Jump to content
[DBS]TH0R

B-25D - belly turret too effective?

Recommended Posts

Did anyone try to engage a set of 8xB-25Ds in a quick mission builder?¬†ūüėĄ

 

For those that have, I find them a deadly target to approach no matter the angle... Part of the reason being the super effective belly turret that has the ability to strike you even during head on approach from a lower position than the targeted B-25.

 

r44ey.jpg

qPKF6.jpg

 

The belly turret was in real life deleted on all planes except those used by RAF, here is why:

 

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/49783/why-wasnt-there-a-belly-gunner-on-the-b-25-mitchell

 

Quote

The production B-25B, B-25C, B-25D, and some B-25G models did have retractable remote control belly turrets. They were often removed in the field because they were ineffective and disliked by the crews.

The lower turret was officially deleted in the middle of the B-25G production run and continued with the B-25H and B-25J production.

 

Quote

My research has shown that the turret was operated through a panaflex prism periscope that caused such intense vertigo and nausea in its' user that is was rarely used and often removed. In the Pacific Southwest, the turrets were immediately removed and replaced with fuel tanks to increase range and also because monsoon rains turned airfields into mud which covered the gunsight on takeoff rendering the turret useless.

 

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hyperscale/re-bendix-ventral-turret-on-raf-b-25-c-d-s-t145506.html

 

Quote

Curiously the RAF retained the use of the ventral turret on their B-25 C/Ds (Mitchell II RAF) through to the end of the war in Europe. This turret was called the FN. 64 mid-under turret by the RAF. Photos of Mitchell IIs with these these can be found in B-25 Mitchell at War (Jerry Scutts) , pp.96-98, 102, 119, 121. The primary users of the Mitchell were units of the Second Tactical Air Force; 98 Sqn (Codes:VO), 180 Sqn. (EV), 226 Sqn (MQ) - this unit was led by a Wg Cmdr A D Mitchell from June to August 1944 -, and 320(Dutch) Sqn (NO). Lots of photos of 2 TAF Mitchells can be found in Cristopher Shores and Chris Thomas' books on 2 TAF http://www.amazon.com/2nd-Tactical-Air- ... 1903223415)

According to H G Fitzpatrick, who was a navigator/bomb aimer on 226 Sqn.;
When the lower turret was extended it reduced the speed by about 15 mph...If...a wheels-up landing had to be made, the under (dustbin) turret could be pushed up from the bottom, causing the whole structure, plus the upper turret, to be pushed forward...On the B-25 the bomb doors, flaps, undercarriage, dustbin turret...were hydraulically operated...(Scutts, pp. 96, 100.)

 

Having read this book (highly recommended):

 

https://www.amazon.com/Air-Combat-At-20-Feet/dp/1418477893

 

You can read about belly turret being replaced by two waist .30 guns operated by the same gunner originally intended to fire the belly turret (set up similar like in the He-111). We do not have a mod for B-25D (AI only now) that removes the ineffective turret and replaces it with something else. Even when in use (RAF, like we have it in game), it should be far less effective in comparison to the top turret.

 

Here is an extract from the Garrett Middlebrook's book (primary source):

 

StrafferDiary_BellyTurret.thumb.jpg.8729727d8037bfc0fa8b29861e399044.jpg

 

Clearly explaining the reasons why the belly turret was not used, and was thus removed in the later variants.

 

If possible, I'd like to see it a mod that removes the belly turret later on, and the lowering the effectiveness of the periscope operated turret from what it is now.

 

While engaging the B-25s I couldn't not pause the game and admire the gorgeous 3D model.¬†ūüėé

 

Thank you devs!

Edited by [DBS]TH0R
extract from the Garrett Middlebrook's book (primary source)
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please excuse me, but you mixed 'dorsal' ('back', upper turret) and 'ventral' ('belly', lower turret) up.

 

Just to prevent any kind of confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the Blenheim later models had a similar arrangement but near the nose.Same vertigo problems for the bust bombardier & I believe was usually removed..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bellygunner on A 20 and pe 2 is equal effective only difference is caliber. 

It is in my mind no difference in view area. A bellygunner should not have the same situational awareness as a topgunner but they do. Only limitation ai gunners have is limitation on firing sector. They instantly react when a fighter come into their small envelope of field

AA is the same. Calibre decide how deadly not any other factor. 

What we look at in my mind is limitation within the game and removal is indeed the only way to correct it

Edited by LuseKofte
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

Bellygunner on A 20 and pe 2 is equal effective only difference is caliber. 

It is in my mind no difference in view area. A bellygunner should not have the same situational awareness as a topgunner but they do. Only limitation ai gunners have is limitation on firing sector. They instantly react when a fighter come into their small envelope of field

AA is the same. Calibre decide how deadly not any other factor. 

What we look at in my mind is limitation within the game and removal is indeed the only way to correct it

 

AA deadliness is strongly affected by the AI setting, which influences not only accuracy but how quickly the guns get on target when the plane enters their activation zone. This appears to be dependent on an RNG. (ie dice roll).

 

I have set up test runs of planes flying through the activation zones of AA guns: the time they take to start firing varies considerably. With a small enough activation zone, sometimes they shoot and sometimes they do not: that is the same gun on an AI plane flying a set path on different runs of the identical mission. AA with AI set to "High" opens fire much faster than AI on "Low". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@unreasonable thanks for reminding me. I also noticed late response on aa on servers. 

In kota they have a maritime mission where I was attacking enemy fleet. Lack of aa made me think I fail to navigate and I did not drop my bombs. Then after passing them they fired. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had good results attacking in the K4 from a medium high 4 to 5 o'clock position.  All you need to do is rake them with the 30mm as they go by and they're usually done for.

 

I do usually notice some holes in my wings after the attacks though.

Edited by hrafnkolbrandr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

I had good results attacking in the K4 from a medium high 4 to 5 o'clock position.  All you need to do is rake them with the 30mm as they go by and they're usually done for.

 

I do usually notice some holes in my wings after the attacks though.

 

That is definitely a tactic that works, next to the head on pass. However, the lower section covered by the belly turret is as effective as the top turret - where the attacker is in the worse position due to the target being above. Shouldn't be so, due to the reasons described in first post - as the belly turret was all but effective and for those reasons removed from later models and in the field / practice.

 

Dunno how and why RAF decided to keep it, unless they changed something with the prism periscope I sincerely doubt they had more success with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps permanently setting the lower turret to the lowest difficulty setting regardless of selected plane skill level is another possible solution. The turrets are slower to react and much less accurate on that setting. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I don't think gunners are too effective for the most part. Reading pilot accounts attacking bombers was the most dangerous thing they did. The likelihood of coming out without any damage was pretty much zero.

Bombers probably didn't shoot down too many fighters but a majority of the fighters that attacked received damage in some way.

 

Attacking a lone bomber isn't all that risky but attacking a formation is very deadly and you'll most certainly receive damage. It's one of the reasons the Germans used head on passes and mainly focused on stragglers. Attacking a formation is just too risky, pilots usually went for the easiest targets.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gunners aren't the problem per say, just the belly turret in question.

 

1 hour ago, Field-Ops said:

Perhaps permanently setting the lower turret to the lowest difficulty setting regardless of selected plane skill level is another possible solution. The turrets are slower to react and much less accurate on that setting. 

 

Yeah, that seems to me at least, is the easiest fix. The other part of the equation would be a historical mod to eliminate the belly turret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's purely subjective but...  During my QMB: vs. bomber sessions, it seemed to me that all belly gunners were even more accurate than before the update.  I've done a few straight-down vertical attacks where I would pass, still straight down, behind the bomber's tail (111, 88, Pe-2 etc.) very close at a high speed and still been nailed by the belly gunner.  Realistically, I was only in their view window for less than 1 second.   

Edited by Mobile_BBQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a human was controlling that turret there would be no issue with it.  However, since it is operated by the game engine, it has total access to all position data, hence, it is the equivalent of a modern radar controlled system.  One would think there is an easy fix for this.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

If a human was controlling that turret there would be no issue with it.  However, since it is operated by the game engine, it has total access to all position data, hence, it is the equivalent of a modern radar controlled system.  One would think there is an easy fix for this.

Not saying it would be easy but they could have zones that the ai has to look in order to see. While the ai is looking in a particular zone (think direction) it can detect objects in that zone but not in any other zone. The ai would have to scan each zone one at a time and can't "see" something in another zone. This would prevent the ai from always knowing where you are.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think me and  others forget that a realistic historical scenario would mean we fly with a well functioned squad attacking together. 
ai wingmen do not qualify as well function  and human pilots. Well I dont know many of them either. Attacking as a squad will bring down effectiveness of ai gunner

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

¬†AI knows exactly where you are within it¬īs engagement sphere making those idiotic snapshots possible. Add to that the very fast position changes of gunners and the rest is pure frustration.¬†

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is incredibly frustrating. Some parts of the sim are so fun and realistic - and then you get picked out of the air by a 61K AAA gun from 3 kilometers away while in a 4G turn at 500kph.

 

Really, "ace" level setting for any gunners should not exist in this sim. It should simply be done away with. It serves absolutely no useful purpose but to make an otherwise superb sim look silly.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2019 at 2:07 PM, [DBS]TH0R said:

Did anyone try to engage a set of 8xB-25Ds in a quick mission builder?¬†ūüėĄ

 

Not before you mentioned it, but since then I gave it a go. Not sure about other details, like what altitude you had set up or what you were flying and how it was set up nor if you were alone, which if you were, would drastically increase your chances of being hit and hit often, especially if you were to hang about at all or make any turn within striking distance.

 

So I gave it a go, just me, with a decent altitude advantage once in a 109G-6 with 3x20mm and once in an 190A-8 with the added 30mm option.

 

Both times I damaged a B-25 on my first pass enough to down it and did not suffer any hits myself. With these sort of heavily armed fighters and after much past practice of this technique, high sided attack, this was the expected outcome for me.

 

After one pass I kept the nose down and ran clear, jinking a little, then quit the mission as in my view QMB is the wrong place to test repeated attacks on bomber formations. The QMB mission soon after starting has the bomber formation split into two groups turning in circles and if your on your own in the middle of this your chances of being hit are extremely high, regardless of the bomber.

 

Historically bombers in formations without fighter escort and using their own guns for defense kept tight formation and kept on a fixed heading, regardless of flak or fighters. Fighters attacking said bombers did so in numbers, never alone.

 

So while you've opened a fairly old bottle of Luftwhine here, I reckon it hasn't aged well and appears to be corked ;)

 

If you want to test this properly, set up a co-op mission with at least 4 well armed interceptors going up against a bomber formation that flies straight and level and fast like they did. Then try it with other bombers and compare the results. Otherwise it's a waste of time.

Edited by Pict
Spelling, tweaking etc.
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really related to the belly turret but does anyone know if the AI B-25 will be made available for the Soviet airforce and during the Kuban campaign? I think the U.S. supplied the D model to the Soviets so we could get pummeled by that turret in the Kuban as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dun_aenghus said:

Not really related to the belly turret but does anyone know if the AI B-25 will be made available for the Soviet airforce and during the Kuban campaign? I think the U.S. supplied the D model to the Soviets so we could get pummeled by that turret in the Kuban as well.

Already suggested...

https://vvsairwar.com/2016/09/13/it-was-a-beautiful-aircraft-the-soviet-b-25s/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2019 at 9:05 AM, Legioneod said:

Not saying it would be easy but they could have zones that the ai has to look in order to see. While the ai is looking in a particular zone (think direction) it can detect objects in that zone but not in any other zone. The ai would have to scan each zone one at a time and can't "see" something in another zone. This would prevent the ai from always knowing where you are.

But this will stress cpu even more, so please no.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Pict said:

 

Not before you mentioned it, but since then I gave it a go. Not sure about other details, like what altitude you had set up or what you were flying and how it was set up nor if you were alone, which if you were, would drastically increase your chances of being hit and hit often, especially if you were to hang about at all or make any turn within striking distance.

 

So I gave it a go, just me, with a decent altitude advantage once in a 109G-6 with 3x20mm and once in an 190A-8 with the added 30mm option.

 

Both times I damaged a B-25 on my first pass enough to down it and did not suffer any hits myself. With these sort of heavily armed fighters and after much past practice of this technique, high sided attack, this was the expected outcome for me.

 

After one pass I kept the nose down and ran clear, jinking a little, then quit the mission as in my view QMB is the wrong place to test repeated attacks on bomber formations. The QMB mission soon after starting has the bomber formation split into two groups turning in circles and if your on your own in the middle of this your chances of being hit are extremely high, regardless of the bomber.

 

Historically bombers in formations without fighter escort and using their own guns for defense kept tight formation and kept on a fixed heading, regardless of flak or fighters. Fighters attacking said bombers did so in numbers, never alone.

 

So while you've opened a fairly old bottle of Luftwhine here, I reckon it hasn't aged well and appears to be corked ;)

 

If you want to test this properly, set up a co-op mission with at least 4 well armed interceptors going up against a bomber formation that flies straight and level and fast like they did. Then try it with other bombers and compare the results. Otherwise it's a waste of time.

 

Rest assured I have no problems with shooting down B-25D bombers. Be it solo or with formation of AI planes to help me out. Last but not least, I don't need a 30mm to do it.

 

I am primarily a bomber pilot myself, fighter pilot second. I know the strengths and weaknesses of formation flying and how to attack one.

 

Also, the B-25D is relatively early variant of the B-25, without the proper tail gunner. Thus, depending on the year/scenario it would have been engaged by planes not equipped with 30mm. My attacks were focused around the effectiveness of the belly turret.

 

TL;DR: Definitely not another Luftwhine, google DBS if you will / want. I love the defensive power of the B-25 and the .50s.

 

Back to the topic. With skill set on average, engaging a group of 4 bombers in a Dora with only one wigman - I was shot in my engine several times during the first head on pass (bombers low 12 OC so that the top turret cannot track me).by the belly turret (not the nose gunner).

 

Setting the belly turret AI gunner skill to permanently novice would do the trick as a stop gap measure IMHO.

Edited by [DBS]TH0R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Also, the B-25D is relatively early variant of the B-25, without the proper tail gunner. Thus, it would have been engaged by planes not equipped with 30mm. My attacks were focused around the effectiveness of the belly turret.

 

They were with the RAF's 2TAF right up till the end of the war in Europe, as is correctly depicted here in IL2BOBP. Therefore they were in the 30mm firing line just as much as any other aircraft going up against the Luftwaffe at in that time-frame. Regardless of this fact, 30mm is not needed to take one out. Indeed the 109G-6 I flew had no 30mm option, but it still took one bomber out in one pass. Therefore is you can destroy one bomber without taking damage, using the same technique you can destroy another, just with a reduced chance of being hit on the second pass.

 

49 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

TL;DR: Definitely not another Luftwhine, google DBS if you will / want

 

I had to search for TL:DR, and now I know what it's short for I don't understand why you used it? I still have no idea what DBS means? Anyhow the Luftwhine comment was a bit of fun or did you miss that? :) 

 

57 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

I was shot in my engine several times during the first head on pass (bombers low 12 OC so that the top turret cannot track me).by the belly turret (not the nose gunner).

 

Facing a forward facing turret is just the same as facing a rearward facing turret. Odds on you will take hits as you are easy to track, virtually a stationary target, unlike a high sided attack, where you are difficult to track, therefore difficult to hit. you may as well have been on a Pe-2's 6 o'clock :) 

 

53 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Setting the belly turret AI gunner skill to permanently novice would do the trick as a stop gap measure IMHO.

 

But why? Because you think they are too tuff for you in a one off experiment in the worst environment (QMB bombers) with poor technique? Hardly a reason to change anything is it?

 

Further to all that, your arguments in the op about the B-25D bottom turret being removed in the PTO by the USAAF, have little bearing on their use in the ETO with the RAF. Do you think for one second that the RAF would have kept them all the way to the end of the war if the were deemed useless?

 

The RAF were quick enough to drop the Brewster Buffalo after Singapore, yet the Fins set records with it. Proof that what doesn't work for one air-force in one part of the world, is not sure to fail elsewhere with a different air-force.

 

===============

 

All up I'd like to see some objective testing and scientific proof about your claims before accepting your recommendations as the way to go. Not some subjective opinions and a random data-less test. That's really not so much to ask, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never did I say it wasn't correctly depicted, quite the opposite. Just that the turret was ineffective in practice - for which I have linked here 3 sources, the last one is the book I own myself.

 

Did not miss the fun part, hence my return with TL;DR which is nothing more than internet slang. :)

 

Poor technique being a head on pass, just slightly lower than the bombers nose? How so, when I dove to pick up even more speed after we started at the same altitude?

 

Belly turret was simply ineffective, it was removed in the field and in later models for a good reason (fun fact: those turrets were then used as cheek guns in B-17s).

 

There is plenty of evidence online how ineffective / useless the turret was. I'd rather be interested in the opposite claim - want proof of how much use did the RAF get out of them.

 

Hell, if it stays like this - as a bomber pilot myself I will enjoy the bomber even more if we do get it as a flyable one day, just won't consider it realistic.¬†ūüćĽ

 

Dedidated Bomber Squadron:

 

Edited by [DBS]TH0R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your response was within the hour. Not enough time to do any proper testing of your objective theories, was it?

 

11 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Dedidated Bomber Squadron

 

Ok, but what exactly does that have to do with all this?, other that it being an attempt to make your subjective opinion sound a little more valid to anyone who falls for such an effort at self persona massage.

 

That said, lets¬†just look a the facts we currently have available¬†ūüĒĽ¬†while avoiding any outbursts of self perceived importance.

 

==================================

 

1. The B-25D was used within the BOBP time frame by the RAF 2TAF and they were standard, ie., did not have their lower turrets removed.

 

2. The developer has included the B-25D in that historically correct configuration.

 

3. The turret armament in BOX uses the same data as the other .50 cal machine guns represent elsewhere in BOX

 

4. The AI controlling the turret is the same AI as all the other bomber turret gunners in BOX

 

======================================================

 

Now lets look at what you are say / suggesting¬†ūüĒĽ¬†(without all the window dressing)

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

1. "8xB-25Ds in a quick mission builder.....I find them a deadly target to approach no matter the angle..."

 

2. You suggest reducing the effectiveness of the B-25D's lower turret as a solution to your problem.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

I tested it 2 times and cannot agree with your statement in point 1. above.

 

If you want to reduce the effectiveness of the AI, you already have that facility available to you, in the QMB and the FMB. No need to blanket affect everyone just because you feel the need.

 

--------------------------------------

 

My personal thoughts on the AI in BOX is that it should be set on Random as this is the most historically correct of the settings available.

Edited by Pict
Spelling, tweaking etc.
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Pict said:

without all the window dressing

 

Take away what you call the "window dressing" and you are left with a straw-man to argue against.

 

Case in point:

39 minutes ago, Pict said:

2. You suggest reducing the effectiveness of the B-25D's lower turret as a solution to your problem.

 

I don't think Thor is suggesting a reduction in effectiveness as a solution to any 'problem' he might have.

Rather the sugestion is that the lower turret should be less effective because there is plenty of evidence that they where less effective.

 

There is good evidence that this kind of turret was less effective, both on the B-25 and other planes that used prism/periscope turrets such as the Lancaster's FN-64 ventral turret.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pict Do you even understand what I have posted here and the problem in question?

 

Apologies if linking the DBS sounds like "self perceived importance", it was merely to do the  "let me Google for you" since you did not show the interest or care for what I posted. All with keeping the fun part of the discussion. :)

 

You are focusing on entirely wrong part of my post, whilst I have presented here historical facts of how ineffective belly turret was in the practice. From periscope dirt during take off to extreme vertigo and nausea it caused when used, to the removal in the later models and in the field. Not to mention poor situational awareness the operators had -  all of this being completely opposite from the top turret.

 

The first 4 facts you presented are irrelevant to this discussion as no one but you are questioning them here in this thread.

 

2 hours ago, Pict said:

1. "8xB-25Ds in a quick mission builder.....I find them a deadly target to approach no matter the angle..."

 

2. You suggest reducing the effectiveness of the B-25D's lower turret as a solution to your problem.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

I tested it 2 times and cannot agree with your statement in point 1. above.

 

1. The first test is just that, a test to show that both top and belly turrets are equally effective in-game.

2. This is just one of the recommended solutions to the problem. It is not my problem, it is backed by historical data.

 

Let me try to rephrase the statement then: belly turret can track and engage targets as easily/effectively as the top turret. This simply wasn't possible in RL, with bendix belly turrets operated through the periscope prism.

 

What kind of tests would you like to see or would be useful to explain this? Maybe I am simply not doing a good job of presenting this problem...

Edited by [DBS]TH0R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the RAF keep an turret if it's was as ineffective as suggested here? it would only increase weight and reduce performance overal for no extra benefit.

Maybe the turret crew was better trained to operate the turret or adjustments where made to fix the issues of the turret.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [DBS]Browning said:

Take away what you call the "window dressing" and you are left with a straw-man to argue against.

 

I wouldn't call the RAF's 2TAF of 1945 a straw man by any measure. And they are the best argument against in this instance, as they would have been in the best place to assess the value of the lower turret in the B-25D in the ETO. Better than any of us or any internet researcher of the current time certainly.

 

Should they have reasoned that the belly turret was of diminished value, they wouldn't have hesitated to remove it for the weight savings gained and the spare trained air-gunner that could be better employed elsewhere.

 

1 hour ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Let me try to rephrase the statement then: belly turret can track and engage targets as easily as the top turret. The opposite is true, based on historical use of bendix lower turrets operated through the periscope prism.

 

So the whole thread comes down to this and while I think you need a more solid argument against it, there is of course every possibility that you are correct in your assumption, however, that would also assume that the IL2 BOX team got it wrong, or at least got their research wrong.

 

That said, if you want a change, you will need to convince them and to do so you will need to be very well researched and very clear, neither of which I see thus far.

 

==========================

 

My take on why these turrets were removed in the PTO is for weight saving, ie., extra fuel for greater range. This would be the primary reason to remove them. Same for the the B-25-G mid production removal, weight saving, B-25G basically being a B-25D with a 75mm cannon mounted in the nose, which added a lot of weight.

 

Individual crew-member ideas about the usefulness of said turret would be far outweighed (pun certainly intended) by the extra range gained, especially in the PTO.

 

However none of that appears to have affected the B-25D operation in the ETO by the RAF's 2TAF. Range obviously was not as high a priority for them. The RAF were never known to be over attentive to individual input from the lower ranks, so it's possible that any complaints about the turret were ignored at the time. However that also assumes a level of cluelessness going up the chain, which wasn't the case.

 

But it's all speculation, both arguments for and against. I don't see any hard proof that these turrets were less effective than the one on top. Neither do I think you will find any. Bomber turret effectiveness is and was hard to measure.

 

1 hour ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Not to mention poor situational awareness the operators had -  all of this being completely opposite from the top turret.

 

This is a good example of speculation. Why do you assume this? All the crew were on intercom and trained to communicate in such a way that increased their overall situational awareness. Eg., the top turret couldn't see below the aircraft, but got that info from the other crew members, same goes for the belly turret who couldn't see above.

 

They also trained extensively with the aircraft and it weapons. Anyone having extreme vertigo wouldn't have got past the first training hop, just like anyone with a poor ability to operate any particular turret for any given reason. And if nobody could operate these turrets effectively, they would have been removed.

 

 

Edited by Pict
Spelling, tweaking etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Pict said:

This is a good example of speculation. Why do you assume this? All the crew were on intercom and trained to communicate in such a way that increased their overall situational awareness. Eg., the top turret couldn't see below the aircraft, but got that info from the other crew members, same goes for the belly turret who couldn't see above.

 

They also trained extensively with the aircraft and it weapons. Anyone having extreme vertigo wouldn't have got past the first training hop, just like anyone with a poor ability to operate any particular turret for any given reason. And if nobody could operate these turrets effectively, they would have been removed.

 

What assumptions? Please re-read the documentation from the first post:

 

qPKF6.jpg

 

Under right photo:

 

Quote

It proved difficult to use, and visibility was very restricted even with the addition of scanning windows in the radio operator's position.

 

 

20 minutes ago, ww2fighter20 said:

Why would the RAF keep an turret if it's was as ineffective as suggested here? it would only increase weight and reduce performance overal for no extra benefit.

Maybe the turret crew was better trained to operate the turret or adjustments where made to fix the issues of the turret.

 

It is entirely possible the adjustments to the turret control design were made. That again, until some info is presented on the matter, is just an assumption.

Edited by [DBS]TH0R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

What assumptions?

 

Those of the person writing it. Though that seems obvious to me, there it is for you.

 

You seem to assume that the gunners field of view was as small as the width of the periscope lens, which it was not. And that that was his only source of information as to the situation, which it also was not.

 

====================

 

End of the day, nothing you have provided so far proves anything to me. So if you want to keep responding without coming up with better proof, much better proof, then you are wasting your time...and mine.

Edited by Pict

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't put words into my mouth. I have made no assumptions about limiting gunner source of information and width of the periscope lens.

 

Had you actually read what I linked, you would realize they added scanning windows on both sides to help the gunner acquire targets. Think of that as the clue something was off with the design and implementation of the belly turret on that position of the plane, thus requiring further investigation on its effectiveness.

 

I am sorry, did not realize someone was forcing you to reply and read my posts. Feel free to move on if not interested.¬†ūüėĀ

Edited by [DBS]TH0R
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

I have made no assumptions

 

You're making lots of assumptions, this whole thing is an assumption, but still no irrefutable proof, just more window dressing.

 

I did actually read what you put up, now I'll analyse it a little bit.

 

A couple of links to internet forum post from who knows who, with a few photos and a drawing that prove zero about the effectiveness or otherwise of said turret. And include the following quote you saw fit to highlight;

 

"According to H G Fitzpatrick, who was a navigator/bomb aimer on 226 Sqn.;
When the lower turret was extended it reduced the speed by about 15 mph..."

 

Fitzpatrick doesn't mention the effectiveness of the turret, nor was he qualified to do so, being a navigator/bomb aimer. And his point about the speed can easily be seen as a plus point in that when the turret was retracted the aircraft gained 15 mph, unlike fixed turrets.

 

You also offer a link to a book: "Having read this book (highly recommended):"...

 

Indeed, the book is called "Air combat at 20 feet : Selected Missions From A Strafer Pilots Diary", with an illustration of a B-25 strafer on the deck over the sea in the PTO and it has zero relevance to B-25D's operated in the ETO by the RAF.

 

So no proof whatsoever and no obvious intent to provide any, just a big assumption shrouded in window dressing. 

 

======================

 

I was joking before, but you really did open a bottle of Luftwhine and that's all you did.

Edited by Pict
Spelling, tweaking etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI "Air combat at 20 feet : Selected Missions From A Strafer Pilots Diary" describes how they either didn't use or removed the turrets well before the switch to strafing tactics. The book describes how and why they moved from level bombing to strafing, one of the first groups that did that (38th BG, 405th sq, flying B-25C). One of the best, well documented and most thrilling books people interested in B-25s can read. Relevance of this book is on the subject of my question - (un)effectiveness of the belly turret. Additionally, USAF removed belly turrets - current B-25 in-game is correctly representing only the RAF variant.

 

Do you need help distinguishing a difference between an assumption and a question? Or is question mark not enough?

Edited by [DBS]TH0R
USAAF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

current B-25 in-game is correctly representing only the RAF variant.

 

The USAAF did not use the B-25 in combat in the European theater of operations.

 

Even Wikipedia has this covered https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_B-25_Mitchell#Europe

 

Europe[edit]

The RAF received nearly 900 Mitchells, using them to replace Douglas Bostons, Lockheed Venturas, and Vickers Wellington bombers. The Mitchell entered active RAF service on 22 January 1943. At first, it was used to bomb targets in occupied Europe. After the Normandy invasion, the RAF and France used Mitchells in support of the Allies in Europe. Several squadrons moved to forward airbases on the continent. The USAAF did not use the B-25 in combat in the European theater of operations.

Edited by Pict

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet it was heavily used in the MTO, and we do have a USAF skin in-game:

 

B-25_USAF_skin.thumb.jpg.7be15da3bd73c055d0ce32ae6cc24973.jpg

 

Though Devs did put "(RAF)" next to the bomber description.

 

Here is an extract from the Garrett Middlebrook's book (primary source):

 

StrafferDiary_BellyTurret.thumb.jpg.8729727d8037bfc0fa8b29861e399044.jpg

 

Clearly explaining the reasons why the belly turret was not used, and was thus removed in the later variants.

Edited by [DBS]TH0R
USAF, wiki quote removed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Yet it was heavily used in the MTO

 

As you appear to be clutching at straws now, I'll offer you one or 2;

 

Where in the MTO is the BOBP or it's Rhineland map situated?

When did the MTO count as the ETO?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subject of the discussion and my raised question is the effectiveness of the belly turret. No, I will not change the subject. Nice try though, almost fell for it. :)

 

Does anyone have any info whether RAF has done any modifications to eliminate some of the difficulties USAAF encountered when using the belly turret in combat? Seeing how they kept it on their models.

Edited by [DBS]TH0R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

No, I will not change the subject

 

Freud would be proud of that one:rofl:

 

15 hours ago, [DBS]TH0R said:

Does anyone have any info whether RAF has done any modifications to eliminate some of the difficulties USAAF encountered when using the belly turret in combat? Seeing how they kept it on their models.

 

I think I now know how this came about, judging by this film clip the RAF had a secret weapon...

 

 

North American B-25 Mitchell bombers of No 180 Squadron RAF taxing on runway, most probably Foulsham, Norfolk. Mitchells taking off overhead of camera. Mitchell bomber of No. 98 Squadron RAF taxiing returning into dispersal bay. D.R. arriving to take away film for processing. All Australian crew leaving and inspecting aircraft after operations. Crew discussing operations with Flight Commander, smoking. Fuel tanker truck arrives to re-fuel aircraft. Aircrew return and watch Mitchell being bombed up for mission.

 

The Aussies would have had at least one bush mechanic among them and he'd have worked all the bugs out. If you can lip read you can get the gist of what went on...

 

At about the 14:04:22 mark...

 

"something something durry something"

"...so what about the dustbin?"

"something something something whistling bomb something"

"something something something whinging pome something"

"Bluey was flat out like a lizard something something..."

"something something she'll be right mate"

"wish we had a Spitfire VB to complement the dustbin"

"wish I had a schooner of VB to celebrate sorting the dustbin"

 

It's old fashioned as and hard to read when they're smoking, reminds me of my old fella, so that helped :) 

 

Can anyone else lip read 1940's strine so we can get a 2nd opinion  ;)

Edited by Pict
Spelling, tweaking etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...