Talk:Bristol Beaufort

Nose guns

I see it mention "gimbal mounted guns in the nose" in the text, and I find that repeated in other places online, but I was always under the impression that those were fixed guns mounted in lieu of the single gun in the wing. Like why would you mount two flexible guns in two different gimbals, in a location where only one can be used at a time? At least in the Ju 88 there was enough room for two gunners at the rear guns at the same time. Why would you not just design a double mounted gun that allows both guns to be aimed and fired at the same time? If they were concerned about having a reserve gun ready if the first ran out of ammo at a bad time, why would they not do the same for the rear guns? And more importantly, how do you even _use_ them? They are mounted inches apart. If you try to aim to the left with the left hand gun, the receiver and drum will immediately interfere with the gun beside it. If you try to aim to the right with the left hand gun, the muzzles will interfere, as well as being very confusing the have to use the gun on the opposite side to which you want to fire. Not to mention the drawback of having to switch from one gun to the other if the target passes from one side to the other. If they are really flexible defensive guns it must be the most ill conceived execution I have ever seen.

I do know that the one drawing I have seen says the Beaufort either had the nose guns _or_ the wing gun. That would suggest the primary purpose for them was a fixed forward firing gun. Perhaps they were generally left fixed, but could be sort of used as flexible guns in emergency, kind of like the forward MG 15 on the Ju 88. Except it was the other way around in that case. Idumea47b (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I had likewise assumed in the past that the aircraft was fitted with two fixed forward-firing guns in the nose, but photographs suggest strongly that this was not so. The two G/O guns projected a long way from the lower edge of the upper glazing, indicating that they were not conventional fixed guns (which would be internal to reduce drag effects). Different photos of different aircraft, furthermore, show the barrels of these weapons at differing angles, whilst higher-resolution images show in close up the features of a gimbal-type mounting. It's very clear, however, that the two guns (with their distinctive angled muzzles turned away from one another to prevent muzzle flash dazzling the gunner) were positioned in parallel with each other and would have been linked together behind the gimbals in the glazed panel, allowing for both to be trained together with the gunner sighting between them.

So yes, in fact they were flexible and probably useful, although likely of very limited traverse and elevation due to the awkward position for the gunner, and somewhat similar in this regard of limited engagement envelope to the rear-firing twin turret fitted beneath a Blenheim IV's nose. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:C55E:DADC:EA24:A15D (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Bombload

The bomb load under the 'specifications' section isn't very clear, in terms of what the actual payload combinations were. Are the references to "1,000lb bombs" meant to signify a total maximum weight, made up of various different weights of individual armaments, or a single weapon only? I ask because i think the article could be improved in this respect and, frankly, I don't own a substantial library of aeroplane books and Wikipedia is a universal resource for quick reference, compiled by acknowledged experts in their fields. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:C55E:DADC:EA24:A15D (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)