go find one of your fellow bombers. You shoot him down, he cant take anyone else out. You scare him off, youre giving him another chance...

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

And to say they werent used for shooting down fighters is actually pretty stupid

it's not, as this was it's inteneded perpose, if you believe the defensive armourment was intended to shoot down enemy aircraft, you are the stupid one...............

If the fighter stopped attacking you, hed only go find one of your fellow bombers

that's the next bomber's problem, a gunner's job was to scare off attacking fighters, not to shoot them down..............

The .50 cal was the better gun. Pure and simple.

tell that to Harry Nunn.................

 

[cheddar cheese]

it's not, as this was it's inteneded perpose, if you believe the defensive armourment was intended to shoot down enemy aircraft, you are the stupid one...............

Look. Your a gunner. You see an enemy lane coming towards you. You dont just fire the gun willy nilly do you, you do your best to shoot it down.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

no, you aim your guns at the attacking fighter and fire, you know you have very little chance of shooting him down, you know you have every chance of scaring him off, i suggest you do some heavy reading on the night war before making such statements...............

 

[cheddar cheese]

Although that may have been its purpose it wasnt what the gunners would have been trying to do...I suggest YOU start thinking morally and not relying totally on sources...

 

[Anonymous]

The German night fighters could attack from 1000 yards away, the Gunner had to wait until they were within 400 yards before he could get some effective shots in...in this case the think the .50cal was better...

I'm not saying NFs never shot as far away as 1000yards, for me to claim they didn't would be stupid, however they quite often got to within 400 yards, given the need to seek out and identify the target, it was quite common...............

Your figures are off by more than ten fold m8!

sorry, they weren't my figures, i got that figure from a very reliable source................

If you wanted to shoot down a fighter, the .50cal was far and away the better choice.

that is, for the most part, true, however it wasn't the role of the bomber's defensive armorment to shoot down an attacking fighter, merely to "discourage" it from an attack, a job for the .303......................

In general, fighters, especially night fighters, were not scared off by the defensive fire from gunners

that's a big fat pile off bull's excriment, in a 4 second burst the 4x.303 could throw out over 300 rounds, any percentage of which could be tracer, 9 times out of 10, if a attacking fighter even knew he'd been spotted he'd go find another target, no pilot would press home an attack whilst being fired on................

.303 ammo would be relatively ineffective on an Me110 or Ju88 night fighter

as was stated before, it was not the job of the defensive armourment to shoot down an attacking fighter..................

especially in the relatively few hits you'd be likely to score.

you have a much better chance of scoring a hit with the .303 than with the .50cal..................

First off, please indicate who you are quoting. Notice in your reply (quoted above) the first quote (about the 1000 yard range of the german guns) is from Cheddar, the rest is from me. Please note who the quotes are from by changing it from {quote} to {quote="Posters_Name"} (where the curly brackets are square brackets) for at least the first sub-quote in a series if you are going to reply to more than one person, as I've done above. I also suggest using color to make things even clearer where appropriate.

I'll reply to this post in another reply

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Anonymous]

The German night fighters could attack from 1000 yards away, the Gunner had to wait until they were within 400 yards before he could get some effective shots in...in this case the think the .50cal was better...

I'm not saying NFs never shot as far away as 1000yards, for me to claim they didn't would be stupid, however they quite often got to within 400 yards, given the need to seek out and identify the target, it was quite common...............

Well I'll say it - they didn't, at least not for effect. The only German aircraft guns that had that kind of range were the MG151/15 15mm, Mk103 30mm, and the BK50 50mm. As far as I know the MG151/15 was not used on night fighters, nor was the BK50. The MK103 might have been.

However, the idea of firing from such a limited ammo supply weapon at a target more than half a mile away in the dark is just silly. The chances of hitting it would be almost nil. The standoff weapons concept was tried for day combat, and even here the range was too much and it was unsucessful.

The most used German cannon, the MG151/20 20mm, did not have much (if any) better range than the .303, it flies almost exactly like the MG131 13mm, going sub-sonic before 300 meters! The .303 had about the same sectional density, and superior ballistic shape - it probably had better range than the MG151/20 (which has horrible ballistic shape).

And the next most used weapon, the MK108 30mm had terrible range - it's sub-sonic right out of the barrel!

At night a fighter had to get close to kill its prey with any degree of effectiveness.

Your figures are off by more than ten fold m8!

sorry, they weren't my figures, i got that figure from a very reliable source................

Well, you should have a talk with him then, he needs to revise his figures.

If you wanted to shoot down a fighter, the .50cal was far and away the better choice.

that is, for the most part, true, however it wasn't the role of the bomber's defensive armorment to shoot down an attacking fighter, merely to "discourage" it from an attack, a job for the .303......................

I disagree. German night fighters were armored well enough to endure a few frontal hits from .303 class guns. They might rudder a bit and try to get out of the gunners view before comming back in for the attack, but seeing that the rounds were .303's, they would be much more willing to press home an attack than seeing .50's comming at them. The tracers are very noticably different.

In general, fighters, especially night fighters, were not scared off by the defensive fire from gunners

that's a big fat pile off bull's excriment, in a 4 second burst the 4x.303 could throw out over 300 rounds, any percentage of which could be tracer, 9 times out of 10, if a attacking fighter even knew he'd been spotted he'd go find another target, no pilot would press home an attack whilst being fired on................

Sure they would. Especially if the bomber had not yet dropped its load. German pilots were not cowards, they were brave men. They knew that a British night bomber was going to bomb a city, not a factory, and that civilian lives were probably going to be lost if it reached its target.

The .303 could not even penetrate their armor-glass windscreen. The odds of taking more than a handful of hits was minimal. In 4 seconds 2 x .50's would put out over 100 rounds, and any hit could likely seriously hurt the target. The armor and especially the armor-glass windscreen was not likely to stop a .50 API round (which could penetrate over 10 mm of armor at 400 meters), especially at typical night fighter engagment ranges of 100 meters or less. And there is no reaon the rear turret of the lanc could not have sported 4 x .50s.


A night fighter would be much more likely to break off his attack upon seeing .50 tracers than on seeing .303 tracers, because he would know he could not sustain hits. With the .303's, he might well figure he could.

.303 ammo would be relatively ineffective on an Me110 or Ju88 night fighter

as was stated before, it was not the job of the defensive armourment to shoot down an attacking fighter..................

No, but the defensive guns have to pose a serious threat. The .303's posed a minimal threat. The attacking night fighter pilot could ignore them and press home his attack and would probably survive it and quite likely shoot down the bomber. Against the .50 this was much less likely, the pilot would know just a few hits could kill or cripple his plane.

especially in the relatively few hits you'd be likely to score.

you have a much better chance of scoring a hit with the .303 than with the .50cal..................

You'd have a little better chance. The .50's fire much truer than the .303's, making them easier to score with. The 1150 rpm max. RoF of the .303 is not really that much higher than the 850 rpm. max RoF of the .50. And, the .50's RoF could be boosted to 950-1050 rpm by replacing the buffer pad (a round fiberous washer) with a nickle as was done frequently on P-51B's. This would be more doable in a bomber, since the gunner could clear jams much easier and loss of a turret gun would not be nearly as significant as loss of a wing gun (which unbalances a fighter).

Again, I tend to think the gunners were generally not very effective, their primary function was to provide some (false) reassurance to the rest of the crew and their families.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Lightning Guy]

Not in the USAAF. The whole of the pre-war bomber doctrine in America was based on the idea of a heavily armed bomber blasting it's way clear through to a city. "The bomber will always get through" was the motto of the day. Clearly they weren't expected to get through of moral boosts to the family back home. The whole idea was that the gunners could shoot down, or at least drive off a considerable number of the attacking fighters. While the gunners were not as effective as hoped they did take their tool. Look at the emphasis the Luftwaffe placed on breaking up the bomber formations as proof.

 

[Anonymous]

Not in the USAAF. The whole of the pre-war bomber doctrine in America was based on the idea of a heavily armed bomber blasting it's way clear through to a city. "The bomber will always get through" was the motto of the day. Clearly they weren't expected to get through of moral boosts to the family back home. The whole idea was that the gunners could shoot down, or at least drive off a considerable number of the attacking fighters. While the gunners were not as effective as hoped they did take their tool. Look at the emphasis the Luftwaffe placed on breaking up the bomber formations as proof.

And that doctrine was proven wrong very early, yet the USA kept adding more guns to its bombers. Only the rearward firing guns were signficantly effective against attacking fighters, forcing them to use other angles of attack. The Luftwaffe' emphasized breaking up bomber "boxes" to allow the fighters to attack from the rear. Other angles of attack were generally only successful in wounding a heavy bomber because the number of rounds scored was genrally quite small. Once driven out of the box, the fighters were then willing to risk the rearward firing .50's to finish it off, where they were not willing to risk combine rearward fire from a bomber box.

Had the US bombers been armed with .303's rather than .50's, the Germans would probably not have bothered with trying to break up the boxes, they would just have pressed home their attacks from the rear. The .303 was not capable of penetrating any of the armor on a FW190A8 or even a Bf-109G, whereas none of that armor could stop a .50 API round (just about the only ammo used by US aircraft from about Aug. 1943 on).

=S=

Lunatic

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

no pilot would press home an attack whilst being fired on................

Sure they would

9 times out of 10, if an attacking fighter so much as knew he's been spotted he'd go oof and find another target..........

Well, you should have a talk with him then, he needs to revise his figures.

a book..................

and it's important to remember that the defensive guns weren't the lancaster's only form of defence (i speak only of the lanc because i don't think the tactics worked as well with the halibag), there were several evasive manouvers, the most important being the corkscrew, even with a 10,000lb payload it would take an extraordinary pilot to hit a heavily corkscrewing lanc even by day let alone by night, and the best part was there was no way of countering it

 

[lesofprimus]

9 times out of 10, if an attacking fighter so much as knew he's been spotted he'd go off and find another target..........

I dont think thats an accurate statistic.. I have seen many films and videos, as well as pilot documentaries and interviews, where u see many planes pressing in for the kill under fire from a bombers guns....

The .303 was not capable of penetrating any of the armor on a FW190A8 or even a Bf-109G, whereas none of that armor could stop a .50 API round

The heavily armed A-8/R2's and 3's constantly had B-17 gunners rounds bouncing off them as they pressed in... It freaked the bomber crews out..... Kinda surprised u put a goof in like that RG... Normally ur very accurate....

 

[cheddar cheese]

There was still a higher chance the .50 would penetrate that the .303 woul though.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

I dont think thats an accurate statistic..

that's the statistic given to RAF gunnerery crews during training..............

 

[cheddar cheese]

Probably to boost morale.