Which is a better defensive gun,a pintal mount flexible gun or a turret mounted gun?

[pinsog]

The TBF/TBM Avenger comes to mind. It had a single 50 in the rear turret. Was that superior to an open flexible mount in actually hitting an enemy fighter? I am sure some of you have had the opportunity to sit in the back of a dive bomber or other aircraft and swing a flexible gun, maybe even in flight. If so, what was it like?



I ask this question ASSUMING THE SAME WEAPON IS USED IN THE TURRET AS THE FLEXIBLE GUN. I know you could mount heavier weapons in a powered turret.

[tyrodtom]

I've sat in a helicopter, doing a little over a 100mph, swinging a M-60. I'd say it's not easy at 3 times that speed, there would be a lot of difference between shooting to the rear and when you tried to swing the gun for a side shot out of the wind protection of the cockpit sides. Besides the unsteadyness of your aim because of wind buffet.

I think a the speeds most aircraft of the WW2 era attained, most men would need the power turrets, or a lot of muscle.

Just stick you hand straight out your car window at 75-80 mph, and imagine several times that force pressing against the gun barrel.

[fastmongrel]

I have often wondered did a rapidly traversing turret affect the aircraft handling. The torque reaction and drag of a heavy fast turning and reversing turret must have had some effect particulary a tail turret.

[norab]

I believe the more rigid turret mount would also allow more accurate shooting and a more compact cone of fire

[tyrodtom]

I'm sure the gun barrel in a smaller aircraft could have a effect, like a Dauntless, or Boltan-Paul.

I used to screw around with pilots by sticking my arm or leg way out the door, and the helicopter would slowly yaw till they corrected. Then i'd pull it in and they'd have to correct again. Drove one crazy till he figured out that it was me.

I've no doubt a aircraft doing 250-300mph would be a little affected by the guns moving from side to side, something you'd only notice if you were trying to fly a straight course. Probably not noticeable when manuvering.

[Glider]

Powered turrets were better than open mounts. The UK went this route pre war with extensive testing on the Boulton Paul Overstrand which was the first bomber to have a powered operated turret.

Thinking about it logically, Grumman could have saved a lot of weight on the Avenger by replacing the turret with an open mount, they wouldn't have kept the turret if it wasn't worth it.

[model299]

there's no doubt in my mind the powered turret is a better setup. The stabity of the solid mount and the power assist all make for better marksmanship IMHO. Any movement induced into the airframe by the turret shouldn't be a problem for a competent pilot. Plus, you've the opportunity to put a good computing gunsight into the unit.

[CobberKane]

They both had their place. The powered turrent gave a wider field of fire and enabled a single gunner to direct much heavier forepower, typically four .303 or two .50 cal guns. Even Sly Stallone in Rambo guise would have had trouble hefting that amount of hardware unassisted. On the other hand, turrents are heavy and generally unsuited to single-engined aircraft, although as has been pointed out the Avenger did make good use of one, albeit it mostly against unarmoured Japanese opposition. Swivel mounted rifle calibre machine guns were much lighter and provided at least a degree of protection although it was obvious from the Battle of Brittain onwards they were insufficient in the face of determined fighter attacks. Far and away the best defensive option for bombers was six wing mounted guns - in an escorting P51