So, I’m pretty sure we all know that the B-29 had turrets that could be remotely controlled from “fire stations” inside the bomber. But my question revolves around how exactly the gunner would see and fire at the target. I will try to break it up into sections for easy reference:
How would the gunner even see the target. I know that there are windows on the side of the bomber that you can look out of, but would those even be effective? And God forbid that the target is well... above the bomber. (Yes I know that it would fly higher than a Japanese zero, but say the enemy somehow was above the bomber). Was there a sort of monitor inside of the gunner’s position? If so, how clear was the picture, was it in color, and were the “sights” of the turret relative to the monitor feed, or another sensory device, given that you would have to account for ballistics, but you would probably want to see your target at the same time? This seems like it would be rather out of place though, even considering that the project was crazy expensive.
How would the gunner fire? This is of less importance, but I am still curious. Would they just press a button? Or would there be some sort of trigger integrated into their console?
How would the turrets rotate? Since the guns aren’t operated manually, I don’t expect that the rotation of the turret would either. Would they have a joystick that moved it? That would seem the most logical to me.
Explanations are great but so are pictures, but I’ve not been able to find any good quality, up close pictures of the gunner’s fire station, so any links towards good pictures would be just as appreciated.
The reason I’m asking this is because people always talk about the remote systems, but quickly gloss-over the mechanics behind it. After all, we were still using wood landing decks on aircraft carriers, so it’s hard to imagine that the gunner inside a WWII bomber would have an Alien Ware monitor inside his fire station. I look forward to reading your answers!
The B-29's remote control system was the culmination of USAAF attempts to create a centrally-coordinated gunnery system. Remote-controlled turrets could both be streamlined and employ the most up to date fire control systems.
There were several false starts in this direction though. Bell's failed FM-1 Airacuda bomber destroyer featured an analogue fire control computer designed by Sperry. Prototypes of the XA-20B and F featured remote turrets aimed through periscopic sights. But testing showed this system flawed as the periscopic sights created a tunnel-vision effect. The A-26 refined this system with a rear gunner that could control two turrets from a station that could toggle between sights on via periscopes on the top and bottom of the medium bomber and fire via a two-grip joystick. An analogue fire control computer manufactured by General Electric translated the inputs for correct firing of the turrets.
The A-26's system though was not very ergonomically designed. The bottom turret was practically useless and the gunner had great difficulty targeting with the lower periscope because of the tunnel vision effect. Boeing, working nearly simultaneously to the A-26, rectified this flaw with its B-29. There were four sighting stations- one in the nose, three aft of the bombay- and a tail-gunner position as seen in this diagram and this training manual schematic. The B-29 resolved the tunnel vision problem via plexiglass blisters that allowed the gunners to be aware of the skies without having to peer into a narrow sight, see this photo for a view from one of the aft side blisters. This photo of the upper gunner's position show he had a good 180 degree field of vision without the sight obscuring his field of vision. The pedestal sights for the side blisters were bulky, but did not completely obscure the gunners' vision. This short (and rather neat) demonstration how the manual inputs of the gunner would be conveyed to the turrets and how the gunner could toggle between turrets.
The core of the B-29 system was a GE-manufactured Central Station Fire Control System (CSFC). There was a CSFC at each firing station. The USAAF had initially rewarded Sperry the contract for the B-29's defensive systems, but its system of periscopes and retractable gun turrets was unworkable. The resulting CSFC not only received the inputs to fire from the gunners, but also external data like airspeed, wind speed, and temperature. The computer would then calculate the proper aim for the target and electronically-relay the data to whichever turret or turrets the gunner had selected via switches on his sight.
The success of the B-29 system was somewhat mixed. The early batches of B-29s suffered from variable installation of the CSFC and the bleeding-edge technology presented a steep learning curve for B-29 crews when they were first deployed to the CBI theater. But there were other issues as well. The CFSC did not account for the B-29's fuselage to flex in flight, which offset some of its calculations. The high altitudes the B-29 operated in during daylight attacks also meant that the gunners had to deal with jet stream winds over Japan, something that the neither the CSFC designers nor USAAF planners had anticipated. Frost and ice could obscure sighting from the blisters. The system was temperamental to calibrate and needed indoor hangars, something that was in short supply in the Pacific and CBI theaters.
Some B-29 crews liked the system though and found it effective, while other B-29 crews advocated to a return to individual manned positions. But there was common agreement that the whole system was highly complex and a novel break from defensive gunnery. As one B-29 gunner noted in the 500th Bomb Group, the toggling between gunners meant that nobody in the crew knew who was firing when the B-29 came under attack. The CSFC system itself was both sign of the future and a technological dead end. GE would refine many of the B-29's gunnery systems for Convair's B-36. The B-29's decoupling of the gunner positions from direct proximity to the guns likewise became a feature of defensive gunnery. But the growing speed of combat aircraft meant that visual sighting, even if aided by fire control computers, was increasingly ineffective. The B-29 gunnery system had difficulty against the relatively slow Japanese fighters that lacked high-altitude performance. These problems reemerged with a vengeance over Korea when B-29 crews had to face off against MiG-15s and B-29 gunners had incredible difficulties with the Soviet-built jets. Radar-directed guns operated by a single gunnery officer was the way of the future and replaced the team of gunners operating at their own stations.
Sources
Gustin, Emmanuel, and Anthony G. Williams. Flying Guns: The Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition, and Installations, 1933-45. Shrewsbury, England: Airlife, 2003.
Nijboer, Donald. B-29 Superfortress Vs Ki-44 'Tojo': Pacific 1944-45. Oxford : Osprey Publishing, 2017.
