Puffy Ack

[AWwrgwy]

Germany and more specifically, Berlin, had massive antiaircraft abilities, even holding troops there when needed on both fronts, then acting as shelter for up to 30,000 civilians as Berlin fell. They were massive concrete towers that held their heaviest AAA guns and did only paltry damage to bomber formations. "Prior to the battle of Berlin, Berlin had been subject to a large raid on 23/24 August of 700+ aircraft. A raid half that size, losing 7% of the aircraft, had taken place in September." This number included losses to fighter aircraft. So here we have city sized AAA platforms, that are stationary barely killing bombers... why does this ship based puffy fluff kill us faster.. and we can maneuver. Once Air Command learned it was better to do a staggered box formation, the bombers couldn't maneuver independently.

Germany didn't have proximity fuses IIRC.  How many AAA shells exploded above or below the bombers, or even passed through the formations harmlessly?

One plane in seven losses doesn't seem accurate?  You can't fly through unmanned puffy seven times without getting shot down?

This reminds me of the Tater thread were it seemed like every other 30mm shell that hit failed to get a kill.

Once again, it would seem that every time anyone flies through puffy ack they die to it's laser accuracy.

Perspective.

Of course, no one would ever exaggerate.

 

edit:

The point I was making about that was if you can hit me at 30k+, then you best hit me at 15k or less 90% of the time or someone should fire/shoot you. If a SBD is coming in or a TBM and they are with in 5k and they don't die immediately, then again, the person who did it should be fired/shot because remember, the same dude can hit me at 30k. That is my argument. If you say: "well 30k is unrealistic cause they didn't do that alot" then make it not hit me but one in a 1000 bursts or more because of the inaccuracy at even 5k from many many gunners. I'm not disagreeing with your points of fact, more the point of fact of there is no "fall off accuracy"
lol same page, different paragraph it seems. Never realized they used soley timers at the end!

I, manned gun, can't hit you at 30,000 feet.  Can I even see you at 30,000 feet?

I am also willing to bet the auto doesn't hit you every time at 30,000 feet, nor every time at 15,000 feet.


wrongway

[SEseph]

Germany didn't have proximity fuses IIRC.  How many AAA shells exploded above or below the bombers, or even passed through the formations harmlessly?

One plane in seven losses doesn't seem accurate?  You can't fly through unmanned puffy seven times without getting shot down?

This reminds me of the Tater thread were it seemed like every other 30mm shell that hit failed to get a kill.

Once again, it would seem that every time anyone flies through puffy ack they die to it's laser accuracy.

Perspective.

Of course, no one would ever exaggerate.

 

edit:
I, manned gun, can't hit you at 30,000 feet.  Can I even see you at 30,000 feet?

I am also willing to bet the auto doesn't hit you every time at 30,000 feet, nor every time at 15,000 feet.


wrongway

I was using the current debate for support info in favor of altering the current puffy ack because I do think it's unbalanced. Apparently thats because of the box mentioned back a couple of pages. While you can't even see me, as you said, at 30k, I've been shot down once @ 28k (fighter) and wounded/hit a handful of times @ 25-30k (fighters and bombers). You said yourself, you can't see me that high when manning a 5", let alone hit me and yet I have to fly through a cloud of puff puff clink. I don't mind getting shot down by it, but at that alt.. it's truly annoying that I have the same odds of being hit as I do at 10k... just make base ack fire up to 12k 

[kvuo75]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_gun_fire-control_system


 

[SEseph]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_gun_fire-control_system


 

Wiki is the worst possible source you could use.

but if you must.. it says 1000 5" rounds for every 1 kill and was ONLY used on very large ships.

[AWwrgwy]

I was using the current debate for support info in favor of altering the current puffy ack because I do think it's unbalanced. Apparently thats because of the box mentioned back a couple of pages. While you can't even see me, as you said, at 30k, I've been shot down once @ 28k (fighter) and wounded/hit a handful of times @ 25-30k (fighters and bombers). You said yourself, you can't see me that high when manning a 5", let alone hit me and yet I have to fly through a cloud of puff puff clink. I don't mind getting shot down by it, but at that alt.. it's truly annoying that I have the same odds of being hit as I do at 10k... just make base ack fire up to 12k 

But is it unreasonable to have been shot down once and PW/hit a handful of times at 28,000 feet out of how many flights through any kind of ack at any altitude where nothing happens?

The real problem with puffy ack is it sucks to be hit and/or shot down by something essentially unseen that you cannot fight back against.  I hate nothing more than being surrounded by ugly, black puffs of ack from a CV group I can't even see.

Although, it does come in handy when trying to find that hidden CV group. 

Otherwise it seems pretty Fair and Balanced (©Fox News).




wrongway

[kvuo75]

Wiki is the worst possible source you could use.

but if you must.. it says 1000 5" rounds for every 1 kill and was ONLY used on very large ships.

oh i know (and the 1000 for 1 was without proximity fuzes no?), im just saying the aiming system was considerably more complex and advanced than some people seem to think.. more so than our point & fire method

[Traveler]

The point I was making about that was if you can hit me at 30k+, then you best hit me at 15k or less 90% of the time or someone should fire/shoot you. If a SBD is coming in or a TBM and they are with in 5k and they don't die immediately, then again, the person who did it should be fired/shot because remember, the same dude can hit me at 30k. That is my argument. If you say: "well 30k is unrealistic cause they didn't do that alot" then make it not hit me but one in a 1000 bursts or more because of the inaccuracy at even 5k from many many gunners. I'm not disagreeing with your points of fact, more the point of fact of there is no "fall off accuracy"
lol same page, different paragraph it seems. Never realized they used soley timers at the end!

Few of the aircraft brought down by “Puffy Ack” of WWII were actually hit by the projectile.  They were hit by the medal casing of the projectile when it exploded at altitude.  That exploding shell is what caused the appearance of the “Puffy” black smoke cloud. 

[321BAR]

I believe it was meant as "irony".   

wrongway

somebody finally gets my irony text tone


other than that...i think im lost in the mathematics...

[fbEagle]

  do away with puffy ack???
                 
 

[bj229r]

Think I know how it...works.
Fact of the matter is I've yet to see a set of bombers get killed by it while attacking a CV and it will knock fighters out of the sky all day in a furball.

Damn right. I've had my jug blown out of the sky more times than I can remember by cv's that were so far away I couldn't even SEE them....8k formation on B24's just plows right in and sinks it every time. Mayhap a coding thing, due to the 3 planes

[AWwrgwy]

Damn right. I've had my jug blown out of the sky more times than I can remember by cv's that were so far away I couldn't even SEE them....8k formation on B24's just plows right in and sinks it every time. Mayhap a coding thing, due to the 3 planes

Could it possibly be that a bomber is more durable than a fighter?



wrongway

[grizz441]

Could it possibly be that a bomber is more durable than a fighter?

wrongway

That's correct, which is why the puffy does very little to deter a bomber.

[RTHolmes]

well the effect of a single round will be less because the buffs are tougher, but the number of hits should be waaaay higher because: theres 3 of em in tight formation, they are bigger targets, they fly slower, they dont evade ... something is not right here.

[SEseph]

well the effect of a single round will be less because the buffs are tougher, but the number of hits should be waaaay higher because: theres 3 of em in tight formation, they are bigger targets, they fly slower, they dont evade ... something is not right here.

Which is my the core of my whole argument! The numbers for flak kills are largely bomber kills. Not to say fighters didn't succumb to flak, but they could move, they could avoid etc etc...  At 300yd is it easier to hit a watermelon or a grape?

According to our puffy ack, the grape.

[AWwrgwy]

Which is my the core of my whole argument! The numbers for flak kills are largely bomber kills. Not to say fighters didn't succumb to flak, but they could move, they could avoid etc etc...  At 300yd is it easier to hit a watermelon or a grape?

According to our puffy ack, the grape.

Japanese attacks on U.S. fleets aside, Puffy ack in the "not Pacific"  was fired in a Box Pattern in the path of the bomber stream.



Fighters didn't evade Flak.  Fighters avoided Flak.

Now, was a Japanese Zero less susceptible to American Fleet AAA than anything else that was shot at because it was moving faster or evading?


wrongway