Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Aviation' started by gjs238, Jul 21, 2010.
Is this the same as or similar to leading the target?
It is the same thing
Yup, and based on the fact that my only experience of what that woud be like comes from sitting behind the engine of a Cessna 152 and combat sims like IL-2 Sturmovik, it seems like it would be much harder than leading a duck with a shotgun.
no 'seems' about it
Neither you or the duck are flying at 300mph.
The duck will take the common-sense linear exit, not a curving, upwards turn away from you.
For your part, you're not checking over your shoulder every 5 seconds to make sure the duck's wingman (wingduck) isn't lining you up.
And you're not bouncing about, half inverted, in the other guy's propwash, whilst trying to juggle throttle and boost, and keep flying without stalling out, whilst at the same time trying to get a tiny reticule in the centre of a four inch square of glass onto the guy in front.....
Imagine trying to achieve hits before tracers became common, now that would take superhuman skills, or more likely a lot of luck!
Or, most likely, a non-manoeuvering target that has been successfully "bounced" whose pilot isn't even aware he's about to be shot down.
"... Or, most likely, a non-maneuvering target that has been successfully "bounced" whose pilot isn't even aware he's about to be shot down."
Oh, you mean the Red Baron method.
Hey, if it works....!
Actually, I think most kills were of this nature rather than the traditional view of a dogfight. I've no stats to back that statement, it's just a hunch I have based on the known issues of over-optimistic claiming by all sides during WWII and the difficulty of a shooter getting a telling burst onto a target when both aircraft are locked in tight 3D manoeouvring combat.
Most kills were either low deflection or no deflection shots where the defender never knew that the attacker was there until too late. If you can lay your hands on "The First Team" by Lundstrom, there is, in the appendix, a whole section devoted to deflection shooting. It is much more difficult than one imagines and full deflection shooting, ( where fire is opened at 90 degrees to the target line) was very difficult for many fighters because of visibility or the lack of, over the nose.
Full deflection shooting was highly desirable against bombers, partly because it gave the defensive guns very difficult target solutions.
There were a good number of aces that were well known for thier skills at deflection shooting.
Perhaps one of the greatest was Marselle, but then again, Sakai was well known for using it, too.
If I remember right, Albert Ball (WWI) was one of the first to use that technique with success.
Beurling (Canada), Malan (S Africa), Stanford-Tuck (UK) and Johnson (UK).
I get the impression that Polish and US gunnery was better than average across the board; a higher bar is a far better situation to be in than having one or two 'spikes' dotted around your airforce.
I thought Ball just crept up from astern and below his victim and hosed the cockpit from point-blank range. Or am I thinking of someone else?