Was it worth (c): nose gun turret for Blenheim IV/V

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by tomo pauk, Nov 30, 2009.

  1. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,988
    Likes Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Have they managed to kill/damage something while using the backward-oriented nose gun turret?
     
  2. Seawitch

    Seawitch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Artist, others
    Location:
    London
    Home Page:
    I don't know, but I can't resist saying at least it was there.
    How many Lancaster's were lost because only a very few had a belly armament?
     
  3. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,988
    Likes Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    83
    .
     
  4. Colin1

    Colin1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Engineer and overgrown schoolboy
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I don't quite get the question, what's the (c) thing for?

    With the benefit of hindsight, even great numbers of heavily-armed four-engined bombers couldn't adequately defend themselves without fighter cover. The turret probably just added drag to a aircraft that was already slow in 1940.

    I don't think Blenheims were designed (or envisaged) to be used in the same manner or numbers as B-17s. In that case, I'd want to go in low, fast (well, as fast as possible) and high-tail it with as clean an airframe as possible before the cavalry showed up.
     
  5. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,988
    Likes Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The (c) is for 'copyright' (couldn't find it fast on Croatian keyboard layout :)
     
  6. Seawitch

    Seawitch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Artist, others
    Location:
    London
    Home Page:
    I think the Luftwaffe had a different idea, they created an upward firing arrangement on ME110 night fighters to exploit this surely?
    That bombers need fighter protection isn't being forgotten...
     
  7. Watanbe

    Watanbe Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Student, Casual
    Location:
    Adelaide
    Can't compare a night attack to day. Even if there was a gunner in a belly turret it is doubtful he would see a NF flying below him anyway. The best defence a Bomber Command aircraft had was not being spotted or having a Mossie NF take out the German before he took out the bomber.
     
  8. parsifal

    parsifal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    10,676
    Likes Received:
    676
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Urban Design/Strategic Studies Tutor
    Location:
    Orange NSW
    Blenheims were the fast light bomber of the '30s. Unfortunately for them by the outbreak of the war , they were not so fast anymore.

    I dont think removing the defences would have made them fast enough, so I dont see any option other than to load em up with heavy defensive armament. Its inadequate, like the german medium bomber defences, but there was no other option other than to add to the defences, was there?

    Interestingly the Mosquito bomber built on this concept, and these were successful in achieving sufficiently high performance to reduce the loss rate markedly

    For all its faults, the Blenheim served a purpose in those early years.
     
  9. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    Given the numbers of aircraft involved it is quite possiable that some poor German managed to fly into the rearward gun fire:)

    But this armament arangment isn't any worse than the fixed gun in the tail of He 111s or the fixed guns in the rear of the engine nacelles on some Hovacs, or the fixed reaward firing 20mm guns in some Arado 234 jets that were supposed to "sighted" with a rearward looking Periscope IIRC:lol:

    there are a number of other rather strange rearward firing guns that are ment much more for the discourgement of persuing aircaraft and the improvement of bomber crew moral than any actual expectation of 'killing" enemy aircraft.
     
  10. Watanbe

    Watanbe Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Student, Casual
    Location:
    Adelaide
    I've always had a soft spot for the Blenheim IV, but it served its purpose because it was available in numbers. For the concept mentioned to work the plane in question has to be at its height of development. As soon as it loses its speed edge, it becomes basically obsolete.
     
Loading...

Share This Page