Battle of Britain Film-How hard is it to hit a moving target
Discussion
Incredibly difficult...I remember seeing a documentary about B17's and most of the gunners only had 1 or 2 confirmed 'kills'. It would seem that a lot of gunners on bombers went through the entire war spraying bullets all over the sky and didnt hit a thing.
Night bombers had even less chance of hitting anything.
The fighter pilots with a high number of confirmed kills (20-30) would have been very very good pilots and generally had balls the size of watermelons.
Read 'Reach For The Sky' about Douglas Bader...his technique was to get his wing as high as possible and dive straight down on a formation of aircraft, he waited until the aircraft completely filled his windscreen before shooting and would then carry on diving straight down through the middle of the formation, the potential for collision was huge but it made the shooting accurate and they would fly through the formation so quickly the gunners would have no chance of squeezing off a shot.
Night bombers had even less chance of hitting anything.
The fighter pilots with a high number of confirmed kills (20-30) would have been very very good pilots and generally had balls the size of watermelons.
Read 'Reach For The Sky' about Douglas Bader...his technique was to get his wing as high as possible and dive straight down on a formation of aircraft, he waited until the aircraft completely filled his windscreen before shooting and would then carry on diving straight down through the middle of the formation, the potential for collision was huge but it made the shooting accurate and they would fly through the formation so quickly the gunners would have no chance of squeezing off a shot.
drivin_me_nuts said:
Watched this over the bank holiday - n ever seen it before.
The DE bombers (in the firm) were HE111's. Is that correct?
A question regarding the turret and tail gunners. How difficult is it to actually hit a moving target. How hard was it to hit a moving target like a Spitfire?
The German bombers used in the film are technically CASA 211s. These were a Spanish licenced built variant of the original Heinkel He111. Production continued after WW2 and, due to the lack of available Junkers Jumo engines, CASA built the last run using Rolls Royce Merlins.The DE bombers (in the firm) were HE111's. Is that correct?
A question regarding the turret and tail gunners. How difficult is it to actually hit a moving target. How hard was it to hit a moving target like a Spitfire?
Likewise, the German fighters in the film are not really Messerschmitt Bf109s, but Hispano HA112 Buchons - which were Spanish production versions of the "G" model of the 109. Like the CASA bombers, lack of German engines post war meant that these two were fitted with Merlins.
German bombers by and large didn't feature turrets (there are a couple of exeptions). The Heinkel, Junkers and Dornier bombers used during the Battle of Britain had gun cupolas in which sat a gunner firing a single machine gun which was mounted on a steel bracket. The defensive fire from such weapons was pretty inadequate and it needed a lucky hit to seriously damage an incoming fighter.
Conversely, the RAF found that even the massed firepower of eight .303 Browning mnachine guns was often not strong enough to bring down a relatively lightly armoured German bomber.
The Battle of Britain highlighted the fact that the machine gun as an effective air to air weapon was reaching the end of its life and increasingly more effort was put into developing more powerful cannon armaments for fighters.
And I hope to goodness the mods don't move this thread to the Film and TV forum
Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 5th May 07:39
Eric Mc said:
drivin_me_nuts said:
Watched this over the bank holiday - n ever seen it before.
The DE bombers (in the firm) were HE111's. Is that correct?
A question regarding the turret and tail gunners. How difficult is it to actually hit a moving target. How hard was it to hit a moving target like a Spitfire?
The German bombers used in the film are technically CASA 211s. These were a Spanish licenced built variant of the original Heinkel He111. Production continued after WW2 and, due to the lack of available Junkers Jumo engines, CASA built the last run using Rolls Royce Merlins.The DE bombers (in the firm) were HE111's. Is that correct?
A question regarding the turret and tail gunners. How difficult is it to actually hit a moving target. How hard was it to hit a moving target like a Spitfire?
Likewise, the German fighters in the film are not really Messerschmitt Bf109s, but Hispano HA112 Buchons - which were Spanish production versions of the "G" model of the 109. Like the CASA bombers, lack of German engines post war meant that these two were fitted with Merlins.
German bombers by and large didn't feature turrets (there are a couple of exeptions). The Heinkel, Junkers and Dornier bombers used during the Battle of Britain had gun cupolas in which sat a gunner firing a single machine gun which was mounted on a steel bracket. The defensive fire from such weapons was pretty inadequate and it needed a lucky hit to seriously damage an incoming fighter.
Conversely, the RAF found that even the massed firepower of eight .303 Browning mnachine guns was often not strong enough to bring down a relatively lightly armoured German bomber.
The Battle of Britain highlighted the fact that the machine gun as an effective air to air weapon was reaching the end of its life and increasingly more effort was put into developing more powerful cannon armaments for fighters.
And I hope to goodness the mods don't move this thread to the Film and TV forum
Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 5th May 07:39
I did read a while back that it was the BofB that triggered the realisation that the machine gun was not the best air to air weapon. When did the spitfire get canons?
back on machine guns. Would even the turrets of the Lancaster and the flying fortress have something as rudimentary as crosshairs and 'gunner eye' as their ony aiming mechanism?
It strikes me as even more brave that guys would go up in those flying targets with little more than blind faith and optimism guiding them.
drivin_me_nuts said:
When did the spitfire get canons?
The Spitfire Mk IB introduced to RAF service in June 1940, (trial aircraft delivered in January) by August 24 aircraft had been brought into service, there were conversions of al browning armed Mk I aircraft which would be known as Mk IA from then on.I believe the turrets did have cross-hairs though I have read that when they had tracer rounds on board and they could see where the bullets were going they would aim it like a hose pipe....much quicker than trying to get a bead and hold it on a moving aircraft especially when they would only pop up for a second to shoot and then fall away again.
Look on Youtube for some of the gun camera films to see how little shooting back the bombers managed. You can also find some fascinating dog fight footage and that shows how often the fighters would shoot at each other but the bullets would just end up wizzing harmlessly 100 yards wide of the aircraft.
Look on Youtube for some of the gun camera films to see how little shooting back the bombers managed. You can also find some fascinating dog fight footage and that shows how often the fighters would shoot at each other but the bullets would just end up wizzing harmlessly 100 yards wide of the aircraft.
mybrainhurts said:
I once read an article written by a Lancaster gunner.
He considered his role to be more of a spotter and director of evasive manoeuvres than gunner.
He considered his role to be more of a spotter and director of evasive manoeuvres than gunner.
"FIGHTER CORKSCREW PORT!!!"
Jeez can you imagine the tension those crews were under for the duration of the flight...just holding a steady course waiting for fighters to line up and squeeze off a shot. I bet some crews were so tense the gunners would shoot at anything and the pilot would corkscrew at the slightest noise over his intercom.
Although not a true story Len Deighton's book 'Bomber' is a very good account of being on board a Lancaster.
The RAF and USAAF philosophies regarding defensive guns were quite different. The RAF had entered the war thinking that the power operated turret was going to make the bomber invulnerable to enemy fighters. Stanley Baldwin had famously stated that "The bomber will always get through". Early unescorted daylight operations in 1939 showed that this concept was flawed and that darkness was the bomber's best defence.
Therefore, the role of the gunner became a pair of eyes for the pilot. In fact, gunners usually felt it was best not to fire their guns unless they really had to as the tracer rounds would give away your position to any stalking enemy night fighter.
The RAF heavies (Lancaster, Halifax and Stirling) had the following gun positions - nose, mid-upper and tail - three in all. There were no underbelly defensive guns. The Lancaster (or rather its predecessor, the Manchester) Halifax and Stirlng had been designed with a belly gun position but they were deleted to save weight and improve the bomb capacity.
The American heavy bombers (the B-17 and B-24) had more defensive fire power - nose guns (three in the B-17E and F, four in the B-17G), radio operator gun, two waist gunners, a tail gunner and an underbelly gunner in the notorious "Ball Turret".
Baecause of this, the USAAF felt that day bombing, despite the RAF's early bad experiences, was still feaible. In fact, despite all the fire power available from each individual aircraft, and the use of defensive box formations, fighters still found that picking off individual bombers was fairly easy. It was only the advent of long range escort fighters, initially the P-47 Thunderbolt and later the P-51 Mutang, that USAAF daylight bomber raids began to become sustainable.
Therefore, the role of the gunner became a pair of eyes for the pilot. In fact, gunners usually felt it was best not to fire their guns unless they really had to as the tracer rounds would give away your position to any stalking enemy night fighter.
The RAF heavies (Lancaster, Halifax and Stirling) had the following gun positions - nose, mid-upper and tail - three in all. There were no underbelly defensive guns. The Lancaster (or rather its predecessor, the Manchester) Halifax and Stirlng had been designed with a belly gun position but they were deleted to save weight and improve the bomb capacity.
The American heavy bombers (the B-17 and B-24) had more defensive fire power - nose guns (three in the B-17E and F, four in the B-17G), radio operator gun, two waist gunners, a tail gunner and an underbelly gunner in the notorious "Ball Turret".
Baecause of this, the USAAF felt that day bombing, despite the RAF's early bad experiences, was still feaible. In fact, despite all the fire power available from each individual aircraft, and the use of defensive box formations, fighters still found that picking off individual bombers was fairly easy. It was only the advent of long range escort fighters, initially the P-47 Thunderbolt and later the P-51 Mutang, that USAAF daylight bomber raids began to become sustainable.
Eric Mc said:
The RAF and USAAF philosophies regarding defensive guns were quite different. The RAF had entered the war thinking that the power operated turret was going to make the bomber invulnerable to enemy fighters. Stanley Baldwin had famously stated that "The bomber will always get through". Early unescorted daylight operations in 1939 showed that this concept was flawed and that darkness was the bomber's best defence.
Therefore, the role of the gunner became a pair of eyes for the pilot. In fact, gunners usually felt it was best not to fire their guns unless they really had to as the tracer rounds would give away your position to any stalking enemy night fighter.
The RAF heavies (Lancaster, Halifax and Stirling) had the following gun positions - nose, mid-upper and tail - three in all. There were no underbelly defensive guns. The Lancaster (or rather its predecessor, the Manchester) Halifax and Stirlng had been designed with a belly gun position but they were deleted to save weight and improve the bomb capacity.
The American heavy bombers (the B-17 and B-24) had more defensive fire power - nose guns (three in the B-17E and F, four in the B-17G), radio operator gun, two waist gunners, a tail gunner and an underbelly gunner in the notorious "Ball Turret".
Baecause of this, the USAAF felt that day bombing, despite the RAF's early bad experiences, was still feaible. In fact, despite all the fire power available from each individual aircraft, and the use of defensive box formations, fighters still found that picking off individual bombers was fairly easy. It was only the advent of long range escort fighters, initially the P-47 Thunderbolt and later the P-51 Mutang, that USAAF daylight bomber raids began to become sustainable.
The use of the .5" did help but generally I agree Eric. Therefore, the role of the gunner became a pair of eyes for the pilot. In fact, gunners usually felt it was best not to fire their guns unless they really had to as the tracer rounds would give away your position to any stalking enemy night fighter.
The RAF heavies (Lancaster, Halifax and Stirling) had the following gun positions - nose, mid-upper and tail - three in all. There were no underbelly defensive guns. The Lancaster (or rather its predecessor, the Manchester) Halifax and Stirlng had been designed with a belly gun position but they were deleted to save weight and improve the bomb capacity.
The American heavy bombers (the B-17 and B-24) had more defensive fire power - nose guns (three in the B-17E and F, four in the B-17G), radio operator gun, two waist gunners, a tail gunner and an underbelly gunner in the notorious "Ball Turret".
Baecause of this, the USAAF felt that day bombing, despite the RAF's early bad experiences, was still feaible. In fact, despite all the fire power available from each individual aircraft, and the use of defensive box formations, fighters still found that picking off individual bombers was fairly easy. It was only the advent of long range escort fighters, initially the P-47 Thunderbolt and later the P-51 Mutang, that USAAF daylight bomber raids began to become sustainable.
There was once a RAF Air Clues magazine issue where a "foreign" sounding RAF officer tried to debunked the myth of the RAF heavies stating that they were, IMO quite rightly, deathtraps compared to the Yank fodder due to lack of exits for the crews.
Brave, brave men one and all.
Eric Mc said:
The RAF and USAAF philosophies regarding defensive guns were quite different. The RAF had entered the war thinking that the power operated turret was going to make the bomber invulnerable to enemy fighters. Stanley Baldwin had famously stated that "The bomber will always get through". Early unescorted daylight operations in 1939 showed that this concept was flawed and that darkness was the bomber's best defence.
Therefore, the role of the gunner became a pair of eyes for the pilot. In fact, gunners usually felt it was best not to fire their guns unless they really had to as the tracer rounds would give away your position to any stalking enemy night fighter.
The RAF heavies (Lancaster, Halifax and Stirling) had the following gun positions - nose, mid-upper and tail - three in all. There were no underbelly defensive guns. The Lancaster (or rather its predecessor, the Manchester) Halifax and Stirlng had been designed with a belly gun position but they were deleted to save weight and improve the bomb capacity.
The American heavy bombers (the B-17 and B-24) had more defensive fire power - nose guns (three in the B-17E and F, four in the B-17G), radio operator gun, two waist gunners, a tail gunner and an underbelly gunner in the notorious "Ball Turret".
Baecause of this, the USAAF felt that day bombing, despite the RAF's early bad experiences, was still feaible. In fact, despite all the fire power available from each individual aircraft, and the use of defensive box formations, fighters still found that picking off individual bombers was fairly easy. It was only the advent of long range escort fighters, initially the P-47 Thunderbolt and later the P-51 Mutang, that USAAF daylight bomber raids began to become sustainable.
Sorry to contradict you Eric, but I would question that statement. A quick search on the net reveals a very different picture:Therefore, the role of the gunner became a pair of eyes for the pilot. In fact, gunners usually felt it was best not to fire their guns unless they really had to as the tracer rounds would give away your position to any stalking enemy night fighter.
The RAF heavies (Lancaster, Halifax and Stirling) had the following gun positions - nose, mid-upper and tail - three in all. There were no underbelly defensive guns. The Lancaster (or rather its predecessor, the Manchester) Halifax and Stirlng had been designed with a belly gun position but they were deleted to save weight and improve the bomb capacity.
The American heavy bombers (the B-17 and B-24) had more defensive fire power - nose guns (three in the B-17E and F, four in the B-17G), radio operator gun, two waist gunners, a tail gunner and an underbelly gunner in the notorious "Ball Turret".
Baecause of this, the USAAF felt that day bombing, despite the RAF's early bad experiences, was still feaible. In fact, despite all the fire power available from each individual aircraft, and the use of defensive box formations, fighters still found that picking off individual bombers was fairly easy. It was only the advent of long range escort fighters, initially the P-47 Thunderbolt and later the P-51 Mutang, that USAAF daylight bomber raids began to become sustainable.
Number of German Fighters lost to Bomber defensive fire is 6,098. http://www.com-web.com/wwwboard/messages/12348.htm...
Number of US Bombers lost to German fire Aircraft Lost
B-17 4,754
B-24 2,112
P-47 1,043
P-38 451
P-51 2,201
Total 10,561 http://www.com-web.com/wwwboard/messages/12348.htm... (and that doesn't state that those losses are all to fighters so the ratio may be lower)
That is a poor ratio IMHO. Certainly not what I'd call fairly easy.
The USAF went so far as to create a dedicated escort version of the B-17, the YB-40, which had more guns including an extra dorsal turret, extra armour and ammunition. They were not very successful because they weighed a great deal more than the other bombers and so took much longer to climb to height, and once the rest had dropped their bombs they couldn't stay in formation. The idea was dropped after only 9 missions.
rhinochopig said:
Eric Mc said:
The RAF and USAAF philosophies regarding defensive guns were quite different. The RAF had entered the war thinking that the power operated turret was going to make the bomber invulnerable to enemy fighters. Stanley Baldwin had famously stated that "The bomber will always get through". Early unescorted daylight operations in 1939 showed that this concept was flawed and that darkness was the bomber's best defence.
Therefore, the role of the gunner became a pair of eyes for the pilot. In fact, gunners usually felt it was best not to fire their guns unless they really had to as the tracer rounds would give away your position to any stalking enemy night fighter.
The RAF heavies (Lancaster, Halifax and Stirling) had the following gun positions - nose, mid-upper and tail - three in all. There were no underbelly defensive guns. The Lancaster (or rather its predecessor, the Manchester) Halifax and Stirlng had been designed with a belly gun position but they were deleted to save weight and improve the bomb capacity.
The American heavy bombers (the B-17 and B-24) had more defensive fire power - nose guns (three in the B-17E and F, four in the B-17G), radio operator gun, two waist gunners, a tail gunner and an underbelly gunner in the notorious "Ball Turret".
Baecause of this, the USAAF felt that day bombing, despite the RAF's early bad experiences, was still feaible. In fact, despite all the fire power available from each individual aircraft, and the use of defensive box formations, fighters still found that picking off individual bombers was fairly easy. It was only the advent of long range escort fighters, initially the P-47 Thunderbolt and later the P-51 Mutang, that USAAF daylight bomber raids began to become sustainable.
Sorry to contradict you Eric, but I would question that statement. A quick search on the net reveals a very different picture:Therefore, the role of the gunner became a pair of eyes for the pilot. In fact, gunners usually felt it was best not to fire their guns unless they really had to as the tracer rounds would give away your position to any stalking enemy night fighter.
The RAF heavies (Lancaster, Halifax and Stirling) had the following gun positions - nose, mid-upper and tail - three in all. There were no underbelly defensive guns. The Lancaster (or rather its predecessor, the Manchester) Halifax and Stirlng had been designed with a belly gun position but they were deleted to save weight and improve the bomb capacity.
The American heavy bombers (the B-17 and B-24) had more defensive fire power - nose guns (three in the B-17E and F, four in the B-17G), radio operator gun, two waist gunners, a tail gunner and an underbelly gunner in the notorious "Ball Turret".
Baecause of this, the USAAF felt that day bombing, despite the RAF's early bad experiences, was still feaible. In fact, despite all the fire power available from each individual aircraft, and the use of defensive box formations, fighters still found that picking off individual bombers was fairly easy. It was only the advent of long range escort fighters, initially the P-47 Thunderbolt and later the P-51 Mutang, that USAAF daylight bomber raids began to become sustainable.
Number of German Fighters lost to Bomber defensive fire is 6,098. http://www.com-web.com/wwwboard/messages/12348.htm...
Number of US Bombers lost to German fire Aircraft Lost
B-17 4,754
B-24 2,112
P-47 1,043
P-38 451
P-51 2,201
Total 10,561 http://www.com-web.com/wwwboard/messages/12348.htm... (and that doesn't state that those losses are all to fighters so the ratio may be lower)
That is a poor ratio IMHO. Certainly not what I'd call fairly easy.
The same went for the RAF at night. In some ways, the German night fighters were even more dangerous than their daylight counterparts.
I would imagine that the effectiveness of German fighters diminished once the P-51 Mustang arrived on the scene. Also, as the war wore on, the number of German "experten" fighter pilots diminished too.
Fighters also did a lot more to disrupt bombing runs and put the bombers "off their aim". So, their effectiveness was not just down to their ability to shoot a bomber out of the sky.
In the last six months of the war, the number of fighters available to the Germans dropped alarmingly - mainly due to fuel shortages. Flak NEVER diminished right up to the day Germany surrendered.
Eric Mc said:
rhinochopig said:
Eric Mc said:
The RAF and USAAF philosophies regarding defensive guns were quite different. The RAF had entered the war thinking that the power operated turret was going to make the bomber invulnerable to enemy fighters. Stanley Baldwin had famously stated that "The bomber will always get through". Early unescorted daylight operations in 1939 showed that this concept was flawed and that darkness was the bomber's best defence.
Therefore, the role of the gunner became a pair of eyes for the pilot. In fact, gunners usually felt it was best not to fire their guns unless they really had to as the tracer rounds would give away your position to any stalking enemy night fighter.
The RAF heavies (Lancaster, Halifax and Stirling) had the following gun positions - nose, mid-upper and tail - three in all. There were no underbelly defensive guns. The Lancaster (or rather its predecessor, the Manchester) Halifax and Stirlng had been designed with a belly gun position but they were deleted to save weight and improve the bomb capacity.
The American heavy bombers (the B-17 and B-24) had more defensive fire power - nose guns (three in the B-17E and F, four in the B-17G), radio operator gun, two waist gunners, a tail gunner and an underbelly gunner in the notorious "Ball Turret".
Baecause of this, the USAAF felt that day bombing, despite the RAF's early bad experiences, was still feaible. In fact, despite all the fire power available from each individual aircraft, and the use of defensive box formations, fighters still found that picking off individual bombers was fairly easy. It was only the advent of long range escort fighters, initially the P-47 Thunderbolt and later the P-51 Mutang, that USAAF daylight bomber raids began to become sustainable.
Sorry to contradict you Eric, but I would question that statement. A quick search on the net reveals a very different picture:Therefore, the role of the gunner became a pair of eyes for the pilot. In fact, gunners usually felt it was best not to fire their guns unless they really had to as the tracer rounds would give away your position to any stalking enemy night fighter.
The RAF heavies (Lancaster, Halifax and Stirling) had the following gun positions - nose, mid-upper and tail - three in all. There were no underbelly defensive guns. The Lancaster (or rather its predecessor, the Manchester) Halifax and Stirlng had been designed with a belly gun position but they were deleted to save weight and improve the bomb capacity.
The American heavy bombers (the B-17 and B-24) had more defensive fire power - nose guns (three in the B-17E and F, four in the B-17G), radio operator gun, two waist gunners, a tail gunner and an underbelly gunner in the notorious "Ball Turret".
Baecause of this, the USAAF felt that day bombing, despite the RAF's early bad experiences, was still feaible. In fact, despite all the fire power available from each individual aircraft, and the use of defensive box formations, fighters still found that picking off individual bombers was fairly easy. It was only the advent of long range escort fighters, initially the P-47 Thunderbolt and later the P-51 Mutang, that USAAF daylight bomber raids began to become sustainable.
Number of German Fighters lost to Bomber defensive fire is 6,098. http://www.com-web.com/wwwboard/messages/12348.htm...
Number of US Bombers lost to German fire Aircraft Lost
B-17 4,754
B-24 2,112
P-47 1,043
P-38 451
P-51 2,201
Total 10,561 http://www.com-web.com/wwwboard/messages/12348.htm... (and that doesn't state that those losses are all to fighters so the ratio may be lower)
That is a poor ratio IMHO. Certainly not what I'd call fairly easy.
The same went for the RAF at night. In some ways, the German night fighters were even more dangerous than their daylight counterparts.
I would imagine that the effectiveness of German fighters diminished once the P-51 Mustang arrived on the scene. Also, as the war wore on, the number of German "experten" fighter pilots diminished too.
Fighters also did a lot more to disrupt bombing runs and put the bombers "off their aim". So, their effectiveness was not just down to their ability to shoot a bomber out of the sky.
In the last six months of the war, the number of fighters available to the Germans dropped alarmingly - mainly due to fuel shortages. Flak NEVER diminished right up to the day Germany surrendered.
If the odds the German fighters faced "weren't great", then the targets must have been "easy".
Of course, the word "easy" is being used in a very relative manner. None of the air battles conducted over Germany were "easy" - for either side. However, the number of bombers being lost to the Luftwaffe dropped dramatically once escort fighters were available - which must indicate something.
Of course, the word "easy" is being used in a very relative manner. None of the air battles conducted over Germany were "easy" - for either side. However, the number of bombers being lost to the Luftwaffe dropped dramatically once escort fighters were available - which must indicate something.
Eric Mc said:
If the odds the German fighters faced "weren't great", then the targets must have been "easy".
Of course, the word "easy" is being used in a very relative manner. None of the air battles conducted over Germany were "easy" - for either side. However, the number of bombers being lost to the Luftwaffe dropped dramatically once escort fighters were available - which must indicate something.
How? According to the figures I posted for every 1.6 bombers shot down, the bombers downed 1 fighter. Odds I wouldn't want to face.Of course, the word "easy" is being used in a very relative manner. None of the air battles conducted over Germany were "easy" - for either side. However, the number of bombers being lost to the Luftwaffe dropped dramatically once escort fighters were available - which must indicate something.
My late Uncle was a tail gunner in Wellingtons, then Stirlings, then Halifaxes.
Firing his guns at night was, as far as his CO was concerned, enough to get him on a charge - as soon as you pressed the trigger you announced your presence to every night fighter, searchlight, and flak position in a twenty mile radius.
I seem to remember my cousin telling me that he maintained he never fired his guns in anger during the war - never having had the chance to do in daylight ops.
He was in a Wellington which got shot up badly in 1940, and crash landed killing all except him. The only bit he was comfortable relaying was that he nobody onboard actually saw what hit them, just that the relative peace and serenity over the North Sea was suddenly punctuated by a whole lot of noise.
Firing his guns at night was, as far as his CO was concerned, enough to get him on a charge - as soon as you pressed the trigger you announced your presence to every night fighter, searchlight, and flak position in a twenty mile radius.
I seem to remember my cousin telling me that he maintained he never fired his guns in anger during the war - never having had the chance to do in daylight ops.
He was in a Wellington which got shot up badly in 1940, and crash landed killing all except him. The only bit he was comfortable relaying was that he nobody onboard actually saw what hit them, just that the relative peace and serenity over the North Sea was suddenly punctuated by a whole lot of noise.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff