Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround, your next to last paragraph is what I have been trying to say all along(apparently not very clearly.) Someone earlier said that LW fighter pilots mentioned that they were leary of damage from bomber defensive guns at 1200 meters. Other posters said that the 50 BMG probably was not effective at that range. Depending on the definition of effective, that may or may not be true.
Well, it seems we finally have reached an understanding of a common element. I believe that most of the defensive fire from a bomber formation was area fire which probably meant that the gunners were taught to take certain sectors and put rounds into them if fighters were thought to be there. However, if the run made by a fighter was either a head on or dead astern run the firing solution got a lot more simple. Butch O Hare made numerous firing runs on the Betty bombers he shot down and damaged and got hit with one 7.7 round BUT his runs were all high deflection runs and the gunner's solutions were difficult. One of the pilots in his section made a low deflection run from astern and the Betty 20 MM tail gunner potted him. Saburo, when he lost his eye, made a low deflection run from astern on what he thought was an F4F and it turned out to be a TBF (I think) and the single 50 BMG gunner potted him.
I have always thought that the simplest shots on duck or dove were those going away or head on because not much lead is needed. My guess, because of the design of the FW190 and ME109 and because most of the LW pilots of those planes probably had only moderate gunnery training, that most of the gunnery runs which were effective aginst the Eighth Air Force were low deflection runs from either astern or head on and they were dangerous because the top turret gunner and tail gunner had pretty simple firing solutions, if they saw the attacker. The twin engined LW interceptors were a different matter.
Well I dont know about that I think the LW like the RAF found that head on attacks broke up the formation and therefore their group defence. I read the other day that to bring down a B17 in a head on attack needed just one half second burst on target. The LW also used high speed staffing passes which meant they were in and out before many guns were trained on them. For the LW the problem was the escorts, if ever they got an unescorted formation they caused heavy losses.
As it happenes I am watching menphis belle at the moment I recorded from earlier this evening and the pilot just told everyone to hold fire ;til jerry is in range lol.
Head on attacks did not break up any B-17/B-24 formations. It did present a very difficult and fast target with great firepower shooting into the 'office' where the pilots had nearly zero protection except for armored glass. 'Company front/line abreast flights of 6-8 Fw 190s were very effective - ditto from six o'clock but the closing speed was slow enough that bomber gunners had much better chance of hitting the fighters.
One half second of a perfectly aimed burst from 4x20mm into the cockpit would certainly take out the pilots but a half second well aimed burst between 300 yards to 100 yards is difficult to achieve at a closing speed of 500mph
The Spielburg version was a joke.. you need to watch the WWII documentary.
What is your source of RAF using head on attacks?
Bill, to backup your post this from Linnekin, "Eighty Knots to Mach Two" on gunnery, " The guns are Colt-Browning air cooled, recoil operated automatic weapons. They are boresighted to converge in a tight pattern at about one thousand feet. That range is selected in part to utilize the flat part of the bullet's trajectory and also to keep bullet dispersion small enough to produce an effective, repeatable pattern."
But no added protection, the FW190 had a lot of extra protection. Which might save the pilot. Planes can be rebuilt, with ease (relative). Pilots not.
Plus what fighter would be flying cover?
FW190's where at a disadvantage also against Allied fighters (+400kg armor etc etc)
Evan, while it is true that 4 x 30mm will ruin ur day or anyone elses, the concentrated firepower of the 190-A8/R2 was more destructive....
2 x 13mm, 2 x 20mm, 2 x 30mm would cause more damage in a quicker amount of time than 4 x 30mm....
Either way, bomber crews had a rough time of it up there....
But the Fw-190A8/R2 was definatly a better platform for knocking down bombers.... Id rather be surrounded by armor plating and be slower than fast and easy to shoot down....