Why point the whole plane at the target. Why not moveable forward guns?

major_setback · #1 10-27-2012, 02:10 PM

I read an article yesterday about the first defensive guns in a WWII biplane. There was an ace who specialised in flying close to the enemy so that his rear gunner could pick them off. This way he didn't have to aim his whole plane at his opponent.

A moveable forward gun would eliminate the need for finely manouvering your whole aircraft in order to get the target in your sights.

Are there any planes that have moveable forward firing guns? I know the Defiant's rear guns could be rotated forward, but I wasn't thinking of turrets, but of remotely controlled guns.

Such a thing might be too bulky to implement in the wings, but could maybe have fitted in the nose of double engined aircraft. The housing wouldn't have to be very big. you would only need a few degrees of movement to get tricky targets into your sights.

The Black Widdow had a remote forward firing turret but as far as I know it was plagued with problems (buffeting) and was eventually turned into a fixed gun position. Are there any others? If not, why?

swiss · #2 10-27-2012, 03:58 PM

there were plans for a Henschel 129 with a movable chin turret.

major_setback · #3 10-27-2012, 04:50 PM

I was thinking of something like this. Only pointing forward.

This is another option

Kupsised · #4 10-27-2012, 06:22 PM

It's a good idea. Even as far as the Defiant was concerned as far as I see it's a good idea killed by poor tactics (or, for example, the addition of a single or even two forward-firing wing-mount guns might have saved it).

I can't see why this idea wasn't used more often for bomber-destroyers though. I remember the old Il2 where I used to fly a B25 from the top turret without any payload and cut down fuel (for speed purposes) and use it to shoot down bombers. The B29 was even better for it on the servers that allowed all aircraft. You could hunt down other B29's, then use the 4 .50's in the front turret to bring them down. Happy days

baronWastelan · #5 10-27-2012, 06:47 PM

Wasn't there a British pilot in WWI who had a flex-mounted forward firing MG on top of the wing, before the synchronization came into use?

TomcatViP · #6 10-27-2012, 06:49 PM

Weights !!!

An heavier plane will move slower and be less agile and manoeuvrable. What the point of having a movable gun in front if you can't pursue your opponents or can't climb with him ?

Defiants although looking sexy on paper were sitting ducks for the 109.

It has even some difficulty catching with bombers.

So the nice and curved shape of the turret was of no use just as a nice and busty silhouette on a ring of a heavy weight championship.

*Buzzsaw* · #7 10-28-2012, 06:45 AM

Salute

Modern Jet fighters have moveable gatling guns, usually about 30mm caliber, which are aimed by computer so the pilot does not have to point the aircraft directly at the target. He just locks onto it with the radar, and guns fire at the appropriate moment. The range for the weapons are also much higher than anything you'd run into in WWII.

Takes all the human error out of the equation... and all the skill.

Flanker35M · #8 10-28-2012, 08:55 AM

S!

I can tell you Buzzsaw that none of the guns in jets move except the firing mechanism and barrels. Making a movable gun with that kind of recoil would be just too heavy and unreliable. What you referred to was propably the "auto trigger" that works as you described, the gun fires when the target is within a cone where bullets can hit. Even the guns have a range of over 2km the firing distances are still relatively short. And after all if you are down to guns only then something has gone terribly wrong.

But as said the gun systems themselves do not move on jets, on helicopters yes.

Skoshi Tiger · #9 10-28-2012, 09:24 AM

Straight from the ROF store page for the DH-2 aircraft.

"The Lewis machine gun was mounted in a nacelle and was difficult to implement to begin with. The movable gun mount forced the pilot not only to control the aircraft but also to aim the machine gun, which made combat even more difficult. Later on, pilots began to lock the gun down in a fixed position pointing forward. They managed to aim the weapon with the whole aircraft, and this was found to be more effective than attempting to move the machine gun around during engagements."

Now I'm not suggesting that you should take the word of a CFS as gospel but it does make sense.

Defelction shooting is hard enough as it is, though aces mastered it quite often. Try adding a couple of extra varables into the equation and I guess the dificulty would escalate exponentially.

The work load for the pilot in a single seat fighter is hard enough as it is. Add a nose gunner to the plane and things become a bit different.

Cheers!

lonewulf · #10 10-28-2012, 10:20 AM

"Wasn't there a British pilot in WWI who had a flex-mounted forward firing MG on top of the wing, before the synchronization came into use?"

Not too sure about pre-syncronization, but Albert Ball was the most famous of the Allied airmen to use an upward slanting Lewis on the Foster mount on his se5 to shoot down enemy aircraft.

This concept was later dusted-off and re-introduced by the Germans in WW 2 in their slanted weapon 'schrage musik' installations. When RAF bomber crews started to report terrifying mid-air explosions on their trips over Europe, Bomber Command dismissed these as 'scarecrow' shells incorporated with the flak to frighten the aircrews. In the end of course it turned out that there were no such thing as scarecrow shells. It was really British bombers exploding in mid-air after being hit but schrage musik equiped night fighters that were causing the pyrotechnics displays.