BlackSheep
Banned
- 443
- May 31, 2018
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Agree completely, especially since the objective is to save the bomber/crew and not necessarily shoot down fighters.Personally I don't think it's makes any difference what guns you had, the waist gunners in American bombers were trying to hit a fighter closing in at 350 plus miles an hour while traveling at 200 plus miles an hour with a pindle mounted .50, do you really think they had any chance of accurately tracking ranging and leading a fighter enough to make one gun better than another?, same for rear seat gunners in torpedo/dive bombers, I believe loading lots of tracer would be a better deterrent than the size of the bullets.
Not sure if they started leaving ball gunners at home very late in war.
Late model B-24s dispensed with the ball turret, and tail turret. Replaced with manual guns.I don't have exact figures, but I've read from several sources that many B-17s had the ball-turrets replaced by an H2X dome for blind bombing. My assumption, and that's all it is, is that these were generally squadron leaders due to the bomb-on-command doctrine used mid-war and beyond.
Late model B-24s dispensed with the ball turret, and tail turret. Replaced with manual guns.
That would be the B-24L variant, manufactured at both Willow Run and San Diego.I didn't know that. Thanks! Where might I read up further on this?
Also remember bomber command found out very early on that bombers cannot fly into defended airspace unescorted, the whole myth surrounding the .303 .50 cal argument and US bombers being able to defend themselves because of the bigger guns is just that, a myth. You also need to take into account the different environments the planes were used in, the RAF bombed at night so the ranges were very short, no more than a few hundred meters at best, 4 .303's throwing out hundreds' of rounds per second at a night fighter barely 100 meters away is a very effective deterrent.Brits didn't have 50 cal turrets or cannon turrets for a combination of reasons. I think what Harris said quoted above is basically nonsense. (As In I'm sure he did say that but it doesn't tally with the air ministry files). There was a big supply issue early on with 50s and the cannon turrets were so heavy it necessitated reducing the bomb load to the level where it was calculated that you'd need to fly more planes over the target and you'd end up with the same aircrew losses anyway. I'm not 100 percent sure I agree with all the reasoning but that was how it was discussed at the time.
I think what Harris said quoted above is basically nonsense ... it doesn't tally with the air ministry files.
On the other hand you had the Navy PB4Y-2 Privateers that had 12 .50 cal machine gunsView attachment 692268
The waist mounts were power operated and were sighted with MK 9 reflector sights. There was no belly turret.
The planes also flew alone or in very small groups.
Different tactical situations required different solutions.
The Japanese interceptors were not as well armed as some of the German interceptors and often were not flying in large numbers.
The bullet drop at that range is approx 5 feet with about 3/4 of a second flight time before it gets there so a fighter closing in doing approx 300 mph will fly approx 300 plus feet not allowing for the bombers speed in that time so all the gunner has to do to hit the target is compute in his head the lead and windage aiming point all within the 10 seconds it takes before the fighter zooms by and he will score a kill with his hand held pindle mounted .50, while also wearing a heated suit in minus 40 degree temps inside a hollow alloy tube at 20,000ft, Pffff, what's so hard about that.Now one video says the tail gunners were not supposed to fire until the enemy fighters got to within 600yds range.
It may be an error. Or an act of desperation.Hotchkiss clip-fed Japanese Type 3 in 6.5x50mm is listed as a 1943 development (p.351).
The Taisho 14 was based on the M1914 Hotchkiss and chambered for 6.5x50mm Arisaka ammunition and it was equipoed with Anti-Aircraft sights.It may be an error. Or an act of desperation.
Something is off. Picture of a type 3 (?) machinegun.
View attachment 692292
Forget the hot set up in 1943, this thing was lukewarm in 1923.
Designation is off, date is off, caliber is off. Something is off.
Side gunner is a different story than tail gunner.The bullet drop at that range is approx 5 feet with about 3/4 of a second flight time before it gets there so a fighter closing in doing approx 300 mph will fly approx 300 plus feet not allowing for the bombers speed in that time so all the gunner has to do to hit the target is compute in his head the lead and windage aiming point all within the 10 seconds it takes before the fighter zooms by and he will score a kill with his hand held pindle mounted .50, while also wearing a heated suit in minus 40 degree temps inside a hollow alloy tube at 20,000ft, Pffff, what's so hard about that.
Worse than a BAR with 40-rd mags? (Never issued to my knowledge)The Taisho 14 was based on the M1914 Hotchkiss and chambered for 6.5x50mm Arisaka ammunition and it was equipoed with Anti-Aircraft sights.
Perhaps one of the most ineffective AA weapons used during the war, too...
I dont see how Harri`s remarks summed up anything, he basically says words to the effect of: "we could have had it all very differently but basically the Air Ministry and the turret people just sort of didnt really bother themselves".Would you be able to elaborate on this any? I find the opposite to be true -- the memos, minutes of meetings, cables, etc. re: bomber armament support what Harris wrote in his despatches (quoted above).
"A combination of reasons" certainly, but I think for the most part everything could be summed up by what Harris said.
Simply put -- I think if they had gone to the Rose Brothers sooner they would have had .5-inch Browning turrets sooner.