B-29 REMOTE CONTROL GUNNERY SYSTEM

[SoD Stitch]

Originally Posted by Marshall_Stack

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).

It depended on what was going on at the time; every gunner had "primary" control of one turret, and "secondary" control of others. If there were no targets in their field of fire, they could turn control of their turret over to another gunner who might have targets in their area.

Okay, finally uploaded the image; here it is:

[Marshall_Stack]

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?

[Udet]

I have serious doubts this indeed very advanced and expensive system worked the way it was designed to operate.

The B-29s did never face over Japan the type of homeland defence the B-17s and B-24s of the 8th and 9th Air Forces did over Germany and central/east Europe.

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.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Marshall_Stack

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?

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.

[Marshall_Stack]

Originally Posted by Udet

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.

Although it might not be regarded as a "marvel", the radar controlled guns and proximity fuzed shells that the Navy used were better than other AA units.

[FLYBOYJ]

Another good sight...

Central Station Fire Control or Remote Control Turret System as used in the B-29, A-26 and the B-50

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Udet

I have serious doubts this indeed very advanced and expensive system worked the way it was designed to operate.

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.

Originally Posted by Udet

The B-29s did never face over Japan the type of homeland defence the B-17s and B-24s of the 8th and 9th Air Forces did over Germany and central/east Europe.

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/avi...sses-4429.html (B-29 Losses)

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

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]

Originally Posted by Downwind.Maddl-Land

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.

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!"

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

When under stress - Ain't we all, man - ain't we all...........!

[HoHun]

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)

[SoD Stitch]

Originally Posted by HoHun

Hi Stitch,

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.
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).

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]

Originally Posted by HoHun

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.

I believe that was a formation light.

B29 tail turret.jpg: Information from Answers.com

[Udet]

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.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by SoD Stitch

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.

Definitely not even close to being true!