Comment by alricb
10 years ago
They're talking about M2 .50 heavy machine guns; the B-29 didn't have what are considered "cannons" (usually 20 mm or more).
For the most part, defensive guns on bombers weren't all that useful; even with a fire-control computer aiding you, it's very hard to hit a (possibly maneuvering) moving plane from another moving plane. It would probably have been better to omit those heavy guns and turrets and to leave those gunners on the ground to save weight, lives, and resources.
The guns on a bomber were never really meant for engaging aircraft. They're meant to deter fighters from ever getting near the bomber. Not many pilots are willing to sit directly in the path of machine gun fire, even if it is not very accurate. German anti-aircraft figured this out as well. They switched to shooting mostly tracer rounds. You aren't going to hit anything in the first place, so you might as well just scare the crap out of them.
There were some WWII 'gunship' style modifications of planes, but that was not that common.
For a more modern comparison, consider that the Bradley fighting vehicle carries anti tank missiles. Sending a group of Bradleys directly against tanks would be suicidal. The Bradley has aluminum for armor. A well trained set of tank crews operating even WWII vintage vehicles would decimate them. Instead, the misiles are there to deter tanks from engaging them. It also provides the crew with an enormous psychological benefit. That benefit is they at least have the benefit of being able to respond to an enemy tank with a potentially lethal weapons system. Ironically of course the TOW missiles on the Bradley destroyed more Iraqi tanks the M1 tank ever did in the Gulf war. But that is because Iraqi tank crews either had no experience or had armored vehicles in horrible condition.
My father was the navigator in a B17. He said the Luftwaffe would try to sneak up behind the B17, to see if the tail gunner was watching. The tail gunner would let off a few rounds, even out of range, so the tracers would let the Luftwaffe pilot know he was watching. If not, well, another B17 down.
If that didn't work for the 109s, they'd do a head on attack. A head on attack made it very hard for the B17s to hit them, and the closing speed was so fast it would carry the 109s out of range quickly after the attack.
My father said that unlike the buffoonish German pilots portrayed in WW2 movies, the real ones were careful, professional, and deadly. You never wanted to let your guard down around them.
Correct. Hence the development of the B-17G model with the chin turret to provide more forward protection.
>The guns on a bomber were never really meant for engaging aircraft. They're meant to deter fighters from ever getting near the bomber. Not many pilots are willing to sit directly in the path of machine gun fire, even if it is not very accurate. German anti-aircraft figured this out as well. They switched to shooting mostly tracer rounds. You aren't going to hit anything in the first place, so you might as well just scare the crap out of them.
Never really meant? Some citations there would be nice.
US day bombers that were not protected by fighters often suffered heavy losses against the Luftwaffe. Which is why unescorted daylight bombing was suspended following the 25% casualty raid on Schweinfurt.
>They switched to shooting mostly tracer rounds. ..right. What I've read is that many units stopped using tracers altogether on pure fighters because their different ballistics at long range meant that they were not useful. The gas created when the base of the tracer burned diminished drag. (this has later been adopted for howitzer ammo, base bleed increases range by up to 30%)
= What I've read is that many units stopped using tracers altogether on pure fighters because their different ballistics at long range meant that they were not useful. =
You mean stopped using tracers against fighter aircraft, or stopped carrying them on fighters? The parent seems to be talking about ground AA gun crews using tracers -- presumably a lot of these would be firing at bombers?
1 reply →
Given that the Bradley was designed to fight Eastern Bloc forces on the plains of Germany (which comprises rolling terrain, closely spaced villages, streams, etc.) a vehicle that can be tucked behind cover and fire lethal anti-tank missiles isn't just decoration.
One of the most interesting cold war AFVs was an M113 chassis with a cherry picker and 15 TOW missiles on it. Armor is nice, but a hill is even nicer.
The problem is that the US army is still equipping itself superbly to fight the Eastern Bloc in 1985.
> One of the most interesting cold war AFVs was an M113 chassis with a cherry picker and 15 TOW missiles on it. Armor is nice, but a hill is even nicer.
Is this what you're talking about? http://russian-tanks.com/the-m901-armored-missile-vehicle.ph...
= One of the most interesting cold war AFVs was an M113 chassis with a cherry picker and 15 TOW missiles on it. Armor is nice, but a hill is even nicer. =
Interesting, never heard of that one! Any links by any chance? I would be curious to look at pictures :) (Edit: looks like another reply has a link!)
And IMO it makes perfect sense for the first priority to be always prepared for the toughest opponent: a TOW missile will destroy a pickup truck just fine, but it also forces the opponent to be much more careful with their tanks.
It's kind of an interesting story how the military didn't really want the Bradley in the first place but it was forced upon them by congress and they had to find a use for it.
I have a relative who was in the mechanized infantry back in the early 1990s. From what he was able to share with me, the Bradley was an interesting vehicle with a lot of cool stuff but if my life was on the line, I'd prefer to be in an M1 Abrams.
There is a pretty good movie "Pentagon Wars" about the development of the Bradley.[0] It's not entirely accurate, but even as complete fiction would be an enjoyable satire.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars
1 reply →
If my life were on the line I'd prefer not to be in combat, but if you're infantry, riding around in an Abrams isn't an option. It's like saying you'd prefer to be in a frigate.
5 replies →
Later on, they did exactly that: from about February onwards, Curtis LeMay had the guns and turrets stripped out of the force bombing Japan -- except for the tail position -- to save weight/increase range, speed, and bomb load. Operational consequences:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
It would probably have been better to omit those heavy guns and turrets and to leave those gunners on the ground to save weight, lives, and resources
That is exactly what Freeman Dyson said of the Lancaster bomber.
Tho' no sooner had the belly turret been removed than the Luftwaffe invented upward-firing guns, they would slip into position directly under, matching speed and heading, then just let rip.
Upward firing weapons were actually used in a number of fighters - originally in WW1 for attacking zeppelins:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%A4ge_Musik
The Schräge Musik approach is also 'Keep It Simple' in contrast to the American over-complicate-it approach.
That term is also interesting as they considered jazz music to be 'queer'.
Ultimately though it was fuel that mattered. When the USA joined the war half way through it meant that Allied planes were on 100 octane petrol, meanwhile the Germans were using some glorified coal slurry and the Japanese were using some tree bark extract made by school kids.
Don't forget the Defiant, a WW2 fighter whose only armament consisted of a rearward-facing turret.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulton_Paul_Defiant
> It would probably have been better to omit those heavy guns and turrets and to leave those gunners on the ground to save weight, lives, and resources.
Yep. The Mosquito was the safest (for the crew) bomber of the war, hugely more accurate and effective than the heavies. But heavies were the dogma of the politically influential in the air forces of Britain and the US, so much as battleships kept being considered the key asset long after they were actually irrelevant, thousands of young men were strapped into pointless flying coffins.
Repeated on the B-36 as well. http://www.airvectors.net/avb36.html
I think in aircraft 'cannon' = 'explosive shells'
the rear turret had 20mm's from what I recall