Lancaster Turret Weapons

[Jag34]

This is out of the book "The Great Book Of World War II Airplanes" By J L. Ethell, R. Grinsell, D A. Anderton, F A. Jonsen, B Sweetman, A Vanags-Baginskis and R C. Mikesh. pg 396
"Defensively, the possibility of using heavier guns than the relatively ineffective 0.303-in (7.7mm) Colt-Browning had been considered in the Air Staff's 1938 "ideal bomber" paper. However the supply of the obvious substitute , the American 0.5-in (12.7 mm)machine-gun, was never sufficient to allow change on anylarge scale before 1944, when some Lancaster 1s and llls were fitted with Frazer-Nash FN.82 or Rose Brothers tail turrets, mounting two of the American weapons. When Austin Motors became the last company to commence Lancaster production it was intended to produce a new version, the former B.VII, with 0.5-in guns in the dorsal and tail turrets, the former being moved further forward than on earlier versions. The shortage of heavier guns led to some aircraft being completed as B.I (Interim) types with the existing turrets in the new position,  but a few B.VIIs were completed before the end of the war."

Cavalear, you were right. This model that AH has did mount the .50 cals in the tail. But not very many of the Lancaster did get them mounted before the wars end.  

Jag34  Dover Dawgs

Hey, have you ever read much on the B-40 Fly Fortress? It was made up as a gun ship with all twin .50's in the turrets and waist guns. It was used as a escort for awhile. Not very many were made.

[ 10-26-2001: Message edited by: Jag34 ]

[Replicant]

It also depended on which Bomber Group the Lancaster belonged to.  This meant that some Bomber Groups had better bomb sights; some had top .50 turrets; some had rear .50 turrets; and at least one Group kept the belly .303 turret.

In reality those fitted with a rear .50 turret did not get the top .50 turret and vice-versa.  The reason for the delays was that they were flying as night bombers.  The Air Ministry honestly thought that losses were acceptable, but some of the above said Bomber Groups thought differently and recommended modifications accordingly.

Regards

Nexx

[Tony Williams]

For once, the Air Ministry was right.  Of all of the Lancasters engaged by night fighters, about half were shot down.  Nearly all of the survivors escaped by taking violent evasive action.  Shoot-downs by defensive guns were rare, as in a straight fight the night-fighters had all the advantages; much more powerful guns, with a bigger target to aim at.  Using .50s would have made little difference to this. In fact, some Lancaster crews preferred not to use their guns as the flashes merely provided an aiming mark for the fighters.  The gunners were primarily useful in giving warning of attack.

There was a study done during the war which concluded that unarmed bombers would have a higher survival rate because their higher performance would make them more difficult to intercept.  Of course, this only applied to night bombing (although I have heard it argued that once escort fighters became available, the USAAF might have been better off with much faster unarmed bombers as the gun armament was far less effective than the escorts, but then the effect on crew morale of being able to fight back also came into it).

Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm

[fdiron]

Some lancasters had 4 303s in the tail turret.

[Replicant]

Originally posted by fdiron:
Some lancasters had 4 303s in the tail turret.

The majority had 4 x .303s in the tail turret.

Regards

Nexx