Gun Turrets or Not ?

The VGO gun in the nose of later Halifaxes was just added for psychological effect for the bombaimer so that he at least had something to shoot with when attacked, and occasionaly it did give a good account of itself. Why the Lancaster persisted with the noseturret remains unclear (to me anyway).

Cees

From a Whitley point of view, the front turret was not often used at night and when it was it was usually to attack searchlights.

I imagine it was also used later when Coastal Command Whitleys attacked u-boats, probably to very little effect.

Other related threads

There are two other/related threads I can think of …

this one about .303 machine guns (vs. twin .50’s)
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=75624

and this one that discusses schrage musik and other stuff
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=67563

This is old ground being treaded once more. On one of these threads (do not remember where), I quoted John Searby DSO, DFC from his book The Bomber Battle for Berlin, as saying that the deletion of just the mid -upper turret would have resaulted in signficantly lower casaulties due to the higher speed of the aircraft and the inability of the german night figher force to cope with the higher speed of the pray.

That sentiment is born out in an article I read in one of the monthlies, where a german night fighter pilot is telling of his difficulties of catching a Halifax going flat out for England after a sortie close to the shores of Holland. He was flying an Me 110, and had great difficulties indeed closing on his pray that was going flat out at a steady altitude.

Sadly, I think any gain in performance realised through removal of turrets would have been largely negated by an increase in bomb load, such was the urgency in destroying urban Germany.

With war-time thinking I have to agree that increasing the bombload would be the most likely reaction of Bomber Command…

…but the bombers would still be 1500lb lighter on the way home so would be flying faster and higher…and statistically this is when most would be shot down.

No Lanc or Hali was ever going to get anywhere near high enough, or fast enough, to evade the Luftwaffe, they were always going to be fairly easy prey.

It took time for the Luftwaffe to identify the target, the route and assemble large numbers of night-fighters from all over occupied Europe the real key is to cut down this time both on the way and back from the target.

Anyway, I cannot see Bomber Command allowing heavies to penetrate enemy defences almost blind.

Unfortunately that’s exactly what bomber Command did do for much of the war…most bombers never saw the fighter that shot them down and even if they did it didn’t save them. Of course there were many gunners who saw fighters in time to call for evasive action and some even managed to shoot-down or drive-off a fighter but these are surely in the minority.

I believe for much of the war Bomber Command still clung to the theory that flak was more dangerous than fighters, possibly based on the fact that more bombers returned with flak damage than with fighter damage, of course in reality most bombers attacked by fighters didn’t get back. Statistical evidence giving the wrong answer. And if flak was the greater danger what use were turrets and gunners anyway?

So, even with turrets removed, there would have been a need for rear/upward/downward observation points, to detect enemy fighters.

I agree about the need to keep a good lookout to the rear and below and personally I’d keep the rear turret and gunner. As for the rest of the crew some were underemployed for large portions of the operation, particularly the wireless operator and bomb aimer. Possibly these crew could help provide a better lookout to the rear and below?

Sadly, I think any gain in performance realised through removal of turrets would have been largely negated by an increase in bomb load, such was the urgency in destroying urban Germany.

Anyway, I cannot see Bomber Command allowing heavies to penetrate enemy defences almost blind. No Lanc or Hali was ever going to get anywhere near high enough, or fast enough, to evade the Luftwaffe, they were always going to be fairly easy prey. So, even with turrets removed, there would have been a need for rear/upward/downward observation points, to detect enemy fighters. The displaced air gunners would have been occupied at those stations.

Didn’t we cite an example of this in another thread? Remove Halifax mid-upper turret, but re-position the air gunner to look out downwards through a blister in the fuselage floor.

Don’t forget that the principal German nigthfighter the Bf 110G-4 was getting heavier and heavier while engine power remained the same…

…on the other hand the british bombers were further developed with more engine power (The Mk VI Halifax had Hercules 100 engines giving 1.800 hp per engine and a top speed of around 300 mph)…

Exactly, I think it is often overlooked how overworked the poor Bf110 was by this time, long-range tanks, draggy radar aerials, radar and operator, gun packs, ammunition and flame-damper exhausts.

Although it would always have a better maximum speed than the bombers cruising speed that would not necessarily be good enough.

Many years ago I wrote a simple simulation for my computer (BBC Model B – yes that long ago!) to show the effect of a modest speed increase and the chances of interception by a night-fighter.

Operating a ‘box’ on the ‘Himmelbett’ system the night-fighter would home onto the bomber flying at cruising speed and when it was within 100 metres it was judged to be within visual range and this was counted as a kill (there was no combat as such).

The odd lucky bomber would get through (usually those skimming the edge of the circular ‘box’) but the kill rate was still about 90% (this was for individual bombers flying through the box not a bomber stream).

When the cruising speed of the bomber was increased by about 30mph the number of interceptions dropped off to near zero. The night-fighter was still faster, was allowed to fly always at maximum speed, and always knew exactly where the bomber was (while it was in the box) and did not suffer any time delay in having this information relayed to it from a ground station but it still just couldn’t make an interception.

The margin of speed it had over the bomber was just not enough…

…and I’ve heard it said that if all the turrets were taken from a Lancaster it could cruise 50mph faster!

Yes, and the dorsal turret too.

Strip out all the redundant plumbing, the engine driven hydraulic pumps (originally one on each engine supplying power to one turret each) except leave two pumps to supply the tail turret (for redundancy in case of loss of one engine).

As far a centre-of-gravity for a Lancaster I’m sure the bombload could have been re-arranged to cope with any problems (the Halifax lost its nose turret without problems).

On a Lancaster the nose turret FN5 alone (without guns or ammunition) weighed 237lb (107kg) and the dorsal turret FN50 alone (without guns or ammunition) weighed 340lb (155kg) loaded with guns and ammunition it weighed 699lb (318kg)!

Working on a figure of 22lb (10kg) for each Browning 303 gun and 180lb (82kg) per 1000 rounds of ammunition per gun the FN5 nose turret should weigh about 641lb (291kg) loaded!

Not forgetting of course the gunner for the dorsal turret at about 180lb (82kg).

So a total weight for both turrets of about 1500lb (682kg)…plus a fair amount of drag…and all this had to be carried all the way to the target and in almost every case all the way back.

Without these turrets a Lancaster would fly higher and significantly faster and these were by far the best defences against night fighters. Alternatively some of this weight loss could be traded-off for better range, better bombload (an extra two 1000lb bombs to any target) or a combination of these.

Also when a Lancaster was lost only six crew would be lost or to put it another way a saving of maybe 7000 aircrew lives over the course of the war.

And, yes, I know there are some flaws in this argument but I’m happy to discuss it. 🙂

IIRC I think precisely that argument was put forward at Farnborough during the war.
Logic versus psychology!

Don’t forget that the principal German nigthfighter the Bf 110G-4 was getting heavier and heavier while engine power remained the same and they were being hunted by Beaufighters and Mosquitoes. On the other hand the british bombers were further developed with more engine power (The Mk VI Halifax had Hercules 100 engines giving 1.800 hp per engine and a top speed of around 300 mph), more “black boxes”etc. But the darkness was still the main protection for Bomber Command. In general it remained a cat and mouse game but a very sophisticated one during 44/45.

Cheers

Cees

…the nose turret could have been removed and faired over…

Yes, and the dorsal turret too.

Strip out all the redundant plumbing, the engine driven hydraulic pumps (originally one on each engine supplying power to one turret each) except leave two pumps to supply the tail turret (for redundancy in case of loss of one engine).

But then do you get c/g problems from taking out the heavy nose turret which means you might as well leave it there?

As far a centre-of-gravity for a Lancaster I’m sure the bombload could have been re-arranged to cope with any problems (the Halifax lost its nose turret without problems).

On a Lancaster the nose turret FN5 alone (without guns or ammunition) weighed 237lb (107kg) and the dorsal turret FN50 alone (without guns or ammunition) weighed 340lb (155kg) loaded with guns and ammunition it weighed 699lb (318kg)!

Working on a figure of 22lb (10kg) for each Browning 303 gun and 180lb (82kg) per 1000 rounds of ammunition per gun the FN5 nose turret should weigh about 641lb (291kg) loaded!

Not forgetting of course the gunner for the dorsal turret at about 180lb (82kg).

So a total weight for both turrets of about 1500lb (682kg)…plus a fair amount of drag…and all this had to be carried all the way to the target and in almost every case all the way back.

Without these turrets a Lancaster would fly higher and significantly faster and these were by far the best defences against night fighters. Alternatively some of this weight loss could be traded-off for better range, better bombload (an extra two 1000lb bombs to any target) or a combination of these.

Also when a Lancaster was lost only six crew would be lost or to put it another way a saving of maybe 7000 aircrew lives over the course of the war.

And, yes, I know there are some flaws in this argument but I’m happy to discuss it. 🙂

Are there any figures for the the number of times a Halifax with a ventral 0.5″ saw a nightfighter closing in from below particularly one fitted with Schrage Musik

And how are you going to aim against the dark ground below?

Cees

Radar.

You?

I daylight is different? B-17/B-24 losses were high and without the weight penalty of crew and weapons, would they have been able to get away from the FW-190’s etc? Plus, at least in the dark you can hide, radar or not. I read that the ventral 0.5’s were popular, I guess if your eyes are tuned to the dark, you can see aircraft outlines, certainly against any fires (OK, just over target)

Interesting point. My immediate thought is that for attacking the models of B17 that didn’t have guns that trained immediately forwards, German fighter units quickly learned that the best way to attack was head on. Consequently forward firing MGs were added as field mods, and then factory fitted. The point being that as soon as you take a defensive gun away, the enemy learns and exploits it.

However, for night bombers this is perhaps a moot point. I would have thought that a ventral turret would have been the most useful application and the nose turret could have been removed and faired over, as the main attack was going to be below and behind with Schrage Musik and a head on attack at night not really practical.

But then do you get c/g problems from taking out the heavy nose turret which means you might as well leave it there?

And how are you going to aim against the dark ground below?

Cees

Interesting point. My immediate thought is that for attacking the models of B17 that didn’t have guns that trained immediately forwards, German fighter units quickly learned that the best way to attack was head on. Consequently forward firing MGs were added as field mods, and then factory fitted. The point being that as soon as you take a defensive gun away, the enemy learns and exploits it.

However, for night bombers this is perhaps a moot point. I would have thought that a ventral turret would have been the most useful application and the nose turret could have been removed and faired over, as the main attack was going to be below and behind with Schrage Musik and a head on attack at night not really practical.

But then do you get c/g problems from taking out the heavy nose turret which means you might as well leave it there?

Jon Lake has written an argument that “swarms” of Mosquitos and Whirlwinds could have done the same job at less risk to manpower, other than the Tallboy/Grandslam drops, does he have a point?

There was a version of the Halifax, Lancaster and Stirling without gun-turrets…

…it was called the de Havilland Mosquito! 😀