buffnut453
Captain
One can only hope. That would be AWESOME! Then we can all pile on with corrections to contradict ourselves. My, how the long winter evenings will just FLYYYYYY by!
Out of the Big Three WW2 bombers (B-17, B-24, Lancaster), was the Flying Fortress the most redundant? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter spicmart
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
One can only hope. That would be AWESOME! Then we can all pile on with corrections to contradict ourselves. My, how the long winter evenings will just FLYYYYYY by!
Just Schmidt
Senior Airman
I'm still far from decided as to the usefulness of defensive armament as a whole, except that I'm sure it depends heavily on context.
When it comes to night bombers, I deem defensive guns of relatively little use. The same darkness that was supposed to protect the bomber, protected the fighters as well. Had radercontrolled defensive guns been a thing, it would have been otherwise. As was, the chance of spotting an attacker outside the range of the 7.62 was probably limited. If ever it was spotted. As I read once in a discussion about the (occasional) ventral turret on the Lancaster, its value was probably gretest as a chanse of spotting an attacker and calling for an immidiate corkscrew. Not that they offered that good visibility, but at least the other three turrets did.
I'm sure night fighters were sometimes shot down by defensive fire, but I think the difference, had 12,7's been installed, would have been marginal.
When it comes to night bombers, I deem defensive guns of relatively little use. The same darkness that was supposed to protect the bomber, protected the fighters as well. Had radercontrolled defensive guns been a thing, it would have been otherwise. As was, the chance of spotting an attacker outside the range of the 7.62 was probably limited. If ever it was spotted. As I read once in a discussion about the (occasional) ventral turret on the Lancaster, its value was probably gretest as a chanse of spotting an attacker and calling for an immidiate corkscrew. Not that they offered that good visibility, but at least the other three turrets did.
I'm sure night fighters were sometimes shot down by defensive fire, but I think the difference, had 12,7's been installed, would have been marginal.
And that has not changed.
Attack the post, not the poster. If you cannot get your point across without doing so, the don't post at all.
Debating does not require personal attacks.
Glider
Captain
Totally agree
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I miss "Welcome to cyberspace".
Thumpalumpacus
Captain
There are advantages and disadvantages to both guns.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Yeah, but no one ever called the .303 "Ma".
buffnut453
Captain
Because the Brits don't have Mummy issues????
The cannon wasn't mounted to the engine but to the forward bulkhead and the weight of the engine plus the cannon combined with it's recoil caused the bulkhead to crack and fail, as part of the F series redesign was a stronger reinforced cockpit tub to take the forces placed on it, the E-3 with the motorkannone never went into production.
What assertions?, I'm asking what are you going to replace tracers with before gyro gunsights appear?, the .50 BMG wasn't a reliable gun until late 1942-43 and neither was it's ammunition, the Americans reversed engineered .303 De Wilde incendiaries for the .50 to try and get something that worked, all the information is on this very site because it has been discussed numerous times.
Shortround6
Major General
That's "Mum".
Ma deuce can't boil your tea water. (needs a lot of suger to cover the gun oil taste).
Although with the length of time the .50 has been around perhaps we should be calling Great Grandma deuce.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,219
- Jan 31, 2021
Well, the Egyptians did, if certain Universal movies are to be believed.
I agree it was necessary to fire immediately on a night fighter when sited For precisely the reasons you stated. However Harris stated specifically Bomber Command was concerned that gunners were not using their sights but were simply hosepiping fire around the sky and using tracer to guide thei aim. It was a highly ineffective method.
Your comment "At night there was less urgency as the combat ranges were so much shorter as few fighters would continue an attack once they started to be hit by return fire" couldn't have been further from the actual reality of a night fighter attack. "Less urgency" is the last two words that would come to my mind during a night fighter attack. Complete terror, more like it. The Night Fighter was by far the most serious danger a bomber crew faced right up until the end of the war.
Why did I ask "where is Flyboy when I need him?" I said in the thread when he died a great guy and one who didn't suffer fools. And I did so, specifically recalling the last page of this thread, about the B-17 vs the Mosquito:
What if America built De Havilland Mosquitoes instead of the B-17 Flying Fortress?
I just quoted Basil Dickens who said there were no reliable figures. You’re not paying attention! You mention all the books you have. Start Looking at the primary sources. I provided a link to Basil Dickens paper. Read it.
ww2aircraft.net
Flyboy eventually had enough and shut the thread down.
…and you will note Basil Dickens came up in that thread as well. I wonder how Flyboy would react to this thread, had he still been with us. His and my views tended to align more often than not.
Jim
Last edited:
What people forget is why the Luftwaffe attacked from underneath, it had nothing to do with there not being a belly turret but instead it was the best way to see the target. Night fighters found the easiest way to see a bomber was to fly below them silhouetting it against the stars and then attacking by pulling up and shooting as they passed the nose, someone obviously knew about the RAF having upward firing guns to destroy balloons in WW1 and reinvented the wheel.
Night Fighter Nut
Master Sergeant
Hey guys, I don't know if this would be a good resource or not but I'm finding a lot of useful information from a book called, "Masters of the Air" by Donald Miller. Subtitled America's bomber boys who fought the air war against Nazi Germany. It seems to be heavily researched and is a very good read.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The E-2 which first tested the MG/FF and had only two cowl MG17s. it was produced in limited numbers and the MG/FF was problematic.
The Bf109E-3 had the three MG/FF cannon and an improved DB601, though the motor cannon was often removed.
Source: "Messerschmitt BF 109, Versions B - E" by Cross and Scarborough.
Every source I have read or seen on the 109 does not have the E-3 actually being fielded with the cannon firing through the hub. The vibrations were not worked out and they never made it to operational units in that configuration.
It was intended to be fitted with the nose cannon, just never was.
It was intended to be fitted with the nose cannon, just never was.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The E-2 was trialled in limited numbers with the MG/FF cannon, and it suffered from the mentioned vibrations and other issues.
The E-3's motor cannon also had issues like jamming and excessive vibration, so was often removed in the field but, unlike the E-2, had cannon in the wings and an uprated engine and was built as a production type (less than 1,300) unlike the E-2.
The E-3's motor cannon also had issues like jamming and excessive vibration, so was often removed in the field but, unlike the E-2, had cannon in the wings and an uprated engine and was built as a production type (less than 1,300) unlike the E-2.
