Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By Rob P
#1706515
LowNSlow1 wrote: Lions led by Donkeys mantra


I blame Joan Littlewood and the rest of the sixties luvvies.

Rob P
User avatar
By Ophelia Gently
#1706695
Sorry to be an interloper on this thread but this is something of my subject.

The ‘villain of the piece’ was the Air Ministry (AM) - ably aided and abetted by, yes, the Treasury - who specified the (rimless cartridge design) .30 Browning M/G in the mid 30’s, as the successor to the WWI vintage .303” Lewis and Vickers M/Gs; except that, as there were millions of (rimmed) .303” rounds in store from WWI production, the AM dictated (at the insistence of the Treasury) that the proven and reliable .30 Browning had to be modified to fire the different calibre and cartridge design. Of course, in time honoured tradition, this proved more difficult (and expensive and time-consuming) than anticipated and led to an almost total redesign of the weapon (No, REALLY?!), which is one reason why the (single) drum-fed Vickers ‘K’ (or GO) was adopted for bomber defence on Blenheims, Battles, Swordfish, Hampdens and other multi-seat aircraft of that timeframe, but that’s another story.

By the time the .303” Browning entered RAF service it was recognised that the .303” round was of insufficient hitting power and that the standard 2 or 4-gun installations specified for bombers (tail) and fighters respectively were upgraded to 4 and 8-gun installations to increase the weight of fire delivered in a specific timeframe. However, the die had been cast and the .303” calibre was what we went to war with.

In the meantime, the AM then attempted to redress the situation by changing policy towards adopting a larger calibre weapon, but - given the rate of development in aircraft performance and armour protection – decided to ‘skip’ the .5” Browning option (baaaad move) and go straight to the 20mm cannon, adopting the Hispano; the gun itself was a good design, it was the feed mechanism that was a long time in gestation.

The AM was loath to tamper with the production lines of our heavy bombers and Sir Arthur Harris waged a ding-dong battle with them to try to get the .5” M2 Browning introduced into service with Bomber Command as the USAAF had proven this to be an entirely adequate and reliable weapon for bomber defence.

So exasperated did Harris become that he bypassed the AM entirely and went straight to Rose Bros of Gainsborough and asked them to design a twin .5” Browning turret that could be a direct ‘drop-in’ replacement for the normal FN (1)20 4 x .303” turret on Lancasters and assigned Air Cdre Rice to work directly with Rose Bros to make it happen – hence the Rose-Rice turret (mentioned previously) that was beginning to be retrofitted to Lancasters of No 1 Gp in Lincolnshire from late 1944 onwards. However, as also mentioned above size and weight of the heavier calibres is very important and, whereas the FN 120 turret had 1,000 rounds of .303” available for each rear turret gun of a Lancaster, the Rose-Rice turret only had 335 rounds per gun; but, of course, it’s where they hit that’s important!

The reason Harris went to Rose Bros was that they had quickly and effectively designed for him (when he was AOC 5 Gp at the beginning of the war) a mounting for the upper and lower Hampden rear gun installations that doubled the firepower of each position from 1 x Vickers K to 2. His actions in bypassing the bureaucratic AM processes demonstrates his concern for his crews’ welfare and operational longevity and gives lie to the oft-repeated falsehood that Harris was dismissive of his crews’ wellbeing and treated them, literally, as cannon-fodder. His nickname to his crews was ‘Butch’, which is NOT a contraction of ‘Butcher’, as the post war revisionists would have you believe – it was a common nickname of the time.

The ‘official’ AM sponsored 2 x .5” browning turret (the FN 82) entered service in June 1945……….need one say more?

Finally, the usually accepted definition of an autocannon is a weapon that fires explosive rounds. The smallest calibre is generally accepted as 15mm as evidenced by the 15mm MG 151/15 cannon fitted in the engine mounted Bf109 F-2 firing through the propeller hub; later replaced by the 20mm MG151/20 in the ‘109 F-4.

Sorry about the long post! :oops:
Last edited by Ophelia Gently on Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ChrisT, terryws, PeteSpencer and 10 others liked this
User avatar
By defcribed
#1706712
As a further off-topic aside on the matters of calibre and weight/bulk, a major part of the reason for NATO armies switching from 7.62mm to 5.56mm was that it meant a soldier could carry twice as much ammunition for the same weight.

.30 Browning vs .303 British made no difference at all, but .50 BMG is a different kettle of fish.
User avatar
By Ophelia Gently
#1706731
Rob P wrote: A ventral gun in a blister was fitted early on in Lancaster development and then discontinued.

The Lancaster IV (known in service as the Lincoln) did sometimes fit a single Hispano cannon in the dorsal turret

It is arguable that had the Lancaster carried no defensive turrets overall casualties would have been reduced as only five men would be likely to be killed in each aircraft. Rob P


The ventral gun turret on Lancasters was the FN 64 mounting 2 x .303" Brownings; get this demonstration of wackiness:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/bud_scotland/6875080650/

It was useless! Capturing a fast moving target in the periscope's FOV was neigh-on impossible (especially at night!) and its use induced nausea and vertigo on the gunner; therefore, its wasn't installed on most of the production run, although it was retained on many of the 300 Hercules powered Lancaster Mk 2s produced. Most of these were fitted with bulged bomb-bay doors and the turret faired neatly into the aft end.

The Lincoln was fitted with the Bristol B17 mid-upper turret that toted 2 x 20mm Hispanos.

Removing the turrets on Lancasters in particular was studied; as well as reducing the crew complement, it would have added circa 50mph to the speed, putting it outside of a stern chase envelope of a Bf110 or Do217, made a JU88 work VERY hard for an intercept, but still be quarry for a He 219. However, the idea was pooh-poohed at sqn level where more worldly-wise heads reasoned that the extra performance would have been used to increase range or, more likely, increase bombload thus obviating any performance gain!
Last edited by Ophelia Gently on Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rob P liked this
By Mike Charlie
#1706751
As Rob P attested the scourge of the RAF heavies in the later part of the war were the German night fighters fitted with "Schrägwaffen", the upward firing cannon.
It was one of these in November 44 that shot down my regular Project Propeller veteran Norman Gregory. His 101 squadron Lancaster from Ludford Magna was the only RAF loss that night, succumbing to horrendous damage high over Cologne, with the loss of all but three of its eight crew.

Norman aged 22 the bomb aimer escaped by jumping from 23,000 ft out of the front hatch along with navigator and front gunner. Everyone behind the blazing spar perished. It was his fourth mission...!
NDB_hold liked this
By hatzflyer
#1706754
Thanks Ophelia that is exactly what I was trying to find out