# Bomber vs fighter



## mig-31bm (Apr 1, 2014)

if a well armed B-17 meet a fighter light armor and weak weapon like P-51H or A6M zero in 1 vs 1 situation then which one do you think more likely to get shotdown ?
it obvious that fighter will fly , climb , turn alot better but the B-17 have 13 ï¿½ .50 in (12.7 mm) gun which mean it can basically attack the fighter from any direction , and also with 4 engine it seem like it really hard to be shotdown , not to mention very thick armor on a bomber









btw : can the rocket be used to shot down bomber ??


----------



## bobbysocks (Apr 1, 2014)

i know 51s took down 4 engined fw 200s and they had turrets...maybe not as heavily armed as a 17 or 24 but close enough i would think. and come to think of it RAF hellcats ( or martlets ) did the same off the coast of portugal protecting shipping lanes.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnRvSKfp3jk_


----------



## davebender (Apr 1, 2014)

A6Ms shot down plenty of B-17s during 1942. And I don't consider any aircraft carrying 20mm cannon to be weakly armed.


----------



## mig-31bm (Apr 1, 2014)

bobbysocks said:


> i know 51s took down 4 engined fw 200s and they had turrets...maybe not as heavily armed as a 17 or 24 but close enough i would think. and come to think of it RAF hellcats ( or martlets ) did the same off the coast of portugal protecting shipping lanes.
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnRvSKfp3jk_




iamnot quite surprise if group of 51s can take down a bomber however i just think if they meet 1 on 1 it would be extremely hard for p-51 to take down bomber , fw 200s only have gun compared to 10 gun of the b-17  also the hellcat have very good armor while the p-51( especially H version ) is very fragile almost the same level as the zero if not worst due to it's liquid cooling engine


----------



## mig-31bm (Apr 1, 2014)

davebender said:


> A6Ms shot down plenty of B-17s during 1942. And I don't consider any aircraft carrying 20mm cannon to be weakly armed.



it only have 60 rounds per gun not alot , not sure if that enough to bring down a b-17 unless the A6M have advantage in number


----------



## Juha (Apr 1, 2014)

The exceptionally lightly armed JAAF Ki-43s got upper hand during their clashes with B-24s in CBI, so surely better armed A6Ms or P-51Hs would have done better against B-17s, even if B-17 seems to have been a bit toughter nut than the newer B-24.

Juha


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 1, 2014)

davebender said:


> A6Ms shot down *plenty *of B-17s during 1942. And I don't consider any aircraft carrying 20mm cannon to be weakly armed.



What's plenty??? I don't think there were "plenty" of B-17s in the PTO to begin with!

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b17_20.html


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 1, 2014)

Juha said:


> The exceptionally lightly armed JAAF Ki-43s got upper hand during their clashes with B-24s in CBI, so surely better armed A6Ms or P-51Hs would have done better against B-17s, even if B-17 seems to have been a bit toughter nut than the newer B-24.
> 
> Juha



I never saw anything about Ki-43s really hampering B-24 operations in the CBI. I know there was an Osprey book written about B-24s in that theater, I also remember reading B-24 gunners claiming many Japanese aircraft in the CBI


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 1, 2014)

I would be wary of equating the allied experience of attacking Fw Condors over the Atlantic with the situation a fighter would face tackling a B-17. The Condor was designed as an airliner (really, not as misdirection as was the case with many other German military aircraft) and had nothing like The B-17s toughness. Nor was it as comprehensively armed. Some contributors maintain that HMGs should be sufficient for bringing down a heavy bomber but the Luftwaffe, who were the only service routinely tasked to do so, thought otherwise and progressively up-gunned their fighters. Even so, Galland expected to lose a fighter for every bomber they bought down, and that was at a time when they could largely avoid the escorts. The LW did extensive studies on what it took to knock down a Fortress and the results were that no single engine fighter had the weapons or ammo load to reliably do the job (more than 50% of the time) unless it had 30mm cannon. 
Mig, I suspect your assertion that the P-51 was as fragile or more-so than a Zero is really stretching things. But in the scenario you describe the LW experience would suggest that the average pilot in a fighter armed with HMGs would require a solid helping of luck to bring down a B-17, even without the defensive fire to deal with. Mass attacks and ganging up on stragglers were the best options

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Apr 1, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I never saw anything about Ki-43s really hampering B-24 operations in the CBI.


It's not so much that the Ki-43 was able to hamper Allied B-24 operations - that equation involves many more variables than just how a fight between a Liberator and an Oscar would turn out. On that latter question, however ... that was one of my takeaways from Christopher Shores' Bloody Shambles series that surprised me; Ki-43 vs. B-24 = bomber(s) in deep trouble.



FLYBOYJ said:


> I also remember reading B-24 gunners claiming many Japanese aircraft in the CBI


Another really interesting aspect of Shores' work; you can really see how far off the mark claims generally were.


----------



## Aozora (Apr 1, 2014)

davebender said:


> A6Ms shot down plenty of B-17s during 1942. And I don't consider any aircraft carrying 20mm cannon to be weakly armed.



Be good to see some actual facts and figures. Otherwise I could have sworn the JNAF pilots considered the B-17 to have been their toughest target, until encountering the B-29:

Saburo Sakai:















From _Bombers Over the Southwest Pacific_: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a434245.pdf

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 1, 2014)

A single bomber against a single fighter is usually going to be toast.

The bombers depended on each other for defense, not just their individual guns.

The fighters tactics lot of times were designed to break up formations , or separate a bomber from the formation so it could be dealt with on it's own.

A solitary bomber by itself usually didn't last very long.


----------



## mig-31bm (Apr 1, 2014)

CobberKane said:


> . Some contributors maintain that HMGs should be sufficient for bringing down a heavy bomber but the Luftwaffe, who were the only service routinely tasked to do so, thought otherwise and progressively up-gunned their fighters. Even so, Galland expected to lose a fighter for every bomber they bought down, and that was at a time when they could largely avoid the escorts. The LW did extensive studies on what it took to knock down a Fortress and the results were that no single engine fighter had the weapons or ammo load to reliably do the job (more than 50% of the time) unless it had 30mm cannon.
> Mig, I suspect your assertion that the P-51 was as fragile or more-so than a Zero is really stretching things. But in the scenario you describe the LW experience would suggest that the average pilot in a fighter armed with HMGs would require a solid helping of luck to bring down a B-17, even without the defensive fire to deal with. Mass attacks and ganging up on stragglers were the best options


could the fighter use rocket to shot down the bomber ? , i think the rocket out range the MG on B-17 and also deal good enough damage


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 1, 2014)

> I would be wary of equating the allied experience of attacking Fw Condors over the Atlantic with the situation a fighter would face tackling a B-17.



I fully agree, Cobber. The B-17 was a much stronger airframe structurally than the Condor - its weakness as a result of subsequent modifications for its maritime role is well known. 

Regarding the B-17s strength, here are some quotes from Saburo Sakai's book Samurai about his encounters with B-17s:

"In the spring of 1942 the first B-17s with new tail turrets made their appearance in our theater. Up until this time our favourite method of attack against the big planes had been to dive from behind in a sweeping firing pass, raking the bombers from tail to nose as we flashed by. We soon discovered this had little effect on the well constructed and heavily armoured B-17. It was this knowledge - not primarily the addition of tail turrets to the Fortresses - which brought about a sudden change of tactics. We adopted head-on passes, flying directly against oncoming B-17s, pouring bullets and cannon shells into the forward areas of the enemy bombers. This proved temproarily effective, but it was soon negated by sudden evasive manoeuvres by the B-17 pilots, which brought their heavy guns to bear on our incoming planes. The final attack procedure, and the most effective, was to fly high above the Fortresses, dive vertically, then snap over on our backs and continue to roll as we dove, maintaining a steady fire into the B-17s."

"It was incredible out there today" Tanaka said, "We caught the Fortresses just right, and over and over I pressed home the attacks against the B-17s. At least twice I caught a bomber perfectly. I could see the bullets hitting and the cannon shells exploding in the airplanes. But the bomber wouldn't go down!" Tanaka looked almost haggard. "These damned bombers are impossible," he spat edly, "when they work into their defensive formations."

"This time I caught one! I saw the shells exploding, a series of red and black eruptions moving across the fuselage. Surely he would go down now! Chunks of metal - big chunks - exploded outwards from the B-17 and flashed away in the slipstream. The waist and top guns were silent as the shells hammered home. Nothing! No fire, no tell tale sign of smoke trailing back... The B-17s continued on in formation. we swung around and up, and rolled back in for the third run. The enemy formation continued on, seemingly impregnable as if nothing had happened. The third time down I went after the bomber I had hit before and again I caught him flush. Through the sight I watched the shells exploding, ripping metal from the wings and fuselage, ripping the indise of the fuselage apart. Then I was past the plane, pulling out into a wide sweeping turn, going for height. The plane was still in formation! No fire, no smoke."


----------



## Juha (Apr 2, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I never saw anything about Ki-43s really hampering B-24 operations in the CBI. I know there was an Osprey book written about B-24s in that theater, I also remember reading B-24 gunners claiming many Japanese aircraft in the CBI



Hello Flyboyj
my source is Young's B-24 Liberator vs Ki-43 Oscar China and Burma 1943 Osprey Duel 41 (2012) In real numbers Oscars shot down 31 B-24s while they lost 20 Oscars. I was also surprised when I read the book, Ki-43 wasn't an ideal interceptor but Japanese developed an effective tactic to their not so ideal tool.

Juha


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 2, 2014)

> mig-31bm said:
> 
> 
> > could the fighter use rocket to shot down the bomber ? , i think the rocket out range the MG on B-17 and also deal good enough damage



Initial attempts by the Luftwaffe to use rockets were petty crude and marginally effective. The fighters equipped with them hung back out of gun range and tried to lob the tried rockets into the bomber boxes about a kilometre away. Hitting an individual bomber was pure luck, but the area effect of the explosions did loosen up the defensive formations and give the conventionally armed fighters a better shot.
The RM4 rockets that arrived on the scene in the final days of the war were a different kettle of fish. They apparently had similar ballistics to a 30mm cannon shell but greater explosive power and range, and the overall installation was lighter as no gun was required. The simultaneous launch and spread of the rockets during flight made a hit much more likely than was the case than with cannon, and a one or two hits were enough to bring a bomber down. Things could have been pretty ugly if they had been available earlier.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 2, 2014)

double post


----------



## mig-31bm (Apr 2, 2014)

CobberKane said:


> Initial attempts by the Luftwaffe to use rockets were petty crude and marginally effective. The fighters equipped with them hung back out of gun range and tried to lob the tried rockets into the bomber boxes about a kilometre away. Hitting an individual bomber was pure luck, but the area effect of the explosions did loosen up the defensive formations and give the conventionally armed fighters a better shot.
> The RM4 rockets that arrived on the scene in the final days of the war were a different kettle of fish. They apparently had similar ballistics to a 30mm cannon shell but greater explosive power and range, and the overall installation was lighter as no gun was required. The simultaneous launch and spread of the rockets during flight made a hit much more likely than was the case than with cannon, and a one or two hits were enough to bring a bomber down. Things could have been pretty ugly if they had been available earlier.



was the RM4 rocket better than the US HVAR rocket ?


----------



## parsifal (Apr 2, 2014)

Day Bombers rely on the tightnes of the defensive box to give high levels of defensive fire. break up the box and you open up the bombers to a concerted attack by fighters.

The B-17 offered the best solution to this tactic, because it was well armoured and possessed pretty good all round defensive fire. Its success when operating unescorted was however only a qualified success, some would say an outright failure. 

B-24s had a slightly higher operating altitude and used this to good effect. 

British bombers suffered in being limited to .0.303 inch defences, and not possessing an all round field of fire. more importanly however, the night bomber formations had to enter the target area as a stream, because of navigational issues, so there was no defensive box. For this reason, British bombers, if they could detect the NF before it destroyed them, would almost always enter into a tight corkscrew manouver to try and throw the NF off its poassive detection systems. Effectively, dogfighting with a lancaster.....The last few kilometres of interception generally relied on radar homing devices and AI radar, and both these pieces of technology could be fooled by violent evasive manouvers by the bombers. they had to be lucky, but it was one way of defending. 

Another was to insert Mosquitoes into the bomber streams, using a radar detection called Serrate (Types I to IV) which had varying amounts of success. Basically the LW NF would get on the tail of the mossie . at about 1km range, the mossie wouold switch off the Monika tail radar (used by the Germans as a radar beacon on which to home in on) and switch on its own AI radar, enter a tight turn throttle up, and before the LW crew knew what hit them have an angry mossie on their tail guns blazing. British AI radar was higher definition compared to German, and could either 

German bombers were very vulnerable. they lacked the speed to get away, were not particulalry high fliying, were not well protected with armour, and their defensive armmanet offered incomplete fields of fire, and were generally lacking in turrets. German bombers were generally easy meat as a result. Same can be said for italian and Japanese bombers, who had the additional misery of being unarmoured , and in the case of the italians, being made out of fabric and wood. 

The heavily armed defensive bomber was probably the least successful defence method of the war for the allies. greter defensive benefit would have been achieved by higher altitude, higher speed or better manouver over the defensive guns packed into the heavy bombers of the 1930s. Without a doubt, the best solutions on offer, were those provided by the Mosquito, B-26, and at the end of the war, the AR234.

B-29s had tremedous defensive benefit from their extreme ceilings, but they had to forego this in order to increase thei lethality and fire bomb Japanese cities. this in turn dictated they convert to night bombing. Lucky for the US, japanese night fighters were not very effective.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 2, 2014)

> mig-31bm said:
> 
> 
> > was the RM4 rocket better than the US HVAR rocket ?



The HVAR and it's British equivalent were air to ground weapons, and not particularly accurate ones (though that did not preclude them being effective in the right circumstances). They were effectively useless air to air.


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 2, 2014)

Gents,

Looking at the diagram of the B-17 field of fire, and sticking to the one v one scenario I would attack it from either the pure vertical (least amount of weapons that can be brought to bear) or from head on. Reading on it seems that the Japanese did exactly the same thing (as did the Germans at least from the front). If I had a longer ranged weapons than the bomber, I would take out the offending tail / belly turret then work the plane over from below and behind (highest probability of quality hits on it). 

Change the scenario to 2 versus 2 (fighters versus bombers) and the odds slew more in favor of the fighter. Use a tactic of both fighters attacking one bomber at a time from the side (minimize the additional effectiveness of both the supporting bomber and the attackee) by giving them two targets to shoot at near or simultaniously. 

Change the scenario further to many versus many and you have the air war over Europe. Yes the bomber in box type formations has the highest odds of survival, but add escort and the odds increase dramatically (history speaks to that). Hence the Germans continously looking for longer ranged / more destructive fighter armaments (the longer the "stick" the more time the offender / attacker has exclusive shooting / employment opportunities). Or, it's better to shoot first...

The weakest part of any airplane is the pilot (most suseptable to gunfire). Kill both of them and the dinosaur dies even if it's body doesn't know it yet.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 2, 2014)

Greyman said:


> It's not so much that the Ki-43 was able to hamper Allied B-24 operations - that equation involves many more variables than just how a fight between a Liberator and an Oscar would turn out. On that latter question, however ... that was one of my takeaways from Christopher Shores' Bloody Shambles series that surprised me; Ki-43 vs. B-24 = bomber(s) in deep trouble.


I hve read Bloody Shambles (it's been a while) and don't remember much about this. I do know that enemy fighters were always a concern but it didn't seem to phase crews. My kids great grandfather flew in the 819th BS, 30BG - I did some research into their actions and it seems the crews didn't have a great fear of fighters.



Greyman said:


> Another really interesting aspect of Shores' work; you can really see how far off the mark claims generally were.


Agree there - In the CBI I believe there was one B-24 FE who claimed 16 aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 2, 2014)

parsifal said:


> Day Bombers rely on the tightnes of the defensive box to give high levels of defensive fire. break up the box and you open up the bombers to a concerted attack by fighters.
> 
> The B-17 offered the best solution to this tactic, because it was well armoured and possessed pretty good all round defensive fire. Its success when operating unescorted was however only a qualified success, some would say an outright failure.
> 
> ...



I think it's the opposite - B-17s were the higher flying aircraft, the B-24 had the range.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 2, 2014)

ah, righto, my lack of knowledge of things american is exposed

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 2, 2014)

If you look at the armor on the flight deck of the B-17, you'll notice it's only behind the pilots. The armor in front of them is below them, behind the bombardier and navigator.

When attacked from the front the armor behind them is a disadvantage to what no airplane can do without, keeping the pilots alive.

Gunfire from the front would be ricocheting back thru the cockpit from the armor behind them, and explosive 20mm and bigger would have something to explode against which would shower the flightdeck with shrapnel.


----------



## mig-31bm (Apr 2, 2014)

CobberKane said:


> The HVAR and it's British equivalent were air to ground weapons, and not particularly accurate ones (though that did not preclude them being effective in the right circumstances). They were effectively useless air to air.



i dont get it , why the HVAR useless as air to air ?, i know it may be useless again fighter but a bomber is hardly maneuver at all
btw the spec of R4M and HVAR is quite similar except the HVAR is alot bigger and likely to be alot more destructive


> R4M
> velocity	525 m/s (1,175 mph)
> range	600-1,000 m
> weight : 3.85 kg


compared to 


> HVAR
> velocity : 419 m/s
> range : 3 miles
> weight : (61 kg


----------



## mig-31bm (Apr 2, 2014)

tyrodtom said:


> If you look at the armor on the flight deck of the B-17, you'll notice it's only behind the pilots. The armor in front of them is below them, behind the bombardier and navigator.
> 
> When attacked from the front the armor behind them is a disadvantage to what no airplane can do without, keeping the pilots alive.
> 
> Gunfire from the front would be ricocheting back thru the cockpit from the armor behind them, and explosive 20mm and bigger would have something to explode against which would shower the flightdeck with shrapnel.


but attack them from front you will have to face 2 turret , also according to the German it take 20 hit of 20 mm bullet to bring down a bomber , dont know how much 12.7 mm would you need


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 2, 2014)

You are assuming the things will actually go where they are pointed. 

A very big assumption in case of early rockets. Even small ships did not get hit 100% of the time and they are A. much larger than a bomber. B. stationary for all practical purposes. 
Launch the HVAR from 419 meters and even a 200 mph bomber will move over 100yds before the rocket reaches it. Guns are pretty useless for firing tracer to "aim" the rockets as they have a much different trajectory not mention they will arrive at the target in about 1/2 the time which throws the lead all off. 

For air to air use the idea was to fire large numbers of rockets in a single salvo which would "blanket" or saturate and area of airspace with the idea of at least one of the rockets hitting something. Using too few rockets is like using buckshot from a shotgun on geese. 9-12 pellets each likely to kill _if_ it hits but 9-12 pellets in a 30-40 in wide pattern ( and all not arriving at exactly the same time, some are 5-10 ft behind the first pellet ) leaves gaps that allow the goose to be untouched _even *if*_ the pattern is properly centered. If goose is at edge of pattern it can easily be untouched. Same with aircraft and 4-8 rockets is simply too few to get a good pattern from.


----------



## stona (Apr 2, 2014)

mig-31bm said:


> but attack them from front you will have to face 2 turret



This was the favoured means of attack for some Luftwaffe fighter units. It's not easy. Closing speeds are high leaving little time to aim and then avoid a collision, but it was effective when done properly, often precisely for the reason given by BiffF15 above.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 2, 2014)

mig-31bm said:


> ... not to mention very thick armor on a bomber...


Very little armor aboard a B-17 or B-24. The only substantially armored B-17 was the YB-40 and with the armor plating and up-gunned configuration, but it was too slow to keep up with the bombers after they delivered their bombs.

The head-on attacks by the Luftwaffe was to kill or incapicitate the pilot/co-pilot and that didn't require tremendous cannon fire, or even lighter caliber MG strikes, as the flight crew were only "protected" by the windscreen and aluminum skin. Add to that, the nose of the B-17 and B-24 had large plexiglass noses that allowed MG/cannon rounds very little resistance.

In a head-on attack, the rate of closure between the fighter and the bomber meant that the defensive armament aboard the bomber had very little time to aquire the inbound fighter, increasing the chances of the fighter successfully scoring hits on the bomber. Chasing in on the bomber's 6 meant a longer rate of closure to get in range, by which time the gunners of the bomber have had more time to aquire the fighter.


----------



## bobbysocks (Apr 2, 2014)

CobberKane said:


> I would be wary of equating the allied experience of attacking Fw Condors over the Atlantic with the situation a fighter would face tackling a B-17. The Condor was designed as an airliner (really, not as misdirection as was the case with many other German military aircraft) and had nothing like The B-17s toughness. Nor was it as comprehensively armed. Some contributors maintain that HMGs should be sufficient for bringing down a heavy bomber but the Luftwaffe, who were the only service routinely tasked to do so, thought otherwise and progressively up-gunned their fighters. Even so, Galland expected to lose a fighter for every bomber they bought down, and that was at a time when they could largely avoid the escorts. The LW did extensive studies on what it took to knock down a Fortress and the results were that no single engine fighter had the weapons or ammo load to reliably do the job (more than 50% of the time) unless it had 30mm cannon.
> Mig, I suspect your assertion that the P-51 was as fragile or more-so than a Zero is really stretching things. But in the scenario you describe the LW experience would suggest that the average pilot in a fighter armed with HMGs would require a solid helping of luck to bring down a B-17, even without the defensive fire to deal with. Mass attacks and ganging up on stragglers were the best options



no the condor isnt as tough as a 17 or 24 but it is the only example i could come up with at the time of a 51 taking out a 4 engine heavy. i have been digging looking for friendly fire incidents fighter vs bomber...or tests where one was subjected to fighter fire....so far nothing.


----------



## mig-31bm (Apr 2, 2014)

bobbysocks said:


> no the condor isnt as tough as a 17 or 24 but it is the only example i could come up with at the time of a 51 taking out a 4 engine heavy. i have been digging looking for friendly fire incidents fighter vs bomber...or tests where one was subjected to fighter fire....so far nothing.



this the only thing i can find on how much it need to bring a bomber down 


> The R4M was developed in order to deal with the increasing weight of anti-bomber weapons being deployed by Luftwaffe fighters. Their design had started out with the 20-mm. MG 151/20 cannons, compact enough to be mounted in an internal wing bay mounting in the Focke-Wulf Fw 190, but it was found that it took an average of twenty 20-mm. hits to shoot down a typical four-engined bomber.


----------



## mig-31bm (Apr 2, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> You are assuming the things will actually go where they are pointed.
> 
> A very big assumption in case of early rockets. Even small ships did not get hit 100% of the time and they are A. much larger than a bomber. B. stationary for all practical purposes.
> Launch the HVAR from 419 meters and even a 200 mph bomber will move over 100yds before the rocket reaches it. Guns are pretty useless for firing tracer to "aim" the rockets as they have a much different trajectory not mention they will arrive at the target in about 1/2 the time which throws the lead all off.
> ...



i know the hit rate are low but even one hit mean the bomber will go down , and also the long range ensure that the fighter will be safe


----------



## bobbysocks (Apr 2, 2014)

the closest thing i can find is 2 mustangs from the 352nd taking out an he 177...but again the 177 isnt as heavily armed as a 17 or 24.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 2, 2014)

Luftwaffe gun camera footage shows the damage they inflicted on the bombers:

First video was a compilation of Luftwaffe gun camera footage shown to German audiences during the war with a modern English commentary:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVxtJULJ0KA_


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 2, 2014)

This second (and much longer) video is a compilation of captured Luftwaffe gun camera archival footage that clearly shows various Luftwaffe attack methods, including head-on attacks. In the head-on attacks, note how fast the rate of closure was between the fighter and the bomber:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuxpnx4Tic_


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 2, 2014)

mig-31bm said:


> but attack them from front you will have to face 2 turret , also according to the German it take 20 hit of 20 mm bullet to bring down a bomber , dont know how much 12.7 mm would you need



I've heard the 20 rounds of 20mm statistic many times, but never exactly how they determined that.

It's not likely they could have examined shot down bombers. 
What could be learned from wreckage scattered across the landscape, or smoking holes in the ground ?
A few would have come down intact, but would that be enough to really determine what would bring the majority down ?

They could examine gun camera film, but I never seen any clear enough to tell how many strikes you're getting.

Or they could have shot at some intact allied aircraft structures on the ground, and try to guess at how many hits would cause structural failure in flight.

IHO, that 20 rounds of 20mm to bring down a B-17 was just a SWAG.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 2, 2014)

Juha said:


> Hello Flyboyj
> my source is Young's B-24 Liberator vs Ki-43 Oscar China and Burma 1943 Osprey Duel 41 (2012) In real numbers Oscars shot down 31 B-24s while they lost 20 Oscars. I was also surprised when I read the book, Ki-43 wasn't an ideal interceptor but Japanese developed an effective tactic to their not so ideal tool.
> 
> Juha



Interesting! I assume that occured over several missions?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 2, 2014)

mig-31bm said:


> i know the hit rate are low but even one hit mean the bomber will go down , and also the long range ensure that the fighter will be safe



Trouble is the range won't be long if you want any real hope of a hit. No country was rich enough to fire thousands of rockets for each enemy aircraft brought down. the 5in HVAR (introduced after D-Day) used 23.9lb of propellant for a 1375 ft/sec velocity which is actually rather poor for an air to air weapon. Both the .50 cal and 20mm Hispano had velocities of around 2850-2880fps. 

Any projectile falls 16ft in the first second of flight. 48ft in the second second of flight and 80ft in the 3rd second of flight. (144 ft total in 3 seconds) what governs range is how far the projectile travels in the number of seconds of flight. Both the machinegun/cannon shells/bullets and the rockets will be slowing down considerably at time goes on ( few tenths of second for the rocket burn?) form the muzzle on the guns. 

You can _LOB_ the rockets at a 'distant' bomber but the chances of a hit are pretty dismal as you have no way of knowing what the exact range is or how fast the bomber is going so trying to get an aiming point is guess work. 

Ranges given in many sources are for air to ground work or are maximum ranges if launched from a certain altitude and in no way are are practical combat ranges.


----------



## Juha (Apr 2, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Interesting! I assume that occured over several missions?



Yes, over 22 missions in 1943, from March 13 to Dec 24. Ki-43s were most successful on Dec 1 when they got 5 B-24s while losing one Oscar and least successful on Oct 27 when they failed to shot down any B-24s but lost 3 Oscars.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 2, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> ....
> No country was rich enough to fire thousands of rockets for each enemy aircraft brought down.
> ...



Maybe I'm doing wrong by quoting a single sentence from a post, but: wonder whether this has any bearing to the Flak shells fired?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 2, 2014)

tyrodtom said:


> Or they could have shot at some intact allied aircraft structures on the ground, and try to guess at how many hits would cause structural failure in flight.
> 
> IHO, that 20 rounds of 20mm to bring down a B-17 was just a SWAG.



could be but since they were were in the _best_ position to eventuate wreckage, in the _best_ position to conduct tests on captured examples ( crash landed or low altitude crash) and had the highest interest in what worked and what didn't their SWAG was probably the best you were going to get. That 20 rounds was also an average, not a minimum. 5-6 rounds into the cockpit would probably do the trick.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 2, 2014)

pilot claims a heavy / no combat with escorts.

ground crew counts number of shells left.

repeat many times.

Not perfect but would give some idea on how many were needed.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 2, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> Maybe I'm doing wrong by quoting a single sentence from a post, but: wonder whether this has any bearing to the Flak shells fired?



well, in this case we are talking about 5" HVAR rockets which used 23.9lbs of propellant, weighed 140lbs apiece and have to be carried aloft (4-12 at a time) by rather expensive fighter aircraft. And this was in 1944, a time when the rounds per AA gun fired per kill were dropping due to radar aiming and in the allied case proximity fuses. 

For the Germans and from wiki the 12.8cm flak gun ( shell weight about the same as warhead on the 5in HVAR) and 1125 made " Compared with the 88mm FlaK 18 36, the 128 used a powder charge four times as great which resulted in a shell flight time only one-third as long. This made aim against fast-moving targets much easier" now this may not be strictly true but even if the time of flight to B-17 height was only 25% less you are working in 3 dimensions which means the "hit" rate goes up considerably. 

For the US or British a 4.5in or 5in AA gun with radar tracking and proximity fuses would have much better success (using essentially the same "projectile/warhead) and use less propellant (US Navy post war 5in/54 used 19lbs or less) than the unguided, contact fused rockets.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 2, 2014)

Milosh said:


> pilot claims a heavy / no combat with escorts.
> 
> ground crew counts number of shells left.
> 
> ...



That shows how many were fired, not how many hit. Germans _swag_ed a 2% hit rate for _average_ pilots. which is why they turned against the 20mm gun. a single engine fighter could not carry enough guns and ammo (1000 rounds?) to ensure one kill per flight.


----------



## davebender (Apr 2, 2014)

It's plenty if you put them on target and a B-17 is a relatively easy aerial target. However you are likely to run out of ammo after downing a couple aircraft.


----------



## Greyman (Apr 2, 2014)

Sounds like video game talk.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 3, 2014)

Greyman said:


> Sounds like video game talk.


Video games/combat sims try to emulate real life and situations.

There may be parallels, but the reality is, a fighter had to get within effective range and still avoid defensive fire. If the fighter loitered too long, he ran the risk of being hit by his target's defensive fire or defensive fore from the other bombers in the group. If the fighter got too close to the bomber while landing hits, it also ran the risk of getting damaged by debris being cast off of the stricken bomber.

At those altitudes, the aircraft was not perfectly stable so the aiming was difficult and your window of effective fire was brief. There was also the problem of limited ammunition per gun, less for cannon. So landing effective hits on a target was not an easy task.

If you watch those videos I posted earlier (especially the second one), they demonstrate the situation pretty well.


----------



## wuzak (Apr 3, 2014)

Were B-17s more vulnerable from above?

There is only the upper turret protecting that section. Take him out and the upper section is basically undefended.

About turrets - how well could they track fast moving fighters? I suppose it depends how fast and how close.


----------



## Aozora (Apr 3, 2014)

davebender said:


> It's plenty if you put them on target and a B-17 is a relatively easy aerial target. However you are likely to run out of ammo after downing a couple aircraft.



Again, it would be great to see some facts and figures to back up these claims: do you have concrete evidence that the Japanese were able to shoot down lots of B-17s in 1942, assuming that 60 rounds of 20mm were enough to shoot down at least 2 of them?



wuzak said:


> Were B-17s more vulnerable from above?
> 
> There is only the upper turret protecting that section. Take him out and the upper section is basically undefended.
> 
> About turrets - how well could they track fast moving fighters? I suppose it depends how fast and how close.



The Bendix chin turret could track from 1/2 degree per second to 33 degrees per second; there doesn't seem to be much info on the speeds of the other turrets:











This is the Bendix 250 series upper turret, which was electrically operated; the B-17 upper turret was a Sperry unit, which (I think) used a hydraulic system:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Aozora (Apr 3, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> Very little armor aboard a B-17 or B-24. The only substantially armored B-17 was the YB-40 and with the armor plating and up-gunned configuration, but it was too slow to keep up with the bombers after they delivered their bombs.
> 
> The head-on attacks by the Luftwaffe was to kill or incapicitate the pilot/co-pilot and that didn't require tremendous cannon fire, or even lighter caliber MG strikes, as the flight crew were only "protected" by the windscreen and aluminum skin. Add to that, the nose of the B-17 and B-24 had large plexiglass noses that allowed MG/cannon rounds very little resistance.
> 
> In a head-on attack, the rate of closure between the fighter and the bomber meant that the defensive armament aboard the bomber had very little time to aquire the inbound fighter, increasing the chances of the fighter successfully scoring hits on the bomber. Chasing in on the bomber's 6 meant a longer rate of closure to get in range, by which time the gunners of the bomber have had more time to aquire the fighter.



Armor on the B-17F:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Apr 3, 2014)

davebender said:


> It's plenty if you put them on target and a B-17 is a relatively easy aerial target. However you are likely to run out of ammo after downing a couple aircraft.



I have a book titled "Zero - A6M"  by HP Willmott that disagrees with this. It quote flight trials undertaken by ltcdr Kofukuda and lt Kono, with a zeke and B-17C in 1942. These officers, in their final report stated "with only 60 rounds per cannon, and only rifle calibre MGs to support the main armament, the navy type O fighter does not have the firepower to deal with the US bomber adequately." These officers further reported that the limited oxygen and ammunition supplies, the Japanese officers reported that the zeke could only make about 5 or 6 runs on a high flying B-17. These officers were among the first in the japanese camp to recognize the inherent weaknesses of the Zeke. They recommended frontal attacks, increasing the ammunition supply and oxygen supplies, which were incorporated into the A6M3.

For the Japanese, however, the B-17 was a relatively rare beast. From mid 1942 onward, the princiap long range heavy bomber in the Pacific was the B-24, into whioch approximately 6000 were deployed. Only about 200 fortreses were ever deployed into the PTO


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 3, 2014)

Juha said:


> Yes, over 22 missions in 1943, from March 13 to Dec 24. Ki-43s were most successful on Dec 1 when they got 5 B-24s while losing one Oscar and least successful on Oct 27 when they failed to shot down any B-24s but lost 3 Oscars.



22 missions over 9 months - does it say specific squadrons or groups? In reality that may not seem that bad statistically (1.5 bombers lost to fighters per mission). It would also be interesting to know how many bombers were sent out, this would paint a real picture of this "duel."


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 3, 2014)

If you look at the diagrams of the B-17's armor you'll notice that it's mostly situated to protect from attacks from the rear only, some of it could be worse than useless if the attack was from the front.


----------



## mig-31bm (Apr 3, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> Trouble is the range won't be long if you want any real hope of a hit. No country was rich enough to fire thousands of rockets for each enemy aircraft brought down. the 5in HVAR (introduced after D-Day) used 23.9lb of propellant for a 1375 ft/sec velocity which is actually rather poor for an air to air weapon. Both the .50 cal and 20mm Hispano had velocities of around 2850-2880fps.


but the R4M was only a little bit faster than HVAR (525 m/s vs 419 m/s) and it was used for air to air, even the Werfer-Granate 21 with the speed of only 320m/s was used for air to air about 15% accuracy and most German fighter ( BF-109 ) can only carry 2 of them
and while it may be impractical to fire HVAR from 2-3km i thik it ok to fire them from 400-600 m where the turret gun of the bomber is not very effective


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 3, 2014)

mig-31bm said:


> but the R4M was only a little bit faster than HVAR (525 m/s vs 419 m/s) and it was used for air to air, even the Werfer-Granate 21 with the speed of only 320m/s was used for air to air about 15% accuracy and most German fighter ( BF-109 ) can only carry 2 of them
> and while it may be impractical to fire HVAR from 2-3km i thik it ok to fire them from 400-600 m where the turret gun of the bomber is not very effective



Germans weren't firing Werfer-Granate 21 a single bombers but at formations. And even then it was not with the expectation of hitting a bomber (they were using time fuses) but of coming close enough to damage one or more _while_ breaking up the formation/s so that gun attacks would be more effective. 

The R4M wasn't a long range stand off weapon either, despite what Wiki says. lets look at it shall we?

"The anti-aircraft version of the R4M used a large warhead of 55 mm. with 520 g. (17.6 ounces) of Hexogen explosive charge, nearly guaranteeing a fighter kill with one hit. Each R4M weighed 3.2 kg and was provided with enough fuel to be fired from 1000 m., outside the range of the bomber's defensive guns."

Now that certainly sounds like a stand off weapon but one line later;

"A battery typically consisted of two groups of 12 rockets and when all 24 were salvoed in an attack, they would fill an area about 15 by 30 m. at 1000 m., a density that made it almost certain that the target would be hit. The R4Ms were usually fired in four salvos of six missiles at intervals of 70 milliseconds from a range of 600 m" 

So what was the _range_? 
And then we have this line "The Luftwaffe found the R4M missiles to have similar trajectory to the 30 mm MK 108 cannon in flight, therefore the standard Revi 16B gunsight could be utilized."

Now the 30 mm MK 108 had a MV of 500 m/s and the Luftwaffe gave an _absolute maximum_ combat range of 900 meters at 3000 meters altitude and 1100 meters at 6000 meters altitude (thinner air) and an _effective_ range of just 400 meters against bombers( it would be shorter against fighters) for the 30 mm MK 108. 

600 meters is within the effective range of .50 cal machine guns mounted in power turrets. 

I am not sure where the 15% accuracy figure for the Werfer-Granate 21 comes from as the math doesn't work quite right. Best case from the Wiki entry "While a single fighter's payload of two or four such rockets was extremely unlikely to score a hit, a mass launch by an entire fighter squadron (12-16 aircraft) as it arrived to intercept the bombers would likely score two or three hits, about 15% accuracy" is 12 aircraft at 2 rockets apiece (24 rockets) getting 3 hits which would be 12.5%. 16 fighters firing 2 apiece and getting two hits would be 6.25%. Please note that blast radius of 15meters from the 40.8 (90lb) warhead helped. 

And " The low launch velocity also meant accurate aiming was difficult, as it was for the attacking pilot to accurately judge the distance to the target. As a result most of the rockets fired exploded either in front of or behind the bomber target. However, they did often achieve the effect of opening up the bomber formations enough for fighters to attack with conventional weapons."

The rockets sound cool but in actual fact never quite lived up to the hype, and this goes for the American, British, French and Soviet rockets of the 1950s too, Despite much money, time and effort. 

See: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/stories/battle-palmdale-20533.html#post1114130


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 3, 2014)

mig-31bm said:


> if a well armed B-17 meet a fighter light armor and weak weapon like P-51H or A6M zero in 1 vs 1 situation then which one do you think more likely to get shotdown ?
> it obvious that fighter will fly , climb , turn alot better but the B-17 have 13 ï¿½ .50 in (12.7 mm) gun which mean it can basically attack the fighter from any direction , and also with 4 engine it seem like it really hard to be shotdown , not to mention very thick armor on a bomber
> btw : can the rocket be used to shot down bomber ??



Thought you might be interested in this version of the B-17:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YB-40_Flying_Fortress


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 3, 2014)

Aozora said:


> Armor on the B-17F:


And that illustration gives a good idea of how little the B-17 was actually protected. The flight deck was afforded some protection *if* the attacking fighters followed Boeing's design, but they didn't. The windscreen wasn't armored glass, the nose dome was plexiglass, the side windows and observation dome just ahead of the cockpit wasn't armored.

Add to that, the gunner's positions afforded little protection and the tail gunner had little or no protection until the "Cheyenne Hood" was adopted and even then, the only real armor was a reinforced plate of glass. If you've ever read any accounts (or spoke with veteran crewmembers) of missions, there's plenty of stories retelling how schrapnel or MG/cannon fire ripped through the fuselage of the bomber, and the projectiles rarely passed through harmlessly.

And the larger the caliber, the more the damage, plus no amount of armor aboard the B-17 protected the crew from the 30mm minengeschoss round of the Mk103/108 cannon.

We've seen the effects of up-armor in the way of speed penalties with the YB-40 project. 

And just to clarify, the chin turret wasn't incorporated into the B-17 until after the failure of the YB-40 project in 1943, the last of the B-17Fs being outfitted with the modification nefore the switch to the B-17G production.


----------



## Juha (Apr 3, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 22 missions over 9 months - does it say specific squadrons or groups? In reality that may not seem that bad statistically (1.5 bombers lost to fighters per mission). It would also be interesting to know how many bombers were sent out, this would paint a real picture of this "duel."



There is the info in the book but I don't have the time to reread it but the B-24 units were 7th 308th BGs. E.g. on 24 Aug 43 14 B-24s/308BG were to bomb the a/f at Hankow but the 7 planes of the 373rd BS were forced to abort because of the weather and the 7 B-24Ds from the 425th BS pressed on to the target escorted by 6 Warhawks. After bombing the B-24s were attacked by Ki-43s from 33rd and 25th Sentais, which shot down four of the seven B-24s while probably losing one Oscar and the CO of the 33rd Sentai to the defensive fire and 25th Sentai lost 2 of its Oscars to the P-40s. I chose the day only because the artwork described that combat. During the summer B-24 attack formations seems to have had 9 - 18 planes.

the 22 missions were those where there was combat between B-24s and Oscars during 1943 in the CBI.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 3, 2014)

Juha said:


> There is the info in the book but I don't have the time to reread it but the B-24 units were 7th 308th BGs. E.g. on 24 Aug 43 14 B-24s/308BG were to bomb the a/f at Hankow but the 7 planes of the 373rd BS were forced to abort because of the weather and the 7 B-24Ds from the 425th BS pressed on to the target escorted by 6 Warhawks. After bombing the B-24s were attacked by Ki-43s from 33rd and 25th Sentais, which shot down four of the seven B-24s while probably losing one Oscar and the CO of the 33rd Sentai to the defensive fire and 25th Sentai lost 2 of its Oscars to the P-40s. I chose the day only because the artwork described that combat. During the summer B-24 attack formations seems to have had 9 - 18 planes.
> 
> *the 22 missions were those where there was combat between B-24s and Oscars during 1943 in the CBI*.



Great info, thanks!!!


----------



## pbehn (Apr 3, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> Thought you might be interested in this version of the B-17:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YB-40_Flying_Fortress



Splitting hairs but the YB 40 had an essential element of a bomber missing, no bombs.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 3, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> Thought you might be interested in this version of the B-17:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YB-40_Flying_Fortress


The YB-40 and XB-41 concepts were failures...

They were so heavy, they were unable to keep up with the standard bombers after they had dropped their bomb load.

A good idea but a failure...


----------



## pbehn (Apr 3, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> The YB-40 and XB-41 concepts were failures...
> 
> They were so heavy, they were unable to keep up with the standard bombers after they had dropped their bomb load.
> 
> A good idea but a failure...



And so slow in the climb they were difficult to form up with


----------



## mig-31bm (Apr 3, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> The YB-40 and XB-41 concepts were failures...
> 
> They were so heavy, they were unable to keep up with the standard bombers after they had dropped their bomb load.
> 
> A good idea but a failure...


why dont they just let yb-40 fly together instead of with normal bomber ? , i mean with 30 machine gun and heavy armor they seem quite invulnerable


----------



## mig-31bm (Apr 3, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> Germans weren't firing Werfer-Granate 21 a single bombers but at formations. And even then it was not with the expectation of hitting a bomber (they were using time fuses) but of coming close enough to damage one or more _while_ breaking up the formation/s so that gun attacks would be more effective.
> 
> The R4M wasn't a long range stand off weapon either, despite what Wiki says. lets look at it shall we?
> 
> ...


----------



## pbehn (Apr 3, 2014)

mig-31bm said:


> why dont they just let yb-40 fly together instead of with normal bomber ? , i mean with 30 machine gun and heavy armor they seem quite invulnerable



Why would you attack an aeroplane that has no bombs? even a formation of them.


----------



## mig-31bm (Apr 3, 2014)

pbehn said:


> Why would you attack an aeroplane that has no bombs? even a formation of them.



oh yeah , just realise that they can't carry bomb , but wait they actually faster than b-17 


> YB-40
> Maximum speed: 292 mph (470 km/h)
> Cruise speed: 196 mph (315 km/h)
> B-17G
> ...


also it unlikely that the German know which airplane have bomb and which one doesn't


----------



## Balljoint (Apr 3, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> And that illustration gives a good idea of how little the B-17 was actually protected. The flight deck was afforded some protection *if* the attacking fighters followed Boeing's design, but they didn't. The windscreen wasn't armored glass, the nose dome was plexiglass, the side windows and observation dome just ahead of the cockpit wasn't armored.
> 
> Add to that, the gunner's positions afforded little protection and the tail gunner had little or no protection until the "Cheyenne Hood" was adopted and even then, the only real armor was a reinforced plate of glass. If you've ever read any accounts (or spoke with veteran crewmembers) of missions, there's plenty of stories retelling how schrapnel or MG/cannon fire ripped through the fuselage of the bomber, and the projectiles rarely passed through harmlessly.
> 
> ...



There was some additional “armor” in the in the form of nylon antiballistic mats. These seem to be intended as protection against FLAK fragments and would probably not handle a hot round. I bought some surplus mats for protection against failed automotive flywheels. Fortunately, I have no idea if they would have helped.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 3, 2014)

mig-31bm said:


> why dont they just let yb-40 fly together instead of with normal bomber ? , i mean with *30 machine gun* and heavy armor they seem quite invulnerable


Only a few were field modified with a higher number of MG, the standard build included about 14 .50 cal. MG.
These positions were:
Chin turret: 2x.50
Dorsal turret: 2x.50
Ventral turret: 2x.50
Starboard waist: 2x.50
Port waist: 2x.50
Ball turret: 2x.50
Tail: 2x.50
Total: 14x.50
Standard field upfit: "Cheek" positions restored (1x.50 per side) brought the total number to 16x.50


So because with all the additional turrets and ammunition aboard, the aircraft wouldn't be able to carry the additional weight of bombs. Also keep in mind that the YB-40 was not only carrying more weapons, ammunition and armor but it was also suffering from decreased aerodynamics because of it's additional armament.

YB-40:
Empty Weight: 54,900lbs. (24,900kg)
Loaded Weight: 63,500lbs. (28,800kg)
Ammunition total: 10,700 (+/-) rounds

B-15G:
Empty Weight: 36,135lbs. (16,391kg)
Loaded Weight: 54,000lbs. (24,500kg)


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 3, 2014)

Wonder if results would be better the other way around - no defensive armament - returns us to the Mosquito strategic bomber thread.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 3, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> Wonder if results would be better the other way around - no defensive armament - returns us to the Mosquito strategic bomber thread.


Even the Mosquito ran into trouble by interceptors on occasion.

It would take some serious engineering to get something the size of a B-17 to outrun fighters...it's possible but I don't think practical.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 3, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> Wonder if results would be better the other way around - no defensive armament - returns us to the Mosquito strategic bomber thread.



After the RAF started using the Mosquito they never ordered a defensive gun on a bomber. Bearing in mind that 50% of bomber losses were to flak, maybe a better strategy would be to make those bombers fly higher and faster, that is with no defense apart from speed and height with enough escorts to protect.. Teas I know...another thread.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 3, 2014)

> It's plenty if you put them on target and a B-17 is a relatively easy aerial target. However you are likely to run out of ammo after downing a couple aircraft



Going on the Luftwaffe’s experience of a 2-3 % hit rate, expending 120 rounds of 20mm should result in 3-4 hits, about one fifth of the number of hits considered necessary to achieve a 50% chance of bringing a fortress down. So you would have to be about five times as good (or lucky as the average LW pilot to have a 50/50 chance of knocking down one Fortress, and ten times as good to get two - unless there is something about the 1 v 1 scenario that tips things hugely in the fighters favour. 
I am disinclined to dismiss the Luftwaffe’s conclusions. These guys were a very professional force and they were collating data to support operational decisions, not for misinformation or propaganda. They were the only air force ever tasked with tackling heavy bombers on a regular basis and it was in their interests to get the best data they could. Given that modern crash site evaluations can often narrow causes down to a single failed component, I don’t have any trouble believing the Luftwaffe should have gotten a reasonable handle on the number of hits on a B-17 wreck. I’ve never seen the actual report and I don’t read German anyway, but unless the report can be disproven or the methodology brought into doubt, it seems reasonable to use it as a benchmark


----------



## mig-31bm (Apr 3, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> Only a few were field modified with a higher number of MG, the standard build included about 14 .50 cal. MG.
> These positions were:
> Chin turret: 2x.50
> Dorsal turret: 2x.50
> ...



but according to statistic they still faster  , even if they are alittle bit slower than b-17 without bomb can the b-17 fly a bit slower for the yb-40 t catch up with them ?


----------



## pbehn (Apr 3, 2014)

mig-31bm said:


> but according to statistic they still faster  , even if they are alittle bit slower than b-17 without bomb can the b-17 fly a bit slower for the yb-40 t catch up with them ?



From what I have read here on this forum the YB 40 was heavier than a loaded B17 and the extra guns produced more drag they were slower to the target and from the target, the chronic rate of climb made real problems joining up in formation.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 3, 2014)

> but according to statistic they still faster  , even if they are alittle bit slower than b-17 without bomb can the b-17 fly a bit slower for the yb-40 t catch up with them ?



I suspect the best defence of all would always be to get out of the danger zone ASAP - loitering so a YB-40 could keep up would be counterproductive


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 3, 2014)

pbehn said:


> After the RAF started using the Mosquito they never ordered a defensive gun on a bomber. Bearing in mind that 50% of bomber losses were to flak, maybe a better strategy would be to make those bombers fly higher and faster, that is with no defense apart from speed and height with enough escorts to protect.. Teas I know...another thread.



Not quite true. Depends on how you classify the Lincoln bomber or when it was ordered. The RAF also used B-29s as the Washington. 

Higher and faster works to some extent but runs into lousier bomb accuracy which means (for targets smaller than a large city) more bombers needed to get same number of hits and more bombers means more losses. Strangely enough a _single_ B-17 sometimes had an option available to it for evading enemy fighters. If running light ( bombs gone and around 1/2 fuel) and starting at close to 30,000ft it could actually out climb a number of different fighter types.


----------



## Garyt (Apr 3, 2014)

> Going on the Luftwaffe’s experience of a 2-3 % hit rate, expending 120 rounds of 20mm should result in 3-4 hits, about one fifth of the number of hits considered necessary to achieve a 50% chance of bringing a fortress down. So you would have to be about five times as good (or lucky as the average LW pilot to have a 50/50 chance of knocking down one Fortress, and ten times as good to get two - unless there is something about the 1 v 1 scenario that tips things hugely in the fighters favour.



The reports I have read don't say a 50/50 chance of knocking down a B-17 with 20 rounds - merely that the estimate is 20 20mm rounds to knock out a B17, and that 4-5 20 mm rounds from the front would down a B-17.

That's 800 rounds fired for a non-frontal assault, or 180 rounds for a frontal assault.

I'd also guess the low chance to hit comes from pilots firing out of range or at least effective range, you more rookie pilots or those that are afraid to close.

More skilled pilots would get more rounds on target, less skilled of course less.

I think I remember reading where Saburo Sakai stated they changed to head on attacks against the B-17's.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 4, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> Not quite true. Depends on how you classify the Lincoln bomber or when it was ordered. The RAF also used B-29s as the Washington.
> 
> Higher and faster works to some extent but runs into lousier bomb accuracy which means (for targets smaller than a large city) more bombers needed to get same number of hits and more bombers means more losses. Strangely enough a _single_ B-17 sometimes had an option available to it for evading enemy fighters. If running light ( bombs gone and around 1/2 fuel) and starting at close to 30,000ft it could actually out climb a number of different fighter types.



That has led to permutations for strikes, the so called Hi-Lo-Hi or Hi-Lo-Lo approach, over target and withdrawal. It is correct, in a general sense, that since the war, dedicated bombers have overwhelmingly sged their defensive guns and use speed and altitude to try and survive, along with various passive defences.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 4, 2014)

> I'd also guess the low chance to hit comes from pilots firing out of range or at least effective range, you more rookie pilots or those that are afraid to close



There are permutations on this as well. Some really experienced and exceptional pilots like hartmann could shoot out the centre of a dime at three miles. They were the really deadly one. but if you have a standard mount in which the armament is calibrated to converge at 250m and you start shooting at 500m, straght away you are going to reduce the possible hit rate to about 1/6 of what heat your mount is carrying. You need to have your mount set up properly to fire at a given range, or converge at a given range. its better to overestimate your convergence needs than to underestimate, because firing at ranges less than the convergence will be a lesser grouping, but still a grouping, and not sprayed allover the sky.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 4, 2014)

> The reports I have read don't say a 50/50 chance of knocking down a B-17 with 20 rounds - merely that the estimate is 20 20mm rounds to knock out a B17, and that 4-5 20 mm rounds from the front would down a B-17.
> 
> That's 800 rounds fired for a non-frontal assault, or 180 rounds for a frontal assault.
> 
> ...



I believe the report found that it took _on average_ 20 x 20mm hits to down a B-17. That means, of a population of B-17s that each took that degree of punishment, 50% would go down and 50% would not. Or, as applied to an individual aircraft hit by that number of shells, there was a 50/50 chance of it going down. Also, assigning the low hit rate to the effect of rookie pilots doesn't work, because there were also _experten_ who undoubtedly scored much higher hit ratios, pulling the stats in the opposite direction. The Luftwaffe arrived at their figure by examining the data for their entire force - rookies, aces and everyone in between - because they wanted their improvements to _apply_ to the entire force. Cherry picking results wouldn't make sense, nor would removing the less expert pilots from the fray to improve the hit ratio. 
I can certainly see how frontal attacks would greatly increase the lethality of the fighters, but I can also see some drawbacks, primarily the high level of skill required and that the requirement to turn and overtake the bombers for each attack might have a fighter running of of fuel before it ran out of ammo. 
Given that the LW were in a position to know, I'm inclined to accept their findings. That said, they were collating data from a strategic viewpoint - they didn't care how many individual fighters hit given bombers how many times; they wanted to know how many shells from all the fighters hit all the bombers. The issue is how well that data can be applied to one fighter meeting one bomber


----------



## stona (Apr 4, 2014)

The reasons given by Luftwaffe pilots for the use of a head on attack are several but break down to the blindingly obvious. 
The attacking fighters were exposed to the fire of at most two defensive gun positions per bomber and largely avoided the supporting fire from other bombers in the formation (they never attacked singly but in larger formations to dilute the defensive fire.) Avoiding supporting fire from the other bombers features particularly in the accounts of the most senior and experienced pilots.
They were exposed to this fire for a very short time, most Luftwaffe recollections reckon between 1 and 3 seconds, much less than when making an attack from the rear or in a 'curve of pursuit'.
It may have taken an estimated twenty 20mm cannon hits to bring down a bomber, first hand accounts would suggest many more, but it only took one in the vicinity of the pilot(s).

Evasion was by diving down through the bomber formation or zooming over it, attempting to get out of range as quickly as possible, before formating for another attack. The immense relative speed of the fighters to the bombers helps put distance between them rather quickly. 

The disadvantages are also obvious. Closing speed is very high and there is little time to line up, aim, fire and then avoid a collision. Inexperienced pilots simply couldn't do it.

Some units continued to make attacks from the rear as did many 'sturmgruppen'. To avoid scared and inexperienced pilots opening fire at extreme range the entire attacking formation would open fire on command. They would then dive away and reform to the left or right below the bombers, again on an order given prior to the attack.

Any fighter that had expended his ammunition was expected to stay in formation and, if called upon, make successive passes on the bombers 'unarmed'. They were not to leave the formation on their own. This was standard procedure for all the Gruppen for which I know the orders.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Garyt (Apr 4, 2014)

> I believe the report found that it took on average 20 x 20mm hits to down a B-17. *That means, of a population of B-17s that each took that degree of punishment, 50% would go down and 50% would not. Or, as applied to an individual aircraft hit by that number of shells, there was a 50/50 chance of it going down.*



Dy definition of the word "average", that is not correct. Average means one plane may go down with 10 hits, another with 20, and another with 30. The "average" here would be 20.

If you have a 50/50 chance of bringing it down with 20 rounds, the average then would not be 20, it would be higher.



> assigning the low hit rate to the effect of rookie pilots doesn't work,



I was not stating that the Japanese should do better - I was merely stating the fact that inexperienced pilots skew the stats lower, and if you notice I also said experienced ones would skew it higher.

Really depends on when in the war you are as to the accuracy of the opposing fighters. I would think in 1945 the hit rate would be lower, though there would be the occasional quality pilot there. Pilots from Kido Butai while it was around would do better.


----------



## stona (Apr 4, 2014)

One fighter might well run out of ammunition before downing one bomber. There are several accounts of five of six Luftwaffe fighters failing to finish off a B-17.

As for the problems faced by fighters attacking defensive formations of heavily armed bombers I would suggest hearing them from the horse's , so to speak. These are just a few accounts from letters, memoirs and combat reports which illustrate the problems quite nicely. There are dozens more available, all saying more or less the same thing.

_‘During an attack from behind, we were under defensive fire from the bombers too long and at least three machine gun positions fired at us from each aircraft. In addition the escorting fighters had the job of keeping us away from the bombers. So, we had no option but to attack from head on. Everything went very quick in this tactic. Every second bought us 220m closer together. Of course we didn’t want to collide but pull away over the bomber. For this pulling up and over the bomber one needed almost the whole last two seconds (=400m). Our guns were adjusted to 400m. Therefore we had two options: to fire too early, already at a distance of 600 or 500 metres, or to pull up half a second later. A very dangerous business. We didn’t have one second to fire our guns. It is incredible when one thinks of all the efforts we made for just one second. One thing was absolutely necessary, aim very precisely for this short moment.’_

Fw Fritz Ungar. JG 54 and JG 26

_‘ The second viermot I bought down was over Paris on 20th December 1942. I managed to shoot down a Boeing in a head on attack, the machine turning over on its back and diving down with a lurch, and me being able to pull up and over it. I felt certain that I must have hit the pilots. A burst of the four 2cm cannons and two machine guns from our Focke Wulf into the cockpit (which was only built from sheets of glass or plastic) was guaranteed to be deadly, if we scored a hit.’

‘ ….it was sheer murder to attack the American combat boxes from the rear which we sometimes did to give ourselves more time to fire. This left us exposed to the defensive fire of the bombers for longer too. At a distance of some 1500m the American bombers opened fire with all barrels….. We normally opened fire at a distance of 300m and tried to close in to 30 or 40m. During all this time our fighters were exposed to the defensive fire of at least eight machine guns per bomber which, with a group of twenty bombers, meant the concentrated fire power of 160 heavy machine guns. Each group of twenty machines was also flying echeloned to the side and higher than the leading group, so we had to bear the full brunt of their defensive fire as well. Opening fire from behind at 300m and taking 5 to 6 seconds to overtake the bombers, these attacks indescribable in their sheer physical and mental stress…….We therefore changed tactics and started attacking from head on, which called for incredible dexterity, a good aim, and nerves of steel until the last second.’

_Lt. Otto Stammberger. JG 26

_'I opened fire at 500m with the twenties. At 300m I opened fire with the thirties. It was a short burst, maybe ten shells from each cannon but I saw the bomber explode and begin to burn. I flashed over him at at [by] 15m and then did a chandelle. When I turned around I was about 300m above and behind them and was suddenly mixed in with American fighters.’

_Oblt Georg-Peter Eder. JG 2

_‘In Russia we had been accustomed to throw ourselves with gusto at the rear of any formation of Ivans and help ourselves as independent hunters. At first we thought it would be similar here in the west, and lost quite a few feathers in the process. The ‘Fat Cars’ flew nicely in formation making their firepower almost impenetrable. Our stout Gruppe had soon shrunk to the size of a strong Staffel . Soon we attacked the ‘Fat Cars’only from head on, which meant of course that the chances of scoring hits was reduced considerably for both sides.’_

Uffz Uwe Micheels. JG 3


Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Garyt (Apr 4, 2014)

Interesting, Stona.

It makes it clear that with a frontal attack you get 1 second to fire*, which is a lot less time to fire than if approaching from the rear. Well, at least the B-17 only has about a second to fire at you also!

* With an MG151/20, that's a chance for about 11 rounds on target. For the slower firing cannon from a zero it's about 8 rounds.


----------



## mig-31bm (Apr 4, 2014)

head on attack doesn't always work , here there a b-17 facing 17 Zero and still win 

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Im086TCu3I_


----------



## mig-31bm (Apr 4, 2014)

to be fair allied fighter with gun on wing instead of nose and the lack of cannon make them really bad again bomber


----------



## Juha (Apr 4, 2014)

mig-31bm said:


> to be fair allied fighter with gun on wing instead of nose and the lack of cannon make them really bad again bomber




Not so simple, Typhoons with 4 Hispanos had no problems with LW bombers same true to Beaus and Mossies with four Hispanos in nose.

Juha


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 4, 2014)

The German report being discussed (at least, the one I have) says 20 hits from 20mm shells are what is required to be _certain_ of bringing down a four-engine bomber. It notes that many bombers have been brought down with less, but as the intention is to decide on which armament combination is most effective, it's willing to accept a certain amount of overkill.

View attachment ammunitions.pdf


(Yes, it's in German.)


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 4, 2014)

> Dy definition of the word "average", that is not correct. Average means one plane may go down with 10 hits, another with 20, and another with 30. The "average" here would be 20.
> 
> If you have a 50/50 chance of bringing it down with 20 rounds, the average then would not be 20, it would be higher.



I'm sorry Gary, but this is incorrect. The average is the value required to reach the 50th percentile, so if a hundred bombers are each hit twenty times, fifty of them would go down and fifty would not, and when single bombers were attacked they would require, on average, twenty hits to be destroyed. Having the average, you can then construct a bell curve to calculate the chances of any given number of hits resulting in a kill, or how many hits are required to achieve a given probabilty of a kill, but the average remains a constant. 
A couple of things regarding the effectiveness of head on attacks - unless the Luftwaffe deliberately discarded the data from bombers that were obviously destroyed this way, the effects of head on attacks in reducing the average number of hits required for a kill would already be imbedded in the figure of 20/1. That is to say, the figure of an average of 20hits/kill is arrived at by collecting data from all types of attack, including head on. Of course, we don't know the exact methodology used, but as the LW were collecting data in order to make decisions regarding their whole force, it is reasonable to conclude they would sample accordingly.
Also, consider this; if it required twenty rounds on average to score a kill from every other angle, but only two from a head on attack, we might assume that switching solely to head-ons would increase the effectiveness of the fighters tenfold. But this is a case of lies, damn lies and statistics, because the figure of a 2% hit rate no longer applies, as it was not arrived at by examining _only_ the results of head-on attacks. A hypothetical switch to head-on attacks would certainly see the average number of hits per kill fall significantly, but given the skill required the ratio of hits/rounds fired would _also_ fall significantly, diluting the gain. In short, you need less hits on average to down the bomber, but you need to fire more rounds to get the hits. The fact that the LW favoured such attacks when possible suggests that the net benefit was positive, though reading the previous posts it seems the desire to avoid the bombers defensive fire was as much an imperative as increasing lethality.
Okay, sorry about Applied Maths 101 everyone, but it is a subject a lot of people seem to have trouble getting their heads around - hence the propensity for Politicians to misuse it, no doubt.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 4, 2014)

> The German report being discussed (at least, the one I have) says 20 hits from 20mm shells are what is required to be _certain_ of bringing down a four-engine bomber


.

Aha! Could be a classic case of the dangers of relying on second hand information, although if the report says 20 hits are 'certain' to bring down a bomber that is obviously not so - they may be applying the term to a given high probability, like 95%. German translator anywhere?


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 4, 2014)

There was mention a little ways back about rockets being used on bombers.

This is a B-24M (44-50838) that was hit by a salvo of R4M rockets launched by a Me262 on 4 April 1945. Only one crewmember, Cpl. Charles Cupp, Jr., survived. This was exactly 69 years ago today.


----------



## mhuxt (Apr 4, 2014)

CobberKane said:


> .
> 
> Aha! Could be a classic case of the dangers of relying on second hand information, although if the report says 20 hits are 'certain' to bring down a bomber that is obviously not so - they may be applying the term to a given high probability, like 95%. German translator anywhere?



"Analysis and combat experience have shown that to be certain of shooting down a 4-motor Boeing with mine shells, circa 20 hits with 20mm or 5 hits with 30mm are required. These results seem to us to be quite high, however they mark the doubtlessly frequent shoot-downs with fewer hits as random results. So as not to calculate in a manner which is overly favourable, these hit numbers have been used as the basis for the analysis below." 

(My translation.)


----------



## Garyt (Apr 4, 2014)

```
I'm sorry Gary, but this is incorrect. The average is the value required to reach the 50th percentile, so if a hundred bombers are each hit twenty times, fifty of them would go down and fifty would not, and when single bombers were attacked they would require, on average, twenty hits to be destroyed.
```

O.K, answer me this - 5 B-17's are shot down. The take 12,15,20,21, and 26 rounds to down. What is the average # of hits to kock down a B-17?

We are looking for the Mean here, not the Median or Mode.

If you want to do percentile standing:



> Order all the values in the data set from smallest to largest.
> 
> Multiply k percent by the total number of values, n.
> 
> ...



Here we are getting the median really, or 20 in my example above.

There is not really a stat that is equal to the average number of hits to put it down 50% of the time that I am aware

Actually, thinking about it, your stat reminds me of a Yogi Berra quote: "Baseball is 90% mental, the other half is physical."


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 5, 2014)

Garyt said:


> ```
> I'm sorry Gary, but this is incorrect. The average is the value required to reach the 50th percentile, so if a hundred bombers are each hit twenty times, fifty of them would go down and fifty would not, and when single bombers were attacked they would require, on average, twenty hits to be destroyed.
> ```
> 
> ...



Yes, you have started out looking for the average, but employed method for finding the median - a different thing. A median is simply the middle number of a sample - 20 this case. In statistics a median is useful if you want to avoid a one or two highly unusual results influencing the conclusions you draw from a small sample. For example, one of the bombers in your small set of five went down after only a single hit, that would skew the _average_ number of hits required disproportionately, making the bombers look easier to knock down than they actually were. By using the median, you effectively ignore that one atypical instance. 
The average, or mean, is calculated by adding all the results in a sample and dividing by the number of results in total. In your example this gives a result of 18.8. For larger groups, an average is a better tool than a median because it is more accurate, you can do more with it, and any highly unusual results have a minimal effect. As the LW were in a position to get data from a large number of wrecks, this is would have been the obvious course.
Yogi Berra was obviously not a mathematician!


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 5, 2014)

Great stuff, mhuxt. If 20 x 20mm shells were ''certain'' (in fact, highly likely) to knock down a B-17, then the average would be much lower, perhaps around ten. It would be great to know how the figure was arrived at, but that might be too much to ask (sigh).

oops - double post


----------



## mig-31bm (Apr 5, 2014)

CobberKane said:


> Great stuff, mhuxt. If 20 x 20mm shells were ''certain'' (in fact, highly likely) to knock down a B-17, then the average would be much lower, perhaps around ten. It would be great to know how the figure was arrived at, but that might be too much to ask (sigh).
> 
> oops - double post



i think they mean it will take average of 20 x 20mm shells that *hit* to bring down a bomber
btw there 3 kind of average : median , mean , and mode , it more likely that in the example they using either mean or mode


----------



## mig-31bm (Apr 5, 2014)

Juha said:


> Not so simple, Typhoons with 4 Hispanos had no problems with LW bombers same true to Beaus and Mossies with four Hispanos in nose.
> 
> Juha



oh yeah i kind of forgot them , just thinking about P-47 , p-40 , F4F , F6F ,p-51 , spitfire ..etc


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 5, 2014)

> mig-31bm said:
> 
> 
> > i think they mean it will take average of 20 x 20mm shells that *hit* to bring down a bomber
> > btw there 3 kind of average : median , mean , and mode , it more likely that in the example they using either mean or mode



According to the translation 20x20mm are _certain_ to bring down a B-17 - not on _average_. And no, median and mode are _not_ types of average, regardless of how the term might be used in common vernacular; the mean is the average, nothing else. 
I'll leave the subject of applied mathematics alone now. There is nothing I've mentioned that couldn't be verified by a simple google search, in the unlikely event anyone is interested


----------



## mig-31bm (Apr 5, 2014)

CobberKane said:


> According to the translation 20x20mm are _certain_ to bring down a B-17 - not on _average_.* And no, median and mode are not types of average, regardless of how the term might be used in common vernacular; the mean is the average, nothing else.*
> I'll leave the subject of applied mathematics alone now. There is nothing I've mentioned that couldn't be verified by a simple google search, in the unlikely event anyone is interested


actually all these 3 are average , but of different kind to deal with different sort of statistic
Unit 5 Section 2 : Mean, Median, Mode and Range


> The mean, median and mode are types of average.


they have different advantages and disadvantage:
*mean* :All the data is used to find the answer but very large or very small numbers can distort the answer
*Median* : Very big and very small values don't affect it but takes a long time to calculate for a very large set of data
*Mode * :The only average we can use when the data is not numerical but there may be more than one mode or may be no mode at all if none of the data is the same also it may not accurately represent the data


----------



## mig-31bm (Apr 5, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> There was mention a little ways back about rockets being used on bombers.
> 
> This is a B-24M (44-50838) that was hit by a salvo of R4M rockets launched by a Me262 on 4 April 1945. Only one crewmember, Cpl. Charles Cupp, Jr., survived. This was exactly 69 years ago today.
> 
> View attachment 258475



seem very destructive , image a head on hit from HVAR which is alot bigger


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 5, 2014)

> actually all these 3 are average , but of different kind to deal with different sort of statistic



Good call - _I_ was using the common vernacular when I should have been sticking to the strictly mathematical.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 5, 2014)

mig-31bm said:


> seem very destructive , image a head on hit from HVAR which is alot bigger


With the higher speed of the Me262, a head-on attack was unlikely (but not unheard of), they generally attacked from behind.

From the looks of the damage to the B-24 in the photograph, it was a single R4M that struck the fuselage in the waist area. There also looks to be damage on the starboard wing and inboard starboard engine from 30mm hits.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 5, 2014)

The Me262 had to slow down when attacking heavy bombers.


----------



## beitou (Apr 5, 2014)

Which position was the surving crew member of that B 24 in?


----------



## stona (Apr 5, 2014)

Garyt said:


> Interesting, Stona.
> 
> It makes it clear that with a frontal attack you get 1 second to fire*, which is a lot less time to fire than if approaching from the rear. Well, at least the B-17 only has about a second to fire at you also!
> 
> * With an MG151/20, that's a chance for about 11 rounds on target. For the slower firing cannon from a zero it's about 8 rounds.



Yes, but any 20mm cannon rounds, plus however many hits from the machine guns, taken in the cockpit area is going to be fairly devastating if not fatal. As someone else pointed out the weakest part of any manned aircraft is the man. The pilot(s) of most WW2 bombers are almost unprotected from a frontal attack and the Luftwaffe was well aware of this.

The problem for the fighter pilot is actually making that shot in the minimal time available. It certainly could be done, I've seen several segments of gun camera footage that show it.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Garyt (Apr 5, 2014)

> The problem for the fighter pilot is actually making that shot in the minimal time available. It certainly could be done, I've seen several segments of gun camera footage that show it.



I read where it was difficult to time right and be able to pull up, as they were closing at about 600 mph, very easy to fire to early (out of range) or too late.


----------



## stona (Apr 5, 2014)

Garyt said:


> I read where it was difficult to time right and be able to pull up, as they were closing at about 600 mph, very easy to fire to early (out of range) or too late.



Exactly. One Luftwaffe pilot recalled the closing speed as 1,000 kph which is _presumably_ what they were told and based their calculations upon.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 5, 2014)

I'm really surprised the Germans didn't come up with a simple way of judging ranges for face shots. I would have used to inverted staples, |___| for on trigger, and |______| for off trigger. When the wingspan fills the first start shooting, and when it fills the second stop and pull / roll away. Final product would have looked like this |__|___|__| (middle two uprights for on trigger, outer two for off trigger).

But then again I like things simple...

Todays radars give very accurate range and velocity of closure, and with the gun called up VERY accurate shooting (if the bandit behaves). They also give you excellent feedback on where your bullets are going. No more flying the tracers onto the enemy (not enough trigger time). The Eagle carries 940 rounds, the most except for the A-10, and that equates to approx 9.4 seconds on high rate. If your shots are accurate it takes well less than a second to "kill" another aircraft. Bullets are also not susceptible to chaff, flares, or electronic jamming. 

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## pbehn (Apr 5, 2014)

There was a video link here showing Japanese fighters engaging a B17 from head on ...but they were flying inverted, I couldnt understand why, any answers?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 5, 2014)

pbehn said:


> There was a video link here showing Japanese fighters engaging a B17 from head on ...but they were flying inverted, I couldnt understand why, any answers?g


 They will go inverted, hit their targets and dive away inverted at high speeds keeping positive Gs on the airframe at all time, I've seen LW pilots do this too, I think they would have an easier time recovering and re-engaging using elevator than aileron.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 5, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> They will go inverted, hit their targets and dive away inverted at high speeds keeping positive Gs on the airframe at all time, I've seen LW pilots do this too, I think they would have an easier time recovering and re-engaging using elevator than aileron.



Thanks Flyboy, I was thinking maybewhen flying inverted the guns would fire up slightly giving a better chance of a hit. Obviously not


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 5, 2014)

pbehn said:


> Thanks Flyboy, I was thinking maybewhen flying inverted the guns would fire up slightly giving a better chance of a hit. Obviously not



Your welcome - here's something interesting...

_"When intercepting a bomber force, German fighter units initially flew a parallel course off to one side outside the range of the defensive guns. After reaching a point about 3 miles ahead, either three or four plane groups peeled off and swung 180 degrees around to attack head-on in rapid succession. It was critical for the fighters to maintain some semblance of cohesion, or at least visual contact, so after each pass they could regroup for repeated concentrated attacks. That was the theory anyway. In reality, many pilots ended the first pass with a split-S maneuver, inverting and diving down and away from the defensive fire above them. 

With increased experience, German fighters began to make their head-on attacks using either in line astern or with the entire unit spread out abreast in the "company front" formation. The recommended procedure was to pull up and over the bombers and then from their position of advantage above, the German fighters were quickly able to launch another attack. It was critical for the fighters to maintain some semblance of cohesion, or at least visual contact, so after each pass they could regroup for repeated concentrated attacks. That was the theory anyway. The huge tail fin of the Fortress posed a collision risk and many German pilots preferred to break away below. Either they dipped the noses of their aircraft and passed close underneath, or rolled inverted and broke hard down with the "Abschwung" (Split-S maneuver.) This took them well below the bombers and valuable minutes were lost before they could gain sufficient height to attack again." _

German Pilot Perspective


----------



## pbehn (Apr 5, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Your welcome - here's something interesting...
> 
> _"When intercepting a bomber force, German fighter units initially flew a parallel course off to one side outside the range of the defensive guns. After reaching a point about 3 miles ahead, either three or four plane groups peeled off and swung 180 degrees around to attack head-on in rapid succession. It was critical for the fighters to maintain some semblance of cohesion, or at least visual contact, so after each pass they could regroup for repeated concentrated attacks. That was the theory anyway. In reality, many pilots ended the first pass with a split-S maneuver, inverting and diving down and away from the defensive fire above them.
> 
> ...



good info thanks

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 5, 2014)

pbehn said:


> good info thanks



I remember reading about a Spitfire pilot doing a withdrawal of B17s over France late in the war, he thanked his lucky stars he was escorting and not attacking the formation. I think the book was called "fighter boys"


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 5, 2014)

I recall reading about a couple 262 pilots that conducted "swooping" passes through a box formation, starting their run above and behind, diving through and giving short bursts as they went. Once through the formation, they passed ahead and climbed above the formation coming about for another pass, then diving through just as they had before, just in the opposite direction.

I'll have to look through my books to see who the pilot was that described this.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 5, 2014)

German fighter tactics vs bombers, German Fighter Tactics Against Flying Fortresses

Bomber formations, B-17 Flying Fortress / Details / Formation

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Apr 5, 2014)

BiffF15 said:


> I'm really surprised the Germans didn't come up with a simple way of judging ranges for face shots. I would have used to inverted staples, |___| for on trigger, and |______| for off trigger. When the wingspan fills the first start shooting, and when it fills the second stop and pull / roll away. Final product would have looked like this |__|___|__| (middle two uprights for on trigger, outer two for off trigger).



Most (maybe all?) reflector gunsights had various markings for this and other purposes. However, in life-and-death combat, sometimes what little training an 18 year old receives doesn't always stick.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Aozora (Apr 5, 2014)

From 






The origins of the frontal attack and Adolf Galland's commentary:










In spite of the tactic's success in August the OKL ordered that they could no longer be carried out:


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 5, 2014)

Greyman said:


> Most (maybe all?) reflector gunsights had various markings for this and other purposes. However, in life-and-death combat, sometimes what little training an 18 year old receives doesn't always stick.
> 
> View attachment 258580



I think the first two pictures (top row) shows the "beir goggles" effect, and the third shows reality...

All feeble attempts at humor aside, notice that the lower row of sight pictures shows a stern attack. The OKL ordering all heavy bomber attacks must be from the stern forced the youngsters to fly into a hail storm (I know it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't order), however I think it would have been better to give the freedom of deciding tactics to those whose life was on the line.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## stona (Apr 6, 2014)

I'd like to see a source for that 1943 OKL order. I know from many first hand accounts that several units were still adopting the head on tactic after this date. I'm not saying hat such an order didn't exist, I'm just saying that some of the men whose lives depended on which tactics they adopted ignored it.

A 'sturmstaffel' did usually attack from the rear.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha (Apr 6, 2014)

I agree with Stona, e.g. on 6 March 44 during the Berlin raid LW made at least two big formation head-on attacks, the first by SE fighters and the 2nd by TE fighters.

Juha


----------



## stona (Apr 6, 2014)

Uwe Micheel's account, which I gave above, was in a letter to his brother written on 8th October 1943, just ten days before he was KIA.

There are many more, right up to the end of the war.

Steve


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 6, 2014)

Since the USAAF found that unescorted bombers were subject to unacceptably high loss rates, and operations research found that casualties aboard the bombers were increased by the bombers' defensive armament, I think the answer is that bombers are going to lose more often against fighters than not.


----------



## stona (Apr 6, 2014)

swampyankee said:


> Since the USAAF found that unescorted bombers were subject to unacceptably high loss rates, and operations research found that casualties aboard the bombers were increased by the bombers' defensive armament, I think the answer is that bombers are going to lose more often against fighters than not.



it was a close run thing.

In the case of the US bombers their defensive armament and tactics made them a very difficult prospect to attack, even unescorted. In the end the unescorted day light bomber did lose the contest, but only just. It has a lot to do with the rapid increase in fighter performance from the mid 1930s onward.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## parsifal (Apr 6, 2014)

Yes, a lot is written and made of the heavy attrition suffered by tyhe allies in the 1943 campaigns, without acknowledging the positively vicious attrition rates suffered by the Luftwaffe Reich defences to achieve that result. Whilst a few experten pilots were always around to give a seasoning of expertise in the LW fighter formations, the majority of garden variety LW pilots were pretty thin in terms of the experience and training they could draw on. Compared to the average allied pilots of the following year, these guys were straight up green horns, with much less chance of survival and more needed to shoot down a bomber than had previously been the case.

It was not all one way traffic by any means


----------



## stona (Apr 6, 2014)

Exactly. Nowadays it is taken as a no brainer that unescorted formations of bombers are almost defenceless against fighter interception but this was certainly not the case in the 1930s. The prevalent idea that 'the bomber will always get through' was not far fetched at all.
It wasn't until October 1943 (barely 18 months before the end of the European war) that the USAAF conceded that it's method, though not its home grown strategic bombing doctrine might be flawed.

The Spanish civil war was observed with interest by many major air forces and yet they drew opposing conclusions. Many, notably the Soviet Union reckoned that the bomber did not always get through and was not always effective. It concentrated on supporting the army in what we now call CAS and interdiction. 
The then assistant chief of staff of the USAC was a certain Brigadier General 'Hap' Arnold. In an editorial for the 'US Air Services' issue of May 1938 he explained that as a 'mere civil conflict' in an under developed country (Spain) which did not involve strategic bombing on any scale it should not effect the USAC's doctrine in this respect.
The British reached similar conclusions and the die was cast.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## bobbysocks (Apr 6, 2014)

from the same site FlyboyJ posted....

Lt Franz Stigler, a 500mission veteran describes a 1944 attack against American bombers in the excerpt below:

"It was early 1944 and an unescorted formation of about 100 B-17’s came up from the Mediterranean to bomb Germany. Our group of 36 aircraft was ordered off to intercept with my squadron flying high cover to ward off any escorting fighters, while the other two went after the bombers. We made contact just north of the Alps, a few miles from Munich.

We had a good chance to inflict maximum damage to the Fortresses below us and I led my 12-plane squadron down in a screaming dive. We flashed past the high combat box in an overhead pass, continuing through through in a breakaway before climbing back up for another attack.

With high speed built up in a dive, my aircraft made aircraft made a very fleeting target and the more vertical my descent, the more difficult it was for the top turret gunner to get an angle on me. I targeted the pilot’s cabin, the engines and wing’s oil and fuel tanks. On this type of approach, the firing time was extremely limited. I could get in only one short burst. But I was going so fast that I was also harder to hit and the real danger was that I might collide with my quarry. I was through the formation before he even saw me and climbing back for another pass."

Attacks from above had the advantage of placing the vulnerable oil tanks (inside of the inboard engine nacelles) and wing fuel tanks (inside the outboard engine nacelles) directly in the attacker’s path.


----------



## Aozora (Apr 6, 2014)

stona said:


> I'd like to see a source for that 1943 OKL order. I know from many first hand accounts that several units were still adopting the head on tactic after this date. I'm not saying hat such an order didn't exist, I'm just saying that some of the men whose lives depended on which tactics they adopted ignored it.
> 
> A 'sturmstaffel' did usually attack from the rear.
> 
> ...



+1 - there are other post-August 43 actions described in the book that mention frontal attacks being carried out; eg: 23rd March 1944


> At 11:00 hrs, contact was amde with the 296 B-17s of the 1st Bombardment Division....The German formation [II. IV./JG 3 and Sturmstaffel 1] overflew the bomber _Pulk_ from the left, wheeled ahead and at 11:20, from north of Hamm, launched a mass frontal attack. Within the space of 10 minutes_ Sturmstaffel 1_ accounted for six B-17s shot down or forced out of formation.



So even Sturmstaffel 1, which was supposed to attack from the rear, attacked from the front well after the OKL order was issued.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 6, 2014)

I believe it is a book called 'Bomber' which has a graphic which shows as a percentage the direction of attacks on B-17s and B-24s.

Iirc there wasn't much difference between head on and rear attacks.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 6, 2014)

Steinhoff referred to the "swooping" attacks with Me262s as "rollercoaster attacks".


----------



## stona (Apr 7, 2014)

From memory the #3 engine on a B-17 was a primary target as this drove the hydraulic pump. I've read several accounts in which Luftwaffe pilots mention this.

There is a good picture of a captured B-17 ( probably Wulf Hound) in which the vulnerable areas have been marked out in white paint or tape as part of a Luftwaffe instructional course. They are pretty much as Stigler described above.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Garyt (Apr 7, 2014)

> I recall reading about a couple 262 pilots that conducted "swooping" passes through a box formation, starting their run above and behind, diving through and giving short bursts as they went. Once through the formation, they passed ahead and climbed above the formation coming about for another pass, then diving through just as they had before, just in the opposite direction.




Interesting with the ME262. I could see why a different attack method was sued. above and behind gives them a longer time with guns on the target - and the 30mm cannon needed 4-5 hits I think on average from behind? Which means without having to get 20 hits or so, a pass from above could be far more successful.


----------



## bobbysocks (Apr 7, 2014)

i had also read somewhere of the lw emplying a yo yo attack where they would attack from underneath and really only be partly exposed to the lower ball turret and porpoise up and down......but i have yet to read of an actual pilot who used this tactic.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 7, 2014)

Garyt said:


> Interesting with the ME262. I could see why a different attack method was sued. above and behind gives them a longer time with guns on the target - and the 30mm cannon needed 4-5 hits I think on average from behind? Which means without having to get 20 hits or so, a pass from above could be far more successful.


The "20 hit" theory applied mostly to the 20mm, the 30mm Mk108 could bring a B-17 down with three hits on average. The 30mm "Minengeschoss" round was 11 ounces of high-explosive and was devastating to anything it struck.


----------



## Garyt (Apr 7, 2014)

> The "20 hit" theory applied mostly to the 20mm, the 30mm Mk108 could bring a B-17 down with three hits on average.



4-5 I've heard, but that was indeed my point. The more powerful 30mm round would have a major effect on tactics - because with far less hits being needed to down a plane, an approach from above and rear would keep the guns on the target longer, resulting in greater chances of hits.


----------



## kettbo (Apr 7, 2014)

I was at the Flying Heritage Collection in Everett, WA, USA yesterday

.50 cal vs 30mm Mk 108


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 7, 2014)

A single Minengeschoss round could take the wing off a P-51, it didn't take many to cripple a bomber, especially when the Me262 was diving down on a B-17 and targeting the wing area. 

There were quite a variety of the 3cm rounds used, all of them nasty.

In case anyone wants a little more info on the Mk108/103 ammo used, here's a great thread full of references:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/weapons-systems-tech/30mm-mine-shell-12821.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 7, 2014)

kettbo said:


> I was at the Flying Heritage Collection in Everett, WA, USA yesterday
> 
> .50 cal vs 30mm Mk 108
> 
> ...



Saw a similar comparison between RAf spit and hurricane bullets and the Bf109 cannon round, different leagues.


----------



## Garyt (Apr 7, 2014)

Add to this that the 30mm round used often in the Mk108 had far more explosive filler than other 30mm rounds, and the .50 cal US round had at best a bit of incindiary filler.


----------



## beitou (Apr 7, 2014)

How did they manage to hit anything with that short barrel?


----------



## pbehn (Apr 7, 2014)

beitou said:


> How did they manage to hit anything with that short barrel?



When the wing hits the fuselage of the bomber you are in range.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Garyt (Apr 7, 2014)

Velocity was indeed low, 890 m/s vs 540 m/s for the 108, but it's ROF was comparable to the .50 cal.



> How did they manage to hit anything with that short barrel?



Well, 4 guns in an ME262 with a ROF similar to a .50 Cal, and probably 15-20 times the destructive power. A lot of shells in the air and it only takes a few to take down a B-17, that's how they did it.

The German also had a 55mm auto cannon for use in fighters in an anti-bomber role. Muzzle velocity about like the 108, about half the ROF, but I'd think one direct hit would frequently be able to take down a 4 engine bomber.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 7, 2014)

The low MV of the 30mm cannon made it less than ideal against a fast moving target or for a pilot inexperienced in gunery, excacaerbated by it relatively low rate of fire and limited ammunition supply. Possibly why the 20mm cannon remained the preferred aircraft gun after the war. A good combination of explosive power, rof, mv and flat trajectory made it the best all round weapon in the sky. Against bombers, the Mk 108 was very good, provided you could master deflection shooting. . In a head on or stern chase situations, you didnt need to worry as much about that, though fall of shot I would think might still be a bit of an issue.

TECHNICAL NOTES: 
Weight: 135 lbs. 
Muzzle velocity: 1,600 ft./sec. 
Gun length overall: 45 in. 
Barrel length: 23 in. 
Maximum rate of fire: 450 rounds/min.

the light weoght version of the 50 cal weighed in at 61 lbs, had an MV of around 2800 fps, and a cyclic rof of 850 rpm. Effective range was also better. without a doubt, though, the 30mm cannon was a very lethal weapon, but as a gp weapon, i think i would prefer the 50 cal to be honest. The post war 30mm cannons did however completely obsolete the 50 cal as an aircraft weapon. The DEFA 30mm, designed at the Royal Small Arms Factory in 1946, had an effective rof or 1500 rpm, a muzzle velocity of 900 m/s and all the explosive capability of the MK108 without its drawbacks. Its only real drawback was its weight, which in the missile mad 50s was a bit of an issue.


----------



## Garyt (Apr 7, 2014)

I'd take the 30mm against a 4 engine bomber (multi 30's, not just one) but I would take the 20mm against fighters or other more nimble craft.


I've also seen more favorable specs on the MK 108. This is what I have seen in a multilple of places:

TECHNICAL NOTES: 
Weight: 127.9 lbs. 
Muzzle velocity: 1,640-1770 ft./sec. 
Gun length overall: 3' 5.6" 
Maximum rate of fire: 660 rounds/min.

Rheinmetall-Borsig MK 108 30mm cannon Luft '46 entry

Similar other than a slightly higher muzzle velocity and a fair amount higher rounds per minute. I've also most frequently seen the .50 cal with a 750-850 rate of fire, the source you have seems to only indicate the top end rate of fire.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 7, 2014)

Rate of fire on the Mk 108 is all over the place. Sources vary from 500rpm to 850rpm with a number saying the rate of fire increased in the later ones without saying _when_ the increase or increases occurred. 

I would note however that the 20mm Hispano _started_ at under 600rpm, went to 600rpm in most early service versions, went to 750rpm in the short barreled MK V and was giving 1000rpm in some experimental version/s during WW II. 

What is important is what rate of fire the guns in _service_ were using and when.


----------



## Garyt (Apr 7, 2014)

My only point shortround6 is that I felt the Mk108 was being picked on, by having it's least favorable numbers compared to the ma deuce's most favorable numbers


----------



## Juha (Apr 7, 2014)

Garyt said:


> ...The German also had a 55mm auto cannon for use in fighters in an anti-bomber role. Muzzle velocity about like the 108, about half the ROF, but I'd think one direct hit would frequently be able to take down a 4 engine bomber.



Only some 10 proto 55mm MK 112s were made and to my understanding none were ever installed on a plane.

Juha


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 7, 2014)

The Me262A1/U4 fitted with the BK5 50mm cannon was not very effective and actually worked against the pilot by the blinding muzzle-flash when it fired. None of the two BK5 equipped Me262 "narwahls" ever saw combat.

This same cannon was used on the Me410A1/U4 and Ju88P-4 and saw combat. 

Only 300 BK5 cannon were produced, it had a slow rate of fire and the drum magazine only held 21 rounds.


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 9, 2014)

Gents,

Perhaps another way of looking at it would be to increase accuracy. We are looking at this problem (fighters ability to shoot down a bomber) but only from the point of view of weapon type. In my opine the .50 cal would have been more than fine if the accuracy could have been improved a bit (would have helped with any target not just those that carried free fall, gravity propelled devices).

Current US fighters all have 20mm cannons except of course for the A-10.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Garyt (Apr 9, 2014)

> Current US fighters all have 20mm cannons except of course for the A-10.



I would think accuracy is not as much of a benefit of the 20mm Vulcan as is rate of fire - 6000 rpm. That's the equivalent of 10 or more (more likely more) WW2 era 20mm cannons.

It probably benefits a bit as it's one weapon, so no harmonization to worry about, and nose mounted as opposed to wing mounted.


----------



## eWildcat (Apr 9, 2014)

Garyt said:


> It probably benefits a bit as it's one weapon, so no harmonization to worry about, and nose mounted as opposed to wing mounted.



"Shoulder"-mounted would be kinda more accurate, I guess.  Only the F/A-18 has a nose-mounted Vulcan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 9, 2014)

Modern aircraft sometimes have the fire control linked through or to the flight controls (fly by wire?) to apply rudder or other flight control deflection for correction of flight path due to recoil of off center gun. Even the F-86Sabre used radar for range input into the gun sight rather than rely on visual estimation or trying to place wing span inside a ring. Modern gun sights and fire control are a LOT more accurate than even the best WW II gun sights.


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 9, 2014)

The curious thing about the F-15A/C gunsight, in non-radar lock mode, works very similar to a WW2 Mk 14 (with additional items..).

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Garyt (Apr 9, 2014)

> Modern gun sights and fire control are a LOT more accurate than even the best WW II gun sights.



More accuracy and about 10x the rate of fire. Not a bad combination!


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 9, 2014)

BiffF15 said:


> Gents,
> 
> Perhaps another way of looking at it would be to increase accuracy. We are looking at this problem (fighters ability to shoot down a bomber) but only from the point of view of weapon type. In my opine the .50 cal would have been more than fine if the accuracy could have been improved a bit (would have helped with any target not just those that carried free fall, gravity propelled devices).



For WW2 technology levels, the main accuracy problem lies with the pilot and sighting rather than the weapon itself.

When the RAF introduced the gyro gunsight, it was estimated to double a pilot's chance to hit in deflection shots. There's a graph somewhere with the exact figures from RAF trials, - showing % hits and range with standard reflector vs GGS - but I can't locate it at the moment.

If you want to shoot down heavy bombers, a 20 mm is a better choice than a 12.7, and a 30 mm is a better choice than a 20 mm. 

Put it this way: The 4 x 20 mm set up in the Typhoon and Tempest offered roughly twice the firepower (on target effect through kinetic energy, incendiary and HE effect) of the 6 x .50 cal set up in US fighters, for slightly less weight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## eWildcat (Apr 10, 2014)

Garyt said:


> More accuracy and about 10x the rate of fire. Not a bad combination!



The modern cannon fires pretty fast, but WW2 aircraft usually had four of the slower ones instead of one in modern jets, so the total rate of fire of modern jets is rather about "only" twice the rate achieved by WW2 cannon-armed fighters.


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 10, 2014)

Jabberwocky,

That was my point exactly (you said it more elagantly than I)! Increased accuracy reduces both rounds required and time spent totally focused on one target.

In todays air to air environment it's difficult to gun an aware bandit. The next step in the evolution was the air to air missile. Initially it's usefulness might be compared to a WW1 fighter whose un-synchronized guns fired through the prop (I could add some serious explicatives here). They have grown from very short ranged visual only weapons to ones that can be launched at tremendous ranges, can self guide, do bat turns, and carry a nasty warhead designed to turn serious machines into smoking holes...

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 10, 2014)

BiffF15 said:


> In todays air to air environment it's difficult to gun an aware bandit.



This is true for almost any target capable of maneouvering, in any period.

WW2, with its fleets of bombers flying in formation, provides an exception to most of the length history of air combat, although it makes up for it in sheer numbers of combats.

Even in WW2, heavy bombers could and did evade fighters with hard maneouvering (UK heavies at night, for example).


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 11, 2014)

mig-31bm said:


> head on attack doesn't always work , here there a b-17 facing 17 Zero and still win
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Im086TCu3I_




Wow - great video!
So much to say about that.
Of course, the bravery.
Did the Germans roll over while attacking?
I also appreciate the customized machine gun installations.
Also gotta wonder if Mosquito's or something else would have been a better choice for PR, but obviously you've gotta use what you've got.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Apr 11, 2014)

BiffF15 said:


> I'm really surprised the Germans didn't come up with a simple way of judging ranges for face shots. I would have used to inverted staples, |___| for on trigger, and |______| for off trigger. When the wingspan fills the first start shooting, and when it fills the second stop and pull / roll away. Final product would have looked like this |__|___|__| (middle two uprights for on trigger, outer two for off trigger).



But are cockpit shots always made "exactly" head on, with the plane squared up, or perhaps from slight angles?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 11, 2014)

Problem is human reaction time which is usually somewhere between 0.15 to 0.30 seconds. Even assuming fighter pilots (instead of general population) are more in the 0.15-0.22 second range you are closing at over 500mph, perhaps close to 600mph or roughly 750-900 feet per second and at seconds reaction 0.15-0.22 time that is 112-156 ft at 750fps and 135-198 feet at 900fps. 

Perhaps you can build in a little fudge factor for the pull/roll away part so you don't have too many collisions.


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 11, 2014)

gjs238 said:


> But are cockpit shots always made "exactly" head on, with the plane squared up, or perhaps from slight angles?



GJS238,

We don't practice head on shots today except in the sim. As a matter of fact the training rules are no gun shots within 45 degrees of the targets nose (training rules not combat rules). 

In WW2 they on occasion did "face shots" but not too often due to increased collision potential. The Germans learned that bombers had a nose armament shortfall and started head on attacks. The result was the B17G and B24J with increased firepower in the nose via the addition of turrets. 

As for head on attacks you actually want to just off nose to nose (makes the target bigger AND leaves you an escape vector option)!

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## BiffF15 (Apr 11, 2014)

Garyt said:


> More accuracy and about 10x the rate of fire. Not a bad combination!



Garyt,

The M61A1 General Electric Gatling gun is an awesome weapon. Hydraulically powered, electrically operated, smelly and loud! 

When you merge nose to nose with a kid in a much newer plane, who scoffed you to his buds as he walked to his jet, and finish the fight with your foot on his neck and gun nuzzling his ear, pinned to the ground with no escape, having passed up missile kills just to drive your point home... The look on his face when you walk into the debrief... Priceless. And that's when his learning begins because you NOW have his undivided attention. It's almost primordial...

Cheers,
Biff

PS: There is no kill like a guns kill.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## OldSkeptic (Apr 20, 2014)

BiffF15 said:


> GJS238,
> 
> We don't practice head on shots today except in the sim. As a matter of fact the training rules are no gun shots within 45 degrees of the targets nose (training rules not combat rules).
> 
> ...



Keith Park in the BoB pushed head on attacks. They were very effective in breaking up self supporting bombers groups.
While they did require skill they were usually safer for the fighter pilots (less guns in the front of the bombers and less chance of the fighters being hit as they pass through/dive below due to the speed).

Took skill and guts though, psychologically most BoB fighter pilots, especially the less skilled ones, would actually go for the riskier (for them) options because they 'felt' safer, even though they weren't.


----------



## stona (Apr 20, 2014)

Park used the squadron as his primary tactical unit. This afforded him flexibility and time but the downside is obvious, a lack of strength in numbers. His objective was to harry the bomber formations, hopefully causing them to break up and either bomb inaccurately or not at all.
Some squadron commanders found that a head on attack had the desired effect, unnerving the bomber crews and causing the formation to break up, even if a shot was not fired. I've never read that Park personally advocated this form of attack (which doesn't mean that he didn't) but it certainly had the effect which he wanted and I suspect he would have approved of it.
Cheers
Steve


----------

