Gun Camera question

[Dave Homewood]

Were the lenses of the gun cameras fitted to WWII Allied fighters fitted with a zoom lense to make the target seem closer, for better recognition when viewing the photo? Or were they seeing just what the eye would have? A lot of gun camera footage shows the target very close indeed, especially when strafing the ground and trains etc. Did they really dive down to about 50 feet before pulling out or was the lense zoomed in causing a false impression?

[alanw]

Hi Dave

Of the cine gun cameras I have seen pictures of,
such as this RAF type, I don't know if 1940's
technology allowed for Gun cameras to have
a "Zoom" function perse


I would think rather more, the cameras were
set to the distance of optimum "cone of fire" converging.
Eg; during Battle of Btitain, some pilots had the
amourers set their aircraft guns to converge at say
200 feet instead of the official 300/400 feet.

I think (from memory here) that some RAF pilots
had them set even shorter

So it's possible that's why you see some at distance
and others much closer

HTH

Alan

[Dave Homewood]

That's what I meant, not that they could zoom, but that the lense was set in a "zoomed in" position closer to the target than a 1x shot.

[alanw]

Sorry, read too fast through your question ;D ;D

[buffnut453]

Found this.

photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00HOOw

It doesn't really answer the question, although 35mm lenses seem common (which would approximate to the general view of the human eye in "scan" mode rather than "focus on an object" mode). I suspect 35mm would also provide enough margin to keep the enemy aircraft in view for a brief period even if the camera isn't pointing directly at it due to manoeuvring.

HTH.

Cheers,
Mark

[phil]

Having a longer focal length lens wouldn't really have been practical, because the aircraft axis wasn't necessarily pointing at the target, often for air to air it would have been in front of the target, ,so if the camera had a telephoto focal length lens you would have been more likely to only see the sky in front of the target aircraft.

[shamus]

There were definitely different sizes of lenses. I have a camera the same as the one shown in
alanw posting but the lens is about 4 times as long as his. I have also seen one with a slightly longer lens than the one shown. Will take a photo of mine and post it tonight.

[Dave Homewood]

Thanks everyone.

[saratoga]

The longer lense cameras were usually fitted to turret or ring mounted weapons.

[Dave Homewood]

Was that for gunnery practice only? Or did they use them in action for recording kills and misses too in the turrets and rings?

[shamus]

Here is the camera gun. The length of the lens is 13 1/2 inches long, about 340 mm.

[angelsonefive]

To Alan @ reply no. 1.

Actually it was yards not feet.

Before the war Fighter Command HQ thought that 400 yards was the best distance for the .303 rounds of an 8-gun fighter to converge.
This was thought to be the most effective for a large target like a bomber and at the same time give some protection to the attacking fighter from return fire.
Remember that prior to the fall of France the RAF planners expected that any German bombers coming over the UK could not have fighter escorts.

It was during the air battles over France in May '40 that Fighter Command pilots realised that convergence at 400 yards was misjudged, as at that range the loss of velocity of .303 rounds, as well as the spread , was making it difficult to destroy small, armoured targets such as the Me109.

No.1 Sqdn ( Hurricanes) had, in fact quietly set their gun convergence to 250 yards during an annual gunnery camp in the spring of '39 and with the experience over France in 1940 this distance quickly became the unofficial standard in Fighter Command.

Sorry if I have gotten a little OT here.

[Dave Homewood]

No problem for the OT. I wonder if Cobber Kain changed his guns, given his success.

[buffnut453]

Shamus,

Thanks for the excellent pic of that camera gun. I wonder whether it was adapted for some other use, or fitted in something other than a single-engined fighter. The camera guns were typically installed in the wing root, that of the Spit being (IIRC) near the port wing root. In that location, it strikes me that there might not be room to fit a lens of that length. Just wondering...?

Cheers,
Mark

[shamus]

buffnut453,

My thoughts are that this camera gun was probably fitted to a Mosquito, in the nose. Can't confirm that. It was obtained in NZ so must be from RNZAF aircraft. I know that Vampires also used camera guns but believe they were different again to these.

[buffnut453]

Funnily enough I, too, was thinking nose-mount in a twin-engined aircraft. Initially I thought of the Beaufighter but a Mossie also makes sense.

I wonder if fitment to a Vampire involved attaching it to an external pylon (the Vamp is, after all, somewhat diminutive)? ;D

[angelsonefive]

If I remember correctly ( from a look inside a Vampire cockpit many moons ago ) the gun camera was a rectangular box of about the same size and proportions as a VCR cassette. Perhaps a little smaller, and it sat in a mount on top of the gun sight reflector glass.

[saratoga]

In the Vampire ,the camera was a GGSR (gyroscopic gunsight recorder) fitted on top of the gunsight,as described by Angelsonefive.
The other 2 cameras pictured in earlier posts are variations of the G.45 camera gun,fitted to a myriad of british aircraft,ie.Spitfire,Hurricane,Mosquito etc.
In fighter aircraft usually fiited near the wing root(i think the vampire was same?) or the nose in the case of the Mosquito.
I have an example that was brought back from UK by the pilot of a Hampden!