PDA

View Full Version : B-17 Ball Turret .50's



XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 06:05 PM
Are they going to make the P-51, P-47 .50's as accurate and powerfull as the B-17 ball turret ones in the final patch??

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 06:05 PM
Are they going to make the P-51, P-47 .50's as accurate and powerfull as the B-17 ball turret ones in the final patch??

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 06:43 PM
Uhm, I think the guns in the B-17 are pretty equal to those in the P-51.



- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg


Visit us at members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 02:32 AM
Then how come when I fly a A-9 anywhere near a B-17? like under .8k I get shredded by just the top ball turret and go down almost instantly. Yet when I hit that same A-9 from behind at .3k and under with 6 or 8 .50's from a P-51 0r P-47 the A-9 just keeps on flying??

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 02:35 AM
different angles of attack, you shoot at its 6- strongest point and turret from above-weakest point.

---------------------------------------

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 03:07 AM
extra volicity /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


whineingu /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 05:50 AM
Turret .50 cals seem to have less spread too...but that may be perception. They definately are deadly...but usually only from massed formations and usually you get hit by them as you fly at the bomber rather than from behind as with fighters most of the time.

They seem pretty right to me....B17 formations are deadly...but fighters are deadly to them as well.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 06:56 AM
The dispersion of the .50 was reduced considerably in 1.2.

You may have noticed this when flying the P-47. Much more accurate now.

Like p1ngu666 said, when you approach a bomber, the .50 bullets have a few hundred extra km/h on them, so they hurt more than bullets fired from behind.

Also, shells fired at the front of your plane are more likely to hit the engine, pilot, and wing spars, and so are much more dangerous than shells hitting the back of you, which would strike fuselage armor plate..



Message Edited on 11/28/0306:01AM by FennecP

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 10:02 AM
A few simple calculations can shed some light:
assume V0 for a 0.50 bullet is 930m/s
assume your fighter's speed is 600km/h or 167m/s
assume the B17's speed is 300km/h or 83m/s
If you're approaching it in his 6, the deltaV is 84m/s
This translates in 18.8% more kinetic energy than when firing from a static stance at a static target.
Just my 2cts.

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 10:28 AM
B17 fall like flies from the sky if you use frontal attack against them.

Attack from 11-1 aclcock. keep speed high and blast them with FW guns, one pass one kill.

When you ran out of 30mm it is time to leavehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PS: I think the problem is that AI gunners are snipers

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 10:30 AM
Try flying against B-17 more and you all see there is a problem.
The Tailgunner shot off my FW wing from 650m, with 2 bullets. And those ridicilous sniper shots from 800m >pilotkilled .
feels like FB 1.0 again

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 11:02 AM
That is why I allways attck bombers from front.
All AI gunners are snipers, so better learn to attack from fronthttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Only bomber I attck from rear is IL2 and SU2http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-Masi-


Nikodemus-LH wrote:
- Try flying against B-17 more and you all see there
- is a problem.
- The Tailgunner shot off my FW wing from 650m, with 2
- bullets. And those ridicilous sniper shots from 800m
- >pilotkilled .
- feels like FB 1.0 again
-
-
-
-
-

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 01:31 PM
On the subject of accuracy of B-17 gunner accuracy.. I thought this is off interest (B-24 in for comparison).

Two examples, from US 8th Army ground tests on various gun positions on B-17's and B-24's. Dispersion based on 12 rounds fired at a range of 600 yards. Dispersion in actual (feet) and arc (Mils- 3600 mils in a 360 degree circle).

Boeing B-17:

Ball Turret: 15 ft/8.3 Mils
Sperry upper turret: 21 ft/11.7 Mils
Bendix chin turret: 23 ft/12.6 Mils
Waist K-6 mounts (closed windows): 26 ft/14.3 Mils
Side nose guns: 34 ft/18.7 Mils
Tail turret: 45 ft/25.0 Mils
Tail turret (early Stinger type): 61 ft/33.4 Mils

Consolidated B-24:

Ball turret: 15 ft/8.3 Mils
Martin upper turret: 20 ft/11.2 Mils
Emerson nose turret: 23 ft/12.9 Mils
Waist K-6 mounts (closed windows): 23 ft/12.9 Mils
Motor Products tail turret: 35 ft/19.3 Mils
Motor Products nose turret: 35 ft/19.3 Mils
Waist (open windows): 63 ft/35.6 Mils

This gives an indication as to the relative accuracy of the various gun positions, abeit under static test conditions.



"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 02:48 PM
For the 100th million times... THE AI GUNNERS ON B17 ARE ONLY OCCASIONALLY SCORING SNIPER HITS!

Their overall hit ratio is about 6-8 %, and while they soometimes really do amazing sniper shots, they also often refuse to shoot completely, or miss badly.
It seems to me that when you create a game, the ai gunner's strenght is picked & set randomly. In some games they are better than they are in others.
Sometimes they perform very well overall, and sometimes the wont shoot a plane flying by slowly at 0.10!

So please, quit your lamented "gunners are too accurate" whining, you wouldnt do it anyway if you had more experience flying bombers in online battles!

All I want is that gunners have ONE skill lvl always. Maybe veteran, so that we bomber jockeys have a fair chance against the smarter portion of you fighter jockeys.




- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg


Visit us at members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 03:06 PM
rear gunners are deadly, one bomber can down 4 good piloted 109:s easily, by gunner fire. most dangerous threat in dogfight is that bomber comes near the fighting planes.
overall hit ratio 6-8% is really high ratio dont u think.
if bombers really could be so effective against fighters why they even needed fighter escorts then?? 10 bombers in close formation could shred 50 enemy fighters easily.

Id say gunners need alot of work. decrease hit possibility to 1 % etc. and make gunnering for humans harder: if plane turns/rolls etc, it causes the reticle to move somewhere almost uncontrollable. more dispersion to weapons etc.
its almost every time engine dead/Pk when going near those, no matter what bomber it is, just a short visit at its firin area and with high possibility u got hits. Speed doesnt play major factor here at all when talkin abou hit possibility, speed only helps u get out from there quicker, nothing more.

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 03:17 PM
I agree and not only for 50 calibre. Stukas are deadly. FB is much better than CFS 2 but still rifle calibre guns on planes like JU 87 were very ineffective. B-17s are a different matter but all flexible guns are way too accurate.

Michael

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 04:25 PM
Just belive me when I say, attack from front and high, any bomper, periodhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-Masi-

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 04:40 PM
GMichaelP wrote:
- I agree and not only for 50 calibre. Stukas are
- deadly. FB is much better than CFS 2 but still
- rifle calibre guns on planes like JU 87 were very
- ineffective. B-17s are a different matter but all
- flexible guns are way too accurate.
-
- Michael

Not sure if I understand you...but you aren't mixing rifle calibre shots with .50 cals are you? The .50cals are much bigger and more powerful.

The .50 cals are perfect for fighters now...please leave them as is. They are a good mix of damage, spray, and target penetration. They aren't cannons and they aren't rifles which is right where they should be!

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 08:14 PM
Just to get this straight, some guys here truely want bombers to become nothing more than floating targets, right? A 1% hit ratio is total noobish! Hell, gunners that shoot that badly would've rarely made it aboard!

The current ratio of about 6-8% is what average - good fighter pilots score, and I consider that just fair, especially if you keep in mind that bombers are a lot easier to hit than most fighters are.
In other words: make the gunners even less useful than they sometimes already are, and people like me will never again have a chance to reach the target.

About your great point regarding fighter cover: about 60% of the time I fly my B-17 online, I'm ALONE.
No friendly fighters, no other bombers, just me & my gunners. And in many occasions, I'm suddenly the target of at least 1 or 2 fighters, worst was recently when I got hammered by 5 (FIVE!) fighters.
In their present state, my gunners are at least capable of giving the fighters a good fight (that is, if I dont get PKed, wing-ripped or heavily damaged on the first attack, or rammed).

In real life, B-17s flew in large packs and waves, covered by many fighters. I read an article about one attack that composed of about 130 B-17 and 63 P-51.
Of course, the opposition was also heavy, dozens and dozens of fighters and an incredible amount of AAA.
But most of all, it was REAL. No second chance if you die, no refly button, just death. Many aspects of warfare were psychological. Think about that while you imagine your little self in a 109 while you look on a wall of about 40 B-17s threatening to bomb your homeland while you ask yourself if you can survive an attack on them.

Now, as we can be lucky that even full real in FB is still way off reality, I suggest you keep in mind this is a game and all who play it want to have fun, a good time and maybe some kind of challenge, an obstacle to overcome.
My challenge is to get better flying a bomber, to improve my bomb aim, and to survive fighter attacks.
Your challenge can either be that you learn how to fly better and shoot better, or that you complain even more about things YOU think are unfair.

Thanks for reading, S!



- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg


Visit us at members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 08:30 PM
Future- wrote:
- {edit}

Well I know a WW2 gunner and in gunnery training, shooting from a powered turret against a drouge target, he scored 5% and the instructor said that was excellent shooting - as marked in his log book. That was under very controlled circumstances, not under the stress of combat.




http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 10:23 PM
Don't forget that the hit ratio is not for one gunner, but for all gunners aboard. I observed that the side gunners as good as always miss or just shoot to make some noise, while the gunners in the top turret and bottom ball turret relatively often hit their targets.
The forward and aft guns overall perform average, with less accuracy than upper and lower turrets, but far more than side gunners.

Hm, maybe this means that the FB gunners are just as good as they should be, considering the fact that a bomber pilot like me rarely has the protection a large formation with fighter cover had to offer, and thus I have to count on my gunners even more.

Anyone agreeing?



- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg


Visit us at members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 11:35 PM
Someone asked if I was confusing rifle calibre and the U.S. Browning 50. No! I have fired a Browning in familiarization courses and qualified on the M-60.

My point was that the "even" rifle calibre fixed guns on planes such as the Stuka are way too accurate and effective. For example, I can down 2 or 3 109s in a Hurricane Mk IIc (I think I have the Mark right) only to get taken out by perhaps the second Ju 87 I attack from the rear and low.

Certainly, guys were killed by rear gunners on JU 87s, Vals, Devastators, etc. but I would much rather be in a dogfight than attack a bomber.

I only fly offline and almost always against "average" AI. The guys who take on 4 ace level AI and win have my admiration. I can usually beat one "Ace" in a late model FW 190 if I am in a LA 7.

As someone else pointed out, the B-17s and B-24 losses were very heavy when the Germans caught the bombers unescorted. And they had 12 or 13 50's each. A bunch of unescorted Stukas was a gift.

Even a box of B-17s caught by heavy fighters (109s with gun pods, Fw 190s, ME 210s) should expect a loss ratio of 1 to 1 or worse.

Perhaps my favorite history of the 8th Air Force is "To Command the Sky" and McFarland and Newton report that in 1-week (if I am reading this correctly) in September of 1943, the U.S. lost 148 bombers and the Luftwaffe between 80 and 125 aircraft. The bombers made claims for about 700 fighters.

Of course the B-17s and 24s did much better against the Japanese because the Japanese planes had little armor and generally less firepower and were not as aggressive in attacking bomber formations.

My point is simply that the effectiveness of fixed guns should be reduced (I would argue for a factor of 3 to 5).

IMO, Michael

XyZspineZyX
11-29-2003, 12:40 AM
Let me get this straight, your flying a non-flyable, alone, with up to five fighters, and you expect a fighting chance.



Thanks for the laughter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 05:20 AM
India-Lima2 wrote:
Then how come when I fly a A-9 anywhere near a B-17? like under .8k I get shredded by just the top ball turret and go down almost instantly. Yet when I hit that same A-9 from behind at .3k and under with 6 or 8 .50's from a P-51 0r P-47 the A-9 just keeps on flying??

No offense but maybe you are just a bad shot...at that distance try zooming in to make sure you are hitting your mark...seriously and no dis intended. I was amazed at how poor my marksmanship was when I started zooming in to see just what I was hitting... a lot of my "deflection" shots were deflecting all around the target insted of in it.



<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

Message Edited on 12/02/0311:22PM by Bearcat99

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 11:21 AM
NegativeGee wrote:
- On the subject of accuracy of B-17 gunner accuracy..
- I thought this is off interest (B-24 in for
- comparison).
-
- Two examples, from US 8th Army ground tests on
- various gun positions on B-17's and B-24's.
- Dispersion based on 12 rounds fired at a range of
- 600 yards. Dispersion in actual (feet) and arc
- (Mils- 3600 mils in a 360 degree circle).

I am a bit unsure as to how these figures have
been calculated. If the arc of dispersion is
3600 mils, then 8.3 mils is 0.83 degrees, and the
diameter of dispersion is presumably 600*3*tan(0.83)
which would be 26 feet. I presume that some additional
information regarding the proportion of rounds landing
within a certain diameter is also being taken into account?

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 12:20 PM
the B-17 is a tuff bird. she will take a lot of damage. But..she will flame up like a match if you use the proper weaponry, and tactics....

you have 13 stations of 50 cal on this wonderful ship. at any point in time, the minimum pointed at you is going to be 2 barrels (directly below or above)

we cant really loop, dive, B&Z,or T&B.(though some of us will try!) basically its a slow moving STABLE gun platform.

those guns fire hundreds of rounds before a kill, and, most bullets miss.

6~8 prcent kill ratio come out is low! and you people are complaining?????

there was/ is a reason the "ENEMY" has adapted to FRONTAL head on attacks. (online/reallife) any pilot who thinks that attacking from rear or relatively behind this ship is performing a last ditch effort. (and not realising it) very few real life airmen survived this style attack.

positioned right, the 17s were absoluely NOTOROIUS! its not allways the aim that takes you down..its the SHEER number of bullets whizzin in the air!

if you get thru us, YOU DESERVE CREDIT, FUTURE and I see this quite often

FRONTAL ATTACKS....

lemme say this again..

FRONTAL ATTACKS
FRONTAL ATTACKS
FRONTAL ATTACKS

those that know how to go thru us say WE'RE EASY....are you still dyin?... well then you havent changed tactics..


FRONTAL ATTACKS

those that know..KNOW! and i dont see them complainin.

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 12:33 PM
Yeah,one MK108 headon will turn B17 pilot cabin into scrap metal.

"degustibus non disputandum"

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 03:37 PM
S!

This discussion reminds me of an interview I read recently,with a former B17 pilot. His crew rigged up something like napalm and flushed it out of a toilet through the bottom of their bomber as enemy fighters came up from beneath!

Anyway, more relevantly to this thread, he described how the German 190s attacked their B17 formations. They would approach from high 12, very fast. They would roll inverted (no problems with 190 windscreen bar!) and dive on the B17s, opening fire from long range and walking their shells onto the approaching bombers' noses. They would scream down through the bombers in a high speed split-S and circle back in front of the bombers in a long climb, reforming at altitude. Then they would turn around and do it again, and again... The B17s had to fly straight and level in formation for hours to reach their target.

Personally, I can only wonder at the discipline and courage of the crews as they saw all this unfolding in front of them, waiting for their turn in the hot seat. It wouldn't have been much fun in the 190s either.

So every time you get "sniped" in FB, remember that real combat may not have been like the movies. Most people simply never saw it coming, never had a chance. Isn't FB a great and educative game?


IV/JG7_4Shades

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 04:35 AM
Charles Haskett (pilot, 487th BG) remembered "We had just passed over Liege, Belgium, when a group of Messerschmitt 109s came at us head on. General Fred Castle was in the lead plane (the Germans may have known this) and his aircraft was hit immediately and severely damaged.

About this time a large group of Focke-Wulfe 190s lined up behind us and attacked - all hell broke loose.

With their 20mm cannons, they began firing at us JUST OUT OF RANGE of our .50 caliber machine guns.

I thought at first they were using rockets because I could plainly see the smoke from the projectiles as they came toward our plane"

"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
-- Robert E. Lee

Virtual Movie Forum at http://www.blacksheepwebdesign.net/VirtualWarCinema/


http://jrjacobs.mystarband.net/images/squad%20logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 04:41 AM
What I want to see is the tracer smoke from the .50s on the T-Bolt and the 17s please!

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 01:11 PM
Attacking bombers, and not only the heavily armed B-17s and Pe-8s should be made only from the front.
Thoses trying to shot them from the rear get consistently shot down and keep complaining that the defensive fire is too efficient. The fighters pilots who attack from the front know that any bomber is an easy target and that defensive fire is not a problem AT ALL since the AI gunners are unable to hit anything that is attacking from the front.

I've made a training track in FB 1.11 quick mission builder to show the proper way of attacking B-17s. The mission was flown only once (not neccessary to fly it several times to make the demonstration of the way to do it; the results aremore or less the same each time)

The track last about 20 minutes and shows the following things:

Attacker: myself in a Bf-109 G2 with MG-151/20 gunpods in the role of the anti-bomber fighter pilot
Opponent: 2 X 3 B-17s flying in a V formation

-Even a very bad shot like myself is able to shot down a B-17 in the first pass on a frontal attack, with only a sort burst of gun fire, due to the good position at the start of the track, increased lethality of armament due to faster closing target, and armless defensive fire due to the very high closing speed meaning less time spent in the dangerous area.

-Subsequent attacks made also from the front after repositionning well ahead the bomber stream. The difficulty of estimating the exact heading of the bombers means that the following attacks where made often from less favourable angles than the first attack, resulting in less decisive results than the first. (only one other bomber with an engine set on fire forced to belly-land later)

-Frontal attacks are made repeatedly with the same results: an attack made from any position except from the rear means the gunners have virtually no chances of hitting the attacking plane. Any attacks made from a position other than 1 to 11 o'clock have almost ineffectives (but at least the attacker can survive the attack unscathed.

-At the end of the track, I'm changing tactics and start attacking from the rear, to show how it should NOT be done, and the track is ending with the predictable result: instant death.

The track shows very well that attacking from the front has every chances of succes, and that even if the attacks are unsuccesfull, at least the attacking fighter will escape unscathed as long as there is no fighter escort and as long as he keeps attacking from the front.
Attacks from the rear are only suicidal and futile attempts at downing a bomber.

here is the link to download the track:

http://pigeonh.free.fr/Bf-109G-2 Vs B-17G Front and rear attacks.zip

There is a read-me file in the zip explaining how to install the training track.


-Knokke

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 01:28 PM
Time to post some real life stats.


taken from: "Gunner" ISBN 1-55046-332-2

Attacks in reference to azimuth direction only.

B-17 - 3585 attacks, 441 hits (12.3%)

clock position - % of # of attacks - % hits

1 - 12.5 - 9.3
2 - 5.9 - 6.7
3 - 4.5 - 3.9
4 - 5.7 - 4.0
5 - 9.0 - 9.1
6 - 20.7 - 15.6 <<<<<<
7 - 8.9 - 6.6
8 - 3.8 - 2.7
9 - 3.9 - 2.9
10 - 3.7 - 3.9
11 - 10.4 - 10.3
12 - 20.2 - 15.6 <<<<<<


B-24 - 1042 attacks, 102 hits (9.8%)

clock position - % of # of attacks - % hits

1 - 12.7 - 8.7
2 - 3.9 - 5.2
3 - 2.9 - 5.4
4 - 3.0 - 3.6
5 - 7.8 - 7.7
6 - 19.6 - 20.6 <<<<<<
7 - 11.0 - 6.9
8 - 3.1 - 2.0
9 - 2.8 - 3.9
10 - 6.9 - 3.4
11 - 11.9 - 7.8
12 - 21.6 - 17.6 <<<<<<


Notice that the hit ratio is identical for the 12 and 6 o'clock positions on the B-17 and 3% less on the 12 o'clock position than on the 6 o'clock position on the B-24.


From the same book.

Testing done by the USAAF found that the bullet pattern from a B-17 during ground testing had the following results for 12 rounds to 600yds:

ball turret > dia. 15' - 8.3mils
upper turret > dia. 21' - 11.7mils
chin turret > dia. 23' - 12.6 mils
waist(closed) dia. 26' - 14.3mils
side nose > dia. 34' - 18.7mils
tail turret > dia 45' - 25mils

For the B-24 it was:

ball turret > dia. 15' - 8.3mils
upper turret > dia. 20' - 11.2mils
nose turret > dia. 23' - 12.9mils (Emerson)
nose turret > dia. 35' - 19.3mils (Motor Prod.)
waist(closed) dia. 23' - 12.9mils
waist(open) dia. 63' - 35.6mils
tail turret > dia 35' - 19.3mils

Notice that the nose/chin turret (except the Ford) is more accurate than the tail turret.



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 01:30 PM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- NegativeGee wrote:
-- On the subject of accuracy of B-17 gunner accuracy..
-- I thought this is off interest (B-24 in for
-- comparison).
--
-- Two examples, from US 8th Army ground tests on
-- various gun positions on B-17's and B-24's.
-- Dispersion based on 12 rounds fired at a range of
-- 600 yards. Dispersion in actual (feet) and arc
-- (Mils- 3600 mils in a 360 degree circle).
-
- I am a bit unsure as to how these figures have
- been calculated. If the arc of dispersion is
- 3600 mils, then 8.3 mils is 0.83 degrees, and the
- diameter of dispersion is presumably 600*3*tan(0.83)
- which would be 26 feet. I presume that some
- additional
- information regarding the proportion of rounds
- landing
- within a certain diameter is also being taken into
- account?

Edit: my mistake, 6400 Mils in 360 degrees. Also the values have been rounded to the nearest foot.

I see you are on ball, Aaron /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg


Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 01:42 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Time to post some real life stats.

Lol, Milo... look on page 1 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

But, yes these are interesting figures.

I have not looked at the B-24 figures.. but one thing that struck me about the B-17 ones is that as attacks made to the port side (11,10,9,8,7) of the bombers generally produced a better rate of hits than those to the starboard (1,2,3,4,5), the exception being 10 o'clock/2o'clock where the reverse is true.



"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg


Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 01:45 PM
Sorry for the bad link in my earlier post.
The forum don't like spaces in names.

Here is the new link for the training track:

http:/pigeonh.free.fr/Bf-109G-2_Vs_B-17G_Front_and_rear_attacks.zip

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 02:16 PM
Yes I know part was on pg1 but the two go together and credit was not given in the first post./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 02:27 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Yes I know part was on pg1 but the two go together
- and credit was not given in the first post

*rolls eyes*

Do the two go together? They CAN go together.......

And as for the credit bit, if you wish to SOURCE what you quote, thats fine by me /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg


Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

Message Edited on 12/04/03 01:31PM by NegativeGee

Message Edited on 12/04/0301:32PM by NegativeGee

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 02:57 PM
NegativeGee wrote:
-
-
- *rolls eyes*
-
- Do the two go together? They CAN go together.......
-
-

*rolls eyes* /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Well considering that Heinz_Knokke said frontal attacks were better, the data does not support this. Nose gunners were more accurate than tail gunnners but the hit percentage was basically the same for nose and tail attacks. Why was this? Besides the faster closure speed, the accurracy of the nose gunners must have had some influence. On the other hand, the lack of accuracy of the tail gunners must have contributed to the hit percentage in attacks from the rear.


Giving credit allows those who would like to read more know where to go. It is also a curtesy to the author of the quote for his work.



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 07:41 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Time to post some real life stats.
-
-
- taken from: "Gunner" ISBN 1-55046-332-2
-
- Attacks in reference to azimuth direction only.
-
- B-17 - 3585 attacks, 441 hits (12.3%)
-
- clock position - % of # of attacks - % hits
-
- 1 - 12.5 - 9.3
- 2 - 5.9 - 6.7
- 3 - 4.5 - 3.9
- 4 - 5.7 - 4.0
- 5 - 9.0 - 9.1
- 6 - 20.7 - 15.6 <<<<<<
- 7 - 8.9 - 6.6
- 8 - 3.8 - 2.7
- 9 - 3.9 - 2.9
- 10 - 3.7 - 3.9
- 11 - 10.4 - 10.3
- 12 - 20.2 - 15.6 <<<<<<

One point, you have not entered all the data as it is presented in your source. This is what is stated in Gunner (hit/attacks):

12: 20.2/15.6
1: 12.5/9.3
2: 5.9/6.7
3: 4.5/3.9
4: 5.7/4.0
5: 9.1/9.2
6: 15.6/20.7
7: 6.6/8.9
8: 2.7/3.8
9: 2.9/3.9
10: 3.9/3.7
11: 10.4/10.3

- B-24 - 1042 attacks, 102 hit (9.8%)
-
- clock position - % of # of attacks - % hits
-
- 1 - 12.7 - 8.7
- 2 - 3.9 - 5.2
- 3 - 2.9 - 5.4
- 4 - 3.0 - 3.6
- 5 - 7.8 - 7.7
- 6 - 19.6 - 20.6 <<<<<<
- 7 - 11.0 - 6.9
- 8 - 3.1 - 2.0
- 9 - 2.8 - 3.9
- 10 - 6.9 - 3.4
- 11 - 11.9 - 7.8
- 12 - 21.6 - 17.6 <<<<<<

Ditto as above. As stated in Gunner (hit/attacks):

12: 21.6/17.6
1: 12.7/8.7
2: 3.9/5.2
3: 2.9/5.4
4: 3.0/3.6
5: 7.8/7.7
6: 20.6/19.6
7: 6.9/11.0
8: 2.0/3.1
9: 3.9/2.8
10: 6.9/3.4
11: 7.8/11.9

- Notice that the hit ratio is identical for the 12
- and 6 o'clock positions on the B-17 and 3% less on
- the 12 o'clock position than on the 6 o'clock
- position on the B-24.

Neither of these statements are correct due to the errors made in your data entry.

- Well considering that Heinz_Knokke said frontal
- attacks were better, the data does not support this.
- Nose gunners were more accurate than tail gunnners
- but the hit percentage was basically the same for
- nose and tail attacks. Why was this? Besides the
- faster closure speed, the accurracy of the nose
- gunners must have had some influence. On the other
- hand, the lack of accuracy of the tail gunners must
- have contributed to the hit percentage in attacks
- from the rear.

Lets look again.

Well, using the data (collected by the USAAF Jan-May 1944) we have here we can calculate the relative success of the attack directions on the bombers by dividing attacks/ hit to show how many hit were scored per 1% of recorded attacks. This then will indicate the relative efficiency of attacks from the various directions.

B-17:

12: 1.29
1: 1.34
2: 0.88
3: 1.15
4: 1.43
5: 0.98
6: 0.75
7: 0.74
8: 0.71
9: 0.74
10: 1.05
11: 1.01

ie. where for 12 o'clock every 1% of attacks made produced 1.29% of the hit recorded and for 6 o'clock 1% of the attacks made produced 0.75% of those that hit (nb. all rounded to 2 sf).

B-24

12: 1.23
1: 1.46
2: 0.75
3: 0.54
4: 0.83
5: 1.01
6: 1.05
7: 0.63
8: 0.65
9: 1.39
10: 2.03
11: 0.66

same format as for B-17.

Lets arrange them for easier viewing (port/starboard),


B-17:

12: 1.29
11/1: 1.01/1.34
10/2: 1.05/0.88
9/3: 0.74/1.15
8/4: 0.71/1.43
7/5: 0.74/0.98
6: 0.75

Comment: the general trend is that attacks in the front hemisphere (12,11,10,1,2) are generally more efficient than those in the rear (6,7,8,4,5) and attacks to the starboard side (1,2,3,4,5) are generally more efficient than those to the port (7,8,9,10,11).

B-24

12: 1.23
11/1: 0.66/1.46
10/2: 2.03/0.75
9/3: 1.39/0.54
8/4: 0.65/0.83
7/5: 0.63/1.01
6: 1.05

Comment: as with the B-17, the general trend is that attacks in the front hemisphere (12,11,10,1,2) are generally more efficient than those in the rear (6,7,8,4,5), although it is less clear than in the B-17. Note: As the sample size is much smaller, so the B-24 data is less reliable than that for the B-17.


It would seem that attacks to the front hemisphere of both bombers were more efficient than those made to the rear, which in turn supports the perception of the effectiveness of frontal attacks. By far the most common approaches are dead ahead (12 o'clock) and dead astern (6o'clock). However, there is a fairly even split between the number of attacks to the front and those to the rear.

More comments are welcome /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Edit: had a few probs with the board thinking I was saying a word I should not, hence all the edits lol...

Message Edited on 12/04/03 06:45PM by NegativeGee

Message Edited on 12/04/03 06:57PM by NegativeGee

Message Edited on 12/04/03 06:58PM by NegativeGee

Message Edited on 12/04/03 07:00PM by NegativeGee

Message Edited on 12/04/03 07:03PM by NegativeGee

Message Edited on 12/04/0307:07PM by NegativeGee