Author Topic: B29 Remote Control Guns... (Read 1529 times)

Raptor · « **on:** July 18, 2004, 10:09:40 PM »

I know the guns in the B29 were remote controlled, the gunner would put into the computer the B29's airspeed and they could hit anything within gun range... How did it work though? would the computer figure out how far ahead of the target to aim from windspeed; the gunner basically had to aim at the enemy fighter without having to worry about leading his target?

Tony Williams · « **Reply #1 on:** July 19, 2004, 02:03:44 AM »

From 'Flying Guns – World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45':

"The B 29 finally appeared with five turrets: Front upper, front lower, aft upper, aft lower, and tail turret; as initially foreseen the tail also had a 20 mm cannon in addition to the twin .50”s. The tail guns were exclusively controlled by the tail gunners in his own compartment, but the other guns were operated from four sighting stations, one in the nose and three in a compartment aft of the wing. Each gunner could simultaneously operate two turrets, as the situation of the moment demanded. The “master gunner” was the upper gunner in the aft compartment, and he assigned turrets to gunners with his control panel.

The gunners had to track the attacking aircraft from their sighting stations, which had a reflector gunsight that generated signal outputs by a “Selsyn” system. An analog computer used the elevation, azimuth and range inputs from the gunner to calculate the lead and the parallax compensation, and aimed the gun turret with an Amplidyne drive unit. The computer took into account the effects the air density, the airspeed and the angle of the guns relative to this airspeed had on the bullet trajectory. A factor that could not be taken into account was the flexibility of the bomber's fuselage itself, and its tendency to expand or shrink locally as temperature varied. These caused a variable misalignment between the sighting station and the gun turret. The heating effect was large enough to make alignment of the guns on a butt outdoors, exposed to the sun, impracticable. The guns had to be harmonised indoors to meet specifications."

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

Furball · « **Reply #2 on:** July 19, 2004, 04:35:19 AM »

thanks for info tony, how effective were they in combat?

artik · « **Reply #3 on:** July 19, 2004, 07:34:08 AM »

From what I've read

japaneese were really afraid of B-29s.........
First time they were flying without any fighter cover........
Every B-29s engage had cost a lot for japanees pilots/planes....

So I assume they were quite effective at least aginst Japanesse fighters (not very strong and fast)

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #4 on:** July 19, 2004, 08:31:44 AM »

Tony, the He 177 also had remote operated barbette guns, do you know if the working principle was the same ?

HoHun · « **Reply #5 on:** July 19, 2004, 12:50:33 PM »

Hi Tony,

>The gunners had to track the attacking aircraft from their sighting stations, which had a reflector gunsight that generated signal outputs by a “Selsyn” system.

Did they just have to track the target in a fixed reticule, or did they have an LCOS-type gunsight?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

mipoikel · « **Reply #6 on:** July 19, 2004, 04:34:01 PM »

The Piaggio P.108 B (Bombardiere) was an all metal cantilever low-wing monoplane with an retractable undercarriage, driven by four Piaggio P.XII RC 35 18 cylinder radial engines, each producing 1350 hp. The first prototype was finished in October 1939 and had a very advanced defensive armament for its day. Not only had the Piaggio two 7,7 mm machine waist guns, a 12,7 mm machine gun in the lower turret and a similar weapon in the nose turret, but also two remotely-controlled twin gun turrets in outer engine nacelles. The first Allied bomber with a similar armament was the Boeing B 29, which was developed four years later.

Tony Williams · « **Reply #7 on:** July 19, 2004, 11:58:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by HoHun
Did they just have to track the target in a fixed reticule, or did they have an LCOS-type gunsight?

I don't know - Emmanuel did the research on that one.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

Tony Williams · « **Reply #8 on:** July 20, 2004, 12:01:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by mipoikel
The Piaggio P.108 B (Bombardiere) was an all metal cantilever low-wing monoplane with an retractable undercarriage, driven by four Piaggio P.XII RC 35 18 cylinder radial engines, each producing 1350 hp. The first prototype was finished in October 1939 and had a very advanced defensive armament for its day. Not only had the Piaggio two 7,7 mm machine waist guns, a 12,7 mm machine gun in the lower turret and a similar weapon in the nose turret, but also two remotely-controlled twin gun turrets in outer engine nacelles. The first Allied bomber with a similar armament was the Boeing B 29, which was developed four years later.

Not all remote-controlled systems are equal - linking a turret to a remote sighting system is relatively easy, but the computer-controlled B-29 system was vastly more complex.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

SunTracker · « **Reply #9 on:** July 20, 2004, 03:57:43 PM »

Lets not forget the B-17, which had a remote control nose gun.

Boroda · « **Reply #10 on:** July 21, 2004, 11:13:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tony Williams
Not all remote-controlled systems are equal - linking a turret to a remote sighting system is relatively easy, but the computer-controlled B-29 system was vastly more complex.

No MiG-15s were lost to B-29 gunner fire in Korea. I can remember only one accident when a lonely (without wingman) MiG got cowl torn off in a fight around a B-29 formation, but he engaged with F-84 escorts, so it could be a bullet from a fighter. The pilot landed safely with engine working.

Soviet side had two B-29 that were copied as Tu-4 bobmers, so they probably knew the limitations of it's targeting "computer". I have read that computer didn't work when the fighter exceeded a certain speed, IIRC 800 km/h.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #11 on:** July 21, 2004, 11:55:11 AM »

Boroda have you ever seen guncam footage of Mig15s attacking B29s?

SunTracker · « **Reply #12 on:** July 21, 2004, 05:07:38 PM »

No Mig-15s lost to B29 fire? Well thats a load of propoganda. Heck, I've been inside a B-29 that shot down 5 Mig-15s!

Quote

In aerial combat, Sabre pilots downed twenty-five MiG-15s, an F-84 pilot destroyed one, and B-29 gunners shot down nine others. These thirty-five aerial victories represented the highest monthly total thus far in the war. Fifth Air Force lost five fighter aircraft in air-to-air battles.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/korean_war/korean_war_chronology/kwc_october1951.html

hawker238 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 21, 2004, 10:10:13 PM »

Tony Williams · « **Reply #14 on:** July 21, 2004, 11:52:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SunTracker
No Mig-15s lost to B29 fire? Well thats a load of propoganda. Heck, I've been inside a B-29 that shot down 5 Mig-15s!

You were inside over Korea and witnessed them going down?

Any student of aerial warfare soon learns that there is always a considerable gulf between claimed and actual shoot-downs - and that applies to all air forces. It is particularly difficult to verify in the case of bomber defensive fire. In WW2 over Europe, USAAF bomber crews claimed about ten times as many Luftwaffe fighters as they actually shot down.

So maybe your B-29 got half a MiG

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum