But are cockpit shots always made "exactly" head on, with the plane squared up, or perhaps from slight angles?
Bomber vs fighter
- Thread starter mig-31bm
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
But are cockpit shots always made "exactly" head on, with the plane squared up, or perhaps from slight angles?
Shortround6
Major General
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.
Perhaps you can build in a little fudge factor for the pull/roll away part so you don't have too many collisions.
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
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.
Last edited:
OldSkeptic
Senior Airman
- 509
- May 17, 2010
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.
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
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
