I have seen it written that one problem with the PBY’s big gun blisters was that when canister-fed guns were mounted, attacking pilots could see when the gunner needed to go forward one compartment to get a new canister, and they would then make their attack unopposed.
I have my doubts that this is true, and so does David Legg, who I queried directly re. an Aviation History magazine article I’m doing.
Does anybody know differently?
By: baldrick - 30th August 2012 at 00:25
Highly doubtful, all the Cats I`ve seen in museums have the ammo canisters mounted in a rack on the bulkhead immediately forward of the blister – in arms length of the gunner. The next compartment forward was the sleeping quarters with four bunks and not a lot of room for storing ammo canisters.
The Cats in RAAF service had the 50s belt fed from a large ammo box mounted on the walkway between the guns.
Simmo
By: J Boyle - 29th August 2012 at 21:10
To avoid hits, wouldn’t a fighter have to stay just out of range to notice when the gunner left his post?
If so, he might be too far away to see the gunner clearly….what’s the range of a .50?
By: Rocketeer - 29th August 2012 at 21:04
not something my Grandad mentions in his memoirs. He talks of the useless dorsal gun though!
By: David Legg - 29th August 2012 at 20:57
I have my doubts that this is true, and so does David Legg, who I queried directly re. an Aviation History magazine article I’m doing.
What I’d said was “It sounds a bit of an urban myth to me! Maybe it happened once and gained credence?”
Sign In
August 29, 2012 at 7:47 pm