Antiquated armament arrangement on the SE5?

Balloon_Buster · 26 June 2007, 11:46 AM

Pardon me if this has been discussed before. A week or so ago a good friend of mine and I were discussing the one gun on the deck and one on the wing arrangement of the SE5/a. I was wondering why by that point in time they didn't go with two guns on the deck? Now I recently read in Franks' new book on the SE that it may've been because Albert Ball liked that arrangement. Ball or not, it seems logical to me that two guns in front is better than a gun on the wing. Having to haul that down, and then reload, and then push it back into place had to be a hassle in a dogfight.

Were any experiments done with a two gun SE5? I know they tried it on the Sopwith Triplane. Seems to me that the SE, being a fairly stable gun platform, would have packed a real punch with two guns firing through the prop.

Thanks!

R Pope · 26 June 2007, 12:36 PM

There was one SE fitted with an Eeman mount of three guns angling upward through the cowling, for firing up at airships. Lewis guns, BTW. Another had two Lewis guns on the wing, and retained the Vickers in the cowl.

Ransom E. Olds · 26 June 2007, 01:13 PM

The short version of this story is that there isn't enough room in the narrow fuselage of the SE for two Vickers and their ammo boxes. Ransom

Uhlan · 26 June 2007, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ransom E. Olds

The short version of this story is that there isn't enough room in the narrow fuselage of the SE for two Vickers and their ammo boxes. Ransom

Hmmmm... I'm no expert but somehow doubt that. If the Germans could cram two or even three Maxim guns into the Fokker E.IV why couldn't the British do the same with the S.E.5a? The dimensional difference between a Vickers gun and it's ammo tanks and the same set of kit for the German Maxim MG.08 must have been fairly small since both guns were of the Maxim family. I remember reading somewhere that British pilot's opinions on the armament of the S.E.5a were divided. Some liked the upper wing gun, presumably because it was what they had used before on the various Nieuport single seaters for example, others thought the failure to install twin synchronized guns was a major mistake. Mind you the British were always strange about arming their aircraft. When Nieuport 17 and 23 fighters started shipping form the factory with syncronized guns the RFC replaced the synced guns with wing mounted Lewis guns. The French seem to have almost uniformly preferred synchronized Vickers to the over wing Lewis for use on the Nieuport the instant that these became available. The RFC also kept the front seat gunners position on the B.E.2 long after it was patently obvious this arrangement was totally sub-optimal.

Dan_San_Abbott · 26 June 2007, 04:25 PM

Gentlemen:
The width of an S.E.5a fuselage outside was 26". The wdth of the Fokker E.III fuselage was outside was 700mm, 28"
The Fok.D.VII was 28 inches wide. It is not just the width of the machine gun but the width of the machine guns and the feed chutes. It was tried.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

alex_revell · 27 June 2007, 01:20 AM

Don't forget that, compared to the Lewis gun, the Vickers was, as once described to me, irritatingly slow, due to the sync gear.

Fill · 27 June 2007, 01:41 AM

Not sure where I read it ( which is a dodgy start in the company of experts ) , but I'm sure I read somewhere a long time ago , that the cyclic rate of 1 Lewis mounted above on a Foster mount and a Vickers firing through the prop , was higher than 2 MG's firing syncronized through the prop .
Should try to find where I read that ?.

Breguet · 27 June 2007, 01:41 AM

Some pilots liked the Lewis up top becuse it could be angled and fired up into the belly of the EA (as per the story as to why Ball preferred it). How practical this was in the middle of a dogfight I couldn't say.

tcrean7828 · 27 June 2007, 01:49 AM

I think I read that the Vickers machine guns had a bit more ammo on their belts perhaps 1,000 rounds and three drums at 97 rounds a crack - gave them a bit of an overall advantage when it came to a slug fest.

Also the Lewis gun could be pulled down for a under the aircraft shot, when the situation arose or an off angle if needed. I think the arc for their shooting was somewhere in the 0 to 270 degree range.

cul

tcrean7828

tom

Balloon_Buster · 27 June 2007, 07:03 AM

But how many pilots actually used "under the belly shots" with this gun? Imagine holding the joystick, pulling down the gun, trying to keep steady, and firing? I for one wouldn't have bothered.

Ok, not enough room on the deck. How about one offset on the fuselage, like the NE28 then?