B-17 Waist Gunner
				
					Collapse
				
			
		
	X
- 
	
	
	
		
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
 I was wondering the same thing. It seems like a simple geared arrangement would help. It may not be perfect, but it would be a good start.Originally posted by Terry Carraway View PostI wonder why no one came up with a mechanical system to offset the sights to make it easier. The angle from the gun to the plane (both fore and aft and up and down) is measurable.
 Comment
- 
	
	
	
		
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
 A sort-of tracking sight would have been more weight, more moving parts, more maintenance, and something else to get jammed by incoming metal bits. Same way the dirt-simple, loose toleranced AK-47 outperformed the too-tightly crafted original M-16.Geology rocks, but geography is where it's at.
 Comment
- 
	
	
	
		
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
 Maybe. I'm thinking about a simple cam operated sight that moves as the gun is pivoted. A stationary one can remain as backup. I'd think there would be a significant increase in kills that would justify a minor addition to an already complex airplane.Originally posted by Ray Tackett View PostA sort-of tracking sight would have been more weight, more moving parts, more maintenance, and something else to get jammed by incoming metal bits. Same way the dirt-simple, loose toleranced AK-47 outperformed the too-tightly crafted original M-16.
 Comment
- 
	
	
	
		
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	
	
 They did. In the A-26 and B-29 the gunners did have lead-computing gunsights, remotely controlling the turrets. This shows why Gunnery School was long and arduous!Originally posted by Russell Holton View Post
 I was wondering the same thing. It seems like a simple geared arrangement would help. It may not be perfect, but it would be a good start.
 
 Best,
 Andy
 Comment
 
			
			
		
 
			
			
		
Comment