ammunition loading and long-range ballistics

[Krusty]

And modern ones paint a bright box around the target following it wherever it goes, the old ones just moved the dot around in the gunsight reflector.

EDIT: Or moved the outer rings to denote firing range

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by gripen
IIRC the largest dispersion patterns (80 % or 100 %, can't remember) for the WWII aircraft guns were around 4 mil (4 m at 1000m). So at range of say 600 m the dispersion pattern is about 2,4 m.

Is there a source that has this information?  I'm guessing HTC had to get their ballistics information from somewhere...

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by llama
I think it is fair to say that experienced, real-life pilots with stereo-vision-based depth perception, were about as good at accurately judging the distance to a target as the current icon displays its approximation of distance.

-Llama

They might disagree with you.  But, what they did do was memorize the wingspans of the enemy aircraft in mils or feet, and used this information to either (1) check that the wingspan of the target was bracketed by the appropriate mil ticks on the sight, or (2) were able to set the appropriate span (for lead computing sights) prior to the engagement.  I would think that in the heat of the moment, this knowledge may have been difficult to quickly remember and adjust.  For the K-14 sight, the P-47N POH recommends 25 feet as the generic span width for single engine fighters.  Given that most Axis single engine fighters had wingspans in excess of 35 feet wide, I'm not sure why that span is recommended.  

Regardless, there was still the matter of shooting at the range that matched the harmonization/convergence setting to contend with.  Even if they knew the range (based upon the techniques described above) the computing gun sites did not allow them the same accuracy at all ranges (which in the case of the K-14 was a minimum of 200 yards to a maximum of 800 yards).  By this I mean, gun convergence was fixed, even though the site allowed them to determine different ranges.

Hypothetically speaking they could have maintained the range ring at their convergence setting, and waited until the target filled the site.  Remember, the site merely gives them lead information--everything else is up to the pilot.

I would say that accurate ranging during combat conditions was probably much more difficult than it is in AH, and that's why most pilots did not fire until they were 300 yards or less.  At those ranges, it eliminated the guess work and made them much more accurate.

The bottom line, IMO, is to ask those that actually flew why they didn't fire at longer ranges.  I've read so many quotes from books where they talk about wasting ammo by taking shots at ranges in excess of 300 yards or so.  I believe it would be interesting to know why there is a discrepancy between the capability of pilots during the war (with respect to gunnery) and the game.

I agree with Kweeasa--we certainly won't know for sure without trying it.  There are a host of different settings that can be used in AH2, but aren't in the MA's (wind, darkness, etc.).  So, you could say there's precedent for at least trying it.

[Tony Williams]

A few comments: I don't have the time to address all of the issues raised here.

As is well known, the Luftwaffe did a lot of statistical analyses of aircraft gun effectiveness, trying to work out the best combination of weapons. The figures for hit probability I have seen are between 2% and 5% of rounds striking the target; that's an average across all pilots firing at all ranges, from point-blank to distant. Bear in mind that the typical target at that time was a four-engined bomber, flying fairly steadily. That gives you some basis for a reality check.

As many of you know I don't use sims but some contrasts with RL are very obvious and some have been mentioned already: sim players don't have to put up with the noise, vibration, cold, exhaustion, g-forces, and the sheer terror of knowing that you could be killed at any moment. This last usually had the effect of severely distorting judgment, making shooting accuracy drop off considerably (just compare the accuracy which rifle and pistol shooters can achieve on the firing range with the fact that in combat, the normal hitting ranges at that time - snipers excepted - were about 100 feet with a rifle and 10 feet with a pistol). Even in training conditions, tests of pilots' ability to judge range-to-target when in the air showed their judgment to be abysmal - I don't just mean slightly off, I mean two or three times off. Furthermore, most pilots only had a few opportunities to practice combat firing. No great surprise that something like 90% of kills were made by around 10% of pilots.

Put all that together and I would indeed expect people who constantly practice on sims would be able to score "kills" much more easily than most pilots could in RL. That really doesn't mean a lot, the circumstances are so different.

I don't know that variations in ammunition type made a huge difference in RL except in extreme cases (M-geschoss) or at very long ranges, because the spread of fire was already high due to natural gun dispersion, mounting flexibility, and aircraft movement while firing.

It's really down to the sim designers to decide how tough to make the shooting. It's a game decision, but don't let anyone confuse what sim players can do with the reality of combat in WW2 - they weren't just different worlds, they were in different galaxies.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Kweassa]

The only relevant thing here is that one aim results multiple projectiles at target area; this makes aircraft gunnery similar to the shotgun case.

 gripen, shotgun pellets spread in a pre-determined pattern. They are not a result of individual dispersion due to involuntary forces - they are of design. When someone fires 100 rounds from a gun, he may observe the end-result of a dispersed pattern that resembles a shotgun pellet pattern. But that's all it is - it is resemblance.

 Let's assume you hold a shotgun that fires (unrealistic, but just for experimental argument) a 100-shot filled slug that boasts a dispersion pattern of 5m in diameter when reaching 100yards. You aim it against me and fire the trigger from 100 yards and as long as I am inside that 5m diameter pattern, the probability that you will hit me is 100%. But this probability applies to the whole "group" of pellets bursting out from a single slug. The probability of an individual pellet hitting me is low. It's simply that they are so numerous and simultaneous, that only as a whole group the hit probability reaches 100%.

 Then, let's assume you carry a handgun that holds 100 rounds, and when fired 100 times consecutively the end pattern resembles the same 5m diameter pattern of the previous shotgun. Now, you aim that handgun at me and take a single shot. Would the probability of hitting me be as high as the shotgun mentioned above?

 That's why the shotgun analogy does not apply.

 When one compares an aircraft gun to a shot gun, one assumes the probability of a single instance of shot fired connecting to the target will be as high as the probability the overall pattern emerged from an entire group of bullets fired over a time will be the same - this is entirely false.

 Dispersion increases hit chance only with sufficient amount of bullets are fired to create a certain pattern. Because using so much ammunition to achieve a hit is deemed largely inefficient the history of aircraft guns ultimately abandoned the shotgun approach.

 Therefore, when the environment is controlled so it becomes more difficult for people to make up for the consequences of their inefficiency (ie. no means to balance and manage the amount of bullets you view as 'expendable' = no ammo counter), the very practice of firing long bursts to spew enough rounds to create a pattern dense enough to achieve a hit will start to dwindle.

 Thus, even if people do attempt long-range gunnery they will fire at considerably shorter bursts than they used to - which, negates the entire analogy of the shotgun, because people don't fire that many rounds anymore.

[Knegel]

Hi Kweassa

how often do you play without icons and ammo counter(other sims)??

It looks to me not that often, cause then you would know that people learn to estimate diatances by using zoom and the size of the plane in the gunsight and that you get a natural feeling for your ammoload.
As result people shoot particular from even longer ranges and they do hit sometimes, just like with ammo counter and distance icons.

But again, how often someone get shot down in AH above 400yard, if he dont fly strait of extreme slow??

I guess the virtuel bullets are to big on large distance, as result the dispersion work much as an advantage, instead a disadvantage.

I assume the bullets in 800yard distance have a size of a basket ball. In such a case, if 20 of this bullets fly to the target with a dispersion, the probability to hit the plane, with a deadly number of bullets, is by far more big than without a dispersion.  

In this case: As lower the dispersion, as more exact a pilot need to aim to hit, but the sensitive AH plane behaviour, around the stick center, will make this rather difficult.

Greetings,

Knegel

[gripen]

Originally posted by Kweassa
gripen, shotgun pellets spread in a pre-determined pattern. They are not a result of individual dispersion due to involuntary forces - they are of design.

The situation is exactly same when you shoot a short aimed burst with the aircraft guns; the projectiles disperse according to dispersion of the gun. Note that some aircraft guns are designed for certain dispersion pattern and these have different barrels for various dispersion patterns.

Originally posted by Kweassa
Let's assume you hold a shotgun that fires (unrealistic, but just for experimental argument) a 100-shot filled slug that boasts a dispersion pattern of 5m in diameter when reaching 100yards. You aim it against me and fire the trigger from 100 yards and as long as I am inside that 5m diameter pattern, the probability that you will hit me is 100%. But this probability applies to the whole "group" of pellets bursting out from a single slug. The probability of an individual pellet hitting me is low. It's simply that they are so numerous and simultaneous, that only as a whole group the hit probability reaches 100%.

 Then, let's assume you carry a handgun that holds 100 rounds, and when fired 100 times consecutively the end pattern resembles the same 5m diameter pattern of the previous shotgun. Now, you aim that handgun at me and take a single shot. Would the probability of hitting me be as high as the shotgun mentioned above?

Shotgun part of your example is correct but the hand gun part does not aply here. The realistic way to form that part is that you have an automatic hand gun with very high rate of fire, say 100 rps. Then you aim and shoot a one second burst. Assuming that 5 m dispersion pattern for both guns follows normal distribution, then the both guns will have about same dispersion pattern and the same probability of the hit. In practice your aim will probably wander during the burst so the pattern will be a bit different.

 

Originally posted by Kweassa

Dispersion increases hit chance only with sufficient amount of bullets are fired to create a certain pattern.

Here is where the devil lies (again); what if you aim is not good "enough to  place the target smack in the middle of the dispersion pattern, where the bullets are most grouped" (as you wrote above). You see, your aiming error at range of 600 is probably much larger than the dispersion pattern and why the target should be in the middle of the dispersion pattern? It's more than probable that it is not there.

[Charge]

IMO one of the "devils" lies in the understanding of "time" - the time you have to aim and to shoot and understanding the effects of ROF in relation to afore mentioned factors. That is why the shotgun analogy is bad but in understanding the effects of dispersion and ROF it is a good analogy.

IRL you do not have time to fill the shotgun dispersion pattern but given a suitable gun and projectile even scattered hits are enough. My point earlier was that the "suitable" dispersion for a gun depends of its use in relation to its properties. This means that given a certain firing situation every gun has its optimal "window" of effectiveness.

E.g. while .50 Cal was not probably the most optimal weapon in the end of WW2 against fighters, given the situation it was enough for the job, also considering the logistical simplicity it provided. However mounted in F86 in Korea it lacked punch but it probably had suitable dispersion to its effective range but because the speeds were different the effect of dispersion was somewhat worse than in WW2. But the planes were different, too, with even a single bullet capable of ruining your day if it hit your jet turbine blades.

As the speeds increase the firing solutions become more brief making it necessary to put more bullets in the air in less time with more effect. Thus the modern jet cannons have incredible ROF and their caliber is generally either 20mm or 30mm.

I think you could even construct a equation which would give you the optimal ROF, caliber, gun weight, number of guns, ammo load, and dispersion if the requirements were known.

-C+