Miloch wrote in
:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...command-was-ri
ght-to-ignore-freeman-dysons-foolish-idea

In your obituary of Freeman Dyson (Theoretical physicist and
mathematician with far-fetched ideas about the future, Journal, 4
March), you note correctly that Bomber Command “ignored” the
19-year-old Dyson’s proposal, in 1943, to remove the gun turrets from
Lancaster bombers. But it was – like some of Dyson’s later wheezes,
such as powering a spaceship with nuclear bombs, or planting trees on
comets – an unsound notion.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...dyson-obituary

Dyson claimed that the Lancaster would gain 50mph in cruise speed, but
experience with unarmed Lancasters on the transatlantic mail route
showed that the actual gain was just 15mph-20mph, not enough to stay
ahead of German night fighters. (Dyson may have been misled by the
high eastbound ground speeds of the mail Lancasters, but these were
assisted by the prevailing winds. The westbound flights were slower.)

In addition, Luftwaffe records later showed that half of all
night-fighter interceptions failed because the Royal Air Force gunners
saw the fighter coming and enabled the bomber to evade.

If Dyson’s suggestion had been adopted, the fighters would have
doubled their success rate and destroyed Bomber Command in short
order. As it was, Lancaster losses totalled only 2% from 156,000
sorties and the monthly intake of new Lancasters and crews was, as a
rule, twice the loss rate. In only one month, January 1944, at the
height of the battle of Berlin, did Lancaster losses exceed
production, and then only by five units.

On the other hand, monthly production of the main German night
fighter, the Messerschmitt 110, was below the loss rate as often as
not, and the non-accidental losses were usually due to RAF air
gunners. Dyson’s modest proposal is much cited, but it was foolish,
and Bomber Command was right to dismiss it.


Didn't LeMay increase the B-29 speed by
taking out the guns?