Kevin J
Banned
I think it was the waves.
Light Attack Bombers - Avenger, Fairey Battle, Stuka, Blenheim etc ~<2000hp
- Thread starter taly01
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #22
First would be decent gunner arc in rear quarter. It is surprising that the SB2C Helldiver had such a poor rear gunner view, maybe the theory was the back seat gunner would call out to pilot to side slip so he could get a shot?
Second at least dual 0.30" or single 0.50" with ~150rd+ belt feed.
Third Some armour plate and glass for him!
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,673
- Dec 6, 2006
The USN came to the conclusion that the rear gunner was unnecessary as seen in the single seater Skyraider and Mauler.
Kevin J
Banned
So long as you've got plenty of fighter escort I'm sure that's correct. At the start of Operation Barbarrosa, Il-2's lasted for 9 sorties, by 1944, 92.
- Thread starter
- #26
Saving the weight of a rear gunner and associated gun weight etc is an enticing reason to remove him, but in most cases the speed improvement would not be enough to have the light attack bomber escape fighters anyhow, its kind of a Catch-22 situation.
The Skyraider is a heck of a beast with a single B-29's 3000hp engine, and a bit outside my initial 2000hp ideas, the only other country to fully develop their light attack planes to their endpoint was USSR's Shturmovik il-2 then il-10 variation, interesting was they ended up with 12.7 then 20mm for rear gunner.
A knew Mustangs and Corsairs fought in Korea but not much about Skyraider, I guess its no surprise Soviet AAA guns were effective after 4 years of WW2 development.
The Skyraider is a heck of a beast with a single B-29's 3000hp engine, and a bit outside my initial 2000hp ideas, the only other country to fully develop their light attack planes to their endpoint was USSR's Shturmovik il-2 then il-10 variation, interesting was they ended up with 12.7 then 20mm for rear gunner.
A knew Mustangs and Corsairs fought in Korea but not much about Skyraider, I guess its no surprise Soviet AAA guns were effective after 4 years of WW2 development.
Shortround6
Major General
Getting rid of the rear gunner (and radio man) was probably more about increased payload (bombs or fuel) than increased speed.
I mean come on,
Forget the plane in the foreground, even the one in the back wasn't going to go very fast with all that stuff hanging out in the breeze, with or without a rear gunner.
AS I keep saying, if the defending fighters can get the "attackers" to drop their external weapons short of the target they have done their job and can go home without firing a shot.
The intended target/s are safe from bombs, rockets and torpedoes. The "self defending" attack plane is as big a myth as the self defending bomber. The ability to self defend only comes into play on the way back, not to the target.
I mean come on,
Forget the plane in the foreground, even the one in the back wasn't going to go very fast with all that stuff hanging out in the breeze, with or without a rear gunner.
AS I keep saying, if the defending fighters can get the "attackers" to drop their external weapons short of the target they have done their job and can go home without firing a shot.
The intended target/s are safe from bombs, rockets and torpedoes. The "self defending" attack plane is as big a myth as the self defending bomber. The ability to self defend only comes into play on the way back, not to the target.
Theory and practice was to fold down the 'turtledeck', so the gunner has a resonably clear field of fire. Check out the picture: link
I think all of these positions were somewhat similar. The guns themselves technically had large fields of fire but in practice employment was quite limited because eventually positioning / slipstream gets very awkward for the gunner.
The Barracuda had a Preston-Green mounting for the twin Vickers-K guns (pictured). This was supposed to be just an interim measure while the Rose Brothers developed a twin-Browning continuous feed setup. Testing was basically wrapped up in early 1944 but it doesn't seem to have been put into service at all.
Judging by a lot of official correspondence dealing with the Barracuda -- weight was an issue that was constantly obsessed about. My guess is the superior Browning mounting was left out for this reason.
The Barracuda had a Preston-Green mounting for the twin Vickers-K guns (pictured). This was supposed to be just an interim measure while the Rose Brothers developed a twin-Browning continuous feed setup. Testing was basically wrapped up in early 1944 but it doesn't seem to have been put into service at all.
Judging by a lot of official correspondence dealing with the Barracuda -- weight was an issue that was constantly obsessed about. My guess is the superior Browning mounting was left out for this reason.
- Thread starter
- #30
Wow! never knew the Helldiver rear section folded down. I do like the different ways each country cobbled together guns to make duals etc. Although they were probably never more than deterrent or "vengence" weapon to a determined attacker there are quite a few references that when in tight formation the combined fire of light bombers did stop fighters from attacking closely!
- Thread starter
- #31
Italian aviation did develop a typical late 1930's light attack bomber that they used in combat pre-ww2, the Breda Ba.65 using the typical Fiat 1000hp radial. They ended their service life in 1939-41 north african desert war vs British where they were too vulnerable to Hawker Hurricanes and Tomahawk P-40's.
After the "Fairey Battle experience" Britain seems to have been the first nation to drop the idea of land based light attack planes, to be replaced by fighter-bombers and medium bombers. (Apart from the Vultee Vengance which seems to have been ordered in desperation and was slow in arriving, in Australia we ordered VV's in 1941 and finally received our ordered 400 in early 1944! there was a political scandal about the cost of getting those planes that were obsolete).
After the "Fairey Battle experience" Britain seems to have been the first nation to drop the idea of land based light attack planes, to be replaced by fighter-bombers and medium bombers. (Apart from the Vultee Vengance which seems to have been ordered in desperation and was slow in arriving, in Australia we ordered VV's in 1941 and finally received our ordered 400 in early 1944! there was a political scandal about the cost of getting those planes that were obsolete).
Off topic here. When did the US Army operate the T-28 ?
Early January 1970 - it seems?
Aerial Visuals - Airframe Dossier - North American T-28B Trojan, s/n 138122 US, c/n 200-193, c/r VH-FNO
With the paint scheme it's got, maybe it was used as a chase aircraft when they were testing helicopters like the Cheyenne.
- Thread starter
- #35
Heres an interesting article I found about the "4th" crew man that wasn't used in TBF Avenger,
The Mystery of the Middle Seat - Pearl Harbor Aviation Museum
The British did seem to use the extra 4th man in their Avengers. Or maybe the radioman decided to sit upstairs rather than in his "cave" below.
The Swordfish, Devastator and B5N torpedo bombers had 3 crewmen, considering they were rather underpowered I was surprised they could not have had a combined rear gunner/radio man task.
The Mystery of the Middle Seat - Pearl Harbor Aviation Museum
The British did seem to use the extra 4th man in their Avengers. Or maybe the radioman decided to sit upstairs rather than in his "cave" below.
The Swordfish, Devastator and B5N torpedo bombers had 3 crewmen, considering they were rather underpowered I was surprised they could not have had a combined rear gunner/radio man task.
The Swordfish, would delete one crew member when using the auxiliary internal fuel tank.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
