Author Topic: Gunsights - How to read them ?  (Read 2067 times)

Offline Andy Bush

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 153
      • http://www.simhq.com  (Contributing Editor - Air Combat Corner)
Gunsights - How to read them ?
« Reply #45 on: March 05, 2002, 06:14:00 PM »
Fester

>>You still havent told me where I am incorrect.<<

OK. From the top.

 >>The bore site tells you where your plane is pointing.<<

No, it does not. A boresight is an optical tool inserted into the chamber of a gun during the harmonization process. In this process, the armorer adjusts the gun line so that the predicted impact point coincides with the sight line at a predetermined distance.  Because of gravity drop, the gun line is normally "above" the sight line. If you use the sight to indicate where the plane is "pointing", then the gun line is an incorrect reference for the velocity vector of the plane.

>>The conclusion after all that fussing around is that a bore site is far superior.<<

Really? If that is the conclusion, then why hasn't that technique been adopted for RL A2A sights. If this technique is superior, would you not think that the world's air forces would have made its use standard a long time ago?

>> 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.<<

Your reponse is incomplete and therefore misleading. That "dot" is actually the impact point at the convergence range. What you left out was that this is also only valid for the assumed airspeed and density altitude, assumed range, and a condition where the sight line is parallel to the ground (gravity vector is perpendicular to the sight line).

In simple words, if you mean to imply that the sight is valid for any shot outside of these constraints, then you are wrong.

>>...there is NO sight that WILL predict a bullet impact point given the incredible number of variables.<<

Baloney. That's why we harmonize guns. By definition, a harmonized sight is predicting the impact point. There are not an "incredible number of variables", even by WW2 standards. The only variable not taken into consideration by the WW2 gun sight was the effect of angular velocity upon the predicted future target position. This variable was the last to be solved in the sight building process and had to wait until radar systems were built that could provide updated range and range rate data to the fire control computer fast enough and accurately enough to allow that computer to compute angular velocity and then make that correction to the sight solution.

>>a2a is substantially more complex than a2g.<<

How would you know? In reality. the two situations present similar computational problems. In an A2G situation, wind takes the place of target motion in A2A, and attacker closure takes the place of A2A target angular velocity. The other variables remain essentially the same.

>>...lead for target motion...No fixed site can even come close to acomplishing this with the number of variables present. .<<

No. That is what reticle arcs and circles do. The variables are: target speed, your speed, average muzzle velocity, and angle off. These are not difficult to measure or determine. The only thing missing, if the target is turning, is angular velocity. The technique for using reticles to estimate target lead is well described in that "Fighting In The Air" article at SimHQ.

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

Great! You are indeed a prodigy. But for the rest of us, inasmuch as the sight is set at a specific convergence range, we'll have to stick with solving range. Your crutch for this issue is the use of range icons, and you object to a sight whose display characteristics might inhibit your seeing these icons. That's OK, I guess. Too bad we didn't have these icons in RL.

>>Tracers are a good feedback tool<<

Here's the bottom line for your technique. You use a single dot and maneuver into a firing position that "looks about right" based upon your previous experience. Then you shoot. If you miss, your tracers will show you how much, and that info can now added to your sum experience. Then you try again.

I'm not interested in trying again or correcting for a poorly estimated aiming point. Most RL pilots that I flew with didn't want to get the bandit on the second or third attempt. They wanted to kill the bandit the first time. To do that, we needed to estimate the correct aiming point using a variety of sighting aids.

All of this reminds me of a guy I knew in RL. He was good...probably the best A2G bomber I ever saw. Good enough to win the USAF top award in the world-wide gunnery competition.

Naturally, we all wanted to know his techniques...if he could be that good, maybe we could too!

How did he do it? His words..."Well, I just think like the bomb...when I am at the right release point, I just let 'er rip!"

"Errr", we said..."when is that?" "I don't know", he said..."I just know when".

Well...I'm telling you, I went right out and tried that technique.

And I had about as much luck as the folks here will have if they try your single dot technique.

Without some intervening instruction, that is.

So...how about an article or two? Make a few track files, grab some screenshots, fire up that word processor and shine a little light unto us all.

Until then, my advice to the folks here is to study the existing academic instructional material, choose a sight design that provides them range, POM, and lead angle info...and then practice a lot. That seems to be the time tested method that the rest of us have used over the years.

Andy

« Last Edit: March 05, 2002, 06:20:47 PM by Andy Bush »

Offline FLS

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11614
      • Trainer's Website
Gunsights - How to read them ?
« Reply #46 on: March 05, 2002, 08:15:14 PM »
Just curious, is the Fester in this thread the same person as Citabria who also signs his posts Fester?

--)-FLS----
Musketeers
« Last Edit: March 05, 2002, 08:40:51 PM by FLS »

Offline Mino

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 161
Gunsights - How to read them ?
« Reply #47 on: March 06, 2002, 02:30:51 AM »
I have been using one sight for almost two years.   Only when I use a high zoom factor does it ever interfere with my perception of target location with in the sight picture.

Call it what you will, I don't really notice the sight anymore.  The sight simply becomes congruent to my sight picture and I shoot, release or drop based on how it looks with in the sight.

I do better with this sight than I do with a death dot, especially lining up deflection shots.

Offline Apar

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 963
Gunsights - How to read them ?
« Reply #48 on: March 06, 2002, 03:41:12 AM »
Quote
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, for high deflection shooting I can only help em out with online training, filming it by both, and reviewing the film afterwards. The film review from what I see and the point of aim and the time a fire can only be shown that way. And that is what I have been doing last couple of months where I helped out several people who wanted A2A training. We went through basic ACM where I flew target and they fired at me and where I looked back and told how far their burst missed me and to what direction. After a while most managed to correct accordingly and got the burst dead on.

Something that really struck me is (when I started flying AH in version 1.02) is that in AH many get kills firing at 400+ yds distance, where in real life pilots started shooting at 200- yds distance. I'm reading "Diaries of the LW, by Cajun Bekker". It describes some of the aerial combats of LW Aces among the history of the LW. All fired at extreme close range (50-100 yds) because of gunnery rules. Now why is that that it is possible to deviate from RL gunnery rules as used during WWII in a sim like AH and still be succesful?
Because it is a game, our lives are NOT at stake neither the lives of squadies in AH, merely score is at stake. People in AH will take chances shooting at bigger distances and at OFF angles (OFF ment in the way that in RL one would not take the shot). Now it is perfectly OK to not adapt to the game AH and stick to RL gunnery rules. But the results in AH will be accordingly. Either you adapt to the game to be succesful or not. If you don't take the snapshots and high deflection shots in AH, your opponent (if it is an experienced AH pilot) sure will and you die. I have seen it many times.
Deviating from from rules is not easily explained, where sticking to rules is. I do agree with you on that this is a help forum and all info available should be given. For me that includes oppinions as well. I'm more than happy to go to TA or DA whith anybody and show them what I mean because it is NOT easy to explain (at least for me) deflection shooting. Nevertheles it IS used by many in the MA and CT.

I have a question for you. WHat is your experience in A2A in AH and the relation between what U know about RL A2A rules applied in AH rather than A2A rules in RL alone? (again no offense intended). Please tell me whether you never try shooting in AH when U know you would not do that in RL. I know of a couple of articles from Lephturn about save distances when chased by a con taking into account net lag and avarage firing distances in AH, let me tell you that it is not even close to 200 yds. If you don't break away at a distance of 1000-800 yds with a con behind you (one that is gaining) your dead. In RL (WWII) many chases were done at far less distance and the chased pilot would still have a good chance of surviving. This indicates for me that the rules for ACM and A2A differ for AH compared to RL. And with that the rules for gunnery. Pilots in AH will try to keep the distance between them and their adversary far greater than pilots in RL (WWII)

Another thing that indicates differences between RL A2A combat and AH A2A combat (or any other flightsim) is Stall Fighting. How many RL pilots do you know of that used stall fight ACM during WWII? Only a very view used it and it stood against everything the pilots learned during their training. Nevertheless many use it to good succes in AH and other sims. Now stall fighting doesn't give many good firing solutions, mostly snapshots. But we take the snapshots or we die (asuming both fighters go for the stall fight), and AFAIK there is no way you are able to use the gunsight for those situations the angles are to big.

We all love and really appreciate your articles about ACM, gunnery, etc (I learned allot from it, pls never stop writing) but in a game like AH there's more to it than RL rules, that is all I want to say.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2002, 04:18:42 AM by Apar »

Offline RangerBob

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 70
Gunsights - How to read them ?
« Reply #49 on: March 06, 2002, 05:46:20 PM »
Apar,

I think if you look at Andy's article on gunnery, by way of the address he posted above, you'll notice that the illustrations are of planes in Aces High. In spite of the fact that I use the dreaded dot gunsight like the others, I must admit that Andy is providing advice aimed directly at flight sims like Aces High not just real life.


I think what he is saying is that a pilot should use the reference markers on the sights to estimate range and firing positions. What we are saying is that we already have the range, and we would rather closely watch the movement of the target to compensate for the update or lag in online flight sims. As a result we avoid the rings etc, but are used to leading are targets just like an experience bird hunter.

Andy, on the other hand, is telling us that it's a good idea to teach the method that uses indicators in the sight. After all, Andy gave us the story about the best air to ground pilot. He could hit every time, but Andy's point was that he couldn't teach that method.

I also believe the Japanese zero pilots were taught to stall fight at the beginning of WWII. Of course, the US learned to shoot them down with boom and zoom tactics.

Ranger Bob

Offline Andy Bush

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 153
      • http://www.simhq.com  (Contributing Editor - Air Combat Corner)
RL vs the sim
« Reply #50 on: March 08, 2002, 02:09:49 PM »
Apar

Shoot...I do things all the time in the sim that I would never had done in RL!!

For obvious reasons!

In this forum...one that newbies and others come to to learn new ideas and tips...we need to remember that what might be intuitively obvious to us may not be to others. I learn all kinds of things from reading all of your posts...the sim simply does not always fly like RL, and, sometime, RL ideas are not as effective here.

I think advanced concepts should be clearly identified as techniques that are well up the food chain, so that the newer folks don't automatically assume that they can or should try it out for themselves. It works this way in RL too...the "old heads" often have techniques that work for them but that probably should not be passed on to new guys.

One example from RL. The A-10 at low speed has very powerful rudders. The pilot can command a significant amount of yaw if he uses full rudder...enough to make the airplane "swap ends".

We had this young Lt who always ran around with his hair on fire. He loved to take someone up into the vertical and then jam him with an abrupt "hammerhead" type of maneuver. It worked great...but the Lt forgot (or never heard about) the effect this could have on engine airflow disturbances. So, one day, he swaps ends on this guy...and proceeds to become the world's heaviest glider as both engines promptly flamed out! Fortunately, he got them relit before he had to punch...but he was a much chastened young aviator after that!

For us here, it is in everyone;s interest that we pass along technique that both "works" and is valid. We always should do our best to separate opinion from academic fact. If we do, then our buddies can learn well...and maybe one day kick our butts!

Andy

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
Gunsights - How to read them ?
« Reply #51 on: March 09, 2002, 12:02:03 AM »
I use the TLAR aiming system in combination with the Mk. I Optical Sensor.

Offline Fester'

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 336
Gunsights - How to read them ?
« Reply #52 on: March 09, 2002, 02:36:41 PM »
Andy-  I need to clarify at the beginning of this that my intent is not to discredit you, but to offer a system that will take people to the next level.  Tho I'm not familiar with your work you appear to have done a great deal for the community and that's greatly appreciated.  In that vein I wouldnt want this to get personal and drive a resource like you out.

You appear to know a great deal about the subject at hand, but in following your responses here I get the impression that if it doesnt fit with what you have been taught you get to feeling a little threatened...

I am willing to try to show you and others what can be accomplished, but I really dont have time to overcome closemindedness.  If you dont want to accept what I have to say, if it makes you uncomfortable that's fine.  But truth be told Andy, it IS the next step in ability, and it can be taught.

As you will see if you read through this thread.  It was decided that the natural progression, the "learning curve" if you will started with a sighting aid and progressed to a single dot.  In that vein I have no argument.  You make a point in closing that Sight aids are essential to newbies.  Again I have no argument.  My only point of contention has been that letting go of those aids will allow you to progress farther than hanging on to them.

Here's the bottom line for your technique. You use a single dot and maneuver into a firing position that "looks about right" based upon your previous experience. Then you shoot. If you miss, your tracers will show you how much, and that info can now added to your sum experience.

You have paid attention!
Adding to your sum experience is a perfect way to illustrate how practice affects ability.  The difference here is that we have let go of excess aids or crutches and have opened ourselves up to observing the visual ques that will allow us, with practice, to sight and shoot on more of a subconscious level.  The only conscious effort being the decision itself to shoot.

To accomplish this, focus only on the target, and where you want to hit the target.  The dot sight, the tracers you will see, all of that will be peripheral to the the focus on the target.

Then you try again.

While you have said this to set up your argument in your next paragraph you are absolutely right.

In approaching the firing solution as I illustrated above.  Repeated exposure to those visual ques will allow us to experientially build our ability.

I'm not interested in trying again or correcting for a poorly estimated aiming point.

Then you will never grow in ability past the built in limitations of your sighting aid.

You will be able to handle simple firing solutions and nothing more.

The complex solutions that you would pass on, to have to reset up on your target, will easily be made by the learned student.

You will call the shot "luck" because you cannot explain how the shot was consciously aimed and made.  But it isn't luck

Most RL pilots that I flew with didn't want to get the bandit on the second or third attempt.

The benefit of practice.  But all else being equal.  A student using the method Im talking about, in time, will have to set up fewer times because he is able to make the first opportunity count.  An opportunity that may have fallen outside of what a sight could have helped us with.

To wrap this thought up, in a pass where you were "almost" able to get a firing solution and are now working to get angles again, I am grabbing alt because the fight is over.

The ability comes from experience.  We have the luxury of unlimited practice.

All of this reminds me of a guy I knew in RL. He was good...probably the best A2G bomber I ever saw. Good enough to win the USAF top award in the world-wide gunnery competition.

Naturally, we all wanted to know his techniques...if he could be that good, maybe we could too!

How did he do it? His words..."Well, I just think like the bomb...when I am at the right release point, I just let 'er rip!"

"Errr", we said..."when is that?" "I don't know", he said..."I just know when".

Well...I'm telling you, I went right out and tried that technique.

And I had about as much luck as the folks here will have if they try your single dot technique.


You acknowledge here that this gentleman's ability exceeded the abilities allowed from the teaching and use of sighting aids.  Unfortunately you probably chalked him up as a phenom or maybe even an idiot savant.  

Then, in going out and trying to "Be the bomb" you dismiss the technique because your initial results were poor.

There IS a learning curve to this.  You are approaching the problem with an entirely different thought process.  But I can assure you, with a little practice, and target focus, you will quickly surpass what you were able to do with the sight aid.

The important point here is, "You cant get there from here"  Meaning, you cant get this ability while hanging onto the mindset of conciously aiming.  You have to let it go.  Yeah you will be very poor initially, you can use this as ammunition to support your case, or you can push through and realize what your true potential is.  Your choice.

I open class in archery with a demonstration of shooting quarters out of the air with my long bow which of course has no sights.

This ability flies in the face of what modern archery has to teach us about what is required to be accurate.  And in fact, the shot I am repeatedly making is considered pure luck, though I rarely miss.

The students and onlookers consider me a phenom of unsurpassable / unobtainable skill.  Yet by the end of class, starting with archers who have only rudimentary archery ability, the students are performing the same feat.

It's a different approach to the same problem that will allow you virtually unlimited ability, while what you are teaching has very finite limitations.

So...how about an article or two? Make a few track files, grab some screenshots, fire up that word processor and shine a little light unto us all.

LOL, I just get a visual here, though hopefully inaccurate, of some cheezy prosecuting attorney seething with contempt bowing to the jury and confidently turning the case over to the defense  :)  You coulda been a drama major Andy :)

I think this thread itself has been a learning tool for those who have waded through our sparring.  There has been some very good info divulged here.

If anyone is interested I can do a more in depth article on the principles of this technique and how to accomplish true ability and success.

That request will come from the community.

Offline Fester'

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 336
Gunsights - How to read them ?
« Reply #53 on: March 09, 2002, 02:43:51 PM »
Just curious, is the Fester in this thread the same person as Citabria who also signs his posts Fester?

I am not Citabria.  I originally flew as fester through the beta, and unitl about 6 months ago.  I changed my handle to "rarey" my faminly name (my Real name is Joe Rarey) in honour of George "Dad" Rarey who died flying p-47's in WWII.  He is a distant relation.

After I dropped the Fester handle Citabria picked it up.

I wouldnt mind having it back, but I'm certaintly no match for him in this game, he far exceeds my ability and has infact shot me down, so a duel for the handle would most likely be embarrassingly short  ;)

I now fly under the handle

fescaf

Which is a combination of my handle and the squad I fly for

Fester - Cactus Air Force

Great squad, we came over from Air Warrior after it's demise, we have flown there since the dos days in the FR arena.

Offline Andy Bush

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 153
      • http://www.simhq.com  (Contributing Editor - Air Combat Corner)
Fester'S Training Aids
« Reply #54 on: March 09, 2002, 03:42:56 PM »
Hey folks...help out here.

Fester is going to teach us Zen gunnery...but first you have to ask him.

>>If anyone is interested I can do a more in depth article on the principles of this technique and how to accomplish true ability and success.<<

So please ask him.

Like that guy in one of the Dirty Harry movies said..."I just gots to know".

BTW...your link doesn't work.

Andy
« Last Edit: March 09, 2002, 05:19:47 PM by Andy Bush »

Offline FLS

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11614
      • Trainer's Website
Gunsights - How to read them ?
« Reply #55 on: March 09, 2002, 05:24:01 PM »
Thanks for that clearing that up Fester. It's probably less confusing for readers of the board if people put their arena name somewhere on their post.

For those who haven't seen George Rarey's work here's the link.

http://www.rareybird.com/


When you are pulling lead for a close shot your target is under your nose. A pilot, I forget which one, was asked how do you know when to shoot when you can't see your target, he answered that you just get a feel for it with practice.

This sounds like much of the "dot of death" advice in this thread.
With practice you get a feel for where to put the dot, just like you get a feel for when to shoot when your target is under your nose.
As long as you have the reflector frame and the distance icons you're still getting much of the information you would from the standard gunsight.

I don't buy the argument that removing the clutter helps because you can see better.  I haven't noticed my view blocked by the standard sight and the sight alpha is adjustable in any case.

I think that once you get enough experience with the gunnery in AH you can remove the dot and do well with no sight and no tracers because you know where on the reflector the dot would be if you still had it. This doesn't mean you're at a higher level. It just means you've accumulated a lot of experience. The point is to hit your target, not whether you did it the easy way or the hard way.

Telling a newbie to shoot when it looks about right isn't going to improve their gunnery any time soon.  It's best to teach the fundamentals of gunnery, the perception of AOT, and the proper use of the gunsight.  

--)-FLS----
Musketeers

Offline Fester'

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 336
Gunsights - How to read them ?
« Reply #56 on: March 09, 2002, 07:04:12 PM »
Hey folks...help out here.

Fester is going to teach us Zen gunnery...but first you have to ask him.


Dont know if you're just a bad writer Andy, but you come across as someone with a very fragile ego.  This is not a personal battle.

When I was younger I got a good deal of satisfaction schooling folks like you.  Now it's rather boring.

The principles of this can be seen in everyday activities like throwing a ball.  It's an activity who's accuracy is learned through repetition.

Havent seen a complex sight developed for hitting a receiver running down the sideline 40yds away while you're rolling out to the left.  Maybe you could come up with something, something with rings, and yardage estimaters?  Could be a market out there.

That's all this is Andy.  So amazingly simple a fourth grader can realize the principles.  Strange that you seem to be having such a difficult time with it...

Offline Fester'

  • Parolee
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 336
Gunsights - How to read them ?
« Reply #57 on: March 09, 2002, 07:24:43 PM »
For those who haven't seen George Rarey's work here's the link.

http://www.rareybird.com/


Thank you FLS.  That's a pretty neat web site

This sounds like much of the "dot of death" advice in this thread.
With practice you get a feel for where to put the dot, just like you get a feel for when to shoot when your target is under your nose.
As long as you have the reflector frame and the distance icons you're still getting much of the information you would from the standard gunsight.


Pretty close.  accept youre not "putting the dot" somewhere.  If this were real, and we had depth of view, the dot would be out of focus.  Your focus would be on the target, the dot would be peripheral.

It's a subtle difference but very significant.  

In  a long distance dead six shot I note a significant change in how I shoot because the target is relatively stationary.  In this case I actually focus on the site and place it on the target.

All other situations are are strict target focus.

I don't buy the argument that removing the clutter helps because you can see better. I haven't noticed my view blocked by the standard sight and the sight alpha is adjustable in any case.

not for view blockage, because the excess information limits the view of the tracers.  Not a huge factor, maybe even negligible.  But if you are using the system I am discussing then your focus is on the target and not on the site anyway. so extraneous information there is not of value.  Either way its a minor point.

I think that once you get enough experience with the gunnery in AH you can remove the dot and do well with no sight and no tracers because you know where on the reflector the dot would be if you still had it.

On this point I disagree.  You might be able to maintain accuracy for a short period of time, but that information serves to continually reinforce what you have learned.  Remove the information and you unlearn it fairly quickly.  We illustrate this in archery by shooting in the dark at a small christmas light.  Without the continual reinforcement of the flight of the arrow and the peripheral information you see when at full draw (the point of the arrow, the shaft etc) you're accuracy quickly fades.  Though for the first few shots you may be very accurate.

This doesn't mean you're at a higher level. It just means you've accumulated a lot of experience. The point is to hit your target, not whether you did it the easy way or the hard way.

You're right here, there are no points for methodology if you cant hit your target.

And it should not be looked at as easy or hard.  You will simply realize more ability letting go of a sight aid after it has taught you all it can.  It's a plateua in ability so to speak.  It can only take you so far.  I mentioned training wheels earlier.  That wasn't meant as a slight, it is actually a fairly accurate statement.

Telling a newbie to shoot when it looks about right isn't going to improve their gunnery any time soon. It's best to teach the fundamentals of gunnery, the perception of AOT, and the proper use of the gunsight.

Again, Im not sure where this got sidetracked into a discussion of the relative merits of teaching this to a new commer.  Early in the discussion we agreed that the utilization of sights "Was the learning curve"  I've even used and created many sites.  

Fundamentals first.  Cant get good without a solid foundation.

Thanks for the input FLS.

Offline Andy Bush

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 153
      • http://www.simhq.com  (Contributing Editor - Air Combat Corner)
Gunsights - How to read them ?
« Reply #58 on: March 09, 2002, 07:26:25 PM »
:eek:

On that note, I'm a dot.

Offline FLS

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11614
      • Trainer's Website
Gunsights - How to read them ?
« Reply #59 on: March 09, 2002, 07:53:48 PM »
Fester maybe you'd like to detail your methodology for our enlightenment. No offense but so far it just sounds like BS.

For example there is no depth of field issue when looking at your monitor so you can certainly put the dot in the proper relationship to the target to hit it.

--)-FLS----
Musketeers