That sound like the same reasoning behind the original choice of wavelength for Chain Home Radar which was based IIRC on the halfwave reflection of an average bombers wingspan in the mid 1930's.
From B-24 gun position effectiveness reportAlso, how often were defensive turrets actually used in combat, especially nose and ventral turrets
|November 1943-APRIL 1944||TOTAL||DESTROYED||PROB.|
Interesting.From B-24 gun position effectiveness report
OCR may have messed things up into the new chart, should be 164but more importantly, May I ask who compiled those figures, when and from what sources?
Of course is not perfect, but things were better with the B-29 in showing what happened since the sighting stations had cameras, that led to the removal of all but the tailgun position by order of LeMay, the defensive guns were not worth the weight.Unless compiled after the war with a cross-check with enemy sources,
I suspect the ratios of encounters may be useful but strongly doubt the claimed results.
OKshould be 164
so I'm afraid I still don't believe it (especially given the technical differences between the gun positions)only miss a quarter of the time, destroy the target a full half and damage the rest to some degree
However the simple ratio of usage of ball turret : tail turret : all other positions is ~ 1 :6 :321 MAY 1944
Didn't Fishpond radiate constantly and basically became a "I AM HERE!!!" for Luftwaffe night fighters?One answer to the attack from below is radar itself. In OTL Fishpond was developed as an adjunct of H2S that gave warning of an aircraft below. In the PAM Fish pond will defently be developed earlier.
Yup, the detector the German's had success with, Flensburg, was detecting Monica's emissions. Naxos, which would detect HS2, was more effective on U-boats for warning of ASV equipped aircraft rather than in the air. It only could detect the 10cm H2S, not the latter 3cm versions and was by all accounts hard to make and fragile.Fishpond as I understand it (and I am no radar engineer) actual worked in conjunction with the normal H2S signal. In order not to drown out the distant returns with the strength of the close returns, which on H2S was basically the vertical ground return, these signals were timed out. Fishpond was a separate display that AFAIU reversed the time out so that the near vertical signal was retained and this gave a look down image that could detect an aircraft between the host bomber and the ground. IDR that Both H2S and Monica were thought to be used by German night fighters as a beacon to home in on but IIRC the RAF considered that H2S did not unduly increase the Hazard to the host bomber,
Yes, while Air Ministry is much better led then IOTL, not even they can know what exact changes will be needed, and some time and combat experience will be needed until they recognize the need for certain changes. But, they are still much better off then they ever were IOTL, and many of the small changes that have happened from POD onwards are likely to make RAF (and others) a much more formidable force then they were in OTL. I mean we have Short Stirling as a purpose designed LRMP aircraft, something that will certainly be felt as time goes on, with reduced sinkings, U-Boats driven off and a couple of them perhaps sunk as well. Many similar things have happened, some great and some small, but those small percentages will certainly going to add up over time, gradually having a substantial impact on the war.Such changes may well happen later but at the moment there is no driver for such action. With more experience and data then there is a distinct possibility the OR and other people might push for such changes.