American Secret Weapons...

[otisabuser2]

Think we are seeing two different things here guys.

Here is my ( rough ) impression of what the view would be from the waist gun position of the XB24N.

I've elongated the stabiliser length at the existing angle and shape.

Compare this with the original view below.

[otisabuser2]

I think there is a much better field of vision in the original pic than in this one.

Ok, I could make the tail longer and wider to make it block more view. However, I would have to make it pretty large to make the obstruction as bad as the initial.

Also bear in mind the tail in the XB24N sweeps upwards slightly and to the rear.

If we agree the view is better, then I am sure we still disagree on the arc of fire being better. That very much depends on whether that .50 cal could possibly traverse any more to the left.

I seems to me that if the view was better, then the thing would have been engineered better to use the better possible arc of fire. There are many ways the mount could be modified.

Terminus and HS beleive the weapon could not aim back any further.

HS further suggests that they may have been blocks preventing the gun firing into it's own plane. As in this direction only the parts of the tailplane shown could be fired at, it kind of suggests that the gun could otherwise have fired at the tailplane, and hence the original tailplane would have had the worst arc of fire ? ( Unless HS is meaning something else entirely in his statement, which I don't get ).

If you look at pictures and film of wartime aircraft you will find images of these waist guns tilted back, and sometimes firing at impressive angles. Something like 20 degrees from the centreline.

This is why I beleive the XB24N waistgunner has a better arc of fire than the vanilla B24.

I am of course willing to change my opinion, if someone has data, photos, diagrams or films to the contrary. In fact I would love to see them.