Piaggio P-108 vs. Boeing B-17 -- Heavy Bomber Comparison

[DaveB.inVa]

Originally Posted by cheddar cheese

It may have heavier armament, but It is stil fairly primative. If you look at the P.108, you will notice it has remote gun turrets, rather like that of the B-29 - and we're talking 5 years earlier and by a country with not nearly as many resources.

There was some discussion about this before on the B-29 yahoo group. The P.108 did have the remote turrets but they werent like the B-29's in that they provided no lead, parallax, altitude and other ballistics corrections. Still its a pretty cool airplane and I wish there was more info about it plus more pictures. I have an old book at home with a nice drawing of a P.108 in colors resembling the desert camo you find on other Italian aircraft.

I also really wish there was more info on the version with the cannon in the nose!!

A yahoo picture search will get you about 4 pages of decent pictures.

http://images.search.yahoo.com/searc...b-t&fl=0&x=wrt

[JCS]

Heres another shot of the Artigliere for whoever it was that asked about it....

[cheddar cheese]

Nice drawings there Dave!

[DaveB.inVa]

Correct me if Im wrong... but looking from these pictures and from other pictures on the internet it seems that the P.108 has handed props!!

[syscom3]

The B29 remote conrol turrets were fundamentally different from that of the Italian bomber. The turrets of the B29 were controlled by a central fire control station with target data entered into a ballistics computer that then controlled the guns.

The P108 did not have this ballistics computer nor the centralized fire control station.

[cheddar cheese]

Nope, it had wing turrets controlled by two observers in dorsal observation turrets...Although not on the level of the B-29, it is a step towards it and fairly advanced and imaginative for the era.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

did it really offer any advantages over just a normal dorsal and ventral turret though? it did on the B-29 because they were using very reliable equiptment, one gunner could, if nessisary control all turrets and it solved the problem of having to pressurise individual turrets, none of which are really advantages it offered the P.108..........

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by cheddar cheese

Nope, it had wing turrets controlled by two observers in dorsal observation turrets...Although not on the level of the B-29, it is a step towards it and fairly advanced and imaginative for the era.

Agreed

[cheddar cheese]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

did it really offer any advantages over just a normal dorsal and ventral turret though? it did on the B-29 because they were using very reliable equiptment, one gunner could, if nessisary control all turrets and it solved the problem of having to pressurise individual turrets, none of which are really advantages it offered the P.108..........

I think they were just controlled by simple mechanical links - and it had a ventral gun too for good measure.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

well then i fail to see the advantages they offer when it's easier to put in manned turrets, which are more accurate given you're sitting behind the guns (don't worry sys i know the B-29's were accurate, they had computers the P.108 didn't) and if you get a jam or problem with the ammo feed there's a chance you can do something about it............

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

(don't worry sys i know the B-29's were accurate, they had computers the P.108 didn't)

Thankyou for emphasising that! If you had not we would have gone into a whole 2 more months of argueing why the B-29 was better than the Lancaster or P.108, even though everyone knows the B-29 was the best bomber of wW2.

[cheddar cheese]

P.108's did have some kind of sighting system, im sure of it - and if Automated turrets arent as effective as manned turrets then why did they put them on the B-29? Sure, they had computers, more technology and a few more years worth of advances, but from what your saying manned turrets would be better. Look at the other side though, for the the cost of one turret, you have 2 turrets on the wings which should give more field of fire. Kind of like waist gunners if you think about it. Also it means less crew lost when a plane goes down.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by cheddar cheese

P.108's did have some kind of sighting system, im sure of it - and if Automated turrets arent as effective as manned turrets then why did they put them on the B-29? Sure, they had computers, more technology and a few more years worth of advances, but from what your saying manned turrets would be better. Look at the other side though, for the the cost of one turret, you have 2 turrets on the wings which should give more field of fire. Kind of like waist gunners if you think about it. Also it means less crew lost when a plane goes down.

Manned turrets would of been better for that time period. The concept was there, I don't think the engineers who designed the system had the technology to back it up...

[cheddar cheese]

Agreed - lots of new, supposedly better technology always seems to be a flop when it first arrives on the scene. It takes time and development for it to be recognised as a success.

Piaggio designers had the right idea but lacked the technology to make it work effectively. Gotta applaud em for trying though.

[FLYBOYJ]

YEP!