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

tomo pauk · Nov 30, 2009

Have they managed to kill/damage something while using the backward-oriented nose gun turret?

Seawitch · Nov 30, 2009

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?

tomo pauk · Nov 30, 2009

Seawitch said:
I don't know, but I can't resist saying at least it was there.

Was it an asset or a liability?

How many Lancaster's were lost because only a very few had a belly armament?

Methinks that Lancaster RAF would've fared much better without weapons crew to man them all together.

.

Colin1 · Nov 30, 2009

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.

tomo pauk · Nov 30, 2009

Colin1 said:
I don't quite get the question, what's the (c) thing for?
...

The (c) is for 'copyright' (couldn't find it fast on Croatian keyboard layout

Seawitch · Nov 30, 2009

tomo pauk said:
Methinks that Lancaster RAF would've fared much better without weapons crew to man them all together.

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...

Watanbe · Nov 30, 2009

Seawitch said:
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...

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.

parsifal · Dec 1, 2009

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.

Shortround6 · Dec 1, 2009

tomo pauk said:
Have they managed to kill/damage something while using the backward-oriented nose gun turret?

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

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.

Watanbe · Dec 2, 2009

parsifal said:
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.

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.

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

More options

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads

Seawitch

Airman 1st Class

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads

Colin1

Senior Master Sergeant

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads

Seawitch

Airman 1st Class

Watanbe

Senior Airman

parsifal

Colonel

Shortround6

Major General

Watanbe

Senior Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads