jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) (06/19/91)
From: jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) The physicist Freeman Dyson, who spent WWII as an analytical nobody in the service of RAF Bomber Command, has some interesting thoughts on the armament of Lancasters and presumably other bombers. In his book "Disturbing the Universe," he alleges that they might have done better to abandon "the myth of the valiant gunner defending his mates" and strip off the gun turrets to save weight and drag. His suggestions went nowhere back when they might have done some good, and we're now straying close to soc.history country, but if you're interested in the subject you might want to read this book. --Joe "Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
Steve.Hix@Eng.Sun.COM (Eolid enthusiast) (06/20/91)
From: Steve.Hix@Eng.Sun.COM (Eolid enthusiast) In article <1991Jun19.010258.10443@cbnews.cb.att.com> jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) writes: >The physicist Freeman Dyson, who spent WWII as an analytical nobody in >the service of RAF Bomber Command, has some interesting thoughts on the >armament of Lancasters and presumably other bombers. In his book >"Disturbing the Universe," he alleges that they might have done >better to abandon "the myth of the valiant gunner defending his mates" >and strip off the gun turrets to save weight and drag. >His suggestions went nowhere back when they might have done some good, The USAAF followed his idea in the bombing campaign against Japan. Under Gen. LeMay, they switched from precision daylight bombing by B-29's to low-level night attacks, tossing all but the tail guns to get better range and speed, and losses plummeted. -- ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Chris Thompson) (06/27/91)
From: christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Chris Thompson) In article <1991Jun20.015312.27909@cbnews.cb.att.com> Steve.Hix@Eng.Sun.COM (Eolid enthusiast) writes: Re: dropping guns from bombers: >The USAAF followed his idea in the bombing campaign against Japan. > >Under Gen. LeMay, they switched from precision daylight bombing by B-29's >to low-level night attacks, tossing all but the tail guns to get better range >and speed, and losses plummeted. > > Were the lower losses due to dropping the guns or going in at night, at low level? Chris Thompson -- "Never count a human dead until you've seen the body. And even then you can make a mistake". -Lady Fenring
daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk (06/27/91)
From: daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk In article <1991Jun19.010258.10443@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) writes: > > The physicist Freeman Dyson, who spent WWII as an analytical nobody in > the service of RAF Bomber Command, has some interesting thoughts on the > armament of Lancasters and presumably other bombers. In his book > "Disturbing the Universe," he alleges that they might have done > better to abandon "the myth of the valiant gunner defending his mates" > and strip off the gun turrets to save weight and drag. > Well, Dyson was probably right. It is interesting to note that none of the RAF's V-bombers (Valiant, Vulcan and Victor) had any defensive armament. Dave -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Hastings | JANET: daveh@uk.ac.oxford.vax VAX Systems Programmer | INTERNET: Oxford University Computing Service| daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve.Hix@Eng.Sun.COM (Eolid enthusiast) (06/29/91)
From: Steve.Hix@Eng.Sun.COM (Eolid enthusiast) In article <1991Jun27.013308.27187@cbnews.cb.att.com> christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Chris Thompson) writes: > > >From: christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Chris Thompson) >In article <1991Jun20.015312.27909@cbnews.cb.att.com> Steve.Hix@Eng.Sun.COM (Eolid enthusiast) writes: > Re: dropping guns from bombers: >>Under Gen. LeMay, they switched from precision daylight bombing by B-29's >>to low-level night attacks, tossing all but the tail guns to get better range >>and speed, and losses plummeted. >> >Were the lower losses due to dropping the guns or going in at night, at low >level? Yes. Oh...dropping the extra weight (guns/ammo/people) gave a boost of range that allowed the B-29's to fly low which probably helped reduce the usefulness of the Japanese radar (such as they had), and made interception harder. Night was probably the major contributor to lowered losses. -- ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
military@cbnews (06/29/91)
From: att!bcr!pyuxa!pyuxf!jem3 In article <1991Jun27.013308.27187@cbnews.cb.att.com> you write: > >From christ@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Chris Thompson) >Were the lower losses due to dropping the guns or going in at night, at low >level? Going in at night. The Japanese had a very poor air defense system with little or no radar and/or radar guided guns. Also the Twentieth Air Force began using incendiary bombs instead of HE to burn the Japanese cities to the ground so accuracy was not a problem. The reason they switched from daylight precision to night bombing was that (1) the radar on the B-29s was not that good and (2) the winds aloft over Japan were horrendous. The bombing results were very poor with daylight bombing so LeMay decided that something drastic was needed. The aircrews were not happy with the removal of the guns and with the low level (7000 feet) attack but as time went on and they saw the reduction in losses, they began to appreciate it. -- ------------------------------------------------------------- | Jack McKillop | Those who have long enjoyed | | Bellcore, Piscataway, NJ | such privileges as we enjoy | | U.S.A. | forget in time that men have | | WORK TEL: 908-699-6268 | died to win them. | | WORK FAX: 908-699-0908 | Franklin D. Roosevelt | -------------------------------------------------------------