[Paul Thompson]

Hello Nick,

I am glad to have sparked a discussion! I am firmly of the view that defensive armament was quite effective, but only if it was sufficiently powerful and accurate, hence my focus on the specific effectiveness of barbettes. The MG 131 machine guns in the barbettes were much more powerful than the MG 81s used on previous German bombers, but it appears that the barbettes could not be controlled by the gunner with sufficient precision.

The most obvious counter-example, of bombers with powerful and accurate defensive armament, is the American heavy bomber force. There are several examples from the Pacific theatre of Japanese fighters suffering significant losses at the hands of small formations of B-24s. Similarly, Liberators and Fortresses held their own against the lower-performance Italian fighters in the Mediterranean. I’ll dig out some relevant figures when I have the time to consult books.

Even the British heavy bombers, with just one effective turret armed with 4 rifle calibre machine guns, inflicted significant losses on German night fighters. In fact, I think Theo Boiten might have some statistics that illustrate this point!

To briefly comment on the later experiences of the USAF and the Soviets, I think that the key point, especially in the case of the Soviets, is that their bombers had cannon armament. The Soviet AM-23 cannon was a very different weapon from a .303 Browning! For a while, the AM-23 and its predecessors enjoyed something of a range advantage over contemporary fighter guns, so they retained their utility.

Regards,

Paul