PDA

View Full Version : Self-Shootdown Protection?



bmoffa
12-28-2008, 07:26 AM
What, if anything, prevented waist and top turret gunners from shooting part off there own air plane? IL-2 doesn't seem to care about this, but it had to be a serious problem in real life.

bmoffa
12-28-2008, 07:26 AM
What, if anything, prevented waist and top turret gunners from shooting part off there own air plane? IL-2 doesn't seem to care about this, but it had to be a serious problem in real life.

Freiwillige
12-28-2008, 08:05 AM
I doubt it would be a serious problem.

Wildnoob
12-28-2008, 08:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bmoffa:
it had to be a serious problem in real life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if I'm not wrong the USAAF install in it's bomber aircraft a computer that prevent the top turrent gunner to fire when the gunsigth was pointed over the rudder.

but I don't know when this started to be used and if other air forces used this system.

Ritter_Cuda
12-28-2008, 10:34 AM
a computer I would doubt. a shut off switch maybe.

Wildnoob
12-28-2008, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ritter_Cuda:
a computer I would doubt. a shut off switch maybe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I forgot to also had wrote that was a early computer design. no comparasion with the functions of our machines today of course. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

but I can't confirm such information. looks more simple a lock design that prevent the trigger to be pulled when gunsigth was over the rudder of the plane. though this can really be make by an early WWII computer design.

gonna look for some informations about it.

Divine-Wind
12-28-2008, 12:24 PM
How would it know when it was pointed at the rudder? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Did they have some kind of marker or suchnot in front of where the rudder would be? (Hope that makes sense... I can't explain it very well lol)

horseback
12-28-2008, 12:30 PM
Cams on the turret guns would 'interrupt' the firing mechanisms of the guns when they were pointed at the tail or wings.

Waist guns couldn't be brought to bear on the tail and the gunners usually had enough awareness to avoid taking out their own wings. Later models of the B-17 and B-24 had the waist guns mounted in ball and sockets in windows, which I assume had some kind of cam sensing for the wings.

cheers

horseback

Bearcat99
12-28-2008, 12:38 PM
Well if they had interrupter gears in WWI .... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Wildnoob
12-28-2008, 12:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Divine-Windk:
CHow would it know when it was pointed at the rudder? Blink Did they have some kind of marker or suchnot in front of where the rudder would be? (Hope that makes sense... I can't explain it very well lol)

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

sorry, I mean the tail, not the rudder. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

Aaron_GT
12-28-2008, 01:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Later models of the B-17 and B-24 had the waist guns mounted in ball and sockets in windows, which I assume had some kind of cam sensing for the wings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK that was just to allow the use of windows (less drag, less freezing of gun mechanisms) using ball and socket as in the nose positions. The ball and socket mount was in use in the earliest marks of B-17 in positions other than the waist. They couldn't be used in the waist position as the B-17 had two waist gunners (Wellington, He-111, B-25 had one) and the pivot point needed to be outside because the windows weren't offset. Offsetting the windows allowed the used of the ball and socket.

ace1328fw190
12-28-2008, 01:26 PM
im assuming that they would of been able to update the interrupter system the WW1 pilots had so that they wouldnt shoot of thier prop...thats just my thoughts...no proof though

interesting question though

Freiwillige
12-28-2008, 01:30 PM
No interupter gear, You would have to be an idiot to shoot off your own tail. The interupter gear is common sense!

berg417448
12-28-2008, 01:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ritter_Cuda:
a computer I would doubt. a shut off switch maybe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the case of the B-29 it was a fire control computer:

http://www.twinbeech.com/images/TURRETS/cfc/CFC%20computer197web.JPG

Wildnoob
12-28-2008, 01:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ritter_Cuda:
a computer I would doubt. a shut off switch maybe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the case of the B-29 it was a fire control computer:

http://www.twinbeech.com/images/TURRETS/cfc/CFC%20computer197web.JPG </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

so it was on the B-29. thank you very much for the info berg417448!

sorry for the confusion that I make with this computer fire control system.

berg417448
12-28-2008, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
No interupter gear, You would have to be an idiot to shoot off your own tail. The interupter gear is common sense! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

some aircraft had interrupter gears:


"
For maximum efficiency the bomber turret needed to be able to rotate in all directions and cover as wide a range of elevation as possible - this meant that there would be some combinations of elevation and direction where the turret was aiming at some part of the aircraft itself. To prevent the guns firing an electrical system was used. The guns were fired by solenoids and by introducing a break in the electrical power to the guns that coincided with the forbidden arcs of fire the aircraft would be safe from its own guns.

The Boulton Paul design used a brass drum and brush contacts that corresponded to the direction of the turret and angle of the guns. Where the brass was removed and replaced with insulating material the electrical circuit would be broken and the guns prevented from firing."

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Interrupter_gear

Scolar
12-28-2008, 02:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:
No interupter gear, You would have to be an idiot to shoot off your own tail. The interupter gear is common sense! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haha too true, wouldn't want Cletus as a gunner in your plane!
"Hey ma lookie here while I shoot my wing off"

Aaron_GT
12-28-2008, 03:05 PM
The B-29 was quite a different animal to most WW2 bombers as the control over the turrets was via the fire control system. Incredibly advanced for the period.

Wildnoob
12-28-2008, 03:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The B-29 was quite a different animal to most WW2 bombers as the control over the turrets was via the fire control system. Incredibly advanced for the period. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the Ki-21 II also had a stringer gun instalation in the tail for a type 97 machine gun. wonder why was not used in other aircraft. looks far more safety an effective then having the needed a crew member to operate the gun directly exposed to enemy fire. I don't know nothing about it, but logic says that maybe this instalation of a defensive gun in such type was more complex, expensive or both and for that was not used in other aicraft.

Aaron_GT
12-28-2008, 03:55 PM
Those types were generally operated by periscopic rather than direct vision sights and had limited fields of vision which made it hard to hit things with them. (It would be like flying IL2 only in zoomed in view and trying to track a fast maneouvering plane without using padlock).

The B-29 used direct vision from an offset sighting position but with the computer being used to converge fire from multiple turrets at the selected convergence. The nearest equivalent was the gunner's position in the Me 410, but the B-29 system was more extensive.

Periscopic sighting included the ventral turret in the B25C and the FN64 in the Lancaster and Halifax. In all cases the field of vision meant they were so hard to use they were mostly removed.

bmoffa
12-29-2008, 07:32 AM
Thanks for all the responses...

One reply to the person that said you would be an idiot to shot off your own wing. Imagine yourself in the heat of battle trying to hit an enemy air plane that's trying to shoot you down. You may very well follow that target with you guns blazing right through your own wing or tail.