Browning armed Lancasters
Browning armed Lancasters
The firm Rose Brothers designed a new rear turret for the Lanc that could be retro-fitted onto the existing Lanc turret rings. Though first used opertionally in June 1944, only 227 were made.
Why so few given that most people (past & present) agree that 2 .50cal Brownings were better than 4 .303's?
Regards
Andy H
Why so few given that most people (past & present) agree that 2 .50cal Brownings were better than 4 .303's?
Regards
Andy H
One simple answer: supply. The US produced the 50cal and used the lion's share of available production guns.
I read a book on the Lanc by Ballantine publications (the author was Martin Caidin, I think) and the story went as this: that had the US not entered the war, the production of a factory making the 50cal would be given to Britain under Lend-Lease to equip (among others) the Lancaster. As it turned out, the Brits had to make do with the wholly insufficient .303s.
I read a book on the Lanc by Ballantine publications (the author was Martin Caidin, I think) and the story went as this: that had the US not entered the war, the production of a factory making the 50cal would be given to Britain under Lend-Lease to equip (among others) the Lancaster. As it turned out, the Brits had to make do with the wholly insufficient .303s.
- Michael Emrys
- Member
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 19:44
- Location: USA
HiSitzkrieg wrote:One simple answer: supply. The US produced the 50cal and used the lion's share of available production guns.
I read a book on the Lanc by Ballantine publications (the author was Martin Caidin, I think) and the story went as this: that had the US not entered the war, the production of a factory making the 50cal would be given to Britain under Lend-Lease to equip (among others) the Lancaster. As it turned out, the Brits had to make do with the wholly insufficient .303s.
I could understand this arguement if it were during the early stages of US involvement, but by 1944 .50cals were being produced in very large quantities, and I would that the amount required just for RAF usage would make a very small dent in this. Anways you may well be correct, such are the fortunes of war
Regards
Andy H
Remember that by then (1944) the war was as good as won, the Luftwaffe parched of fuel and Alled aircraft flew over the shrinking Reich at leisure, so such a program would be of low priority. You may also consider that the bomber element of Force Tiger, the british contribution to the planned campaign against Japan, consisted of Lancasters with .303 armed nose and tail turrets and .50s only in the Martin top (dorsal) turrets...
According to Max Hastings in Bomber Command Harris pressed for getting .50 cal armed turrets for his bombers, but the Americans had none to spare. That's not a very convincing argument considering the great many US/Allied aircraft, tanks etc. armed with .5 inch MGs - particularly US bombers were bristling with Brownings.
By the time the .5 equipped turret was ready the worst of Bomber Command's plight was over with anyway, and I think that it had been acknowledged by then that the gunners were most useful as lookouts, rather than as night fighter killers. As I understand it standard procedure was to immediately begine evasive action if a night fighter was spotted, rather than shoot back from a tight formation as the Americans did.
Still according to Hastings some bomber gunners had all tracer ammunition for their guns instead of the standard one in three, so as to act as a more useful deterrant.
By the time the .5 equipped turret was ready the worst of Bomber Command's plight was over with anyway, and I think that it had been acknowledged by then that the gunners were most useful as lookouts, rather than as night fighter killers. As I understand it standard procedure was to immediately begine evasive action if a night fighter was spotted, rather than shoot back from a tight formation as the Americans did.
Still according to Hastings some bomber gunners had all tracer ammunition for their guns instead of the standard one in three, so as to act as a more useful deterrant.
- Michael Emrys
- Member
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 19:44
- Location: USA
A few years back I read a very good book on the dam raids (sorry, don't recall the title or the name of the author and I seem to have misplaced my copy, but it definitely was not Brickhill's), and it mentioned that on that night the gunners loaded up with all tracers to discourage searchlight and AA gunners. The author made this sound like something exceptional in 1943, but that might be a false impression on my part.Jon G. wrote:Still according to Hastings some bomber gunners had all tracer ammunition for their guns instead of the standard one in three, so as to act as a more useful deterrant.
Michael
I've been skimming through Hastings to see if I could find the reference, but no luck. The index of that book sucks.
Anyway, from memory I seem to recall that Hastings maintains that it was mostly experienced gunners, well into their tours, who knew that chances of bringing down a night fighter with .303 MGs were slim even in the best of cases. The best they could hope for was to spoil the Luftwaffe pilot's aim by throwing out a barrage of tracer while the bomber pilot was doing an evasive corkscrew maneouver. It wasn't quite the same as the daylight USAAF raids. Not only was it much more difficult to spot your opponent in the dark (even more so because the German night fighters preferred approaching from below), but the opposing aircraft were also larger and more difficult to destroy.
On an only mildly related note, I recall reading that the US 4th Armored Division considered downed Allied fighters it found while fighting in France as great prizes, because some of the much-vaunted .50 cal Brownings could usually be salvaged from the wrecks. Maybe there was something about the shortage of .50 MGs after all.
Anyway, from memory I seem to recall that Hastings maintains that it was mostly experienced gunners, well into their tours, who knew that chances of bringing down a night fighter with .303 MGs were slim even in the best of cases. The best they could hope for was to spoil the Luftwaffe pilot's aim by throwing out a barrage of tracer while the bomber pilot was doing an evasive corkscrew maneouver. It wasn't quite the same as the daylight USAAF raids. Not only was it much more difficult to spot your opponent in the dark (even more so because the German night fighters preferred approaching from below), but the opposing aircraft were also larger and more difficult to destroy.
On an only mildly related note, I recall reading that the US 4th Armored Division considered downed Allied fighters it found while fighting in France as great prizes, because some of the much-vaunted .50 cal Brownings could usually be salvaged from the wrecks. Maybe there was something about the shortage of .50 MGs after all.
Still, the numbers would have been too small for aircraft use. plus the effort for converting them from manual to electric firing. The barrells would also have to be changed.Michael Emrys wrote:The British removed the .50s from a lot of their Lend-Lease vehicles, mainly tanks. I wonder if they ever thought of converting those. I know the ground-based M2s were not the same model as the aircraft gun, but I wonder if they could have been used anyway.
Michael
- Michael Emrys
- Member
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 19:44
- Location: USA
I think you are right. Over all, the problems associated with modifying them for aircraft use probably just weren't considered worth it.Sitzkrieg wrote:Still, the numbers would have been too small for aircraft use. plus the effort for converting them from manual to electric firing. The barrells would also have to be changed.Michael Emrys wrote:The British removed the .50s from a lot of their Lend-Lease vehicles, mainly tanks. I wonder if they ever thought of converting those. I know the ground-based M2s were not the same model as the aircraft gun, but I wonder if they could have been used anyway.
Michael
Michael
-
- New member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 05 Jul 2006, 13:38
- Location: United Kingdom
Hello all,
This is my first posting to this excellent site and I hope you don’t mind me chipping in on this one.
I am away from my books at the moment, but I believe the first squadron to have Rose Turrets fitted (with browning machine guns) was 101 which was based in 1 Group. I seem to remember that they wer introduced almost as an experiment by the AoC 1 Group, AVM Rice. Rice I think contacted Rose Brothers in Gainsborough and had them fitted to 101 as they were a special duties unit. The turrets were eventually introduced to other 1 Group squadrons.
I seem to remember that the reason that the modification was not more widespread was due more to the tactics of Bomber Command than a supply one. There was a debate about whether gunners should warn the pilot of enemy aircraft and to try not to engage (and thus not draw attention to themselves) or to take them on. It was felt, I seem to recall that Brownings were not introduced because it was felt that they may encourage gunners to have a crack at an enemy aircraft, rather than relying on the aircrafts best defence – darkness.
If I do find any references to support all this, I will be happy to pass them on
Regards
Mark
This is my first posting to this excellent site and I hope you don’t mind me chipping in on this one.
I am away from my books at the moment, but I believe the first squadron to have Rose Turrets fitted (with browning machine guns) was 101 which was based in 1 Group. I seem to remember that they wer introduced almost as an experiment by the AoC 1 Group, AVM Rice. Rice I think contacted Rose Brothers in Gainsborough and had them fitted to 101 as they were a special duties unit. The turrets were eventually introduced to other 1 Group squadrons.
I seem to remember that the reason that the modification was not more widespread was due more to the tactics of Bomber Command than a supply one. There was a debate about whether gunners should warn the pilot of enemy aircraft and to try not to engage (and thus not draw attention to themselves) or to take them on. It was felt, I seem to recall that Brownings were not introduced because it was felt that they may encourage gunners to have a crack at an enemy aircraft, rather than relying on the aircrafts best defence – darkness.
If I do find any references to support all this, I will be happy to pass them on
Regards
Mark
All good info.
Agree the USAAF needed those .50's far more than the Bomber Command did.
Anyone know how many German night fighters got shot down by bomber gunners on night operations during the war? Compared to the number of RAF bombers shot down by night fighters?
Doubt the RAF gunners were very effective anyway.
Agree the USAAF needed those .50's far more than the Bomber Command did.
Anyone know how many German night fighters got shot down by bomber gunners on night operations during the war? Compared to the number of RAF bombers shot down by night fighters?
Doubt the RAF gunners were very effective anyway.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1360
- Joined: 18 Feb 2004, 05:31
- Location: UK
- Contact:
I have the impression that the RAF were never very serious about the .50 BMG. There was never any attempt to make the .50 in Britain, as far as I am aware. The only British plane it was fitted to in any numbers was the Spitfire, and even then production had switched to the 4x20mm armament by the end of the war. The .50 seems to have been regarded as a bought-in stopgap, to be used until everything could be fitted with the 20mm Hispano.
Hispano turrets were of course introduced into service shortly after the war, in the Lincoln bomber.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Hispano turrets were of course introduced into service shortly after the war, in the Lincoln bomber.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum