If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" writes: "Peter Stickney" wrote in message ... In article , Charles Gray writes: Numerous bombers and heavy fighters, especially thowse that entered service post 1943 have reference to remote controlled weapons. Now, the remote control part should be fairly easy, but how were they aimed? I'm assuming that you linked the gunners controls in such a way thatthe gun always fired at the point where he was aiming, making allowences for the location of the gun-- but how effective were they? How hard was it to keep them in repair, as that sounds like a fairly complex and advanced system for the 1940's. There were quite a few implementation of remote-controlled weapons during WW 2. The level of sophistication varied greatly - from fixed light machine guns pointing directly behind some bombers that couldn't cover that area with aimed gune - (HE 111, and, IIRC, the Martin Maryland - it worked about as well as could be expected, which is to say, not very well at all) - to the U.S. A-26 and B-29's computer controlled systems that automatically computed lead, jump, drop, and the effects of altitude and temperature on the gun's trajectory, and could aim several gun turrets from a single sighting station. (Oh, yeah, it corrected for parallax errors for having the turrets adn the sights in different locations. A B-29 gunner only had to place the pipper of his sight on the target, and adjust the stadiametric range circle as he tracked. The Fire COntrol System did the rest. I just got off the phone with my eighty year old father. While he was fuzzy on the specifics these many years later, he said that they had to input the wingspan of the target into the computer at the gunner's station (otherwise your system could not compute the range). The navigator input the B-29's current airspeed into the CFC system from his location. The gunner then tracked the target in his reticle, adjusting the stadia as you indicate. He could not recall any requirment for temperature to be input. I should have been more clear, I guess. The computer used an OAT and barometric pressure reading in its solution, but that was read by its own thermometer and anaeroid. The Gunners didn't have to dial it in. They did have to set the baseline for the range reticle, as you describe. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Czechoslovak nuclear weapons? Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 25 | January 17th 04 02:18 PM |
please stop bashing France | Grantland | Military Aviation | 233 | October 29th 03 01:23 AM |
What about the AIM-54 Pheonix Missile? | Flub | Military Aviation | 26 | October 5th 03 05:34 AM |
P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,reality | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 131 | September 7th 03 09:02 PM |
Laser simulator provides weapons training | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 28th 03 09:58 PM |