Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!mips!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: Scott.Johnson@f15.n391.z1.FidoNet.Org (Scott Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: new soviet tanks
Message-ID: <1991May23.055340.14823@amd.com>
Date: 18 May 91 14:59:00 GMT
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Lines: 33
Approved: military@amd.com


From: Scott.Johnson@f15.n391.z1.FidoNet.Org (Scott Johnson)


>The B-17 had a similar problem.  On the prototypes for the first turre
>armed versions (E, I think) they initially tried to use electrically 

Nope, they just had the periscopic ventral turret. Everything   
else was as-is (was?), electrically operated but manually aimed/direct   
sited. The periscope was notorious for giving the gunners headaches and   
airsickness, and there was not a single confirmed kill using the thing.   
Most removed it to save weight.

>        [OK, so how did the B-29 fix the problem and why couldn't
>         they use that for the MBT-70? --CDR]

The B-29 used a central computer to calculate lead and firing   
position from information provided by special gunsights (3 in the waist   
and 1 in the nose). The part that the gunner looked through was little   
more than an elaborate reflecting gunsight-- no "periscoping" involoved.   
An interesting note is that the top-waist gunner was the "gun   
commander", and had complete control over who controlled what turret.   
Normally he had exclusive controll over the top back turret, the   
bombadier had primary control of the top forward turret (gun commander   
had secondary control), and the two waist gunners had the bottom two.   
Through switches at his station, the gun commander could switch turrets   
to whomever needed them. This made the B-29 a MOST formidable target,   
and many times a wounded -29 was protected by an undamaged one. I have   
read many accounts where the fighters were literally beaten away from   
the hurt bomber.

See ya!  
Scott J.