# B-29 Question



## chris1966 (Sep 15, 2005)

If the B-29 was a better bomber than the B-17 (which IMO it was), why didn't the Americans use it in the ETO? After all, it could fly further, higher, was faster, and had a bigger bomb load. Why not use it in Europe?


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 16, 2005)

The B29 wasnt going to add much to the war effort against Germany. The B17's and -24's were doing just fine.

However, in the PTO, the vast distances needed to be flown from existing allied bases to Japan required the B29. The JCS had agreed that noone was going to get the bomber but the 20thAF. In addition, B29 production was slow to ramp up for quite some time, and all available planes were to go to training bases or to the Pacific.


----------



## Aggie08 (Sep 16, 2005)

I think it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if -29s actually had served in Europe. Does anyone have, by chance, tail gunner kills over Japan? I know that -29 tailgunners were the topmost scorers in the Korean War...


----------



## SM79Sparviero (Sep 16, 2005)

> Does anyone have, by chance, tail gunner kills over Japan? I know that -29 tailgunners were the topmost scorers in the Korean War...



I have some data about the most violent air battle of the whole war .In April 12 1951 48 B29 escorted by 36 F84 and 18 F86 bombed Antung bridge, on Yalu.They were faced by a regiment of Mig-15.3 B29 were shot down , seven severely damaged.
4 Migs were shot down by the F-86s , and not less than 9 by B29 gunners.F84s gave bad results.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Sep 16, 2005)

Yeah, the -29 wasnt really needed. Japan was still raging war and flying at high altitude with winds moving faster than those over the Himilyas trying to carpet bomb a Large Japenese city was difficult.

Then the -29 came in and it got easier.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 16, 2005)

The B-29 didn't change the strategy from high altitude to low altitude. That was done by Curt LeMay. B-29s initially did do the high altitude runs, before much was known about the jet stream and how it effected the bombing trajectories. The main benefits of the B-29 for the final victory over Japan was the range and large bomb load.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 16, 2005)

SM79Sparviero said:


> > Does anyone have, by chance, tail gunner kills over Japan? I know that -29 tailgunners were the topmost scorers in the Korean War...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The B-29 fire control system had trouble tracking targets moving in excess of 480 mph (if I remember right). Inside a targeting ring a red light would illuminate when the target was radar tracked and a firing solution calculated. When the sight turned red, it was time to fire - almost a sure kill! When the B-29 encountered the MiG-15, this would only occur for a Milli second because of the MiGs speed. The Tail gunner on the B-29 was at the best advantage as his gun was not radar controlled and he had the advantage of forward momentum when firing his weapon when defending from the rear.

The air battle on April 12, 1951 might of been the one my Uncle Bill participated in. His aircraft crashed (I'm not sure in Korea or upon returning to his base in Japan). During that mission he left his radio operator's position to go into the top fire control station. His aircraft was heavily hit and he got knocked to the floor with shrapnel wounds. A piece of shrapnel lodged in a bible that my grandmother had given him; he had it placed in his flight suit chest pocket!

When his plane crashed he cut his arm on the radio operator's table and his face hit the radio itself, knocking out his front teeth.....

Ironically when i was in Jr. High School I had a teacher who was a B-29 radio operator. He too was in a B-29 crash and suffered the same wounds as my uncle. When I was at Wright-Patt a few weeks ago there was a B-29 fuselage on display. Attached is a photo of the radio operator's station, the forward fire control station is located across the cabin, more in the middle of the fuselage....

The B-29 shown "Command Decision" was a 5 MiG-Kill Korean War vet. Too bad the whole aircraft wasn't saved!

Remembering my Uncle tell this story and seeing this display gave me chills!


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 16, 2005)

Didnt the B29 in WW2 use optical tracking gunsights that connected to the fire control computer?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 16, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Didnt the B29 in WW2 use optical tracking gunsights that connected to the fire control computer?



Yes and a radar input illuminated the targeting "pipper" giving indication when the gunner fired. The tail gunner also had radar warning which gave him indication when an aircraft was approaching, but he manually manipulated his guns


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 16, 2005)

If they had a radar tracker, where was it placed? I dont remember seeing radar blisters on the upper fuselauge. Remember, im talking about the WW2 model, not post war models.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 16, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> If they had a radar tracker, where was it placed? I dont remember seeing radar blisters on the upper fuselauge. Remember, im talking about the WW2 model, not post war models.



Don't know - and remember, my Uncle flew the B-29 in Korea. I remember vividly him talking about this red light that was "radar activated."


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 16, 2005)

Thats interesting. I need to check up on that. maybe the radar was added on post war models.

Just curious..... was it a B29 in Korea or the B50 models?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 16, 2005)

Found this little blurb on the -29.....

Boeing 345 Model (B-29 Superfortress)
Category: Bombers
Type: Ten-seat long-range strategic bomber/reconnaissance aircraft
AKA: B-29; Superfortress
Wing Span: 43.05m (141ft 3in) 
Length: 30.18m (99ft) 
Height: 9.02m (29ft 7in) 
Powerplant: 4 Wright 2,200hp turbo-charged radial piston engines
Maximum Speed: 576km/h (358 mph)
Range: 5230km (3,250miles)
Ceiling: 9710m (31,850ft)
Armament: Two 12.7mm (0.5in) machine-guns in each of four remote-controlled power-operated turrets, and three 12.7mm (0.5in) guns, or two 12.7mm (0.5in) guns and one 20mm cannon, in the tail turret. Up to 9072kg (20,000lb) of bombs.


The B-29 was the most technologically advanced bomber to see service during the Second World War, featuring pressurized environments for the flight crew as well as *remote-controlled turret guns targeted by radar and synchronized by an early computer. *

http://www.exn.ca/flightpath/plane.asp?ID=27


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 16, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Thats interesting. I need to check up on that. maybe the radar was added on post war models.
> 
> Just curious..... was it a B29 in Korea or the B50 models?



I'm looking it up too....

Now I know offically B-50s were not used in Korea, but my Uncle told me he's seen them there, possibly flying "Spook" missions. The mission he was shot down I do remember him saying he was in a B-29


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Sep 16, 2005)

As far as I know there weren't any radar tracking devices at all available for the blister gunners. The pipper illumination was controlled by a rheostat on the sight pedistal and also included an internal ring and bead as backup should the pipper fail.

On the side facing the gunner there was a switch that was selected according to the wingspan of the aircraft to be fire upon. This was just to set different calibrations of the sight so you wouldnt be firing on a twin engined fighter and the system think it was firing at a Zero up close.

On the right hand side of the sight there was a range knob. When on the pipper placed a reflection on a sighting glass seen when looking through the sight. As the fighter approached or whatever it did the gunner would keep the fighter in the pipper. As the aircraft got closer the picture in the sight would obviously get larger. The range knob was cranked to keep the pipper frame around the aircraft. The pipper frame reflection looked like a dot of light surrounded by a ring of other dots of light. When the range knob was cranked the ring would grow larger and more light dots would appear to fill in the gaps because of the growing circumference.

This all had to be done as smooth as possible to allow everything to work as good as possible. 

The gunnery system was also interconnected so that more than one gunner could control a turret, but was not able to have one gunner control every turret. Gunners were also assigned a primary turret that could be handed over to another gunner if the primary wasn't firing.

The CFC gunner (top bubble) had primary control of the aft top turret and secondary control of the front top turret.

The bombardier had primary control of both the front top and front bottom turrets.

The side blister gunners had primary control of the aft lower turret and both had secondary control of the lower nose turret. The blister gunners also had secondary control of the tail turret.

The tail gunner only had control of his turret.

The tail gun was basically the same as the other gunners in that it used the same computing sight as the blister gunners. On B-29B models however there was a radar directed sight. It just directed the gunner... it didnt automatically track or fire on the target. The tail gunner followed what the radar said and did what was needed. The B's were only used by the 315 BW on Guam and can be recognized by their having no other turrets, the AN/ANQ-7 Eagle radar wing between the bomb bays, and the AN/APQ-15 tail warning radar ball hanging below the twin .50's of the tail gun.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 16, 2005)

Thanks Dave! I wonder where Uncle Bill came up with this "Radar Sight?" Maybe it was used in the B-50?


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 16, 2005)

The gunners had to have nerves of steel to be able to calmly operate that range knob, while the incoming fighters were lining up and firing at them.

I wonder if they brought along a change of underwear.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 16, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> The gunners had to have nerves of steel to be able to calmly operate that range knob, while the incoming fighters were lining up and firing at them.
> 
> I wonder if they brought along a change of underwear.



Especially against the MiG-15!

I'm still researching this turret radar thing. I remember reading it on other occasions....


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Sep 16, 2005)

Ive seen a lot of websites quote that they were radar controlled but I've never saw anything to back it up. The B-50 was pretty much the same as the B-29 in the gunnery department, except the B-50 had that fancy streamlined top turret. Actually from Block-40 up B-29A's came with the streamlined turret as well. (The B-29A is also a cause of a lot of debate because a lot of sources state the A had a wingspan 1 foot greater than the other models. Thats another falsehood.)

Theres a guy on the B-29 Yahoo group named Frank Farrell who was a Korean War blister gunner. He has stated many times that they weren't to fire on the MiG's. Also when the MiG's came around most bombing was shifted to nighttime work. He said most times then that the Radar operator would track the incoming aircraft and they could watch for them, but most times at night you didn't know where they really were until you saw the fire from the jet as it went past the B-29. Farrell has a great book that I can recommend called "NO SWEAT". Its surely a good story about a Korean War blister gunner. FBJ seeing that your uncle was just that I'd say you would really enjoy it!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 16, 2005)

DaveB.inVa said:


> Ive seen a lot of websites quote that they were radar controlled but I've never saw anything to back it up. The B-50 was pretty much the same as the B-29 in the gunnery department, except the B-50 had that fancy streamlined top turret. Actually from Block-40 up B-29A's came with the streamlined turret as well. (The B-29A is also a cause of a lot of debate because a lot of sources state the A had a wingspan 1 foot greater than the other models. Thats another falsehood.)
> 
> Theres a guy on the B-29 Yahoo group named Frank Farrell who was a Korean War blister gunner. He has stated many times that they weren't to fire on the MiG's. Also when the MiG's came around most bombing was shifted to nighttime work. He said most times then that the Radar operator would track the incoming aircraft and they could watch for them, but most times at night you didn't know where they really were until you saw the fire from the jet as it went past the B-29. Farrell has a great book that I can recommend called "NO SWEAT". Its surely a good story about a Korean War blister gunner. FBJ seeing that your uncle was just that I'd say you would really enjoy it!!



Great stuff Dave, I've got to get that book! Maybe the error about the B-29 turrests being radar control lies with the installation of the AN/APG-15As radar installed in the tail. As mentioned earlier I know when he was shot down, it was in the daytime, so it might of been during the April 51' raids. He did speak of some tail gunners in his squadron downing MiGs and he also spoke about knowing an F-82 pilot who shot down a YAK-9. It seems he was there early in the war...

I know my Uncle was a Radio Operator, perhaps he could of been talking about operating the radar with regards to sighting or tracking MiGs?

He did mention he did "go into" the forward gun position a lot as it was right next to his radio operator's station, he said he did that because they didn't have a full crew for some missions....

I don't know if you saw the thread I started about him, here's a photo of him getting reday to fly a ferret mission in a B-50 after the Korean War.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 16, 2005)

I keep coming up with an AN/APG-8 gun sight radar being referenced to the B-29. Could these been incorporated into the B-29 turret gunsights?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 16, 2005)

Got this from another site....

"All Gunners hy gyroscopic lead computing sights with stadiametric
ranging. As the Gunner tracked teh target, the gyroscopes measured
the rate of movement of the target in Azimuth and Elevation, The
Gunner would also track teh target in range, by using a "Motorcycle
throttle" type grip in the sight to size a ring of dots in the sight
picture to match the airplane's wingspan. Since the wingspan of an
attacking fighter would be known, or estimated slose enough, this
would give Range and Range Rate (Closing speed) information to hte
sight.

To add to this fine explanation, starting right around the beginning
of 1945, AN/APG-15 radars started making there way in B-29s. This was
a fairly small, cheap set that took much of the guesswork for figuring
range out of the gunners hands (although they could always go back to
the manual method, especially when the radars broke down)."


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Sep 16, 2005)

The AN/APG-15 was the tail radar on a B-29B and I believe the 8 was an earlier version of that.

Heres a picture of a B-29B. You can see the Eagle Wing radar AN/APQ-7 between the bays and the 15 hanging off the tail.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 16, 2005)

Yep - found the same info and the site on Frank Farrell - Great Stuff! On this site I found that shows radar equipment listings, it identifies the AN/APG-8 as a "radar gun sight," and the AN/APG-15 as a "tail gun turret radar." It would be nice to contact someone like Frank Farrel to confirm the absence/ installation of radar within the B-29 fire control system. I found many generalized references to it but no hard description.....


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 16, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Got this from another site....
> 
> "All Gunners hy gyroscopic lead computing sights with stadiametric
> ranging. As the Gunner tracked teh target, the gyroscopes measured
> ...



Just talking with my dad ( he started crew cheifing on B-29s) about the B-29s fire control system. The standard model had radar but it was primarily for weather, the gunsights were manual. The B-29MR (Modified Reciever) aircraft were Nuclear capable and only the tail gun turret remained to squeez a little more speed out of them. This was in '52-'54 +/- So its possible that they were removed because the jets were too fast requiring the gunner to fire by instinct or they were to hard to maintain. Or possibly they just didn't use them here in the states to avoid haviving the extra load of maintaining them constantly.

Another thing was he described the airial refuling (MR) method. they used a cable and hose system which involved catching a cable, drawing the hose down and hooking it up and then reversing the procedure. When it came free he said "it felt like the rear of the plane was going with it.  

He's looking for his Tech manual-1 that has all the basic systems information on the B-29. If he's able to find it I will get the info out. He's still sharp and described the whole system down to and including the central gun control and locations, so I don't think he just forgot but its been 53 years.

That probably doesn't help much but it's all I got right now.

wmaxt


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Sep 16, 2005)

Actually I just sent an email to the B-29 group.... I'm pretty sure we'll hear from Farrell... hes uh kinda wild...


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Sep 16, 2005)

Thats very cool about your dad. He was very fortunate to get around the MR's. They were basically post war Silverplates that belonged to the 509th CG


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Sep 16, 2005)

The very first reply back on the B-29 Yahoo group was from Farrell. He's blunt, but put it short and sweet, here is his reply unmodified and in its entirety. The cap's are his not mine so don't be offended... I've heard it a few times from him before myself.

"If he knows of a radar that waist / Blister gunners had , he knows more than WE do! Range finding was the cookie handle and sight glass reticle which in adjusting the size of the target within the changing diameter of the light reticle, adjusted th erange MODESTLY through a relatively unsophisticated computer! NO RADAR! Farrell"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 16, 2005)

This will be great to find out - I'm guessing my uncle had his explanation confused with the radar operator - the last time I saw him he was on dialysis


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 16, 2005)

DaveB.inVa said:


> The very first reply back on the B-29 Yahoo group was from Farrell. He's blunt, but put it short and sweet, here is his reply unmodified and in its entirety. The cap's are his not mine so don't be offended... I've heard it a few times from him before myself.
> 
> "If he knows of a radar that waist / Blister gunners had , he knows more than WE do! Range finding was the cookie handle and sight glass reticle which in adjusting the size of the target within the changing diameter of the light reticle, adjusted th erange MODESTLY through a relatively unsophisticated computer! NO RADAR! Farrell"



Well there you have it, I'll take that to the bank! 

I'm assuming his explination included the front top station as well?


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 16, 2005)

DaveB.inVa said:


> The very first reply back on the B-29 Yahoo group was from Farrell. He's blunt, but put it short and sweet, here is his reply unmodified and in its entirety. The cap's are his not mine so don't be offended... I've heard it a few times from him before myself.
> 
> "If he knows of a radar that waist / Blister gunners had , he knows more than WE do! Range finding was the cookie handle and sight glass reticle which in adjusting the size of the target within the changing diameter of the light reticle, adjusted th erange MODESTLY through a relatively unsophisticated computer! NO RADAR! Farrell"



My Dad described it the same way - I just couldn't be sure because he was there in the 50s and things change. There maybe confusion between the Central fire Controller and radar sighting. The controller decided which turret would fire at any particular plane. 

He was out of Mtn. Home AFB about 50 mi from here and theres an airshow this weekend....

Wmaxt


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Sep 16, 2005)

Did he ever have anything to do with any of the other bombers like the B-17, 24 or 32?

Another guy on the forum, Jim Peters, was a top turret gunner/FE on a B-17 and they had a rangefinding radar.

Im going to send some documents he sent me.

The documents are small but look on the second page at the bottom. You'll notice "AN/APQ-14 for B-29's" and later it says the AN/APQ-14 was secret.

This entire document was about rangefinding radars as well.... so who knows! I personally have never heard or seen anything about a rangefinding radar for the B-29 gunners but there may have been one in the works or something. Also the B-36 used a sight very similar to the recticle sights used on the B-29 and these werent radar ranged even with the advances that could've been used on the B-36.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Sep 16, 2005)

Here is some pages from a great site I had on my favorites!! The rest of the site is very good but these two pages in particular will go along with this conversation nicely.

http://www.rootsweb.com/~ny330bg/tail gunner.htm

http://www.rootsweb.com/~ny330bg/cfc.htm


----------



## evangilder (Sep 16, 2005)

If it helps, here are some shots of the remote control gunsight from the B-29. There is an operating manual there as well. I will thumb through it on my next trip out there. I knew these might come in handy at some point.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 16, 2005)

I enlarged the picture and came up with the designation of the radar.

SCR-726 S-Band Airborne Fire-Control Radar Galvin Corp. (later AN/APG-5). Radar set, Gun laying, Automatic range finder, 2.5 GHz, Pulse, range 150-3000 yards, used on B-17 and B-24.

I found this interesting comment at http://www.armyairforces.com/forum/m_48030/mpage_1/tm.htm#48034

Im just curious though, where did they mount them? The turrets of the B29 were quite small. And Ive never seen a picture of them mounted in one of the gunner stations.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 16, 2005)

This is great stuff guys, thanks for the participation! In reading some of the stuff I found earlier it made be believe that the AN/APG-8 was small and incorporated into an optical gun sight, I wonder if this was incorporated in the CFC's position?!? It also seems that if you had a MiG-15 coming out you at 600 MPH, completing the sighting process as described in the link might be a bit un-nerving!

Maybe uncle bill wasn't off the mark?!? Maybe we're not finding much on the radar sights because they were classified?!?! Uncle Bill talked about "firing the guns" as a secondary task, maybe he worked as a CFC?!? I'll show the equipment list links I found earlier....

Going off what I posted earlier (and what he told me) I vividly remember Uncle Bill saying there was a red illumiation within the site that gave the operator the cue to fire the guns. He went on to say this was difficult against the MiG-15

Great stuff guys, the -29 has always been one of my favorite planes (maybe because of Uncle Bill).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 16, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> I enlarged the picture and came up with the designation of the radar.
> 
> SCR-726 S-Band Airborne Fire-Control Radar Galvin Corp. (later AN/APG-5). Radar set, Gun laying, Automatic range finder, 2.5 GHz, Pulse, range 150-3000 yards, used on B-17 and B-24.



Sys - which picture did you enlarge?


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Sep 16, 2005)

That link to armyairforces has a message from Jim Peters. Hes the one who sent me the files about the radar ranged turrets on the B-17. 

I still believe the 8 was a precessor to the 15. Both are pretty large and weigh around 125lbs. The CFC's position barbers chair had the same basic sight as the blister gunners except the sight was mounted on a ring.

I had never thought of it before but the 14 mentioned in that text might have been meant for the B-29 should it have been equipped with manned turrets.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 16, 2005)

APG_5_ONE.JPG that DaveB.inVa posted.

DaveB, if possible, could you scan them in again under a higher resolution?


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Sep 16, 2005)

I got those from Jim Peters. I dont know where he got them but I doubt he has them personally.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 16, 2005)

DaveB.inVa said:


> I still believe the 8 was a precessor to the 15. Both are pretty large and weigh around 125lbs. The CFC's position barbers chair had the same basic sight as the blister gunners except the sight was mounted on a ring.



I thought I saw one link that say the 5 weighed 40 pounds. I'll try to find it.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 16, 2005)

I am still digging, but I found this in the B-29 in action book:
(paraphrasing a bit here from brevity)

Bell built the B-29B. It was basically a production version that had a lot of the armament stripped out for Curt LeMay's new tactics. 


> The tail mounted twin .50s were aimed and fired with the AN/APG-15B radar fire control system.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 16, 2005)

More info from the book. It states that the APQ-13 had a thirty inch radome that extended from the bottom of the fuselage.

I also found this pic in the book (photo credit Dave Lucabaugh) of "Ding How". Are these radar antenna, or is it some sort of navigation/radio antenna? I am talking about the 4 vertical masts on the side of the fuselage. The top, bullet shape antenna is the ADF.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 16, 2005)

Little more reading and diggin through other material. The APQ-13 radar was a radar used from bombing. But on the Enola Gay site (http://www.nasm.si.edu/museum/garber/enola/intparts.htm) they also list some other nifty little wonder toys:

RAVEN racks (electronic counter measures) missing:
APR-4 Radar Search Receiver 40-1000 MHZ, 
APR-5 Radar Search Receiver 1000-6000 MHZ, 
APA-11 Pulse Analyzer,
APA-10 Panoramic Adaptor, 
APT-2 Airborne Jamming Transmitter 450-720 MHZ 
PP-32/AR Rectifier Power Unit 
PP-58/APA-5 Rectifier Power Unit


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 16, 2005)

Grat stuff Eric! I think those antenna are for a primative glide slope


----------



## evangilder (Sep 17, 2005)

Ah, I was wondering if that was a navaids device as it was one of the -29s that flew over the hump. I had not seen that on any other superforts.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 17, 2005)

It might be this DF homing system that kept an aircraft on a flight path by using tones. I'm working tomorrow, I could research this at work if someone doesn't figure it out first


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Sep 17, 2005)

The AN/APQ-13 was a lot like the H2X from what I have read. 

You can see the picture of the AN/APQ-15 ball hanging off the back of the picture of the B model I posted on a previous page. From what I read about that there were a few models of that one as well.

Heres a pretty good site concerning radar:
http://www.vectorsite.net/ttwizc.html


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 17, 2005)

Her's a listing of radars developed during and used in post WW2. I copied a few from the noted site. Note the discriptions of the ones used on the B-29....

AN/APG-1 S-Band Intercept Radar; used in P-61B 
AN/APG-2 S-Band Intercept Gun Laying Radar; used in P-61 
AN/APG-3 Tail Gun Laying Radar; manufactured by General Electric; used in B-29 and B-36B 
AN/APG-4 L-Band Low Altitude Torpedo Release Radar "Sniffer"; used in TBM 
AN/APG-5 S-Band Gun Laying/Range-Finding Radar; used in B-17, B-24 and F-86A (AN/APG-5C) 
AN/APG-6 L-Band Low Altitude Bomb Release Radar "Super Sniffer" (improved AN/APG-4) 
AN/APG-7 Glide Bomb Control Radar "SRB" (Seeking Radar Bomb) 
AN/APG-8 S-Band Turret Fire Control Radar; used in B-29B 
AN/APG-9 L-Band Low Altitude Bomb Release Radar (improved AN/APG-6) 
AN/APG-10 Weapons System Radar (no details) 
AN/APG-11 L-Band Toss Bombing Radar 
AN/APG-12 L-Band Low Altitude Bomb Release Radar (improved AN/APG-9) 
AN/APG-13 S-Band Nose Gun Laying Radar "Falcon"; manufactured by General Electric; used with 75mm nose gun of B-25H 
AN/APG-14 S-Band Gun Sight Radar; used in B-29 
AN/APG-15 S-Band Tail Gun Radar; used in B-29B, PB4Y 
AN/APG-16 X-Band Gun Laying Radar (modification of AN/APG-2); used in B-32, XB-48 
AN/APG-17 S-Band Low Altitude Bomb Release Radar (improved AN/APG-4) 
AN/APG-18 X-Band Turret Control Radar (improved AN/APG-5); manufactured by Martin; used with "S-4" gunsight 
AN/APG-19 X-Band Fire Control Radar; manufactured by Martin (improved AN/APG-8 and -18 ) 
AN/APG-20 S-Band Low Altitude Bomb Release Radar (improved AN/APG-6) 

http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/jetds/an-apg.html


----------



## evangilder (Sep 17, 2005)

I have read that Bell built 311 of the B-29Bs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 17, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I have read that Bell built 311 of the B-29Bs.



Yep - In Marietta Georgia - The facility is now Lockheed's


----------



## evangilder (Sep 17, 2005)

Man, I am learning a lot here! This has been a pretty cool collaborative effort so far!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 17, 2005)

Check this out....

http://riemarfamily.com/falcon in action page 3.html


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 17, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Ah, I was wondering if that was a navaids device as it was one of the -29s that flew over the hump. I had not seen that on any other superforts.



You notice it had eight camels painted on its side....... "Ding How" must have flown the hump right times.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 17, 2005)

evangilder said:


> More info from the book. It states that the APQ-13 had a thirty inch radome that extended from the bottom of the fuselage.
> 
> I also found this pic in the book (photo credit Dave Lucabaugh) of "Ding How". Are these radar antenna, or is it some sort of navigation/radio antenna? I am talking about the 4 vertical masts on the side of the fuselage. The top, bullet shape antenna is the ADF.



Ding How was one of the B-29s that landed in USSR and was eventually used as a pattern aircraft for the TU-4. I found this photo of a B-29 with the same antenna. (58th Photo) 

Look at the photo of the TU-4, same antenna?!?  

I think it might be an early ILS antenna, but I'm guessing


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Sep 17, 2005)

Heres another reply from a B-29 gunner. The Bud guy he's referencing is Farrell....

"I agree with Bud, We had no radar assist only rough computer assist and if you didn't preset the expected aircraft even being perfect with the reticle you would get a false reading from the computer. - Tony"

I'll ask them about the 14 radar and see what comes up.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 17, 2005)

DaveB.inVa said:


> Heres another reply from a B-29 gunner. The Bud guy he's referencing is Farrell....
> 
> "I agree with Bud, We had no radar assist only rough computer assist and if you didn't preset the expected aircraft even being perfect with the reticle you would get a false reading from the computer. - Tony"
> 
> I'll ask them about the 14 radar and see what comes up.



Was he a Korean War vet as well?


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 17, 2005)

That red light may only signify the gun is sighted and the guns are hot.

Remember the guns are controlled by the central gun control computer. radar sets of that era were huge and only mechanical computers existed, except the hanger sized one the Brits used for code breaking and it wasn't capable of the computing needed to track/coordinate a gunsight.

Another possibility is that they had an 'In Range Radar' like the P-38L had, a small (for that time) radar that bliped a light in the cockpit if an aircraft was in his six and in range to do harm. If this is the case it would be in the turrets and only available to the guy in the barber seat (my Dads description to.

My Dad was never involved with the earlier aircraft his basic involvement was B-29s, B-50s, KC-97s, KC-135s, B-47s (crashed in one on takeoff), B-52s. In Vietnam he was Senior NCO in the Engine shop, and Senior NCO of the Fighters at Edwards AFB (He doesn't like Yeager).

wmaxt


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Sep 17, 2005)

Yes he was a Korean Vet.

I got another reply from a tail gunner that stated it was probably associated with the B model and its tail radar.

Every reply I keep getting back from both WWII and Korean gunners are saying no ranging radar though. 

I got one other guy I can get ahold of who might can help. He does electronics restoration for the NASM at the Udvar-Hazy Museum. He's made some contributions to the B-29 yahoo group. A lot of his recent work has been with Enola Gay and its electronics/radar.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 17, 2005)

DaveB.inVa said:


> Yes he was a Korean Vet.
> 
> I got another reply from a tail gunner that stated it was probably associated with the B model and its tail radar.
> 
> ...



Great stuff Dave! I think this is been one of the better threads I've seen here, lots of great information and history, thanks for your help. It's become a mystery to me know what Uncle Bill was talking about with regards to this. Like I said earlier, the last time I saw him he was real sick but we spent hours talking about his Korean and post Korean War activities.

If you could, ask your contacts about the B-50 in Korea. I know many publications say there were no B-50s used over Korea, Uncle Bill said he actually saw a few there (I think he said they staged out of Kadena AFB). It was at this time when he revealed about this participation in ferret missions over Western USSR. He said one of the things he and his crew were to monitor was USSR reaction time from scramble to intercept. He also spoke about "combat that never took place." He said he was witness to Sabers and Migs mixing it up just outside USSR airspace with both sides taking causalities, of course this was never reported.... 



wmaxt said:


> That red light may only signify the gun is sighted and the guns are hot.
> 
> Remember the guns are controlled by the central gun control computer. radar sets of that era were huge and only mechanical computers existed, except the hanger sized one the Brits used for code breaking and it wasn't capable of the computing needed to track/coordinate a gunsight.
> 
> ...



Great info wmaxt - that might explain "the red light Uncle Bill was talking about if this is so. Interesting about you dad too. What years was he at Edwards? I lived close to there and met many "Historically Significant People" including Yeager and I under stand why your dad didn't like him. He showed up at and Edwards Aeroclub meeting and embarrassed one of the club's safety officers (who also happened to be a test pilot, a Major if I remember right. He was rude and arrogant).

Reading about the AN/APQ-5 and some of the discovered sites, it almost seems like this equipment was randomly used and it was at the discretion of the squadron. With the -5 being first used on the B-17, you would of thought this would be standards on all aircraft?!?!


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Sep 17, 2005)

I've heard many times that there were B-50's over Korea, not as bombers but as ELINT ferrets. In fact one got shot down and crashed into the sea of Japan. I have a few pictures in books about the B-50's doing recon over there too.

Anyway I thought I'd email another guy I know. His name is Bob Mann and he has written a book on the B-29. He flew in them during Korea but was on a weather recon squadron on Guam. The cool part about him is he lives in the same town where I go to college. I've been out to his place and its awesome. He has a huge database on every (and I mean EVERY) B-29 built. His file is basically a huge excel file with each B-29 serial number. Beside that he has crew lists, notable features about the aircraft, what happened to it (ie lost, reclaimed, transferred to RAF). In other words its very very complete and I got to go check it out when I took a class last summer and had some free time!!

Anyway Bob sent me a couple things from his file which is AN 01-20EJ-2, the maintenance manual for the B-29.

He sent me the two relevant pages to the gunnery system in the manual. Since these are from the maintenance manual I think it'll be ok to post them since they are by now at least readily available if you know where to get the manual. In other words Im not stepping in on anything copyrighted in Bob's book!

He also said that the main guns were best described as computer assisted that required considerable input to the computer which then selects an aiming point for the guns in the turret selected. 

Heres a link to Bob's book with some info about it.

http://www.alibris.com/search/searc...n&matches=6&qsort=r&cm_re=works*listing*title


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 17, 2005)

I must say guys, this is an awesome thread. Some outstanding info here!


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 17, 2005)

Does anyone know if the APG-5 worked as advertized during an air battle in WW2?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 17, 2005)

Once again grat syuff! The photo of Uncle Bill by the B-50 was taken I think at Barksdale - he said they were on their way to Japan to replace another crew. He said that when he returned to the US he and his crew found out the crew they replace had been shot down! Same crew!?!


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Sep 17, 2005)

Got some more stuff. One is from a Korean War gunner, one from a WWII gunner, the other is from a guy who knows something about the AN/APQ-14. He's a museum director who has done lots of work with B-29 electronics, including rebuilding an entire turret and sight.... that works!! His opinion is much to be respected!

From the WWII gunner:

"I sincerely would like to see some finality to the constant questioning on the B-29's use, or non use of radar in the CFC system. I took the full training. On arriving at the 505th BG, 482nd Squadron approximately the First of April, 1945. we were assigned an almost new B-29 that was apparently delivered by a previous crew. It had no nose art and we were told that nose art was a no-no. There was no radar involved in the
Central Fire Control System. Distance from a fighter and it's approach speed were detected and passed on to the computer by way of the gunner's tracking the approach by use of a graticule circle in the gunsight, with a diameter adjusted as the gunner tracked the approach of the fighter. There was no radar involved in the gunner's work."

The Korean War gunner:

"While there were certainly modifications improving the 29 from it's earliest days until it's last, the basics were the same, even right down to the last in use as tankers...and our wanting them to have been something more was NOT to be! We regretfully could not make the 29 something against the Mig-15 that it never was intended to be and I think we detract from those crewmen who did their very best with what they had...rather than which they MIGHT have had! I have detested that we were ordered to not shoot unless fired upon...but I detest even more that I know a friend was lost in the last 29 lost in combat over Korea with the survivors and families of those lost, feeling and believing ever since that one gunner was going to get him a Mig... if it KILLED him! There was STILL no B-29 radar controlled turret system in 1952 or 1953!"

The radar historian:

"The 14 came out of Radiation Labs as the "ARO" and may have been intended for the B-29, but never went anywhere! Although they worked satisfactorily against fixed targets (shore installations), end-fire array radar gunnery arrangements really never worked very well against a rapidly moving target."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 18, 2005)

Dave, great information! Now I'm wondering when the "no-fire" order was issued. I believe B-29s claimed about 20 or so MiG-15s but were these kills before this order?

I'm also wondering if used, how effective they would of been. Agin I remember Uncle Bill coming up with this "480 mph" number where he said anything much faster than that, the target was difficult to track. Anyway of finding this out?


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Sep 18, 2005)

From what I gathered from reading Farrells posts is that the no fire order was there when he got there. The reason for doing so wasn't for the reason you imagine though (ie. not trying to spark an international incident, they were doing a good enough job on that already)

As far as I have read the no fire order was started after learning some North Korean tactics soon after night bombing started. Since most of the NK radar was effectively jammed they had to rely on visual means to spot the bomber. One Mig would play as bait while the other played hunter.

Upon spotting the B-29 either through moonlight or perhaps the glowing exhaust stacks of the R-3350, the bait would fly to a point offside the B-29. The hunter, wanting to attempt a pursuit curve, would stay behind and wait for the bright flashes to come from the 0.50's as gunners opened up on the bait. When the gunners opened up the bait would roll away while the hunter would follow a perfect pursuit curve and rake the B-29.

No fire meant not being spotted and that saved lives! At least that was how it was explained the North Koreans teamed up to take on a B-29 and how the B-29 could keep from getting shot down.

It seemed different to me as to why the bait couldnt take care of the job himself, but again I wasn't there.... Farrell was and thats basically his story and I'm positive he's sticking to it!


I don't know anything about the 480 mph limit though. Im sure there is a sweet spot that the gunnery system on the B-29 was most accurate, I just don't know what the upper limit of it was. 

Kills by other than tail gunners were made though. On Command Decision the tail gunner claimed 2, the CFC claimed 2 and the right blister gunner claimed 1. So 3/5ths of their kills came from gunners who didn't have as great a targeting window as the tail gunner did... thats pretty good in my book.

I also got a reply from the NASM guys.

"The APQ-14 doesn't appear to have been designed as a fire control radar at all. Radio Research Labs at Harvard had responsibility for homing systems among their other duties in ECM, and they apparently designed the APQ-14 for the "Moth" Self-Guided Missile series to home on 90 to 520MHz radar. I dunno where the idea came from that it was a fire control radar."

The other NASM guy told me to mind my G's and Q's!!

Basically he said for radar designations the G was for a gun laying radar or radar associated with gunnery.

The Q was a broad cover term for "Special Equipment" such as bombing radar.

In other words if the 14 had anything to do with gunnery it would be labeled APG.

Hope all this helps.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 19, 2005)

Great stuff Dave, I've learned more about this in 4 days than 20 years worth of book research! Too bad my uncle is no longer alive, he might of cleared up some of the confusion on his initial explination. His son (my cousin) lives close to where I work, I probably see him about 4 or 5 times a year, the last time we spoke he said he had other photos and information to share about his dad. I'll post this information as I receive it....


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Sep 20, 2005)

Heres a good one about radar!

Basically APQ means
A=aircraft
P=radar
Q=special or combination type


http://www.gordon.army.mil/ocos/Museum/an.asp

There is also some decent discussion going on now on the B-29 Yahoo group about the AN/APG-15 being pretty crappy and if someone reported it actually working good then they and their gunnery set were looked on with curiosity!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 21, 2005)

DaveB.inVa said:


> Heres a good one about radar!
> 
> Basically APQ means
> A=aircraft
> ...



Great!!!!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 28, 2006)

A picture of the heavy General Electric Computer used to deflection aiming. In most of the Japan raids this equipment was removed an only the tail gun tetaines, even so the losses due enemy action was pretty aceptable.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 1, 2006)

the APQ 14 radar was code named Moth and was supposedly to be used to counter a future Japanese search radar which never saw the light of day of further interest while investigating this I found out that japanese radar had little or no height finding ability nor did they have IFF, of interest to Erich would be the fact that the Japanese had the cavity magnetron in 1941 at the time whenthey were inspecting Luftwaffe radar sites and to trade technology they inspected the Wurtzberg system and saw but were not privy to the Freya they were awed by the german technology so they figured the Germans already had the Cavity Magnetron and would not be interested sadly for the Germans


----------



## LarryJ (Sep 11, 2007)

Sorry to resurrect an old thread. I only recently found this forum.

Regarding the AN/APG-15 on the B-29B. I have found that it really didn't work that well. I have transcribed the monthly histories for the 16th Bomb Group that identified problems with the -15 that prompted a visit to Guam by Dr Vance Holdam, one of the prime developers of the APG-15.

If you have an interest, you can go to 315th Bomb Wing, find the link on the left for New Features, click that and do a google search on the site for APG-15 to read some about the radar set.


----------



## JoeB (Sep 11, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Dave, great information! Now I'm wondering when the "no-fire" order was issued. I believe B-29s claimed about 20 or so MiG-15s but were these kills before this order?


B-29's were credited with 27 MiG-15's in Korea. All were credited in daylight, before the B-29's switched over exclusively to night operations in areas with serious MiG risk which happened at the end of October 1951 after some heavy losses; of course the don't shoot first tactic applied to night operations only. Once the switchover was ordered, FEAF bombcom scrambled to equip all B-29's with SHORAN radio navigation gear which previously only a few in each of the three groups had (after 1950: 19th 98th and 307th BG's). With SHORAN, bombers flew in stream (at night) along an arc of equal distance from one SHORAN transmitter, releasing bombs when the bomber reached the correct intersection of that arc and another arc from a second transmitter. CEP's with this form of bombing were eventually reduced to under 1000', with goals of around 400' expressed, not much if any worse than was feasible in daylight.

Analysis of B-29 credits v Soviet accounts of each combat shows that probably only 3-4 MiG's were downed altogether by B-29's. However one certain Soviet loss was in a night attack, not credited to the B-29 in question (though it did fire after being fired on, and claimed a possible kill), in August 1952. I don't know when exactly the tactic was adopted not to fire unless fired upon, perhaps after the first outright losses of B-29's to MiG-15 night fighters in June 1952 (though as covered in a previous thread, La-11's managed to damage a couple of B-29's in December '51). After the first losses to night MiG's a number of improved defensive measures were introduced, including ordering flash hiders for the guns. The most obvious measure, from photo's, was painting the bottoms of all a/c black. The Soviet nightfighters relied on searchlights (in the style of German WWII 'wild boar' tactics) except in very favorable weather and moonlight. The black bottoms substantially increased the difficultly for s/l operators to hold the B-29 in the 'cone', even after searchlight radars told them the relatively narrow arc to scan (FEAF ran trials with B-29's with and without bottom camo v US air defence s/l's over Japan to test this). ECM against the s/l radars, and fighter ground control radars, was another key measure. A difficulty there though was that LeMay of SAC insisted no post-WWII ECM gear be used in Korea, lest it either fall into enemy hands or even just its use revealed its capabilities. 

B-29's in Korea had no tail radar. Many were refitted with B-50 type tail turrets in night phase, and as of late 1952 FEAF Bombcom planned to add post-WWII type tail radars, but it was not done before the armistice AFAIK (and most B-29's went to the boneyard in 1954). The B-29's could sometimes detect nightfighters with their APQ-13 bombing radars, although that wasn't the designed purpose of that equipment.

RB-50G electronic recon a/c were operated by the 91st Strategic Recon Sdn based in Japan, over Korea and throughout the Far East, starting in August 1952. The initial detachment consisted 3 a/c, 47-149, 47-151 and 47-161. None were lost in the Korean War proper, but 47-154 was shot down by MiG-15's two days after the Korean armistice near Vladivostok, July 29, 1953. It was speculated that it was in retaliation for the US downing of an Il-12 on the last day of the war that the Soviets claimed was a civilian airliner not over Korea. In general the 91st SRS and predecessor unit weren't only at risk over Korea during the Korean War. The first victory by the Soviet MiG's deployed to Korea was against an RB-29 Nov 9 1950 over NK, and another was downed in January '53 (on a mission over NK, per its original mission report, though the Chinese claimed it fell just inside China and held the surviving crew two years past the Korean armistice). However the unit lost two other RB-29's during the war, outside Korea: 44-61810 July 4 '52 to MiG's and 44-61813 to La-11's that October 7, both near Soviet Far East territory, to fighter units the Soviets didn't consider deployed to Korea.

Sources for all of above (besides the easily Google-able) are FEAF files. Bud Farrell's "No Sweat" is indeed a fine book (and he's a nice guy). Another first hander is "B-29 Navigator" by Ralph Livengood. He flew in daylight period in '51 as opposed to Farrell's experience in night missions in '52, so good balance between those two.

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 11, 2007)

Great info Joe - that photo I've posted of my uncle next to his RB-50 might of been one of the ones you mentioned - he said he was on his way to Japan to replace a crew that was shot down, although at that time they didn't know the demise of the previous crew.


----------



## fer-de-lance (Sep 13, 2007)

Regarding the ECM issue, the Soviets had deployed a P-20 "Token" Vee-beam 3D radar to Antung and it was directing MiG intercepts. A jammer against this radar was available but was not used for the reasons mentioned above.

The Chinese also admitted losing a MiG-15 to B-29 defensive fire. The commander of the 4th Division, 12th Regiment, Zhao, Da-hai, was killed July 9th, 1951. After being frustrated by unsuccessful firing passes against the B-29 due to a high rate of closure, Zhao throttled back to slow down on his final pass and was shot down.


----------



## JoeB (Sep 13, 2007)

fer-de-lance said:


> 1. Regarding the ECM issue, the Soviets had deployed a P-20 "Token" Vee-beam 3D radar to Antung and it was directing MiG intercepts. A jammer against this radar was available but was not used for the reasons mentioned above.
> 
> 2. The Chinese also admitted losing a MiG-15 to B-29 defensive fire. The commander of the 4th Division, 12th Regiment, Zhao, Da-hai, was killed July 9th, 1951. After being frustrated by unsuccessful firing passes against the B-29 due to a high rate of closure, Zhao throttled back to slow down on his final pass and was shot down.


1. Yes, the B-29's had to settle for chaff only v S-band radars like P-20.
2. I'm including that in my 3-4. With that exception, all daylight MiG-15attacks on B-29's recorded by the USAF AFAIK correspond to ones recorded by the Soviets. The doubt comes wrt to two incidents, one with F-86 and B-29 credits competing for a MiG loss the Soviets attributed to F-86's so not much chance there, and another night loss the Soviets attributed to bomber return fire (besides the one I mentioned) where I can't find any US encounter that matches it. MiG's were damaged in a number of other cases.

For completeness we might add that NK Yaks downed a lone B-29 July 12, 1950; one pilot (neither US nor NK accounts are clear if there were one or two Yaks) was the leading NK 'ace' Kim Gi Ok, eventually head of the NK AF. B-29's made a number of raw claims against NK props early in the war; none were officially credited nor any reflected in captured NK records but those aren't complete. B-29's also downed a FAA Seafire by mistake in July 1950.

Joe


----------

