P-39s, Zeros & A-24s

rom: Cub Driver look@my

they were returning with empty guns?

Certainly a possibility. Even if they still had ammo for their cowl guns they
might have learned by that time in the war that attacking an alert and ready
B-25 formation with 30 cals was pretty pointless. The B-25 turret gunners
alone would have outmatched them. The C model had 3/4" steel plate armor
across the rear of the radio compartment bulkhead, thus protecting the interior
of the fuselage from gunfire from the rear. It would have easily stopped light
machinegun fire.

Somewhere I've got an account of a B-25-Zero duel. If I find it I'll post
pertinent parts. It was written by Hobart Skidmore. He was a combat
correspondent who probably saw a lot more of the air war than most air crew.
He was always ready to go and went out on night B-17 raids to Rabaul, B-25 and
B-26 raids against Lae and Salamaua, C-47 supply drops to Aussie troops on the
Kokoda Track, you name it.
I heard that many years after the war he began to suffer from nightmares about
his war experiences so terrible that they drove him to suicide. Don't know if
that is really true.


Chris Mark

ubject: P-39s, Zeros & A-24s
From: ost (Chris Mark)
Date: 7/14/03 1:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

he B-25 turret gunners
alone would have outmatched them. The C model had 3/4" steel plate armor
across the rear of the radio compartment bulkhead, thus protecting the
interior
of the fuselage from gunfire from the rear. It would have easily

Oh yeah ! Well I had 1/4" Plexiglas protectig me. Try and beat that. !!!




Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

From: artkramr@

Oh yeah ! Well I had 1/4" Plexiglas protectig me. Try and beat that. !!!

Look on the bright side. At least you could see where you were going! ; )




Chris Mark

ArtKramr wrote:

Oh yeah ! Well I had 1/4" Plexiglas protectig me. Try and beat that. !!!

I've read that some Lancaster rear gunners would remove the "clear
vision" panel in the turret, between the guns, so as to remove the risk
of condensation or frost degrading their view. I know they had
electrically heated clothing, but even so !

Subject: P-39s, Zeros & A-24s
From: Alan Dicey
Date: 7/20/03 4:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

ArtKramr wrote:

Oh yeah ! Well I had 1/4" Plexiglas protectig me. Try and beat that. !!!

I've read that some Lancaster rear gunners would remove the "clear
vision" panel in the turret, between the guns, so as to remove the risk
of condensation or frost degrading their view. I know they had
electrically heated clothing, but even so !



We also had electric suits but I never remember my Plexi fogging up. If it did
I could just open the little vent flap and let a180 MPH relative wind come in
and blow my maps, charts, calculators, E6B and Wheems plotters all over the
place. (sheesh)


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

ArtKramr wrote:

Subject: P-39s, Zeros & A-24s
From: Alan Dicey

snip

I've read that some Lancaster rear gunners would remove the "clear
vision" panel in the turret, between the guns, so as to remove the risk
of condensation or frost degrading their view. I know they had
electrically heated clothing, but even so !


We also had electric suits but I never remember my Plexi fogging up. If it did
I could just open the little vent flap and let a180 MPH relative wind come in
and blow my maps, charts, calculators, E6B and Wheems plotters all over the
place. (sheesh)

Of course, you weren't flying at night several thousand feet higher (often at
contrail level) than a B-26 would be by day, and the tail turret wasn't facing into
a 180 IAS slipstream. Sometimes the U.S. heavies had the nose plexiglass (and the
cockpit windows) totally iced up as well. Flying at minus 50 to70F will do that,
even if the outside of the windows isn't iced up by flying in contrails. I've read
an account somewhere (I'm guessing in Elmer Bendiner's "Fall of Fortresses") where
he (B-17 nav) used the edge of his plotter to try and scrape the ice off the inside
of the windows in the nose, so that he could spot fighters approaching. The same
tool was passed up to the bombardier so he could clear the plexiglas nose cone for
the same reason, and maybe so he could see to bomb (can't remember if he was just a
"togglier" on that mission).

Removing the piece of plexiglass directly in the gunner's line of sight from the
tail turret on Lancs (and probably other British heavies) was, IIRC, attributed
first to Gibson's tail gunner Trevor-Roper (not Hugh, his brother Richard?), and
was soon widely imitated. It also cut down on glare and reflections when the sky
was lit up by searchlights, fires etc. I sure wouldn't want to do it, but if it's
a choice between risking frostbite or risking being shot down by an unseen fighter,
I imagine I'd choose the latter.

Guy

It also cut down on glare and reflections when the sky
was lit up by searchlights, fires etc. I sure wouldn't want to do it, but if
it's
a choice between risking frostbite or risking being shot down by an unseen
fighter,
I imagine I'd choose the latter.

Can you picture the scene from up there, open to the sky below? "Firewatching"
happened to a lot of RAF crews - overcome by the bizzare spectacle below them,
they had to make a conscious effort at times to not become mesmerized by the
view. Caught in the moment and suffering from sensory overload, it was easy
for gunner's scans for enemy nightfighters to break down at critical times.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

Gordon wrote:

It also cut down on glare and reflections when the sky
was lit up by searchlights, fires etc. I sure wouldn't want to do it, but if
it's
a choice between risking frostbite or risking being shot down by an unseen
fighter,
I imagine I'd choose the latter.

Can you picture the scene from up there, open to the sky below? "Firewatching"
happened to a lot of RAF crews - overcome by the bizzare spectacle below them,
they had to make a conscious effort at times to not become mesmerized by the
view. Caught in the moment and suffering from sensory overload, it was easy
for gunner's scans for enemy nightfighters to break down at critical times.

Both the stills and rare movie footage I've seen of night attacks are pretty
incredible, and as you say I think it would be easy to become distracted and forget
your primary job, at least until it became old hat. Of course, generally speaking
the inexperienced crews were the ones most likely to be shot down by fighters.

Guy

(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: P-39s, Zeros & A-24s
From: Alan Dicey
Date: 7/20/03 4:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

ArtKramr wrote:

Oh yeah ! Well I had 1/4" Plexiglas protectig me. Try and beat that. !!!

I've read that some Lancaster rear gunners would remove the "clear
vision" panel in the turret, between the guns, so as to remove the risk
of condensation or frost degrading their view. I know they had
electrically heated clothing, but even so !



We also had electric suits but I never remember my Plexi fogging up. If it did
I could just open the little vent flap and let a180 MPH relative wind come in
and blow my maps, charts, calculators, E6B and Wheems plotters all over the
place. (sheesh)


Arthur Kramer

I doubt that the Lanc gunners that he mentioned would be troubled
with slipstream blowing anything around.

--

-Gord.

"Chris Mark" wrote in message
...
rom: Cub Driver look@my

they were returning with empty guns?

Certainly a possibility. Even if they still had ammo for their cowl guns
they
might have learned by that time in the war that attacking an alert and
ready
B-25 formation with 30 cals was pretty pointless. The B-25 turret gunners
alone would have outmatched them. The C model had 3/4" steel plate armor
across the rear of the radio compartment bulkhead, thus protecting the
interior
of the fuselage from gunfire from the rear. It would have easily stopped
light
machinegun fire.

Somewhere I've got an account of a B-25-Zero duel. If I find it I'll post
pertinent parts. It was written by Hobart Skidmore. He was a combat
correspondent who probably saw a lot more of the air war than most air
crew.
He was always ready to go and went out on night B-17 raids to Rabaul, B-25
and
B-26 raids against Lae and Salamaua, C-47 supply drops to Aussie troops on
the
Kokoda Track, you name it.
I heard that many years after the war he began to suffer from nightmares
about
his war experiences so terrible that they drove him to suicide. Don't
know if
that is really true.


Chris Mark

Saburo Sakai the number two Jap Ace was shot up by flying betreen two B-25's
as reported in his book
"SAMURAI" He spent months recovering and lost the use of one eye.
B-25's were treated with respect by the "Zeke's" as reported in the book on
B-25's in the Pacific campaign
"Warpath across the pacific" A very expensive book ($75) but GREAT photos of
the 8 50 cal's in the nose.

Larry