Lancasters and 0.50 Cal Machine Guns

[beefix]

Dan
Thanks for that. It's amazing to think that the round was made 65 years ago and it still looks as good as new. My son reckons that 0.50 machine gun is a really fine weapon. The ones he used in Iraq ( he's just returned after a six month tour at Basra Airbase) were of a 1940s vintage but as good as new, they are so accurate that you don't have to zero them in. Talk about a show stopper, imagine getting the " whole nine yards"
Well that about wraps it up. Thanks again to everybody, my old friend is so happy that it's all been sorted out, he remembers it as the night that the sky rained fire, machinery and men.
Kind Regards to all
Steve H

[Brian Abraham]

Every thing you want to know about .50 cal and head stamps here http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/faq.html

[Mike7777777]

With hindsight, removal of all guns (and gun crew) from the Lancs and provide support from Serrate Mossies was probably a more effective option than 0.5'' turrets. Grand Slam Lancs minus the Grand Slam were supposed to be a bit of step up in the performance department. Ah, the benefits of hindsight.

[Brian Abraham]

Mike - You raise an interesting point but as they say there is nothing new under the sun. The whole question of the effectiveness of defensive armament was raised in a paper in the Operational Research Section of Bomber Command in 1944. Essentially it argued that the defensive armament and gunners were simply heavier and created more drag than they were worth, and that the speed of the Lancaster could be increased by 50 mph by dispensing with guns. Its payload would also be increased, so fewer aircraft would be needed to carry the same tonnage of bombs, the faster aircraft would be less liable to interception, and casualties per aircraft would be lower when they were destroyed. On this question, as on many other technical matters, it was simply impossible to gather enough data in wartime to present a convincing case for change to the hardline bomber enthusiasts in Command HQ at High Wycombe. There were numerous crews in Britain whose gunners had saved them by driving off an assailant, or more commonly by spotting the attacker in time for evasive action to be effective. Many more crews had found the protection and observation of the gunners inadequate, but often these men were not in Britain - they were in Germany, either in captivity or dead.
(The Great Book of WWII Airplanes)

[Load Toad]

I'm trying to remember where I read it (I thought it was Bomber Crew by James Taylor and Martin Davidson) - but I recall something about Bomber Harris saying that fitting heavier firepower was not worth it as gunners could only see a certain distance anyway... Further I recall reading that gunners usually preferred to spot a night fighter and advise the pilot to take avoiding action - rather than risk firing (and drawing attention) unless absolutely necessary. Sound feasible?

[S'land]

Further I recall reading that gunners usually preferred to spot a night fighter and advise the pilot to take avoiding action - rather than risk firing (and drawing attention) unless absolutely necessary. Sound feasible?

Don't know about feasible, but it sounds like common sense to me. Better to avoid the possibility of being shot at than risk being killed. Also more effective from Bomber Command's point of view. If an aircraft is shot down it needs replacing, if damaged it needs repairing. If the crew are injured or killed they also need replacing.

[Lucky Six]

It is interesting because in the Dam Busters movie there are two scenes where you can see two machine guns in the rear turret. The first is in the middle of the movie where an aircraft is being armed with ammunition being passed through the rear door (not sure if they are .50 cal) and the second is when a Lanc is flying the approach to the Eder Dam.

[Dan Winterland]

That's possibly because when they filmed the Dambusters, they used Lincolns for some of the shots. Look carefully, you will spot them. Or they were Lanc Mk VIIs which came into service after WW2 (the film was made post war) and which had the twin .50 Fraser Nash turret fitted.

[doubledolphins]

Further to what has been said I once had an old Master Aircrew Air Gunner on the flight deck on a flight back from Cyprus. He regailed us with all sorts of war stories as we looked down on his old targets on a crystal clear night. He told us that most of his "kills" (or all of them) had been using ventral fitted 50 cals. Fitted to counter the upwards fireing guns fitted in certain night fighter JU 88s. I had no reson to doubt the fellow and I will alway regard it as an honour to have flown him back from holiday.

[Dan Winterland]

Just watched the Dambusters - again! Some of the Lancs have the Rose turret, not the Fraser Nash. And when Guy Gibson is watching the aircraft arrive, the last one to land is a Lincoln. The film was made in 1955, I suppose Lancs were getting scarce by then.

[Centaurus]

and that the speed of the Lancaster could be increased by 50 mph by dispensing with guns.

As the speed of attacking fighters would almost certainly be 50 knots or more than the cruising speed of a Lancaster (especially in a dive quarter attack)then the extra speed of the Lancaster without armament would be useless.
In any case knowing a bomber was unarmed would encourage the enemy fighter to get in real close before firing. From vague memory when I flew Lincolns in 1953 with a 20mm dorsal turret and two 0.5's in the front and rear turret, there was little significant IAS differences from other Lincolns I flew with no turret and other guns removed.

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!]

I read somewhere that the Americans tried using B17 gunships, that carried only armements and no bomb load. The idea was to have them fly in the bomber stream to give extra protection. The idea wasn't a success though partly due to decreased performance.

IIRC, they had double dorsal turrets, and it's most likely I read about them here

[Mike7777777]

As the speed of attacking fighters would almost certainly be 50 knots or more than the cruising speed of a Lancaster (especially in a dive quarter attack)then the extra speed of the Lancaster without armament would be useless.

If the Lanc gains 30 knots of cruising speed then the ability of the pursuing Me110 or Ju88 to overhaul the Lanc is substantially reduced; additionally, a minimal speed advantage means that the ability to move along a bomber stream picking off targets is reduced.

[Kitbag]

I read somewhere that the Americans tried using B17 gunships

The YB40 was a modified B17 intended to escort bomber packages. Only 25 were produced in two batches. The idea failed because once the bombers had dropped their load the escorts could not match their performance

[Load Toad]

Was it also the case with the modified B-17 that they were scattered across the formation? Or was it that they formed one cell within a formation? If you were an attacking fighter would you have been able to spot a 'gunship'?

[Brewster Buffalo]

If you were an attacking fighter would you have been able to spot a 'gunship'?

I suspect not. The americans claimed at the time many german fighters shot down by the B-17/B-24 gunners but I don't know whether there has been any research into the actual figures.

Certainly all those guns blazing away would have been very off putting and the germans did start to use unguided rockets before closing for gun attacks.

[Gordon Fraser]

I have just reviewed an old video purchased by me in Canada in the mid-eighties. It is called "Nightbombers" and claims to be the only colour footage of Lancasters actually filmed during the war. It was filmed and directed in 1943/4 by Air Cdre H.I. Cozens, CB,AFC and shows operations from RAF Hemswell of Nos 150 and 170 Squadrons No 1 Group Bomber Command. At the beginning of the film there is footage of maintenance on Lancasters with very detailed coverage of the actual installation of twin 50 machine guns in the tail. It actually shows the complete turret being taken out by a vehicle mounted crane to the aircraft and placed in position.