Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
OK, here's a question ref the B-29's gunnery system. Does anyone know why, alone among the gunners, the tail position couldn't be allocated control of any of the other turrets?
It seems strange that the most effective sighting position (ie the tail) couldn't be allocated control of the lower rear turret, especially as the waist gunners could be allocated control of the tail guns. I can understand why the tail position might not be given the rear upper turret due to arc of fire constraints caused by the tailplane and fin – it probably wouldn't be usable over a large degree of the tail gunner's cone of engagement - but I would have thought that the lower rear turret would have provided a welcome addition to the tail gunner's weight of fire.
Very clever and effective system for its day.
I'm impressed with the system. I am a controls engineer and automating processes and writing machine code is what I do for a living. I didn't realize that they had this system but was aware of the analog computer that submarines used to determine firing solutions.
Was the computing gunsight in the B-29 far and away better than the standard turrets of the day or did human ability still play a role in its effectiveness?
Very clever and effective system for its day.
I'm impressed with the system. I am a controls engineer and automating processes and writing machine code is what I do for a living. I didn't realize that they had this system but was aware of the analog computer that submarines used to determine firing solutions.
Was the computing gunsight in the B-29 far and away better than the standard turrets of the day or did human ability still play a role in its effectiveness?
When it worked..... it was an excellent fire control system for its era.
But as with anything to do with avionics of the second world war era.... working "perfectly" was not something that occured with regularity.
But, overall, it worked well enough most of the time to be usefull. I think the only probelm with it was if the MG's in the turrets jammed, it was difficult if not impossible for the crew to get to it and fix the gun.
This might be a stupid question, but how is it determined who gets to control which guns? It would seem like everyone would want to control as many guns a possible (or maybe that's just me).
I posted this earlier but I had an uncle who was a B-29 and B-50 radio operator. He flew during the Korean War in B-29s and later flew ferret missions in the B-50. He told me that he got to play with the turrets on occasion. From what he told me the Mig-15 was harder to track (his own worlds). He also spoke about some radar aiming device that would illuminate red when the target was sighted. It seems this wasn't installed in the B-29 turrets but only in the tail. After some discussion in this forum I was wondering if he got the B-29 and B-50 fire control system confused (I still believe they were very similar). Mind you this discussion was in the early 1990s, the last time I saw him alive. He died in early 2003.Did MIG-15s in the Korean War make any differences in the use of the gunsighting computer? They are obviously faster but would that make a difference?
For some reason it reminds me of the AA control system on US Navy battleships in the PTO, which was another alleged marvel; it could possibly work when being attacked by only a fistful of enemy planes, but have one of those battleships attacked in the fashion of Yamato during her final sortie, and i am sure the wonder is of little help if any.