P-39s, Zeros & A-24s

ArtKramr wrote:

Subject: P-39s, Zeros & A-24s
From: Alan Dicey

snip

I've read that some Lancaster rear gunners would remove the "clear
vision" panel in the turret, between the guns, so as to remove the risk
of condensation or frost degrading their view. I know they had
electrically heated clothing, but even so !


We also had electric suits but I never remember my Plexi fogging up. If it did
I could just open the little vent flap and let a180 MPH relative wind come in
and blow my maps, charts, calculators, E6B and Wheems plotters all over the
place. (sheesh)

Of course, you weren't flying at night several thousand feet higher (often at
contrail level) than a B-26 would be by day, and the tail turret wasn't facing into
a 180 IAS slipstream. Sometimes the U.S. heavies had the nose plexiglass (and the
cockpit windows) totally iced up as well. Flying at minus 50 to70F will do that,
even if the outside of the windows isn't iced up by flying in contrails. I've read
an account somewhere (I'm guessing in Elmer Bendiner's "Fall of Fortresses") where
he (B-17 nav) used the edge of his plotter to try and scrape the ice off the inside
of the windows in the nose, so that he could spot fighters approaching. The same
tool was passed up to the bombardier so he could clear the plexiglas nose cone for
the same reason, and maybe so he could see to bomb (can't remember if he was just a
"togglier" on that mission).

Removing the piece of plexiglass directly in the gunner's line of sight from the
tail turret on Lancs (and probably other British heavies) was, IIRC, attributed
first to Gibson's tail gunner Trevor-Roper (not Hugh, his brother Richard?), and
was soon widely imitated. It also cut down on glare and reflections when the sky
was lit up by searchlights, fires etc. I sure wouldn't want to do it, but if it's
a choice between risking frostbite or risking being shot down by an unseen fighter,
I imagine I'd choose the latter.

Guy

(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: P-39s, Zeros & A-24s
From: Alan Dicey
Date: 7/20/03 4:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

ArtKramr wrote:

Oh yeah ! Well I had 1/4" Plexiglas protectig me. Try and beat that. !!!

I've read that some Lancaster rear gunners would remove the "clear
vision" panel in the turret, between the guns, so as to remove the risk
of condensation or frost degrading their view. I know they had
electrically heated clothing, but even so !



We also had electric suits but I never remember my Plexi fogging up. If it did
I could just open the little vent flap and let a180 MPH relative wind come in
and blow my maps, charts, calculators, E6B and Wheems plotters all over the
place. (sheesh)


Arthur Kramer

I doubt that the Lanc gunners that he mentioned would be troubled
with slipstream blowing anything around.

--

-Gord.

It also cut down on glare and reflections when the sky
was lit up by searchlights, fires etc. I sure wouldn't want to do it, but if
it's
a choice between risking frostbite or risking being shot down by an unseen
fighter,
I imagine I'd choose the latter.

Can you picture the scene from up there, open to the sky below? "Firewatching"
happened to a lot of RAF crews - overcome by the bizzare spectacle below them,
they had to make a conscious effort at times to not become mesmerized by the
view. Caught in the moment and suffering from sensory overload, it was easy
for gunner's scans for enemy nightfighters to break down at critical times.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

Gordon wrote:

It also cut down on glare and reflections when the sky
was lit up by searchlights, fires etc. I sure wouldn't want to do it, but if
it's
a choice between risking frostbite or risking being shot down by an unseen
fighter,
I imagine I'd choose the latter.

Can you picture the scene from up there, open to the sky below? "Firewatching"
happened to a lot of RAF crews - overcome by the bizzare spectacle below them,
they had to make a conscious effort at times to not become mesmerized by the
view. Caught in the moment and suffering from sensory overload, it was easy
for gunner's scans for enemy nightfighters to break down at critical times.

Both the stills and rare movie footage I've seen of night attacks are pretty
incredible, and as you say I think it would be easy to become distracted and forget
your primary job, at least until it became old hat. Of course, generally speaking
the inexperienced crews were the ones most likely to be shot down by fighters.

Guy

"Yann D" wrote:
I just remember Saburo Sakai wrote in his book
(Samurai) that he did
aerobatics overhead an US base just for fun.
An the AA guns didn't fire at
them either...
A little bit of fun in the middle of all this
violence maybe..


The Marines at Midway saw a Zero fly upside down across the atoll and they
noticed the pilot thumbing his nose-they held their fire, then a Marine Gunny
said "What the hell," and then opened up with a .50cal. Every gun that could
opened up on the Zero, and he plunged into the water.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

(ArtKramr) wrote:


Guess we had an easier war down there at 8,000 feet.

Arthur Kramer

That certainly makes a lot of sense...it would seem that there's
lots less problems to contend with down low.
--

-Gord.

From: "Gord Beaman"

Guess we had an easier war down there at 8,000 feet.

That certainly makes a lot of sense...it would seem that there's
lots less problems to contend with down low.

Flak aside.


Chris Mark

Subject: P-39s, Zeros & A-24s
From: ost (Chris Mark)
Date: 7/21/03 11:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

From: "Gord Beaman"

Guess we had an easier war down there at 8,000 feet.

That certainly makes a lot of sense...it would seem that there's
lots less problems to contend with down low.

Flak aside.


Chris Mark


Sometime the flak was aside, and sometimes it wasn't.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

From: artkramr@aol.

Sometime the flak was aside, and sometimes it wasn't.


LOL


Chris Mark

ost (Chris Mark) wrote in message ...
From: "Yann D"

I just remember Saburo Sakai wrote in his book (Samurai) that he did
aerobatics overhead an US base just for fun. An the AA guns didn't fire at
them either...

If this is in reference to the Moresby area in early 1942, AA guns didn't fire
because there weren't any. Some 90mm would have settled his hash.

I doubt that - the heavy AA guns were only really effective against
aircraft flying a steady and predictable course, like bombers. A
fighter doing aerobatics would reduce the gunners to a nervous
breakdown

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition
website and Discussion
forum