Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
RD Arm stated that it might be helpful to place on record that it had now been found that the bomber was not very vulnerable to .303 fire from astern, thus discounting the value of the fixed .303 gun fighter.
The turret type offered particular advantages overseas and for Field Force operations, whereas, the fixed gun type would suffice over home territory, where defensive power was unecessary. The turret type might eventually be found to cater for both purposes but they had to bridge a gap of about 3 year which must ensue before the turret type could be developed.
Was this for bomber defense or for bomber interception?
View attachment 270337
View attachment 270338
In early 1939 Vickers submitted a scheme for mounting the gun in a large dorsal turret in a Wellington 'heavy fighter' with a predictor and a rangefinder. Such an aircraft it was claimed, could engage hostile formations at a range well beyond that of the fighters' defensive fire.
Granted the Wellington may have been used as a test rig and the 'service' aircraft would have been a higher performance machine.
How many P-61s actually got the turret?
lso note that the turret prototypes were fighters - if they put turrets in the bombers there wouldn't be the space and/or capacity to carry bombs.
I wonder if the TBF Avengers' turret was more effective than for instance the gunmouth in the Helldiver or the Dauntless. Would anyone have info on that? Well obviously a .50 has more impact than a .30 but besides that I mean.
Now, back during Midway, I'm would imagine that all those US torpedo crews would have welcomed the Avenger, with its speed, armor, self sealing tanks, and that turreted Browning 50 in the back. A few more might have made it back alive.
The only turret (ish) fighter that I know that had any success was the Bristol