View Single Post
  #3  
Old 2nd October 2019, 18:24
Graham Boak Graham Boak is offline
Alter Hase
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lancashire, UK
Posts: 1,680
Graham Boak is on a distinguished road
Re: Syrian T-6 Texan armament question

The photo of 44 in "Spitfires over Israel" cannot be the one that shot down any aircraft by a rear gunner, because it has the fixed rear canopy of the Canadian-built aircraft, which were dedicated pilot trainers.

The production T-6 variants could theoretically be equipped with up to five machine guns, although this is exceedingly unlikely ever to have happened. A normal fit would be none for a pilot trainer, and up to two for a weapons trainer. The rear gunner, if carried, required the Texan canopy with the opening rear, and there would/could be another gun in one of the wings. I think normally the port but I notice that there isn't one of those in aircraft 44.

It seems very unlikely that the Israeli fighter was shot down by a front gun, so the open question (to me) is whether the Syrians had any Texans or US-built Harvards to which they could have affixed rear guns and mountings from whatever source. It may theoretically have been possible to remove the fixed rear section of the canopy and fit a gun, but was this within the Syrians' capability at this stage? Or did the Israelis simply assume that they would be so armed? Especially if flying over or near the front lines.

I notice that "Spitfires Over Israel" does raise the possibility that Bloch shot his own prop off, a known (or at least believed) possibility of this type.

I'd be surprised to see rockets on Harvards at this stage, and certainly not pods which would not have existed then. Light bombs may be a possibility (as on RAF aircraft used against the Mau-Mau in Kenya), but would require the existence of racks and the modification of the aircraft to carry them. Not too difficult perhaps, certainly less so than fitting a rear gun to a pilot trainer.
Reply With Quote