7 ms·

They're talking about M2 .50 heavy machine guns; the B-29 didn't have what are considered "cannons" (usually 20 mm or more). For the most part, defensive guns

by alricb 11y ago

They're talking about M2 .50 heavy machine guns; the B-29 didn't have what are considered "cannons" (usually 20 mm or more). For the most part, defensive guns on bombers weren't all that useful; even with a fire-control computer aiding you, it's very hard to hit a (possibly maneuvering) moving plane from another moving plane. It would probably have been better to omit those heavy guns and turrets and to leave those gunners on the ground to save weight, lives, and resources.

cstross 11y ago
Later on, they did exactly that: from about February onwards, Curtis LeMay had the guns and turrets stripped out of the force bombing Japan -- except for the tail position -- to save weight/increase range, speed, and bomb load. Operational consequences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
ckozlowski 11y ago
Repeated on the B-36 as well. http://www.airvectors.net/avb36.html http://www.airvectors.net/avb36.html
gaius 11y ago
It would probably have been better to omit those heavy guns and turrets and to leave those gunners on the ground to save weight, lives, and resources That is exactly what Freeman Dyson said of the Lancaster bomber. Tho' no sooner had the belly turret been removed than the Luftwaffe invented upward-firing guns, they would slip into position directly under, matching speed and heading, then just let rip.
- arethuza 11y ago
  Upward firing weapons were actually used in a number of fighters - originally in WW1 for attacking zeppelins: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%A4ge_Musik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%A4ge_Musik
  - mrec 11y ago
    Don't forget the Defiant, a WW2 fighter whose only armament consisted of a rearward-facing turret. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulton_Paul_Defiant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulton_Paul_Defiant
  - Theodores 11y ago
    The Schräge Musik approach is also 'Keep It Simple' in contrast to the American over-complicate-it approach. That term is also interesting as they considered jazz music to be 'queer'. Ultimately though it was fuel that mattered. When the USA joined the war half way through it meant that Allied planes were on 100 octane petrol, meanwhile the Germans were using some glorified coal slurry and the Japanese were using some tree bark extract made by school kids.
hydrogen18 11y ago
The guns on a bomber were never really meant for engaging aircraft. They're meant to deter fighters from ever getting near the bomber. Not many pilots are willing to sit directly in the path of machine gun fire, even if it is not very accurate. German anti-aircraft figured this out as well. They switched to shooting mostly tracer rounds. You aren't going to hit anything in the first place, so you might as well just scare the crap out of them. There were some WWII 'gunship' style modifications of planes, but that was not that common. For a more modern comparison, consider that the Bradley fighting vehicle carries anti tank missiles. Sending a group of Bradleys directly against tanks would be suicidal. The Bradley has aluminum for armor. A well trained set of tank crews operating even WWII vintage vehicles would decimate them. Instead, the misiles are there to deter tanks from engaging them. It also provides the crew with an enormous psychological benefit. That benefit is they at least have the benefit of being able to respond to an enemy tank with a potentially lethal weapons system. Ironically of course the TOW missiles on the Bradley destroyed more Iraqi tanks the M1 tank ever did in the Gulf war. But that is because Iraqi tank crews either had no experience or had armored vehicles in horrible condition.
- LordKano 11y ago
  It's kind of an interesting story how the military didn't really want the Bradley in the first place but it was forced upon them by congress and they had to find a use for it. I have a relative who was in the mechanized infantry back in the early 1990s. From what he was able to share with me, the Bradley was an interesting vehicle with a lot of cool stuff but if my life was on the line, I'd prefer to be in an M1 Abrams.
  - greggyb 11y ago
    There is a pretty good movie "Pentagon Wars" about the development of the Bradley.[0] It's not entirely accurate, but even as complete fiction would be an enjoyable satire. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars
    - hydrogen18 11y ago
RockyMcNuts 11y ago
I think in aircraft 'cannon' = 'explosive shells'
rodgerd 11y ago
> It would probably have been better to omit those heavy guns and turrets and to leave those gunners on the ground to save weight, lives, and resources. Yep. The Mosquito was the safest (for the crew) bomber of the war, hugely more accurate and effective than the heavies. But heavies were the dogma of the politically influential in the air forces of Britain and the US, so much as battleships kept being considered the key asset long after they were actually irrelevant, thousands of young men were strapped into pointless flying coffins.
walshemj 11y ago
the rear turret had 20mm's from what I recall

by alricb 11y ago

cstross 11y ago

Later on, they did exactly that: from about February onwards, Curtis LeMay had the guns and turrets stripped out of the force bombing Japan -- except for the tail position -- to save weight/increase range, speed, and bomb load. Operational consequences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

ckozlowski 11y ago

Repeated on the B-36 as well. http://www.airvectors.net/avb36.html http://www.airvectors.net/avb36.html

gaius 11y ago

It would probably have been better to omit those heavy guns and turrets and to leave those gunners on the ground to save weight, lives, and resources That is exactly what Freeman Dyson said of the Lancaster bomber. Tho' no sooner had the belly turret been removed than the Luftwaffe invented upward-firing guns, they would slip into position directly under, matching speed and heading, then just let rip.

arethuza 11y ago
Upward firing weapons were actually used in a number of fighters - originally in WW1 for attacking zeppelins: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%A4ge_Musik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%A4ge_Musik
- mrec 11y ago
  Don't forget the Defiant, a WW2 fighter whose only armament consisted of a rearward-facing turret. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulton_Paul_Defiant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulton_Paul_Defiant
- Theodores 11y ago
  The Schräge Musik approach is also 'Keep It Simple' in contrast to the American over-complicate-it approach. That term is also interesting as they considered jazz music to be 'queer'. Ultimately though it was fuel that mattered. When the USA joined the war half way through it meant that Allied planes were on 100 octane petrol, meanwhile the Germans were using some glorified coal slurry and the Japanese were using some tree bark extract made by school kids.

hydrogen18 11y ago

The guns on a bomber were never really meant for engaging aircraft. They're meant to deter fighters from ever getting near the bomber. Not many pilots are willing to sit directly in the path of machine gun fire, even if it is not very accurate. German anti-aircraft figured this out as well. They switched to shooting mostly tracer rounds. You aren't going to hit anything in the first place, so you might as well just scare the crap out of them. There were some WWII 'gunship' style modifications of planes, but that was not that common. For a more modern comparison, consider that the Bradley fighting vehicle carries anti tank missiles. Sending a group of Bradleys directly against tanks would be suicidal. The Bradley has aluminum for armor. A well trained set of tank crews operating even WWII vintage vehicles would decimate them. Instead, the misiles are there to deter tanks from engaging them. It also provides the crew with an enormous psychological benefit. That benefit is they at least have the benefit of being able to respond to an enemy tank with a potentially lethal weapons system. Ironically of course the TOW missiles on the Bradley destroyed more Iraqi tanks the M1 tank ever did in the Gulf war. But that is because Iraqi tank crews either had no experience or had armored vehicles in horrible condition.

LordKano 11y ago
It's kind of an interesting story how the military didn't really want the Bradley in the first place but it was forced upon them by congress and they had to find a use for it. I have a relative who was in the mechanized infantry back in the early 1990s. From what he was able to share with me, the Bradley was an interesting vehicle with a lot of cool stuff but if my life was on the line, I'd prefer to be in an M1 Abrams.
- greggyb 11y ago
  There is a pretty good movie "Pentagon Wars" about the development of the Bradley.[0] It's not entirely accurate, but even as complete fiction would be an enjoyable satire. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars
  - hydrogen18 11y ago

RockyMcNuts 11y ago

I think in aircraft 'cannon' = 'explosive shells'

rodgerd 11y ago

> It would probably have been better to omit those heavy guns and turrets and to leave those gunners on the ground to save weight, lives, and resources. Yep. The Mosquito was the safest (for the crew) bomber of the war, hugely more accurate and effective than the heavies. But heavies were the dogma of the politically influential in the air forces of Britain and the US, so much as battleships kept being considered the key asset long after they were actually irrelevant, thousands of young men were strapped into pointless flying coffins.

walshemj 11y ago

the rear turret had 20mm's from what I recall