GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
And here's the piloted version, a V1 with a view...
lol Colin...
I have to admit, the Japanese version was better looking than the German's piloted V1 (Fi103R)!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
And here's the piloted version, a V1 with a view...
USN claimed rounds per kill for heavy flak late in the war were more like 60-240, (daylight short range-night long range) not 500 or 1500, and the number one reason was widespread use of proximity fuzes from early 1943, those low late war numbers assumed proximity fuzes. The tactical situation of shipboard AA was more favorable in that the plane had to come to the gun, but OTOH those late war targets were typically relatively small and fast a/c moving in three dimensions, not large bombers flying at constant altitude.Could it be argued
that the USN's lower rounds per kill ratio was facilitated by the fact that their artillery was configured and concentrated for point defence ie a ship? .
Almost all the claims by the 3" batteries on Corregidor and the other 'fortified islands' in Manila Bay were against high flying twin engine bombers, mainly Navy Type 96 ('Nell') and Type 1 (Betty), Army Type 97's (Sally) with a few missions by Type 99 Twin Engine Light Bombers (Lily). Machine guns claimed some Army Type 97 Light Bombers (Ann). In fact the larger twins often flew so high that the older powder train fuzed 3" ammo couldn't reach (27k ft max), so newer mechanical fuze ammo was sent in by submarine; this is somewhat at odds with the estimate of very low rounds per kill.Joe, what was the real expenditure per kill in Philliphines? What was the target composition (twins, single engine, hidro...)?