A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Has there ever been an off-center gun?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 7th 03, 08:38 PM
phil hunt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 11:01:20 -0800, Hobo wrote:

Has there ever been an aircraft with a gun permanently aligned
off-center? I don't mean swivel mounted, but permanently fixed at a
point other than straight ahead.


During WW2, many German night fighters were fitted with a gun firing
upwards, to attack bombers.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).


  #2  
Old January 7th 04, 09:26 PM
DBurch7672
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

During WW2, many German night fighters were fitted with a gun firing upwards,
to attack bombers.

Actually: 1. It could be one or *multiple* guns
2. They were at an oblique angle
3. It came about when some genius in the
Luftwaffe realized that RAF
bombers had *no* belly defenses;
[GEE! IF Churchill had asked NICELY; we COULD
have sold
him some B-17/24 type BALL
TURRETS OR THE PLANS
FOR SAME! ]

4. the Germans called then
"Schrage" (sic, needs unlauts!)
Musik" or "Jazz Music" in
German!


  #3  
Old January 7th 04, 10:24 PM
Krztalizer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


4. the Germans called then
"Schrage" (sic, needs unlauts!)
Musik" or "Jazz Music" in

German!


Umlauts-R-Us

ü Alt 129
ä 132
ß 225
ö 148
Ä 142
Ö 153
Ü 154


  #5  
Old January 7th 04, 10:44 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"DBurch7672" wrote in message
...
During WW2, many German night fighters were fitted with a gun firing

upwards,
to attack bombers.

Actually: 1. It could be one or *multiple* guns
2. They were at an oblique angle
3. It came about when some genius in

the
Luftwaffe realized that RAF
bombers had *no* belly defenses;


Not strictly accurate , some Lancasters had ventral guns, the
problem was that the space was needed for the H2S radar
installation



[GEE! IF Churchill had asked NICELY; we

COULD
have sold
him some B-17/24 type BALL
TURRETS OR THE PLANS
FOR SAME! ]


Given that the RAF had a number of B-17's complete
with ball turrets I rather think the idea was not completely
unknown.

Keith



  #6  
Old January 7th 04, 11:08 PM
Yama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
Given that the RAF had a number of B-17's complete
with ball turrets I rather think the idea was not completely
unknown.


Would it really have helped anyway? AIUI ventral ball turrets were very
uncomfortable and in day bombers, gunners moved to them only when fighters
were detected. Besides ventral gunner is still in enormous disadvantage
against a night fighter, he doesn't have a radar and night fighter can see
the bomber easier against the sky.


  #7  
Old January 8th 04, 08:54 AM
Tony Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Yama" wrote in message ...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
Given that the RAF had a number of B-17's complete
with ball turrets I rather think the idea was not completely
unknown.


Would it really have helped anyway? AIUI ventral ball turrets were very
uncomfortable and in day bombers, gunners moved to them only when fighters
were detected. Besides ventral gunner is still in enormous disadvantage
against a night fighter, he doesn't have a radar and night fighter can see
the bomber easier against the sky.


Quite so. The idea of upward-firing guns for use against bombers
originated in WW1 (mainly to attack airships) and there were British
experiments with upward-firing cannon interwar. Although the
difficulty in defending this area was probably a factor in the German
use of Schräge Musik, I think that more important issues we

1. The bombers were generally much easier to spot from below.

2. The fighters were harder to spot from above.

3. The fighters had a nice, big, steady target to aim at in the
bomber's planform, instead of aiming at a much smaller end-on target
while being bounced around in the slipstream.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
  #8  
Old January 8th 04, 10:36 AM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Yama" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
Given that the RAF had a number of B-17's complete
with ball turrets I rather think the idea was not completely
unknown.


Would it really have helped anyway? AIUI ventral ball turrets were very
uncomfortable and in day bombers, gunners moved to them only when fighters
were detected. Besides ventral gunner is still in enormous disadvantage
against a night fighter, he doesn't have a radar and night fighter can see
the bomber easier against the sky.



Probably not which is why a replacement wasnt pursued.

Keith


  #9  
Old January 8th 04, 04:08 AM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Yama" writes:

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
Given that the RAF had a number of B-17's complete
with ball turrets I rather think the idea was not completely
unknown.


Would it really have helped anyway? AIUI ventral ball turrets were very
uncomfortable and in day bombers, gunners moved to them only when fighters
were detected. Besides ventral gunner is still in enormous disadvantage
against a night fighter, he doesn't have a radar and night fighter can see
the bomber easier against the sky.


Considering that climbing into, or out of, a ball turret wasn't a
trivial task, and that doing so at 25,000' would require handling
latches & controls that have cold-soaked at -40 (F or C, it doesn't
matter, much) for several hours, not to mention that you'd have to be
juggling Oxygen, connunication, and suit heater power leads, (Oh,
yeah, and you can't climb into the turret with it in the trail
position, you've got to hand crank it so that the guns are pretty much
straight down, then climb in), I'd rather doubt it.
Oh, yeah, the cold temperatures would freeze up the traverse &
elevation gear if it weren't energized & exercized.

You weren't supposed to be in the turret for takeoff or landing, but
the gunner would enter the turret sometime before passing through
10,000' on the climbout.

Now, those "dustbin" things that the Germans & Japanese were so fond
of - those strike me as a bit, well, optimistic.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
  #10  
Old January 8th 04, 02:40 AM
Les Matheson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Why yes, the AC-47, AC-119, and the AC-130A/E/H/U, to name a few.
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Aircraft Walkaround Center alive and well, new URL Voigt Lander Military Aviation 7 December 10th 03 04:16 PM
Center vs. Approach Altitudes Joseph D. Farrell Instrument Flight Rules 8 October 21st 03 08:34 PM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM
Aircraft Walkaround Center update, new section Robert Lundin Military Aviation 0 August 30th 03 08:12 PM
PACAF’s Hawaii air ops center sets new goals while adding 109 positions Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 August 20th 03 09:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.