American Secret Weapons...

[otisabuser2]

those guns had blocks to keep them from fireing into there own plane

So that's clear then. Your view is that the twin tail fins did not interfere with the firing arcs of the waist guns, because the blocks ( to stop the gunners shooting their fins off ) stopped the guns traversing any further anyway.

It's that kind of clear insight that make a mockery out of all those so-called aviation authors who do not have a clue what they're thinking about.

[&o]

[Hard Sarge]

Since you already know what you want to hear, why bother asking quesions about it ?
 
 

[otisabuser2]

Erm....

What I want to hear is a straight answer.

Did the old B24 tail fins restrict the firing arcs of the waist guns ?

[Hard Sarge]

Well, golly gee, I am and was not a waist gunner on a B-24, so can not give you that kind of reply
 
I can give you what I have seen, I have seen the fireing arcs of the plane, I have seen the pic's of the GE pilots studying the plane to see the best attack angles, based on the fireing arcs of the different guns
 
I can make a guess based on what Gunners have wrote about during there flights
 
I know tech specs on how some of the guns worked, and can make guesses on how others would work based on that
 
(some weapons had Blocks, to stop the gun from turning too far, some turrets, had slant blocks (others had cams) to make the Guns raise above the plane part)
 
(a top Turret, you would want to still have full 360 movement, even if you did not want it firing though out it's whole turn, while a nose turret or tail turret,would only be allowed to turn so far to each side, plus some of the turrets would be restricked based on the ammo fed system)
 
but again, since the new tail, the Stabs are wider and placed higher on the body, I would say the new tail was more of a block, then the old tail was
 
also, I would say there were other reasons for the new tail, then for fields of fire
 
plus it is a odd statement, since at the time of the change, Bomber interception was not a major concern

[otisabuser2]

OK.

I think you missled us all somewhat. The original post of the report on this plane was attacked rather vigourously by you. You stated the writer "had no clue about what he was talking about".

When a supporting report came from an "Army Air Forces Proving Ground Report in 1944" you also rounded on that one stating authors views were "plain retarded".

These strong views lead me and possibly others to the conclusion that you did know what you were talking about. Furthermore talk about having examined the firing arcs seemed to re-inforce this position.

As a layman, it seemed to me that the view of the waist-gunner must have been impeeded by the twin tailfin. I researched and posted views of the B24 to support what I had seen.

Now you have admitted that all your bluster on the subject is a "guess" ( your words ) based on reports you may have once read. You have not one shred of evidence on the subject ( at least you do not post any ) ?

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with people posting opinions aircraft matters on these forums. Debate, also is healthy. I do though, think it is dangerous when respected persons such as yourselves start personal attacks on posters and authors, with no basis whatsoever other than some unsubstantiated "guess", which is hyped-up to be informed opinion.

So people know what a waist gun is, I will post a pic below. This demonstrates the possible firing arcs of one particular installation.

[Hard Sarge]

Okay and ?
 
that pic, the guns still does not fire to the rear, the windows sides still act as a block ?
 
is that even from the plane we are talking about ?
 
not from the drawing or pic's that we have been shown
 
and again, how does the new tail help the rear gunner or the belly gunner ?
 
 

[DuckofTindalos]

Pretty sure that last one's not from a B-24 (of any mark) given the tilt of the fuselage. Here's one that is:

[Rebel Yell]

Yes, otisabuser2's pic is a Fort.

[otisabuser2]

Quite right Rebel Yell, that was a B17. I deleted the caption to see if anyone got it.

The point is that the mounting, and also quiet probably that posted by Terminus CAN pivot beyond 45 degrees.

Therefore it CAN fire towards the B24 fin position.

Therefore the B24 fin does restrict the firing arcs of the waist guns.

....or is it only me who can see this ?

[otisabuser2]

Hang on guys, this is a B24. The views from the port and starboard waist gunner positions.

[otisabuser2]

one per post....

[otisabuser2]

...anyone still not think those fins may have restricted the arcs of fire of those guns.......

I've got one more good one, but I'm saving it in reserve.

[Hard Sarge]

OB, my point is that the new tail sticks out even farther then the tail the 24 had to start with
 
if the rudder on the beginning plane was a block, then the tail on the new model would also be a block
 
if we going to keep going with this, bring in numbers of 24's that were shot down by there own gunners ? , how may side gunners shot off the rudder, how many Belly gunners
 
for your pic's, those are nice, but one is off angled, so is not easy to judge how much  the gunner would see
 
the other, is the gun at the end of it play, or does it still have free movement, also, since it is not a Warplane, does it still have all the blocks in place ?
 
 

[DuckofTindalos]

One thing is field of fire just looking at the weapon, but what about the gunner? To fire almost directly to the rear, wouldn't he have to be flat against the fuselage?

[otisabuser2]

You guys [:)]

The evidence is in the pictures. Just take a look at them.

If Terminus is correct then those pics would be almost impossible to take. Do those look as if they are taken with the photographer flattened against the sides of the fuselage?

I posted those because the view was taken almost precisely through the gun axis in each
case.

Hardsarge are you seriously stating that the new tailplane would be so long that the view would be MORE obstructed than the vertical fin ? Come on [X(]

[Hard Sarge]

Can you see ?
 
the tail on the normal B-24 ends at the inboard engine, the tail on the new model, goes half way to the outboard engine, so yes, I am saying the new tail is sticking out farther then then the old tail

[DuckofTindalos]

I suspect that maybe, just maybe, it's time to ring the bell and end this discussion...

[Hard Sarge]

Why ?
 
he has a point he been trying to prove for months now, let him get it over with
 
then we can all be happy
 
 

[DuckofTindalos]

Because it's fruitless... But that's up to you two...

[Hard Sarge]

I agree
but it been going on for months, we stop this one now with out getting to the point, it will just move to a new post, either way