Turret Gunner Controls

[Moggy]

I've been sent a link (thanks Handsome) to a couple of videos on youtube which explains the Defiant gunner's duties and operations. Interestingly enough, the gunner controlled his turret by means of a joystick with a button on top for the guns. He also had a switch to make the turret motor move at a greater speed but was discouraged from doing so unless it was important. Also interestingly you'll see the switch which switches control of the guns between the gunner and pilot. Of course the pilot couldn't fire directly forwards as the rounds would take off the propeller (there was an interrupter gear to prevent this), the gunner had to elevate the guns to 19° or 20° to fire above the propeller arc. The pilot also did not have a reflector sight.
The section for the Defiant starts at 6:55 in this video and goes on for the next 2 videos after in the series, enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTLCs5OXY1w

[Richard]

Interesting thread. If people want realistic turret speeds etc, Oleg & Co should also implement G-forces on the gunner as well (will obviously more relevant in aircraft such as the SBD, Beau, Defiant etc etc) ...

If anyone of you have seen the Dogfights episode where Stanley "Swede" Vejtasa shot down 2 Zeros (or perhaps 3?) with his SBD Dauntless dive-bomber, you notice that his rear gunner didn't fire a shot at all. Why? Because the heavy G-forces of Vejtasa's maneuvering of the SBD kept the rear gunner pinned to his seat, unable to train his guns on the marauding Zero's..

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by whatnot

That's quite an ingore list you got going there Wutz!

I knew that Wutz's attitude reminded me of someone, but I couldn't quite remember who....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1HwKA0J-gU

...expect my name also will be 'added to the list'...

[Moggy]

To be fair though Richard, Vejtasa's gunner had to move and aim his guns manually. How much affect would G-forces have on a gunner moving a joystick in his right hand in a powered turret, would they prevent him from moving an inch or 2? Honestly I don't know but I have my doubts.

[winny]

I read an account from an RAF BoB pilot who said that it was quite common to see Stuka rear gunners 'go floppy' as they passed out due to the G, especially comming out of a dive. He even described being able to see the guys limp arms rising and falling as the Stuka made an attempt to get away from him.

That is definitley one job I wouldn't want.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Moggy

To be fair though Richard, Vejtasa's gunner had to move and aim his guns manually. How much affect would G-forces have on a gunner moving a joystick in his right hand in a powered turret, would they prevent him from moving an inch or 2? Honestly I don't know but I have my doubts.

If the gunner in the powered turret was subjected to the same g-forces, I guess he'd be able to move it around if the stick controlling the turret was placed in a "proper" position, but he would still be just as useless since he'd be suffering from G-induced blackouts.. If he can't see, he can't shoot
(This would be different for the pilot, since he's obviously in control of the airplane)


But planes with power-operated turrets tended to be heavier aircraft, so I guess it wasn't that "normal" to expect high g-forces in a Blenheim, B25 etc, compared to the SBD Dauntless for an example.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

Here's why I lean against it. It is a crutch leading you down the wrong path. It also could give bomber pilots a bad reputation. Frankly, I wish it was true that AI gunners could not give you EAD. It's a freebie kill. They should only be allowed to inflict damage on an enemy fighter, but no EAD. Fortuneately, I can't remember the last time I had EAD from AI gunner, so maybe they fixed it in a patch. The flip to what Blackdog is saying about QMB: I can go to QMB, load up 4xp51 or 4xspit on ace mode (one in each slot for independent treatment) fly a Stucka or 110 in the QMB and I smoke/EAD each one from the rear gun position. If I left it to AI gunners, not going to happen. What I'm really saying it is a skill that should be learned by all bomber pilots. I think it is okay to use AI gunners in the begining when your learning the ropes of bombing. But at some point, you gotta dump the AI to get better defensively. If CoD does what Blackdog suggests, I fear that the incentive to improve defensive skills would disappear and that would be detriment to gameplay in the long run. If you want these commands as option, I guess that is okay. But they don't belong on full-switch/full-real servers.

What you say is partially true and i don't necessarily disagree. In fact, it's always better to do it manually and with the new mutlicrew feature for multiplayer i'm sure i'll prefer having actual humans on the turrets.

However, keep in mind that just because what you describe is harder and leads to a heightened gameplay skill, it doesn't make it realistic since a real pilot wouldn't have to to fly the bomber and shoot the rear facing guns at the same time
He had his "crutches" too, only he used to call them "my crew". That's what an improved AI would simulate and together with the complex systems modeling it would breath new life into flying bombers in offline campaigns. I'm not expecting AI gunners that have similar results to a manually controlled turret, but i'm expecting some that, with varying degrees of effectiveness according to AI skill levels, can create the illusion of a human sitting in that seat and follow a reasonable routine of selecting/tracking targets and firing the guns in a realistic manner. For online, i bet most people would prefer to use human crewmen anyway.

In IL2 the gunners will either give you a one-shot sniper kill, ping you a few times or be firing into empty air at the direction the attacking fighter came from instead of the direction it's going to be in the next couple of seconds. In reality, even an inexperienced gunner would know to point the gun ahead of the fighter's flight path, eyeball the deflection and let off a burst, or actually lay down some barrage fire in short bursts if the fighter was silly enough to park at a certain position and not vary it's flight path.

Overall i guess the end result is pretty much the same, because the pros and cons of both methods tend to even out, but it still looks silly when i'm PKed 800m away by the same AI gunners who are totally useless and easy to fool against an attacking fighter at 200m. All you have to do is approach from the sides at a high enough speed and by the time you "register" on their "AI sense" chances are you'll already have executed your firing pass while they are casually turning their turrets around and firing in an arc of empty space

[Flying Pencil]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

I think most of these machine gun turrets are simple ball bearing type mechanisms? The movement is controlled by the physical movement of the gunners arms and body, not a motor. So, moving the gun directly with your mouse would be more similar then moving a mouse pointer to a location and waiting for the gun to get there because there would be no lag in that type of design. It's point and shoot. True, some turrets are motor driven. But I'm with Wutz. Have a hard time believing the designers would make a laggy imprecise turret to replace the ball bearing types.

In BoB era, all LW aircraft was manual, and the RAF the only powered one I can recall is the Blen's (Wellington with powered was just being installed at that moment.

Some vids of 111 gun positions (top gun being worked on, when I get time...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBhGp23NS_s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlJlOQcDAhE

[Flying Pencil]

Oh, ANOTHER thing to consider!

The WIND FORCE on the barrel of the gun can be VERY strong.

I must upload the video of me moving the gun on a B-24...

[Novotny]

Oh, is that your good self, Mr Pencil? I've watched those vids before - thanks for making them