(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: The prone postion for tail gunners versus turrets.
From: (The Enlightenment)
Date: 7/21/03 6:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) wrote in message
...
Subject: The prone postion for tail gunners versus turrets.
From: "Keith Willshaw"
Date: 7/21/03 4:06 AM Pacific

in the tail or (nose) in a prone position opperating a gun manualy. I
can't see a problem with this except that the allowable movement would
probably be limited to +/- 25 degrees.


Limited action on a tail gun no problem???? I would say it is rather a
severe
problem.


At 350mph to 400mph few other attack angles would be possible. I
expect angels outside of that could be defended by waist guns or
similar low drag arrangements.


The speed of the plance can't make up for the restricted field of fire of the
guns. And no wayion hell can the waist guns overlap the tail gun to compensate
for a limited f ield of fire..Guns designed with limited fields of fire are
poorly designed and/or poorly installed. Some day I'll tell you about the B-26
nose gun mess. But not now.ONemore pooint. Guns ar enot supposed to have
limited fields of fire. They are supposed to have the widest fields possible.
Got it?


Arthur Kramer

Jesus...sounds kinda unhealthy to have aircraft machine guns with
an unrestricted field of fire...no?.
--

-Gord.