The Royal Air force and Belly Guns
- David C. Clarke
- Member
- Posts: 11368
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 18:17
- Location: U.S. of A.
The Royal Air force and Belly Guns
So, does anyone know if there was a reason British four-engined bombers didn't have belly turrets?
Was it doctrinal or simply a lack of technology?
Best Regards,
~D, the EviL
Was it doctrinal or simply a lack of technology?
Best Regards,
~D, the EviL
-
- Member
- Posts: 22
- Joined: 19 Dec 2004, 18:36
- Location: USA
Early British designs did, at first, make some allowances for ventral gun positions.
Bombers such as the "Whitley" had what was referred to as a "rectractable dustbin" gun position. I believe the "Hampton" bomber also had a ventral gun position too. The "Wellington" initially had a ventral gun position, but it was eventually deleted on production models. The "Lancaster" had it's planned ventral fairing re-designed to house the H2S radar unit used for navigation and bombing.
I think the tendency to shy away from a ventral unit in British bombers had more to do with the fact that it was a weight savings issue brought on by the lack of a compact ventral turret system like the American ball turrets found on the B-17 and B-24.
The decision to switch to a primarily night bombing campaign probably had some doctrinal effect as well on the decision to forgo ventral gun positions, but I think the weight issue played a greater part myself
Bombers such as the "Whitley" had what was referred to as a "rectractable dustbin" gun position. I believe the "Hampton" bomber also had a ventral gun position too. The "Wellington" initially had a ventral gun position, but it was eventually deleted on production models. The "Lancaster" had it's planned ventral fairing re-designed to house the H2S radar unit used for navigation and bombing.
I think the tendency to shy away from a ventral unit in British bombers had more to do with the fact that it was a weight savings issue brought on by the lack of a compact ventral turret system like the American ball turrets found on the B-17 and B-24.
The decision to switch to a primarily night bombing campaign probably had some doctrinal effect as well on the decision to forgo ventral gun positions, but I think the weight issue played a greater part myself
- Aufklarung
- Member
- Posts: 5136
- Joined: 17 Mar 2002, 05:27
- Location: Canada
As Orzel adequately stated I think it was neither.DCC wrote:...doctrinal or simply a lack of technology?
Although I alway thought the retractable 'Dustbin' was a rather neat and compact affair.
There was a ventral position of sorts on some of their early medium bombers but design changes and size increases caused it's deletion in the bigger, later models. There were British turrets avail and IIRC the Brits did put US turrets on some of their own bombers. Also just look at the underside of a Lanc and tell me where you'd put a belly turret!!
http://wmilitary.neurok.ru/hampden.tbi.html
http://www.todo-aviones.com.ar/ingles/l ... er_x-1.jpg
Also realize that the night bomber needed not the bristling porcupine of MGs that was the day bomber.
Some see the lack of a ventral gun posn as a drawback, especially when 'jazz music' equipped nightfighters made the scene but I weigh their payload and distances to targets and do not.
BTW what US a/c besides the B17 and B24 had Ball turrets?
regards
A
Experience had shown that hits obtained from ventral gun-positions were few. It's simply a very awkward location for accurate shooting and hence I think RAF dispensed with ventral turrets as being a waste of space and weight. Weren't the Sperry ball-turrets in B-17/24's the heaviest of all their turrets - apart from requiring athletic midgets to fit inside them?
-
- Member
- Posts: 1360
- Joined: 18 Feb 2004, 05:31
- Location: UK
- Contact:
The retractable 'dustbin' turrets weren't much good and were soon deleted from RAF bombers. First of all the extra drag when they were lowered slowed the aircraft quite significantly. Also, they were very small with room for only the gunner and one rifle-calibre MG - not much use, as explained in this extract from 'Flying Guns – World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45' by Emmanuel Gustin and myself:
"Turrets enabled a significant advance in bomber defence, but they were not well suited to dealing with attacks from below. In the late 1930s some bombers were fitted with "dustbin" turrets, cylindrical devices which were normally stored in the fuselage but, complete with gunner, could be lowered through the floor (at a considerable aerodynamic drag penalty) when danger threatened. They were not successful. Neither was the periscope-aimed mounting; a small turret was fitted underneath the aircraft, controlled by the gunner sitting in the fuselage above it, who aimed it by means of a periscope. In theory this was a fine solution to the problem, with minimal drag, but the problems of locating targets and holding the guns on them via a narrow-angle periscope proved insuperable. The Americans eventually developed the only successful answer to this problem, the Sperry ball turret, into which the (necessarily small) gunner was tucked with his knees up around his ears; not the most comfortable of stations."
You couldn't easily add something like the the Sperry ball turret as an afterthought - the whole supporting structure was big and heavy.
Vickers did have one promising idea, but it wasn't followed up. Another quote from FG:WW2:
"In 1937 Vickers had been working on its PV system, which took the form of a large transparent disc in the floor of a bomber, with the gunner and the guns in its centre, seated in a bulge. Although considered more useful at the time than a ventral turret, it never reached service."
However, the next development proved to be the simplest answer:
"Simpler ventral mounts, with a window in the bottom of the aircraft that offered a wider field of view, were more efficient. Such a mounting was developed by No.77 Squadron in the summer of 1944, the “Preston-Green” mounting for a single flexible Browning .50."
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
"Turrets enabled a significant advance in bomber defence, but they were not well suited to dealing with attacks from below. In the late 1930s some bombers were fitted with "dustbin" turrets, cylindrical devices which were normally stored in the fuselage but, complete with gunner, could be lowered through the floor (at a considerable aerodynamic drag penalty) when danger threatened. They were not successful. Neither was the periscope-aimed mounting; a small turret was fitted underneath the aircraft, controlled by the gunner sitting in the fuselage above it, who aimed it by means of a periscope. In theory this was a fine solution to the problem, with minimal drag, but the problems of locating targets and holding the guns on them via a narrow-angle periscope proved insuperable. The Americans eventually developed the only successful answer to this problem, the Sperry ball turret, into which the (necessarily small) gunner was tucked with his knees up around his ears; not the most comfortable of stations."
You couldn't easily add something like the the Sperry ball turret as an afterthought - the whole supporting structure was big and heavy.
Vickers did have one promising idea, but it wasn't followed up. Another quote from FG:WW2:
"In 1937 Vickers had been working on its PV system, which took the form of a large transparent disc in the floor of a bomber, with the gunner and the guns in its centre, seated in a bulge. Although considered more useful at the time than a ventral turret, it never reached service."
However, the next development proved to be the simplest answer:
"Simpler ventral mounts, with a window in the bottom of the aircraft that offered a wider field of view, were more efficient. Such a mounting was developed by No.77 Squadron in the summer of 1944, the “Preston-Green” mounting for a single flexible Browning .50."
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
Re: The Royal Air force and Belly Guns
It was neither.David C. Clarke wrote:So, does anyone know if there was a reason British four-engined bombers didn't have belly turrets?
Was it doctrinal or simply a lack of technology?
Best Regards,
~D, the EviL
The reason most British heavy bombers had no belly turrets, was that early Operational Research had shown that they were almost never used in air combat at night. So in order that they could reduce the number of crew needed by one, and save weight they stopped fitting them to their bombers.
What most people don't know is that the Avro Lancaster was designed with a ventral turret ( the 2x.303 F.N. 64) and a number of Lancasters with the ventral turret did see service. 8)
Aufklarung asked
See photoAlso just look at the underside of a Lanc and tell me where you'd put a belly turret!!
- Attachments
-
- lancaster with ventral turret.jpg (19.71 KiB) Viewed 7087 times
- Aufklarung
- Member
- Posts: 5136
- Joined: 17 Mar 2002, 05:27
- Location: Canada
- David C. Clarke
- Member
- Posts: 11368
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 18:17
- Location: U.S. of A.
Hi Aufklarung! The B-25 B, C, and D models had a retractible ventral ball turret. My information also mentions that it was often removed in the field. It was definitely removed for Doolittle's Tokyo raid.BTW what US a/c besides the B17 and B24 had Ball turrets?
I won't count the B-29 remote ventral turrets.
Best Regards,
David
- Aufklarung
- Member
- Posts: 5136
- Joined: 17 Mar 2002, 05:27
- Location: Canada
Hi David
I did look up on that after I read your post. Not being a B25-phile, I never realized they even had a manned ventral turret.
Bendix tho' not Sperry as per the Big Boys. Mind you B17G 's chin turret was Bendix too and B24 nose turret was an Emerson. I'm betting the bottom fell out of that "turret" market in the mid-forties!!
I too was not counting B29 remote turrets.
regards
A:)
I did look up on that after I read your post. Not being a B25-phile, I never realized they even had a manned ventral turret.
Bendix tho' not Sperry as per the Big Boys. Mind you B17G 's chin turret was Bendix too and B24 nose turret was an Emerson. I'm betting the bottom fell out of that "turret" market in the mid-forties!!
I too was not counting B29 remote turrets.
regards
A:)