TactiSMART 62: ARM Yourself, Transport Planes! the Russians & Taiwanese Did It...
Ponder
the above for awhile before proceeding....hmmmm...
https://www.bitchute.com/video/p3emrV0l2OTz/
Now
ponder the below "ACES" who were NOT PILOTS but GUNNERS on
aircraft...you know like Han Solo and Luke Skywalker shooting down Tie fighters
in Star Wars... LockMartSky wants its tail-less NGAD to have a rear
laser to swat down enemy missiles...
British/Commonwealth:
Frederick Barker- 13- 264- RAF- Defiant
Albert Lippett- 12-
264- RAF- Defiant
John Roberts- 12-
108- RAF- Blenheim
S. B. Johnson- 11-
264- RAF- Defiant
Frederick King- 10-
264- RAF- Defiant
Henry Jacobs- 8-
219/600- RAF- Blenheim
P. Lillie- 8-
264- RAF- Defiant
Wallace McIntosh-
8 – 207- RAF- Lancaster
L. H. Hayden-
7- 264- RAF- Defiant
C. Sutherland- 7-
207- RAF- Lancaster
?. Bradford- 6-
57- RAF-Lancaster
Peter Engbrecht-
6- 424- RCAF- Halifax (Top Turret)
Robert Turner-
6- 264- RAF- Defiant
Fred Gash- 5-
264- RAF- Defiant
?. Martain- 5-
264- RAF- Defiant
F.W. Wake- 5- 264-
RAF- Defiant
J.E.M. Williams-
5- 264- RAF- Defiant
USAAF/U.S. Navy:
S/SGT Michael Arooth- 17- 527 BS 379 BG 8 AF- USAAF- B-17 (Tail Gunner)
S/SGT Arthur J.
Benko -16- 374 BS 308 BG 14AF- USAAF- B-24 (Top Turret)
S/SGT Donald
Crossley-12- 95 BG 8 AF- USAAF-B-17 (Tail Gunner)
S/SGT Benjamin F
Warner- 9 – 99 BG 12 AF-USAAF- B-17 (Waist Gunner)
S/SGT John B
Quinlan -8- 324 BS 91 BG 8 AF/20 AF-USAAF- B-17 (5),B-29 (3) (Tail Gunner)(Gunner
on Memphis Belle)
T/SGT Thomas Dye
-8- 51 BS 351 BG 8 AF -USAAF-B-17 (Ball Turret)
S/SGT John D.
Foley-7+8 prob- 22ND BG 5 AF- USAAF-B-26 (Top Turret)
S/SGT John A.
Murphy-6- 500 BS 345 BG 5 AF- USAAF- B-25 (Top Turret)(all Zero’s)
T/SGT Weston
(Wes) Loegering-5 -574 BS 391 BG 9 AF -USAAF-B-26 (Top Turret)
SFC Richard H
Thomas-5- VPD 117- U.S. Navy-PB4Y (B-24)(Front Turret)
ARM2 Paul
Ganshirt-5- VD 3-U S Navy-PB4Y
(B-24)(Top Turret)
Italian Airforce:
A di B (WOFF1) Pietro Bonannini-8+2 prob- Cant Z 506B & Fiat RS14 (Top Turret) (4x Spitfire, 3x Blenheim, 1x Hurricane)
****
1 is NONE--the
Single-seat Fighter-Bomber Pilot Lacking Someone in Back Checking their 6
o'clock if Surprised GETS SHOT DOWN no matter how gloriously skilled he is.
Don't yak about "wingman this or that" they get shot down 1st.
No human being looking forward can continuously turn his head constantly for
hours effectively to spoty tiny specks in the sky--SOMEONE NEEDS TO BE FACING
THAT DIRECTION ALL THE TIME--a back-seat gunner.
If SEEING the enemy 1st to ambush him is THE KEY then we
damn well better have 2x sets of eyes looking in ALL DIRECTIONS--instead of
one.
https://www.historynet.com/hiroyoshi-nishizawa-japans-world-war-ii-ace-of-aces.htm
QUOTES:
Nishizawa
was flying an A5M over Rabaul on February 3 when he and eight comrades
encountered two [rearward defensively armed] Consolidated Catalina I flying
boats of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) that were operating from the
Allied sea and air base at Port Moresby, New Guinea. One of the Catalinas
evaded the Japanese, but Nishizawa attacked the other and disabled one of its
engines. The Australian pilot, Flight Lt. G.E. Hemsworth, managed to nurse his
crippled plane back to Port Moresby on the remaining engine, while his gunner,
Sergeant Douglas Dick, claimed an enemy fighter that was later counted as a
probable.
A flight
of Tainan Ku. Zeros, led by Lt. j.g. Junichi Sasai, patrolled the Coral Sea and
was making its return pass over Port Moresby on April 11 when the
Japanese sighted a quartet of [USAAF P-39] Airacobras. Sakai, covered by
his two wingmen, PO3C Honda and Seaman 1st Class Keisaku Yonekawa, dove on the
two rearmost P-39s and promptly shot down both.
Then, on May
1, eight Zeros were heading for Port Moresby when they encountered
13 P-39s and P-40s flying along slowly at 18,000 feet. Nishizawa, as usual,
spotted them first and swung around in a wide turn to attack the enemy planes
from the left and rear. His seven comrades were not far behind, and they took
the Americans completely by surprise, shooting down eight before the
survivors dove away. [NO USMC around. How can they lie they were the "1st
to fight"?]
Similarly, a [rearward defensively-armed]
Lockheed A-28 Hudson proved too fast and tough for him to bring down on July
22. [NO USMC around. How can they lie they were the "1st to fight"?]
After a
running fight, the fifth Fortress was also shot down, but not before its
gunners had damaged Sakai’s Zero and shot down Seaman 1st Class Yoshio Motoyoshi—Nishizawa’s
wingman. [NO USMC around. How can
they lie they were the "1st to fight"?]
Next,
Sakai pounced on what looked like eight [single-seat] Wildcats–only to
discover too late that they were really [rearward defensively-armed] SBDs of
VB-6 and VS-5. One of the dive bombers’ .30-caliber rear guns struck Sakai
in the head, temporarily blinding him.
Japanese
claims in the August 7 air battle totaled 36 F4Fs (including seven
unconfirmed) and seven SBDs. Actual American losses came to nine [single-seat]
Wildcats and a [SBD] Dauntless.
The only
actual marine loss occurred when PO1C Kozaburo Yasui, PO3C Nobutaka Yanami and
Seaman 1st Class Tadashi Yoneda shot up a Wildcat whose [singular]
pilot, Captain Joseph J. Foss of VMF-121, succeeded in making a forced landing
on Henderson Field.
Toshio Ota mortally wounded marine gunner [single-seat
pilot] Henry B. Hamilton of VMF-212 on October 21, for his 34th victory, but
was himself [single-seat pilot] shot down and killed moments later by 1st Lt.
Frank C. Drury.
****
Turrets GOOD
For a plane & concept so maligned as the Boulton-Paul Defiant, you sure see a lot of ACES in their rear turrets, huh? Desperation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%A4ge_Musik
During World War I, pusher-configured fighter aircraft with flexibly-mounted forward-firing machine guns (especially the Royal Aircraft Factory F.E.2 fighters), enabled gunners to discover the principle of zero-deflection shooting. For instance, when firing upward at 45° elevation, assuming the attacking aircraft and its target are travelling at about the same velocity and the range is fairly short, the trajectory will appear straight. The bullets' true path is of course a parabola, but due to the relative movement of the aircraft they appear to follow a straight line: so that accurate sighting of the weapon requires no deflection or 'aiming off'. This greatly simplifies the business of hitting a moving target from a moving weapon platform.
The pilots of Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2 night fighters, after trying various schemes for attacking the Zeppelin raiders of 1915–16, hit on the idea of firing a mixture of explosive and incendiary bullets into the body of the airship from below. For this purpose a single .303 in (7.7 mm) air-cooled Lewis gun was mounted in front of the pilot's cockpit, firing upward. Exploitation of the same zero-deflection concept described above led to the destruction of six German airships between September and December 1916. Later British night fighters were similarly armed with upward firing guns.
Several tractor-configured single-seat biplanes of the time featured machine guns mounted on the centre section of the top wing to fire over the disk of the propeller (thus bypassing the need for deflector plates or synchronization gears). Arrangements had to be made to reload these weapons to enable an exhausted magazine to be replaced with a full one. The Foster mounting was designed to allow a Lewis gun to be drawn down and tipped back to reload, using a quadrant shaped rail. Whether by accident or design, it was found that the mounting also allowed the gun to be held manually at an intermediate angle (typically and ideally about 45°) and fired upward, steadying the gun by holding its pistol grip and firing it with the "normal" trigger rather than the remote Bowden cable used for forward firing.
Again, once the "zero-deflection" principle was "re-discovered", it became common for the pilots of the Nieuport 11 and Nieuport 17 fighters, especially in British service, and Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5s to exploit their Foster-mounted Lewis guns in this way, attacking enemy aircraft from the blind spot below the tail. British ace Albert Ball in particular was a great exponent of this technique [3]
The Sopwith Dolphin, which entered service near the end of World War I, was armed with two forward-firing .303 in (7.7 mm) Vickers on the cowl, just forward of the cockpit; it could also carry a pair of .303 in (7.7 mm) Lewis guns on the forward cross-tube of the cabane strut structure, aimed forwards and upwards, and were so equipped on delivery from the makers. The Germans tried similar arrangements in 1917, when Gerhard Fieseler of Jasta 38 attached two machine guns to an Albatros D.V, pointing upwards and forwards.
Interwar years[edit]
The Boulton Paul Bittern was a twin-engined night fighter (designed to Specification 27/24) with an armament of barbette mounted guns, that could be angled upwards for attack against bombers, without having to enter a climb. The first of two Bittern prototypes flew in 1927, though performance was poor and the development stopped.
The Westland C.O.W. Gun Fighter (1930) and Vickers Type 161 (1931) were designed in response to Air Ministry specification F.29/27. This called for an interceptor fighter operating as a stable gun platform for the Coventry Ordnance Works 37 mm autocannon produced by the Coventry Ordnance Works (COW).
The COW gun had been developed in 1918 for use in aircraft and had been tested on the Airco DH.4. The cannon fired 23-ounce (0.65 kg) shells and was to be mounted at 45 deg or more above the horizontal. The tactic was to fly below the target bomber or airship and fire upwards into it. Gun firing trials with both types went well, with no detriment to airframe or performance, although the Westland prototype displayed "alarming" handling characteristics. Neither the Type 161 nor its competitor, the Westland C.O.W. Gun Fighter were ordered, and no more was heard of this use of the aerial COW gun.[4][5][N 1]
Similar logic lay behind the later Vickers Type 414 twin-engined fighter. This aircraft, which can be seen a natural successor to the Vickers COW gun fighter, combined a streamlined monoplane two-seater fighter airframe with a remotely controlled nose-mounted 40mm cannon that could be elevated for no-allowance [1] shooting.[6]
While turret fighters like the Boulton Paul Defiant and the naval Blackburn Roc addressed the same threat – enemy bombers attacking the UK – the approach was very different: upward-firing guns and no-allowance shooting are separate and distinct, and the equipment that can do the one can, generally speaking, be arranged so as to do the other (unless the fixed armament is automatically triggered, as in the photo-cell firing arrangements detailed below). On paper at least, the advantages of flexible aim and weight of fire from a two-seater were clear: the pilot is not overburdened, several fighters could be brought to bear on a target together, and there are two pairs of eyes per aircraft. However, the weight of a powered turret and air gunner imposed their own severe and often fatal penalties.
The RAF put the Defiant into service in 1939, intending to use it against bombers, despite the bombers' numerous gun positions; however, it quickly became apparent that bombers escorted by nimble single-engined fighters bought within range by the speed and unprecedented territorial gains of blitzkrieg could not be engaged effectively. Despite being utterly outclassed as a day fighter, when moved to the night-fighter role it had some success, typically attacking from below and slightly ahead of the bomber, well outside its field of defensive fire.[7]
****
However, not a single Defiant turret kill was shown in the otherwise brilliant movie, "The Battle Britain". Result: no one knows--or cares--about the Defiants and their turret armament except critics of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsCLMPLlVdU
What if their rear turrets were smaller, lighter and with 20mm autocannon with exploding HE shells?
What if their tails were folded down for a clear field-of-fire like the Super Stuka so they couldn't be shot-off ala Sir Sean Connery's Indiana Jones father in "Last Crusade"?
Rearward defense was so important, the Godless Commie Russians changed their IL-2 Sturmovik armored attack planes to have a rear gunner...hmmmm...
You don't
hear any weight complaints about the lightweight electric ball turret on
TBM/TBF Avengers with a single ..50 cal/12.7mm heavy machine gun...
http://www.capitalwing.org/TBM_ovw.asp
The
turret is electrically powered, and traverses more that 180 degrees side-to-side,
as well as elevation, with cam following safety switches to inhibit shooting
off its own tail surfaces.
http://www.airvectors.net/avtbm.html
Another
TBF-1 was modified with a two-gun Martin turret, but it didn't work out,
since with two guns there were more interruptions when the tailfin came into
the line-of-fire.
Aircrews
flying the Avenger soon found out the forward-firing armament of one
7.62-millimeter Browning entirely inadequate, lacking in range, hitting power,
and volume of fire. Some Navy crews lashed up a 12.7-millimeter Browning on
top of each wingroot as a fix; the factory came up with a better solution,
mounting a single 12.7-millimeter Browning with 600 rounds in each wing,
just outside of the propeller arc, resulting in the "TBF-1C".
Although the heavier gun armament of the TBF-1C was welcome, Avenger crews remained frustrated by the fact that the standard Mark 13 air-dropped torpedo was finicky, requiring a careful drop at low speed and altitude, and even then it often malfunctioned. The whole story of the U.S. Navy and torpedoes during World War II is a sorry one: overall, torpedoes were among the most notoriously troublesome gear supplied to the U.S. Navy during the war, and it took a lot of painful effort just to get them up to the level of mediocre.
The Mark
13 did end up receiving a number of improvements, initially a stopgap fix
involving a plywood box built around the tailfins that improved stability
during drop and broke away on hitting the water. The ultimate solution was a
ring tail developed by the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) that
was welded onto the pre-existing tailfins. The resulting Mark 13-1A torpedo was
much more satisfactory, able to be dropped from reasonable altitudes at high
speeds.
The main
gear could be deployed in flight to act as dive brakes; there were no
covers over the wheels when they were retracted, since the covers have been
judged to do little more than add weight.
However,
while work on the fix progressed, Avenger crews became more proficient
at glide and skip bombing, with an Avenger diving in at a moderate angle and
then dropping a string of four 225-kilogram (500-pound) bombs that skipped into
the hull of the target, detonating with a delayed-action fuze. In the end the Avenger,
built primarily as a torpedo bomber, would drop far more bombs than torpedoes.
Anti-sub Avengers
were usually armed with 160-kilogram (350-pound) depth charges, set to go
off at shallow depth, ensuring that even a miss on a U-boat cruising on the
surface was likely to be fatal. The FAA also introduced the use of unguided
rockets, fitting four launch rails for British 7.62-centimetre (3-inch) rockets
under each wing. The rockets could be fitted with bulbous explosive heads or
solid penetrating heads; the penetrating heads were more appropriate for
attacks on U-boats and other naval targets.
A number
of U.S. Navy Avengers were also fitted for carriage of the British
rockets, but by early 1944 Avengers were carrying the more formidable
12.7-centimeter (5-inch) "high velocity air rocket (HVAR)" or
"Holy Moses", developed by Caltech. Eight HVARs were carried,
using new twin-stub launchers that were much more aerodynamically clean than
the cluttered launch rails used for the British rockets. The rockets gave an Avenger
one hell of a punch, and were also heavily used for ground attack. Late in
the war, Avengers obtained the Mark 24 acoustic homing torpedo, which
would home in on the sound of a submarine's propeller.
In
midwar, U.S. Navy Avenger colors changed to dark blue on top, medium
blue on the sides, and white underneath for Pacific-based aircraft; while
Atlantic-based aircraft had medium blue on top and medium gull gray along the
sides and on the belly. From October 1944, all U.S. Navy Avengers were
painted overall dark blue.
A TBF-1
was also fitted up with a set of lights around the cowling and the wing
leading edges; the idea of the exercise, named Project YEHUDI after a Walt
Disney cartoon on camouflage popular
stage magician of the era, was to reduce the contrast of the aircraft
during daylight flight so it couldn't be seen by a target except at close
range. It worked as desired, with the detection range cut to a tenth of normal,
but for whatever reasons, the system wasn't approved for service.
www.combatreform.org/camie.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8CNw_QMyW0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOrRnBcYCSE
Another
innovation pioneered by recycled Avengers was the "carrier
onboard delivery (COD)" mission. It was nothing unusual for
Avengers and other aircraft to fly small cargoes from shore onto carriers,
but the Navy had never had an aircraft dedicated to the mission. During the
Korean War, a number of TBM-3s and TBM-3Ws were converted to the
"TBM-3R" configuration, with all combat gear removed, the rear of the
canopy glassed-in or faired over, and seats for seven passengers installed
in the rear compartment.
The bomb
bay was retained; stretchers could be carried in it for casualty evacuation,
while a "cargo basket" that could be winched into the bomb
bay was invented by a clever chief petty officer, allowing cargoes to be
dropped off and new cargoes picked up immediately. The TBM-3Rs were
particularly welcomed on board ship for their delivery of mail.
Avengers to
Paradrop Naval PATHFINDERS
https://www.bitchute.com/video/eKTba4TLtjVJ/
The legendary IL-2 Sturmovik was a SINGLE-seater that suffered horrendous losses forcing Stalin to order a 2nd rear seat gunner be added. SOMEONE must be constantly watching your 6 o'clock! Even Star Wars creator George Lucas knows that and had R2D2 a robot supply this function.
Recipient
of the "Hero of the Soviet Union", T. Kuznetsov, survived the
crash of his Il-2 in 1942 when shot down returning from a reconnaissance
mission. Kuznetsov escaped from the wreck and hid nearby. To his surprise, a
German Bf 109 fighter landed near the crash site and the pilot began to investigate
the wrecked Il-2, possibly to assist Kuznetsov, or to look for souvenirs.
Thinking quickly, Kuznetsov ran to the German fighter and used it to fly home,
barely avoiding being shot down by Soviet fighters in the process.[22]
The Shturmovik
rear guns proved to be effective against hostile fighters, and during the
service trials alone, gunners shot down seven Bf 109s and repulsed many attacks.[35]
In January 1943 two-seat attack aircraft powered by uprated AM-38F engines
(Forseerovannyy – uprated) began to arrive at front line units.
Nonetheless,
the death rate among the air gunners remained exceptionally high and it was
only for late models produced after 1944 that the 13 mm (0.51 in) rear plate of
the armour shell was moved rearwards into the (wooden) rear fuselage to allow a
gunner to sit behind the fuel tank.[citation needed] The armour did not extend
to the rear or below although side armour panels were riveted to the rear
armour plate to protect the ammunition tank for the UBT machine gun, providing
some measure of protection. The modifications including adding the rear gunner
and gun had added weight behind the center of gravity, resulting in "marginal"
stability and handling characteristics that were "barely acceptable".
The need to shift the aerodynamic center of the aircraft rearwards due to the
weight of the added rear gunner and lengthened cockpit was the reason for the
swept back outer wings in later Il-2s.[36]
Weak, single 7.92mm medium machine gun manual-traversed top-mount offered JU-52s inadequate protection from enemy aircraft attacks...better than NOTHING like USAAF C-47s had!
Il-2 pilots also often attacked close formations of Junkers Ju 87s, as the 7.92 mm (0.312 in) machine guns of the Ju 87 Stukas were ineffective against the heavily armoured Shturmoviks. In the winter of 1941–1942, Il-2s were used against [UNarmored, often UNarmed] Luftwaffe transport aircraft, and became the most dangerous opponent of the Junkers Ju 52/3m. Pilots of 33rd GvShAP were the most successful in these operations. Other successful units were those in 1942–1943 operating near Stalingrad. Their targets were not only Ju 52s but also Heinkel He 111 and Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor bombers, delivering supplies to the besieged German troops.[37]
The heavy
armor of the Il-2 also meant that it would typically carry only comparatively
light bomb-loads, which together with the poor accuracy of its attacks made it
a far less deadly attack aircraft than contemporary Allied fighter-bombers such
as the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt and Hawker Typhoon.
Likewise,
the Shturmovik's bombs were usually only 50 kg (110 lb), or rarely 100
kg (220 lb), too small to compensate for the typically wide variation from the
target point.[citation needed] To compensate for the poor accuracy of the
Il-2's bombsight, in 1943, the Soviet Command decided to use shaped-charge
armor-piercing projectiles against enemy armored vehicles, and the PTAB-2.5-1.5
SCAP aircraft bomb was put into production. These small-calibre bombs were
loaded directly into the bomb bays and were dropped onto enemy vehicles from
altitudes up to 100 metres (330 ft). As each Il-2 could carry up to 192 bombs,
a fire carpet 70 metres (230 ft) long and 15 metres (49 ft) wide could cover
the enemy tanks, giving a high "kill" probability.[24]
Pilots of 291st ShAP were the first to use the PTAB-2.5-1.5 bombs. During one
sortie on 5 June 1943, six attack aircraft led by Lt. Col. A. Vitrook destroyed
15 enemy tanks in one attack, and during five days of the enemy advance, the
291st Division claimed to have destroyed or damaged 422 enemy tanks.[31]
[EDITOR: this is Terrain Firepower Saturation (TFS)--something the Russians rightly swear by re: MLRs on trucks etc. to the present day]
Me210 & 410 Rear-Firing Barbettes
Unlike Mossies which lacked rear defensive armament, German fighter-bombers had it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_210
...a highly advanced remote-control defensive armament system that gave the gunner a far wider field of fire.
For defence, the Me 210's rear gunner was armed with two 13 mm (.51 in) MG 131 machine guns. Each of these was fitted into half-teardrop-shaped Ferngerichtete Drehringseitenlafette FDSL 131/1B turrets mounted on each side of the aircraft, and was remote-controlled from the gunner's position in the rear of the glazed cockpit area with a unique gun-aiming setup. This unit had a pivoting handgun-style grip, trigger and gunsight at its center, to aim the guns vertically—with both turrets elevating and depressing together when operated - and horizontally, in pivoting each gun separately, outward away from the fuselage side when aimed to one side or the other.[1] The rear of the cockpit canopy's lower side glazing panels were bulged out to allow the gunner to see in almost any rearward-facing direction. The guns were electrically fired, and an electrical contact breaker acted as a form of "interrupter" as used on many forms of multi-engined, turret-armed WW II aircraft, preventing the gunner from shooting off the Me 210's tailplane.
****
GMTA: the FUGLY IL-20--Downward Pointing Guns--and Rear Turret Gunner!
https://1sttac.blogspot.com/2021/03/currentwarthink-004-usaf-snake-bit-by.html
My only criticism is the tail being in the way of the rear gunner turret's field-of-fire. Couldn't a Beech Bonanza-like V tail open this up?
IL-40
Since turrets
are also GOOD on airplanes that can't turn to defend themselves--like bombers and
transports--turrets are GOOD & necessary--without them disaster follows re:
the Bay of Pigs fiasco where A-26 Invaders were stripped of rear defensive
armament and were shot-down DAMNING THE ENTIRE INVASION.
www.combatreform.org/airbornebayofpigs.htm
...and
sadly many more:
The 1961
Hammarskjold Shoot-Down by evil CIA bastard pilot murdering a lady and all on board (disgusting)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/yU1TqW0KoG3g/
https://jamesbondisreal.blogspot.com/2021/05/spythink-065-wild-geese-4-real-sir.html
The 1947
USMC C-46 Shoot-Down
https://jamesbondisreal.blogspot.com/2021/04/think-055-german-flying-saucers-since.html
The 1944
DC-3 Shoot-Down
Leslie
Howard
https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-shoot-down-of-leslie-howard/
The Russians and Taiwanese were/are not stupid--their
transports were/are ARMED for self-defense to include rearward-firing missiles.
Look Ma! My Mossie has no rear defensive armament!
If you
lose payload with a turret (DUHH) and can't afford this in a plane that could
if flown by an alert crew TURN to face attackers and point their forward-firing
guns, why can't the same efficiency be applied to tanks on the ground who
otherwise squander 46% of their armament/armor/sensors etc.?
It can
and it works:
Turretless
STUG light tanks were the most successful tanks in human history.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/PUsAzPF78IDu/
www.combatreform.org/lighttanks.htm
We also
know that fixed guns forces attack planes to DIVE which limits their target
engagement time and risks them to destruction by flying into the ground (TBATE)
and enemy AA shoot-downs (TBAM):
https://1sttac.blogspot.com/2021/03/currentwarthink-004-usaf-snake-bit-by.html
Turrets
UGLY
This dive
attack problem is easily solved by downward angled guns in wings and/or a
remotely operated belly turret like the OV-10D Bronco NOGS had.
www.combatreform.org/killerbees3.htm
The PBY Catalina seaplane/amphibian had side blisters whose gunners could face rearward to ward-off attacks from there.
More Thoughts on Indirect Aircraft Firepower
BlacktailFA writes:
I did [read this blog], and I know a few more examples of indirect strafing.
In World War 2, the Luftwaffe outfitted several aircraft with large quantities of machine guns or automatic cannons that faced upwards, and used them to attack Allied bombers from below. This tactic was nicknamed "Schrage Music" ("Oblique Music", German slang for jazz), and though I'm not sure how successful it was, an awful lot of writers have covered it in recent years;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%A4ge_Musik
This nonetheless proved much more effective than the "Turret Fighters" that Allied nations favored until the start of the war (the Boulton-Paul Defiant, Blackburn Roc, and Bell YFM-1 Airacuda were especially atrocious), probably owing to the fact that Schrage Musik aircraft attacked from what was usually a blind spot, giving them the element of surprise.
As you can see, there were also U.S., British, and Japanese experiments with Schrage Musik configurations. Though with the Japanese short on suitable aircraft, and the Allies without as much as a bomber threat as Germany faced, they didn't accomplish much.
There was a similar development that took place in the Soviet Union, where the Red Air Force filled the bomb bay of a Tu-2 bomber with 88 PPsH-41 submachine guns, all aimed downward and slightly forward. Nicknamed the "Firey Hedgehog", the resulting Tu-2Ph unleashed a hellish hail of fire, but ultimately didn't prove worth the effort --- the SMG assembly weighed 600kg fully-loaded (as much as a general-purpose bomb), filled the whole bomb bay, and held only enough ammunition for what was effectively a single burst of gunfire;
https://airpages.ru/eng/ru/tu2sh.shtml
For something a bit non-historic, here's a scene from an anime series about an alternate timeline in which Japan won World War 2. In this scene, a Japanese squadron shoots-down a group of attacking German bombers (history went REALLY awry in this anime) with a rather extreme version of Schrage Musik;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK_GpKfVyl4
The USAF also once used an aircraft a lot like the one you're endorsing. As part of an effort code-named Tropic Moon III, they outfitted some B-57G Canberras with the "Pave Gat" sustem --- M61A1 Vulcans, that were mounted on a steerable turret that could be lowered out of the bomb bay. Tropic Moon III was a success, but at the same time it couldn't compete with the fearsome AC-130 Spectre, and all of the surviving Tropic Moon B-57s were converted back into standard B-57Gs;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Shed_Light#Tropic_Moon_III
Here's a demo video of the Pave Gat tests;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oasZpff3zLg
One other aircraft you might be interested in is the Northrop P-61 Black Widow, a USAAF night fighter that had a freely rotating turret on the roof. This was likely the only successful "Turret Fighter", owing to the fact that it exclusively hunted bombers and transport aircraft, and was also sometimes used to strafe ground targets as well. with a quartet of 20mm autocannons, that turret unleashed what would still be considered a devastating rain of fire today;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_P-61_Black_Widow
There were also instances of U.S. bombers using their "defensive" machine gun armament to indirectly strafe ground targets as well, AC-130-style, but I'm afraid I don't remember where I learned that from.
However, there was a famous incident in which a U.S. Navy PB4Y1 Privateer (a Navy variant of the B-24 Liberator) had a chance encounter with a Japanese H8K "Emily" 4-engine flying boat aircraft, and shot it down with a broadside of machine gun fire. The Privateer aircrew snapped several photos during the engagement, including this one;
https://ww2db.com/image.php?image_id=16867
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/best-flying-boats-from-war-over-the-wine-dark-sea.51735/page-3
Another
incident, a PB4Y-2 shot down an H8K in 1944, apparently due to catching it by
surprise. This is the one which is the origin of the photos you may have seen
before of the H8K being shot down. This was a description I found of the
incident.
"The long, over-water patrols routinely performed by
USN patrol squadrons as well as those by their IJN counterparts were, as the
saying goes, “99% boredom, and 1% sheer terror:. That last 1% is what we see
here. On 2 July, 1944, VP-115 with Plane Commander Lt. Stoughton Atwood Flying
PB4Y-1 Bu #32274, with no markings other than the Bu. # on the tail, searched a
sector extending from Wakde Island toward Mindanao, PT, …when an IJN H8K1
“Emily” intersected their course at an altitude 1,000 feet lower, when first spotted
by Atwood’s eagle-eyed crew. The Japanese remained unaware of the Privateer Liberator
maneuvering into attack position, until the moment pictured. Atwood’s copilot
recorded the violent event, ending in the destruction of the Emily, from the
right seat taking a series of 15 photos with the ship’s K-12 camera. As an
interesting aside, Lt. Atwood had a premonition before the mission that they
would encounter an Emily and he asked his highly skeptical crew to prepare for
this event, which the did. Also, contrary to some narrative accounts of the
event. Crew 12’s normally assigned aircraft; the “Briny Marlin” was not flown
on the 2 July mission having been destroyed days earlier during a Japanese
bomb-raid on Wakde."
****
What if You're
NOT ARMORED? UNarmored Tube & Wing Death Planes
We could build a P-51 Mustang in 1x hour.
We could build an entire B-24 Liberator, 4-engined bomber in 2x hours.
We could build a Liberty ship in 1x day.
But we couldn't properly armor our planes?
https://www.argunners.com/horrific-images-captured-last-moments-usaaf-bombers-wwii/
...our infantrymen?
https://1sttac.blogspot.com/2021/04/battletalk-002-wheres-your-body-armor.html
Most would have survived had they had instantaneous ejection seats--like the Space Shuttle Challenger 7x lacked...
https://www.bitchute.com/video/sOU0wqxy6tVZ/
www.combatreform.org/escape.htm
Burnelli BWB Needed
You also see the flimsy tube & wings collapsing from battle damage.
This can
be mitigated against by Burnelli Blended Wing Body (BWB) designs that are far
sturdier.
https://1sttac.blogspot.com/2021/05/tactismart-061-new-burnelli-dc-3c-47s.html
Semper
https://www.combatreform.org/2LTMichaelSparksUSMCR.htm
Airborne!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkRaE3UEags
Commander Ian Fleming RNVR 1939-51 wrote the James Bond 007 books/movies for the Information Research Division (IRD) of MI6-SIS who he worked for as a Master Spy under journalistic cover from 1933-39 and 1945-1964 when he was murdered (as concluded by legendary investigative reporter, Jim Marrs to me) to prevent him publicly condemning the Warren Commission white wash of the CIA's group ambush murder of his friend, President John F. Kennedy.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/hlwjiDU6qoF1/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/jHwnQ76xxh4P/
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/Sj9CnXlfNz62/
http://www.jamesbondisforreal.com
James Bond is REAL.
Comments
Post a Comment