Turrets needed for invasion-support operations?
First, Freeman Dyson's account makes it clear he thinks there was a failure of insight, not hindsight, regarding Schrage Musik - a failure he believes he shared. An honest and brave assessment of his involvement. But, he was only 19 or so and straight from school.
And, just posssibly, the higher-ups in Bomber Command made the right decision in not removing the turrets. By 1943 they would have known that the bombers would be called upon to strike infrastructure etc. in France/Low Countries in support of the invasion. Many of these ops were at lower elevation than those over Germany, and turret guns might prove very useful against German fighters. Plus, there might be daylight raids.
Those responsible for strategy in Bomber Command might have thought that removing turrets would aid the bombing campaign in Germany, but would then have to be retro-fitted to suit the invasion campaign and later low-level efforts.
If so, they would reason that ripping out turrets is far easier than putting them back in: hence, for strategic reasons, do nothing!
And, did they have an eye on later, low-level, operations against the Japanese?
Just a thought (but I don't expect it is new).
Last edited by tanimbar; 24th Jan 2011 at 10:40.
Reason: spelling and follow-on thought