b26 guns vs lanc?

[Karnak]

The B-26 had the lowest operation loss rate of all US bombers.

That said, as a medium bomber its missions did not tend to be as nasty as those the B-17 and B-24 were subjected to.

[AWwrgwy]

The B-26 had the lowest operation loss rate of all US bombers.

That said, as a medium bomber its missions did not tend to be as nasty as those the B-17 and B-24 were subjected to.

They were lower.  You would think that would be as bad, if not worse.



wrongway

[frank3]

I have read that German pilots hated having to attack the B26. 

I doubt the pilots 'liked' having to attack any kind of bomber that carried defensive armament.
Then again, the B-26 must've been an extra tough cookie for them (with speed and all)

[Cthulhu]

The difference in speeds would yield a difference in kinetic energy that is too small to notice in terms of the damage caused.

Yep, little difference in kinetic energy. In fact, the bomber's rear firing guns will always possess a distinct advantage in impact energy (against a trailing target), as well as retain their energy better (vs range), due to airspeed relative to the rounds while in flight.

Moreover, cannon armed aircraft inflict most of their damage with chemical, not kinetic, energy.

Compared to MG's, think of cannon firing HE as more like "grenade launchers" than guns. Except for the Mk 108, which is more like throwing the grenade by hand.

[apcampbell]

hehehe it's always fun reminding the occasional pilot attacking a B-26 from the low six position that he's in trouble. People tend to forget about those lower waist guns. But with just a kick of the rudder, an attack gets a rude reminder of how dangerous the 26 is!