Originally posted by Grendel
No, there was so such thing as "built in dispersion". The idea was to have the gun shoot its bullets in as tight pattern as possible.
Originally posted by GrendelAh rgr that. An army guy I used to know told me about how a belt fed machine gun was set up on the ground to provide cover for the guys moving behind it. Initially, it discharged over too small an area, so the rifling was adjusted (bored out?) to give the gun less accuracy but distribute the bullets over a larger area, which is what was needed in this case. I assumed that they doctored aircraft guns the same way - I guess they'd have to if the guns were naturally as accurate as laser beams.
No, there was so such thing as "built in dispersion". The idea was to have the gun shoot its bullets in as tight pattern as possible.
Originally posted by Grendel
No, there was so such thing as "built in dispersion". The idea was to have the gun shoot its bullets in as tight pattern as possible.
Originally posted by Oldman731
The idea was that pilots wouldn't be able to shoot an accurate stream of bullets and hit a fast enemy plane.
Each of the eight guns was therefore aimed a slightly different direction from the others.
Originally posted by HoHun
I guess you're going to enjoy this thread:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=131669
Therefore some amount of dispersion gives an advantage.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Not really. Have you read any vunerability reports? Basically you need concentrated firepower and/or realtively large amounts of explosive force to ensure an immediate shoot down.
Actually in the case of systematical error some amount of dispersion gives more concentrated firepower
Originally posted by Crumpp
Greater dispersion does not give you greater concentration, Gripen. That is an oxymoron. Sort of like being an "accurate estimate".
Verlaß Dich also nicht auf die Waffenstreuung - sie hilft Dir nicht, wenn Du falsch gezielt hast!
Originally posted by HoHun
So let's have a look at three different batteries to estimate the long-range fire capabilities (against a fighter-sized target held perfectly stationary in the centre of the sight):
Originally posted by HoHun
Of course, pilot capabilities and "aim point wander" - the impossibility of keeping the crosshairs centered on the target - means that even in a situation where I have listed "100% hits" will not result in 100% hits. However, a tracking accuracy of 1 mil has been demonstrated by a highly trained fighter pilot during deflection gunnery tests, so the "ideal" situation above is not very far from the optimum human capabilities. Of course, a hastily trained wartime pilot might be very far from the expert I have just described :-)
Originally posted by Bruno
Do not rely on weapon dispersion - it will not help you, if you aim badly!
Originally quoted by Tony Williams
When more powerful armament was installed, advantages were again seen in some dispersion of fire. The strongest argument in favour was that very flew pilots were able to judge correctly the amount of lead required for deflection shooting. In May 1942 the RAF would again opt for a greater dispersion of fire to generate more hits.
Originally posted by HoHunIf a gun could be aimed that accurately, then to hit a target such as a wing from the dead 6 position would require that the aircraft be aimed extremely accurately, by which I mean to within 0.02°. Deviation beyond that limit would result in a miss.
but even at 700 m about 80% of the fire will be on target.
Dispersion does not increase hit probability.I'd say it does, but it may not increase the bring down the target aircraft probability.
Originally posted by beet1e
I'd say it does, but it may not increase the bring down the target aircraft probability.
When more powerful armament was installed, advantages were again seen in some dispersion of fire.
Originally posted by HoHunWell, the pilots of WW2 were not highly trained. In addition to that, we know that dogfights took place amongst the clouds because hiding in cloud was a well known evasion tactic. At cloud height, there can be considerable turbulence, especially when passing through or under cloud. In a relatively small plane, turbulence is much greater than it would be in a large aircraft like an airliner. In my view, these factors cast considerable doubt on your claim that pilots could fly accurately to within 0.057°.
Tracking accuracy achieved by a highly trainge pilot under good conditions has been proven to be 1 mil (ca. 0.057 degree).
Originally posted by HoHun
Tracking accuracy achieved by a highly trainge pilot under good conditions has been proven to be 1 mil (ca. 0.057 degree).
Originally posted by HoHun
Note that the requirement is to put the crosshairs smack in the middle of the target.
Originally posted by HoHun
The standard piloting technique in deflection shots is NOT to have the target stationary in the sights, but to begin firing with the crosshairs just short of the correct deflection while pulling them through the (not accurately known) correct deflection to a position of excessive deflection.
Originally posted by Crumpp
But to make a blanket general statement that "more dispersion is good" is not correct
Originally posted by beet1e
In my view, these factors cast considerable doubt on your claim that pilots could fly accurately to within 0.057°.
No one has made such statement here, what I have stated here is that some amount of dispersion is good and that is exactly what the RAF did and it can be easily proved with aiming error.
But in reality during WWII aiming was nearly allways systematically wrong because there was no way to determine correct lead until early gyroscopic sights arrived (and these still required some pure aproximations for range measurement). Basicly most pilots used too little lead and aiming point was behind and below correct point specially at long range. Therefore some amount of dispersion actually improved probability of the hit and also percentage of the hits.
That would clearly give an advantage to a wider dispersion, provided the projectiles were destructive enough to do the job with few hits.
Originally posted by HoHun
It's just one data point (probably the "best case" data point) to help you to decide which dispersion figure you would consider realistic for the long-range fire situation.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Your statement is only true for specific conditions Gripen. For a weapon requiring concentration any amount of dispersion is bad.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Key words Gripen.
Originally posted by HoHun
I believe you do not fully understand the beauty of my example ;-)
Originally posted by HoHun
For the Me 109, the MK108 will hit the target out to 500 m. At 600 m, the trajectory is so far below the target that even twice the vertical dispersion won't generate any hit.
Clouds. Well, sometimes there were clouds and sometimes there were not, just like in any place on earth. Clouds were not omnipresent in all WW2 skies.I mentioned clouds because there tends to be some turbulence in their proximity because of thermals. A cumulus cloud exists because of warm moist air rising rapidly from the surface. As the air rises, it cools. And as it cools, it can no longer retain its moisture, which condenses into the atmosphere, and a cumulus cloud is formed. The point I was trying to make was that in the presence of said cumulus clouds, there would have been strong upward air currents and/or turbulence, making it difficult for even the most accomplished pilot to aim accurately by pitching the aircraft's nose to within 0.057° that HoHun suggested was possible. As a former glider pilot I'd be actively looking for thermals, and I know how rough it could get when I found one. As any other glider pilot will tell you, you'll get bounced all over the place.
Training. WW2 pilots were well aware of what deflection shooting was, they were not stupid. In addition, specialist gunnery schools were setup in many air forces, specifically to tackle issues of deflection shooting theory.Not here they weren't. Britain got rushed into the war. I believe at one time the German bombers were faster than our fighters! We were desperately short of trained pilots in 1940, some of whom went into active duty with as little as 10 hours on type. I have seen interviews/read accounts of newbie pilots being told to just get up there, point and shoot!
These "specific conditions" cover probably more than 90% of normal shooting situations.
At short range even the largest dispersion claimed by HoHun is pretty much neglible and at long range the aiming error is probably far larger than dispersion. The only condition when you don't benefit from the dispersion is that you somehow are able to aim extremely accurate at long range
Originally posted by Crumpp
Most of the world's air forces moved to cannon armament by the end of the conflict, Gripen.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Your speculating and do not know.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Do not pass guesses or personal theory off as fact.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Aerial gunnery by it's nature is fraught with errors. Building in more shooting error would be rather stupid, IMHO.
Actually the dispersion decrease the effect of aiming error increasing the probability of the hit.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
You basically don't see the forest from a tree, arguing on one small detail and don't get the big picture, that we are aiming to destroy the enemy plane, not just hit it, with a few exceptions of extremely powerful board weapons.
There is no quesses, simply a large probability that an average pilot aimed pretty much allways with some error.
Couple degrees is just a wild quess, in fact it might have been less. In the case of the ZU-23 (AA gun, not GSh-23, I forget the designation), the mounting is built to have something like couple mm loosenes in the support point. Notable thing is that support point is actually rectangular so I quess the pattern is also rectangular. While shooting the jumping of the gun in the support point is quite well visible as well as dispersion of the projectiles.
I didn't know that. I thought it was mostly a negative side effect of high MV and high ROF usually accompanied by a too flexible mounting of the gun (eg. wing).
Originally posted by Crumpp
Gripen you’re guessing that designers purposely built in dispersion to increase the hit probability when facts are they do not.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Simply examine the number of high performance aircraft that have been brought down by ZU-23 fire. While considered a threat, it is hardly an effective one. The advantage lies in the "bang for the buck" factor. ZU-23's are realtively inexpensive compared to other AAA platforms.
I'm not quessing, I have seen that in the ZU-23. And the reason for the loosenes is actually described in the documentation. And the reason for dispersion can be proved with aiming error.
If the pilots aiming error is systematical as it probably is
Originally posted by Crumpp
You should probably check your statistics on the effectivenss.
Originally posted by Crumpp
There is a pretty good reason most first world armies do not rush out and buy them.
Originally posted by Bruno
Where does this assumption come from?
Originally posted by Hohun
As far as my example is concerned, certainly from a misunderstanding.
Originally posted by Hohun
With the standard technique "Put the crosshairs on the target and push the button", systematical errors are not a factor.
I wonder what should I check, during last 40 years no other AA gun has seen as widespread use as the ZU-23 and probably no other AA gun has brought down as many aircraft (planes or helicopters) as the ZU-23 during that period.
can certainly say that Finnish army has been very happy with the weapon itself
At long range deflection shooting the target is never in crosshairs except with gyroscopic gunsight.
Originally posted by HoHun
firing at 800 yards probably would be worthwhile.
by US Navy 1944
Browning Aircraft Machine Gun, .50 Cal.., MK 2, Mod 2. Range: Maximum effective - 1,000 feet.
Conservation of ammunition - don't waste ammunition firing out of range - only limited supply - main problem of combat fighters.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Losses to AAA have been insignificant.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Where do you get deflection shooting from HoHun's post?
In ideal conditions (assuming that aiming was perfect and not systematically off) dispersion is bad. But in reality during WWII aiming was nearly allways systematically wrong because there was no way to determine correct lead until early gyroscopic sights arrived (and these still required some pure aproximations for range measurement). Basicly most pilots used too little lead and aiming point was behind and below correct point specially at long range. Therefore some amount of dispersion actually improved probability of the hit and also percentage of the hits.
Ah rgr that. An army guy I used to know told me about how a belt fed machine gun was set up on the ground to provide cover for the guys moving behind it. Initially, it discharged over too small an area, so the rifling was adjusted (bored out?) to give the gun less accuracy but distribute the bullets over a larger area, which is what was needed in this case.
Originally posted by Crumpp
The USAF maintained a .65% loss rate due to all enemy action causes.
Originally posted by Crumpp
While you are correct in this assumption Gripen for convergence adjustments, it does not improve the chances of achieving an immediate shoot down.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Guns are designed to be as accurate as engineering allows and eliminate as much dispersion as possible.
Originally posted by Crumpp
More individual weapon dispersion simply means more chance to waste ammunition.
Originally posted by HoHunWing mounted various Navy AC types. I guess they took middle value of 8 mils (hit percentage was actually 13+, I rounded the value), since they stated dispersion values from 6 to 10 mils.
Interesting data point! :-) That would be a 100% dispersion circle of roughly 7.6 mil. For which type of mount is this data valid?
Originally posted by HoHunInteresting how AF and Navy got different numbers.
For my example, I'm using 4 mil for the P-38 and 6 mil for the P-47, which is a bit lower, but seems to match historical data from various sources.
Originally posted by HoHunTrue.
Well, banner shooting was not from the dead six position against a stationary target, but involved dynamic pursuit-curve attacks and lead estimation, so the level of difficulty is considerably higher than in my example.
Hm... US forces lost thousands of planes (fixed wing and helicopters) in Vietnam, most of them to the AA, the ZU-23 being the one of the main weapons.
However, I still believe that disabling enemy plane at 800 yds with .50 cals was extremely difficult. I'm not saying it didn't happen, it's just that probability is very low.
More hits, better chance to shoot down.
Some succesful guns are designed with some dispersion built in.
Originally posted by Crumpp
You have any documentation on the ZU-23 being the main weapon used? IIRC the North Vietnamese employed a variety of AAA systems with a PK and DSHK being the most common.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Your statement that weapons have design purpose dispersion is not correct.
After the Vietnam experiencewhere thousands of UH-1/AH-1 family helicopters were lost to a combination of AK-47/AKM rifles, ZPU, ZU-23
and ZSU-23-4P guns and MANPADS, the US embarked on a
major rethink of helicopter design."
The ZU-23 is designed with built in dispersion and for a rational reason.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Hardly proof of the Zu-23's effectiveness.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yes, you have claimed this earlier. And I replied that I doubted the dispersion was "built in" to increase hit probability. More likely the mount is flexible to reduce the force of recoil so that it does not crack the mount.
Originally posted by gripen
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CSJ.htm
" What can be seen can be hit." For attack helicopter
pilots these words suddenly had real meaning in 1973. The
event that gave meaning to these words was the 1973 Mid-East
War; the weapon was the ZSU-23-4. During that conflict,
nearly one-half of all the aircraft that the Israeli forces
lost were to the ZSU-23-4.1 The significance of that
accomplishment was not lost on the attack helicopter com-
munity. No single event has had such a profound effect on
the tactics of the AH-1.
The ZSU-23-4 is the backbone of a Soviet maneuver
echelon's formidable air defense system. Although it first
appeared in the mid-sixties, it was not until the 1973
Mid-East War that the ZSU's capabilities became widely known
and appreciated. It immediately became apparent that the
ZSU-23-4 was a deadly threat to any low flying helicopter
that came within its sight and range. This disconcerting
development quickly became a source of concern to attack-
helicopter pilots who had previously enjoyed a relatively
free rein during the Vietnam conflict. As a result of that
concern, radical changes in tactics and increased emphasis
on survivability equipment evolved."
It's 100% certainly built with loosenes in the support points to give some amount of dispersion. Go and check one.
gripen
It's 100% certainly built with loosenes in the support points to give some amount of dispersion. Go and check one.
BALLISTIC DISPERSION— The variation of a path of a bomb or projectile which is attributed to physical tolerances in the weapon dimensions and to the stability of the weapon. The error produced by this variability is commonly stated as standard deviation in range and deflection of the error with respect to the mean point of impact.
Employment Of The AH-1T (Tow) Against The ZSU-23-4
CSC 1984
SUBJECT AREA Strategic Issues
EMPLOYMENT OF THE AH-1T(TOW) AGAINST
THE ZSU-23-4
Submitted to
Dr. Berens
In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements
for Written Communication
The Marine Corps Command and Staff College
Quantico, Virginia
Major S. J. Cobain, Jr.
United States Marine Corps
April 6, 1984
EMPLOYMENT OF THE AH-1T(TOW) AGAINST
THE ZSU-23-4
Outline
Thesis Sentence: The AH-1T(TOW) is well suited to counter
the ZSU-23-4 on the modern battlefield.
The 25mm M242 Bushmaster chaingun had a built in flexability in the mounting.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Whoever told you that fed you some BS. Sounds cool though.
The M242 needs 12mm of recoil movement in order to cycle the gun. The mount is flexible to allow the gun to move that 12 mm.
Served quite a few years in Uncle Sugar's Ain't Released Me Yet....
Check FM 3-22-1.
All the best,
Crumpp
The play I am taking about is in the mounting pins on the bottom front of the mounting.
So were you a crunchy when you were in?
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yes the looseness of the mount adds dispersion. It was NOT designed to add dispersion.
Read my lips: There is built in dispersion in the mounting of the ZU-23. It's purpose built to the rectangular support point.
Gripen says:
And the reason for the loosenes is actually described in the documentation.
Show some documentation proving this was a "design feature" to add dispersion. You said you had it.
Originally posted by HoHunYes I was assuming that, for the purposes of my example. I was also assuming that the pilot could fly the plane accurately to within ¼° nose pitch, that the bullets would fly as straight as laser beams unaffected by gravity or air resistance, and that the plane was being flown in smooth air conditions with zero turbulence. As I said before, the introduction of these environmental factors makes the likelihood of scoring hits much less likely, and as 2bighorn has quoted from the US Navy manual, the .50 cal was effective to a maximum of 333 yards. Gabreski claims to have got kills at 400yds, using the 8x.50cal wing mounted on his P47. But he also says in his book that getting in close made the guns much more effective.
Well, you're assuming that the bullets would spread out evenly over the entire area.
Originally posted by gripen
If the pilots aiming error is systematical as it probably is, some amount dispersion will actually increase probability of the hits as well as nunber of hits ie probability to destroy the enemy plane..
gripen
Originally posted by Crumpp
You said you could prove it and had documentation:
Originally posted by Crumpp
Post it, that is all I have asked. Instead you respond with an attack. Typical Gripen.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Disagree, that's quite a bit reaching out of the boundaries or reality. It'd would be correct to assume that if the dispersion is greater, than the probability to achive a hit is greater. Shotgun effect : out of many small pellets one or two will hit.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
I think even you wouldn't argue against that the hit percentage is the highest when you're aim is correct.
Originally posted by beet1e
I'd like to hear more from 2bighorn about that USN manual, and the reasons given for the effective range of the .50 cal.
Originally posted by beet1e
Some of you guys are expressing dispersion values as "mil". Can you indicate what this value would be expressed as degrees of variation from perfect centre?
Originally posted by HoHun
1 mil = 0.057 degrees as it's defined as 1 unit of lateral displacement at 1000 units distances.
2bighorn seems to have found a different definition :-/ We had different definitions in some earlier thread, too, but the differences were small enough to be insignificant. However, if 2bighorn uses 0.09° and I use 0.057°, that's a bit of a problem.
The USAAF's K-14 LCOS (lead computing optical gunsight) as used for example in the P-51D had a 70 mil ring, by the way.
Regards,
I have pointed out where to find the evidence if you want to check it out. Generally I have no need to prove something in practice if I can prove it with theory.
Crumpp - About the army guy with the bored out machine gun. No, he didn't do it himself. It's a long time since I heard the story, but I think what he was trying to say was that the British Army experimented with a particular type of gun which they intended to deploy in jungle conditions. What they wanted was to be able to fire many rounds into a sizable area, ie. not all at one spot, to provide covering fire. That's all I can remember. Come to think of it, I used the word "friend" loosely when referring to this guy. He was actually a bit of an arse, and a lot of what he said was BS.
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Beet1e,
>>Well, you're assuming that the bullets would spread out evenly over the entire area.
>Yes I was assuming that, for the purposes of my example.
The problem with that particular assumption is that it is not realistic, and that it has a major impact on the final result.
The Gaussian bell curve universially applies to all statistic events that are determined by a large number of independend random events, such as all the small effects we can't account for individually that contribute to moving the crosshairs off the aiming point.
Probably le statistician Straffo could explain it better than I can ;-) Anyway, the result of complex random events is not an even distribution as the one in your original example, but one with a noticable peak around the average value, which - due to the marksman's efforts - is the position in the centre of the sight.
Well, the problem is that "effective range" is not a clearly defined terminus.
Some of you guys are expressing dispersion values as "mil". Can you indicate what this value would be expressed as degrees of variation from perfect centre?
Originally posted by 2bighorn
During World War II the U. S. Army often used a mil equal to 1/1000 of a right angle, 0.1 grad, 0.09°, or 5.4 arcminutes.
One mil equals 1 foot at 1000' and 35' wingspan at 1000' equals 35 mils.
For example, outer ring on standard gunsight was 100 mils and inner ring was 50 mils, refective gunsight pipper itself was 2.5 mils or 5 mils, depends on gunsight.
Originally posted by HoHunYes, it gets confusing because of different definitions. Some ww2 documents have clear definitions of a mil, some don't.
Hi 2bighorn,
However, going back to the old thread, I found that two different definitions were used by the US in WW2, with one being 1/1000 of a right angle, and the other being 1/1000 of a radian, which is exactly the 0.0573° of the 1/1000 of range definition.
(The Germans used the fraction of range definition, too, and I would be suprised if the US weapons had that much more dispersion.)
So I'll continue to use the 0.0573° for now, but I'll keep my eyes peeled for an example where range and deviation are named in absolute figures so we can cross-check it!
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Originally posted by Crumpp
In otherwords, you cannot prove it and do not have the documentation.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Say so and state it is a theory of your own making.
Originally posted by HoHun
Anyway, the result of complex random events is not an even distribution as the one in your original example, but one with a noticable peak around the average value, which - due to the marksman's efforts - is the position in the centre of the sight.
Originally posted by gripen
How a pilot, (marksman or novice) can aim in long range deflection shooting without systematical error if there is no way to determine correct aiming point?
gripen
Gripen says:
And the reason for the loosenes is actually described in the documentation.
Gripen says:
Generally I have no need to prove something in practice if I can prove it with theory.
Gripen says:
nd documentation is training material of Finnish army, not available in the net nor trough me.
And it's not my theory, just basic statistics.
Originally posted by straffo
Because he is aiming with punctiform sight not considering the spread of the bullets.
And luckily this point is at the apex of the gauss curve :)
Originally posted by Crumpp
You calimed to have the manual and knowledge of a specific design detail of the ZU-23.
Originally posted by Crumpp
It is your theory on the ZU-23.
No, such claim I have not done.
Actually the theory has nothing directly to do with the ZU-23, the built in dispersion in it just utilizes theoretical fact that some amount of dispersion gives better probability of the hit as well as more hits if there is some error in aiming.
Originally posted by Crumpp
So far you have no shown one individual weapon which has "built in" dispersion.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Ok then you do not know.
You could get different barrel clamps for the M61A1, which gave different dispersion patterns (including a wide one) by varying the spacing between the barrels. Don't know if that saw any use, though.
Hm... I do know what I learn during my service and I wonder why you try claim otherwise.
Originally posted by Crumpp
The M2 is considered a very flat trajectory MG and very accurate. It has a 4 mil dispersion cone.
All the best,
Crumpp
sustened fire ?
Originally posted by Crumpp
I guarantee you Gripen those pins are there for the exact same reason, ease of deployment or removal. Although they add dispersion that is a flaw not a feature.
You could get different barrel clamps for the M61A1, which gave different dispersion patterns (including a wide one) by varying the spacing between the barrels. Don't know if that saw any use, though.
Originally posted by Crumpp
The M2 is considered a very flat trajectory MG and very accurate. It has a 4 mil dispersion cone.
As I said, I have no idea whether any of these special muzzle clamps were ever used, but GE obviously thought that there might be a demand for them.
But that is not very accurate, in fact it is among the worst of WW2 aircraft guns.
Originally posted by HoHun
An A-10 pilot who usually provided very reliable information once told me about a similar purposefully increased dispersion for the 30 mm Gatling on the A-10. Of course, that was meant for attacking ground targets, and at least the wide oval pattern you quoted suggests that it was meant for ground attacks, too.
Originally posted by HoHun
A circular pattern does not suggest any particular target, but considering that the M61 is not a one shot MiG killer by any means, I'd suspect that the large dispersion setting was not really intended for air combat either. That's just my personal guess, of course :-)
Originally posted by gripen
Generally it seems that in long range deflection shooting, the amount of bullets (more hits) and velocity of the bullets (less lead needed) are the most important factors.
Originally posted by gripen
I have compared the new AH K-4 to the AH P-47D-11. At long range between 600-800, I can definately kill the drone B-24 easier with with the P-47 than with the K-4. It's just much easier to get correct lead with the 8 mgs and the needed lead seem to be less ie there is less room for error. Generally it seems that in long range deflection shooting, the amount of bullets (more hits) and velocity of the bullets (less lead needed) are the most important factors.
gripen
edit: Convergence was default.
Originally posted by Tony Williams
I would agree that you will get more hits in those circumstances. However, when comparing with RL, you should bear in mind the following:
1. In RL, scoring hits at long range was uncommon. Scoring hits at any significant deflection angle was also uncommon. Scoring hits at long range and in deflection was virtually impossible. So your point is rather theoretical.
2. Also in RL, if you pulled off the remarkable trick of landing a few .50 hits in those circumstances it is unlikely that a B-24 would take any significant damage, let alone get shot down.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
True for AH2, where the hit model is a joke, and I can score hits even when completely aiming stupidly in the 'general direction' of the airplane. That's becasue AH uses hit boxes, which are much larger than the actual aircraft.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
True for AH2, where the hit model is a joke, and I can score hits even when completely aiming stupidly in the 'general direction' of the airplane. That's becasue AH uses hit boxes, which are much larger than the actual aircraft.l
.
Originally posted by HoHun
With about 150 rounds per barrel being possible for a Browning M2 in a single attack run without overheating issues, and a battery of 6 - 8 barrels, this would require a hit probability of 14 - 19% for a 95% kill chance per attack run.
Originally posted by HoHun
Evaluating the 8 x 12.7 mm Browning M2 battery according to the Luftwaffe scoring criteria (total battery weight multiplied by required firing duration) for anti-bomber weapons, I get a suitability factor of 0.055. That's about the same as 6 x 15 mm MG151 with 0.056. 2 x MK108 score 0.724, 2 x MG 213/30 1.00.
Originally posted by Charge
I think the question is more about the projectile destructiviness and how well does a light projectile retain its energy and thus how much it can cause damage after flying, say, 600 yards plus the result of the forward movement component of two a/c which is detrimental to the energy of the projectile. Then again the forward velocity component might have a very small effect as the drag builds up rather slowly after the projectile has been launched well above the speed of sound.
It can be theoretically proved that due to aiming error some amount dispersion is an advantage but how much, is a good question.
Originally posted by Crumpp
I understodd your contention Gripen was that guns have purpose engineered dispersion as a feature.
Originally posted by HoHun
The Luftwaffe used an average hit figure of 5% as basis for that comparison.
Originally posted by HoHun
As reported by the USAAF bombers, the vast majority of Luftwaffe fighter attacks came from straight 12 or 6 o'clock positions and involved little to no deflection.
Originally posted by HoHun
As Tony pointed out, "long range deflection shooting" was not a sensible tactic in WW2.
Originally posted by HoHun
The total energy of mine shells is preserved pretty well downrange because it's primarily a function of its explosive content.
Originally posted by HoHun
The MK108 is a "friggin lazer beam" out to 500 m, but beyond that - no way :-)
As all contemporary documentation on air-to-air firing technique stresses accuracy and none of it recommends "walking the rudders" to increase dispersion (as suggested in WW2 manuals for ground attacks), I'm highly sceptical of the claim that dispersion is helpful.
Originally posted by hitech
You are totaly miss informed and full of dog dodo.
HiTech
Originally posted by HoHun
You're quite right - it's often forgotten that depressing the sight line (or elevating the bore axis) will help to make the weapon hit close to the aiming point - which is just what the shooter wants.
The point is that trajectory curvature begins to have a serious impact only at ranges far beyond what was normal engagement range in WW2.
Originally posted by HoHun
You're quite right - it's often forgotten that depressing the sight line (or elevating the bore axis) will help to make the weapon hit close to the aiming point - which is just what the shooter wants.