Apr 21, 2009 #1 Micdrow “Archive” 10,640 4,183 Aug 21, 2006 Wisconsin Sorry little hard to read but some may find it interesting on a Halifax III cutaway from the Halifax manual. Attachments Halifax III.JPG 128.2 KB · Views: 430
Sorry little hard to read but some may find it interesting on a Halifax III cutaway from the Halifax manual.
Apr 21, 2009 Thread starter #3 Micdrow “Archive” 10,640 4,183 Aug 21, 2006 Wisconsin Wurger said: Paul. Click to expand... Thanks!!!!
Apr 21, 2009 #4 Thorlifter Captain 7,980 433 Jun 10, 2004 Knoxville, TN I'm curious about the 4x.303 turrets. Any records to indicate they were any more/less effective than a 2x.50?
I'm curious about the 4x.303 turrets. Any records to indicate they were any more/less effective than a 2x.50?
Apr 22, 2009 #5 FlexiBull Airman 1st Class 279 0 Feb 9, 2009 Nice one Micdrow takes me back to the "Lion" comics of my youth, every week an new cutout drawing. Thorlifter Similar debate on in http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/british-bomber-armament-question-17473.html#post471061 It was standard defensive armament in British bombers Wellingtons, Stirling, Halifax and Lancasters. Later in the war twin .5 did replace the 4 x .303 in the rear turrets and they also appeared in the mid upper turrets as did 20mm canons.
Nice one Micdrow takes me back to the "Lion" comics of my youth, every week an new cutout drawing. Thorlifter Similar debate on in http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/british-bomber-armament-question-17473.html#post471061 It was standard defensive armament in British bombers Wellingtons, Stirling, Halifax and Lancasters. Later in the war twin .5 did replace the 4 x .303 in the rear turrets and they also appeared in the mid upper turrets as did 20mm canons.