Centerline weapons vs wing mounted weapons.

[GregP]

Hi Steve, I intended to say the pilots should have been better from about the last quarter of 1944 onward. So that would be from October 1944 through May of 1945 and that is about the last seven+ months of the war in Europe. I'd guess if they weren't better by then, they wouldn't be getting any better regardless of experience. In any case, after summer of 1944, the US pilots SHOULD have been better than during their first year and half of war.

 

[stona]

Hi Steve, I intended to say the pilots should have been better from about the last quarter of 1944 onward. So that would be from October 1944 through May of 1945 and that is about the last seven+ months of the war in Europe. I'd guess if they weren't better by then, they wouldn't be getting any better regardless of experience. In any case, after summer of 1944, the US pilots SHOULD have been better than during their first year and half of war.

Well yes,you'd hope so

Don't forget that,unlike the Luftwaffe anglo-american pilots served limited tours and tended to rotate out to fly a desk or train their successors.

I think that the good,agressive and competent combat pilots just got better and more lethal whilst the vast majority bumbled through hoping to survive. It is remarkable that so many aerial victories were achieved by a relatively small percentage of the men flying.

I remember a BBC documentary,shot in the early 1970s,which traced some of the BoB pilots. Some had become household names (Lacey,Bader etc). One old squadron leader made no secret of the fact that he knew that he commanded several men who never shot anything down and whilst not accusing them outright of cowardice made it clear that he knew that they would not take any risks. One old fellow admitted as much. This is not an implied criticism,by me. I don't have the right to judge,unlike that squadron leader. We are not all cut out to be heroes though me may also serve.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Kryten]

Thanks Steve, Since this was mostly pre late-1944, the problem was most likely green pilots. I'd bet this situation rapdily changed as they got seasoned ... at least one would HOPE so.

I have seen enough gun camera film to know that estimating range with the film was not an easy task, by any means. You could be right and, if so, then the "real" range was ± quite a bit and this was a case of "armchair quarterbacking" by the intelligence guys as feedback to the pilots. I don't know about any of you but while I was learning to fly, the right altitude for flaring for a landing was something you learned only by doing it. Once you learn, it sort of gets to be second nature and you don't even think about it when you land.

I'd venture to say learning to shoot at an enemy plane would be much the same. I've only done it with lasers in a Beech T-34 but, I learned quickly. It would seem to be the same with bullets ... except for learning the bullet drop and speed difference ... which it seems would be easily learned from shooting at towed targets with the occasional tracer for feedback. I'd bet the same study done in the first quarter of 1945 would have given significantly better results with mostly the newer, green pilots shooting at longer ranges.

But I also don't have the 1945 study to prove that ... just conjecture, which is worth what you paid for it. Thanks for the neat stuff Steve!

Laser travels at the speed of light in a straight line, cannon shells and bullets are a very very different proposition, If your flying straight and level behind your target you need to be able to estimate the range, adjust your solution and fire, , the arc of the round dropping onto the target in the ideal world!
In reality there are huge differences to take into account, if your pulling even the slightest g you not only have to estimeate range but lead as well, if you and your target are pulling g you have to estimate, range, relative speeds, lead (deflection) and any slip or rudder coordination to keep your sights where you want them!
now consider firing at a target that is turning rapidly and you may well be estimating the whole solution and the targets position as it is under your nose and out of sight!

I shoot regularly, I have shot heavy weapons on moving vehicles during my military service and I have used lasers in excercise, the laser makes things laughably easy compared to firing real ammo!

some top pilots no doubt had the instinctive skill to shoot accuratley, most it would seem however did not!

 

[GregP]

All those things you said are true and I shoot fairly regularly, when I get the chance to do so, too. I think learning to shoot at towed targets will teach the lead and coordination required when shooting at airborne targets ... and then the pilot has to learn to hit manuevering targets once he can hit towed targets. Maybe I think that because I know several former fighters pilots who all said the same thing, and that's the way they did it. First shot rifles, then skeet, then towed targets and then mock dogfights with cameras rolling. Finally combat, if it happened during their service careers. If not, they still practiced shooting at towed and stationary targets on the ground.

Seems like the guys who had the most fun were the A-10 drivers since they were encouraged to stay down in teh weeds and fly near the limits. They got in a lot more hours than the F-15 / F-16 drivers, and were very happy to dogfight with anyone who would come down and play.

 

[bobbysocks]

I have seen enough gun camera film to know that estimating range with the film was not an easy task, by any means.

a question to guys who used to process the combat film and took care of the gun cameras was...did the image in the film represent what the pilot saw or was it magnified for gathering information? did the pilot see the plane exactly that big when he fired or was it much smaller in actuality? i never did get an answer. the magnification of the lenses and the speed of the film may show the plane closer and slower than it really was....

 

[GregP]

Good question! I think you may find some magnification and slowed film rate so the people can see what is going on. Some of the ones I have seen are definitely slowed down, but I merely suspect the magnification.

 

[CobberKane]

Regarding the use of lasers to simulate gunfire in instructing pilots in aerial gunnery, the issue would not be that that lasers travel in straight lines while bullets don't, but one of speed. At the ranges typical of WWII combat bullet drop would be measured in inches, not enough to make much difference. On the other hand, in the second or two that it took for the bullets to reach the target aircraft, that aircraft could be tens of meters away. As we all know, only the select few ever really got good at compensating.
Lasers are effectively instantaneous. You could aim one directly at an aircraft crossing g your nose ten miles away and you would hit it with no deflection at all. I can see how a fixed laser would be useful in teaching pilots how to manoeuvre into a low deflection firing position, though.
Which makes me wonder: if lasers are used to simulate gunfire in modern fighter training, how do they take deflection into account? I guess modern sighting systems would incorporate radar, so the on board computer would know the distance to the target pilot was aiming at and adjust the laser to be where the projectiles would be at that particular range. Or are modern sighting systems so good that the exercise is unnecessary and it can be taken for granted that if
the pip on is on the target, it's gone?

 

[J.A.W.]

Pilots used do a fair bit of flying target shot-gunning too, as sport/killing practice, dynamic coordination/target spotting/deflection-shot training to bag something juicy to add to the rations..

 

[GregP]

I have no trouble shooting a lot of planes down in WWII simulators and no trouble in skeet / trap, either, so it's not like it would be all that different except for the bullet speed, as I said, which is rather easily learned by shootign at towed targets until you have that down. After that, it is a matter of practice and acquiring the skills to do it in aircraft versus aircraft combat.

I know people who simply cannot shoot skeet and then there are those that find it rather easy and fun. The same is probably true for pilots. Some great pilots simply can't shoot, but they have a good feel for the aircraft.

The great Aces were almost all from either rural backgrounds or aristocrary where they hunted and developed a shooting eye early in life. So it would not be surprising to learn that a good skeet / trap shooter could adapt rather easily to WWII-style fighters and sighting systems.

But ... just my opinion.