Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Ack-Ack on November 05, 2010, 08:50:28 PM
-
Be glad you never had to face them in real life or the whines would be deafening.
(http://denverpost.slideshowpro.com/albums/001/496/album-101361/cache/pacific095.sJPG_950_2000_0_75_0_50_50.sJPG?1288997046)
March 1945: Japanese night raiders are greeted with a lacework of antiaircraft fire by the U.S. Marine defenders of Yontan airfield, on Okinawa during World War II. In the foreground are Marine Corsair fighter planes of the "Hells Belles" squadron standing silhouetted against the sky. (AP Photo)
ack-ack
-
long exposure!
-
Not very long I'd say.... there appears to be a searchlight (just aft of the fin on the right hand Corsair) and the burn-in on the reflected light in the smoke from it is minimal. Depending on film sensitivity and aperture (but presuming period standards) I'd expect something in the vicinity of 1 or 2 seconds. Also btw, this is Yontan airfield on Okinawa not a fleet at sea.
-
I liked this picture better.
(http://denverpost.slideshowpro.com/albums/001/496/album-101361/cache/pacific008.sJPG_950_2000_0_75_0_50_50.sJPG?1288997044)
-
SAPP parts~ o~ rama swap meet ?
-
We were short on Allison parts so we raided a nearby P-40 squadron. I'm sure they're used to it by now.
-
SAPP parts~ o~ rama swap meet ?
Bombed out P-40s from Pearl Harbor attack.
ack-ack
-
No... But I do like how you approached it, and in fact your statement is why it isn't that short. The fStop number is high enough to grab both sets of ID numbers, with 315 being the focus point and knowing the 2/3 rule regarding depth of field. :aok
Not very long I'd say.... there appears to be a searchlight (just aft of the fin on the right hand Corsair) and the burn-in on the reflected light in the smoke from it is minimal. Depending on film sensitivity and aperture (but presuming period standards) I'd expect something in the vicinity of 1 or 2 seconds. Also btw, this is Yontan airfield on Okinawa not a fleet at sea.
Long exposure or not, you must remember that each of those lines represents many many tracer rounds fired on path, not just one. (in order to grab that exposure) As such, even if that took place over 17 or 19 seconds, thousands and thousands of rounds may just have been fired from hundreds of guns.
And who said this was a fleet at sea?
-
And who said this was a fleet at sea?
The title of the thread implies that it is a picture of CV ack.
-
long exposure!
Yep, I'm sure it wouldn't look much different in AH, if you'd be able to take picture like that.
-
I think the real stuff looks nastier then AH :)
German shipping flak seen from a Beaufighter.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Flak-3.jpg)
Navy ack. Image from the cruise book of the USS California.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Flak-2.jpg)
-
I like the caption for the second pic, Guppy :D
-
your statement is why it isn't that short. The fStop number is high enough to grab both sets of ID numbers, with 315 being the focus point and knowing the 2/3 rule regarding depth of field. :aok
Long exposure or not, you must remember that each of those lines represents many many tracer rounds fired on path, not just one. (in order to grab that exposure) As such, even if that took place over 17 or 19 seconds, thousands and thousands of rounds may just have been fired from hundreds of guns.
Actually Llogan I'm thinking each of those lines represents a single tracer round; you can see the cone of fire in the slightly different angles, and it's unlikely the guns were static during firing. Also there are at least three near vertical short artifacts above a/c number 315, not sure what they are but the fact that they are all roughly parallel suggests hot debris falling under gravity. Whatever they are, they would have to be moving extremely slowly (or a very long way away) to leave such a short trail at anything like 17 or 19 seconds. And is that smoke in the lower left corner? If so it's been captured almost as if by flash (it may not be smoke, hurried processing can cause similar effects).
As for the depth of field, not an issue here. Even though typically a photographer will use the widest aperture available for 'long exposure' night work, and I believe this is the case here, depth of field at this distance to the subjects wouldn't be a factor with the standard camera/lens combinations likely to have been in use. I wouldn't be suprised if this was a half second exposure.... doubtful the photographer set up a tripod in the midst of that mayhem. More likely had the camera with him on the way to the shelter and thought he may as well try a hand-held of the firework display. I've won bets shooting blur free handheld at half a second, you pick up a few useful tricks as an RAAF photographer. Personally I'd have already been cowering under my camera case in the shelter :O
-
SAPP parts~ o~ rama swap meet ?
:rofl
Cant be, all of the props are straight :D
-
(http://denverpost.slideshowpro.com/albums/001/496/album-101361/cache/pacific061.sJPG_950_2000_0_75_0_50_50.sJPG?1289040946)
(http://denverpost.slideshowpro.com/albums/001/496/album-101361/cache/pacific011.sJPG_950_2000_0_75_0_50_50.sJPG?1289040946)
That first shot is an amphibious group with what appears to be a New Orleans class cruiser in the middle, not even an AA-laden battlegroup, and the second was taken in early 1942, before 5"/38s and 40mm. Most likely 5"/25s and 1.1" guns.
And people whine about ack...
-
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wB_B2FyhJMM/TGcXdYVoyFI/AAAAAAAACdI/X6fMQhYE7bM/s1600/kamikaze-02.jpg)
This pilot probably thought that CV acks are bad...in real life ;)
-
Yea, but chances are he was already willing to die for his Emperor. Me, I'd prefer to get my cartoon plane home with enough pieces left to find some cartoon pavement! :lol
-
I think the real stuff looks nastier then AH :)
That's because the real stuff can actually kill you.
-
I think the real stuff looks nastier then AH :)
German shipping flak seen from a Beaufighter.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Flak-3.jpg)
Navy ack. Image from the cruise book of the USS California.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/Flak-2.jpg)
WOW :O if we had Ack like that CV's would go untouched
-
I don't think that ack in real life was more deadly than it is in the game.
In the main arena, you cannot get a torpedo bomber through a task group's AA fire, not with just auto ack and especially not if there is even one person manning a single 5". In real life, it was possible to do that, and it was possible for planes to make gunnery passes through battleship/cruiser/destroyer groupings and survive. Not every plane doing so would survive, of course, but there was a non-negligible probability of being able to do it.
While the volume of fire in real life was very high, I don't think the hit percentage was very high.
-
I dunno...in AH, its rare to see an entire squadron of torpedo planes or dive bombers. Security in numbers....
I'm willing to bet that if 12 guys attacked a CV group in TBFs, a more than a few would get through.
J
-
You make some plausible arguments, yes, but one that I cannot, in no way agree with is that "camera/lens" combo......... Based on your words, you think that is a telephoto lens. (PERIOD- not up for discussion) I can't agree with that. I'm thinking the longest that is, is 35, maybe 55mm. A telephoto lens will "shrink" the DOF, like you are implying, but not a wide lens. You also need to take the shooter's eye away from the camera....... This shot, to me, was a camera placed on a mound of dirt, or some other hard structure using BULB and without even looking once they grabbed the focus.
as for the long or short of the "trail," with the wide lens & low aperture, the shutter would have to be open for an extended period even with a higher ASA such as 1600 or 3200. And another reason fro my belief is the ASA itself..... 1600, maybe 3200 I'll buy, but odds are this photog had 800 with him. (a good all around speed)
Actually Llogan I'm thinking each of those lines represents a single tracer round; you can see the cone of fire in the slightly different angles, and it's unlikely the guns were static during firing. Also there are at least three near vertical short artifacts above a/c number 315, not sure what they are but the fact that they are all roughly parallel suggests hot debris falling under gravity. Whatever they are, they would have to be moving extremely slowly (or a very long way away) to leave such a short trail at anything like 17 or 19 seconds. And is that smoke in the lower left corner? If so it's been captured almost as if by flash (it may not be smoke, hurried processing can cause similar effects).
As for the depth of field, not an issue here. Even though typically a photographer will use the widest aperture available for 'long exposure' night work, and I believe this is the case here, depth of field at this distance to the subjects wouldn't be a factor with the standard camera/lens combinations likely to have been in use. I wouldn't be suprised if this was a half second exposure.... doubtful the photographer set up a tripod in the midst of that mayhem. More likely had the camera with him on the way to the shelter and thought he may as well try a hand-held of the firework display. I've won bets shooting blur free handheld at half a second, you pick up a few useful tricks as an RAAF photographer. Personally I'd have already been cowering under my camera case in the shelter :O
-
great pics :rock
-
LMAO, I'm reading LLogan's post and thinking to myself, "What in the hell is he talking about?!!?" Then I remembered the discussion of the photographers camera settings back on page one...
Time for more beer.
-
:x
LMAO, I'm reading LLogan's post and thinking to myself, "What in the hell is he talking about?!!?" Then I remembered the discussion of the photographers camera settings back on page one...
Time for more beer.
All the bullchit that I say on these boards, photography is actually the one thing I'll always give the straight line for...... It's my business these days. :salute
But if any prosumer camera dudes out there are curious to ASA..... Same as ISO. :aok
-
Be glad you never had to face them in real life or the whines would be deafening.
(http://denverpost.slideshowpro.com/albums/001/496/album-101361/cache/pacific095.sJPG_950_2000_0_75_0_50_50.sJPG?1288997046)
March 1945: Japanese night raiders are greeted with a lacework of antiaircraft fire by the U.S. Marine defenders of Yontan airfield, on Okinawa during World War II. In the foreground are Marine Corsair fighter planes of the "Hells Belles" squadron standing silhouetted against the sky. (AP Photo)
ack-ack
The rest of the photos, :salute the men and women of WWII
http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2010/03/18/captured-blog-the-pacific-and-adjacent-theaters/1547/
-
I dunno...in AH, its rare to see an entire squadron of torpedo planes or dive bombers. Security in numbers....
I'm willing to bet that if 12 guys attacked a CV group in TBFs, a more than a few would get through.
J
From the pictures and videos I've looked at and accounts I've read over the years, planes didn't often manage to go in that close together. For example, I don't think I've seen a single picture or video of torpedo runs of either US or Japanese planes that had more than about two planes close together, and most of the things I've seen have one. Planes would frequently get separated while each maneuvered to get a good run on the target. Dive bombing, too, often has the planes separated enough to be the equivalent of one plane at a time.
Also, there are numerous accounts like "I made a gunnery pass on a cruiser in for formation of cruisers and destroyers. I went in and strafed the deck of the ship. Then I did another run until I was out of ammo and headed back to base." Of course there are many people who are shot down on runs like that.
My point is only that, in real WWII, there were many accounts of planes going in on a taskgroup of ships, right through all of that flak, and making it through.
-
The point that I was making was in reference to the game itself. Perhaps one day we should try it and see what happens, get 10-12 people in TBFs attacking a CV group at the same time. Or get 10-12 ppl in SBDs coming in from 10K on a single target. I'm sure some guys will 'fly right through' while others won't get enough time to release.
During actual combat situations, squadrons would arrive over the target at the same time, thus attacking various targets and not allowing the entire AA battery to focus on a single plane. A good study are the squadron AARs on the attacks on Yamato and Musashi.
On the opposite side of the coin, Japanese attacks were often made by a smaller number, or individual aircraft, who met the wall 'o flak from the 5", 40mm, and 20mm.
-
The point that I was making was in reference to the game itself. Perhaps one day we should try it and see what happens, get 10-12 people in TBFs attacking a CV group at the same time. Or get 10-12 ppl in SBDs coming in from 10K on a single target. I'm sure some guys will 'fly right through' while others won't get enough time to release.
We have done that many times in scenarios (Coral Sea 2005, Operation Husky, Coral Sea 2009, and Philippine Phandango -- pictorials AAR's of all of those, with pictures of what the attack runs ended up looking like, are here: http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/scenarios.html ). Those are scenarios with lots of training and practice and people working to go in as close together as possible and attacking a squadron at a time. Yet even there, you won't see more that 1-2 planes going in as if they were in formation because folks just get a bit more separated than that as they individually line up for the attack. For those, we turn the auto ack way, way down and disable 5" manned guns, or no torpedo bombers would ever make it in.
During actual combat situations, squadrons would arrive over the target at the same time, thus attacking various targets and not allowing the entire AA battery to focus on a single plane. A good study are the squadron AARs on the attacks on Yamato and Musashi.
I've read a lot of accounts of those encounters and many, many more, as well as looking at photographs of attack runs and footage of attack runs for both US and Japanese forces. Yes, a squadron goes in. But when you look at what the actual attack runs look like, rarely are they a squadron attacking in formation. They are, effectively from our point of view AH with regard to ack range, etc., a plane at a time, even though, yes, it is a whole squadron attacking.
On the opposite side of the coin, Japanese attacks were often made by a smaller number, or individual aircraft, who met the wall 'o flak from the 5", 40mm, and 20mm.
Later in the war, yes, but not necessarily in the big earlier encounters such as Midway and Coral Sea. Yet there, and even at Pearl Harbor, where there was no aerial opposition and hundreds of attackers, you don't see many (or perhaps any? I'm not sure -- I haven't seen any pics or footage that shows it, but I can't say none exist) planes going in while in formation. You see mostly what we would call a plane at a time or what would here be in effect a plane at at time (i.e., ack focusing on a plane as it comes in, then the next plane, and so on -- not 4 or 8 or 12 at once).
-
Based on your words, you think that is a telephoto lens. (PERIOD- not up for discussion) I can't agree with that. I'm thinking the longest that is, is 35, maybe 55mm.
Hi again LLogan, neg I never said it was a telephoto, in fact I'm presuming a standard 55mm as you suggest (what did I say to make you think otherwise?) Not entirely sure what your reasons are for thinking this is a longer exposure, those tracers would have been very bright, remember a meteor shower leaves nice trails and although generally the shutter is open for some time each trail is made in a second or two, given the tracers are 1. closer and 2. brighter I don't see a problem with the exposure having been under a second.
the shutter would have to be open for an extended period even with a higher ASA such as 1600 or 3200. And another reason fro my belief is the ASA itself..... 1600, maybe 3200 I'll buy, but odds are this photog had 800 with him. (a good all around speed)
...more probably 50 or maybe 100. I realise this figure works against my argument rather than with it, but back in the mid '70's the RAAF at least was using 100ASA standard B&W, if we got hold of 200 we thought it was Christmas and 400 was something we read about in the civilian photographic magazines. You could 'push' it of course, in the processing, at some cost to quality (increased grain).
I'm looking at the image and just trying to run through in my mind what was going on... the photographer's probably moving briskly toward the nearest shelter and looks up, says to himself 'wow I've gotta get a shot of that' cranks his aperture wide open without looking but glances down as he sets the shutter speed, probably suprised that he can actually see the setting scale in the reflected light. The brightness convinces him to try a quick hand held shot at half a second, maybe he sits down and uses his knees to steady, maybe he places the camera against something solid... but I just don't see him fiddling about with 15 second exposures, I wouldn't as there's no need, even at 50ASA.
Does it matter that much? Let's say you're right. You may well be, I haven't had a professional interest in photography since I left the service in 1982, whereas you are current. I only posted because I suspected the amount of fire evident seemed to me about right for something under a second or so, and a closer look at the image seemed to confirm that. If we're going to exchange ideas we might be better off finding some common ground, I certainly have no wish to become the forum expert on photography, you are probably far more qualified for that role than I :)
-
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wB_B2FyhJMM/TGcXdYVoyFI/AAAAAAAACdI/X6fMQhYE7bM/s1600/kamikaze-02.jpg)
This pilot probably thought that CV acks are bad...in real life ;)
Thats funny, I don't see any bad buys D200 on his tail getting blown off of the sky while he is running in that ack safely :lol
-
We have done that many times in scenarios... .
I've read a lot of accounts... .
Later in the war, yes, ...
Forgive me for being an aviation historian by trade. I bow to your superior intellect.
-
Forgive me for being an aviation historian by trade. I bow to your superior intellect.
Come on, now. Let's not be rude. ;)
I'm just giving my observations, and I've been polite and not at all insulting to anyone.
All I've been saying is that from what I've seen of pictures, footage, and descriptions of planes attacking, the majority of these real-life accounts are what would allow -- in AH -- focusing AA fire on one plane at a time, not needing to split AA fire onto several planes simultaneously.