Position of the Glenn Martin 250 CE Mid-Upper Turret in the Lancaster Mk X.

[JDCAVE]

My father was a pilot with 419 Squadron. He flew 7 operations in each of Lancasters KB779, (B-Baker) KB721 (his "next" B-Baker) and then KB865 (E-Easy). KB779 was shot down on a raid to Osnabruck December 7, 1944 and it had the Packard Merlin 224 engines. He quite liked this aircraft "It was a very fast aircraft." He "inherited" KB721 with the less powerful Merlin 38 engines for his operations for the balance of December 1944 and through much of February, 1945. Note that this aircraft was originally "Lettered" as "E-Easy" This aircraft was slower and the engines much less reliable. He constantly had engine trouble with this aircraft. The comments in his log-book express his dissatisfaction with this aircraft. He was much more pleased with KB865, a new aircraft that he flew exclusively for his operations for March 1945. This aircraft again had the Packard Merlin 224 engines.

This aircraft was one of the first Mk "X" to have the Glenn Martin Mid-Upper Turret CE 250. This turret was situated further forward on the fuselage, approximately just aft of the main wing. I'm guessing about 6' further forward. Originally I speculated this was due to balance of the a/c. However I now wonder if its position afforded improved sight-lines for the mid-upper gunner so he had a better view underneath the tail plane. I have looked through my various "Lancaster" books, and these are poorly indexed. If the authors do comment, its buried in there somewhere

I have "scoured" the material in the armaments section of the 6-Group ORB's and while I have found reference to the installation of the Glenn Martin turret, there is nothing on why it is located in this more forward position. Does anyone have any definitive information on this question? In the attached photo, KB865 is in the foreground and it clearly shows the forward location of the MUT.

Jim

 

[Greyman]

It was for C.G. purposes. Both for the Martin 250 and with an eye toward the potential fitment of the 20-mm Bristol B.17 turret.

One of the main drawbacks of the Martin 250 vs. the FN.50 was that the US turret couldn't depress below the horizonal (the British turret managing 38 degrees below, fuselage permitting) -- so additional field-of-view considerations probably had little to do with it.

 

[JDCAVE]

Thanks Greyman. That was my initial suspicion, however, I have not been able to verify it. I wasn't sure If I had missed something concerning a better field of view and gun-laying.

Jim