B-29 REMOTE CONTROL GUNNERY SYSTEM
- Thread starter Downwind.Maddl-Land
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Not according to those who flew in B-29s and depended on the system - everyone I ever spoke to who flew in B-29s had high regards for the fire control system.
True, that for another debate but according to USAAF records XX and XXI bomber command 20th AF claimed over 700 Japanese aircraft destroyed in the air, a good portion of those had to be to the guns of the B-29. Even if one was to half those losses, it's still a great combat record. Remember this?
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/b-29-losses-4429.html
- Thread starter
- #23
Downwind.Maddl-Land
Airman 1st Class
Hi Sod Stitch, yes that's fundamentally the same schematic that I have seen too, except that the accompanying text says that the tail gunner only has control of his guns. The line running from the waist gunners to the tail should, perhaps, have 'one way' arrows on them for clarity. Nonetheless, it seems daft, does it not, that the tail gunner couldn't utilise the lower rear? Probably down to an accountant wanting to save $2 per airframe!
FlyboyJ, thanks for the valuable inputs; I would have reasoned that if the waist gunners could effectively utilise the tail guns, then the tail guns must have had a respectable field of fire; this is supported by the fact that, post war, only tail guns were retained. I concur the vulnerability of the poor benighted tail gunner! However, I would have thought that, by doubling his firepower the risk to his little pink body would have reduced a tad.
FlyboyJ, thanks for the valuable inputs; I would have reasoned that if the waist gunners could effectively utilise the tail guns, then the tail guns must have had a respectable field of fire; this is supported by the fact that, post war, only tail guns were retained. I concur the vulnerability of the poor benighted tail gunner! However, I would have thought that, by doubling his firepower the risk to his little pink body would have reduced a tad.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Thanks! - I still think the tail gunner was omitted from the FC system was because he just flat out couldn't see much to the sides of the aircraft.
BTW I work with a guy who flew in the last of the B-52 with a manned tail. gunner's position - he said in that era the B-52 tail gunner was "the loneliest guy in the Air Force!"
- Thread starter
- #25
Downwind.Maddl-Land
Airman 1st Class
When under stress - Ain't we all, man - ain't we all...........!
Hi Stitch,
>Okay, finally uploaded the image; here it is:
[/QUOTE]
Thanks a lot!
I'm on a quest to find and identify all of the B-29 lights, and it looks like picture D shows the tail light below the turret cover hemisphere.
Do you perhaps know the function of the circular hole centrally above the rear gunner's armour glass that's also visible in picture D? For a while, I thought it might be intended for the gun camera, but it seems the gun camera (when present) was mounted above the 20 mm cannon barrel.
(Any photographs showing the position of formation or landing lights would be welcome, by the way ... it's surprisingly hard to find anything!)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>Okay, finally uploaded the image; here it is:
Thanks a lot!
I'm on a quest to find and identify all of the B-29 lights, and it looks like picture D shows the tail light below the turret cover hemisphere.Do you perhaps know the function of the circular hole centrally above the rear gunner's armour glass that's also visible in picture D? For a while, I thought it might be intended for the gun camera, but it seems the gun camera (when present) was mounted above the 20 mm cannon barrel.
(Any photographs showing the position of formation or landing lights would be welcome, by the way ... it's surprisingly hard to find anything!)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
SoD Stitch
Banned
If I remember correctly, I believe I read somewhere (don't remember where) that it's a rudimentary (i.e.: first-generation) RWR (Radar Warning Receiver).
Also, another interesting thing I read a while back is that the B-29's in Korea shot down more enemy aircraft than the fighters did.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Flyboy, hello.
Yes, i recall that previous older discussion. But see what we discussed that time, even if they did not face anything comparable to the Reich´s air defence system their losses were nonetheless significant over Japan.
As we commented that time, and also rereading the table you posted there, losses of B-29s if completely bearable were not necessarily low; being more expensive and difficult to produce than B-17s and B-24s is that we know there were not too many B-29s operating over Japan, so it is not daring to affirm an indentical number of B-29s deployed over Europe, facing both Kammhuber line high altitude guns, himmelbett, search lights and Luftwaffe fighter groups, would have endured significantly higher losses.
Please note that my arguments will not dispute the defensive guns of B-29s brought down a number of Japanese interceptors; rather my point will argue on the alleged qualities of the computer controlled system on board the super-fortress.
I would want to assume that if such system had been so wonderful, as it is oftenly depicted, their losses should have been certainly lower than they were, considering both the number of B-29s available and the type of enemy defence confronted; we should not forget that in addition to this defensive system the B-29s had long range escort support commencing during the first days of April, 1945 until the virtual end of the war in the PTO, even if losses of B-29s to Japanese fighters were rare during the last 4-5 months of the war.
Again, look at the table from the other thread Flyboy: 149 B-29s lost ("combat and accident") between May-December 1944. Even if the war could have been already decided for both ETO and PTO by late 1944, i think we will agree Japan was in a far more terrible condition than Germany during the same period, even if i can not tell how many of those 149 were lost to Japanese fighters.
So, again, if the same number of B-29s were to fly over Germany and central/east Europe between May-December 1944, i think of higher losses for sure.
My reasons.
Yes, i recall that previous older discussion. But see what we discussed that time, even if they did not face anything comparable to the Reich´s air defence system their losses were nonetheless significant over Japan.
As we commented that time, and also rereading the table you posted there, losses of B-29s if completely bearable were not necessarily low; being more expensive and difficult to produce than B-17s and B-24s is that we know there were not too many B-29s operating over Japan, so it is not daring to affirm an indentical number of B-29s deployed over Europe, facing both Kammhuber line high altitude guns, himmelbett, search lights and Luftwaffe fighter groups, would have endured significantly higher losses.
Please note that my arguments will not dispute the defensive guns of B-29s brought down a number of Japanese interceptors; rather my point will argue on the alleged qualities of the computer controlled system on board the super-fortress.
I would want to assume that if such system had been so wonderful, as it is oftenly depicted, their losses should have been certainly lower than they were, considering both the number of B-29s available and the type of enemy defence confronted; we should not forget that in addition to this defensive system the B-29s had long range escort support commencing during the first days of April, 1945 until the virtual end of the war in the PTO, even if losses of B-29s to Japanese fighters were rare during the last 4-5 months of the war.
Again, look at the table from the other thread Flyboy: 149 B-29s lost ("combat and accident") between May-December 1944. Even if the war could have been already decided for both ETO and PTO by late 1944, i think we will agree Japan was in a far more terrible condition than Germany during the same period, even if i can not tell how many of those 149 were lost to Japanese fighters.
So, again, if the same number of B-29s were to fly over Germany and central/east Europe between May-December 1944, i think of higher losses for sure.
My reasons.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Definitely not even close to being true!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Points well taken, but also remember, most B-29 combat losses were due to flak - it took a lot to bring down a B-29 (as we know). There is no doubt in my mind the Luftwaffe would of dealt with the B-29, but it "would of" been a lot tougher...
Also keep in mind had the B-29 been operated in the capacity of the B-17 or B-24, you "would of" had an aircraft carrying twice the bomb load of both mentioned aircraft (points already discussed).
Hi Stitch,
>If I remember correctly, I believe I read somewhere (don't remember where) that it's a rudimentary (i.e.: first-generation) RWR (Radar Warning Receiver).
Hm, I think these would have to have some kind of dipole antenna since Japanese radar would probably have used relatively long wavelengths. I admit that I'm not sure if the Japanese actually had any radar-equipped night fighters ...
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>If I remember correctly, I believe I read somewhere (don't remember where) that it's a rudimentary (i.e.: first-generation) RWR (Radar Warning Receiver).
Hm, I think these would have to have some kind of dipole antenna since Japanese radar would probably have used relatively long wavelengths. I admit that I'm not sure if the Japanese actually had any radar-equipped night fighters ...
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yes, flying a Provost in April...
syscom3
Pacific Historian
There is also the fact that B29's that were damaged over Japan still had to fly several hundred miles to Iwo Jima or Okinawa. Sometimes they made it back. Sometimes they didnt. Now if they only had to fly 300-400 miles like that in Europe, many damaged B29's would have made it back, for statistically lower losses.
Hi Flyboyj,
>I believe that was a formation light.
Thanks! The photograph you linked again looks different than those I have seen before - it has a bulb-type cover, while all other photographs only show a flat reflective (and probably transparant) panel. So there seem to have been variations (or development steps) - highly interesting but also somewhat confusing
Do you think the upper or the lower "suspect" is the formation light?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>I believe that was a formation light.
Thanks! The photograph you linked again looks different than those I have seen before - it has a bulb-type cover, while all other photographs only show a flat reflective (and probably transparant) panel. So there seem to have been variations (or development steps) - highly interesting but also somewhat confusing
Do you think the upper or the lower "suspect" is the formation light?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
AGREE!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Hi Flyboyj,
>I believe that was a formation light.
Thanks! The photograph you linked again looks different than those I have seen before - it has a bulb-type cover, while all other photographs only show a flat reflective (and probably transparant) panel. So there seem to have been variations (or development steps) - highly interesting but also somewhat confusing
Do you think the upper or the lower "suspect" is the formation light?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
I actually believe both of them are -I even seen a drawing somewhere that shows 3 lights right above the tail gunner's windshield.
SoD Stitch
Banned
It would seem you are correct; like I said, I can't remember where I read that (old age does that to you!), but after doing some research, apparently B-29 gunners were only credited with 27 air-to-air kills. I'm guessing the total number of enemy aircraft shot down by all other types far exceeds that total. I'll have to try and find that misleading reference again.
I found this; that circle above the gunners position is, indeed, a formation light:
P.S. Found a pretty good site for B-29 details (if y'all don't already know about it, that is!): The 330th Bomb Group
CRASHGATE3
Airman 1st Class
Hi Flyboyj...
Do you have the serial number of that Provost ?
sorry this is off topic,but I might have a photo of it or have seen it..
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
