F15 Vs Zero
bob urz
into time during Pearl Harbor in 1941.
It makes me wonder about a F15C Vs Zero match up during the same time
period.
To make things more even, no missiles, only guns.
Pilot against pilot in tactics.
Its seems to be a slam dunk for the F15c, but would it really be?
Would brute force speed really be more effective than the
maneuverability at slower speed of the Zero? There would be no
missile lock warning with a Zero on a F15's tail at low speed.
Could a F15 stay with the Zero effectively at lower speed evasive
and offensive maneuvers?
What tactics would be most effective for either aircraft?
bob
Jim Wilkins
> There has already been movies about modern aircraft carriers going back
> into time during Pearl Harbor in 1941.
>
> It makes me wonder about a F15C Vs Zero match up during the same time
> period.
> bob
How about A-10 vs fighter? I've heard that they can defend themselves
pretty well IF they see the fighter coming, but they have a much
better gun than the Zero.
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/J/a/Japanese_20mm_Type_99_gun.htm
One of the early combat reports said the Zero's 20mm cannon wasn't as
destructive to our fighters as we expected it to be, based on our
20mm. .
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/H/i/Hispano_20mm_gun.htm
I think it was a 20mm shell that exploded against Robert L. Scott's
7mm (?) seat armor and knocked rivets into his back.
jsw
Bill Shatzer
Most effective tactic for the Zero driver:
1. Open Canopy
2. Invert aircraft
3. Release seat belt
4. Count to ten
5. Pull parachute rip cord.
Jim Wilkins
> bob urz wrote:
> > ...
>
> Most effective tactic for the Zero driver:
>
> 1. Open Canopy
> 2. Invert aircraft
> 3. Release seat belt
> 4. Count to ten
Step 1 is disengage lower jaw from seatbelt buckle.
jsw
Paul J. Adam
<so...@inetnebr.com> writes
>There has already been movies about modern aircraft carriers going back
>into time during Pearl Harbor in 1941.
>
>It makes me wonder about a F15C Vs Zero match up during the same time
>period.
>
>To make things more even, no missiles, only guns.
>Pilot against pilot in tactics.
>
>Its seems to be a slam dunk for the F15c, but would it really be?
Barring stupidity, yes.
>Would brute force speed really be more effective than the
>maneuverability at slower speed of the Zero?
That was how the F6F, F4U and Seafire massacred Zeros in real life, so
why does making the F-15 faster improve the Zero's odds? It's not just
"speed", it's specific energy: the Eagle can pull up and disappear from
in front of the Zero at will.
>There would be no
>missile lock warning with a Zero on a F15's tail at low speed.
How does it get there and why is the F-15 flying so slowly for long
enough that a ~200kt prop job can sneak up on it? (Yes, the Zero had a
notionally faster max speed, but its controls got very heavy: it was
designed for agility, not power or velocity) On approach to home base,
maybe, but in any sort of tactical situation?
>Could a F15 stay with the Zero effectively at lower speed evasive
>and offensive maneuvers?
Doesn't need to. Climb away, come back for another gun pass, conduct
kill assessment, then either repeat or else find the next target. Trying
to go around corners slowly with an agile prop job is like trying to
stay on a helicopter's tail (a scenario both the jet jockeys and
rotorheads practice) and akin to suggesting that because an AH-64 can
spin on the spot and point its gun anywhere the pilot looks it's an
invincible air-superiority platform.
A-10s can turn tightly in the horizontal plane: but faster jets still
run out of gun camera film of Warthog-in-the-sight unless they get
careless, because air combat happens in three dimensions rather than
two.
>What tactics would be most effective for either aircraft?
For the Zero: stay on the ground and sue for peace.
For the F-15: standard energy tactics versus an angles opponent. (Robert
Shaw's book, "Fighter Combat - Tactics and Maneuvering" is an excellent
reference)
Bluntly, the Zero can't force the F-15 to fight and can't escape its
attacks: it depends on the Eagle driver being both careless and stupid
to have a chance of victory, otherwise the A6M is reduced to hoping that
it can keep dodging attacks until the F-15 runs out of fuel and/or
ammunition and goes home.
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
Paul J. Adam
Peter Skelton
Nonsense. Try these tactics:
1. Discover AF base
2. Offer free golf at nearest course
3. Offer free drink to all beating par plus age
4. Ensure pretty waitresses
5. Post results on youtube
Peter Skelton
Yeff
> Nonsense. Try these tactics:
>
> 1. Discover AF base
> 2. Offer free golf at nearest course
> 3. Offer free drink to all beating par plus age
> 4. Ensure pretty waitresses
> 5. Post results on youtube
That's just not sporting!
--
-Jeff B.
zoo...@fastmail.fm
"You, you, and you: panic. The rest of you, come with me."
frank
Do you mean the protoype Curtiss(X)F15C? Looks like you really
mean F-15C.
Scott M. Kozel
The "Final Countdown" showed how ... the F-15 whips by at supersonic
speed and the shockwave blasts the Zero. Repeat the process if
necessary.
tankfixer
@d30g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, koz...@comcast.net says...
F-14...
Orval Fairbairn
<2f8c966f-f326-4570...@d30g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Those were F-14s in "Final Countdown."
--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.
The Raven
news:hidl73$6jh$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
The F15 would be near useless:
1. Too fast.
2. Modern weapons would have limited (if any) effectiveness.
3. No logistics supply chain to support it.
4. Limited sealed runways of a suitable length to operate from.
5. No air to air refueling.
This sounds like General Dynamics marketing back in the early 80's when they
stated that if they had two F-16's in Europe during WWII the war would have
been over in a week...
Keith Willshaw
"bob urz" <so...@inetnebr.com> wrote in message
news:hidl73$6jh$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> There has already been movies about modern aircraft carriers going back
> into time during Pearl Harbor in 1941.
>
> It makes me wonder about a F15C Vs Zero match up during the same time
> period.
>
> To make things more even, no missiles, only guns.
> Pilot against pilot in tactics.
>
> Its seems to be a slam dunk for the F15c, but would it really be?
>
Yes, he can make slashing attacks and shred the poor little thing at
no real risk. Think of what happened to the Fiat CR42 when they
tried to use them in the BOB
Keith
frank
Recall it was known as The Texas Lawn Dart until they improved
training in GLOC as well as some upgrades in wiring harnesses that
lost more than a few aircrew.
The Raven
news:slB2n.81147$f%5.6...@newsfe25.ams2...
>
>
> "bob urz" <so...@inetnebr.com> wrote in message
> news:hidl73$6jh$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> There has already been movies about modern aircraft carriers going back
>> into time during Pearl Harbor in 1941.
>>
>> It makes me wonder about a F15C Vs Zero match up during the same time
>> period.
>>
>> To make things more even, no missiles, only guns.
>> Pilot against pilot in tactics.
>>
>> Its seems to be a slam dunk for the F15c, but would it really be?
>>
>
> Yes, he can make slashing attacks and shred the poor little thing at
> no real risk.
Other than running out of fuel (assuming he can get to the fight) or ammo.
The Raven
news:24263f2b-cd44-4d63...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
===
I recall the wiring issue.....it was declared not to be chaffing but they
fixed it anyhow....
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koze...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > bob urz <so...@inetnebr.com> wrote:
>
> > > There has already been movies about modern aircraft carriers going back
> > > into time during Pearl Harbor in 1941.
>
> > > It makes me wonder about a F15C Vs Zero match up during the same time
> > > period.
>
> > > To make things more even, no missiles, only guns.
> > > Pilot against pilot in tactics.
>
> > > Its seems to be a slam dunk for the F15c, but would it really be?
>
> > > Would brute force speed really be more effective than the
> > > maneuverability at slower speed of the Zero? There would be no
> > > missile lock warning with a Zero on a F15's tail at low speed.
> > > Could a F15 stay with the Zero effectively at lower speed evasive
> > > and offensive maneuvers?
>
> > > What tactics would be most effective for either aircraft?
>
> > The "Final Countdown" showed how ... the F-15 whips by at supersonic
> > speed and the shockwave blasts the Zero. Repeat the process if
> > necessary.
>
> Those were F-14s in "Final Countdown."
I know ... I was using the tactic in that movie and applying it to
this thread.
mkf
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not discussing a whole camaign, just a one-on-one dogfight. Stuff like
"logistics support" and "runways" pale in comparison to the task of
getting an F-15 back to 1942-45 the first place. As to the "too fast"
issue, it is entirely possible to make high-speed, one pass attacks on
the Zero. Theoretically, F-15s on the modern battlefield might engage
helos with guns, and that's probably an even bigger speed differential.
Jim Wilkins
> ...
If the Zero or more realistically some modern COIN aircraft chose to
circle tightly, or just thrash around, how hard would they be to hit
in a fast pass?
IIRC Rudel survived Soviet fighter attacks that way.
jsw
Dean
F-15s could also engage helos with a smart bomb...oh wait...that's
been done!
Ed Rasimus
You have been paying attention, Grasshopper. My work here is done.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
Ed Rasimus
wrote:
>Not discussing a whole camaign, just a one-on-one dogfight. Stuff like
>"logistics support" and "runways" pale in comparison to the task of
>getting an F-15 back to 1942-45 the first place. As to the "too fast"
>issue, it is entirely possible to make high-speed, one pass attacks on
>the Zero. Theoretically, F-15s on the modern battlefield might engage
>helos with guns, and that's probably an even bigger speed differential.
It is more than "theoretical". It is historic. In an unfortunate
blue-on-blue incident about 20 years ago a pair of F-15s engaged a US
Army Blackhawk and shot it down. The lead of the pair was a fellow I
worked with at Holloman as a Fighter Lead-In instructor in AT-38s. The
Blackhawk for some reason had flown a combat mission with all four
modes of his IFF/SIF inoperative so had been identified as "probable"
hostile. Bad show all around.
Typhoon502
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 04:30:03 -0800 (PST), mkf <froni...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Not discussing a whole camaign, just a one-on-one dogfight. Stuff like
> >"logistics support" and "runways" pale in comparison to the task of
> >getting an F-15 back to 1942-45 the first place. As to the "too fast"
> >issue, it is entirely possible to make high-speed, one pass attacks on
> >the Zero. Theoretically, F-15s on the modern battlefield might engage
> >helos with guns, and that's probably an even bigger speed differential.
>
> It is more than "theoretical". It is historic. In an unfortunate
> blue-on-blue incident about 20 years ago a pair of F-15s engaged a US
> Army Blackhawk and shot it down. The lead of the pair was a fellow I
> worked with at Holloman as a Fighter Lead-In instructor in AT-38s. The
> Blackhawk for some reason had flown a combat mission with all four
> modes of his IFF/SIF inoperative so had been identified as "probable"
> hostile. Bad show all around.
It WAS that long ago, wasn't it? Sheesh.
I wouldn't imagine that the AAMs that an F-15 carries would have any
problem picking out and hitting a Zero. AIM-9 will cue on the exhaust
plume easily enough and I imagine there is enough metal in the engine
assembly alone for an AIM-120 to lock on.
Jim Campbell
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:14:59 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
>
>
>
> >In message <hidl73$6j...@speranza.aioe.org>, bob urz
According to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1552137/Air-Marshal-Sir-John-Nicholls.html
, the RAF, in anticipation of action against Indonesian P-51s, did
testing in 1963 with a supersonic Lightning vs Spitfire XIX, The
conclusion was that "... a high performance jet fighter should attack
from below in a climb, thus avoiding the risk of becoming involved in
a turning fight at slower speed where the manoeuvrable piston-engine
aircraft had the advantage." A blinding glimpse of the obvious
perhaps, but interesting that trials of a supersonic interceptor
versus prop fighter were done.
Jim
Yeff
> F-15s could also engage helos with a smart bomb...oh wait...that's
> been done!
So has "thumping" them into the ground (post-Desert Storm, pre-Southern
Watch).
frank
Standard Corsair vs F-14 question using energy diagrams (back of the
envelope). Answer was Corsair wins if both take off at the same time,
it does a loop and shoots down F-14 on takeoff roll. Otherwise its a
goner. Probably same on Zero vs F15.
Then again, not much to shoot at if there's no AB. Maybe RADAR lock
on, good reason to use guns. No doubt Bin Laiden has an old Spad
somewhere in the hills he's going to use.
Ed Rasimus
Bad logic there. Consider that the Corsair does not have necessary
speed to loop immediately after lift-off. Even if the Corsair (or
Zero) does an immediate hard turn 360, with simultaneous brake release
the Tom is airborne well before the WW II fighter gets around and he
is out of range.
There's plenty to shoot at without AB. Radar missiles don't require
AB. Modern IR missiles are not AB plume dependent and have much better
discrimination than that. Gun, of course doesn't care whether there an
AB, an engine or a Zippo lighter.
Keith Willshaw
"frank" <dhssres...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:b207ea28-588f-4cef...@p24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Modern IR missiles would have no problem locking on to
a 1000 hp recip engine.
Keith
Ron
<keithnos...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
.
>
> Modern IR missiles would have no problem locking on to
> a 1000 hp recip engine.
>
> Keith
One of my friends got hit by an SA-7 over Africa flying a DC-7
lil abner
Ian B MacLure
[snip]
> Yes, he can make slashing attacks and shred the poor little thing at
> no real risk. Think of what happened to the Fiat CR42 when they
> tried to use them in the BOB
On the other hand there's the Swordfish vs FW-190 example.
IBM
Vanwall
> There has already been movies about modern aircraft carriers going back
> into time during Pearl Harbor in 1941.
>
> It makes me wonder about a F15C Vs Zero match up during the same time
> period.
>
> To make things more even, no missiles, only guns.
> Pilot against pilot in tactics.
>
> Its seems to be a slam dunk for the F15c, but would it really be?
>
> Would brute force speed really be more effective than the
> maneuverability at slower speed of the Zero? There would be no
> missile lock warning with a Zero on a F15's tail at low speed.
> Could a F15 stay with the Zero effectively at lower speed evasive
> and offensive maneuvers?
>
> What tactics would be most effective for either aircraft?
>
> bob
I remember a Sci-fi story from the early seventies I think, about a
pilot and his super-SR70-like bird accidentally going back to WWI, and
having trouble fighting the very slow (comparatively) biplane fighters
of the Germans flying circuses. His first combat, he lets off his
smart missiles, and they can't acquire targets - not enough heat
signature and radar for how advanced they were, I seem to remember. He
also uses the last of his super fancy fuel,so he's grounded until he
can get something close, a paraffin of some kind. Meanwhile, while his
SPAD-flying Yank buddy he's made goes up against a Red Baron sorta
enemy pilot and is shot down and killed. He stews until he can get
enough fuel, flies up, and then goes into maximum speed right through
the German formation, and they disintegrate from the shock wave. The
substitute fuel ruins his plane and he punches out, ending up on road
thinking about his history lessons, and what he can use to get rich
from what he knows.
That's one solution to speed versus maneuverability.
Dennis
author though.
> I remember a Sci-fi story from the early seventies I think, about a
> pilot and his super-SR70-like bird accidentally going back to WWI, and
> having trouble fighting the very slow (comparatively) biplane fighters
> of the Germans flying circuses. His first combat, he lets off his
> smart missiles, and they can't acquire targets - not enough heat
> signature and radar for how advanced they were, I seem to remember. He
> also uses the last of his super fancy fuel,so he's grounded until he
> can get something close, a paraffin of some kind. Meanwhile, while his
> SPAD-flying Yank buddy he's made goes up against a Red Baron sorta
> enemy pilot and is shot down and killed. He stews until he can get
> enough fuel, flies up, and then goes into maximum speed right through
> the German formation, and they disintegrate from the shock wave. The
> substitute fuel ruins his plane and he punches out, ending up on road
> thinking about his history lessons, and what he can use to get rich
> from what he knows.
>
> That's one solution to speed versus maneuverability.- Hide quoted text -
Steve Hix
<fe6422bd-fb06-4430...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Dennis <dad...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Hawk among the Sparrows" in Analog magazine. Don't remember the
> author though.
Dean McLaughlin, in the July 1968 issue.
Ron
I think it was over Senegal in the 80s, locust spraying missions. The
other plane hit did not make it down for a landing before the wing
burned through
Keith Willshaw
"Ian B MacLure" <i...@svpal.org> wrote in message
news:Xns9CFDCCE0C50...@216.196.97.131...
The record wasn't good if you were flying the stringbag in daytime.
Take the example of 825 NAS attacking Scharnhorst and Gneisenau
Even with a squadron of Spitfires escorting them all aircraft were lost.
The Malta based Swordfish flew their strikes at night and the attack at
Taranto
was also a night operation. There was a good reason for this.
Keith
Ad absurdum per aspera
> This sounds like General Dynamics marketing back in the early 80's when they
> stated that if they had two F-16's in Europe during WWII the war would have
> been over in a week...
Trouble with that, of course, is the war in Europe was already over by
the time a weapon with which to do it was available (even if the F-16
could have physically carried the nukes of the day)
I guess a precision decapitation mission with conventional ordnance
would also do, but that sort of thing was actually attempted many
times, including several intense efforts that combined good
intelligence and serious ordnance and high-skill personnel, but
Hitler was so lucky throughout, it was as if his position and movement
were guided by Satan himself.
One of the problems with "lone hero with a modern weapon introduced
into past war" scenario is that of sheer scale, and nowhere is it more
apparent than in WW2. Sure, modern multiroles can carry more
ordnance than a B-17 (and, against the threats of the day, drop it
with near impunity). Take several hundred of them and after a lot of
raids you'll have done whatever strategic air power could do in a very
big war... more easily and with less loss, and perhaps more
accurately, than the way it was actually done; but still.
These scenarios only work out if you nail extraordinarily high value
targets at just the right time, though since it's fiction you get to
do that if you want. If those F-16 pilots know something that maybe
we weren't sure of until after the war about key targets (short of
killing all the top Nazis in their nest, certain weak points in their
POL infrastructure might do a lot), then maybe...
Which reminds me of the nastiest thing the F-15 (preferably an E with
some husky non GPS dependent PGMs) could do to a Zero: disengage and
follow it home. At the opposite extreme, "emerge from time vortex,
stare at your INS, fly around in a state of great bewilderment, run
low on fuel, and hunt up a suitable runway -- hopefully on the
friendly side of the line -- before ever seeing a target, much less
realizing that it was, then and there, the enemy" may be a lot more
statistically plausible.
Which might be for the best. If you helpfully nuked Tokyo or Berlin
in 1944 and then discovered you'd really ended up in 1954, that would
be a big "oops!".
Joe "avoiding crowbar fights with anybody nicknamed "Hercules"" Chew
bob urz
The original discussion was guns only. NO missiles.
Gun against gun. tactics against tactics.
bob
WaltBJ
AIM9b looking at a Goony Bird about 3 miles away.
As for taking off simultaneously - never flew a Tomcat but my F104
could get from brake release to .97M in 43 seconds, sea level, 80F. T/
O roll was 2300 feet, liftoff at 185K.
Tactic - go hide, turn on radar, find him.
Walt BJ
WaltBJ
Time the group came back to was Pearl Harbor 1941. Author didn't do
enough research and I never made it past about page 60 in his first
book. All that historical knowledge WW2 buffs and professional
officers should heve known - ignored. Bah. Plus he was engineering-
ignorant so some incidents were more fantasy thatn hard SF.Walt BJ
Orval Fairbairn
bob urz <so...@inetnebr.com> wrote:
The Zero would be a sitting duck against an energy-managed attack.
He can't go after the F-15 and can neither out-climb, out-dive,
our-maneuver, outrun or outgun the F-15. He is dead meat.
--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.
Dan
He can turn inside the F-15.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Jim Wilkins
> > bob urz <so...@inetnebr.com> wrote:
>...
> >> The original discussion was guns only. NO missiles.
> >> Gun against gun. tactics against tactics.
> >> bob
You may have attempted to limit it to that but everyone else is free
to post whatever they want.
> > The Zero would be a sitting duck against an energy-managed attack.
> > He can't go after the F-15 and can neither out-climb, out-dive,
> > our-maneuver, outrun or outgun the F-15. He is dead meat.
>
> He can turn inside the F-15.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
So can a pickup truck on the ground. Can it evade the gunfire?
jsw
kirk....@gmail.com
> There has already been movies about modern aircraft carriers going back
> into time during Pearl Harbor in 1941.
>
> It makes me wonder about a F15C Vs Zero match up during the same time
> period.
>
> To make things more even, no missiles, only guns.
> Pilot against pilot in tactics.
>
> Its seems to be a slam dunk for the F15c, but would it really be?
>
> Would brute force speed really be more effective than the
> maneuverability at slower speed of the Zero? There would be no
> missile lock warning with a Zero on a F15's tail at low speed.
> Could a F15 stay with the Zero effectively at lower speed evasive
> and offensive maneuvers?
>
> What tactics would be most effective for either aircraft?
>
> bob
You've been watching way too much Top Gun and The Final Countdown.
First of all, WTF do you mean by "missile lock warning"? Hollywood
BS, dude - missiles don't give lock on indications, radars do, and you
don't need a radar lock to shoot heaters or guns (and some active
radar missiles) so getting shot from dead six without warning is
something you always train for (it's called lookout and situational
awareness).
Second, what is so special about the speed range of the Zero? Air
defense fighters have to train intercepting slow speed civil airplanes
all the time, and shootdowns are not unknown agains druggies. If the
slow mover doesn't see you, piece of cake; if he sees and defends,
then you take a snap shot and reposition - eventually you or your
wingman will get an unobserved shot.
Finally, due to the massive speed differences possible between a Zero
(who would be straining to get over 250 knots) and an F-15 (who can
fight that slow if desired, but can run around at 500+ all day), the
Zero has almost no chance of being offensive - it simply cannot engage
the F-15 if the F-15 keeps his speed up and looks out the window.
Only chance for attack is a high aspect front quarter pass, assuming
the Zero sees the F-15 in time and is already in the right position -
and the F-15 doesn't do anything to counter.
If you want to shift this into a more relevant context, change Zero to
Super Tucano or L-39, and now you have an interesting and relevant
tactical problem for the F-15 - especially since you reintroduce
heaters into the fight on both sides!
Kirk
Jim Wilkins
wrote:
> ...
> Second, what is so special about the speed range of the Zero? Air
> defense fighters have to train intercepting slow speed civil airplanes
> all the time, and shootdowns are not unknown agains druggies. If the
> slow mover doesn't see you, piece of cake; if he sees and defends,
> then you take a snap shot and reposition - eventually you or your
> wingman will get an unobserved shot.
>
What you wrote suggests that an alert slow mover can evade gunfire
from a single source fairly well.
jsw
Orval Fairbairn
wrote:
If the F-15 tries to fight the zero's fight, then he is really stupid
and DESERVES to be shot down! (Darwin 1, stupid F-15 pilot 0).
Any competent fighter pilot would fight to his own advantage, which, in
the case of the F-25, are overwhelming.
kirk....@gmail.com
> What you wrote suggests that an alert slow mover can evade gunfire
> from a single source fairly well.
>
> jsw
Absolutely - there are many cases of prop fighters evading jets - from
WW2 through Korea (P-51/F4U/Sea Fury vs Mig-15s) and Vietnam (A-1s vs
Mig-17). But in almost all cases the prop was completely defensive,
hoping to defeat the jet attacks long enough to hide in the trees,
bingo out the jet, or get a lucky shot off (several cases of that,
too). But air combat is rarely one v one, it's usually many v many,
and while you are defeating one guy and watching him, his wingman
sneaks in and guns your brains out...
One-v-one dogfights often end up in stalemates, more so if the
capabilities of the opposing airplanes are similar. You end up in a
low speed lufberry around the flagpole, out of ideas, waiting for the
other guy to do something stupid. Performance differences allow the
higher performance fighter to disengage and try again from a position
of advantage, that the low performance fighter has to detect and
defeat. Read the combat reports of the aces in various wars, rarely
was an extended turning fight involved - in fact, those are recounted
in detail precisely because they were unusual.
And while sometimes the prop wins - I don't think you will get any
figher pilot to trade his Eagle for a Zero (except on a nice Sunday
afternoon at the local airpatch).
Kirk
Moramarth
> If you want to shift this into a more relevant context, change Zero to
> Super Tucano or L-39, and now you have an interesting and relevant
> tactical problem for the F-15 - especially since you reintroduce
> heaters into the fight on both sides!
Also perhaps of relevance, Sea Harrier vs.Pucara, only using cannon.
IIRC, "Sharky" Ward took three passes before the Argentinian banged
out of his shredded machine, and commented his opponent was a brave
man not to have bailed out after the first hits. However, I believe
the Pucara was already at very low altitude and tried to evade rather
than engage.
>
Regards
> Kirk
Jim Wilkins
wrote:
I've read a lot of those reports. The impression is that few pilots
can stay on a laterally moving target at any distance. The good
deflection shots are recounted as unusual.
What does it mean if an aircraft is called a good gun platform? The
closest I'll ever come to flying warbirds is computer sims where for
some like the P-40 or Tempest the aim can be corrected independently
up, down, or sideways with a little rudder or elevator and others slew
off at an angle at the lightest touch. Is that realistic?
I did fly a WW2 Stearman once, could NOT keep it lined up on a
mountain peak.
jsw
Ron
Another called "Gray Eagles" was fictional bookabout a "reunion" of
sorts among ex Luftwaffe pilots in AZ,
against some of their WW2 counterpart P-51 pilots, in a bit of a do-
over of sorts. However I remember a part
where they, either in ME-109s or FW-190, decide to mix it up with an
F-5 from Luke
kirk....@gmail.com
>
> I've read a lot of those reports. The impression is that few pilots
> can stay on a laterally moving target at any distance. The good
> deflection shots are recounted as unusual.
>
> What does it mean if an aircraft is called a good gun platform? The
> closest I'll ever come to flying warbirds is computer sims where for
> some like the P-40 or Tempest the aim can be corrected independently
> up, down, or sideways with a little rudder or elevator and others slew
> off at an angle at the lightest touch. Is that realistic?
>
> I did fly a WW2 Stearman once, could NOT keep it lined up on a
> mountain peak.
Air-to-air gunnery is an extremely complex task; for example, the
gunsight on the F-15 takes into account the following variables:
"In the A/A gunnery mode, the ADCP solves for a
predicted point of impact by developing a solution to
the vector diagram shown in figure 1-80. The solution
is computed in terms of aircraft azimuth and elevation
coordinates, not earth coordinates. The net
AZ-EL solution relative to the gun line is a function of
trajectory shift, gravity drop, and kinematic lead
vectors briefly defined below. The resultant is the
lead angle, which is the angle formed between the gun
bore line and the pipper sight line with the pipper on
target.
TrajectoryShift: Bullet Line Of Departure (LOD),
which is an intermediate path
between the gun muzzle velocity
vector and the aircraft flight path
vector.
Kinematic Lead: The continuous change in position
between the target and ownship; a
function of pitch, yaw, roll, and
acceleration of ownship combined
with bullet TOF.
Gravity Drop: The 1g acceleration of gravity combined
with bullet TOF.
To accurately display lead angle, fuselage flexure and
gun harmonization are also computed. The vectors
are briefly defined below.
FLEXURE COMPENSATION
The HUD rotates in pitch with respect to the gun
under high g flight conditions due to flexure of the
forward fuselage. The flexure correction is computed
in the ADCP based on gun and HUD boresight angles,
aircraft normal acceleration, TAS, and air density
ratio.
GUN HARMONIZATION COMPENSATION
The gun and HUD gun cross are harmonized at a
range of 2250 feet forward of the gun muzzle. This
results in a parallax error at other ranges. The ADCP
computes continuous gun harmonization using:
a. Actual radar range if available.
b. 1,000 feet if reticle stiffen is selected and radar
range not available.
c. 2,250 feet if reticle stiffen is not selected and
radar range is not available."
From TO 1F-15E-34-1-1
A/A GUN
At a more basic level, the plane absolutely has to be in trim in yaw,
which means you cannot use the rudder to move the sight around (as
soon as any yaw is present, the bullets no longer go where the sight
is pointing. Tracers were a rookies solution to this, experts were
always trimming their plane (must have been tough in the Bf 109 that
didn't have adjustable rudder trim) but didn't like tracers as they
give you away ("tracers work both ways").
Best solution? Make sure your plane is in trim, sneak in unobserved,
get real close, long burst, hard pull to avoid the flaming debris!
And practice, practice, practice...
Kirk
Jim Wilkins
wrote:> ...
> Best solution? Make sure your plane is in trim, sneak in unobserved,
> get real close, long burst, hard pull to avoid the flaming debris!
> And practice, practice, practice...
>
> Kirk
I've watched air-to-ground and snake video and was glad my
contribution was in the lab aiming a soldering iron.
Hats off to those who can do it well.
jsw
Timur
Peter Stickney
Most of those reports are from the days of, at best, a fixed reticle
(No lead computing, no range inputs other than the shooter's guess, no
reference for hold-off other than a 100 mph ring displayed in the sight
around the crosshairs) reflecting sight. Range and lead estimation,
especially for a target with significant (more than 10-15 degrees) angle off
was difficult, to say the least. In between dead astern/dead ahead of the
target, and exactly 90 degrees angle off is an area where lead required
varies greatly, and without being able to properly gauge the target's
aspect, your lead and range estimates aren't likely to be good.
That's why the gyroscopic lead computing sights were such a Big Deal.
with a maintained sight, smooth tracking, and a fair shot at knowing the
target's size (Doesn't need to be exact, just Close Enough) so that the
stadiametric ranging gizmos can be in the right ballpark, you get good
results.
> What does it mean if an aircraft is called a good gun platform? The
> closest I'll ever come to flying warbirds is computer sims where for
> some like the P-40 or Tempest the aim can be corrected independently
> up, down, or sideways with a little rudder or elevator and others slew
> off at an angle at the lightest touch. Is that realistic?
That is an excellent question. In airplane terms, a good gun platform
has very good directional stability - the nose stays pointed in the
direction the airplane is going. Any yaw on the airplane (Slip Ball not
centered) means the bullets aren't going where the sight is pointed [1].
The airplane also has to be steady - no hunting around the axes (Snaking,
Dutch Roll, or Porpoising) which will throw off tracking and increase
dispersion of the shots.
The airplane has to be maneuverable enough to be able to follow/exceed the
motions of the target, so that the target can be tracked, but the controls
can't be so sensitive that you can't track smoothly.
I recently came across a report on combat trials of the plank-wing F-84E vs,
the F-86A, in anticipation of the F-84 encountering MiG-15s.(This was
before either MiG-15s or F-84s appeared in Korea.)
As expected, in almost every aspect (including sustained turn), the F-86 has
significant advantages over the Thunderjet. The area where the F-84 turns
out to be better is in tracking a target, (once it has a target) The
Sabre's marvelously light pitch control means that when tracking a
maneuvering target, the pilot is often overshooting any changes in aspect,
making smooth tracking for either the Pilot's Mk 1 Eyeball/Brain system.
(TLAR [2}) or the lead computing gunsight.
That's also what made the straight-wing F-84s a superior bomber to the other
early jet fighters. The airplane was pointed where the sight was looking,
and that's where the bombs went.
[1] This is an issue for defensive guns on bombers - compensating for
shots that aren't dead ahead or behind required a lot of stuff in the
sighting system, attempting to compensate for the relative motions of bullet
path to the shooter's reference point. Until the Central Fire Control
computing systems on U.S. late war airplanes, like the A-26 and B-29,
none of them worked so well. (Although the addition of gyro gunsights to
bomber turrets did help.)
[2] TLAR - That Looks About Right
> I did fly a WW2 Stearman once, could NOT keep it lined up on a
> mountain peak.
Real airplanes are different from sims. :)
With practice, you learn.
--
Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option
It comes bundled with the system.
guy
>
> - Show quoted text -
Excellent description Peter, or to sumarise, the bullets go where the
gunsight thinks they should;-)
As for bombers, consider also the Defiant (and Roc if you are really
masochistic) where every shot would be a deflection shot.
Dont get me wrong, the Defiant was a damn good aeroplane, I would defy
anyone to bulid a better turret fighter on 1000hp, the concept though
was somewhat flawed!
Guy
Ed Rasimus
<p_sti...@verizon.net> wrote:
Excellent discussion of gunnery but you fall well short with this on
tactical bombing:
>That's also what made the straight-wing F-84s a superior bomber to the other
>early jet fighters. The airplane was pointed where the sight was looking,
>and that's where the bombs went.
A fixed depression sight is going to operate the same whether the wing
is straight or bent.
The bombs go somewhere other than where the sight is looking at
release. The bombs fall ballistically free from the point of release
and they are effected by wind before and after release. A dive bomber
starts with calculating planned release conditions before take-off.
The bomb ballistics, airspeed, release altitude, dive angle, aircraft
AOA all contribute to generation of a sight depression angle somewhere
below the bore-sight line of the aircraft. Drop from other than the
pre-planned conditions (high/lo, fast/slow, shallow/steep) and you
will have significantly different impacts.
Wind drifts the airplane before bomb release creating a vector
relative to the target. Wind effects the bomb after release (although
less significantly. Initial pipper placement must be considerably
short of the target and well offset into the wind to allow for a
coordinated, stabilized drift to the point of release which will still
be somewhere off the target upwind.
There is more going on in a dive bomb pass but the bottom line is the
bombs NEVER go where the sight is looking in a manual dive bomb
system. You have to get to CCIP and later radar ranging, intertial
platform tied weapons computers which developed long after F-84/-86.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
Peter Stickney
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:38:43 -0500, Peter Stickney
> <p_sti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Excellent discussion of gunnery but you fall well short with this on
> tactical bombing:
>
>>That's also what made the straight-wing F-84s a superior bomber to the
>>other
>>early jet fighters. The airplane was pointed where the sight was looking,
>>and that's where the bombs went.
>
> A fixed depression sight is going to operate the same whether the wing
> is straight or bent.
You're right, of course, I was over-simplicating.
<snip - excellent exposition on what it takes to do manual bombing from a
fighter >
What the Lieutenant Meant to Say was that the F-84s, being less twitchy
than, say, the F-86, was a better bomber because the pilot could set up his
sight picture and hold to it better in the limited time available in a dive
bombing run.
That's not to say that you couldn't drop good bombs from an F-86, but it was
a more difficult task.
Ed Rasimus
<p_sti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:38:43 -0500, Peter Stickney
>> <p_sti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> Excellent discussion of gunnery but you fall well short with this on
>> tactical bombing:
>>
>>>That's also what made the straight-wing F-84s a superior bomber to the
>>>other
>>>early jet fighters. The airplane was pointed where the sight was looking,
>>>and that's where the bombs went.
>>
>> A fixed depression sight is going to operate the same whether the wing
>> is straight or bent.
>
>You're right, of course, I was over-simplicating.
><snip - excellent exposition on what it takes to do manual bombing from a
>fighter >
>
>What the Lieutenant Meant to Say was that the F-84s, being less twitchy
>than, say, the F-86, was a better bomber because the pilot could set up his
>sight picture and hold to it better in the limited time available in a dive
>bombing run.
>That's not to say that you couldn't drop good bombs from an F-86, but it was
>a more difficult task.
One aspect not mentioned is that the characteristic buffet of a swept
wing as AOA increases in a dive recovery causes much more "mushing"
than with a straight wing aircraft. Delivery speed also causes
necessary recovery altitudes to increase. And, of course there is bomb
frag pattern to establish minimum safe release altitudes.
An A-1, for example was able to release much lower and closer to a
target than an F-4. Safe separation criteria still apply however.
frank
Yup. I recall one safety briefing where USAF was told 500 ft was
absolute minimum AGL. No exceptions. Tornado drivers were thinking of
it as a safety ceiling. There are pilots, bold pilots, old pilots, and
some absolute nut cases. God knows where they come from some times.
Though going through Marine PLC with some of the rifleman does create
one breed.
David E. Powell
> Ron wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 11:16 am, "Keith Willshaw"
> > <keithnos...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > .
> >> Modern IR missiles would have no problem locking on to
> >> a 1000 hp recip engine.
>
> >> Keith
>
> > One of my friends got hit by an SA-7 over Africa flying a DC-7
>
> Rhodesia?
Biafra?
Ed Rasimus
Taken in isolation 500 feet tells us very little. It might be adequate
for napalm from a laydown deliver but don't attempt it from a 30
degree dive.
The rule of thumb for fast-movers delivering at 450 kts indicated was
one thousand feet AGL for every ten degrees of dive angle. Low angle,
10 degree pass use 1000'. High angle 30 degree, minimum of 3000. 45
degree would use 4500.
In a tactical situation where you couldn't predict your dive angle
beforehand, you typically picked an estimated sight depression, then
corrected x-number of mils long or short during the pass as well as
doing the safe recovery estimate.
During some periods in the Vietnam war there were headquarters
directives about minimum release altitudes to keep out of small arms
fire. Some folks used those as justification of standing way off and
flinging bombs. A lot of other guys simply ignored it and did what the
situation required.
Typhoon502
> During some periods in the Vietnam war there were headquarters
> directives about minimum release altitudes to keep out of small arms
> fire. Some folks used those as justification of standing way off and
> flinging bombs. A lot of other guys simply ignored it and did what the
> situation required.
I know that in the second Shivan uprising, whenever I'd make runs on
flak-armed cruisers that were particularly competent at strafing down
Helios bombs, I'd pretty much ignore the LOCK-SHOOT indicator until
the last second and just hope that my shields had enough left to
absorb any blast-splash after taking whatever hits I couldn't dodge on
the inbound run. It was pretty much the only way to guarantee that the
Helios could make it to the target. Even with shields, though, the
blast shook the hell out of my Boanerges.
(Yeah, yeah, I know, but I wanted to contribute SOMETHING. ;) )
Jim Wilkins
> ...
> Taken in isolation 500 feet tells us very little. It might be adequate
> for napalm from a laydown deliver but don't attempt it from a 30
> Ed Rasimus
How high do you think this is?
http://ibiblio.net/hyperwar/USA/USA-PR-Japan/img/USA-PR-Japan-306.jpg
There are several like it in the unit history book of the 417th Bomb
Group but I didn't see any of them on line.
jsw
Paul J. Adam
<3d251f2c-ce1f-40af...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
Typhoon502 <jeb....@gmail.com> writes
>I know that in the second Shivan uprising, whenever I'd make runs on
>flak-armed cruisers that were particularly competent at strafing down
>Helios bombs, I'd pretty much ignore the LOCK-SHOOT indicator until
>the last second and just hope that my shields had enough left to
>absorb any blast-splash after taking whatever hits I couldn't dodge on
>the inbound run. It was pretty much the only way to guarantee that the
>Helios could make it to the target. Even with shields, though, the
>blast shook the hell out of my Boanerges.
>
>(Yeah, yeah, I know, but I wanted to contribute SOMETHING. ;) )
But were you flying for the GTVA or the Neo-Terran Front?
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
Paul J. Adam
Ken S. Tucker
> On Jan 18, 10:24 am, Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAML...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > ...
> > Taken in isolation 500 feet tells us very little. It might be adequate
> > for napalm from a laydown deliver but don't attempt it from a 30
> > degree dive....
> > Ed Rasimus
>
> How high do you think this is?
http://ibiblio.net/hyperwar/USA/USA-PR-Japan/img/USA-PR-Japan-306.jpg
Great photo, analysis depends on the camera lens settings, film speed,
shutter speed, telephoto settings, and some more.
The are a lot of unknowns so only guestimates could be made except
maybe by an expert.
Ken
kirk....@gmail.com
Or you can just look at it and say "hmm, looks like about 75 to 100
ft, . Level pass dropping parafrags, plane in the picture is a Ki-21
Sally, wingspan 74 ft. High enough to miss trees and be able to turn,
low enough to be a fast crossing target for AAA and make dropping the
string of parafrags easier. Probably taken from a fixed BDA camera
under the aft fuselage of a B-25 - those might even be 50 cal shell
casings from the rear gunner in the upper part of the frame.
Yee haa! Bet everyone on that B-25 who was near a 50 cal was holding
down the trigger!
Kirk
Dave Kearton
news:fc091507-53ae-4442...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> jsw
Is that a man underneath the right trailing edge, I can't really tell. It
looks like Yoko Ono picking up her dry cleaning.
That must be a rollercoaster, watching the B-25 go over, feeling relief that
you weren't strafed or blown up .....
...then you see the bomb under a parachute.
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
Jim Wilkins
wrote:> ...
> Is that a man underneath the right trailing edge, I can't really tell. It
> looks like Yoko Ono picking up her dry cleaning.
>
> That must be a rollercoaster, watching the B-25 go over, feeling relief that
> you weren't strafed or blown up .....
>
> ...then you see the bomb under a parachute.
>
Look between the cockpit and the right engine.
Ken S. Tucker
wrote:
Maybe, have a peak at those 3-4 parachutes very near the explosion,
and then calculate rate of fall, time and altitude for chute to open,
and I'd guess 500-1000 feet.
> Yee haa! Bet everyone on that B-25 who was near a 50 cal was holding
> down the trigger!
> Kirk
Yo, as kids we built our own pipe bombs, for the bang.
Ken
Typhoon502
<n...@jrwlynchANDNOTTHIS.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <3d251f2c-ce1f-40af-b327-06b1038df...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
> Typhoon502 <jeb.h...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >I know that in the second Shivan uprising, whenever I'd make runs on
> >flak-armed cruisers that were particularly competent at strafing down
> >Helios bombs, I'd pretty much ignore the LOCK-SHOOT indicator until
> >the last second and just hope that my shields had enough left to
> >absorb any blast-splash after taking whatever hits I couldn't dodge on
> >the inbound run. It was pretty much the only way to guarantee that the
> >Helios could make it to the target. Even with shields, though, the
> >blast shook the hell out of my Boanerges.
>
> >(Yeah, yeah, I know, but I wanted to contribute SOMETHING. ;) )
>
> But were you flying for the GTVA or the Neo-Terran Front?
GTVA. I don't trust those Neo-Ter splitters.
Ed Rasimus
Dropped from an altitude with a cloth drogue chute, the bombs would be
vertical. The low angle indicates a very low angle or level laydown
pass. It could have been 200 feet (some minimal altitude is needed for
drogue deployment.
Cloth chute and target indicate WW II era so delivery speed was
probably in the 140-160 KIAS range.
Courageous photographer...or creative photoshopper.
Dean
Photoshopper. Look at the difference in graininess (is that a word?)
between the parachute and the rest of the picture. Also note there
are no shadows under the chute or bomb.
kirk....@gmail.com
> Photoshopper. Look at the difference in graininess (is that a word?)
> between the parachute and the rest of the picture. Also note there
>
> - Show quoted text -
Doubt it - not to much use of photoshopping software back in 44-45.
This is combat photography, probably from a fixed camera attached to
the bottom of the bomber. Looks about right to me.
Kirk.
Ken S. Tucker
wrote:
I agree with Kirk,
My impression is fast film, fast shutter, telephoto camera lense.
Ed suggests an altitude as low as 200', me I think more like 500'
due to telephoto, maybe 1000', I could hit a bomber at 200' with
a snap-shot from a handgun. At 500' I'd need a rifle and lead skill.
At a 1000' I'd need to be fairly skilled to send hot lead through a
fuel tank - and some luck - all that assumes ~200 IAS.
Ken
Jim Wilkins
wrote:
The Sally's shadow is almost directly under it, so the photo was taken
near noon.
The 417th's unit history containing other parafrag photos was printed
in 1946. They were General Kenney's personal invention and AFAIK only
the 5th Air Force used them, first in New Guinea and then the
Phillipines. I have a small parachute my father brought back that may
have been for them, though it doesn't have the slit. There were at
least two versions, pre-war leftovers from experiments and wartime
replacements.
jsw
Steve Hix
<65c2377b-6c2d-49c3...@b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
"kirk....@gmail.com" <kirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Photoshopper. �Look at the difference in graininess (is that a word?)
> > between the parachute and the rest of the picture. �Also note there
> > are no shadows under the chute or bomb.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Doubt it - not to much use of photoshopping software back in 44-45.
There certainly was darkroom manipulation.
The Soviets used it a lot during the '30s and '40s, admittedly, to
remove inconvenient comrades who had gone past their "best used by" date.
It was certainly possible, if not trivially simple, to add images to
others.
> This is combat photography, probably from a fixed camera attached to
> the bottom of the bomber. Looks about right to me.
Might could be (link's not in the thread for me any more).
LIBERATOR
> http://china-arsenal.blogspot.com/2010/01/future-concept-advanced-tan...
Hey remember that tank battle game from the 80s, where you looked
through a peeper site to target and shoot the tank, this tank looks
exactly like those tanks.
Ed Rasimus
I initially made the photoshop concept because I hadn't recognized the
option of bomber mounted camera. It certainly would have been last
shot in the roll for a ground observer. Very doable from a tail
mounted camera.
Difference in "graininess" is more difference in focus caused by depth
of field issues. Shutter speed to deal with aircraft speed and
vibration would have to be reasonably fast while aperture would be
large to deal with low vis, smoke, etc. Result is limited depth of
field.
For Ken's benefit, if you drop something from an aircraft at 1000 feet
it will be vertical by the time it gets to the altitude of the photo.
Horizontal dragging means low release and chute opening. Very likely
delivery mode.
Also for Ken's benefit, your assertion that you could hit a 200 knot
airplane at 200 feet altitude with a handgun seems to refute all of
the poor guys who go out every year and try to hit a duck at 30 knots
and fifty feet with a shotgun. Yes, common infantry doctrine is to
have the entire squad shoot at the aircraft but that may be as much
psychological and hopeful (sort of like an American election) as
actually efficacious.
Dean
No, the software was not available in 1944-45....but it is now.
Ken S. Tucker
On Jan 20, 7:13 am, Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAML...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:53:29 -0800, Steve Hix
> <se...@NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> wrote:
> >In article
> ><65c2377b-6c2d-49c3-915b-fb985f6b0...@b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "kirk.st...@gmail.com" <kirk.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Photoshopper. Look at the difference in graininess (is that a word?)
> >> > between the parachute and the rest of the picture. Also note there
> >> > are no shadows under the chute or bomb.
>
> >> Doubt it - not to much use of photoshopping software back in 44-45.
>
> >There certainly was darkroom manipulation.
>
> >The Soviets used it a lot during the '30s and '40s, admittedly, to
> >remove inconvenient comrades who had gone past their "best used by" date.
>
> >It was certainly possible, if not trivially simple, to add images to
> >others.
>
> >> This is combat photography, probably from a fixed camera attached to
> >> the bottom of the bomber. Looks about right to me.
>
> >Might could be (link's not in the thread for me any more).
>
> I initially made the photoshop concept because I hadn't recognized the
> option of bomber mounted camera. It certainly would have been last
> shot in the roll for a ground observer. Very doable from a tail
> mounted camera.
>
> Difference in "graininess" is more difference in focus caused by depth
> of field issues. Shutter speed to deal with aircraft speed and
> vibration would have to be reasonably fast while aperture would be
> large to deal with low vis, smoke, etc. Result is limited depth of
> field.
Could be a fast film speed with a reduced aperature, retain depth of
field,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed
> For Ken's benefit, if you drop something from an aircraft at 1000 feet
> it will be vertical by the time it gets to the altitude of the photo.
> Horizontal dragging means low release and chute opening. Very likely
> delivery mode.
Yeah, good point, it depends on how fast the descent rate of the bomb
is, as a function of bomb weight to chute diameter, of course you
don't
want much drift due to prevailing wind so you want it down quick but
exploding at a safe distance.
http://ibiblio.net/hyperwar/USA/USA-PR-Japan/img/USA-PR-Japan-306.jpg
> Also for Ken's benefit, your assertion that you could hit a 200 knot
> airplane at 200 feet altitude with a handgun seems to refute all of
> the poor guys who go out every year and try to hit a duck at 30 knots
> and fifty feet with a shotgun. Yes, common infantry doctrine is to
> have the entire squad shoot at the aircraft but that may be as much
> psychological and hopeful (sort of like an American election) as
> actually efficacious.
Well I snap shot a cow going 70 mph with a .177 pellet pistol, from
150'.
A duck is a small target, compared to airplane wing or engine or
cockpit.
My Old Boy made marksman in WW2, and got a fair boost in pay for
getting it, wouldn't want to fly over that SOB at 200' and 200 IAS,
For practice they went duck hunting with machine guns.
Ken
Dan
<snip>
>
> Well I snap shot a cow going 70 mph with a .177 pellet pistol, from
> 150'.
Now I know you are lying. Cows are incapable of doing 70 mph.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Dean
Well Dan, supposed they step off the rear ramp of a C-130 at 5000 feet
AGL?
Bill Shatzer
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>
>> Well I snap shot a cow going 70 mph with a .177 pellet pistol, from
>> 150'.
>
>
> Now I know you are lying. Cows are incapable of doing 70 mph.
Sure they can.
http://www.spotmotorcycles.com/includes/animal-transport/cow1.png
Steve Hix
<8d47dae1-01f4-4028...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Dean <dama...@gmail.com> wrote:
The trick then being to hit them as they accelerate through 70 going
vertically ...
Ken S. Tucker
When we we're 17 we could snap shoot out your eye at 50'.
We're rolling at 70 mph, (sober) and I load a German made .177
superb! So I'm right seat passenger, and point the fucker out the
window, over the roof, reached out the window over the roof, to our
left,
and - for a laugh - snap a cow's ass, she jumped and we laughed.
We were going about 70 mph, and the cow
was a few hundred feet off the road.
We were dumb kid's but fortunately no one was hurt.
A shot like that was SOP, never thought twice, until now.
Ken
Dan
I trust you'll forgive me if I still doubt you.
Jim Wilkins
> ...
> Well Dan, supposed they step off the rear ramp of a C-130 at 5000 feet
> AGL?
MOOOAH!
Ken S. Tucker
LOL, this is why I like this thread.
Ah, got me thinking why the Old Boy and pals went duck hunting with
machine guns in WW2, canucks were short on resources and needed
to train turret gunners for example, to hit flying targets, with rapid
firing
weapons.
Scale up duck hunting with a machine gun to hitting an Me109 seated
in a turret makes sense. Learning to machine gun down a duck, which
Canada has a lot of, is a skill that is transferable to nailing a
Me109
swinging past a Lanc.
I understand that better now.
Ken
Ken S. Tucker
Kid's are weird. Start them on gun training at age 5, some, with 10
years
of experience, will be deadly shots at age 15. Examples are Audey
Murphy,
Chuck Yeager, I understand how that happens.
Ken
Dan
I doubt they claimed a pellet gun shot at "a few hundred feet" with
a 70 mph crosswind. You like to pretend you are an engineer, do the math.
Dan
Udder disaster.
Dan
I'm not going to make the obvious comment about a moo-ving
experience, but that would be too easy.
Ken S. Tucker
Sissy boy, burp in total darkness and good shot will use ears to put a
bullet through your throat in 1 second at night, no moon, 150 yds.
Myself I fired on the leg, with .177 at 150 yards to confirm that hunt
ability, and scored a hit.
I deliberatedly lowered to hit the leg so as not to do damage, just a
sting, in our neighbourhood we had rules in pellet gun fights, don't
shoot the face, and if you do, you're toast, serious demotion,
possibly
excluded.
I guess twinks, these days, use paint balls, for practice, should go
to
.177 or BB's for shooting practice.
A .177 hitting corderoy or leather just stings.
Ken
frank
Which most gunners will tell you was pretty much useless. You really
don't know what you're talking about do you. You know how far 150
yards is? A pellet gun ? Bet you cow tip too, huh?
Dan
Only if the shooter was already aiming at the target, the target
wasn't moving and the burp in question was just used to make final
adjustment. Have the target moving and you'd have to know which
direction and at what rate. It would still take luck. You'd know this if
you had ever served in combat arms.
> Myself I fired on the leg, with .177 at 150 yards to confirm that hunt
> ability, and scored a hit.
> I deliberatedly lowered to hit the leg so as not to do damage, just a
> sting, in our neighbourhood we had rules in pellet gun fights, don't
> shoot the face, and if you do, you're toast, serious demotion,
> possibly
> excluded.
> I guess twinks, these days, use paint balls, for practice, should go
> to
> .177 or BB's for shooting practice.
> A .177 hitting corderoy or leather just stings.
> Ken
150 yards, 70 mph crosswind, what was muzzle velocity, point of aim
and projectile drop? In other words you are as full of it as aren't is.
Dave Anderer
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> Well I snap shot a cow going 70 mph with a .177 pellet pistol, from
>> 150'.
>
> Now I know you are lying.
Only *now* did that become apparent? Hmm..
Jim Wilkins
Now see if you can repeat that shot with a bull, while standing inside
the fence. Post the video.
Ed Rasimus
> I doubt they claimed a pellet gun shot at "a few hundred feet" with
>a 70 mph crosswind. You like to pretend you are an engineer, do the math.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
As this descends deeper and deeper into childhood fantasy, let me jump
in one last time to this thread and comment on "flexible" gunnery.
While at Nellis AFB checking out in the F-105, we would overfly an
area to the immediate N. of the airfield from the US highway that
bordered the base (now I-15) to the Sheep Range mountains. On the flat
desert landscape within the last two miles to the foothills there were
a half-dozen semi-circles easily discernible, apparently similar to
railroad tracks and about two miles in diameter each.
The area we were told was the "Flex Range". Naturally we became
curious after a couple of over-flights and wanted to know what was
done out there.
It was a vestige of WW II training where gunners for B-17 and B-24
bombers were trained. They were mounted on flatbed rail cars with
their .50 cal MGs and the cars were pulled around the semi-circles
while they shot at a target complex in the center of the arc. It
provided them exercise in compensating for relative movement between
their platform and the target.
Certainly not the three-dimensional complexity of two aerial entities
moving on different vectors at much differing speeds, but it was a
foundation for building on the basics.
This was real, not machine gunning ducks.
Dan
I recall seeing footage of gunners being trained by shooting shotguns
from the back of a moving truck. I don't recall what period of the war
or where the training took place.
Looking back at the various learning curves when the U.S. was thrust
into that war it makes me understand why it took so long to win.
Everything from malfunctioning torpedoes to Operation Torch to
un-escorted daylight bombing etc.
Ken S. Tucker
Yes, I'd say 7 degrees, no cross wind. Don't need to know muzzle
velocity,
what you do is learn the upshot angle for a given distance, most
important
is to learn your gun, and of course there is a luck element.
My fav was a Slovakian .177 pistol, though I was ok with a .22
Crossman
gas job, but the CO2 drive was a dinky variable.
Ken