Yeager on Air-to-Air Gunnery

[Shuckins]

While exercising my thumbs with the remote the other day I ran across a program on the Discovery Channel about the history of air combat.

During an interview with Chuck Year he stated that 11% of the fighter pilots in America's armed forces during World War II shot down 90% of all enemy aircraft destroyed in aerial combat.  He also stated that research showed that, almost without fail, these outstanding marksmen were raised in rural settings and had hunted rabbits and birds and were therefore more familiar with deflection shooting.

Being a suthun boy, I don't doubt that for a minute.  But I was wondering if anyone has any real data on this.  I'm inclined to take his word for it, but I would like to see it backed up by the results of an actual study.

Comments or opinions?

Regards, Shuckins/Leggern

[SELECTOR]

i think chuck has lost his marbles...

[Puck]

One of the drills they put my dad through in  gunner school was to shoot trap from the back of a moving pickup truck.  They'd roll by the trap houses and have to shoot clay (or whatever they used in the 40s) pigeons on the fly.  Supposed to help teach them about hitting moving targets from a moving platform.

[LLv34_Camouflage]

Same thing in the Finnish Air Force. In WW2 the pilots had regular hand gun training in their units, both skeet shooting with shotguns as well as with their personal 9mms.  The best shooters were without exception the same guys that were leading the squadron kill board in air victories.

Camo

[Karnak]

Robert Stanford Tuck also was a marksman with a rifle, and apparently not a bad shot by anymeans with a pistol.

I seem to recall that he thought the most important aspect of a fighter pilot's skill was marksmanship.  Being a great pilot helped, and help you survive, but to kill being an adequate pilot and a marksman was far better than being an expert pilot and only average on marksmanship.

[Puck]

Too many syllables in the last line , Karnak  

[Eagler]

Originally posted by LLv34_Camouflage
Same thing in the Finnish Air Force. In WW2 the pilots had regular hand gun training in their units, both skeet shooting with shotguns as well as with their personal 9mms.  The best shooters were without exception the same guys that were leading the squadron kill board in air victories.

Camo

as was Galland

they also had better than average eyesight

[Pongo]

Yup aces boil down to this.
First how many enemy did you see.
Second how well can you shoot.

As to yeagers numbers. I am not sure about the southern boy thing. But I bet the % of kills scored by the top pilots is accurate.

[Rasker]

Originally posted by Karnak
Robert Stanford Tuck also was a marksman with a rifle, and apparently not a bad shot by anymeans with a pistol.

I seem to recall that he thought the most important aspect of a fighter pilot's skill was marksmanship.  Being a great pilot helped, and help you survive, but to kill being an adequate pilot and a marksman was far better than being an expert pilot and only average on marksmanship.

Otoh I've heard it said that Bong was a superb pilot but lousy shot.    I guess the exception that proves the rule.

[Puck]

PERK the BONG!

Oh, wait, that came out wrong...

I've also heard it said many successful pilots simply flew right up the arses of the enemy.  As one put it, if you get close enough you CAN'T miss...

[bozon]

does glasses make you a nerd or do you need glasses because you are a nerd?

It's the eyesight. Those with good eyes are better marksmen and more likely to be shooting stuff, in the air or on the ground.

Bozon

[Angus]

Being a good bird shooter definately helped (shotgun)
I belive Johnny Johnsson actually forwarded this point.

[bockko]

so there i was, shooting skeet (or trap, i forget; the one that goes across) - hit pretty well. tried trap (he one that goes out  ) -- man I wasted some shotgun shells!

Don't forget the politics of flying; a little success means you end up leading rather than following, then you get to shoot first, thus getting more success...and so on, etc

[Tony Williams]

A number of factors went to make up a successful fighter pilot.

Sharp eyesight was essential - you had to see the enemy before he saw you.

Next came situational awareness - being always conscious of what was going on around you, where the enemy was, what the opportunities and dangers were.

It helped to be a good pilot, but it wasn't essential.

It helped to be a good shot, but it wasn't essential. Good judgement of range, speed, target angle (which is where the skeet shooting helps) certainly improved your chances of scoring. However, some pilots were very successful without being particularly good shots. Hartmann preferred to open fire at less than 50m, so he couldn't miss - and he was the most successful of all.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

[Kweassa]

Mr.Williams, I've always wondered about this; just how much would "skill factor" effect the 'effective range' pf gunnery('effective', not as in machine specs, but as in a reasonable distance which damaging/killing target fighters can be expected)?

 It's been long debated to how differences in experience allow a virtual pilot to shoot and hit something so much further out in distance than what history suggests. I understand that logically, a pilot with better gunnery would be able to hit further out, but how much further can we expect? Two-fold? Three-fold?

 Also, I think the irony is that the pilots with better gunnery in real life, achieved such excellent marksmanship and good results by actually getting in closer to their target than others, rather than become better in sniping stuff from longer out.

 I'm curious as to know what your opinion on this issue is.