Pilots aiming at cockpits?

[GregP]

I'd think logically that if you were basically line-astern, you could exercise considerable spot aiming because the target isn't moving much in your sight. Unfortunately, you aren't either with respect to the tail gunner. Therein lies an issue ... for YOU.

In a high-angle deflection shot, I'm thinking the shooter is trying more to hit the airplane than to place his rounds. Of course, as you gain experience, that may change a bit. But high-angle shooting is an inexact skill requiring practice and a good eye.

So, I guessing that the ability to choose a spot to hit depends mainly upon your angle of approach.

The above assumes guns, not missiles.

But, hey, let's let a fighter pilot tell us what HE thinks.

Hey BiffF15, chime in here with the REAL skinny on it. My guesses are just that, guesses. Assume you are closing on a target and you still have fuel and ammunition to engage. Your comments would be?

 

[PAT303]

I have read that German pilots were trained to shoot the tail gunner on heavy bombers to render them unprotected from the rear. A number of countries identified the most vulnerable locations on enemy aircraft and encouraged their pilots to target them. How much of that theory was ever exercised in battle?

Watch the famous gun camera video of the 109 pumping rounds into the B17, the pilot is shooting as soon as any part of the target enters his sight, even when he tried to aim for the port engines most of his rounds missed the plane completely and that was from dead astern from 100 meters down to 10m.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmVDExnysHY

 

[PAT303]

Hey BiffF15, chime in here with the REAL skinny on it. My guesses are just that, guesses. Assume you are closing on a target and you still have fuel and ammunition to engage. Your comments would be?

After years of training, simulations, endless hours of study, the overall commitment needed to reach that level, my guess he'd get lock and fire one missile then another to make sure he just so he doesn't miss out on his one chance to put everything he has worked so hard for into reality.

 

[GregP]

After years of training, simulations, endless hours of study, the overall commitment needed to reach that level, my guess he'd get lock and fire one missile then another to make sure he just so he doesn't miss out on his one chance to put everything he has worked so hard for into reality.

I asked about guns only but, in real life, missiles would very likely be the preferred weapon.

 

[PAT303]

I asked about guns only but, in real life, missiles would very likely be the preferred weapon.

In that case he'd do what everyone would do, let rip, waste of ammo, bite me.

 

[BiffF15]

I'd think logically that if you were basically line-astern, you could exercise considerable spot aiming because the target isn't moving much in your sight. Unfortunately, you aren't either with respect to the tail gunner. Therein lies an issue ... for YOU.

In a high-angle deflection shot, I'm thinking the shooter is trying more to hit the airplane than to place his rounds. Of course, as you gain experience, that may change a bit. But high-angle shooting is an inexact skill requiring practice and a good eye.

So, I guessing that the ability to choose a spot to hit depends mainly upon your angle of approach.

The above assume guns, not missiles.

But, hey, let's let a fighter pilot tell us what HE thinks.

Hey BiffF15, chime in here with the REAL skinny on it. My guesses are just that, guesses. Assume you are closing on a target and you still have fuel and ammunition to engage. Your comments would be?

The text book answer is it depends.

To me the hardest thing to shoot is a plane from dead astern when it's not maneuvering. That sounds counter intuitive so let me explain. A guy who is maneuvering shows you the top of his plane, or his planform. The planform is a bigger silhouette when maneuvering than a dead astern non-maneuvering target. Even though he is maneuvering I felt it was much easier to get hits on a guy.

The non-maneuvering targets were of two types, heavies or fighters. If it's a fighter, due to his small size, I still wanted to get him from some angle off his tail so he would present as a larger target or be easier to hit. Heavies with tail guns were tricky. If he was not maneuvering and you were shooting at him from dead astern it meant you weren't maneuvering / generating line of sight (you were still as he looked out his windscreen). This means you are just as easy to shoot at as he is.

Also realize in WW2 / combat there is no minimum range you can't go inside. In training we start with a 1000' foot bubble, and eventually drop that to 500'. In WW2 they were often shooting from just a few hundred feet so the target would be much bigger in the windscreen than what I would typically see.

I've attacked MC-130s, B-52s, B-1s, and P-3s. The jamming suites on the first three were impressive. Even more so was the amount of chaff a Buff could put out. Enough that I feared he would FOD out both my engines. We had gun attack profiles that would keep us out of his six o'clock gun cone.

F-16 guys would brief you not to flare if they got into a gun envelope on you (so as not to hurt their single motor). However they would flare in our face when attempting to gun them. I've had flares bounce off the top of my intakes / ramps. Whatever, it didn't cause a flinch.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[tyrodtom]

Watch the famous gun camera video of the 109 pumping rounds into the B17, the pilot is shooting as soon as any part of the target enters his sight, even when he tried to aim for the port engines most of his rounds missed the plane completely and that was from dead astern from 100 meters down to 10m.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmVDExnysHY

Those gun camera films are replayed in slow motion, aren't they ?
Filmed by a high speed camera, and replayed at a slower rate, so you can better see all the movements and strikes, then sound effects added at some point.

If it was replayed at the actual speed it happened, it would be so brief, you wouldn't be able to make out any detail.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Watch the famous gun camera video of the 109 pumping rounds into the B17, the pilot is shooting as soon as any part of the target enters his sight, even when he tried to aim for the port engines most of his rounds missed the plane completely and that was from dead astern from 100 meters down to 10m.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmVDExnysHY

To the point I made above, the very first sequence shows a B-24 being lit up, in the cockpit, from a frontal pass. I don't fault the LW pilot for doing that. It's sound tactics.

ETA: And yes, the sound effects are corny. The footage itself is hard.

 

[PAT303]

To the point I made above, the very first sequence shows a B-24 being lit up, in the cockpit, from a frontal pass. I don't fault the LW pilot for doing that. It's sound tactics.

ETA: And yes, the sound effects are corny. The footage itself is hard.

The pilots doing the head on passes are in the top percent, we also only see the effective ones, not the failures.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The pilots doing the head on passes are in the top percent, we also only see the effective ones, not the failures.

If you read 8th AF accounts, most of the first wave attackers came in from the front so long as their routing allowed it. It was the LW preferred attack angle on American heavies because they had their weakest armament up front.

The Germans didn't choose "top percent" pilots for this, as a couple of schwarms went in together. They went line abreast from twelve o'clock, passed through, dove away, and then came back around for 6 o'clock attacks if able. You can actually see this in the footage you posted -- most of the 6 o'clock attacks are from below, after recovering from the initial attack.

This was a standard tactic when the situation allowed it. They were instructed to aim for the cockpit as that would damage the ability to fly the plane. Get through the formation, and set up a second attack where possible.

If you read accounts from B-17/B-24 crew, you'll see this crops up over and over.

 

[PAT303]

I'm no pilot but I can't help but believe it would take a very high level of skill to hit a bomber in the cockpit with a 500mph closing speed.

 

[Shortround6]

I'm no pilot but I can't help but believe it would take a very high level of skill to hit a bomber in the cockpit with a 500mph closing speed.

It may not require as much skill as we think.

Granted it is a B-24 but from from the front slightly above the cockpit is pretty much in the center of the airplane. Shots that go high are going to hit the turret, the bomb bay and out to the rear of the fuselage (control runs?), shots a little low are going to hit the nose (bombardier/navigator). Seated pilots are about as tall as the wing.
Cockpit is wider than a single engine and from this angle the Fuselage is 3 to 4 times the size of an engine.
Expertin can try for the engines. Rookies can shoot for "center mass" and from this angle "center mass" is pretty much the cockpit.

Telling them to aim for cockpit may be a way of getting them to get closer before they shoot. Most pilots opened fire from too far away. Telling them to shoot for "center mass" or the airplane as whole is going to result in a lot fire at long distances. Telling them to aim at the cockpit means most of them are at least going to get close enough to see the cockpit.
Actual aim may be another story ,)

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm no pilot but I can't help but believe it would take a very high level of skill to hit a bomber in the cockpit with a 500mph closing speed.

I imagine it would take much skill to put any unguided munitions aboard any hostile airplane from any angle.

That doesn't undercut what I wrote above. You should read up on it.

 

[GregP]

In that case he'd do what everyone would do, let rip, waste of ammo, bite me.

What does THAT mean?

I asked about guns only because in WWII, there were no sidewinders under P-51 wings and the missiles (rockets) they had were not infrared homing units.

 

[Holtzauge]

An armchair pilot's question seeing that B-24 picture Shortround6 posted: If it's a 4-engine you are attacking from the front (e.g. with a Fw-190), doesn't it make sense to go for the cockpit? I mean, all you get is one fleeting opportunity and to be sure to take it out by disabling the engines you need to hit at least 3. And those are placed so far apart so you simply cannot do it in one pass. But seeing the size of the engines compared to the cockpit window: There are only two pilots in there and all it takes are a few well 20 mm and you're done.

Maybe this sounds a bit callous and "unsporting" given that forum talk often revolves around "this aircraft versus that aircraft" but anyone with infantry training knows you're not taught to aim for the engines then are you?

 

[BiffF15]

Or does an infantry soldier aim at his opponents rifle?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Or does an infantry soldier aim at his opponents rifle?

Center mass, center mass…

 

[pbehn]

Or does an infantry soldier aim at his opponents rifle?

I know in the era of "Westerns" they always aimed for and hit the shoulder, which with the remarkable medicine of the time always healed perfectly, so much so that it never affected their ability to fire a rifle again.

 

[GregP]

Yeah, in the westerns, a gunshot as supposed to be shrugged off and you go on with your day.

Doesn't really work that way unless you were shot with a weak-spring Daisy BB gun.

 

[pbehn]

Yeah, in the westerns, a gunshot as supposed to be shrugged off and you go on with your day.

Doesn't really work that way unless you were shot with a weak-spring Daisy BB gun.

A damp cloth on the forehead cures all shoulder injuries, I saw it myself, many times.