Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!att!cbnews!msf@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov
From: msf@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov (Michael S. Fischbein)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Rearward firing weapons
Message-ID: <3292@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 20 Jan 89 05:08:08 GMT
References: <3241@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center
Lines: 25
Approved: military@att.att.com


In article <3241@cbnews.ATT.COM> howard@cos.com (Howard C. Berkowitz) writes:
>This reminds me of another story, from the WW II Luftwaffe, of German
>experiments with rearward-firing cannon on fighters.
>
>An experimental Me-109 (I think -- could have been a Fw-190) was equipped
>with a rearward-firing cannon, with the intention of luring Allied
>aircraft to get on the German "six" and then be blown away.

I remember reading of a Dakota (ie, DC-3) that was equipped with rear
firing .50 cal machine guns after Zeros had shot down too many of the
normally unarmed cargo planes flying the China-Burma-India "hump."

They were much more maneuverable than the Dakotas and would take all the
time they wanted to get on the tail of the normally helpless plane.  The
one Dakota with the machine guns shot down several Zeros and, as the
word got around to the Japanese, the losses dropped as the cargo planes
stopped being considered defenseless.

		mike

Michael Fischbein                 msf@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov
                                  ...!seismo!decuac!csmunix!icase!msf
These are my opinions and not necessarily official views of any
organization.