the wings, not the belly
I’ve very much enjoyed reading this thread from the sideline.
AM correctly notes above that we’ve been over a lot of this ground before, but something interesting always comes from another look. I hadn’t appreciated that there was so much ongoing reporting about attacks from underneath … but it seems the mindset of the analyst was set on this being a new manouver or free held gun. A purpose built set up that allowed the attacking pilot to maintain level flight (rather than pull up) seems not to have been considered (as Dyson suggests) notwithstanding Allied experiments with the same.
I also note James’ comment re. RAF aircraft having their bellies unprotected. The memoirs I’ve read of Nachtjager pilots suggests bellies weren’t what they were looking for. For one thing they had an unfortunate tendency to go bang if fired upon. This could be detrimental.
The preferred technique, built up through evaluation of downed aircraft, was to put a mix of explosive and incendiary shells into the fuel tanks between the engines. This could be done from close range, in formation whilst flying level (and therefore having beter control over the approach) and very quickly. Only a handful of shells were required.
For years I’ve been intrigued by how quickly a bomber struck in that manner went out of control. The few surviving tales tell of the bomber going out of control in tens of seconds. Why would this be? Would burning fuel destroy the lift of the wing in very short order? Plus of course there would also be flames streaming back to the elevators (tail wing).
Good thread, cheers D
edit … I note (in the KB965 thread) discussion about metal vs fabric elevators … I was thinking fabric in my comment above re. flames streaming back. All the same, I can’t see how flames would help.
Sign In
