A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Remote controled weapons in WWII



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 19th 04, 09:57 PM
Charles Gray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Remote controled weapons in WWII

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.

  #2  
Old January 19th 04, 10:51 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Charles Gray" wrote in message
...
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.


The B-29 had remote controlled turrets. Each gunner (and the bombadier,
IIRC) had a computerized gun sight that he used to track the target. He was
required to be able to identify the target by aircraft type, as the wingspan
of the target had to be entered into the system in order for it to be
accurate. The information from his sight track went to the central fire
control computer which crunched the numbers (electromechanically) and
adjusted the guns under his control accordingly. The central fire control
gunner was perched in the rear dorsal blister, and he could switch control
of various turrets to the various gunners, who normally had primary control
of one particular turret.

It faced it s fair share of teething troubles during development, but it was
judged to be very effective during WWII (and even later, as the Soviets
copied the system for their Tu-4 Bull and then carried the same basic system
over for use in the later Tu-16 and Tu-20/95). My father trained as a B-29
gunner and flew missions over Japan--he had also trained on the B-17 and
B-24 with their manually operated guns, and he definitely considered the
B-29's system to be superior to those. During Korea the original system was
found wanting versus higher speed jet attacks; that should not have been a
big surprise, as B-29 crews facing early generation jets during training
towards the close of WWII had already reported that tracking the faster
interceptors was a real challenge (my dad's crew had rotated back stateside
to attend lead crew school before returning to Guam, and he had the
opportunity to particpate in such a training experiment out of what was then
Muroc AAF (later Edwards AFB).

Brooks




  #3  
Old January 20th 04, 04:40 AM
William Donzelli
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message ...

It was technically quite difficult to provide a smooth control
that had a more or less natural 'feel' for the gunner, was capable of
high speeds of rotation but also of accurate slow tracking, and had
no dead spots anywhere where movement wasn't linked correctly
to control input -- for example when passing the 0 degree line from
left to right, where the forces working on the turret reversed.


This I do not understand. The radar antennas of the era often used
synchro feedback systems - synchros do not have dead spots, they
provide a rotational signal from 0 to 360 with no interruptions when
making the 359 to 0 transition. What was the problem with the
control systems in the turrets?

Very hard. The electronics of the period used numerous
vacuum tubes which had a short lifetime.


Only hard working transmitter and radar tubes had short lifespans
(often just 50 hours). The tubes found in just about everything else
were quite hardy - most outlasted the war and are still good today.
Many small signal tubes often clocked lives well past 10,000 operating
hours.

William Donzelli
  #5  
Old January 20th 04, 11:32 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Apart from the B-29, these weren't very sophisticated. The Boeing B-17
tail gunner aimed with a little stick; the guns tracked the movement
of the stick. The gunner at the rear of the Mitsubishi Ki-21 "Sally"
bomber had a manually aimed gun that was tracked by a stinger in the
tail. When his own rudder was in his sight, he could fire the stinger
by pulling on a lanyard. (Well, he could fire it at any time, but it
was most useful on those occasions.)

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:57:21 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

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.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at
www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
  #6  
Old January 20th 04, 02:50 PM
The Enlightenment
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"William Donzelli" wrote in message
om...
"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in

message ...

It was technically quite difficult to provide a smooth control
that had a more or less natural 'feel' for the gunner, was capable

of
high speeds of rotation but also of accurate slow tracking, and

had
no dead spots anywhere where movement wasn't linked correctly
to control input -- for example when passing the 0 degree line

from
left to right, where the forces working on the turret reversed.


This I do not understand. The radar antennas of the era often used
synchro feedback systems - synchros do not have dead spots, they
provide a rotational signal from 0 to 360 with no interruptions when
making the 359 to 0 transition. What was the problem with the
control systems in the turrets?

Very hard. The electronics of the period used numerous
vacuum tubes which had a short lifetime.


Only hard working transmitter and radar tubes had short lifespans
(often just 50 hours). The tubes found in just about everything else
were quite hardy - most outlasted the war and are still good today.
Many small signal tubes often clocked lives well past 10,000

operating
hours.

William Donzelli




The tubes involved were special power amplifier tubes with heavy anode
cathode currents that must have been erosive. I do not believe they
had nearly 10,000 hours life. Amplifying DC was not possible because
directly unlike today when complimentary npn and pnp transistors are
available only valves were available and they had very particular
biasing requirements.

The technique of the day was to use an AC signal of 50,60 or 400Hz to
chop up the DC signal (called modulation) via a high speed relay known
as a vibrator. Typical life of these was 2000 hours. After being
chopped up the signal was transformer coupled to amplifier valves and
then demodulated by another relay similar to the first one and
operating in phase. This phase sensitive demodulation then restored
the chopped up signal to DC. Both relays chopped at the same time.
The phase sensitive modulation and demodulation could also be carried
out by a 4 valve ring modulator and ring demodulator. For reasons of
noise and power the modulation was carried out by a vibrator relay and
the phase sensitive demodulation by a valve based ring demodulator.

Its sounds crude but was quite accurate. A full serve system would
involved resistors for position sensing that were amplified in DC,
amplidynes which operated in AC to generate mathematical functions
such as sine, cos etc (amplidyne is a sort of rotary transformer in
which the overlap of the poles of the two secondary windings are
added/subtracted from each other. The area of he poles can be used to
generate voltages that are functions of shaft position.

The noble prize winner William Schokley who's team invented the
transistor was I believe funded in part to provide replacements for
valve gear in B29 barrettes.

During the Korean war the electromechanical computers of the B29 could
not compute for the closing rates of the MiG 15s. I don't see how
they would have coped with an Me 262 in that case.

I guess that Aiming consisted of tracking the target while enclosing
the wingspan of the aircraft in a "ring" in the gun sight to estimate
range. The "rate" and range determined lead and elevation.


  #7  
Old January 20th 04, 02:57 PM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

Remote control was also a feature of AAA (Anti-Aircraft Artillery).
All combatants used this to some degree, eslecially for Medium &
Heavy (40mm & up) guns. Targets were tracked by radar or optical
systems, which fed the target's motion and position data to a
Mechanical or Electromechanical Analog Computer, which resolved the
pointing solution and time of flight (Fuze setting) solution for the
guns. Less sophisticated systems, such as those used by the Germans,
used the computer to move a set of pointers on the gun mounts, and the
Pointer and Trainer operators turned handwheels to move the gun's
position to match the computer's commands. The U.S., and later the
Brits, with better technology (Feedback control systems, Variacs adn
Amplidynes) were able to control the pointing of the guns, and the
setting of the fuzes directly. With the introduction of the SCR-584
autotracking (You lock it on to a target, and it tracks it
automatically) radar, which fed the Ballistic Computer directly,
Remote Power Control to the guns, and Proximity Fuzes, Anti-aircraft
engagements were completely automated - The Gun Crew's job was to feed
shells into the breech as fast as they could, and act as a backup to
the remote systems.

The U.S. Navy had a similar level of sophistication. All guns on a
large ship were remotely controlled in train & elevation by the Fire
Control Systems, and the firing of the guns was controlled by the
computer. These computers automatically tracked the designated
targets, and controlled rangefinders and pointing systems, as well as
the guns. (The Spotting and Rangefinding crews, once the system was
tracking, input corrections, rather than raw position inputs)
With the introduction of microwave radars, which could spot
shell splashes as well as track targets, and allow gunfire corrections
to be made, they were capable of completely blind fire. THis was a
significant advantage that no other combatant had. (The Brits came
close, but the Germans and the Japanese were never able to build
systems that could accurately position something as large as a 90mm
gun, let alone a Battleship Turret).

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
  #8  
Old January 20th 04, 04:33 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.

Brooks


  #9  
Old January 20th 04, 06:55 PM
M. J. Powell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , The
Enlightenment writes

"William Donzelli" wrote in message
. com...
"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in

message ...

It was technically quite difficult to provide a smooth control
that had a more or less natural 'feel' for the gunner, was capable

of
high speeds of rotation but also of accurate slow tracking, and

had
no dead spots anywhere where movement wasn't linked correctly
to control input -- for example when passing the 0 degree line

from
left to right, where the forces working on the turret reversed.


This I do not understand. The radar antennas of the era often used
synchro feedback systems - synchros do not have dead spots, they
provide a rotational signal from 0 to 360 with no interruptions when
making the 359 to 0 transition. What was the problem with the
control systems in the turrets?

Very hard. The electronics of the period used numerous
vacuum tubes which had a short lifetime.


Only hard working transmitter and radar tubes had short lifespans
(often just 50 hours). The tubes found in just about everything else
were quite hardy - most outlasted the war and are still good today.
Many small signal tubes often clocked lives well past 10,000

operating
hours.

William Donzelli




The tubes involved were special power amplifier tubes with heavy anode
cathode currents that must have been erosive. I do not believe they
had nearly 10,000 hours life. Amplifying DC was not possible because
directly unlike today when complimentary npn and pnp transistors are
available only valves were available and they had very particular
biasing requirements.


Most of the valves were similar to civilian valves, some were
'ruggedised'. Radio and TV valves had lives longer than 10,000 hours.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell
  #10  
Old January 21st 04, 02:38 AM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 03:18 PM
please stop bashing France Grantland Military Aviation 233 October 29th 03 02:23 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.