Effective Ranges of WW1 aircraft guns

[dglewwe]

Back (sort of ) on topic* :

In addition to the prop/wing wash and all other sorts of environmental factors that would mess with one's aim, wouldn't being in a turn/maneuver that involves anything other than modest g-forces (under 2?) also play havoc with one's ability to put rounds on a target? Physical effects on the pilot notwithstanding: wouldn't the bullets go all over the place if you were throwing the aircraft around violently -even if you were really close? ie: At some point you've got to steady the aircraft in order to fire, yes?

*although admittedly tangental, I think it relates to the accuracy of the guns --and how it's (mis)represented in flightsim games.

[Chock]

At a range of ten yards, there would probably not be enough angle deviation to cause a complete miss, which is of course another reason to get right on someone's ass, and half the reasoning behind a machine gun is to give you a good chance of a hit out of a lot of shots in the general area. Even if you simply shot a tire out, there'd be a good chance the thing would crash on landing back at base even if it eluded you. Of course you'd never know if that had happened and wouldn't get a victory claim, but it would be a contribution to your side's war effort all the same. So to some extent you would want your gunfire to spray around I imagine, since many shots would do nothing more than pop an entry and exit hole in the canvas, and you'd probably be hoping the odd round would zing off a stringer or strut and take the guy's head off or, ping a flying wire into his face or some such.

Keep in mind too, that most of the slipstream from an aeroplane is not actually directly behind it, but quite a way below the thing. That actually comes as a surprise the first time you experience it, as you expect it to be more or less directly behind the thing. So in a close in turning fight, where you are leading the target, you'd be fairly well above the slipstream if you got close in.

A lot would depend on the aircraft you'd be shooting at too; with the best will in the world, a BE2 is not going to be able to dodge around much, since it was in fact designed with stability in mind for aerial observation. On the other hand, half the time a Sopwith Camel wasn't even traveling in the direction it appeared to be pointing!

What amazes me more than anything when you read of people being shot at in aeroplanes, is the amount of times they say that the instruments got smashed in front of them. I always wonder how the hell a bullet could do that without having passed through the pilot, unless it was a ricochet off the airframe. Whatever the reasoning, that must have been truly terrifying to see.

Al

[rexee]

Originally Posted by Chock

At a range of ten yards, there would probably not be enough angle deviation to cause a complete miss, which is of course another reason to get right on someone's ass, and half the reasoning behind a machine gun is to give you a good chance of a hit out of a lot of shots in the general area. Even if you simply shot a tire out, there'd be a good chance the thing would crash on landing back at base even if it eluded you. Of course you'd never know if that had happened and wouldn't get a victory claim, but it would be a contribution to your side's war effort all the same. So to some extent you would want your gunfire to spray around I imagine, since many shots would do nothing more than pop an entry and exit hole in the canvas, and you'd probably be hoping the odd round would zing off a stringer or strut and take the guy's head off or, ping a flying wire into his face or some such.

Keep in mind too, that the slipstream from an aeroplane is not actually directly behind it, but actually quite a way below the thing. That actually comes as a surprise the first time you experience it, as you expect it to be more or less directly behind the thing.

A lot would depend on the aircraft you'd be shooting at too; with the best will in the world, a BE2 is not going to be able to dodge around much, since it was in fact designed with stability in mind for aerial observation. On the other hand, half the time a Sopwith Camel wasn't even traveling in the direction it appeared to be pointing!

What amazes me more than anything when you read of people being shot at in aeroplanes, is the amount of times they say that the instruments got smashed in front of them. I always wonder how the hell a bullet could do that without having passed through the pilot, unless it was a ricochet off the airframe. Whatever the reasoning, that must have been truly terrifying to see.

Al

In the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa, the "Bishop" display has his windshield complete with a neat bullet hole right through it!
Although,you know Bishop...

Rexee

[Chock]

Yup, I certainly do know Bishop Rexee (nearly finished marking that up with notes by the way - it's very good incidentally)

Al

[tttiger]

My apologies.

My choice of words was not intended to be personal or harsh.

"Ignorant" does not mean "stupid." It means you don't know. I'm ignorant of many, many things. But if "I don't know" I look it up. Google is my friend.

Similarly, "worthless" means "of no value" since the comments of the thread starter were highly inaccurate due to the misuse of terminology. It doesn't mean the person himself is "worthless."

The accuracy of WWI aircraft machine guns was very low, especially at longer ranges beyond 100 yards.

The effectiveness of the bullets (which is a whole different matter) remains high at least to 1,000 yards.

I believe the original poster said exactly the opposite due to his unfortunate choice of terminology.

That doesn't make him a bad person.

Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers.

Sorry.

[Chock]

Fair comment. Sometimes we can write something and the meaning can come across a bit more harsh than we intended. There's a fair bit of that on these forums LOL

Al

[rexee]

Originally Posted by Chock

Yup, I certainly do know Bishop Rexee (nearly finished marking that up with notes by the way - it's very good incidentally)

Al

Rewriting as we speak...haven't read it in awhile!

Rexee

[mik]

I enjoyed the u tube stuff. Aircraft machine guns are very accurate, The air craft makes them inaccurate because its always moving one way or another. An academic point 303 bullets start at about 2440ft/sec They would have a headwind of about 100mph but would start at about 2600ft/sec What makes aerial shooting hard is Judging deflection and bullet drop. If your in close you don't need to worry about it as long as you dont hit the target with your own aircraft.

[totalspoon]

Mr tttiger,

Could you please PM me a copy of your first post, as due to the differences in time zones (your post came at 2am my local time) I was unable to read it before it was deleted.

I’m sure you’d rather say things to my face than behind my back.

It is impossible for me to defend myself without knowing what you said to the rest of the forum but apparently it was along the lines that I’m ignorant, stupid and worthless and all my terminology is wrong.

I will try and make a gentlemanly rebuttal to your technical arguments once I know what they are.

Thanks

Spoon

[rexee]

Spoon

He was blabbing on about the term "effective", apparently "ignorant" in regards to WW1 machine guns mounted on aircraft

Rexee