Lancaster Mid-upper arc of fire

[Frasera]

Hi Folks,
I have recently come across a story of a possible accident, where a Lanc Mid-Upper gunner put rounds into the aircraft tail gunner's position, killing him. My question is about the gun baulks which I presume were fitted to restrict the field of fire of the Mid-Upper turret. If anyone can clarify this I would be much indebted. TIA

Alan Fraser
149 Sqn Historian

[RSwank]

According to this diagram that should not be possible since if the guns were pointed into the tail gunner's position they should not have been able to fire due to the "tabo" arms. However, if one of the "tabo" lever arms failed (or had been shot off)....who knows? I could imagine a gunner shooting at a plane attacking from the rear (6 oclock high) and diving down toward the plane. If the gunner was relying on the "tabo" mechanism to stop the guns and there was a failure....? Do you know any of the details/circumstances when this happened?

http://www.lancaster-archive.com/lan...per_turret.htm

[Frasera]

Hi There,
This information was passed to me about an aircraft in Feb '45 which was on a raid to Hehenbudberg, Apparently, they were attacked by two Bf 109s at around 06.30. The official story was that the rear gunner was hit and killed in the first attack and the rear gunner claimed a 'probable' in the second attack. The 'scuttlebutt' on return was that the Mid-Upper gunner had accidentally shot the rear gunner. This story circulated around the camp for days. The rest of the crew continued to fly together and the aircraft was not transferred, as some others were after fatalities.

Looks like it was just a rumour.

Thanks for the reply.

Alan

[Bill Walker]

Not sure of the details on the Lancaster, but some US bomber turrets had adjustable stops or cut out mechanisms (like the tabo arms) that were subject to drift over time. I recall a few examples of US bombers hitting themselves in combat as a result.

[RSwank]

The top turret on U.S. planes used quite a more complex mechanism than was on a Lancaster. You can see images and a discussion of the electrical device here:

http://warbirdinformationexchange.or...c.php?p=513302

The device maintenance (in particular the alignment) had to be done by ground personnel but the turret operator was suppose the check the alignment before missions.

There is a section in this next link on the test procedure that was "suppose" to be done by the top turret gunner. Search for the phrase:

Testing the Fire Cutoffs

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/...y/TURRETS.html

As Bill has mentioned, if the device "drifted" and was not tested by the operator, bad things could happen.

One advantage of this device over the Lancaster arrangement was that it did allow the top turret to shoot between the twin rudders of a B-24, for example. (See the diagram in the test procedure link). It looks to me that the mechanism used on the Lancaster would not allow that. I don't see twin bumps on the cam ring to start and stop the guns as they swing across the rear of the plane.

[RodM]

Hi,

two Lancasters returned from the Hohenbudberg raid with damage inflicted by 0.303 rounds, as detailed in a Bomber Command Operational Research Section log:

149 Sqn Lancaster NF970/O - damage from two hits from 0.303 - cause given as "M/G Fire (possibly self-inflicted)"

622 Sqn Lancaster HK651/B - damage from two hits by 0.303.

The log does not detail any damage to NF970 due to enemy fire (either night fighter or Flak), which it would have done had the rear turret or aircraft been so hit...

The air combat claim by NF970/O is also acknowledged in an official Bomber Command list (and was the only claim from the Hohenbudberg raid):

149 Sqn Lancaster NF970/O 1 x Me109 Probably Destroyed, 06.44 hrs, 14,000 ft, position 51 15 N, 05 20 E

The brief narrative in the report states: "...opened fire on ME.109 at 350 yds. and continued firing up to 200 yds. range when the starboard wing of the E/A burst into flames. The ME.109 was last seen diving down with its wing on fire."

Thus, from these two sources it would appear that the rear gunner was not killed by enemy fire, but possibly (not definitely) from self-inflicted friendly fire...

Is it possible that 0.303 rounds ricocheted rather than hitting the turret with direct fire? Could the hits have been made from defensive fire from another Lancaster? Without knowing the location and trajectory of the hits (such data, recorded at the time, hasn't been preserved at TNA) I guess establishing what probably happened would be hard to accomplish...

Cheers

Rod

Here is some additional general data from the Bomber Command Interception Tactics report. The single-engined enemy aircraft mentioned do not appear to have been from a night fighter unit, as confirmed by a Luftwaffe Reich Luftlagemeldung:

"ATTACKS AND COMBATS.

Hohenbudberg : Outward - Approaching the Duisburg area from the west, 0627 hrs, 2 Me.109's attacked a Lancaster, and at 0635 hrs another Lancaster fired on 3 S/E E/A. Over target one Me.410 attacked at 0625 hrs, and 2 more Lancasters opened fire on S/E E/A when returning between Eindhoven and Antwerp, 0644-0655 hrs."

[Frasera]

An excellent piece of work, Rod,

Many thanks for your input. You have deduced that it was OJ-O, NF970, which is the aircraft I am looking at. After it landed it was squirreled away in the Airframe Workshop for two or three days. Other aircraft involved in any sort of fatality on the squadron were usually cleaned, sorted and moved to another unit, again, usually 15 MU. Why? I have no idea, but superstition maybe played a part. NF 970 was on Ops again shortly after this incident and no other action taken.

The information I have on the Bf 109s is that they were from Day Units.

Alan

[Kutscha]

How was it know that the damage was done by .303" and not German 7.92mm?

[RodM]

Hi Kutscha,

by this stage of the war Bomber Command Operational Research Section Damage Assessment teams, which included specially trained engineers, would forensically investigate the damage.

Besides analysing the points of impact and exit, and, when it occurred, the explosive effect of a round (which could be compared to known patterns of damage caused by different calibres), often fragments of ammunition would be recovered and compared to known calibres and ammunition types.

The trajectory of the rounds and the effects of the damage were plotted on special aircraft charts, and notes on the damage written in. Only a handful of these charts and associated paperwork have been (incidentally) preserved at The National Archives, Kew.

7.62 mm and 13 mm damage is noted at times in the ORS logs, along with 20mm and 30mm, 0.303 inch and 0.50 inch calibres.

See the attached examples of damage reports (unrelated to the subject aircraft of this thread)...

Cheers

Rod

[Juha]

Thanks Rod, very interesting docs!
I haven't see that kind of docs before.

Juha