emc wrote:
I suspect that studying operations research analyses would reveal that the USAAF may well have been better off -- in the number of aircrew killed and captured -- by designing their bomber aircraft with some fixed guns in the nose and a tail turret, cutting the crew from about ten to about four, getting rid of the drag from all those turrets and the big holes for the waist guns, and picking up quite a bit in speed for the same payload-range characteristics: less time for the enemy fighters to shoot at them, fewer possible passes, etc. After all, OR analyses done for the USN did find that the gunners on dive and torpedo bombers actually increased aircraft losses.
An interesting question, but not, I think, with a simple answer. A similar study on the RAF's night bombers also concluded that the loss rate would drop
if they were stripped of guns and streamlined to achieve higher speeds. Conversely, the Soviets rapidly added a rear gunner to the Il-2 after disastrous losses
of the early single-seat version, despite the problems this caused with weight distribution.
Logically, the case for disarming the night bombers was much stronger. There, the problem for the night fighters was in locating a bomber (once they spotted
one, it had only a 50% chance of survival) and the faster the bomber, the less likely it was to be intercepted (the Mosquitoes were almost untouchable). Even
so, the RAF rejected the recommendation to disarm the Lancs, for two reasons; the gunners acted as lookouts to warn of an approaching night fighter (the
bomber's best chance of survival once spotted was to take violent evasive action) and it helped crew morale to have something to shoot back with.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
and discussion forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
