Effectiveness of Flexible Gun Fire?

[john-paul2]

I see the point you are making, Bristol. My imagination,thinking, and my point, was that the pilots in front of the attacking aircraft would not hear the bullets until it was too late.
Self-awareness seems to be the important factor in WW1 aerial combat.
Or combat awareness.

[bristol scout]

Originally Posted by john-paul2

I see the point you are making, Bristol. My imagination,thinking, and my point, was that the pilots in front of the attacking aircraft would not hear the bullets until it was too late.
Self-awareness seems to be the important factor in WW1 aerial combat.
Or combat awareness.

We are in complete agreement JP2 Though luck--1/4 inch this way or that, makes a lot of difference. And skill and courage----as we all agree.

Dave.

[sightreader]

Originally Posted by bristol scout

I wonder if games makers (or whatever they are called) factor in as much realism as they think?

Oh, I guarantee that sim makers are painfully aware of all the factors they have to leave out just to keep the sim playable on normal computers. It's like being in a downsizing company, making painful decisions about which departments to lay off to make ends meet...

[totalspoon]

From the very respectable Tony Williams,

"The RFC was concerned about the training of gunners and in 1917 the "Text Book on Aerial Gunnery" appeared. This contains some fascinating insights into the difficulties involved in air-to-air gunnery. Flexibly-mounted machine guns were much affected by the movement of the aircraft, especially in turbulent conditions (particularly prevalent at altitudes of under 300 m), as well as by the difficulty of traversing the gun smoothly to follow a moving target. These problems led to a minimum group size (i.e., the measurement of the greatest distance between shots in a burst) at low altitude of 15 m at a range of 230 m; "and this size of group has often been greatly exceeded, even by an experienced gunner". In smooth air, the group size could improve to 6 m at the same distance when firing at a target requiring no traversing, or 9 m with traversing."

Spoon

[Epee]

Originally Posted by totalspoon

From the very respectable Tony Williams,

"The RFC was concerned about the training of gunners and in 1917 the "Text Book on Aerial Gunnery" appeared. This contains some fascinating insights into the difficulties involved in air-to-air gunnery. Flexibly-mounted machine guns were much affected by the movement of the aircraft, especially in turbulent conditions (particularly prevalent at altitudes of under 300 m), as well as by the difficulty of traversing the gun smoothly to follow a moving target. These problems led to a minimum group size (i.e., the measurement of the greatest distance between shots in a burst) at low altitude of 15 m at a range of 230 m; "and this size of group has often been greatly exceeded, even by an experienced gunner". In smooth air, the group size could improve to 6 m at the same distance when firing at a target requiring no traversing, or 9 m with traversing."

Spoon

Great find Spoon!
Cutting to the chase it seems like the best that could be expected was a handfull of rounds (4-5 rnd bursts with a Lewis?) scattered over half of an airframe at 230 meters. The reference to, "traversing the gun", makes me believe that this refers to "across the beam" shots rather than simply, "dusting off the tail".

Oddly enough, right after posting to this thread I found a reference to MvR's 77 victory; an SE5a which, "I fired at....some 200 meters away. After firing 100 rounds, the enemy aeroplane broke apart." Darn fine shooting or else he closed the range very quickly. Not exactly flexible gun shooting but a good example to set the upper limits of effective range.

[bristol scout]

Hi Epee,
Or damned lucky---and at 200yards I'm inclined towards luck.

dave.

[Lufbery]

Those groups sizes could be about the same for fixed machine guns. Aircraft motion and engine vibration play hell with group sizes.

If I recall correctly, there's a great experiment in the Discover Chanel documentary:

Unsolved History ~ Death of the Red Baron

Unsolved History ~ Death of the Red Baron

where the film-makers have a Camel set up horizontally with the engine running and they fire at large sheets of paper about 100 yards distant. Just a handful of bullets hit the paper.

The bottom line is that it was better to be close than far away when shooting an enemy airplanes.

[bristol scout]

Originally Posted by sightreader

Oh, I guarantee that sim makers are painfully aware of all the factors they have to leave out just to keep the sim playable on normal computers. It's like being in a downsizing company, making painful decisions about which departments to lay off to make ends meet...

Fair comment sightreader,

i did, in my own defence, admit up front that I knew nothing at all about flight games...

Dave.

[Epee]

Originally Posted by bristol scout

Hi Epee,
Or damned lucky---and at 200yards I'm inclined towards luck.

dave.

Perhaps, but that flys in the face of what was stated earlier; that experienced aviators held their fire until close range. Granted that's not written in stone nor do we know the exact circumstances under which MvR fired. Perhaps he was trying to quickly clear someone's tail and, "Oh ****! I must have hit something he needed..."

[bristol scout]

Hi Epee,
Yes--indeed, but remember--I did'nt say it.

Most pilots would have tried to get in close---and the ones who scored very close--all I was replying to was at 200yds. it was almost certainly a 'lucky shot' MvR or not.

Dave.