Gun turrets on aircraft

[PMN1]

Which gun installation on bombers was the most effective when you compare their performance against the weight and drag penalty they imposed?

[GregP]

Good question Pmn1.

I have never seen a drag comparison among turrets. I have seen the performance of one particular bomber quoted both before and after the turret installation, but never a comparative turret in the same place on the airframe.

A comparison of another turret located in a different place on the airframe is useless since you are at the old "apples and oranges" ploistion.

I suppose we can find makes, models, and weights, but the drag penalty will be a real project to calculate.

[Romantic Technofreak]

My following statement is also rather disappointing. If your bomber is already comparedly slow, porcupine it with gun barrels, that may enforce its ability to survive. If your bomber is sleek and speedy, drop the defensive armament completely, and make it even faster. Everything in-between is a compromise, what especially crews of WWII medium bombers had painfully to learn.

Long time ago I started a comparison for the "Best Medium Bomber" of WWII. My personal result was the Tupolev Tu-2. But the Tu-2 only has gun stations, no turrets. The question is: would it be possible to keep its outstanding speed performance if it had turrets?

From the side view of the frontal section, there is a certain similarity between the Do 217 and the Lancaster. First, I thought to myself the Do 217 might have been improved by placing a frontal turret like the Lancaster had. Then, I had to learn that the frontal turret of the Halifax had to be dropped for reaons of gaining speed... making me to construct a special drag-reduced frontal gun emplacement for the Do 217, but that's not worth mentioning... On the other hand, I would prefer the dorsal turret of the Lancaster sitting in a position like the Do 217's was, right behind the cockpit. Possibly drag would be reduced, and the covering area might have been increased (?)...

B-25 and B-26 were very good aircraft, but in my eyes did not win the contest because their speed was 60 km/h less that a Do 217's and 90 km/h less than a Tu-2's. Especially, I would like to know if the Do 217's or Tu-2's speed performance would considerably have suffered if there would have been a rear gun station installed...?

For a ventral gun station, I would prefer it in a position behind the bomb bay like it was use in Soviet bombers like Pe-2 or Tu-2, rather than a "chin" position like used by most German bombers. So it could fire even if the bomb bays are open, and I suspect the chin position causes more drag. But, better than nothing, as to see in most Western Allied bombers.

Regards, RT

[Tempest V]

I'd imagine this question is what led in part to the development of "unmanned" remote controlled low-profile turrets such as those on the B-29, A-26 and P-61. It would be interesting to uncover research, if any exists, that shows aerial Kill-to-Loss ratios for bombers by type during WWII. Though not definitive in and of itself, such data might lead to conclusions about which types had the most effective defensive armaments.

[Wuzak]

I'd imagine this question is what led in part to the development of "unmanned" remote controlled low-profile turrets such as those on the B-29, A-26 and P-61. It would be interesting to uncover research, if any exists, that shows aerial Kill-to-Loss ratios for bombers by type during WWII. Though not definitive in and of itself, such data might lead to conclusions about which types had the most effective defensive armaments.

The problem is the number of kill claims did not match up with reality. The difficulty is in determining the confirmed kills from bomber gunners.