Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Shuckins on June 14, 2004, 11:15:49 AM
-
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
-
i think chuck has lost his marbles...
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Too many syllables in the last line , Karnak :)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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
-
Being a good bird shooter definately helped (shotgun)
I belive Johnny Johnsson actually forwarded this point.
-
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
-
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 (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
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.
-
Lundstom's history of the first year of USN combat credits our emphasis on gunnery training, in particular deflection shooting, to the success through December 1942.
-Blogs
Originally posted by 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
-
Originally posted by 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?
I think it's impossible to be precise. There is no doubt that a skilled shot in WW2 could hit targets at a longer distance than the average, but how much further would depend on the circumstances and of course the degree of skill of the pilot.
I would be wary of drawing direct parallels with combat sims. I've never played them, but I have heard from sim designers that they deliberately make it easier to score hits than in RL, because otherwise players would get bored with missing all the time and would stop playing.
Having said that, there is no doubt that a realistic sim would have been a great training aid in WW2, and would have helped pilots improve their accuracy. I don't think it would have increased the performance of the good shots by much, just brought the average up by improving the bad shots (i.e. most of them) to a reasonable level.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by Rasker
Otoh I've heard it said that Bong was a superb pilot but lousy shot. :) I guess the exception that proves the rule.
After being sent home, Bong returned to his unit to be a gunnery instructor, and flew more missions, to score more kills. The vast majority of criticism of Bong's marksmanship came from Bong. They called him "Bing" Bong, because he got so close when he shot that his plane almost always had some sort of damage from the debris flying off of his victims.
McGuire was said to be a natural marksman, but he also criticized his ability regularly. He also said when he thought he was close enough to shoot, he'd get closer. Then before he pulled the trigger, he'd get closer than that.
-
When the K-14 sight was introduced, did not this aid the average(gunnery) pilot in his shooting accuracy? Heard it was called the ace maker.
-
Yeah from everything I have read VERY few pilots were any kind of long distance marksman.
I've got a Luftwaffe study on weapon effectiveness and marksmanship in bring down the USAAF heavies. According to it the Average B17 could be shoot down with 20 x 20 mm cannon shells from an Mg151. Each FW-190 carried 780 rounds of 20 mm so in theory one FW-190 could bring down dozens of Bombers.
The reality the study concluded was that only 11 percent of the pilots could hit with the required 20 rounds using 100 percent of the ammo load of the 20mm carried by the FW-190. The average pilot only landed Hits with about 1.5 percent of his ammo or between 12-15 rounds.
The study concluded in order to ensure a shoot down StaffleKaptians were ordered to assign two fighters to each bomber then the average pilot would be able to achieve the 20 rounds required to bring a B17 down.
Crumpp
-
taken from: "Gunner" ISBN 1-55046-332-2
Attacks in reference to azimuth direction only. (ie. could be high 3 o'clock)
B-17 - 3585 attacks, 441 hits (12.3%)
clock position - % of # of attacks - % hits
1 - 12.5 - 9.3
2 - 5.9 - 6.7
3 - 4.5 - 3.9
4 - 5.7 - 4.0
5 - 9.0 - 9.1
6 - 20.7 - 15.6
7 - 8.9 - 6.6
8 - 3.8 - 2.7
9 - 3.9 - 2.9
10 - 3.7 - 3.9
11 - 10.4 - 10.3
12 - 20.2 - 15.6
B-24 - 1042 attacks, 102 hits (9.8%)
clock position - % of # of attacks - % hits
1 - 12.7 - 8.7
2 - 3.9 - 5.2
3 - 2.9 - 5.4
4 - 3.0 - 3.6
5 - 7.8 - 7.7
6 - 19.6 - 20.6
7 - 11.0 - 6.9
8 - 3.1 - 2.0
9 - 2.8 - 3.9
10 - 6.9 - 3.4
11 - 11.9 - 7.8
12 - 21.6 - 17.6
It was a borrowed book, so can't check the %s (don't add up to 100%). Anyone have the book, so the data can be corrected?
What is interesting is the hit % is better with rear attacks from the starboard side and better with frontal attacks on the port side. Any ideas why?
-
In any discussion on air-to-air marksmanship the thousand pound gorilla is convergence. It severely limits the distance at which a target may be hit by a pilot's weapons. Because of convergence almost all fighters with wing mounted weapons had to get in close to their target in order to score hits.
Pilots who flew fighters with centerline, or line-of-sight weapons had a much easier task when it came to scoring hits. They didn't have to worry about crap such as estimating where the shells from their wing mounted weapons converged, plus bullet drop, airplane speed, and deflection. When the convergence equation was eliminated, gunnery became much easier.
I'll bet if you checked the scores of AH's top sticks who fly P-38's or 109's exclusively, or almost any other fighter with centerline weapons, their hit percentages on targets would be considerably better than the scores of pilot's who fly fighters with wing-mounted weaponry.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
Pilots who flew fighters with centerline, or line-of-sight weapons had a much easier task when it came to scoring hits.
The opposite is true. This is the reason Galland wanted the 109F to retain 2 wing-mounted cannon configuration of the 109E, rather than going with the single nose-mounted one. Wing guns give a shotgun effect which improves the odds of an average pilot scoring a hit.
-
Ra,
I believe what Galland was referring to there (I'm familiar with the quote) is weight of fire. He feared that the day would come when Germany's young pilot's, fresh out of a flight training program that was feeling wartime pressures, with a minimum number of hours, would need as large a number of weapons as possible in order to score a hit. In other words, in the case of the 109, five guns are preferable to three. The large number of weapons Galland was asking for were needed to compensate for a lack of gunnery training and also to have more hitting power. It wasn't really a "marksmanship" issue.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
what helped Yeager the most was his exceptional eyesight 20/10 in his first book he stated that he could see the LW boys at 50 miles and could plan well in advance :D
Galland is exceptional when you consider that he was blind in 1 eye and had to cheat on his eye tests :p
-
Originally posted by WarRaidr
what helped Yeager the most was his exceptional eyesight 20/10 in his first book he stated that he could see the LW boys at 50 miles and could plan well in advance :D
Galland is exceptional when you consider that he was blind in 1 eye and had to cheat on his eye tests :p
FIFTY MILES? I find that very difficult to believe. I respect Yeager
but I'm not a big fan. As a test pilot he may have had no peer, but I'm not sure he was as good a fighter pilot as legend would have you believe.
-
Originally posted by 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.
Thats what they did for my grandfather, B24 waist/ball gunner. He said he did excellent in the pickup training, and I have to believe him. I watched him (on more than 1 occasion) roll a tire with a piece of paper in the middle down a hill and put .22 rounds through the middle of it, consistantly.
-
Originally posted by United
Thats what they did for my grandfather, B24 waist/ball gunner. He said he did excellent in the pickup training, and I have to believe him. I watched him (on more than 1 occasion) roll a tire with a piece of paper in the middle down a hill and put .22 rounds through the middle of it, consistantly.
B-24 Emerson nose/ball turret. I still have his (original) gunners file from 'way back when.
Wish we had the dual speed turrets, but he always said the hydraulic rear turret was so jerky you coudn't harldy aim it.
-
Originally posted by WarRaidr
what helped Yeager the most was his exceptional eyesight 20/10 in his first book he stated that he could see the LW boys at 50 miles and could plan well in advance :D
Galland is exceptional when you consider that he was blind in 1 eye and had to cheat on his eye tests :p
From what I remember about that book is both Yeager and Anderson tested out to 20/10 and could cleary see bandits at 10 miles.
-
I believe you are right, Ra.
Wing mounted weaponry does increase the AVERAGE pilots ability to hit a target. So doesn't removing the tracers believe it or not.
However centerline mounted weaponry can hit accurately to a much longer range than wing mounted due to convergence of the wing mounted guns. A superior marksman will do better with the centerline mounted weapon because his "sector of fire" is bigger. Your average pilot needs the wieght of fire and cone of fire of wing mounted guns to make the few hits he lands count and increase his "beaten zone" to land those hits.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Puck
B-24 Emerson nose/ball turret. I still have his (original) gunners file from 'way back when.
Wish we had the dual speed turrets, but he always said the hydraulic rear turret was so jerky you coudn't harldy aim it.
Yep, he said that the hardest part of anything he ever did was to sit in the ball for 3-6 hours and then shoot at enemy planes, then come alll the way back the same time. But he said the ball was so much more easy to aim because it was smoother than the waist and he didnt have to hold it up the entire time.
-
OT
Puck, United a site that might be of interest, http://www.navylib.com/Turrets!!!.htm
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
OT
Puck, United a site that might be of interest, http://www.navylib.com/Turrets!!!.htm
404
The gunners file has everything you ever wanted to know about OPERATING the various turrets; from loading, prep, ingress, operation, egress, etc, etc, etc. Pretty interesting stuff. It was designed for the guys getting shot at (my dad said he was told when the bullet proof glass got too messed up to see through you pull a couple pins and push it up out of the way...) Every time I visit I make sure I get a couple more stories out of him. Don't have a lot of time left.
-
Originally posted by Puck
The gunners file has everything you ever wanted to know about OPERATING the various turrets; from loading, prep, ingress, operation, egress, etc, etc, etc. Pretty interesting stuff. It was designed for the guys getting shot at (my dad said he was told when the bullet proof glass got too messed up to see through you pull a couple pins and push it up out of the way...) Every time I visit I make sure I get a couple more stories out of him. Don't have a lot of time left.
Thats some pretty impressive stuff there. We don't know what happened to his gunners file, lost over the years I'd guess.
my dad said he was told when the bullet proof glass got too messed up to see through you pull a couple pins and push it up out of the way
Did that mean he just popped off the entire cover? or was there a second layer of regular glass beneath the bullet proof glass?
BTW, here's that link http://www.navylib.com/Turrets!!!.htm
-
I'm not sure exactly how it worked other than there was a removable panel of armor glass between him and the umwashed heathen hoards who didn't want him bombing them (for some silly reason, I'm sure). Once that armor glass was gone there just wasn't much between him and all the shells that tore it up in the first place.
He liked nose, ball was alright (his secondary station), tail was a beast because it was hydraulic rather than electric, and I don't know how much time he had in the waist.
After the war they transported a bunch of aussie POWs back out of Japan. To get them home they put benches in the bomb bay, which wasn't well sealed. On the ground (in the heat) they suggested these guys put some serious clothes on rather than their shorts, but they refused. Once in the air the poor guys froze their testicles off, so apparently the crew developed some sympathy and brought them up forward a couple at a time to warm up a bit.
-
Billy Bishop and Buzz Beurling would back up Tuck and Yeager on the primacy of shooting skill as the distinguishing factor between aces and others amongst fighter pilots. Bishop was noted for being a sloppy ham fisted pilot. Beurling studied ballistics of his guns and once made an 800 yard 20mm shot on a Macchi from his spitV over Malta by accounting for bullet drop, he hit the cockpit area with 5 rounds. That kill was confirmed. All pilots mentioned here also had exceptionally good eyesight, and the ability to see in depth. Yeager and Anderson spotted GROUPS of aircraft at 50 miles - not individual ones.
-
Originally posted by Puck
I'm not sure exactly how it worked other than there was a removable panel of armor glass between him and the umwashed heathen hoards who didn't want him bombing them (for some silly reason, I'm sure). Once that armor glass was gone there just wasn't much between him and all the shells that tore it up in the first place.
THAT had to be cold. My grandfather always said he was freezing up there all the time because the waist was just an open hole in the side of the plane, with no glass or windscreen. Speaking of getting the plane torn up, he said one time a flak shell (I think on a mission to Iwo Jima, maybe) went through the bottom of the plane and exploded inside. There was no real explosion, and after the mission they found out it had went off inside of a gas can, and since there was no oxygen to fuel the fire it did not cause an explosion.
-
Yeager must have had some pretty good eyes to see around the curve of the earth.
Crumpp
-
Earth's curvature at a fifty mile range is not a factor at altitude. Size of the object seen is.
-
You know Arlo as a matter of fact it is a factor.
Having stood on the Ramp of a C-130 opened at 35,000 feet it's hard to spot LARGE objects on the ground a mere 7 miles away. The distance to the Horzion only goes from about 35 miles from it's normal 24 at sea level. Could another object at 35,000 feet be under the Horizon? Possibly.....
Are you going to see it without some extreme optics?? NO
Next time you are in a commercial plane, if you ever leave your couch, at 20,000 feet try looking for a car sized object. Now take that distance and multiply it by 12.5 and you have your 50 miles.
I think Yeager might have been exaggerating just a little unless he had the hubble telescope for eyes.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Could another object at 35,000 feet be under the Horizon? Possibly.....
No.
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Shorizon.htm
:rolleyes: :lol
-
Well,
Arlo it sure does not seem that far and you sure cannot see another airplane 50 miles away.
It still stands that Yeager was exaggerating.
Crumpp
-
Never said otherwise. I just said that the earth's curvature had nothing to do with it. I recalled that as I sat on my couch remembering my days as a P-3 aircrewman. :D
-
Figures your an old "SEAMAN".
The Navy - 100 men go out to sea and 50 couples come back.
So you still keep in touch with your "Mates"?
:eek:
Crumpp
-
Airman ... then Petty Officer ... actually. Never went to sea. Logged many hours flying over it. Last "shipmate" I talked to was about 5 years ago. He was getting close to retirement. Asked me if there were any good prospects locally in the civil sector. I told him to shoot for the thirty year mark.
How about you? Any of your old Army buddies learn to read a phonebook? :D
-
Nope,
But I can say stupid things in three different languages and lift heavy objects. We are more into strong back weak mind kind of stuff.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Arlo it sure does not seem that far and you sure cannot see another airplane 50 miles away.
I don't know about that, I once was able to see a large plane(probably a 737) from around 70 miles away.
-
70 miles? Thats a rather long way. I can barely see the 747s flying over my house at 36000 feet or whatever it is. Maybe thats due to my poor vision.
-
You also have to consider the air is enough thinner at altitude you can see farther. Less dust, pollen, pollutants, particulates, and molecules between you and what you're looking at. High altitude visibility is much farther.
-
That is an EXTREME distance. I am a Military Freefall Jumpmaster and trying to locate a Drop Zone/landmarks from altitude is tough much less a smaller object.
You could be in a vacuum and I still have a tough time believing 50 miles. How can U verify the distance was 70 miles Pyro?
I know the mind plays tricks with range estimation especially when you start displacing objects at angles above and below the viewer. Many times I have found myself way off the mark when "eyeballing" long distances in mountainous terrain, only to find when I put a laser range finder to it, I am off by quite a bit.
Sure this was not one of those times?
It makes sense what you are saying about the air being clearer up at altitude for horizontal viewing distances but that is a heck of the long way!
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by United
70 miles? Thats a rather long way. I can barely see the 747s flying over my house at 36000 feet or whatever it is. Maybe thats due to my poor vision.
As Puck pointed out, atmospheric conditions play a big part. We were both up around 35k+ out over the Caribbean and the air was about as clear as you'll ever see it. I really have no idea what typical max viewing distances are for various sizes and colors as that was the only time I can recall viewing a plane from really far away and knowing the distance to it.
-
Got interrupted by a phone call while posting and didn't see your post before I made mine Crumpp. I knew the distance from radar. I was an avionics geek in the Coast Guard and was consigned to the back of the airplane and didn't get to enjoy the view much. One day in transit to a deployment, I picked up a long range contact on radar and got him locked up. We were at a similar flight level and he was crossing our flight path at a shallow angle. I slewed the IR pod to the radar lock and was surprised that I could get an IR lock on him at that distance. I went up to cockpit to see if I could get a viz on him and I could make out the tiniest of specks which the pilot could too. Of course, I knew exactly where to look and knew that something was there.
As to Yeager's account, his distance estimation may be off, I don't know, but going by accounts of his squaddies there is no doubt that he could spot bogeys long before they would come into their range of visual acuity.
-
That's some good eyesight, Pyro.
Your must have eaten all your carrots. Me, I shoved them under the table to the dog.
Crumpp
-
I bet the Germans could see the unpainted silver 51's and 47's in formations reflecting sunlight from farther than 50 miles, to say nothing of the American buffs.
That no camoflage unpainted bit, besides saving weight and helping performance, was going for the morale of the Germans -"We're here, in large numbers, and we don't care if you know it, in fact, we *want* you to know how badly you're outnumbered".
-
Actually I think the silver is a better camoflage up at high altitude. The USAAF did a study and concluded it was harder to see than a dark painted object. Camoflage only works when you are flying near the ground.
Crumpp
-
What no one knows is that Yeagar brought binoculars into his plane with him along with some help with his friends from Hubble.
-
Originally posted by 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
Both :D
-
I once flew across Iceland in a Cessna 172.
Up at 12000 feet over the middle over the country,I could easily see both the northern and southern coast. That would be roughly 200 km in each direction.
It was a fine day, and the air here is very clear.
-
I wear glasses but with them I have 120% vision :D
As I've always used my computers to shoot at things (and shooting with actual guns is almost impossible where I live) I never had problems hitting things in AH, even now. Not excellent, but decently competent. Once got to 15% with the 30mm of the G-10.
Point is, maybe even without Mr. Yeager's background people can get reasonable shooters ;)
-
Yeager claimed that he could make out formations of bogies at about 50 miles (I seem to recall him describing these formations as smudges against the sky which grew in detail as he approached). This seems perfectly reasonable. By 10 miles, he claimed to be able to make out individual fighters and ID them by model from most angles. This, also, is not unreasonable since in that situation he only needed to ID an Me-109, Me-110 or Fw-190--all of which look drastically different from any angle. Other pilots with unusually good eyesight, like Anderson, say very much the same thing. Remember that these men had vision far surpassing ordinary, in the 20/10 range.
The joke about Yeager bringing binoculars wasn't far off the mark--his natural vision WAS like having weak binoculars and he was the exception, not the rule.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, I would expect that someone like Golland or Sakai or Mannock, all of whom had legandarily bad eyesight, would not have been capable of doing that. A computer game like AH without ICONS might not be too dissimilar from the experiences of these men.
As for the original debate--shooting ability is the second most important skill for a fighter pilot. Good SA is number 1. Actual ability to fly the plane is third.
J_A_B
-
It's either that, or they were exaggerating.
I'd go with Occam's razor on this one.