Has there ever been an off-center gun?

4. In the case of the Japanese, they had trouble get up to the B-29's
altitude.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Yama" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
Given that the RAF had a number of B-17's complete
with ball turrets I rather think the idea was not completely
unknown.

Would it really have helped anyway? AIUI ventral ball turrets were very
uncomfortable and in day bombers, gunners moved to them only when fighters
were detected. Besides ventral gunner is still in enormous disadvantage
against a night fighter, he doesn't have a radar and night fighter can see
the bomber easier against the sky.



Probably not which is why a replacement wasnt pursued.

Keith

-40 (F or C, it doesn't
matter, much)

Doesn't matter at all, to judge by my thermometer. They appear to be
equal.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

I have read that the Canadian squadrons with Halifaxes had a ventral
mounting - not a turret - where a gunner had a good chance of spotting
and shooting at a LW night fighter moving in under him. I also
remember the source cited the RCAF had a much greater survival rate in
their Halifaxes than did the RAF for that very reason. Sorry - I can't
remember the source but believe it was a semi-offical history of the
RAF bombing campaign.
Walt BJ

As for strafing with an upward pointing gun - I was surprised to
discover that the USAF had forgotten all about high-angle strafe. I
was taught the technique at Nellis back in 1954. 60 degree dive angle
- designed to negate the advantage of a foxhole. At Da Nang I worked
up my own sight settings for 45 and 60 degrees and used the gun in 45
degree dive bomb passes to keep the flak gunners busy. With a little
work and a -34 one can derive a sight setting that works for both gun
and bomb (different release altitudes, though). Some conditions used
12 o'clock on the F4's 50 mil reticle for the gun and 6 o'clock or the
pipper itself for bombing. Amazing what a guy will do when bored . . .
but hell, they worked just fine.
Walt BJ

WaltBJ wrote:
As for strafing with an upward pointing gun - I was surprised to
discover that the USAF had forgotten all about high-angle strafe. I
was taught the technique at Nellis back in 1954. 60 degree dive angle
- designed to negate the advantage of a foxhole. At Da Nang I worked
up my own sight settings for 45 and 60 degrees and used the gun in 45
degree dive bomb passes to keep the flak gunners busy. With a little
work and a -34 one can derive a sight setting that works for both gun
and bomb (different release altitudes, though). Some conditions used
12 o'clock on the F4's 50 mil reticle for the gun and 6 o'clock or the
pipper itself for bombing. Amazing what a guy will do when bored . . .
but hell, they worked just fine.
Walt BJ
To Cub Driver, Walt BJ, et al: Does anyone remember the B-25J with a 75
millimeter cannon firing off center, used in the Pacific theater?

John Boyle wrote in message ...
To Cub Driver, Walt BJ, et al: Does anyone remember the B-25J with a 75
millimeter cannon firing off center, used in the Pacific theater?

Indeed - an interesting beast. The M4 gun was based on the Sherman
tank's 75mm gun, and was still manually loaded. It must have been fun
chucking those big shells in the breech while trying to stay balanced
as the plane made its attack run. I understand that the recoil was
such that by the end of a typical four-shot attack run, the plane was
slowed by about 10 mph.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

There was a 'Preston-Green' ventral gun mount for a .50 in gun,
which was widespread until the installation of H2S radar
required its removal. Many units improvised other ventral gun
mounts. A simple clear-vision panel, with or without gun, was
a much better solution than the available turrets.

I am reading R. Wallace Clarke's book "British Aircraft Armamant", and
he says that the Preston Green under defence mounting was fitted to all
Halifax Mk III's. Aircraft production was outstripping radar set
production, so it was gun or nothing, not gun or H2S. When H2S
production ramped up, the turrets were replaced by radar scanners.


Some Halifaxes and Lancasters had ventral turrets, but the
Boulton Paul 'R' and the Frazer-Nash FN.64 were of the
retractable periscope-sighted kind and therefore rather useless
even by day. (Coastal Command nevertheless had the FN.64
turret installed on its Halifaxes.)

Can you say what your source is for this, please? According to Clarke,
HP aircraft never seem to have had FN turrets (save for the Harrow).
Coastal Command made use of the FN77 Leigh Light, a modified FN25 under
turret, in its Wellingtons.

The 'low-drag' FN.21A
apparently fitted to some early Manchesters and Lancasters
was a retractable dustbin turret with extending 'shoes' to
accomodate the feet and legs of the gunner, which must have
resulted in a truly enormous amount of drag when lowered.


According to Clarke, the FN21a was only fitted to Manchesters. The FN64
(derived from the FN60 fitted to Blenheims) was fitted to early
Lancasters, and refitted to four of 5 Group's squadrons in June 1944 for
daylight raids (replacing the H2S scanner).

Lowering the dustbin under-turret apparantly produced a marked change in
trim, and a gunner described the experience of manning one as like
getting into a refrigerator with the lights out.

All accounts seem to agree that the only successful ventral defence
mounting was the Sperry ball turret.