You are not logged in.


Wednesday, June 29th 2011, 3:47am

I am a bit curious about why you chose a remote controlled dorsal turret (with all the problems it brings) when you have a conventional ventral turret?


Wednesday, June 29th 2011, 4:15am

Hrm, probably a good point. Let's make that turret manned as well...


Wednesday, June 29th 2011, 4:25am


Originally posted by Brockpaine
Hrm, probably a good point. Let's make that turret manned as well...

Well, there is one issue with a manned turret versus a remote turret in the ventral position - getting the gunner into and out of the turret.

And then there is the issue of what happens if you need to make a belly landing with the gunner still in the ventral turret (for what ever reason).

Neither problem is attendant on a turret in the dorsal position; so, there is logic to the difference. Of course, both problems were exposed due to combat experience.


Saturday, July 2nd 2011, 11:05am

Depends, the British developed a couple of ventral "dustbin" turrets but never used them much as they didn't have the need for a ventral turret (they thought) in night bombing. Could be a ventral pannier like the Buckingham, anyway the Americans managed several types without problems.

I see no need for a remote dorsal turret unless drag is an issue or if the operator has a better field of view from his sight or if your going some way towards a compact and centralised firing system.