Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!oliveb!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Derek E. Terveer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: film quality in gun cameras
Message-ID: <1991Apr18.032356.21536@amd.com>
Date: 17 Apr 91 06:43:02 GMT
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Lines: 29
Approved: military@amd.com


From: det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Derek E. Terveer)


[Bill, er, ah, i mean Carl, I'm not sure if this should go to sci.military
or soc.history...]

I have noticed that German gun camera footage of WWII air combat seems
to be pretty uniformly of poorer quality than US gun camera footage.
(It is a lot more grainy and darker for starters)  Has anyone else
noticed this and does anyone know the reason for this?  I would have
thought that the germans, as meticulous as they are, would have had
better film.  Or was the shortage of "strategic" materials (like
silver?) responsible for the lower quality?  Or was it a deliberate
policy on the part of the air force equivalent of OKH (or whatever)?
Perhaps they didn't think it was worth it?
Did all that gun camera footage shot in WWII significantly affect
tactics and/or weapons development?

Moving on to somewhat more modern times, I assume that we still have, as
a rule, gun cameras on our (US) fighters.  What kind of film is used and
why?  How much film (physical length as well as time duration) is loaded?
Is the camera only on when the gun is actually firing or is there also some
trailer that is shot as well, i.e., for a few seconds after the gun has
stopped firing to possibly see the resulting damage, if any?

Enough questions for now, thanks.

derek