PDA

View Full Version : Analysis of Typical WW2 Fighter Attacks - very cool



Blutarski2004
06-17-2007, 05:42 PM
Thought this might be interesting to the assembled throng. It is based upon analysis by operational research statisticians of the photographic records of 111 aerial combats involving the P47 Thunderbolt.

Quote -

A Critical Analysis of the P47's Pilot's Firing.

[1] The duration of fire is not a decisive factor in determining the outcome of a combat.

[2] The average number of bursts of fire per combat was 4.2.

[3] The most frequent length of a burst of fire was 0.3 seconds.

[4] The average length of a burst of fire was 0.94 seconds.

[5] Pilots' estimates of range were nearly twice the actual range.

[6] The average pilot under-estimates the range by 29%.

[7] More than half the fire is delivered at more than 300 yards.

[8] 20% of the fire is delivered at more than 600 yards.

[9] According to ranges, the results ordinarily were about as follows:
at 658 yards - no claim.
at 392 yards - "Damaged".
at 323 yards - "Probably Destroyed".
at 253 yards - "Destroyed".

[10] Out of 111 combats studied, 37 claimed the enemy plane as destroyed.

[11] Let us take a statistician's typical combat; - "The Thunderbolt pilot opens fire at 500-600 yards which he estimates to be 300 yards, on a deflection angle of 30 degrees. He gives four or five bursts of about a second each, closes to 200 yards, more closely astern. His channel of fire wavers erratically over a 2 degree arc, but crosses the line of flight between one degree and two degrees astern. He loses much ammunition by faulty aim of his bullet stream, which is the chief cause of unsuccessful attacks, not, as is generally thought, is it due to an insufficient density of bullets in the fire pattern. If the pilot closes in to about 250 yards, he will get a victory; but two thirds of the enemy aircraft attacked escape damage.

- Unquote

IMO, this is confirmation that Oleg has done a very fine job modelling the characteristics of the 50cal HMG.

rnzoli
06-18-2007, 03:36 AM
Indeed, very cool. Is this analysis based on the normal guncam, or did they install additional cameras as well?

On the other hand, how dare you say something like "fine modelling" of 0.50s? The above research proves nothing against destroying Tiger tanks!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Blutarski2004
06-18-2007, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
Indeed, very cool. Is this analysis based on the normal guncam, or did they install additional cameras as well?


..... Since they based the study on review of 111 actual aerial combats, my best guess is that they were working from gun camera film.

I've never run across any official US documentation discussing the use of the 50cal against the Tiger tank. That leads me to believe that it remains highly classified.

;-]

WTE_Ibis
06-18-2007, 06:19 AM
Can someone explain this please as I'm having
difficulty reconciling the two?

5] Pilots' estimates of range were nearly twice the actual range.

[6] The average pilot under-estimates the range by 29%.

.

Blutarski2004
06-18-2007, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Ibis:
Can someone explain this please as I'm having
difficulty reconciling the two?

5] Pilots' estimates of range were nearly twice the actual range.

[6] The average pilot under-estimates the range by 29%.

.


..... That puzzled me as well, Ibis. I wondered if it was a typographical error - i.e., that it should read "over-estimates". But I didn't feel right about editing the original text, so presented it as written.

rnzoli
06-18-2007, 06:57 AM
[5] Pilots' estimates of range were nearly twice the actual range.
This is the cocoon's egg, because it conflicts with

The Thunderbolt pilot opens fire at 500-600 yards which he estimates to be 300 yards
Actual 600, pilot estimate 300.
Statement #5 should read "Actual ranges were nearly twice the pilots' estimates", right?

leitmotiv
06-18-2007, 07:01 AM
Why Hartmann and others urged not shooting until the target was at point-blank range. From my own humble experience, except for Monte Carlo shots, which one is best advised not to bet one's existence on, tis a far far better thing to close and blow the hell out of the b*****d. Of course, all the dozens of online 15,000 victory aces will disagree.

rnzoli
06-18-2007, 07:28 AM
Why Hartmann and others urged not shooting until the target was at point-blank range.
a) They never collided with their targets or the wreckage of their targets.
b) A closer target can get out of your sight faster, than a more distant one.
c) Closing up too much also risks overshooting and ending up in front.

Which explanation do you chose? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

leitmotiv
06-18-2007, 10:07 AM
I'll rely on good reflexes and close range before I'll risk running out of ammunition from long shots. I've tried both ways. Sometimes the opponent is too good to give you a close "kill shot" so you have to take what you can get. You have to be flexible. Of course, it is always preferable to knock him down in an ambush.

Blutarski2004
06-18-2007, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">[5] Pilots' estimates of range were nearly twice the actual range.
This is the cocoon's egg, because it conflicts with

The Thunderbolt pilot opens fire at 500-600 yards which he estimates to be 300 yards
Actual 600, pilot estimate 300.
Statement #5 should read "Actual ranges were nearly twice the pilots' estimates", right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... You make an excellent point. I agree.

BSS_AIJO
06-18-2007, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Why Hartmann and others urged not shooting until the target was at point-blank range. From my own humble experience, except for Monte Carlo shots, which one is best advised not to bet one's existence on, tis a far far better thing to close and blow the hell out of the b*****d. Of course, all the dozens of online 15,000 victory aces will disagree.

heck no,

kills are what you get when you get up close and personal. Otherwise, out of ammo is what you get while watching kill stealers jump in swipe your wounded kill.


Granted, I am no where near the 15,000 mark.
BSS_AIJO

Freelancer-1
06-18-2007, 11:20 AM
Interesting.

Any links you could supply would be appreciated http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Blutarski2004
06-18-2007, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Freelancer-1:
Interesting.

Any links you could supply would be appreciated http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Go here - http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/p40...8&CISOPTR=317&REC=12 (http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll8&CISOPTR=317&REC=12)

History of VIII Fighter Command

See chapter 6, which also includes -

[1] an assessments of the performance of principal US fighter (a bit eye-rolling at times, but nevertheless containing some data of value).

[2] a very interesting US intelligence appraisal of projected US versus German fighter performance through 1944 and 1945. Quite an honest statement IMO, and thankfully devoid of cheer-leading language.

- - -

BTW, if you don't know about CARL (Combined Arms Rresearch Library), check it out -

http://cgsc.cdmhost.com

It contains several thousand similarly fascinating documents.

Freelancer-1
06-18-2007, 11:57 AM
Excellent!

Thank you, sir http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Signing off for now as it looks like I've got a full day of reading ahead.

Cheers,

avimimus
06-18-2007, 12:28 PM
I think choice firing ranges should be consider in the context of:
- The plane's responsiveness and characteristics as a gun platform
- The plane's armament (ie. Mk108 vs. 50cal battery vs. ShKAS)
- Whether or not the enemies buddy is likely to be on your six

Friendly_flyer
06-18-2007, 12:38 PM
There's something uncannily familiar about the attacks described in this report...

Blutarski2004
06-18-2007, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Freelancer-1:
..... it looks like I've got a full day of reading ahead.

Cheers,


..... More like a couple of months, if my experience is any indicator. What they have on Iwo Jima alone just boggles the mind.