Out of the Big Three WW2 bombers (B-17, B-24, Lancaster), was the Flying Fortress the most redundant? (1 Viewer)

[GrauGeist]

The Luftwaffe was also very aware of what the .50s were capable of, forcing them to both change tactics, upgrade offensive weapons (as mentioned) to counter the bomber's defensive armament and, more importantly, add armor protection, which in turn had an effect on their performance.

A hail of .30 caliber bullets is not anything to wave off, but the hitting power of a .50 bullet needs to be taken seriously.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Luftwaffe was also very aware of what the .50s were capable of, forcing them to both change tactics, upgrade offensive weapons (as mentioned) to counter the bomber's defensive armament and, more importantly, add armor protection, which in turn had an effect on their performance.

A hail of .30 caliber bullets is not anything to wave off, but the hitting power of a .50 bullet needs to be taken seriously.

Agreed. If I had the choice, I'll take the .50 any day.

 

[PAT303]

While I agree with you that the -17's nose armament was crummy, you're not really addressing the issue of tracer fall-off that @33k in the air mentioned above, which would affect British as well as American tracers, and perhaps moreso due to lighter throw-weight. You still haven't addressed the issue of lighter rounds having less punch, either. Lotsa hopscotching here.

The same problem affected AA gunners also, there's a great video on YouTube about it, saying that if you are made aware and trained to address the problem at least it does make tracers viable compared to nothing at all, I'd rather at least have an idea and be able to correct my aim than simply shoot into the blue sky towards my target with no actual idea where the rounds are going. As for the lighter throw weight I don't think any Luftwaffe pilot is going to press home his attack if rounds of any calibre start striking his aircraft, it's very easy and common for people to dismiss the .303 as being ineffective yet the main armament of almost every fighter other than the Spit and Hurri at the start of the war was two slow firing .50 HMG-20mm cannons backed up with two .30 cal mg's, 40% of the Me109's that fought in the Battle of Britain were low dash E series with only four 8x57's.

 

[PAT303]

Okay: Here is the Basil Dickens Reference:
View attachment 708945

And here is what he said on Tracer:

View attachment 708946

Pat303: you are entitled to your opinions. on the effectiveness of tracer. Personally, I'm paying more attention to the Scientist whose team actually studied its effectiveness.

Jim

And again you are talking 1945, the RAF dropped the .303's from the Spitfire once gyro stabilised sights became the norm, I'd also dismiss the tracers being unstable, I've never ever heard of .303 tracers having that issue, furthermore, looking at this video, even when fired from a stable platform the dispersion of rounds is huge, do you think the problem attributed to the ammunition could actually be the guns or mounts themselves?.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnQsmjXJwDc

 

[PAT303]

So why then was the Chief of Bomber Command so insistent on getting 50 caliber rear turret then? I guess he wasn't as knowledgeable on this subject as as you? And at night here was less urgency? I presume you think that Bomber crews found solace that there was less urgency?

The salvation of daylight operations was fighter cover, not the GM250.

I give up! Where is Flyboy when I need him!

Because as stated earlier the heavier guns and ammunition caused problems with the center of gravity at the minimum, Harris can insist all he wants but reality makes the rules.

 

[GrauGeist]

Hmm - Bf109E with four 8x57mm MGs, really?
They didn't have infantry Mausers mounted on them, FFS.

Bf109E typically was armed with the MG17 (7.92mm) and variants included the MG/FF 20mm cannon, either a motorkannone and/or in the wings.

 

[PAT303]

Having said that, an aircraft's armament is largely based on its intended target. If you are attacking bombers you want a larger round, hence why the German's largely armed their fighters with 20 mm and 30 mm cannons as the war progressed. If your intended target is a fighter aircraft, a .303 is sufficient. If it wasn't, it would not have been used so widely.

This is the same argument put forward debating the BoB, why eight .303's instead of .50's, the simple reason is the .303's were very reliable guns, the .50's weren't, the eight .303's gave a better spread than less guns so more chance of the average pilot hitting something, the .303's had very reliable ball, tracer, incendiary and AP ammunition, the .50's didn't and last but very importantly weight, you could have three .303's for every one .50, an important consideration when you only have around 1200 horse power under the bonnet, or as you Americans say, hood.

 

[PAT303]

Bf109E typically was armed with the MG17 (7.92mm) and variants included the MG/FF 20mm cannon, either a motorkannone and/or in the wings.

7.92mm is the same 8x57 cartridge used in mauser rifles.

 

[JDCAVE]

I give up! White Flag!

 

[PAT303]

Nevertheless, in the hope that the US .5 guns would be made available to us at some future date..." This implies that they may not have been available. Further simply taking the .303's out and replacing them with .5's is overly simplistic because of changes to CG of the aircraft. The turret would have to be completely revised and there would likely be changes to the airframe, etc. The Rose Turret was equipped with .5 guns, but Also, while the 20 mm cannon were tested, they completely through the CG out of wack.

You even stated yourself why the .50's couldn't be used, your surrendering to yourself.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I'd also dismiss the tracers being unstable, I've never ever heard of .303 tracers having that issue

A couple of pieces here and there I've read have mentioned the G Mk II tracer had yawing issues. I'm speculating, but I think attempts at making a brighter and longer burning tracer changed the balance of the round as the tracer element burned up.

This source mentions that 4 million G Mk II rounds made in Australia in 1944 were destroyed due to "instability', 'trajectory and break up issues' and 'erratic trace'.

A couple of other sources report that there were issues with the late war Mk VII tracer leading to excessive barrel wear and eroded rifling, which eventually rendered the guns innacurate for all ammunition. In this case, the switch from cordite to nitrocellulose as a propellant was cited as the reason for the issue.

 

[ThomasP]

Just to be clear, the question of which bomber was the most redundant has been settled - and it is the B-24?

 

[Vincenzo]

Hmm - Bf109E with four 8x57mm MGs, really?
They didn't have infantry Mausers mounted on them, FFS.

Bf109E typically was armed with the MG17 (7.92mm) and variants included the MG/FF 20mm cannon, either a motorkannone and/or in the wings.

no built variant of the Emil had the motorkannone
E-3, E-4, E-7 had the wings cannon (around 58% of E new fighter production)
E-1&E-8 only the MG, some were upgraded with the 2cm gun in the wings
the other built variant were recce (afair just with the nose MG)

 

[buffnut453]

Right, the Lanc's tail-turret was cool, job well-done. B-24 had the same advantages you mention except rate of fire compared to the B-17's tail-mount. Now let's look at dorsal, belly, and nose? I think the -17 gets the first two right, the Lanc gets the last right. The -17's nose armament was its weak spot in earlier iterations, and even the -G model's workaround had nothing on the Wellington or Lanc's turret, imo.

The German fighters are still gonna need more armor against the heavier slugs thrown at them. So while mountings matter, I still think the original question of why not a .50 is valid, at least once the problems got ironed out. The move to heavier armament in fighters speaks to this as well.

Of course J JDCAVE makes good mention of not wanting to change designs in the middle of a production run, but rather, sticking with what you've got. That works both ways when we compare these bombers and their armament, but America had the luxury of greater industrial resources.

There's also the different operating environment. Yes, the 50 cal round had more punch but at night any range advantage is pretty much nullified. German nightfighters weren't shooting at anything like the maximum range of their weapons because even seeing the bomber target would be difficult at those ranges. At the time, radar was primarily used to enable close approach to the target while engagement remained a visual activity.

It's also worth considering that German protective armour was largely positioned to protect the nightfighter crew. The engines, radiators and oil lines were all relatively vulnerable, even to the pea-shooter .303. I can't help thinking that earlier and wider deployment of the FN121 Automatic Gun Laying Turret might have been more effective than replacing .303s with 50 cals but still relying on optical aiming at night.

The RAF's heavy bombers did have vulnerability to ventral attack, and the development of schragemusik (sp?) exemplifies German aspirations to exploit the defensive gap. However, we shouldn't underestimate the challenges of completing such an engagement. Getting close enough to be sure of hitting the bomber also exposed the nightfighter to defensive fire. Again the FN121 could have had a big impact here.

Finally, previous comments by others suggest that the .303 was a dumb choice and the 50 cal was the smart choice for bomber defensive armament. However, that assumes there even was a choice available at the time turrets and aircraft were designed. As others have noted, 50 cal production wasn't really sufficient until, perhaps, 1942...and by that time, how many excess weapons could be made available to the Brits? It's the same argument about why the RAF didn't use the 50 cal in the Battle of Britain. The simple reason is that the 50 cal was not a reliable weapon in wing installations until the back end of 1942. No point having the best weapon if it doesn't work, or designing a new turret if you can't get enough weapons to equip the front line squadrons.

 

[JDCAVE]

A couple of pieces here and there I've read have mentioned the G Mk II tracer had yawing issues. I'm speculating, but I think attempts at making a brighter and longer burning tracer changed the balance of the round as the tracer element burned up.

Well, that's just common sense, isn't it!

 

[JDCAVE]

Nevertheless, in the hope that the US .5 guns would be made available to us at some future date..." This implies that they may not have been available. Further simply taking the .303's out and replacing them with .5's is overly simplistic because of changes to CG of the aircraft. The turret would have to be completely revised and there would likely be changes to the airframe, etc. The Rose Turret was equipped with .5 guns, but Also, while the 20 mm cannon were tested, they completely through the CG out of wack.

You even stated yourself why the .50's couldn't be used, your surrendering to yourself.

Of course the turret had to be redesigned! No one said it didn't.

I'm getting my information from primary source material, documents from the National Archives, Library and Archives Canada, Harris' own despatch on War Operations. Those are credible sources. And I'm directly citing these documents and providing screen captures from them. (Post 459, from Harris' own despatch on the Rose Turret) Of course I know changing guns would change CG, the Glenn Martin 250 in the Lanc an obvious example. And I'm certain Harris did too.

You have NEVER cited any documents that back up your assertions on either the relative performance of the 50 calibre vs the 303 turrets, tracer rounds. Etc. You're just waving your arms around!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The same problem affected AA gunners also, there's a great video on YouTube about it, saying that if you are made aware and trained to address the problem at least it does make tracers viable compared to nothing at all, I'd rather at least have an idea and be able to correct my aim than simply shoot into the blue sky towards my target with no actual idea where the rounds are going.

Again -- I'm pretty sure American bombers carried tracer too. Are you arguing they did not?

I will once again ask you for a direct answer.

As for the lighter throw weight I don't think any Luftwaffe pilot is going to press home his attack if rounds of any calibre start striking his aircraft, it's very easy and common for people to dismiss the .303 as being ineffective yet the main armament of almost every fighter other than the Spit and Hurri at the start of the war was two slow firing .50 HMG-20mm cannons backed up with two .30 cal mg's, 40% of the Me109's that fought in the Battle of Britain were low dash E series with only four 8x57's.

What effect might armor have on a fighter's performance?

 

[PAT303]

mentions that 4 million G Mk II rounds made in Australia in 1944 were destroyed due to "instability', 'trajectory and break up issues' and 'erratic trace'.

A couple of other sources report that there were issues with the late war Mk VII tracer leading to excessive barrel wear and eroded rifling, which eventually rendered the guns innacurate for all ammunition. In this case, the switch from cordite to nitrocellulose as a propellant was cited as the reason for the issue.

Manufacturing issue?, 20mm ammunition made in Australia was also rubbish because the factories were new, this is what caused issues with Spitfires over Darwin the eroding rifling had nothing to do with the tracer bullet, nitrocellulose powder cause throat erosion in all MG barrels via excess combustion temps, the British put graphite over powder wads under the bullet to ease the problem, later stellite liners were fitted to barrels that continued for decades after, Vietnam era M60's had stellite liners.

 

[PAT303]

Of course the turret had to be redesigned! No one said it didn't.

I'm getting my information from primary source material, documents from the National Archives, Library and Archives Canada, Harris' own despatch on War Operations. Those are credible sources. And I'm directly citing these documents and providing screen captures from them. (Post 459, from Harris' own despatch on the Rose Turret) Of course I know changing guns would change CG, the Glenn Martin 250 in the Lanc an obvious example. And I'm certain Harris did too.

You have NEVER cited any documents that back up your assertions on either the relative performance of the 50 calibre vs the 303 turrets, tracer rounds. Etc. You're just waving your arms around!

You cited a document from the end of the war, Feb 1945, the war started in 1939 so what do they do in the 5 year gap?, you also stated an opinion from Harris that .50's should be fitted which is then refuted by your own evidence that it would cause CoG problems, the British never got the .50 until the lend lease agreement was activated in mid 1941 long after the war had started and planes had been designed, you also haven't explained how your going to fix the sighting issue for the years 1939-44 after you remove tracer rounds. Let's be clear I'm not saying the .303 is better than the .50, what I'm saying is you need to take into account the timeline of when different weapons could have been issued and the issues involved, the .50 was not a reliable air weapon until mid war, both the guns themselves and it's ammunition.

 

[PAT303]

Again -- I'm pretty sure American bombers carried tracer too. Are you arguing they did not?

I will once again ask you for a direct answer.

I never said they didn't?, the British even designed a ''daytime'' tracer for the .50, the G Mark IIz