Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: Steve.Hix@Eng.Sun.COM (Eolid enthusiast)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Guns on bombers (was Re: Dirigibles & airships)
Message-ID: <1991Jun20.015312.27909@cbnews.cb.att.com>
Date: 20 Jun 91 01:53:12 GMT
References: <1991Jun18.073814.13457@amd.com> <1991Jun19.010258.10443@cbnews.cb.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.cb.att.com (william.a.thacker)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 27
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: Steve.Hix@Eng.Sun.COM (Eolid enthusiast)

In article <1991Jun19.010258.10443@cbnews.cb.att.com> jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) writes:

>The physicist Freeman Dyson, who spent WWII as an analytical nobody in 
>the service of RAF Bomber Command, has some interesting thoughts on the 
>armament of Lancasters and presumably other bombers.  In his book
>"Disturbing the Universe," he alleges that they might have done
>better to abandon "the myth of the valiant gunner defending his mates"
>and strip off the gun turrets to save weight and drag.  

>His suggestions went nowhere back when they might have done some good,

The USAAF followed his idea in the bombing campaign against Japan.

Under Gen. LeMay, they switched from precision daylight bombing by B-29's
to low-level night attacks, tossing all but the tail guns to get better range
and speed, and losses plummeted.


--
------------
  The only drawback with morning is that it comes 
    at such an inconvenient time of day.
------------