Browning armed Lancasters

[Kocur]

There were substantial internal, though minor at first glance, differences between .50 M2HB and aerial .50 A/N M2. The latter naturally had higher rate of fire, which was achieved primarily by using lighter barrel (loss on heat resistance was compenstated by intense air flow) and resulting changes in geometry of cooperating surfaces of barrel extension, accelerator and bolt. Also other parts differed between both versions. So I belive that production of A/N M2 required different tooling than in case of M2HB, i.e. numbers of M2HB available do not tell much about numbers of A/N M2.

I would guess that A/N M2s salvaged from crashed planes owed their popularity among US ground troops to higher ROF: "My Ma Duece is bigger than yours"

[Wokelly]

I always wonder how effective better guns would of been. It was so dark at night, seeing your target would of been difficult if you were a rear gunner. Not to mention the muzzle flash would destroy your natural "night vision", and it would take time for your eyes to re-adjust to the darkness after so much bright flashing.

On the other hand, I think 4x303s were not that bad. I mean, coming in from the rear you need heacy guns, but being a gunner means you hit them in the front, where their engines are and pilots are. Granted they may of not been that effective, but 4x303s hitting your engines head on are not to be taken lightly.

[Andy H]

In the Sept 2006 issue of Military History, a interview with a Lancaster pilot off 166Sqn in 1944, mentioned that his rear guns were .50Brownings, whilst the remainder were .303's. Though he flew daylight missions from DDay onwards, his specific story related to him being shot down at night, by a Ju88 attacking from the rear.

Regards

Andy H

[kriegsmarine221]

well planes later in the war were becoming heavily armored so a .30 caliber wouldnt have done much damage. a 50. caliber though was found to be effective againgst any luftwaffe aircraft. and just wondering. how does the gunner fire all guns at once?

[Kristian S.]

Some Halifax bombers had a single .50 in the ventral position as an option to the H2S radar cupola.

[bf109 emil]

During the war, the Royal Canadian Air Force realized the limitations of their .303 calibre machine guns and took steps to switch from the hydraulically operated Fraser-Nash mid-upper turrets to the Martin. However, this modification was only included on the last 276 of the 431 Canadian built Lancasters.

The Martin 250 CE is a 24 volt, electrically operated turret containing two .50 calibre machine guns. Four ammunition boxes provide 1600 rounds of ammunition. It was mounted on the top of the aircraft, about mid-way down the fuselage.

http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/airgunners3.html
a final interesting note to air gunners flying at night.. and have asterisk the one which i think would be hard to do in the event of an attack
--General Hints For Air Gunners (Condensed)

- Search sky before take off and landing, your a/c is most vulnerable.
- If gun fire, search for fighter; take evasive action.
- Always watch your own tail.
- Conserve your ammo; if you’re fired upon from long range, instruct pilot to use evasive action.
- Never fly straight or dive when under attack.
- Use good team work with rest of crew.
- Patrol across the sun, never into or away from it.
- Never turn away from an attack, always towards.
- If using tracer at night, remember it tends to momentarily destroy your night vision;
hold your fire until necessary.
- If on reconnaissance aircraft; your job is to return with information; not to seek combat with enemy aircraft.
- Aim of enemy fighter is to destroy; aim of bomber air gunner is to get safely to target and back to base.
**** Never fire until fired upon.****
- All aircraft approaching are considered to be enemy until identified otherwise.
- REMEMBER: TO BE SURPRISED IS TO BE LOST.
- If your own guns fail or are damaged during an attack use your ingenuity to outwit the attacker.

http://www.lancastermuseum.ca/airgunners2.html

[david Cotton]

I am surprised that the bothered with guns at all. As has been said already, the gunners were more important as lookouts.

Stripping the turrets out and making them simple windows would of saved weight. Putting a window in the bottom of the aircraft may also of helped spot upward firing fighters.

To me, the best way for a four engine bomber to survive is to get in and out the combat zone as quick as possible. Therefore the lighter it is, the faster it can fly, and the less time it spends in the killing zone.

[Tony Williams]

I am surprised that the bothered with guns at all. As has been said already, the gunners were more important as lookouts.

Stripping the turrets out and making them simple windows would of saved weight. Putting a window in the bottom of the aircraft may also of helped spot upward firing fighters.

To me, the best way for a four engine bomber to survive is to get in and out the combat zone as quick as possible. Therefore the lighter it is, the faster it can fly, and the less time it spends in the killing zone.

This was argued by some people at the time. The reason it was ignored was probably crew morale - it made them feel better to have something to shoot back with.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

[phylo_roadking]

I am surprised that the bothered with guns at all. As has been said already, the gunners were more important as lookouts.

Stripping the turrets out and making them simple windows would of saved weight. Putting a window in the bottom of the aircraft may also of helped spot upward firing fighters.

Heinz Rökker mentioned in a snailmail correspondence with a member on another forum that any of his victories were accomplished with the twin 2cm cannons in his Ju 88G-6 and he and his crew felt very confident with them "being undetected" as he put it.

An aircraft with darkened upper surfaces passing BELOW a bomber will be virtually invisible against the benighted ground far below; the bomber crew are looking down into the dark with no form of light to silhouette/back-illuminate the fighter. I can understand his confidence. I also posted there -

You have to remember that MOST "nightfighter attacks" were actually long stern chases once a jager was tasked to a target by his ground controller. The LW pilot THEN had to be vectored onto the target until he was in range for his own radar to take over...THEN as well he was having to climb to around the same altitude and build up enough speed to catch the target, having been loitering on cruise in his respective Kamhuber Line box.

It was VERY difficult for most nightfighters to build up enough speed to actually outmanouver a target for an attack from the beam or any "known" weak point. Some, like the Me110, were compromised both by the weight of radar installations AND their power output being compromised in nachtjager mode by the flame baffles over the exhaust stubs ruining the "tune" of the exhaust. Those little short exhaust stubs that look like an afterthought on inline engines had a VERY precise length and function!

So - the "schrage musik" installation was the LW's practical way of delivering a devastating attack that DIDN'T mean outmanouvering the target - they JUST had to overhaul it and slowly pass beneath it!

Part of the overall losses to schrage musik HAS to be down to the way the numbers averaged out - for ANOTHER problem with the Kamhuber Line was that...that pilot THEN had to return to HIS box to be tasked again to a new target by HIS controller as one passed through it. Therefore a nightfighter could only attempt to chase three or four bogies in a night...but if he saved fuel AND clock-time by a simple passing attack on a bomber from rear to nose - he could perhaps squeeze one MORE engagement out of his fuel load and the Bomber Stream before his evening's activity ended This is also why nightfighters gave up on bombers that tried to evade - they couldn't aford to waste the fuel and distance it meant chasing them even further down-range!

This was one of the main issues with the German air defence - the Kamhuber Line could ONLY do a certain number of attacks on intruding aircraft in a night. Therefore there was a relatively fixed percentage of Bomber Command aircraft in a raid could be targeted in a night. Hence the initial tactic of the Bomber Stream - to scatter an RAF raid in time across the K-Line And thus make it harder for LW nightfighters to move back and forth across the landscape in and out of position AND manage to be in the right place at the right time to be tasked to a new bogie.

(Also - regarding no ventral turrets...don't forget it originally WAS the RAF's idea to simply "outrun" the opposition; this was the idea behind Barnes Wallis' Victory Bomber, and the later Vickers Windsor and experimental Wellingtons that only flew with rear-facing armament. It was relied-on that as a bomber passed over Europe at a high altitude and speed, a defending nightfighter would have to perform that long stern chase Therefore only rear defensive armament would be needed!)

[david Cotton]

I think 5 Path Finder Lancaster were actually stripped of their front and mid upper turret, and given more engine power.
However, I am not sure what the combat result was of this experiment.....but they didn't convert any more .

The B29's hitting Japan had a lot of their guns removed to help them get in and out quicker. This was very successful, but Japan did not have as good a Night Fighter force as Nazi Germany.

I still think a bottom view window would of helped. It would not of been easy to detect sneaky night fighter creeping up below, but bomber crews did some times pick up fighters even when they were below them.

With the Tame Boar system the night fighter crews were directed or guided to the bomber stream , and then used their own Radar to pick targets. Therefore ,at the moment I am still going with the get in and out as quick as possible theory.

[bf109 emil]

David Cotton wrote'

I still think a bottom view window would of helped. It would not of been easy to detect sneaky night fighter creeping up below, but bomber crews did some times pick up fighters even when they were below them.

This was considered on Canadian built Lancs, er rather a mid-under gun turret placed there but instead H2S radar was installed below the fuselage...
from KB-855 om some of the major change being built on Canadian Lancaster and their differences from their earlier counterparts and those built in Great Britain

Major changes were made beginning with KB-855. The U.S. built, electrically powered Martin mid-upper turret with two .50 calibre machine guns replaced the Fraser-Nash mid-uppers. As well, "4000 pound" bomb bay doors replaced the "8000 pound" doors that were on earlier aircraft. These had enabled the aircraft to carry larger bombs and gave the Lancaster a somewhat pregnant appearance. The possibility of having a mid-under gun turret was eliminated and H2S radar was installed below the fuselage. The changes to accommodate the Martin turret were extensive as the location of the turret had to be moved forward necessitating changes to the rear centre section structure, the capacity of the electrical system had to be increased, the ammunition supply system had to be changed, and the former mid-upper turret hydraulic system eliminated.

here is the source as well as an excellent view of all Canadian built Lancs and numerous research as to the eventual demise or resting placehttp://www.lancastermuseum.ca/lancavro.html

[GD,grenedier]

Ok, just to point a few things out, the ANm2 aircraft mount .50 is not interchangeble with the ground counterpart (the belt links and ammo do work in each weapon)this applies to wing mounted and ball mounted weapons, both are solinoid fired and have a fireing rate of around 11-1200rpm, they also have seprate barrel/reciever mounts and the bolts are different etc. It would'nt be of any use per se to ground personnel as converting it to ground use would be difficult and would have to be done by someone who knew what he was doing. I admit freely that I'm not familier with the brits use of the M2.50 (air or ground) but afaik there has never been a chronic shortage of the weapon in the ETO, bear in mind that the weapon had been in production since 1922 (still is). any shortages would have been on loss/replacement side of the issue (also a common practice was to claim higher losses so they could get extra weapons not allowed in the standered TO&E, hence the so called shortages) Sean

[Andy H]

Hi

From its introduction in July 1944 to the end of the air war against Germany, some 180 Rose Turrets had been built and fitted to aircraft of No 1 Group.

Regards

Andy H