Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The addition of fast, precise planes added pathfinding to the doctrine of BC, did it not? How much pathfinding did BC practice before the Mosquito became available? That was exactly why I thought it changed doctrine a bit.
If I'm missing something here I'm all ears. But I think the Mossies did sterling work (if you'll pardon the pun) putting the heavies in on target, a capability BC didn't really have in 40-41. Am I missing something?
Oh, I forgot to mention, the turret-armed Mosquito bomber (not the night fighter, which was a standard Mosquito) was to be powered by Griffons. C.C. Walker, de Havilland's Chief Engineer advised that fitted with a Nash and Thomson FN.4A four-gun rear turret, a 1,000lb bomb load and a crew of three, the Griffon engined aeroplane could reach speeds of 390 to 400 mph at 20,000 ft.
The upper position for the turret on the Mosquito was for a night fighter, not defensive armament for a bomber, as Wuzak stated. The Air Ministry did request a turret for the bomber Mosquito, but it was a tail turret and the only trials conducted were paper exercises, which thankfully never amounted to anything more than the production of figures. The prototype was fitted with a dummy for aerodynamic purposes to aid in the development of a turret fighter for a night fighter specification and two prototypes were built and fitted with gun turrets, but the Bristol turret fitted to the aircraft was insufficiently capable of operating at the speeds the Mosquito flew at; it's hydraulic system couldn't produce enough pressure to rotate the turret in flight.
Its an interesting question, for sure.While reading up on the Tupolev Tu-2 I came across a post Shortround made in 2018 saying that the British estimated that a powered mount was three times more effective then an unpowered mount. This got me curious about the relative effectiveness of the various weapons mounts employed on WWII bombers. Not only the effectiveness of the different types of guns themselves, but also of the types of mountings used and the locations of those mountings (chin, tail, dorsal, ventral, waist, etc).
My interest in this subject is partly out of personal curiosity though one of the people working on a strategy game mod I am doing research for has expressed interest in studies on the topic if any are available. I also figured there might be other people on this board with an interest in the general topic.
An intercepting aircraft is by necessity most likely to be coming from the rear, its the quarter which pilots and other crew members in the cockpit can least see, and it also affords the gunner with one of the widest fields of fire. It may also (and shooters here can correct me), provide the gunner with the least complex firing solution, making the chance of hitting an attacking aircraft higher. Aerodynamically, it may also be less compromising I'd guess than other turret positions.
I believe the position of the turret on the turret-fighter prototype would have cut into the bomb bay, reducing its bomb carrying capacity (as would, obviously, the weight of the turret).
I am not sure if the turret-fighter prototype was also to be fitted with the 4 20mm cannon, since they would also occupy the same space at the forward end of the bomb bay.
Well, that depends.
Defending fighters will be climbing to altitude ahead of the incoming bombers, so the logical place for the fighters is to the front.
When the bombers are fast it makes it difficult for the fighters to swing around to attack the rear.
When the bombers are slow the fighters can choose which angle to attack from.
My dad, a WAG on the Halifax bomber, told me the Germans quickly learned the vulnerability of the Halifaxes. They would come up from underneath, where the Hali was vulnerable. Which worked well until many of them pulled the radar out of the dome, cut a slot in it and put a man with a 50 cal waiting there for them. He never explained who was the lucky guy who sat there. Surprised many a fighter at first…
Hallies and Lancs did have lower gun positions. They were removed because they were pretty useless, tho helped with morale.My dad, a WAG on the Halifax bomber, told me the Germans quickly learned the vulnerability of the Halifaxes. They would come up from underneath, where the Hali was vulnerable. Which worked well until many of them pulled the radar out of the dome, cut a slot in it and put a man with a 50 cal waiting there for them. He never explained who was the lucky guy who sat there. Surprised many a fighter at first…
I believe the Lanc maintained a belly gun (for the most part) and leaving no protection on the underside is a fatal flaw for a bomber. The retrofitted belly gun wasn't just for moral I assure you.Hallies and Lancs did have lower gun positions. They were removed because they were pretty useless, tho helped with morale.
Frequently they didnt come from behind, they came from below and to the side.Any good tail gunner should be able to spot any e/a coming up from behind.
After the Luftwaffe became aware of Monica from a crashed bomber, German scientists developed a passive radar receiver, named Flensburg (FuG 227). From early 1944, FuG 227 was used by nightfighter crews to home in on Allied bombers using Monica.
Hallies and Lancs did have lower gun positions. They were removed because they were pretty useless, tho helped with morale.
Frequently they didnt come from behind, they came from below and to the side.
I know but even with a sweep search you dont see what is underneath.You think the rear gunner only looked straight behind? Dad was a rear gunner and they were instructed to do sweep searches.