Gunsights - How to read them ?

[Fester']

Andy,
Never being one to keep my opinion to myself, I will now reitterate my original point

The dot that you like is only good for one single situation...one G, wings level, target at a fixed range, and a predetermined altitude.

Actually, the dot only gives reference to where your bullets will fly in a 1g wings level situation.  That's a significant difference.  

Change any of those parameters, and that sight no longer predicts bullet impact point.

Right, my point was that there is NO sight that WILL predict a bullet impact point given the incredible number of variables.  THis is very basic stuff Andy, you have an extremely dynamic environment and youre trying to box the variables in with a static site.

Why don't you then take that thinking one step further and eliminate the dot too. Now you can have a completely uncluttered view!

I think you're missing the point

A2G sight display markings is a very complex issue, and you have failed to mention any of them other than suggesting a dive angle. From a pure academic position, your advice is unsound and unscientific

I agree with you here, but the argument you make here for an a2g site fits exactly for a2a, and a2a is substantially more complex than a2g.

Choose a sight that allows the estimation of range

Range is given so this is redundant and it comes at the cost of a cluttered view.

and lead for target motion

No fixed site can even come close to acomplishing this with the number of variables present.

Given that, there is no value of adding either of these two functions to a site, when you remove them you are left with a dot.

That's how it worked for real...and that's how it should work here.

If your thing is historical sites then by all means, knock yourself out.  If want to be more accurate and master deflection shooting in Aces High then strip away the stuff that does not help you. And put your energies into recognizing those that do.

[Andy Bush]

Fester

I agree with your last point.

This is a game, one being played by folks that don't have the benefit of academic training in weapons delivery, in a game where the fidelity of weapons ballistics is open to question, and on computer equipment that doesn't come close to portraying what it looks like in RL.

Given all of that, and considering that the whole point is to have fun, why get excited about the finer points.

As for your other comments, you are misinformed. I'd rather not take up any more space here in giving RL gunnery lectures, so if you want to know more, e-mail me at alfakilo@charter.net and I'll explain it to you.

Andy

[Fester']

I agree with your last point.

Thank you

This is a game, one being played by folks that don't have the benefit of academic training in weapons delivery, in a game where the fidelity of weapons ballistics is open to question, and on computer equipment that doesn't come close to portraying what it looks like in RL.

I agree there are certain concessions to realism that are made.

Given all of that, and considering that the whole point is to have fun, why get excited about the finer points.

It's the finer points in life that are exciting  Seriously tho, it's a good conversation, there is very little excitment on my end, a better term is bemused curiosity

As for your other comments, you are misinformed.

that's a blanket statement, I made a lot of other points, so you'll have to be more specific

I'd rather not take up any more space here in giving RL gunnery lectures, so if you want to know more, e-mail me at alfakilo@charter.net and I'll explain it to you

Well that's what this forum is for, and If I am misinformed as you stated, then I assure you that others are as well and could use the lesson.

Of course, there always remains the possibility that I am right, which I am and Id love to civilly debate the point with you to the enrichment of the community as a whole.  

[Andy Bush]

Fester

Appropriate name.

I can't tell if you are being argumentative or just plain ignorant.

You mention others that come here for help. These are the folks that I enjoy communicating with. I'm not here to entertain someone's "bemused curiosity". Nor do I debate academic fact. When it comes to gunnery, I don't deal in opinions, only hard numbers. When I taught this stuff in RL, I didn't teach opinion, I taught physics.

I'll be happy to go into more detail on the mistakes in your previous post, but, first, why don't you tell me about your experience and background in the subject. That way, I can frame a response that would be both instructive to you and meaningful to the other readers...because it's for them that I come here in the first place.

Andy

[Fatty]

Without the proper gunsight, every one of you is understandably having difficulty.

This one should help.

[Andy Bush]

Fatty

LOL!!

Personally, I like this one better:



Andy

[straffo]

Originally posted by Fatty
Without the proper gunsight, every one of you is understandably having difficulty.

This one should help.

Grrr...
It's my secret gunsight
Just put the piper on the face of the virtual pilot in front of you and fire (yes you would be HOing )

The other technique is to use the smell of your target ...

more it smell  closer you are and 'voila" you have the range to target
but be carefull smoking or eating stinking cheese will ruin your gunery

[Fatty]

Mason puts nekkid girls on his, but I hit too many hills when I use that one, so the ugly face is for me.

[Fester']

Fester
Appropriate name.

My mom felt the same way

I can't tell if you are being argumentative or just plain ignorant.  

Actually I've stated very clearly, and not in an argumentative fashion, my stance on the subject.  Though my reply to you could be seen as argumentative because I took what you said point by point.  

If so you have my apology, I certaintly dont want to get anybodies tail feathers ruffled.  It's not my intent, sometimes the internet and the written word can be a poor medium for communication

. I'm not here to entertain someone's "bemused curiosity". Nor do I debate academic fact. When it comes to gunnery, I don't deal in opinions, only hard numbers. When I taught this stuff in RL, I didn't teach opinion, I taught physics.

Well, to be honest Andy, you came in and said I was wrong, Im just curious on why you think so.  "Bemused Curiosity" is an attempt at levity, not at being condescending.  

I'll be happy to go into more detail on the mistakes in your previous post, but, first, why don't you tell me about your experience and background in the subject.

well, I'm a 22 year old virgo and I love champagne and long walks on the beach

Andy, my stance on this subject is well stated, it sounds like you at least have a solid understanding of the subject matter as well. I'd hate to see you take a stance of attacking my pedigree instead of the foundation of my claim.  Let's keep it professional

For the record, I have 16+ years in a closely related field.  It's my passion.  I instruct and lecture on the subject... I hear there may be a book deal in the works.

I'll take a moment here to restate what my point is and then I'll await your response as to what is basically flawed about it and why.  

Given the dynamics of A2A gunnery, the constantly changing variables and the extreme degree and rate to which those variables change.  

"The use of a static sighting system, wherein a sight is developed with the intended use of solving a gunnery solution then lining up a portion of that site that corresponds to that solution on the target, pulling the trigger and achieving accuracy is completely impractical."

Understanding that, we can eliminate the useless or redundant information in a site aid until the only information that it is accurately telling us is where our rounds  "would" impact if we were wings level at 1g.

Now that we have a siting system based only on useful aids we can devote our energies to practice and building off of experience.

To take this a step further we can illustrate how complex siting systems are actually a deterent to accuracy and the learning curve.

With a complex system where the site is displaying a lot of information;
that graphic display takes focus off of the target (BAD)
and it obscures the visual ques you receive from your tracers(BAD)

So in conclusion...

A complex site not only gives us extremely limited information of questionable value, it also hinders the very information that we need for accuracy.

I'm guessing, and if I'm off base let me know, but it sounds like you have a wealth of knowledge in the field of ballistics and the physics involved with how round finds it target taking into account the dynamics of a2a.

In my next email I can go into detail on how the human brain, through experience and reliance on consistant input can actually calculate this stuff with an extremely high degree of accuracy.  And amazingly enough without an abacus site  

I guess my point is not that these gunnery solutions are unsolvable equations, it's that they are not going to be figgured out using a fixed site in combat unless the gunnery solution is an extremely simple one i.e. dead six wings level.

Ok, there it is.  As clearly as I can state it.

If I am wrong in this, please take the time to illustrate why.  As a member of this community (I've been lurking here since the beta) and someone who loves airial combat I am genuinely curious to see where my theory is flawed.

Thanks

[Apar]

Andy,

No offense inteded but I agree with Fester on this subject.

I use the simplest form of gunsight that hinders my view as less as possible. I cannot find any use for the gunsight for high deflection shooting, which, maybe due to the fact of the way I fight A2A, is required very often.
I have teached gun ballistics myself (interior-, transition-, exterior- and end ballistics for Naval gunsystem operators) and know my bit about trajectories. The way trajectories are effected by shooting from a moving platform can be seen by taking a good look at the tracers relative to your target (and I don't need any gunsight for that).
The only time the gunsight comes in handly (for me anyway) is for long dead six shots where the target doesn't move out of the gunsight and for A2G shooting.
By practising deflection shots you will develop a feeling for aim based on relative closure speed and angle of attack, it just takes time.
I just don't understand how you can teach somebody to take out a target in close A2A combat using the gunsight where that fight very often results in knife edge turn fights where 2 planes only have a firing solution for a couple of split seconds with a very high angle of attack.

A couple of examples where a high angle deflection shot is required to kill a target (where that target will NOT be in your gunsight or where it will be too late to fire when he is in your gunsight)
Scissors, rolling scissors, B&Z a bomber and attacking it any other direction than dead six (very unwise to try dead six attacking a bomber in AH), high closure rate lead pursuit, front quarter attacks other than HO.
The only thing I use the gunsight (in my case a dot representing the gun convergence point) is for laying my aim to a predicted hitting point taking into account 'expected' bullet trajectory and where I use the tracers to validate that trajectory.

There are only a few people I know of that hardly ever miss a deflection shot no matter what plane they fly and Fester is one of them. Hence I do value his points on gun aiming.

[Andy Bush]

Fester

OK, let's cut to the chase. Your point is that A2A gunnery is difficult, and gunsights should therefore be as simple as possible.

I agree.

Some of the gunsights seen here and elsewhere do tend to make the gunnery problem more difficult rather than not. Unintentionally, I'm sure. But some info is necessary on the sight if it is to be as useful as possible. What info should that be?

We go first to the three requirements of a gunnery firing solution...in range, in plane, and in lead.

A gunsight should provide a visual reference for all three, if possible. Particularly a fixed sight...LCOSS is a slightly different matter.

A fixed sight can provide these three items of info. Reticles and range tick marks can be used to estimate range.  Angular scribe marks and lines can be an aid to maintaining the plane of motion of the target. And, lastly, reticles and tick marks can be used to estimate the lead angle. Of these, I consider the in range and in lead cues to be most important...I'm personally willing to omit the in plane cues, but that's just opinion.

So I end up with a sight that has to provide range and lead info. This can be done without garbaging up the display. (Of course, my opinion of "garbaging" may differ from someone else's!).

You are correct about the difficulty of using a fixed sight in A2A gunnery. When I asked about your background, I wasn't trying to "attack your pedigree" as you put it. Instead, I was asking if you have ever flown RL A2A gunnery using a fixed sight. I have. In two different types of fighters. As a USAF Fighter Weapons School instructor, I was certified to teach the subject, both in the classroom as well as in the air.

I think you over play the difficulty of using a fixed sight. Reading your words almost makes me wonder how anybody ever got shot down in WW1 and WW2! Here's a tip, since you seem to have more than a passing interest in the subject. Get the book "Fighting In The Air, about $20 from Amazon. Its a reprint of RAF instructional text and articles that shows just how well people understood the aiming problem many years ago...and how they learned to instruct newbies on how to solve that problem.

Check this info out. You can find an excerpt from the book dealing with fixed sight gunnery in an article at SimHQ's Air Combat Corner.

Then you should have a better idea of how this was done for real. If we believe that our sim's AI is a pretty good replica of RL, then there is no reason why the same techniques cannot be used here.

In RL, it wasn't Zen or "feeling the force" that got guys kills. It was adherence to tried and true aiming estimates, combined with the idea that close range solved a myriad of human errors. Some guys were very good at this...the majority were not. The problem was with the shooter, not the gunsight.

BTW, you might find this interesting as well. RL A2A gunnery is not all that much more difficult than A2G...it's a perception thing. The bandit's movement relative to the shooter in A2A gunnery is the same basic problem as wind correction in A2G weapons delivery...and the corrections are done in the same manner. The magnitude may be different, but the concept is much the same. Put that into your next lecture and see how your audience responds!

Finally, you have mentioned range cues and tracers. I'm not a big proponent of either. Range cues really do clutter up the sight picture for me...just opinion, of course. Instead, I do what has worked in the past. I use the sight to estimate range and don't rely on an AI whose accuracy may be suspect.

I'm not big on tracers either. Unless somebody wants to rely on very long bursts and attempts to "walk" his rounds on to the target, the use of tracer is less helpful. In fact, some feel that it may be less than helpful if it gives the target an idea that he's being shot at! When using short bursts, tracers really only tell you how you did...and of course, you can already see that without the tracers being there...the target didn't go boom! But, after all is said and done, it's a personal thing.

Andy

[Andy Bush]

Apar

No offense taken.

When it comes to high line-of-sight gunnery (deflection shooting), there are two approaches.

In one, the shooter tries to match (or at least slow down) the target's movement throught his gun line...and the other is when the shooter sets up a one G prediction point and hopes that the target will fly throught that space.

The only time your "dot" is really usable is in the latter case. And only then when the future aiming point happens to coincide with the convergence range you have chosen. There are other variables as well that technically have to be met, but, for our purposes, these are not worth mentioning.

If you are going to engage in firing opportunities as in the first example, then you might as well just turn off the sight completely!!

Here's my thought on this discussion. We are in the Help and Training Forum, not the General BS Forum (!!). So let's provide some help and training to the folks that must be reading this.

If you and Fester are good at A2A gunnery, then put your techniques here instead of just opinion. Maybe include a track or two. Screenshots will do just as well. It's mighty fine to say that you blow away the bandit without using anything other than a dot...but other folks might want to learn how too. Can you help them out?

Andy

[Fester']

Fester

OK, let's cut to the chase. Your point is that A2A gunnery is difficult, and gunsights should therefore be as simple as possible.

I agree.

cool

In RL, it wasn't Zen or "feeling the force" that got guys kills. It was adherence to tried and true aiming estimates, combined with the idea that close range solved a myriad of human errors. Some guys were very good at this...the majority were not. The problem was with the shooter, not the gunsight.

You're right here, in a round about way.

It wasnt Zen because that kind of ability comes through A lot of experience.  That was not a luxury that was available.

See we are talking apples and oranges here.  A sighting aid I guess is like training wheels.  They help in the beginning, but are of little value the more experience you get and can actually become a hinderance.

Finally, you have mentioned range cues and tracers. I'm not a big proponent of either. Range cues really do clutter up the sight picture for me...just opinion, of course. Instead, I do what has worked in the past. I use the sight to estimate range and don't rely on an AI whose accuracy may be suspect.

It may be a product of the game itself, but I dont pay much attention to range...  

I can tell through experience if Im close enough to the target to kill him based on visual ques.

The only time I make use of the range info is when the nme is a con and I am setting up my attack.  It's not difficult to tell range once he is inside 300 yards which is where I start shooting.  There are only 2 range estimations I make, in range and out of range.

I'm not big on tracers either. Unless somebody wants to rely on very long bursts and attempts to "walk" his rounds on to the target, the use of tracer is less helpful. In fact, some feel that it may be less than helpful if it gives the target an idea that he's being shot at! When using short bursts, tracers really only tell you how you did...and of course, you can already see that without the tracers being there...the target didn't go boom! But, after all is said and done, it's a personal thing.

Tracers are a good feedback tool and I like to be able to see them.  You are correct in that they should not be used as a crutch to walk rounds into a plane, but they give you very import visual ques

You still havent told me where I am incorrect.  You've illustrated why you use what you do.

Analyzing this discussion it looks to me like an original discovery made earlier in the thread is holding true.

Playing with those sight elements that you discussed are part of the learning curve.

[Fester']

The only time your "dot" is really usable is in the latter case. And only then when the future aiming point happens to coincide with the convergence range you have chosen. There are other variables as well that technically have to be met, but, for our purposes, these are not worth mentioning.

I dont "use" the dot except as Apar said, in a long dead six shot.

The real purpose of the dot is as a reference.  Ive never thought to myself, "this dot needs to be held a plane length ahead"  It's a reference point.  Nothing more.  All the focus is on the aircraft.  The site is a peripheral component.

If you and Fester are good at A2A gunnery, then put your techniques here

I believe this discussion has been about sights and how to read them which evolved into a discussion of the relative merits of components of the sight itself.  

We even got to see the learning curve in progress in which Slpshot made use of the advice and instruction we were offering and progressed very quickly along the learning curve.  So I think it has been helpful, and a good dialogue.

instead of just opinion.

It's all opinion Andy, even yours.

[SlpShot]

Well this thread has generated a healthy discussion and definitely a discussion that I have not seen on any of the other boards offered on AH.

Please don't stop, because I think that any new flyer to AH that reads this thread will definitely come away with some "food for thought" and that is what a forum is all about.

Fatty ...

That sight is awesome. It has been added to the collection ... LOL

Airspro ...

Thanks for the sight. It has been added to the collection.

RangerBob ...

Thanks for the gun/bomb sight it too has been added to the collection and thanks for all your input too.

Andy ...

I know that SimHQ is your main forum to divulge your immense knowledge on the subject, but please don't hesitate to let some of it flow here. I am sure that anybody (especially new flyers) will appreciate any and all of your input. You have the knack of taking something difficult and complex and presenting it in a way the most lay people can understand and apply to a SIM. I will never be a RL fighter, but this is a close as I can get, and am loving every minute of it.

I quote Fester ..

"I believe this discussion has been about sights and how to read them which evolved into a discussion of the relative merits of components of the sight itself"

Fester is right ... my simple question was how to read them, but what I have found out through my reading and the responses throughout this thread is, there is MUCH MORE to A2A gunnery than just reading a sight. With much reading and understanding the basic physics of flying (BFM) can you then start to apply or use the "components of the sight itself".

Some of you guys are very experienced in the SIM world and your reputations precede themselves, but I think you have forgotten when you first started flying, what steps you went thru during your "learning curve". You all didn't just jump right to the "dot" did you? If you did, then maybe you are a natural at this, but some of us (probably most of us) need to progress thru the "curve" as I have done and I would be the first to say that I am still at the beginning and have a long way to go. Please continue your input, I have read everybody's posts and try to apply some of the info that you have divulged.

I will take the liberty of trying to express what I think Andy was trying to point out (correct me if I am wrong Andy), is that the discussion was getting way beyond the scope of the novice flyer and the intended subject, and the information/opinions would tend to confuse or maybe steer the novice flyer from taking the path that I took. I believe that I have learned from this thread is that the path for the novice flyer is to read and understand first, then apply the learning to your BFM and the gunsight.

Prior to flying this past weekend, I read Andy's article on "flying to the elbow" ... great article. I tried to apply the concept but was not doing very good at executing it. So I changed my gunsight again ...



Again, I use half a sight, only because I boost myself up in the seat to get a little more view over the nose.

I put the POM lines back in which helped me line up correctly to "fly to the elbow". "Flying to the elbow" has cut down on the extreme deflection shots that I was trying to take before (and missing more than I would like). "Flying to the elbow" is not always practical and is not the "do all and end all", but it has been working for me. If was "hunting",  I was over anxious to get to the target which in turn would cause the target to fly some basic stunts to cause me to overshoot (you know what happens then !!). "Flying to the elbow", I think is teaching me patience so that I can get into an advantageous position and then use the gunsight to its fullest. If I am escorting, well, you don't always have the luxury to "fly to the elbow" else whatever you are escorting will not be around for long.

Had I known what I know now, I probably should have started this thread with ...

Gunsights - How to read them and USE THEM ?

Reading them is the easy part, how to use them is the hard part and the key.

Thanks again to ALL for your input !!!