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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |