PDA

View Full Version : Defensive weapons on bombers in WW2...



IZT
06-13-2004, 01:09 AM
Why did the allied bobmber not use rotary cannons? as in "gattling guns" i mean after all they fire fast and a bomber should be able to handle its weight...they make good defensive weapons. and hey were invented and already used in the elate 1800s?

IZT
06-13-2004, 01:09 AM
Why did the allied bobmber not use rotary cannons? as in "gattling guns" i mean after all they fire fast and a bomber should be able to handle its weight...they make good defensive weapons. and hey were invented and already used in the elate 1800s?

3.JG51_BigBear
06-13-2004, 01:12 AM
I'm not sure, but I don't think that gattling guns back then were anything like the Dylan Mini Guns of today. I'm sure that the machine guns like the M2 had a much faster rate of fire than any gattling gun at the time.

Gibbage1
06-13-2004, 01:50 AM
There really were no good rotory guns in WWII. None in field, and only a few in testing. I think the Germans were testing something like the Mk-109 that was a rotory gun but it never entered production. It was not till about the 70's that the rotory canon was developed enough to be equiped in fighters.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

F19_Ob
06-13-2004, 02:31 AM
If I dont remember totally at fanders, the french did use cannons atleast. 1940 they had manually aimed 20mm hispanos in French bomber turrets. They also tried to fit 20mm cannons on all fighters.

Also They had already tested cannons in fighters in ww1 already. Guynemer and Fonck flew spads with 37mm cannon( yes 37) and scored too, Guynemer 4 and Fonck 11 kills although it was heavy and slow firing.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
06-13-2004, 05:42 AM
u get a lag with rotory.
which is bad

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
<123_GWood_JG123> NO SPAM!

Red_Storm
06-13-2004, 05:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
There really were no good rotory guns in WWII. None in field, and only a few in testing. I think the Germans were testing something like the Mk-109 that was a rotory gun but it never entered production. It was not till about the 70's that the rotory canon was developed enough to be equiped in fighters.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. Furthermore, Gatling guns, "mini-guns" or Vulcan cannons are more delicate and take more maintenance. regular guns were more effective and faster to produce.

---
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/RedStorm-sig.JPG

Aaron_GT
06-13-2004, 05:55 AM
Isn't the M61 Vulcan cannon, as fitted to US planes since the 1960s, a form of revolver cannon (not quite a Gatling gun)?

LW_lcarp
06-13-2004, 07:36 AM
Another reason they didnt use them is the amount of ammo they expend. At 5000 RPM you didnt have the payload to carry that many rounds to keep the enemy off you when you were flying over there territory.

Even if the ROF was only 1000 RPM you would have you entire ammo load used up before you got anywhere near your target

"If winning isnt everything why do they keep score"
Vince Lombardi

SUPERAEREO
06-13-2004, 07:49 AM
Gatling-type guns are heavier, bigger, more complicated, more expensive and use up enormous amounts of ammo.

Even if they had had any functional ones during WW2 (and they did not), the weight penalty imposed by the weapon system and the ammunition would have been far too great to bear: think of the super-armed YB-40 and XB-41 and how they could not keep up with regular B-17's and B-24's in cruise flight...

Mmm... I bet now people will start wanting Yb-40's and XB-41's LOL http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

S!



"The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down." - Chuck Yaeger

"Ja, Hunde, wollt ihr denn ewig leben?" - Friedrich der Große

"Timeo Danaos, et dona ferentes" - *neid

horseback
06-13-2004, 11:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
There really were no good rotory guns in WWII. None in field, and only a few in testing. I think the Germans were testing something like the Mk-109 that was a rotory gun but it never entered production. It was not till about the 70's that the rotory canon was developed enough to be equiped in fighters.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gib-

The 20 mm Vulcan Gatling gun was put on the F-104 and F-105 back in the early '50s, and it's still the gun design of choice for US fighters.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Ki_Rin
06-13-2004, 12:18 PM
Yea, SUPERAEREO, I was already thinkin that some time ago, having a Yb40..afterall, they were in service, hehehe...and who cares about formation in a df server?....

OT, bu tbe nice to have that Vega-built 17, with the allisons....or wuz it packard built merlins?...anyways, actaully made that thing look GOOD...but I think it crashed after a fire, and scrapped the program, not enough of those inlines to go aropund to waste on a b17, anhow

"Consequences are for lesser beings; I am Ki-Rin...that is sanction enough"

Menthol_moose
06-13-2004, 07:49 PM
Pretty sure the me 323 giant, has 20mm turrents.

Obi_Kwiet
06-13-2004, 08:46 PM
Because they are heavy and expensive. And sue lots of ammo. I don' think they even had good one back then. The first ones couldn't hit the side of a barn door to boot. Think .50's times maby 4.

Aaron_GT
06-14-2004, 03:48 AM
Plenty of planes mounted single 20mm cannon. The Ju290 carried up to 6 of them in some variants. The He111 had them, etc., also some B29 variants.

Single 20mm cannon are marginal in terms of being certain of getting at least one hit on target if you let the target fly through a stream of shots.

Jippo01
06-14-2004, 07:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Plenty of planes mounted single 20mm cannon. The Ju290 carried up to 6 of them in some variants. The He111 had them, etc., also some B29 variants.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also:

Ju 88
Ju 188
Fw 200


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

Kurfurst__
06-14-2004, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Plenty of planes mounted single 20mm cannon. The Ju290 carried up to 6 of them in some variants. The He111 had them, etc., also some B29 variants.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also:

Ju 88
Ju 188
Fw 200


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
http://www.ju88.de.tf<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


And last but not least, the Pe-8 and the He 177A-5s, both of these mounted a 20mm cannon in the tail with plenty of ammo, making them rather deadly for a direct approach on their six.

Other 20mm cannon in the nose were usually for strafing or ship attack (supressing AA gunners on ships) purposes.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

John_Stag
06-14-2004, 01:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
Gatling-type guns are heavier, bigger, more complicated, more expensive and use up enormous amounts of ammo.

Even if they had had any functional ones during WW2 (and they did not), the weight penalty imposed by the weapon system and the ammunition would have been far too great to bear: think of the super-armed YB-40 and XB-41 and how they could not keep up with regular B-17's and B-24's in cruise flight...

Mmm... I bet now people will start wanting Yb-40's and XB-41's LOL http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

S!



"The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down." - Chuck Yaeger

"Ja, Hunde, wollt ihr denn ewig leben?" - Friedrich der Große

"Timeo Danaos, et dona ferentes" - *neid<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not totally accurate. Consider the weight of eight browning machine guns and enough ammunition to keep those guns firing for about twenty seconds at 650 rounds per minute, say 1700-2000 rounds. Now consider a single minigun with the same number of rounds. The gun weighs 18.8 kg, I'm not sure of the weight of a Vickers/Browning, say 10 kg. there's a 60 kg weight saving straight away. convergeance isn't an issue.

But in the 1930s to mid forties, nobody thought of resurrectiong the old design and bunging an electric motor on it. miniguns are more reliable than standard machine guns; the round is removed from the breach if it has been fired or not; in other words, no stoppages.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>:Sergeant! Where are you taking those vultures?

Sergeant: Officers to the mess, NCO's to the Guardroom, Sir!

:Like hell you are, they're responsible for all this, get them to clean it up!

Sergeant: But what about the officers, Sir?

:Give 'em a bloody shovel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JorBR
06-14-2004, 02:45 PM
From The Fighter Gun Debate site:

"The F-4 and F-106 appeared without cannon, but like the USN the USAF had to change its mind because of combat experience, and during the Vietnam war cannon were installed in these fighters. The standard weapon became the six-barrel M61 Vulcan, and it is still in use today, usually in its M61A1 form. The M61 was the first rotary cannon, generally (and not entirely correct) called a Gatling gun. Such weapons are reliable and offer a very high rate of fire, and by dividing the firing over several barrels their wear is reduced. Of course such guns weigh more than single-barrel weapons. Characteristic of the M61A1, and most US rotary cannon, is the beltless feed mechanism: Rounds are transported on a kind of conveyer belt system, and empty cases are transported back into the drum. The original M61 had a belt feed, but this could not take the strain of firing rates higher than 4000 rpm.
An objection raised against rotary cannon is that the spin-up time is fairly long: It takes 0.4 sec before the M61A1 spins up to its nominal rate of fire, while a revolver gun reaches its nominal rate of fire after 0.05 sec. Hence the advantage of the rotary cannon is minimal or non-existent during a short burst."
M61A1 - Ammo: 20 x 102 ( 101 g); ROF: 6600 rpm; Muzzle velocity: 1035 m/s; Weight: 120Kg.

"Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty but the pig enjoys it!"

John_Stag
06-14-2004, 03:49 PM
The ADEN is an example of a revolver, but it still doesnt have the ROF of an electrically driven gatling.

the M61 is a 20mm weapon, my point is that a single M134 7.62mm minigun could do the same job as a battery of Brownings.

Bit of a tax on the aircraft electrical systems, but there's no reason that the gun couldn't be spun up prior to combat, with ammunition only fed in while the fire button was pressed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>:Sergeant! Where are you taking those vultures?

Sergeant: Officers to the mess, NCO's to the Guardroom, Sir!

:Like hell you are, they're responsible for all this, get them to clean it up!

Sergeant: But what about the officers, Sir?

:Give 'em a bloody shovel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
06-14-2004, 04:08 PM
BTW is there any Friendly fire reported by the Bomber Crews ? did it happen ?

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/blacksheep.jpg

klower
06-14-2004, 06:53 PM
I think the success of rapid firing rotary weapons has a lot to do with the ammo. With a recoil or gas operated weapon, if the round hangs fire for a few milliseconds, it's no problem, just a minor reduction in ROF. If a round does this during ejection from a multi-barrel weapon, it could do severe damage. This was one of the things that limited the success of the origianl gattling gun. I think that by WWII, ammo would have improved a lot, but the tighter quality control required on the powder and primers would have driven up the cost. Also, consider the reliability aspect, if one of your 6 0.50 cals jams, you still have 5 left. If your one rotary gun jams, you're a target.

Roadkill200R
06-14-2004, 07:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Gatling-type guns are heavier, bigger, more complicated, more expensive and use up enormous amounts of ammo.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> they arent heavier than 6 .50s they were mounted on huey helicopters in the vietnam war. the history channel had a show on aircraft guns.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v42/Roadkill/sig.bmp

Athosd
06-14-2004, 10:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John_Stag:
Not totally accurate. Consider the weight of eight browning machine guns and enough ammunition to keep those guns firing for about twenty seconds at 650 rounds per minute, say 1700-2000 rounds. Now consider a single minigun with the same number of rounds. The gun weighs 18.8 kg, I'm not sure of the weight of a Vickers/Browning, say 10 kg. there's a 60 kg weight saving straight away. convergeance isn't an issue.

But in the 1930s to mid forties, nobody thought of resurrectiong the old design and bunging an electric motor on it. miniguns are more reliable than standard machine guns; the round is removed from the breach if it has been fired or not; in other words, no stoppages.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did you pull those weight figures from?? - An M2 Browning weighs considerably more than 10Kg (the unloaded weight of the M60 I used to lug around is 10.5Kg).
M2 .50cal weight is more like 36kg (~80lb).
A .50cal minigun is rather more massive - though presumably each barrel could afford to be a little lighter the reciever also has to house a fairly powerful electric motor.
The reasoning behind the rotary gun concept is condensed fire power - very handy when one hardpoint can do the work of several standard types pointing in the same direction (i.e Fighter or AAA). Not so useful for the all round defense required by the B-17.

Cheers

Athos

Over the Hills and O'er the Main,
To Flanders, Portugal and Spain,
The Queen commands and we'll obey
Over the Hills and far away.

Agamemnon22
06-14-2004, 10:56 PM
While we're talking about bomber defenses, some Pe-2 (and apparently Il-2, maybe others too) had fragmentation grenade launchers mounted. If a 109 gets on your tail you just let fly a couple grenades and in a few seconds a cloud of fragments appears 150 meters behind you. Sounds deadly!

John_Stag
06-15-2004, 02:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Athosd:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John_Stag:
Not totally accurate. Consider the weight of eight browning machine guns and enough ammunition to keep those guns firing for about twenty seconds at 650 rounds per minute, say 1700-2000 rounds. Now consider a single minigun with the same number of rounds. The gun weighs 18.8 kg, I'm not sure of the weight of a Vickers/Browning, say 10 kg. there's a 60 kg weight saving straight away. convergeance isn't an issue.

But in the 1930s to mid forties, nobody thought of resurrectiong the old design and bunging an electric motor on it. miniguns are more reliable than standard machine guns; the round is removed from the breach if it has been fired or not; in other words, no stoppages.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did you pull those weight figures from?? - An M2 Browning weighs considerably more than 10Kg (the unloaded weight of the M60 I used to lug around is 10.5Kg).
M2 .50cal weight is more like 36kg (~80lb).
A .50cal minigun is rather more massive - though presumably each barrel could afford to be a little lighter the reciever also has to house a fairly powerful electric motor.
The reasoning behind the rotary gun concept is condensed fire power - very handy when one hardpoint can do the work of several standard types pointing in the same direction (i.e Fighter or AAA). Not so useful for the all round defense required by the B-17.

Cheers

Athos

Over the Hills and O'er the Main,
To Flanders, Portugal and Spain,
The Queen commands and we'll obey
Over the Hills and far away.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The weight of the browning was a conservative estimate because after a bit of a search I couldn't find the actual weight. the weight for the minigun comes from http://world.guns.ru/machine/minigun-e.htm

Like I said; minguns don't jam, they clear themselves. most of the stoppages in the early design wer due to the ammo being gravity fed from a hopper.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>:Sergeant! Where are you taking those vultures?

Sergeant: Officers to the mess, NCO's to the Guardroom, Sir!

:Like hell you are, they're responsible for all this, get them to clean it up!

Sergeant: But what about the officers, Sir?

:Give 'em a bloody shovel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

koivis
06-15-2004, 02:51 AM
Even the japanese Ki-67 bomber carried a 20 mm Ho-5 cannon behind the cockpit. That cannon really kicks ***, firing at 850 rpm! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Athosd
06-15-2004, 03:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John_Stag:

The weight of the browning was a conservative estimate because after a bit of a search I couldn't find the actual weight. the weight for the minigun comes from http://world.guns.ru/machine/minigun-e.htm

Like I said; minguns don't jam, they clear themselves. most of the stoppages in the early design wer due to the ammo being gravity fed from a hopper.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The mini-gun listed there is a 7.62mm model(calibre is too light for an anti-material weapon - much beyond 100m anyway), the type has very short barrels and uses a lot of light-weight materials. The material sciences and other technologies required to make that particular weapon were not available in the 40's.
I'd expect a .50cal mini-gun to weigh in at 70kg or more (the 20mm is listed at 114kg) and require some major structural support vs the recoil.
Rotary guns don't jam often - but any weapon can jam http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Cheers

Athos

Over the Hills and O'er the Main,
To Flanders, Portugal and Spain,
The Queen commands and we'll obey
Over the Hills and far away.

Philipscdrw
06-15-2004, 04:15 AM
When a .22 rifle round fails to fire, we leave the gun for a few minutes pointing down the range to see if the round will fire before trying to remove it. I wouldn't like to have unfired 20mm shells flying about the interior of my aircraft, especially if the gun is in a gunners mount and the shell cases just fall on the floor...

PhilipsCDRw

"Nietzsche is dead." - God.

View Cpt. Eric Brown's review of FB here. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=309109534&r=875101634#875101634)

John_Stag
06-15-2004, 05:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Athosd:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John_Stag:

The weight of the browning was a conservative estimate because after a bit of a search I couldn't find the actual weight. the weight for the minigun comes from http://world.guns.ru/machine/minigun-e.htm

Like I said; minguns don't jam, they clear themselves. most of the stoppages in the early design wer due to the ammo being gravity fed from a hopper.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The mini-gun listed there is a 7.62mm model(calibre is too light for an anti-material weapon - much beyond 100m anyway), the type has very short barrels and uses a lot of light-weight materials. The material sciences and other technologies required to make that particular weapon were not available in the 40's.
I'd expect a .50cal mini-gun to weigh in at 70kg or more (the 20mm is listed at 114kg) and require some major structural support vs the recoil.
Rotary guns don't jam often - but any weapon can jam http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Cheers

Athos

Over the Hills and O'er the Main,
To Flanders, Portugal and Spain,
The Queen commands and we'll obey
Over the Hills and far away.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But remember, we're talking about over 50 years ago here. The concentration of fire possible with a minigun would be enough to offset the small calibre. case in point; the Boulton-Paul Defiant. Only 4 mgs as opposed to the spit or hurricane's eight, but the narrow cone of fire meant that the damage it caused was more concentrated. There's an incident on record of one Defiant downing 2 dornier 17's and a Bf109 (plus another, the 109 they hit collided with another on the way down), when it wasn't unusual for RAF fighters in the Battle of Britain to empty their guns into enemy bombers and the bombers still making it back to France (granted, where they usually crashed). I think a minigun would have been a very practical alternative, perhaps even to larger calibre weapons too.

It's an academic point though; they didn't have miniguns in those days.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>:Sergeant! Where are you taking those vultures?

Sergeant: Officers to the mess, NCO's to the Guardroom, Sir!

:Like hell you are, they're responsible for all this, get them to clean it up!

Sergeant: But what about the officers, Sir?

:Give 'em a bloody shovel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John_Stag
06-15-2004, 05:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
When a .22 rifle round fails to fire, we leave the gun for a few minutes pointing down the range to see if the round will fire before trying to remove it. I wouldn't like to have unfired 20mm shells flying about the interior of my aircraft, especially if the gun is in a gunners mount and the shell cases just fall on the floor...

PhilipsCDRw

"Nietzsche is dead." - God.

View Cpt. Eric Brown's review of FB http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=309109534&r=875101634#875101634<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably just as well they're ejected from the aircraft then, at least in the case of fighters http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>:Sergeant! Where are you taking those vultures?

Sergeant: Officers to the mess, NCO's to the Guardroom, Sir!

:Like hell you are, they're responsible for all this, get them to clean it up!

Sergeant: But what about the officers, Sir?

:Give 'em a bloody shovel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aaron_GT
06-15-2004, 10:58 AM
"The ADEN is an example of a revolver, but it still doesnt have the ROF of an electrically driven gatling. "

But the modern russian revolver cannon have
about the same ROF as the M61 Vulcan. The M61
and the ADEN are early 1950s technology, and
things have progressed.

Aaron_GT
06-15-2004, 11:04 AM
"Not totally accurate. Consider the weight of eight browning machine guns and enough ammunition to keep those guns firing for about twenty seconds at 650 rounds per minute, say 1700-2000 rounds. "

Show me a B17 with an 8 gun turret and I'll be convinced.

Seriously, you need to have all round defence on a B17. To avoid blind spots and be able to cope with multiple, simulataneous attackers you need a multiplicity of gun positions.

If you replaced the dozen .50s on a B17 with a couple of 6 barelled .50 gatling guns you'd
basically have only two turrets. There would be blind spots, and it would be impossible to cope with more than two attackers (and given rotation times of large turrets housing the guns, maybe not even that). This could be ameliorated (spelling?) by the bomber box, of course.

Also if one of the guns jams or is knocked out, you have lost an entire hemisphere of fire (assuming the most logical demployment of one ventral and one dorsal turret).

Rebel_Yell_21
06-15-2004, 01:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToP_BlackSheep:
BTW is there any Friendly fire reported by the Bomber Crews ? did it happen ?

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/blacksheep.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely. Many aircraft damaged and even destroyed as a result of "target fixation".

http://www.303rdbga.com/art-ferris-fortress-S.jpg