In regards to RAF types the armor, bullet proof windscreen, aerials, rear view mirror all had an effect on performance, but they were willing to accept the loss for an increase in pilot survival, the most important element.
Out of the Big Three WW2 bombers (B-17, B-24, Lancaster), was the Flying Fortress the most redundant?
- Thread starter spicmart
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Potentially a combination of things. On further digging through some guns/ammunition sites, there are offhand mentions of a wobble or spinning characteristic for the G Mk II at ranges beyond about 550-600 yards. It might be that the round was unstable once a certain amount of tracer had burnt off and poor manufacturing may have exacerbated an existing problem.
That's well past it's effective range, the ammunition industry in Australia had a rocky start so probably a combination of all the above?.
Just to be clear, the question of which bomber was the most redundant has been settled - and it is the B-24?
You mean it was not the P-39?
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
Because you have more tracers going out, twice the number of guns firing twice as fast. There's no ''best'' defensive guns .303's or .50's when the Luftwaffe are shooting 20-30mm cannons at you.
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
And British tanks.
yulzari
Staff Sergeant
The RAF may well have been keen on training to use the sights etc. but there is the perceived opinion as opposed to the received. Just like cavalry, who were trained and exhorted to use their sword at point (ie poke straight in) and not hack and chop, when in action they reverted to instinct and flailed about with the edge. Similarly, from my youthful conversations with ex Bomber Command gunners, many fell into two classes. One was the crew insisting on them never firing but to simply give warnings for corkscrews. So that the guns did not give away their position. Another was to load as much tracer as they could wheedle out of the armourer to throw visibly in the general direction of a fighter to put him off and make him go away and find someone else. In the first case it did not matter what guns were mounted, in the other 4x,303", with a it's high rate of fire, threw far more twinkly lights at the nasty men than did 2x0,5" guns.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Bf109E-3 had the wing mounted MG/FF and a MG/FF motorkannone, though the motorkannone was often removed by the crews.
But the fact remains that it was built and introduced that way.
Again provide sources that back up your assertions. You are painting yourself as an expert. Do tell.
Finally! We agree on something!
buffnut453
Captain
It's ALWAYS the P-39 because that aircraft ALWAYS exceeded every other aircraft in EVERYTHING important in air combat.
See? I can drink the Koolaid too!
No you're wrong
The E-3 differed from the E-1 by adding two MG FF 20 mm cannon. One in each wing with 60 rounds each. This gave the wing its characteristic "bump" on the bottom side. The E-3 also had the two MG 17 in the nose as well. This made for a standard armament of two MF 17 and two MG FF.
It was originally intended to have a 20 mm cannon firing through the propellor hub (hence the shape of the spinner), but this was abandoned because vibration issues, as well as overheating and jamming problems.
It was originally intended to have a 20 mm cannon firing through the propellor hub (hence the shape of the spinner), but this was abandoned because vibration issues, as well as overheating and jamming problems.
Maybe we should move the non-bomber talk to its own thread though.
It's good to see others taking their turn.It's ALWAYS the P-39 because that aircraft ALWAYS exceeded every other aircraft in EVERYTHING important in air combat.
See? I can drink the Koolaid too!
So it was the B-24 then ?
The B-24 was a modified P-39, so yes.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 850
- Feb 16, 2013
Funny how that one thread, which I will not name, has shaped the discourse for years after. People will be reading these unrelated threads 10 years from now, and mumble under their breath "what's with all the damned P-39 references!" 
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
As one of our Forum Elders once mentioned, snippets of the NOT TO BE NAMED thread might be quoted as fact in Wiki.
Glider
Captain
A personal view I admit. Harris was the chief of Bomber Command and was in a position to get what he wanted. Yes it was important that he had the .50 not the .303 but there were priorities. Improved Navigation was probably the first priority and a vast amount of resources was poured into getting that sorted, which it was. Improving the performance of the bombers was probably second, it not an equal priority. Again vast resources was spent on this. The Manchester became the Lancaster, the Halifax I and II became the III, The Sterling was developed and then dropped for good reason. If the 0.5 had been a top priority it would have been sorted earlier, but it wasn't, it was further down the priority list.
There are very few things that Harris wanted, that he didn't get.
Harris was far from perfect, no but who is? His insistence on attacking cities when at times there were other priorities to progress the war is often debated and his single minded determination whilst often a huge advantage could be an equally sized hurdle. Interestingly, I do not put that as negative comment on him, but the people who lacked the backbone to control him when he needed controlling.
Re my comment about fighter pilots continuing to attack after they have started taking hits I believe to be a statement of fact. You have access to the same night fighter books as I do. It doesn't matter if you are looking at German or British night fighter crews, almost invariably once they take hits they tended to pull away.
Also I take umbrage invoking Flyboy into this. One of his many talents which we all miss, was his belief that personal attacks should be left out of the forum, and people should be allowed to debate and explain their views and reasons for their views
