This is insane! 48 years old and this is the first time I'm hearing about a ventral turret! I had no idea and always thought that this was a massive oversight/weakness of the Lancaster! Every day really is a school day!
The FN 64 was not fitted to all Lancasters. The periscope Sighting system proving not very good for night operations. Most Lancaster were not fitted with the FN.64
@@HRHtheDude Bomber Command started opening up the hole where this turret went and jury rigged a .50 cal in the hole from October 1943 onwards. Most aircraft got a gun mount or an H2S fitted in the hole. The H2S system had a short range PPI display attached to it which was located in wireless operators station and the system called Fishpond, allowed the W/Op to check if any other aircraft were below the bomber and if anything was approaching that looked like a night fighter. Fishpond installation started in October 1943. The big issue for both, were if their was a gunner manning the underside gun, he couldn't see jack shit most of the time so it wasn't manned!! Fishpond only worked if H2S was working, which failed quite a lot of the time!! To make things even worse it was later found that one mode of H2S operation stopped Fishpond from working, which unfortunately was the 10 mile range mode used in the bombing run.
Now that is totally new to me. I'm over here in the USA and have read extensively about the Allied bomber campaign in WW2 and never heard this turret mentioned. Now I known, thank you. As to why it seems to not have been used much, I can only mention the experience with a similar turret on the early versions of the B-17 between the original bathtub Gunner's station and the Ball turret we are all familiar with. From what I have read using this turret would give the gunner a nasty case of vertigo and nausea. Not to mention it was very hard to acquire the target. Thank you for this video.
The FN64 Turret was mainly fitted to Canadian Air Force Lancaster B Mk.II aircraft fitted with the Bristol Hercules engine. The turret was not very successful, being used at night. The periscopic sight offered the gunner very little clarity. Thanks for watching
New to me too and im 56 from the uk north of Lancaster. As a kid at school i used to draw Lancasters with bottom turrets and got told off by the posh kid saying thats on b17s Ha i was right lol
@@Anglo_Saxon1, not to forget that the Lancaster design also gave up almost ALL armor and "defended" itself with .303 caliber machine guns which had only 20% of the kinetic energy of the .50 caliber M-2. There is a reason that RAF Bomber Command casualty rates exceeded those of ALL other British Services.
@@TheJKCrawford he early spitfire and Hurricanes also had the rifle calibre 303 'Pop gun' rounds! eventually those fighters and others such as the typhoon and tempest ended up with 20ml calibre Hispano cannon. One variant of a spitfire wing even ended up with 20 ml Cannon And 50 cal Machine gun...The best of both worlds!!
Very interesting video - thank you for showing us! Interesting to see a Mk11 Lanc. I believe the ventral turret was only fitted to relatively few aircraft and was removed early on in the war. My father's logbook shows that he flew 19 Sorties in Mks 1, 11 and 111 Lancs with 61 Sqn from February to May 1943. At the time he flew them, the Mk1 Lanc was fitted with R-R Merlin XX engines, the Mk11 with Bristol Hercules VI and the Mk111 with the Merlin XXVIII. My father said the Lanc was a wonderful aircraft to fly...
Very interesting. It's vital that we document as much detail about the Lanc and other aircraft as possible for future generations and our heritage. We will Remember Them.
Just randomly stumbled upon your channel and I can't express how excited I am. I'm from Canada and my Grandfather was a Captian of both the Halifax and Lancaster. When I was a kid I was fascinated with his service during the war, and he gave me his wings off his uniform. He passed away before I was old enough to fully understand his stories and be able to ask him more questions. The info you are providing on this channel will help me understand the technical aspect of his service.
The Lancaster has always been one of my favourite bombers, I’ve been lucky enough to see it fly several times out of Hamilton Ontario but I never knew it had a bottom turret....you learn a new thing ever day! Thank you!
Was the FN.64 turret ever used in the Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle? While reading books about the 1st Canadian Parachute Brigade it was mentioned how they were dropped into Normandy through a ventral hole in the floor of Albemarle transport aircraft. Further research finds mention of a ventral turret being mounted initially in Albemarles when they were considered for use as bombers. The Albemarle would be a fitting subject for a video by you as the aircraft was involved in just about every major airborne operation from Normandy on. Thank you for your great work!
Thanks, Derek, I don't think the Albemarle was ever fitted with the FN.64 turret. I have looked into this and find only the first 32 Albemarle aircraft produced, were built as bombers (although they were never used as bombers) and fitted with the Boulton-Paul Dorsal 4 gun turret and a 2 gun ventral turret. As you rightly say, the Albemarle performed many duties including glider tug and dropping troops on special operations, etc. Yes, it would be interesting to create a video on the Albemarle, I'll look into it. Thanks for watching
Very well presented with excellent graphics. I'd never seen a video of this turret before and have always wondered why they weren't employed on all the bombers. Thanks a lot.
There is something new I learn every day and this it for today. I never knew there was a lower gun turret on the Lancaster. Now I am off to find more details. Thanks Bryan.
Marvellous to get some proper detailed info, about something that I’d heard about and got an image of.....well done for collating all that info and presenting it in a no nonsense and engaging way! 👍🏻👍🏻
Me being from across the pond, I never knew how the gun pods on a Lancaster worked. I believe it's a better idea than those death trap ball turrets on a B17. Thanks for showing this.
It probably wasn't better, the guns are borderline useless and the ball turret operator was better protected. He wasn't completely surrounded by armour but certainly from some angles and with the placement of the guns, Lancasters had very little armour in the entire plane so all that turret operator had was the aluminium structure of the plane with the guns providing some protection from some angles.
The B17 ball turret caused considerable drag. The smaller turrets like this on the Lancaster and similar remote control turrets on the B29 caused less drag so presumably more could be fitted.
Yes, the FN64 Turret was mainly fitted to Canadian Air Force Lancaster B Mk.II aircraft fitted with the Bristol Hercules engine. The turret was not very successful, being used at night. The periscopic sight offered the gunner very little clarity. Thanks for watching
Another interesting Video Bryan. I wonder why the turret was so little used. With lots of attacks by the ME110 from below with its upward firing guns, even if the two .303 were not up to shooting the night fighter down , it would have provided a slim chance of the gunner seeing the night fighter. it would have been the only eyes looking down.
Your question is a good one. Typically, these turrets were not very effective. The American B-25 and other bombers had similar turrets, which were quickly discarded. There were several issues including a narrow field of view which made target acquisition difficult. Per Wikipedia; "The ventral (underside) FN-64 turret quickly proved to be dead weight, being both difficult to sight because it relied on a periscope which limited the gunner's view to a 20-degree arc, and too slow to keep a target within its sights. Aside from early B Is and the prototype B IIs, the FN-64 was almost never used."
The FN.64 Gun Turret was not very effective, the Air Gunner having a narrow field of view of 20 degrees and trying to look through a scope at night, it would be doubtful if the gunner could ever lock onto, let alone spot an enemy night fighter. He would have had to primarily rely on other crew members to spot an incoming enemy - if they were lucky. The gunner could fire off the guns as a small deterrent to known approaching enemy attacks under the Lancaster, especially once German fighters were fitted with the deadly Schrage Musik gun system. As I understand, the German gunner would aim at the fuel tanks. The FN.64 was used in some B.Mk.Is and the Bristol Hercules powered B Mk.II operated in the main by Canadian crews. But was generally thought to be of little or no use in operations. Thank you for watching and have a great weekend.
@@ukaircraftexplored6556 In addition to the limited view angle, I'd suggest that light losses in the periscope would have had a serious impact on night ops.EDIT: I noticed a post regarding radar warning receivers (or suchlike), Fishpond was probably what was being mentioned and this was trashed quite early on due to German tech allowing nightfighters to use it to zero in on Lancasters.
Wasn't gun laying radar (rear turret) and infa red camera detection fitted early on to the front and rear turrets to make this lower turret redundant? Any fighter in the blind underside spot these turrets covered would have been seen before an enemy fighter could get to the underside. Hence the two circular 'eyes' seen in the front of the Lancaster bomb aimer blister. Apparently the blister camera was so secret it was locked securely away from the aeroplane after each sortie.
that was one of the most informative videos I have ever seen on RUclips. So very interesting and comprehensive. I did not know all of that prior to this video. Thank you
Thanks, I'm so please your found it interesting. They are hard work to put together, but worthwhile as they illustrate the true design and function of each item of equipment. Cheers!
Some of the Canadian squadrons based in North Yorkshire actually managed to get hold of ball turrets from B17s, and did DIY conversions on Lancasters, although this was toward the end of the war. They did claim to have had some success with them, however, though there is little empirical evidence to be found on this. Thanks for the well-researched article, Bryan, it was most interesting. I look forward to the next one!
Hi. Are you sure? I'd be interested to know the evidence. The Sperry ball turret on Lancasters? I've been researching Bomber Command ventral defence for years, and have never come across this, and I can't see how it would be physically or mechanically possible. The Sperry ball and its associated mechanisms and power supply would have been in so many ways virtually impossible to fit into the Lancaster. However, the Canadians and French of 4 and 6 Group in Yorkshire, (and incidentally a few Coastal Command squadrons) did use on their Halifaxes the "Preston Green" mounting with a single manually operated Browning 0.5", which superficially looked very similar to the Sperry ball, and has often been misquoted as such. If you have any links / info on Lancs and ball turrets I'd be very keen to see them. timwing4@gmail.com It's a fascinating subject, especially the argument between H2S and the need for (or viability of) lower hemisphere defence. Cheers.Tim.
7:37 Now this photo is interesting! A photo not only shows an FN 64 on a Lancaster, but the Lancaster is the Canadian Avro (Victory Aircraft) prototype MK 10 KB700 named 'The Ruhr Express'. Very few Lancs received an FN64, though the RAF Museum Hendon's 'S for Sugar' early Lancaster has the turret mount.
Perhaps the introduction of 'Monica' played a part in detection from below as well, enabling the Pilot to take evasive action instead, thereby negating the need for the turret?
The turret was not very successful, being used at night. The periscopic sight offered the gunner very little clarity. Yes, the use of Monica Mk.IV, tail warning radar was used, but many false detections were made, especially as the war moved on. Crews would often opt to turn it off, as the system could not distinguish a friendly aircraft from an enemy aircraft. and with more allied aircraft being in the bomber stream more accidents occurred as crews took dangerous evasive actions to ovoid what was often just another friendly bomber in the stream - causing some unnecessary collisions. I hope the video was of interest and thanks for watching
I’m absolutely amazed by this. Neither my father (pilot) nor my uncle (tail gunner) ever mentioned that this gun position even existed and that’s despite both of them managing to survive the war, almost intact. Not that they had a great deal of choice about going on ops as the threat of having “LMF” placed on their records was enough - always thought that it was a pretty disgusting threat and wondered at the number of crews that died because one or more were too mentally exhausted to remain fully engaged with their situation? Both of them, as well as dads other brother (army/pongo) all had terrible PTSD when they finally finished and apparently dad spotted it in me after many years as a bootneck - he tried to help, but………
Over 57000 aircrew died in bombers in WW2. I have no concept of the sheer guts of the bomber crews who faced death night after night, doing their best to defeat the most awful regime in the whole history of humanity. And what thanks did they get-----F**k all, that's what!
My father was young volunteer when he joined up at the outset of the war. He flew Blenhiems in France and was shot down twice once in the English Channel. He went on to fly three full tours as a rear gunner over Germany ans survived. His mother persuaded him to stop operational flying because he was still young. An ungrateful RAF and Nation branded him LMF. Look back I can now see the PTSD that haunted him as well as effecting myself and syblings upbringing. An ungratful nation.
@@johnday6392 I’m grateful/pleasantly surprised that you are aware of the problems (no, I’m not trying to be sarcastic either). Thank you for your understanding and compassion. Might I recommend a book about Bomber Command, with specific reference to the disgusting “LMF” moniker - “Lack of Moral Fibre”?. My memory isn’t what it used to be so I might need to return with the correct title - too many TBI’s, being too close, too often to things that go bang, but Stage IV aggressive, terminal cancer tends to outdo them all.). As one of the later comments mentions that the entirety of Bomber Command were all volunteers, but more specifically they only signed up “for hostilities only”, which is how my father ended up in India, post WW2, overseeing the India/Pakistan independence screwups. During the post WW2 period far too many of the Hindus and Muslims died during this time, with sod all to show for it, unless generations of distrust and enmity count? It led to the RAF crews (hostilities only) that went on strike aka a mutiny. Fortunately my father wasn’t one of those gaoled in the Tower of London whilst awaiting execution (yes, they had that threat!) and the final result was that all sentences were commuted due to the status of being “volunteers for hostilities only”. He finally made it home to Yorkshire in early 1947, where he restarted his romance with my mother, finally being married in December 1947. Sorry to be a bore about family life but it seemed appropriate. Dad tried, on a number of occasions, to explain that being in command was a whole extra weight on your shoulders, but being young and dumb (18-yo in 1978) he didn’t protest too much when he saw where I was headed - a 2Lt in 3Bde, Royal Marine Commando (J-company), and fortunately/sadly** he never saw what the Corps would experience. That being said he definitely spotted my increasing “shell shock” or PTSD as it’s now called especially after a couple of stints in the Shaky Boats (3yrs apiece), but just as he could never explain how he felt about the deaths/injuries of his crew, so the same happened each time he knew we had been deployed. **tbh I’m unsure how he would have reacted to my career from 1978-2008, the experiences nor the supersonically installed internal “bling” fitted internally, thanks to me being too close to one more IED! It had to happen, and the airport security folk are understanding once they’ve seen some of the scars and waved a wand over them. Looking back it seems odd that most English people will help me stand from my wheelchair, yet most Arab type nations won’t! Perhaps I have BO ?
@@tommy4244 I’m really sorry Tommy but this particular old (over 60-yo) Royal Marine Commando, Captain, doesn’t always understand acronyms! Yes, I appreciate that the military are bloody awful in using acronyms any/everywhere they can, but the Gucci drugs they give me tend to affect concentration too much. Thanks for responding anyway, all the best.
Impressive. Most impressive. Thank you. After examining U.S. Bomber aircraft, always thought it was the often use of RAF Bombers at night that lead to the lack of urgency for a ventral gun turrent.
The FN64 Turret was mainly fitted to Canadian Air Force Lancaster B Mk.II aircraft fitted with the Bristol Hercules engine. The turret was not very successful, being used at night. The periscopic sight offered the gunner very little clarity. Thanks for watching
This is absolutely fantastic. I really never knew the Lancaster had this. Besides the British, the Americand had tried this sort of gunner placement with the B-25 initally. It was a retractable turret placed near the rear underbelly of tail end. Whete the waist gunners were.
Yes, the FN64 Turret was mainly fitted to Canadian Air Force Lancaster B Mk.II aircraft fitted with the Bristol Hercules engine. The turret was not very successful, being used at night. The periscopic sight offered the gunner very little clarity. Thanks for watching
Good video, well documented & explained. This gives me even more respect for the technology and engineering of this period - and its complexity. This is why large bombers needed flight engineers to monitor & manage the systems - to do the work now done by computerized systems. Our forbears were awesomely able people.
My father flew his 30 mission tour-of-duty in a Lancaster III in 170 Squadron in 1944/45 . Before that, he flew 6 missions with 625 Squadron. However, this is the first time I have heard of a Mid Lower Gun Turret. In recognition of the risk of attack from below, I am told that my father flew inverted for extended periods of time, because it wasn't part of training and it wasn't expected.
Yes, the FN64 Turret was mainly fitted to Canadian Air Force Lancaster B Mk.II aircraft fitted with the Bristol Hercules engine. The turret was not very successful, being used at night. The periscopic sight offered the gunner very little clarity. Thanks for watching
When I was a kid I built a really cool model Lancaster. That model never had a lower gun turret. I too live in the U.S., perhaps this model was for the States market only. Not that far from me in Canada there is a flying Lancaster. I forget the city, but I was up there once as a kid
The FN64 Turret was fitted in the main to Canadian Lancaster B Mk.II aircraft fitted with the Bristol Hercules engine. The turret was not very successful, being used at night. The periscopic sight offered the gunner very little clarity. Thanks for watching
Great input, I first saw this many years ago on a 1/72 Revell Lancaster kit, possibly the Dambuster. It was way back, possibly early 1960's when the bouncing bomb came off the secret list. Never fitted for the dams raid I presume. At last, thanks to the internet and a brilliant clear and concise explanation who needs mainstream TV anymore?
The FN64 Turret was mainly fitted to Canadian Air Force Lancaster B Mk.II aircraft fitted with the Bristol Hercules engine. The turret was not very successful, being used at night. The periscopic sight offered the gunner very little clarity. Thanks for watching and your feedback Ken!
The Revell Dambuster kit did indeed have that turret. If I remember correctly. Only one Lancaster in that raid had the turret fitted. That was T-Tommy that went to the Sorpe dam.
Wonderful video. May I share some info with you? The Lancaster pictured, I recognise that image. I notice JI prefix and "O" on the nose. I also notice Hercules engines not Merlins. JI is 514 Squadron RAF. I Co Authored the 514 Squadron unit histories. I think that is LL734 JI-O, BUT, I would need to check and confirm that. It replaced my Grandfathers crews aircraft after they were kia June 15/16. 1944. (The original JI-O was DS816) I'm pretty sure your gunners name is an Aussie nicknamed "Dauntless" Denahey! I can indeed do further research and confirm this all easy enough if your interested. We/I have a pic of him if I'm right. 514 Squadron received 2 MK-IIs with ventral turrets btw. Also, it was indeed, mostly, MK-II's that ran them. 514, 115, 75 NZ Sqdns of 3 group. :-)
Thanks for your comment. I obtained the photograph from wiki commons. for the video. The description, ties up with what you have written, as follows - Lancaster B Mark II, LL734;JI - O of No. 514 Squadron RAF based at Waterbeach, Cambridgeshire, returning from a daylight attack on the flying-bomb launch site at Les Catelliers in northern France ("Noball" operation). I hope that helps and thankyou so much for watching
@@ukaircraftexplored6556 , not bad for off the top of my head hay! We have amassed a lot of data on 514 Squadron, a full searchable database of every crew and every serviceman. We share info with families freely. I run the 514 Squadron RAF page on facebook with my 3 colleagues. :-)
Great description. One question I have is around the photo you’ve sourced with the 3/4 front view and what appears to be radial engines; not Merlins. I wasn’t aware of this variant.
WUT ? Lol, I had never heard of this. And when I see the image at (0:22) those aren't Merlins. WUT?? So I started googling and reading up some more about this. Lancaster II. Like WUT??? There is always so much more to learn, So much information easily available these days. So many surprises. Thanks for the video. : )
The FN64 Turret was fitted in the main to Canadian Lancaster B Mk.II aircraft fitted with the Bristol Hercules engine. The turret was not very successful, being used at night. The periscopic sight offered the gunner very little clarity. Thanks for watching
It's interesting how much simpler the sighting system for the British bomber turrets than the US heavy bombers, which used had range and lead calculation. I also find it interesting that by and large the British with happy with .303 calibre defensive guns (I know the shakletons got 20ms post war, and there was a Lancaster tail turret variation with 2x .50s, the Rose Turret?) I wonder to what extent the choice of simpler sights and rifle calibre MGs was due to shorter engagement ranges at night.
Yes, the shorter time to spot a target at night, could have been a factor. The FN64 Turret gave very poor chances of spotting an enemy aircraft at night.
Thanks for this- I've found very little information about the Lower Gun Turret. It would appear that this was the location for the rear spotlight fitted to the Type 464 (Provisioning) Lancasters used on the Dams raid, and not the aft end of the bomb bay as most authors of books on that operation would have it. This makes sense- a spotlight at the aft of the bomb bay would have been difficult to adjust, as was necessary when the dropping height was altered from 150 to 60 feet, and was a ready-made location for installation of the spotlight.
Apparently, the Type 464 originally had a Vickers K gun mounted in this position on a simple flexible mount but this was later removed. Probably due to the spotlight being fitted.
Thanks for sharing that Bryan. I was always curious what, with some many Lancs shot down from below by German fighters using upward slanting cannons, this wasn't used more widely. So far I've only heard of it being used by RCAF operated MkII Lancs fitted with Bristol engines such as the one in your picture. I think the need for H2S trumped the ventral turret and Lanc pilots learnt to gently weave so the rear gunner could check below.
The problem facing usage of the FN.64, was that the gunner's vision at night through the periscope system made spotting an enemy aircraft very difficult, if not impossible. Thanks for watching
@@ukaircraftexplored6556 It is my understanding that the RAF were totally unaware of the upward firing German night fighters who were deadly. I have also read that our own night fighters were disbelieved when they reported they could sit below our bombers , on the way home, and were not seen. I think there was a lot of complacency by the powers that be , who seemed to focus on bomb load and accepted losses with a shrug. I have also read that our bombers cruised at economical cruising speed to maximise bomb load, but that flying a little faster would have made it that much harder for the overweight night fighters to intercept them. Creeping up from below certainly put the night fighter in an equally dangerous vulnerable position. Enjoyed the video and the technical detail.
@@californiadreamin8423 Freeman Dyson suggested removing all defensive armament to increase speed but it was felt that it would reduce crew morale to the point of having a mutiny. Some Free French basically just used a tail turret.
@@wbertie2604 Thanks for your comment. I thought the turret was let down by its short sighted 😈 optics , and a much simpler “window” could have been devised.
@@californiadreamin8423 the FN. 64? No, it had to use mirrors to achieve the low drag profile. Bristol had created a nose turret years before that was in many ways like the US ball turret, but no one thought to hang it underneath.
Is there any 'official' documentation of the versatility of the said ventral turret? Given the date of introduction of the Lancaster and the expanding honed proficiency of the Luftwaffe's night fighter force in terms of skills, technology (radar, Schräge Musik and GCI) and tactics, was the phasing out of the ventral turret somewhat premature? Regards
Wow i grew up just after the war and never knew the Lancaster had an under belly gun turret i have been up close and personel with G for George in the Australian war memorial and never saw one on her
If I interpret fig 3 correctly, loss of the port inner engine cuts all hydraulic power to rear, mid upper and mid lower turrets. That's quite a single point of failure. Also, like it, subbed
The Hydraulic systems for each gun turret was similar. The Fig 3 Diagram you mention, was a A.M. diagram that illustrated the relevant equipment used for each turret system marked in bold text. To clarify, each turret was powered by a different hydraulic pump, mounted on each engine as follows. The Front Turret - Starboard Inner. The Mid Upper - Starboard Outer. The Mid Lower (if fitted) - Port Inner and the Rear Turret - Port Outer. Thanks for watching.
Would like to hear more about which marks and dates it was included and withdrawn and reasons for this as Lancs suffered appalling losses from below on night missions.
How good was the periscope sight being used at night time? Unless they had night vision scope I imagine not much good. Am I right? Still a very interesting video. Thanks and cheers. 🍻
AFAIK Operational Research recommended getting rid of the upper turret too. They estimated that the resultant increase in speed of the Lanc would have saved more aircraft than the turret could. The crews disagreed and the idea was canned. But I'm no expert. I think it was mentioned in the autobiography of Freeman Dyson who worked for OR.
Fascinating because I never knew that the Lanc had a lower turret. When were they introduced, how many Lancs were fitted with them, Why were they not standard, etc?
The FN64 Turret was fitted in the main to Canadian Lancaster B Mk.II aircraft fitted with the Bristol Hercules engine. The Turret was not fitted as standard as it was not very successful, being used at night. The periscopic sight offered the gunner very little clarity. Thanks for watching Nigel!
@@ukaircraftexplored6556 some apparently got fitted after the move to daylight bombing later in the war to a few more planes, ones that didn't have H2S, but then they stopped again as relatively few fighters were being encountered by late 1944. They did sort of make an effort to fit 50s to Lancasters, finally, although they abandoned the attempt to provide a 50 nose turret on the Lancaster per se, only the Lincoln.
A few of the Lancs serving with 195 Squadron (Mk 1 and Mk 3 aircraft were operated) had mid-under gun positions fitted. On 14th March '45 S/L W.L. Farquharson , DFC who was CO of "A" Flight was leading an op when his aircraft was hit by flak on the bomb run seriously wounding his mid-under gunner. In an effort to save the man's life Farquharson opted to land at Brussels on the return to get urgent medical attention although sadly to no avail with the mid-under gunner subsequently dying.
It is a case of getting it right (Ie the need for a ventral turret) and then deleting it, just before it became really needed against night fighters , particularly those with schragemusik.... I wonder if they tried different gunsights to get a wider field of view? Imagine a late war FN64 with radar (village I think it was called) particularly if used with Hispano cannon.
I always thought that turret was commanded by the upper turret gunner, or was even shared with the tail gunner through some fire control system. But I assume the sophistication found in the B-29 or A-26 Invader of later turret evolutions.
Brian can find anything on the Preston Green lower gun turret fitted to some RCAF Halifax MKIII’s? It had a single trainable .50 cal. Machine gun with a box of 500 rounds.
Never realised before but the Browning's must have come in a right hand and left hand model? I guess the Allies weren't short of Brass if the bullet cases were just chucked overboard?
@@ukaircraftexplored6556 Having subsequently done a little research I have discovered the Browning could have it's feed side easily changed (in a couple on minutes by a competent Armourer). I now know more about the Browning than I will ever need .
Huh...and I thought I knew just about everything about the beloved Lanc. I never heard of this before. WOW. I guess it just wasn't used often because it got pushed aside for the radar set, which was vital for bombing success.
The FN64 Turret was fitted in the main to Canadian Lancaster B Mk.II aircraft fitted with the Bristol Hercules engine. The turret was not very successful, being used at night. The periscopic sight offered the gunner very little clarity. Thanks for watching
I note that the example aircraft pictured is one of the (few??) radial equipped Lancasters. Just wondering whether this one was an initial test frame, or...???
Thanks for your comment. I obtained the photograph from wiki commons. for the video. The description is as follows - Lancaster B Mark II, LL734;JI - O of No. 514 Squadron RAF based at Waterbeach, Cambridgeshire, returning from a daylight attack on the flying-bomb launch site at Les Catelliers in northern France ("Noball"
The Air Ministry Diagrams I have recreated for the video are all that is available. I have no further information regarding prism angles. I hope it was still of interest to you.
Good question. The type of spirit isn't mentioned in my AP manual. If I find out, I'll let you know. The Lancaster's Forward, Mid Upper and Rear turrets were not fitted with a Spirit Tank. So it had to be something related to the Ki-Gass pump installation fitted in the FN.64 Turret. Thanks for watching.
Very interesting, I wonder how big was his field of view to acquire a target. Unlike other gunners who can turn their head to scan the sky around them, perhaps other crew members had to give him assistance to target a vector.
I thought I knew a lot about the Lancaster in all its iterations, but how wrong was I, I had never heard of a version/Mk that had a mid lower turret until a few minutes ago, however it makes perfect sense when you stop and think about it, the Lancaster was defenceless from attacks made from that position, especially to the later night-fighters that the Luftwaffe employed that benefited from radar, the ME-262b-a1 and the ME-110 are the two most prominent in my mind, so I have to ask why was this turret not adopted as standard on all new-builds and as a service engineered modification (S.E.M) (or its equivalent during WWII), but I might be ahead of myself, you might be just about to tell us in the last few minutes of the video. Before I press play again I would like to mention why I thought I knew a lot about the Lancaster, my great grandfather, on my dads side, was in the R.F.C and R.A.F, my grandfather on my mums side, was an apprentice fitter with A.V Roe (I have his apprenticeship reference books, all 3 volumes) and during the war was in the R.A.F (I have no idea why he wasn’t in a reserved occupation, I can only think that he had left AVRO) and was part of the team that brought the 617 Sqn Aircraft into service and was involved with the modifications/maintenance to the ‘Dambusters’ bomb bay’s, my father was an Armourer in the 50s-60s and was employed on the best A.V Roe aircraft ever designed and built, the Vulcan, the Lancaster was a very very close second, then I was a ‘rigger’ that wanted Vulcans after finishing my trade training in early 1980, but alas it wasn’t to be, I got Jet Provosts at Cranwell, and then lastly (for now) my son was a (no laughing) a ‘Rock’, but at least he made things fly, Rapier missiles, but I digress, I was brought up hearing about the R.A.F and soaked up aircraft history from books, tv 📺 and most importantly family, and yet you have completely got me on this gem of knowledge, and I sincerely appreciate you sharing it with us all, a very very interesting, informative and eye👁 opening episode, thanks very very much. 😀👍🇬🇧🏴🇺🇦 P.S Subscribed, I look forward to watching more of you material. Thanks again.
The turrets were only used on the Bristol Hercules mk 2, the engines weren't as powerful as the merlins so the ceiling was lower, and carry less bombs, so they put that in for self defence. When mk2 was withdrawn so was the lower turrets.
The FN.64 was also fitted to some early Lancaster Mk.I aircraft, and once daylight operations started again in June 1944, some Polish Squadron Lancasters were fitted with the FN.64 instead of H2S. Thanks for watching.
Great stuff. I knew of the rare lower turret existence but found little information on it until this. Is there any information on the single .50 fitted to fire downwards on some RCAF Lancasters? Or was it an ad hoc fitting? That would be another interesting video if the information is available on its use or effectiveness
There was the Preston Green Mk. II which was used in a few Lancasters which I read could be fitted to Lancasters, but I've never seen a photo of it. I've also read of a Vickers K bring used, again no photos. Plus the RCAF mounts and some Aussies using a 20mm cannon.
The Canadians of 4 and 6 Group in Yorkshire liked the idea of a ventral gun, mainly using the "Preston Green" ventral gun position but it was only for the Halifax. It mounted a single rear facing manually operated .5" Browning on a limited traverse and depression mounting. It was in effect a non rotating bowl with (often painted out) perspex panels with a significant rear facing area cut out to facilitate gun movement. The Canadians liked them but inevitably they were negated by H2S.
Really, really interesting. I didn't realize that the gunner didn't have direct vision of the target. That must have made it much harder to be accurate. My dad trained as a tail gunner on Lancs just as the war ended. I'm glad for both of us that the war ended before he got posted to go operational. 😄😁
my dad trained but the war ended, unfortunately this left him feeling he had not been able to ‘do his bit’ which threw him into a poor and angry state for the rest of his life, only being diagnosed in the mid 70s, not a happy man and a father you where aware off
I find this very interesting and dont doubt that the plans were there but very few were ever fitted and in fact their unprotected underside was a well recognized weakness to the point that some German night fighters were fitted with upward pointing guns behind the pilot to take advantage of this. Of all the existing examples around the world I am not aware of any with such a fitting. I happily stand corrected on that one.
My late and greatly missed father was an RAF armourer. He remembered being trained on the FN64. He was always very complimentary about the Frazer Nash system control sensitivity and ease of use. But he would also comment that even as an armourer (as opposed to an air gunner) it was obvious that target acquisition and tracking when using the 64 was going to be near impossible even in daylight, not only due to the lack of any peripheral vision though the gunner's periscope, but also because oddly it didn't have 360 degree traverse. Both Boulton Paul and Frazer Nash (the latter's turrets strictly speaking being manufactured by "Nash and Thompson" using the "FN" control system, and as such given "FN" identity prefixes) made great efforts to produce effective ventral turrets. The former for the Halifax in a similar design to the FN64 though powered differently, and the latter for amongst others the Wellington, Stirling and Whitley. Despite none being successful in combat, the engineering efforts that went into the challenging issues of defending bombers from ventral attack was incredible. Interestingly the US Bendix company came up with a ventral turret for the Mitchell also aimed by periscope. It too was not considered a success. So bravo to the US Sperry company for coming up with the ball turret. Now that was genius engineering!
Thanks for that. My uncle was a pilot on those in ww2 but I never realized they had that turret. Did they use those when night bombing Germany or did they prefer the extra bomb load I wonder.
The FN 64 was not fitted to all Lancasters. The periscope Sighting system proving not very good for night operations. Most Lancaster were not fitted with the FN.64
Very happy to bump into this vid. Would like to know why these weren't standard fit, & in fact so rare. It's one of those quirks of history, why, when they knew they were being attacked from behind & below, they weren't fitted. It's like the same muddle over fighter tactics during Battle of Britain, translating across to Bomber Command. I read somewhere that Luftwaffe tactics were well-known in one Group (largely Canuk Group..?), but they must've been common knowledge, so why no ventral? -Even without Schräge Musik, that tactic was standard.
The FN.64 provided the gunner with very limited ability to sight an enemy aircraft at night. The chances of sighting and hitting a target was very poor through the FN.64's periscopic sight. Thanks for watching!
@@ukaircraftexplored6556 - Cheers, but this is what I'm wondering: if ventral defence was recognised to be important at design-stage, & indeed if all Lancs were manufactured with this provision (a hole in the floor), & if this were the standard vector of attack on Lancs etc., & if the gun position was ideally placed to counter this Luftwaffe tactic, & even IF it 1) couldn't 'search' well ('cos of the periscopic gunsight), 2) might've required a more dedicated gunner than my own Great Uncle, - W.Op/AG, I still don't understand why these weren't standard fit. I have the Luftreport on my Uncle's Lanc shoot-down (May-June'43), & even before Schrage Muzik, the attack profile is perfect for the Me110G4 to have been countered. *70m behind & below at the point of opening fire, with a 5minute chase to contact.
@@gitfoad8032 But the thing, 'FOAD, was that Bomber Command didn't know of the existence of Strage Musik until about 9 months after its introduction, as nearly every single Strage Musik engagement was a guaranteed 'kill'; no one came back to report being attacked in such a fashion. Other crews reporting aircraft simply exploding for no apparent reason (Strage Musik guns didnt use tracer as the attacks were pressed home at such short range and not needing deflection shooting, they didn't need it) perpetuated the myth of the Scarecrow Shell (which see). Given the ineffectiveness, drag and more importantly the weight, penalty of the FN64 installation, it was a reasonable decision to delete the turret and gunner and substitute an effective piece of kit (H2S) in its place. When the existence of Strage Musik became known the Peston Green installation (1 x 0.5 Browning) was introduced as a counter measure, but that wasn't until much later in 44 and wasn't a universal fit by any means.
@@concise707 - Schrage Muzik goes ack to WW1, incl. British designs. Schrage Muzik isn't magic; the attack profile is exactly the same as for an aircraft without it (I assume in 90% of cases). It's not reasonable to say every RAF type attacked with Schrage Muzik didn't come back, besides which, that's prime intel for MI9. Sticking a gun thru' the hole in the floor intended to provide ventral defence is a poor response to the main attack vector the 'planes faced, & was rarely done in any case. To me, this sounds like one of those blackholes of Brit failure, like tank design, or the inability to put landsights on the 3.7" so that we could have our own '88'. FN64 looks & sounds like a great piece of engineering, even if in fact it didn't perform, but to then simply abandon the endeavour I just don't understand. (& comparing the vent turret's aerodynamic properties to the - near-useless - mid-upper, is a no-contest).
@@gitfoad8032 the Lancaster, or rather Manchester, which had the dustbin type, was designed as a medium day bomber. As originally designed it didn't have a top turret. Ditto the Halifax, which didn't initially have a top turret in service.
My understanding is that the B-17 had a ball turret whereby the operator had to sit inside the ball turret. If this is true, then why did the American Air Force not implement the type of firing mechanism as on the Lancasters? In B-17s if some part of the aircraft was damaged the ball turret operator could be trapped and unable to exit except on the ground. If the landing gear was damaged the ball turret operator was in danger if the aircraft had to do a belly landing.
They did, but the American version by Bendix was if anything even more useless than this one. Some early B-17Es sent to the Pacific had them but were later removed and the hole plated over. It was replaced by the more familiar Sperry ball turret on later E models and that turret became standard on all later B-17s.
This is insane! 48 years old and this is the first time I'm hearing about a ventral turret! I had no idea and always thought that this was a massive oversight/weakness of the Lancaster!
Every day really is a school day!
it was really used... and yes and no, because spotting a something below you at night is probably extremely hard :/
The FN 64 was not fitted to all Lancasters. The periscope Sighting system proving not very good for night operations. Most Lancaster were not fitted with the FN.64
@@ukaircraftexplored6556 Ah ok, that explains it.
@@HRHtheDude Bomber Command started opening up the hole where this turret went and jury rigged a .50 cal in the hole from October 1943 onwards. Most aircraft got a gun mount or an H2S fitted in the hole. The H2S system had a short range PPI display attached to it which was located in wireless operators station and the system called Fishpond, allowed the W/Op to check if any other aircraft were below the bomber and if anything was approaching that looked like a night fighter. Fishpond installation started in October 1943. The big issue for both, were if their was a gunner manning the underside gun, he couldn't see jack shit most of the time so it wasn't manned!! Fishpond only worked if H2S was working, which failed quite a lot of the time!! To make things even worse it was later found that one mode of H2S operation stopped Fishpond from working, which unfortunately was the 10 mile range mode used in the bombing run.
Now that is totally new to me. I'm over here in the USA and have read extensively about the Allied bomber campaign in WW2 and never heard this turret mentioned. Now I known, thank you. As to why it seems to not have been used much, I can only mention the experience with a similar turret on the early versions of the B-17 between the original bathtub Gunner's station and the Ball turret we are all familiar with. From what I have read using this turret would give the gunner a nasty case of vertigo and nausea. Not to mention it was very hard to acquire the target. Thank you for this video.
The FN64 Turret was mainly fitted to Canadian Air Force Lancaster B Mk.II aircraft fitted with the Bristol Hercules engine. The turret was not very successful, being used at night. The periscopic sight offered the gunner very little clarity. Thanks for watching
New to me too and im 56 from the uk north of Lancaster.
As a kid at school i used to draw Lancasters with bottom turrets and got told off by the posh kid saying thats on b17s
Ha i was right lol
@@somethingelse4878 That lack of a belly ball turret was the price the magnificent Lancaster paid to give it twice the bomb capacity of the b17.
@@Anglo_Saxon1, not to forget that the Lancaster design also gave up almost ALL armor and "defended" itself with .303 caliber machine guns which had only 20% of the kinetic energy of the .50 caliber M-2. There is a reason that RAF Bomber Command casualty rates exceeded those of ALL other British Services.
@@TheJKCrawford he early spitfire and Hurricanes also had the rifle calibre 303 'Pop gun' rounds! eventually those fighters and others such as the typhoon and tempest ended up with 20ml calibre Hispano cannon. One variant of a spitfire wing even ended up with 20 ml Cannon And 50 cal Machine gun...The best of both worlds!!
Very interesting video - thank you for showing us! Interesting to see a Mk11 Lanc. I believe the ventral turret was only fitted to relatively few aircraft and was removed early on in the war. My father's logbook shows that he flew 19 Sorties in Mks 1, 11 and 111 Lancs with 61 Sqn from February to May 1943. At the time he flew them, the Mk1 Lanc was fitted with R-R Merlin XX engines, the Mk11 with Bristol Hercules VI and the Mk111 with the Merlin XXVIII. My father said the Lanc was a wonderful aircraft to fly...
Thanks for sharing
The Mk111 was fitted with the Packard Merlin but apart from that was identical to the MK 1.
Love this stuff. I'm a bloke.
Very interesting. It's vital that we document as much detail about the Lanc and other aircraft as possible for future generations and our heritage.
We will Remember Them.
Very well said. Thanks for watching!
Just randomly stumbled upon your channel and I can't express how excited I am.
I'm from Canada and my Grandfather was a Captian of both the Halifax and Lancaster. When I was a kid I was fascinated with his service during the war, and he gave me his wings off his uniform. He passed away before I was old enough to fully understand his stories and be able to ask him more questions. The info you are providing on this channel will help me understand the technical aspect of his service.
Thanks for your feedback and for watching
The Lancaster has always been one of my favourite bombers, I’ve been lucky enough to see it fly several times out of Hamilton Ontario but I never knew it had a bottom turret....you learn a new thing ever day! Thank you!
Thanks for watching
Was the FN.64 turret ever used in the Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle? While reading books about the 1st Canadian Parachute Brigade it was mentioned how they were dropped into Normandy through a ventral hole in the floor of Albemarle transport aircraft. Further research finds mention of a ventral turret being mounted initially in Albemarles when they were considered for use as bombers. The Albemarle would be a fitting subject for a video by you as the aircraft was involved in just about every major airborne operation from Normandy on. Thank you for your great work!
Thanks, Derek, I don't think the Albemarle was ever fitted with the FN.64 turret. I have looked into this and find only the first 32 Albemarle aircraft produced, were built as bombers (although they were never used as bombers) and fitted with the Boulton-Paul Dorsal 4 gun turret and a 2 gun ventral turret. As you rightly say, the Albemarle performed many duties including glider tug and dropping troops on special operations, etc. Yes, it would be interesting to create a video on the Albemarle, I'll look into it. Thanks for watching
Very well presented with excellent graphics. I'd never seen a video of this turret before and have always wondered why they weren't employed on all the bombers. Thanks a lot.
You are welcome, Thanks
There is something new I learn every day and this it for today. I never knew there was a lower gun turret on the Lancaster. Now I am off to find more details. Thanks Bryan.
You're welcome and thanks for watching
Marvellous to get some proper detailed info, about something that I’d heard about and got an image of.....well done for collating all that info and presenting it in a no nonsense and engaging way! 👍🏻👍🏻
Glad you enjoyed it Richard, and thankyou for your kind feedback - much appreciated
Excellent and highly detailed explanation of this little known turret. 👍
You are very welcome! I have much more in the pipeline!
I don’t think there’s anything online else like these videos that I’ve seen. Excellent.
Thanks and please keep watching. I have many more videos coming!
Thank you. Good info in both the main commentary and various audience comments.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Me being from across the pond, I never knew how the gun pods on a Lancaster worked. I believe it's a better idea than those death trap ball turrets on a B17. Thanks for showing this.
It probably wasn't better, the guns are borderline useless and the ball turret operator was better protected. He wasn't completely surrounded by armour but certainly from some angles and with the placement of the guns, Lancasters had very little armour in the entire plane so all that turret operator had was the aluminium structure of the plane with the guns providing some protection from some angles.
The B17 ball turret caused considerable drag. The smaller turrets like this on the Lancaster and similar remote control turrets on the B29 caused less drag so presumably more could be fitted.
Yeah that ball turet would have sucked and deafening
Yes, the FN64 Turret was mainly fitted to Canadian Air Force Lancaster B Mk.II aircraft fitted with the Bristol Hercules engine. The turret was not very successful, being used at night. The periscopic sight offered the gunner very little clarity. Thanks for watching
The ball turret was pretty much the safest turret to be in on the B-17 - much lower loss rate than tail or waist positions.
Another interesting Video Bryan. I wonder why the turret was so little used. With lots of attacks by the ME110 from below with its upward firing guns, even if the two .303 were not up to shooting the night fighter down , it would have provided a slim chance of the gunner seeing the night fighter. it would have been the only eyes looking down.
Your question is a good one. Typically, these turrets were not very effective. The American B-25 and other bombers had similar turrets, which were quickly discarded. There were several issues including a narrow field of view which made target acquisition difficult. Per Wikipedia; "The ventral (underside) FN-64 turret quickly proved to be dead weight, being both difficult to sight because it relied on a periscope which limited the gunner's view to a 20-degree arc, and too slow to keep a target within its sights. Aside from early B Is and the prototype B IIs, the FN-64 was almost never used."
@@PanzerDave Interesting, thanks
The FN.64 Gun Turret was not very effective, the Air Gunner having a narrow field of view of 20 degrees and trying to look through a scope at night, it would be doubtful if the gunner could ever lock onto, let alone spot an enemy night fighter. He would have had to primarily rely on other crew members to spot an incoming enemy - if they were lucky. The gunner could fire off the guns as a small deterrent to known approaching enemy attacks under the Lancaster, especially once German fighters were fitted with the deadly Schrage Musik gun system. As I understand, the German gunner would aim at the fuel tanks. The FN.64 was used in some B.Mk.Is and the Bristol Hercules powered B Mk.II operated in the main by Canadian crews. But was generally thought to be of little or no use in operations. Thank you for watching and have a great weekend.
@@ukaircraftexplored6556 In addition to the limited view angle, I'd suggest that light losses in the periscope would have had a serious impact on night ops.EDIT: I noticed a post regarding radar warning receivers (or suchlike), Fishpond was probably what was being mentioned and this was trashed quite early on due to German tech allowing nightfighters to use it to zero in on Lancasters.
Wasn't gun laying radar (rear turret) and infa red camera detection fitted early on to the front and rear turrets to make this lower turret redundant? Any fighter in the blind underside spot these turrets covered would have been seen before an enemy fighter could get to the underside. Hence the two circular 'eyes' seen in the front of the Lancaster bomb aimer blister. Apparently the blister camera was so secret it was locked securely away from the aeroplane after each sortie.
that was one of the most informative videos I have ever seen on RUclips. So very interesting and comprehensive. I did not know all of that prior to this video.
Thank you
Wow, thank you, Bruce! I'm so glad you found it interesting and informative.
Excellent stuff, a brilliant technical description. I liked that you had all the Air Ministry references alongside the excellent illustrations.
Thanks, I'm so please your found it interesting. They are hard work to put together, but worthwhile as they illustrate the true design and function of each item of equipment. Cheers!
Some of the Canadian squadrons based in North Yorkshire actually managed to get hold of ball turrets from B17s, and did DIY conversions on Lancasters, although this was toward the end of the war. They did claim to have had some success with them, however, though there is little empirical evidence to be found on this. Thanks for the well-researched article, Bryan, it was most interesting. I look forward to the next one!
You are very welcome and thanks for watching
Hi. Are you sure? I'd be interested to know the evidence. The Sperry ball turret on Lancasters? I've been researching Bomber Command ventral defence for years, and have never come across this, and I can't see how it would be physically or mechanically possible. The Sperry ball and its associated mechanisms and power supply would have been in so many ways virtually impossible to fit into the Lancaster. However, the Canadians and French of 4 and 6 Group in Yorkshire, (and incidentally a few Coastal Command squadrons) did use on their Halifaxes the "Preston Green" mounting with a single manually operated Browning 0.5", which superficially looked very similar to the Sperry ball, and has often been misquoted as such. If you have any links / info on Lancs and ball turrets I'd be very keen to see them. timwing4@gmail.com It's a fascinating subject, especially the argument between H2S and the need for (or viability of) lower hemisphere defence. Cheers.Tim.
I think I'm one of the "Didn't know about that" brigade. Thanks very much.
Thanks for watching! Non de Plume
Very good. Reminded me of watching Open University lectures on BBC2.
Glad you found it interesting
7:37 Now this photo is interesting! A photo not only shows an FN 64 on a Lancaster, but the Lancaster is the Canadian Avro (Victory Aircraft) prototype MK 10 KB700 named 'The Ruhr Express'. Very few Lancs received an FN64, though the RAF Museum Hendon's 'S for Sugar' early Lancaster has the turret mount.
Thanks for watching
Very concise, thank you. The gunner appears to be much more comfortable than the American version.
Glad you found it interesting
Enjoyable, fascinating, clear presentation .
Glad you enjoyed it!
Wonderfully detailed and easily understood description. Thaanks.
Glad it was helpful!
Excellent video - many thanks!
You are welcome!
Perhaps the introduction of 'Monica' played a part in detection from below as well, enabling the Pilot to take evasive action instead, thereby negating the need for the turret?
The turret was not very successful, being used at night. The periscopic sight offered the gunner very little clarity. Yes, the use of Monica Mk.IV, tail warning radar was used, but many false detections were made, especially as the war moved on. Crews would often opt to turn it off, as the system could not distinguish a friendly aircraft from an enemy aircraft. and with more allied aircraft being in the bomber stream more accidents occurred as crews took dangerous evasive actions to ovoid what was often just another friendly bomber in the stream - causing some unnecessary collisions. I hope the video was of interest and thanks for watching
Thank you so much. There has been little information on this fascinating piece of equipment.
Glad it was helpful!
I’m absolutely amazed by this. Neither my father (pilot) nor my uncle (tail gunner) ever mentioned that this gun position even existed and that’s despite both of them managing to survive the war, almost intact. Not that they had a great deal of choice about going on ops as the threat of having “LMF” placed on their records was enough - always thought that it was a pretty disgusting threat and wondered at the number of crews that died because one or more were too mentally exhausted to remain fully engaged with their situation?
Both of them, as well as dads other brother (army/pongo) all had terrible PTSD when they finally finished and apparently dad spotted it in me after many years as a bootneck - he tried to help, but………
Over 57000 aircrew died in bombers in WW2. I have no concept of the sheer guts of the bomber crews who faced death night
after night, doing their best to defeat the most awful regime in the whole history of humanity. And what thanks did they get-----F**k all, that's what!
My father was young volunteer when he joined up at the outset of the war. He flew Blenhiems in France and was shot down twice once in the English Channel.
He went on to fly three full tours as a rear gunner over Germany ans survived.
His mother persuaded him to stop operational flying because he was still young.
An ungrateful RAF and Nation branded him LMF. Look back I can now see the PTSD that haunted him as well as effecting myself and syblings upbringing.
An ungratful nation.
OARMAARM
@@johnday6392 I’m grateful/pleasantly surprised that you are aware of the problems (no, I’m not trying to be sarcastic either). Thank you for your understanding and compassion. Might I recommend a book about Bomber Command, with specific reference to the disgusting “LMF” moniker - “Lack of Moral Fibre”?.
My memory isn’t what it used to be so I might need to return with the correct title - too many TBI’s, being too close, too often to things that go bang, but Stage IV aggressive, terminal cancer tends to outdo them all.).
As one of the later comments mentions that the entirety of Bomber Command were all volunteers, but more specifically they only signed up “for hostilities only”, which is how my father ended up in India, post WW2, overseeing the India/Pakistan independence screwups. During the post WW2 period far too many of the Hindus and Muslims died during this time, with sod all to show for it, unless generations of distrust and enmity count? It led to the RAF crews (hostilities only) that went on strike aka a mutiny.
Fortunately my father wasn’t one of those gaoled in the Tower of London whilst awaiting execution (yes, they had that threat!) and the final result was that all sentences were commuted due to the status of being “volunteers for hostilities only”. He finally made it home to Yorkshire in early 1947, where he restarted his romance with my mother, finally being married in December 1947.
Sorry to be a bore about family life but it seemed appropriate. Dad tried, on a number of occasions, to explain that being in command was a whole extra weight on your shoulders, but being young and dumb (18-yo in 1978) he didn’t protest too much when he saw where I was headed - a 2Lt in 3Bde, Royal Marine Commando (J-company), and fortunately/sadly** he never saw what the Corps would experience. That being said he definitely spotted my increasing “shell shock” or PTSD as it’s now called especially after a couple of stints in the Shaky Boats (3yrs apiece), but just as he could never explain how he felt about the deaths/injuries of his crew, so the same happened each time he knew we had been deployed.
**tbh I’m unsure how he would have reacted to my career from 1978-2008, the experiences nor the supersonically installed internal “bling” fitted internally, thanks to me being too close to one more IED! It had to happen, and the airport security folk are understanding once they’ve seen some of the scars and waved a wand over them. Looking back it seems odd that most English people will help me stand from my wheelchair, yet most Arab type nations won’t! Perhaps I have BO ?
@@tommy4244 I’m really sorry Tommy but this particular old (over 60-yo) Royal Marine Commando, Captain, doesn’t always understand acronyms! Yes, I appreciate that the military are bloody awful in using acronyms any/everywhere they can, but the Gucci drugs they give me tend to affect concentration too much. Thanks for responding anyway, all the best.
Thought I knew about Lancs., but this is first I have heard of a lower gun turret, thank you, well presented.
You are very welcome and thank you for finding my channel!
Impressive. Most impressive. Thank you. After examining U.S. Bomber aircraft, always thought it was the often use of RAF Bombers at night that lead to the lack of urgency for a ventral gun turrent.
The FN64 Turret was mainly fitted to Canadian Air Force Lancaster B Mk.II aircraft fitted with the Bristol Hercules engine. The turret was not very successful, being used at night. The periscopic sight offered the gunner very little clarity. Thanks for watching
@@ukaircraftexplored6556 Thanks for the reply. That makes sense. Did the RAF try any other options, even on other Bombers?
I spy an Empire fan, we can smell our own!
@@HRHtheDude 😉🤫
This is absolutely fantastic. I really never knew the Lancaster had this. Besides the British, the Americand had tried this sort of gunner placement with the B-25 initally. It was a retractable turret placed near the rear underbelly of tail end. Whete the waist gunners were.
It was pretty rare. Lancasters also flew mostly at night (which is why the bellies are painted black).
Thanks for watching
Yes, the FN64 Turret was mainly fitted to Canadian Air Force Lancaster B Mk.II aircraft fitted with the Bristol Hercules engine. The turret was not very successful, being used at night. The periscopic sight offered the gunner very little clarity. Thanks for watching
Good video, well documented & explained. This gives me even more respect for the technology and engineering of this period - and its complexity. This is why large bombers needed flight engineers to monitor & manage the systems - to do the work now done by computerized systems. Our forbears were awesomely able people.
Thanks again for your feedback.
I knew the H2S radar used lower turret mounting hardware but I always thought it was never introduced to service. Interesting video!
Glad to help and thanks for watching!
My father flew his 30 mission tour-of-duty in a Lancaster III in 170 Squadron in 1944/45 . Before that, he flew 6 missions with 625 Squadron. However, this is the first time I have heard of a Mid Lower Gun Turret. In recognition of the risk of attack from below, I am told that my father flew inverted for extended periods of time, because it wasn't part of training and it wasn't expected.
Thanks for sharing
Well Done! Very interesting and detailed!
Thank you! Cheers!
Amazing detail…
Thank you! Cheers!
Never knew this. Well done mate.
Thanks for watching!
Very interesting video. I was unaware that Lancaster was fitted with a turret on the underside of the fuselage.
Yes, the FN64 Turret was mainly fitted to Canadian Air Force Lancaster B Mk.II aircraft fitted with the Bristol Hercules engine. The turret was not very successful, being used at night. The periscopic sight offered the gunner very little clarity. Thanks for watching
When I was a kid I built a really cool model Lancaster. That model never had a lower gun turret. I too live in the U.S., perhaps this model was for the States market only. Not that far from me in Canada there is a flying Lancaster. I forget the city, but I was up there once as a kid
Thanks for watching
Excellent. Thank you
You are welcome!
Great video! 👍
Thanks for the visit
Interesting. This the first time ever that I have seen a lower turret on a Lancaster.
The FN64 Turret was fitted in the main to Canadian Lancaster B Mk.II aircraft fitted with the Bristol Hercules engine. The turret was not very successful, being used at night. The periscopic sight offered the gunner very little clarity. Thanks for watching
Great input, I first saw this many years ago on a 1/72 Revell Lancaster kit, possibly the Dambuster. It was way back, possibly early 1960's when the bouncing bomb came off the secret list. Never fitted for the dams raid I presume. At last, thanks to the internet and a brilliant clear and concise explanation who needs mainstream TV anymore?
The FN64 Turret was mainly fitted to Canadian Air Force Lancaster B Mk.II aircraft fitted with the Bristol Hercules engine. The turret was not very successful, being used at night. The periscopic sight offered the gunner very little clarity. Thanks for watching and your feedback Ken!
@@ukaircraftexplored6556 Thanks for your reply. I can see why the B29 and later went for remote radar control. Keep up the good work.
The Revell Dambuster kit did indeed have that turret. If I remember correctly. Only one Lancaster in that raid had the turret fitted. That was T-Tommy that went to the Sorpe dam.
Revell produced a Lancaster with this turret in the 1960s. I had the kit and thought it was a mistake as no other model Lancaster had it.
That early Revell kit was very basic. Thanks for watching
Wonderful video. May I share some info with you? The Lancaster pictured, I recognise that image. I notice JI prefix and "O" on the nose. I also notice Hercules engines not Merlins. JI is 514 Squadron RAF. I Co Authored the 514 Squadron unit histories. I think that is LL734 JI-O, BUT, I would need to check and confirm that. It replaced my Grandfathers crews aircraft after they were kia June 15/16. 1944. (The original JI-O was DS816) I'm pretty sure your gunners name is an Aussie nicknamed "Dauntless" Denahey! I can indeed do further research and confirm this all easy enough if your interested. We/I have a pic of him if I'm right. 514 Squadron received 2 MK-IIs with ventral turrets btw. Also, it was indeed, mostly, MK-II's that ran them. 514, 115, 75 NZ Sqdns of 3 group. :-)
Thanks for your comment. I obtained the photograph from wiki commons. for the video. The description, ties up with what you have written, as follows - Lancaster B Mark II, LL734;JI - O of No. 514 Squadron RAF based at Waterbeach, Cambridgeshire, returning from a daylight attack on the flying-bomb launch site at Les Catelliers in northern France ("Noball" operation).
I hope that helps and thankyou so much for watching
@@ukaircraftexplored6556 , not bad for off the top of my head hay! We have amassed a lot of data on 514 Squadron, a full searchable database of every crew and every serviceman. We share info with families freely. I run the 514 Squadron RAF page on facebook with my 3 colleagues. :-)
Great description. One question I have is around the photo you’ve sourced with the 3/4 front view and what appears to be radial engines; not Merlins. I wasn’t aware of this variant.
It was the Avro Lancaster B Mk.II variant, fitted with the Bristol Hercules engine. Thanks for watching
Hi i did enjoy your post and it was well presented and informative
Regards
Thanks, I'm glad it was helpful!
WUT ? Lol, I had never heard of this. And when I see the image at (0:22) those aren't Merlins. WUT?? So I started googling and reading up some more about this. Lancaster II. Like WUT??? There is always so much more to learn, So much information easily available these days. So many surprises. Thanks for the video. : )
The FN64 Turret was fitted in the main to Canadian Lancaster B Mk.II aircraft fitted with the Bristol Hercules engine. The turret was not very successful, being used at night. The periscopic sight offered the gunner very little clarity. Thanks for watching
It's interesting how much simpler the sighting system for the British bomber turrets than the US heavy bombers, which used had range and lead calculation. I also find it interesting that by and large the British with happy with .303 calibre defensive guns (I know the shakletons got 20ms post war, and there was a Lancaster tail turret variation with 2x .50s, the Rose Turret?) I wonder to what extent the choice of simpler sights and rifle calibre MGs was due to shorter engagement ranges at night.
Yes, the shorter time to spot a target at night, could have been a factor. The FN64 Turret gave very poor chances of spotting an enemy aircraft at night.
Thanks for this- I've found very little information about the Lower Gun Turret. It would appear that this was the location for the rear spotlight fitted to the Type 464 (Provisioning) Lancasters used on the Dams raid, and not the aft end of the bomb bay as most authors of books on that operation would have it. This makes sense- a spotlight at the aft of the bomb bay would have been difficult to adjust, as was necessary when the dropping height was altered from 150 to 60 feet, and was a ready-made location for installation of the spotlight.
Thanks for sharing and watching
Apparently, the Type 464 originally had a Vickers K gun mounted in this position on a simple flexible mount but this was later removed. Probably due to the spotlight being fitted.
Thanks for sharing that Bryan. I was always curious what, with some many Lancs shot down from below by German fighters using upward slanting cannons, this wasn't used more widely. So far I've only heard of it being used by RCAF operated MkII Lancs fitted with Bristol engines such as the one in your picture. I think the need for H2S trumped the ventral turret and Lanc pilots learnt to gently weave so the rear gunner could check below.
The problem facing usage of the FN.64, was that the gunner's vision at night through the periscope system made spotting an enemy aircraft very difficult, if not impossible. Thanks for watching
@@ukaircraftexplored6556 It is my understanding that the RAF were totally unaware of the upward firing German night fighters who were deadly. I have also read that our own night fighters were disbelieved when they reported they could sit below our bombers , on the way home, and were not seen. I think there was a lot of complacency by the powers that be , who seemed to focus on bomb load and accepted losses with a shrug. I have also read that our bombers cruised at economical cruising speed to maximise bomb load, but that flying a little faster would have made it that much harder for the overweight night fighters to intercept them. Creeping up from below certainly put the night fighter in an equally dangerous vulnerable position.
Enjoyed the video and the technical detail.
@@californiadreamin8423 Freeman Dyson suggested removing all defensive armament to increase speed but it was felt that it would reduce crew morale to the point of having a mutiny. Some Free French basically just used a tail turret.
@@wbertie2604 Thanks for your comment. I thought the turret was let down by its short sighted 😈 optics , and a much simpler “window” could have been devised.
@@californiadreamin8423 the FN. 64? No, it had to use mirrors to achieve the low drag profile. Bristol had created a nose turret years before that was in many ways like the US ball turret, but no one thought to hang it underneath.
Great video & info, didn't know the Lanc had a mid-lower gun turret how did I miss that, many thanks for posting ....
You are welcome.
The Lanc from 0:12 has the Hercules radial engines. A relatively rare version.
The FN64 Turret was fitted in the main to Canadian Lancaster B Mk.II aircraft fitted with the Bristol Hercules engine. Thanks for watching
Is there any 'official' documentation of the versatility of the said ventral turret?
Given the date of introduction of the Lancaster and the expanding honed proficiency of the Luftwaffe's night fighter force in terms of skills, technology (radar, Schräge Musik and GCI) and tactics, was the phasing out of the ventral turret somewhat premature?
Regards
Wow i grew up just after the war and never knew the Lancaster had an under belly gun turret i have been up close and personel with G for George in the Australian war memorial and never saw one on her
No surviving Lancaster have the FN.64 Gun Turret fitted. Thanks so much for watching
If I interpret fig 3 correctly, loss of the port inner engine cuts all hydraulic power to rear, mid upper and mid lower turrets. That's quite a single point of failure. Also, like it, subbed
The Hydraulic systems for each gun turret was similar. The Fig 3 Diagram you mention, was a A.M. diagram that illustrated the relevant equipment used for each turret system marked in bold text. To clarify, each turret was powered by a different hydraulic pump, mounted on each engine as follows. The Front Turret - Starboard Inner. The Mid Upper - Starboard Outer. The Mid Lower (if fitted) - Port Inner and the Rear Turret - Port Outer. Thanks for watching.
I only heard about this a couple of years ago. So interesting. Did Halifaxes and Stirlings have them too.?
Yes, the FN.64 Gun Turret was also fitted to some Short Stirling and Vickers Warwick aircraft. So please you found this interesting.
Would like to hear more about which marks and dates it was included and withdrawn and reasons for this as Lancs suffered appalling losses from below on night missions.
Thanks for watching
How good was the periscope sight being used at night time? Unless they had night vision scope I imagine not much good. Am I right? Still a very interesting video. Thanks and cheers. 🍻
The periscope sight was not very useful for night operations
Very interesting video. It's a very different design from the Sperry.
Thanks for watching!
Fantastic Thank You So Much
You are very welcome. Thanks for watching
Excellent video!
Thank you very much!
AFAIK Operational Research recommended getting rid of the upper turret too. They estimated that the resultant increase in speed of the Lanc would have saved more aircraft than the turret could. The crews disagreed and the idea was canned. But I'm no expert. I think it was mentioned in the autobiography of Freeman Dyson who worked for OR.
Thanks for sharing
Dyson also suggested removing all the turrets. The Free French often removed the mid upper.
Very interesting !
Great, I'm pleased you enjoyed watching!
well done
Thank you Boris!
I would be intrested in seeing a video on the rarely equipped Village Inn systems used on the tail gunner position.
I'll have to look into that! Thanks for watching
Fascinating because I never knew that the Lanc had a lower turret. When were they introduced, how many Lancs were fitted with them, Why were they not standard, etc?
The FN64 Turret was fitted in the main to Canadian Lancaster B Mk.II aircraft fitted with the Bristol Hercules engine. The Turret was not fitted as standard as it was not very successful, being used at night. The periscopic sight offered the gunner very little clarity. Thanks for watching Nigel!
@@ukaircraftexplored6556 some apparently got fitted after the move to daylight bombing later in the war to a few more planes, ones that didn't have H2S, but then they stopped again as relatively few fighters were being encountered by late 1944. They did sort of make an effort to fit 50s to Lancasters, finally, although they abandoned the attempt to provide a 50 nose turret on the Lancaster per se, only the Lincoln.
A few of the Lancs serving with 195 Squadron (Mk 1 and Mk 3 aircraft were operated) had mid-under gun positions fitted. On 14th March '45 S/L W.L. Farquharson , DFC who was CO of "A" Flight was leading an op when his aircraft was hit by flak on the bomb run seriously wounding his mid-under gunner. In an effort to save the man's life Farquharson opted to land at Brussels on the return to get urgent medical attention although sadly to no avail with the mid-under gunner subsequently dying.
Thanks for sharing
It is a case of getting it right (Ie the need for a ventral turret) and then deleting it, just before it became really needed against night fighters , particularly those with schragemusik.... I wonder if they tried different gunsights to get a wider field of view? Imagine a late war FN64 with radar (village I think it was called) particularly if used with Hispano cannon.
Great video
Glad you enjoyed it
I always thought that turret was commanded by the upper turret gunner, or was even shared with the tail gunner through some fire control system. But I assume the sophistication found in the B-29 or A-26 Invader of later turret evolutions.
Each Turret had its own Hydraulic power supply and gunner. Thanks Steve
Brian can find anything on the Preston Green lower gun turret fitted to some RCAF Halifax MKIII’s? It had a single trainable .50 cal. Machine gun with a box of 500 rounds.
I currently don't have any information on the Preston Green lower gun turret. Thanks for watching
Never realised before but the Browning's must have come in a right hand and left hand model?
I guess the Allies weren't short of Brass if the bullet cases were just chucked overboard?
The mounting frame was handed. The Browning guns could be mounted on either side of the turret. Thanks for watching - much appreciated Mark
@@ukaircraftexplored6556 Having subsequently done a little research I have discovered the Browning could have it's feed side easily changed (in a couple on minutes by a competent Armourer).
I now know more about the Browning than I will ever need .
Didn't the Blenheim B.IV's chin-turret use a similar arrangement?
The Blenheim IV was fitted with the FN 54A Chin Turret. I may cover this in a future video. Thanks for watching!
Huh...and I thought I knew just about everything about the beloved Lanc. I never heard of this before. WOW. I guess it just wasn't used often because it got pushed aside for the radar set, which was vital for bombing success.
The FN64 Turret was fitted in the main to Canadian Lancaster B Mk.II aircraft fitted with the Bristol Hercules engine. The turret was not very successful, being used at night. The periscopic sight offered the gunner very little clarity. Thanks for watching
I note that the example aircraft pictured is one of the (few??) radial equipped Lancasters. Just wondering whether this one was an initial test frame, or...???
Thanks for your comment. I obtained the photograph from wiki commons. for the video. The description is as follows - Lancaster B Mark II, LL734;JI - O of No. 514 Squadron RAF based at Waterbeach, Cambridgeshire, returning from a daylight attack on the flying-bomb launch site at Les Catelliers in northern France ("Noball"
Id heard they were rarely installed but had never before seen pics, excellent details. A radial version too! 👍🏻
Thanks! 👍
Interesting. Do any examples exist today in museums?
Through my years of research, I have never found an example. If anyone knows of one, please let me know. Thanks for watching.
We are looking to restore this one as soon as we get chance
What about the view through the periscope? How much angle of view in vertical and horizontal directions?
The Air Ministry Diagrams I have recreated for the video are all that is available. I have no further information regarding prism angles. I hope it was still of interest to you.
What's the spirit container? Is that where you keep your drink?
Good question. The type of spirit isn't mentioned in my AP manual. If I find out, I'll let you know. The Lancaster's Forward, Mid Upper and Rear turrets were not fitted with a Spirit Tank. So it had to be something related to the Ki-Gass pump installation fitted in the FN.64 Turret. Thanks for watching.
I wonder if it is a simple form of anti-icing?
Very interesting, I wonder how big was his field of view to acquire a target. Unlike other gunners who can turn their head to scan the sky around them, perhaps other crew members had to give him assistance to target a vector.
The field of view through the periscopic sight would have been very poor, made worse during night operations. Thanks for watching Reg!
Awesome video, thank you🤣
Thank you too!
I thought I knew a lot about the Lancaster in all its iterations, but how wrong was I, I had never heard of a version/Mk that had a mid lower turret until a few minutes ago, however it makes perfect sense when you stop and think about it, the Lancaster was defenceless from attacks made from that position, especially to the later night-fighters that the Luftwaffe employed that benefited from radar, the ME-262b-a1 and the ME-110 are the two most prominent in my mind, so I have to ask why was this turret not adopted as standard on all new-builds and as a service engineered modification (S.E.M) (or its equivalent during WWII), but I might be ahead of myself, you might be just about to tell us in the last few minutes of the video. Before I press play again I would like to mention why I thought I knew a lot about the Lancaster, my great grandfather, on my dads side, was in the R.F.C and R.A.F, my grandfather on my mums side, was an apprentice fitter with
A.V Roe (I have his apprenticeship reference books, all 3 volumes) and during the war was in the R.A.F (I have no idea why he wasn’t in a reserved occupation, I can only think that he had left AVRO) and was part of the team that brought the 617 Sqn Aircraft into service and was involved with the modifications/maintenance to the ‘Dambusters’ bomb bay’s, my father was an Armourer in the 50s-60s and was employed on the best A.V Roe aircraft ever designed and built, the Vulcan, the Lancaster was a very very close second, then I was a ‘rigger’ that wanted Vulcans after finishing my trade training in early 1980, but alas it wasn’t to be, I got Jet Provosts at Cranwell, and then lastly (for now) my son was a (no laughing) a ‘Rock’, but at least he made things fly, Rapier missiles, but I digress, I was brought up hearing about the R.A.F and soaked up aircraft history from books, tv 📺 and most importantly family, and yet you have completely got me on this gem of knowledge, and I sincerely appreciate you sharing it with us all, a very very interesting, informative and eye👁 opening episode, thanks very very much. 😀👍🇬🇧🏴🇺🇦
P.S Subscribed, I look forward to watching more of you material. Thanks again.
Thank you very much for sharing. Very interesting. Also thank you for subscribing, I have many videos in production, so watch this space!
Great video. I wonder, what are those radial engines doing on a Lanc? Was this a real Lanc version?
MkII with Bristol Hercules air cooled radials
Yes, The Lancaster B Mk.II was fitted with the Bristol Hercules VI or XVI
The turrets were only used on the Bristol Hercules mk 2, the engines weren't as powerful as the merlins so the ceiling was lower, and carry less bombs, so they put that in for self defence. When mk2 was withdrawn so was the lower turrets.
The FN.64 was also fitted to some early Lancaster Mk.I aircraft, and once daylight operations started again in June 1944, some Polish Squadron Lancasters were fitted with the FN.64 instead of H2S. Thanks for watching.
Very complex, very clever though.
Thanks for watching
Great stuff. I knew of the rare lower turret existence but found little information on it until this. Is there any information on the single .50 fitted to fire downwards on some RCAF Lancasters? Or was it an ad hoc fitting? That would be another interesting video if the information is available on its use or effectiveness
There was the Preston Green Mk. II which was used in a few Lancasters which I read could be fitted to Lancasters, but I've never seen a photo of it. I've also read of a Vickers K bring used, again no photos. Plus the RCAF mounts and some Aussies using a 20mm cannon.
I will be producing a video covering the Vickers K Gun later. Thanks for watching
The Canadians of 4 and 6 Group in Yorkshire liked the idea of a ventral gun, mainly using the "Preston Green" ventral gun position but it was only for the Halifax. It mounted a single rear facing manually operated .5" Browning on a limited traverse and depression mounting. It was in effect a non rotating bowl with (often painted out) perspex panels with a significant rear facing area cut out to facilitate gun movement. The Canadians liked them but inevitably they were negated by H2S.
Really, really interesting. I didn't realize that the gunner didn't have direct vision of the target. That must have made it much harder to be accurate.
My dad trained as a tail gunner on Lancs just as the war ended. I'm glad for both of us that the war ended before he got posted to go operational.
😄😁
my dad trained but the war ended, unfortunately this left him feeling he had not been able to ‘do his bit’ which threw him into a poor and angry state for the rest of his life, only being diagnosed in the mid 70s, not a happy man and a father you where aware off
Thanks for sharing
Thankyou👍
Thanks, you are very welcome 😊
I never knew of this gun turret.
You do now! Thanks for watching!
Vidéo intéressante ! Bravo 👍🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦
Vous êtes les bienvenus!
I find this very interesting and dont doubt that the plans were there but very few were ever fitted and in fact their unprotected underside was a well recognized weakness to the point that some German night fighters were fitted with upward pointing guns behind the pilot to take advantage of this.
Of all the existing examples around the world I am not aware of any with such a fitting. I happily stand corrected on that one.
You are correct, there is no surviving example of the Lancaster fitted with the FN.64 Gun Turret. Thanks for watching!
@@ukaircraftexplored6556 such a pity are there any examples of the turret itself anywhere that you know of?
My late and greatly missed father was an RAF armourer. He remembered being trained on the FN64. He was always very complimentary about the Frazer Nash system control sensitivity and ease of use. But he would also comment that even as an armourer (as opposed to an air gunner) it was obvious that target acquisition and tracking when using the 64 was going to be near impossible even in daylight, not only due to the lack of any peripheral vision though the gunner's periscope, but also because oddly it didn't have 360 degree traverse. Both Boulton Paul and Frazer Nash (the latter's turrets strictly speaking being manufactured by "Nash and Thompson" using the "FN" control system, and as such given "FN" identity prefixes) made great efforts to produce effective ventral turrets. The former for the Halifax in a similar design to the FN64 though powered differently, and the latter for amongst others the Wellington, Stirling and Whitley. Despite none being successful in combat, the engineering efforts that went into the challenging issues of defending bombers from ventral attack was incredible. Interestingly the US Bendix company came up with a ventral turret for the Mitchell also aimed by periscope. It too was not considered a success. So bravo to the US Sperry company for coming up with the ball turret. Now that was genius engineering!
Thank you so much for sharing Tim - very interesting! Thanks also for watching
Thanks for that. My uncle was a pilot on those in ww2 but I never realized they had that turret. Did they use those when night bombing Germany or did they prefer the extra bomb load I wonder.
The FN 64 was not fitted to all Lancasters. The periscope Sighting system proving not very good for night operations. Most Lancaster were not fitted with the FN.64
another great video,but a question about who manned this gun ,was it a permanent gunner,or manned as needed,
I believe it would probably be manned as needed. Thanks again for watching
The photos of the aircraft are strange as the engines are radial but the aircraft used RR in line engines
The photograph is of the often over looked Lancaster B Mk.II was fitted with the Bristol Hercules engine. Thanks for watching!
@@ukaircraftexplored6556 Thanks, did not know that.
Very interesting
Thanks
Interesting to see that the Lancaster has a little in common with a Morgan car! (Use of wood in framing).
Not just any old wood, but Ash.
@@stevecommons3822 same as Morgan!
Thanks for watching
Very happy to bump into this vid. Would like to know why these weren't standard fit, & in fact so rare. It's one of those quirks of history, why, when they knew they were being attacked from behind & below, they weren't fitted. It's like the same muddle over fighter tactics during Battle of Britain, translating across to Bomber Command. I read somewhere that Luftwaffe tactics were well-known in one Group (largely Canuk Group..?), but they must've been common knowledge, so why no ventral? -Even without Schräge Musik, that tactic was standard.
The FN.64 provided the gunner with very limited ability to sight an enemy aircraft at night. The chances of sighting and hitting a target was very poor through the FN.64's periscopic sight. Thanks for watching!
@@ukaircraftexplored6556 - Cheers, but this is what I'm wondering: if ventral defence was recognised to be important at design-stage, & indeed if all Lancs were manufactured with this provision (a hole in the floor), & if this were the standard vector of attack on Lancs etc., & if the gun position was ideally placed to counter this Luftwaffe tactic, & even IF it 1) couldn't 'search' well ('cos of the periscopic gunsight), 2) might've required a more dedicated gunner than my own Great Uncle, - W.Op/AG, I still don't understand why these weren't standard fit. I have the Luftreport on my Uncle's Lanc shoot-down (May-June'43), & even before Schrage Muzik, the attack profile is perfect for the Me110G4 to have been countered. *70m behind & below at the point of opening fire, with a 5minute chase to contact.
@@gitfoad8032 But the thing, 'FOAD, was that Bomber Command didn't know of the existence of Strage Musik until about 9 months after its introduction, as nearly every single Strage Musik engagement was a guaranteed 'kill'; no one came back to report being attacked in such a fashion. Other crews reporting aircraft simply exploding for no apparent reason (Strage Musik guns didnt use tracer as the attacks were pressed home at such short range and not needing deflection shooting, they didn't need it) perpetuated the myth of the Scarecrow Shell (which see). Given the ineffectiveness, drag and more importantly the weight, penalty of the FN64 installation, it was a reasonable decision to delete the turret and gunner and substitute an effective piece of kit (H2S) in its place. When the existence of Strage Musik became known the Peston Green installation (1 x 0.5 Browning) was introduced as a counter measure, but that wasn't until much later in 44 and wasn't a universal fit by any means.
@@concise707 - Schrage Muzik goes ack to WW1, incl. British designs. Schrage Muzik isn't magic; the attack profile is exactly the same as for an aircraft without it (I assume in 90% of cases). It's not reasonable to say every RAF type attacked with Schrage Muzik didn't come back, besides which, that's prime intel for MI9. Sticking a gun thru' the hole in the floor intended to provide ventral defence is a poor response to the main attack vector the 'planes faced, & was rarely done in any case. To me, this sounds like one of those blackholes of Brit failure, like tank design, or the inability to put landsights on the 3.7" so that we could have our own '88'. FN64 looks & sounds like a great piece of engineering, even if in fact it didn't perform, but to then simply abandon the endeavour I just don't understand. (& comparing the vent turret's aerodynamic properties to the - near-useless - mid-upper, is a no-contest).
@@gitfoad8032 the Lancaster, or rather Manchester, which had the dustbin type, was designed as a medium day bomber. As originally designed it didn't have a top turret. Ditto the Halifax, which didn't initially have a top turret in service.
My understanding is that the B-17 had a ball turret whereby the operator had to sit inside the ball turret. If this is true, then why did the American Air Force not implement the type of firing mechanism as on the Lancasters? In B-17s if some part of the aircraft was damaged the ball turret operator could be trapped and unable to exit except on the ground. If the landing gear was damaged the ball turret operator was in danger if the aircraft had to do a belly landing.
Thanks for sharing
@@ukaircraftexplored6556 Maybe someone else knows the answer.
They did, but the American version by Bendix was if anything even more useless than this one. Some early B-17Es sent to the Pacific had them but were later removed and the hole plated over. It was replaced by the more familiar Sperry ball turret on later E models and that turret became standard on all later B-17s.