Re: Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109?

[alf blume]

Which would make the Gloster Meteor and the Hawker Tempest more important
for the later war-effort...

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> A V-1 striking the heart of London can do far more damage than any
single
> ME-109. Should those who killed V-1's be held in higher esteem?
>
> Arthur Kramer
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109?
>From: "alf blume"
>Date: 7/7/03 8:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Which would make the Gloster Meteor and the Hawker Tempest more important
>for the later war-effort...
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> A V-1 striking the heart of London can do far more damage than any
>single
>> ME-109. Should those who killed V-1's be held in higher esteem?
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>


Agreed.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Gordon]

>
>A V-1 striking the heart of London can do far more damage than any single
>ME-109. Should those who killed V-1's be held in higher esteem?

No - both pilots are doing their own critical duties. The crews I know that
hunted V-1s at night were also constantly on the lookout for German a/c and
dealt with them on occasion. Both pilots volunteered and fought the war the
way they were required to.

I know its not a popular view, but in my mind, Combat Wounded sets folks a rung
above their mates. "Being there" counts, regardless of what capacity you serve
- the entire military force could volunteer but it wouldn't change the fact
that without cooks and typists, there would be no bombs hitting the target.
Flyers owe their success, every bit of it, to the guy that feeds them and pours
oil in the engines. When flyers succeed, its because they are standing on the
shoulders of thousands of other that are serving with every bit as much heart -
and your ground crew, whose names are probably lost in time, have every reason
to be proud of their service. How many volunteered to fly but through some
failing of education or body kept them on the ground? Thousands. So they
served in other ways, in roles utterly without glory or acknowledgement. Three
years driving a tractor in the snow, rain, or sweltering heat in some forgotten
theatre of war isn't going to earn them a medal, but maybe in sixty or seventy
years, someone will appreciate that you built a runway for crippled bombers to
divert to.

v/r
Gordon

[ArtKramr]

>ubject: Re: Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109?
>From: "James Linn"
>Date: 7/7/03 5:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time

>And a V1 is a one shot deal - often hit a farmers field not London. And an
>ME 109 might strafe a column, or shot down a bomber or fighter, land come
>back and do it again.

Have you seen London after it has been hit by a V-1? I have. It ain't a pretty
picture.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[vzlion]

On 07 Jul 2003 13:51:54 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>A V-1 striking the heart of London can do far more damage than any single
>ME-109. Should those who killed V-1's be held in higher esteem?
>
>Arthur Kramer
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

No, I don't think so. During the BOB was a Spitfire or Hurricane pilot
held in more esteem because he shot down a bomber rather that an
escort fighter? I don't know, but I wouldn't think so. Granted, the
bomber was the more important target because it could do more damage.
Actually the bomber was probably more dangerous than the V-1, it was
more accurate. Either could do more damage, if they hit their target,
than a 109.
It was a job that had to be done, and some one had to do it.
It was their turn in the barrel.

Walt


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[Gordon]

>
>It was a job that had to be done, and some one had to do it.
>It was their turn in the barrel.
>
>Walt

Absolutely. And a whole lot of people on the ground were sure relieved that
they learned the skills necessary to defeat the "Doodlebugs", but only after a
painful time for those within V-1 range.
In the other thread, I noticed that folks disagreed that V-1 chasing was combat
- I am interested in that idea, but I feel it should count as combat, if not in
the actual "victory" totals for the pilots leading to ace status. Its like
Frank Luke and the barrage balloons - the balloons themselves didn't shoot back
and were usually abandoned prior to the attack, but there were inherent dangers
associated with attacking them.
Same for the V-1s, in my mind.

The guys that hunted V-1s did so in a war zone, filled with every danger that a
fighter pilot facing a more traditional opponent would provide. Add to it the
near certainty that a successful attack would include a detonation of about a
ton of torpedo-grade explosive within a couple hundred yards of the nose of
your straining, flat-out racing fighter - as someone else reported, more than
one defending fighter was lost several severely damaged in the attempt. At
night, it was worse - German fighters were in the air at times that the
interceptions were underway, and GCI was hard pressed to sort the friendlies
and ghosts during the V-1 raids due to their low altitudes and fast inbound
tracks. Its a mess for airborne IFF at night and there were definite losses
due to friendly fire as a result. That's aerial combat to me, my friend!

v/r
Gordon

[James Linn]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >ubject: Re: Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109?
> >From: "James Linn"
> >Date: 7/7/03 5:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>
> >And a V1 is a one shot deal - often hit a farmers field not London. And
an
> >ME 109 might strafe a column, or shot down a bomber or fighter, land come
> >back and do it again.
>
> Have you seen London after it has been hit by a V-1? I have. It ain't a
pretty
> picture.

Your B26 carried the same load or more, and carried it farther, and dropped
it more accurately. Your pilot adjusted for headwinds, crosswinds, and bad
target intelligence. If it was a choice between sending your crew or a V-1
against the same target - which would you chose?

The V1 was put into service because the Germans couldn't hope to get air
superiority over Britain by 1944.

The stats I read about how many hit their targets is pretty telling. 8 out
of 10 never made it, either because they were shot down, or missed their
target. Once they got the hang of where to place the guns, AAA was pretty
successful at shooting them down.

James Linn

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109?
>From: "James Linn"
>Date: 7/9/03 6:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >ubject: Re: Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109?
>> >From: "James Linn"
>> >Date: 7/7/03 5:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>
>> >And a V1 is a one shot deal - often hit a farmers field not London. And
>an
>> >ME 109 might strafe a column, or shot down a bomber or fighter, land come
>> >back and do it again.
>>
>> Have you seen London after it has been hit by a V-1? I have. It ain't a
>pretty
>> picture.
>
>Your B26 carried the same load or more, and carried it farther, and dropped
>it more accurately. Your pilot adjusted for headwinds, crosswinds, and bad
>target intelligence. If it was a choice between sending your crew or a V-1
>against the same target - which would you chose?
>
>The V1 was put into service because the Germans couldn't hope to get air
>superiority over Britain by 1944.
>
>The stats I read about how many hit their targets is pretty telling. 8 out
>of 10 never made it, either because they were shot down, or missed their
>target. Once they got the hang of where to place the guns, AAA was pretty
>successful at shooting them down.
>
>James Linn


I guess you are making a case for never sending fighters after V-1 at all. Let
the flak do the job where needed and the rest won't hit anything important at
all. Interesting analysis.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Brian Colwell]

"James Linn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >ubject: Re: Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109?
> > >From: "James Linn"
> > >Date: 7/7/03 5:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >
> > >And a V1 is a one shot deal - often hit a farmers field not London. And
> an
> > >ME 109 might strafe a column, or shot down a bomber or fighter, land
come
> > >back and do it again.
> >
> > Have you seen London after it has been hit by a V-1? I have. It ain't a
> pretty
> > picture.
>
> Your B26 carried the same load or more, and carried it farther, and
dropped
> it more accurately. Your pilot adjusted for headwinds, crosswinds, and bad
> target intelligence. If it was a choice between sending your crew or a
V-1
> against the same target - which would you chose?
>
> The V1 was put into service because the Germans couldn't hope to get air
> superiority over Britain by 1944.
>
> The stats I read about how many hit their targets is pretty telling. 8 out
> of 10 never made it, either because they were shot down, or missed their
> target. Once they got the hang of where to place the guns, AAA was pretty
> successful at shooting them down.
>
> James Linn
>
The V1 never was a *tactical* weapon, its only use was to try and to lower
the morale of the Brits, After the heavy bombing they had experienced the V1
or V2 did not have all that bigger impact on the population .

BMC

[James Linn]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109?
> >From: "James Linn"
> >Date: 7/9/03 6:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >ubject: Re: Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME
109?
> >> >From: "James Linn"
> >> >Date: 7/7/03 5:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >>
> >> >And a V1 is a one shot deal - often hit a farmers field not London.
And
> >an
> >> >ME 109 might strafe a column, or shot down a bomber or fighter, land
come
> >> >back and do it again.
> >>
> >> Have you seen London after it has been hit by a V-1? I have. It ain't a
> >pretty
> >> picture.
> >
> >Your B26 carried the same load or more, and carried it farther, and
dropped
> >it more accurately. Your pilot adjusted for headwinds, crosswinds, and
bad
> >target intelligence. If it was a choice between sending your crew or a
V-1
> >against the same target - which would you chose?
> >
> >The V1 was put into service because the Germans couldn't hope to get air
> >superiority over Britain by 1944.
> >
> >The stats I read about how many hit their targets is pretty telling. 8
out
> >of 10 never made it, either because they were shot down, or missed their
> >target. Once they got the hang of where to place the guns, AAA was pretty
> >successful at shooting them down.
> >
> >James Linn
>
>
> I guess you are making a case for never sending fighters after V-1 at all.
Let
> the flak do the job where needed and the rest won't hit anything important
at
> all. Interesting analysis.

Not what I said at all. But if the choice is to take fighters needed at the
front(not necessarily the case by mid 44), it would be a tough call. At
first the AAA wasn't that effective. But later when the AAA got a good
percentage - you have to wonder whether you should risk a pilot (expensive
and long time to train) and a plane(expensive, especially jets) against
something that may get shot down by AAA anyway, or might easily miss the
target and land harmlessly in a field.

James Linn

[Tom Cervo]

>you have to wonder whether you should risk a pilot (expensive
>and long time to train) and a plane(expensive, especially jets) against
>something that may get shot down by AAA anyway, or might easily miss the
>target and land harmlessly in a field.

Or demolish an apartment block in London. It may not have been a rational
decision, but it was certainly a human one.

[Dana Miller]

On the website for an AAA searchlight outfit they talk about an analysis
on the V-1. The conclusion there was that the V-1's cost the allies
about 3.5 times the damage as the cost to make them. Link:

http://www.skylighters.org/

Actual page:

http://www.strandlab.com/buzzbombs/index.html

Art,

recognize the B-26 under the Eifiel Tower?

--
Dana Miller

[Keith Willshaw]

"James Linn" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> Not what I said at all. But if the choice is to take fighters needed at
the
> front(not necessarily the case by mid 44), it would be a tough call. At
> first the AAA wasn't that effective. But later when the AAA got a good
> percentage - you have to wonder whether you should risk a pilot (expensive
> and long time to train) and a plane(expensive, especially jets) against
> something that may get shot down by AAA anyway, or might easily miss the
> target and land harmlessly in a field.
>

Trouble is it might also hit a chapel and kill 119 people, as
in fact happened at the Guards Chapel in Wellington Barracks

At the end of the day if you arent going to use the fighters
to defend your country why build them ?

Keith

[James Linn]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> At the end of the day if you arent going to use the fighters
> to defend your country why build them ?

Not the question I was posing - and I said it was a tough call, not that I
had a firm opinion. I think its an interesting discussion.

The question isn't whether to use your fighters, but what to use them on -
V1s, ground attack, air defense. Are you better to try intercepting the
V-1s, or have the fighters escort bombers trying to knock out the V-1
launchers? Which one will help shorten the war? On a mission by mission
basis no way to tell.

James Linn

[Keith Willshaw]

"James Linn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > At the end of the day if you arent going to use the fighters
> > to defend your country why build them ?
>
> Not the question I was posing - and I said it was a tough call, not that I
> had a firm opinion. I think its an interesting discussion.
>
> The question isn't whether to use your fighters, but what to use them on -
> V1s, ground attack, air defense. Are you better to try intercepting the
> V-1s, or have the fighters escort bombers trying to knock out the V-1
> launchers? Which one will help shorten the war? On a mission by mission
> basis no way to tell.
>
> James Linn
>
>

Ultimately the only answer was to overun the area in France from
which they were being launched since the Germans were using
large numbers of mobile launchers.

In the meanwhile the British people would scarcely have tolerated
a situation in which RAF fighters were staying safely on the ground
while V-1's killed thousands of civilians.

Keith

[John Halliwell]

In article >, James Linn
> writes
>Not what I said at all. But if the choice is to take fighters needed at the
>front(not necessarily the case by mid 44), it would be a tough call. At
>first the AAA wasn't that effective. But later when the AAA got a good
>percentage - you have to wonder whether you should risk a pilot (expensive
>and long time to train) and a plane(expensive, especially jets) against
>something that may get shot down by AAA anyway, or might easily miss the
>target and land harmlessly in a field.

The best results against V-1s were achieved when the AA guns were moved
from London to the South coast to shoot them down before crossing it. A
fighter 'no-go' area was created in front of the guns to give them the
ability to fire at anything (previously fighters had got in the way).
The fighters were then used to chase the bombs that passed the gun line.
The radar-proximity AA shell greatly improved the effectiveness of the
guns. There's footage somewhere of a V-1 being shot down, the first 3
shots each get closer than the previous one, the fourth nailed it.

--
John

[IBM]

(ArtKramr) wrote in
:

> A V-1 striking the heart of London can do far more damage than any
> single ME-109. Should those who killed V-1's be held in higher
> esteem?

Shooting or tipping a V-1 was a fairly hazardous activity.
Shooting could set off the warhead as evidenced by some of the
surviving gun camera footage and tipping the beast was essentially
a controlled mid-air collision.

IBM

__________________________________________________ ____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[John Halliwell]

In article >, IBM
> writes
>Shooting or tipping a V-1 was a fairly hazardous activity.
> Shooting could set off the warhead as evidenced by some of the
> surviving gun camera footage

And when it did explode, the fighter was flying towards the explosion at
400mph+.

> and tipping the beast was essentially
> a controlled mid-air collision.

Yes, although the idea was not to come in contact (aircraft aluminium
and V-1 steel wings don't mix very well), just disturb the airflow over
the wing, then get out of there before it rolled towards the fighter.

--
John

[Mike Dargan]

IBM wrote:

(ArtKramr) wrote in
:
>
>
>
>>A V-1 striking the heart of London can do far more damage than any
>>single ME-109. Should those who killed V-1's be held in higher
>>esteem?
>>
>>
>
> Shooting or tipping a V-1 was a fairly hazardous activity.
> Shooting could set off the warhead as evidenced by some of the
> surviving gun camera footage and tipping the beast was essentially
> a controlled mid-air collision.
>
Did the aircraft actually make physical contact? Or, did it lower it's
wing tip in front of the V-1 tip thereby disrupting the airflow and
causing the V-1's wing to drop?

--mike

>
> IBM
>
>__________________________________________________ ____________________
>Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
>
>
>

--
Michael J. Dargan
http://mingo.info-science.uiowa.edu/~dargan

[Guy Alcala]

Mike Dargan wrote:

> IBM wrote:
>
> (ArtKramr) wrote in
> :
> >
> >
> >
> >>A V-1 striking the heart of London can do far more damage than any
> >>single ME-109. Should those who killed V-1's be held in higher
> >>esteem?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Shooting or tipping a V-1 was a fairly hazardous activity.
> > Shooting could set off the warhead as evidenced by some of the
> > surviving gun camera footage and tipping the beast was essentially
> > a controlled mid-air collision.
> >
> Did the aircraft actually make physical contact? Or, did it lower it's
> wing tip in front of the V-1 tip thereby disrupting the airflow and
> causing the V-1's wing to drop?

Neither. The recommended procedure was for the fighter to fly parallel to the V-1 and
place the fighter's wingtip several inches to a couple of feet under the V-1's
wingtip. The airflow would cause the V-1 to roll AWAY from the fighter, tumbling the
gyro. It was sometimes necessary for the fighter to bank slightly away from the V-1 to
bring the wings into close enough proximity, but physical contact was not intended.

Guy

[[email protected]]

Guy Alcala > wrote:

>Mike Dargan wrote:
>
>> IBM wrote:
>>
>> (ArtKramr) wrote in
>> :
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>A V-1 striking the heart of London can do far more damage than any
>> >>single ME-109. Should those who killed V-1's be held in higher
>> >>esteem?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Shooting or tipping a V-1 was a fairly hazardous activity.
>> > Shooting could set off the warhead as evidenced by some of the
>> > surviving gun camera footage and tipping the beast was essentially
>> > a controlled mid-air collision.
>> >
>> Did the aircraft actually make physical contact? Or, did it lower it's
>> wing tip in front of the V-1 tip thereby disrupting the airflow and
>> causing the V-1's wing to drop?
>
>Neither. The recommended procedure was for the fighter to fly parallel to the V-1 and
>place the fighter's wingtip several inches to a couple of feet under the V-1's
>wingtip. The airflow would cause the V-1 to roll AWAY from the fighter, tumbling the
>gyro. It was sometimes necessary for the fighter to bank slightly away from the V-1 to
>bring the wings into close enough proximity, but physical contact was not intended.
>
>Guy

That sounds reasonable, Mike's 'method' sounds sort of
'self-defeating' (big time) to me. :)
--

-Gord.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109?
>From: LesB
>Date: 7/14/03 8:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time

>The favoured method was shooting the thing down. Bee says they would

That way they would bring back GSAP footage to show to their grandkids. (grin)

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[LesB]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:26:18 +0100, Dave Eadsforth
> wrote:

>If the optimum range was 300 yards, would this simply be because of guns
>being harmonised for about that distance because encounters with enemy
>aircraft could not be excluded? Short range was clearly preferable
>against manoeuvring targets, but the V1s were not taking evasive action,
>and if the Tempests were dedicated to V1s then other harmonisation
>patters might have been possible.

Again, relating Bee's tales. The 300 yard range had been found by
trial and error, but the growing success at intercepts was offset by
the fact that too many were still failing to destroy their targets.
The fighters (Mossies, Tempests, Spits, et all) were firing off all
their ammo without causing lethal damage. Seems there was a clear
reason for this.

Throughout the war the guns of fighters had been harmonized not on a
point for optimum concentration at a given range, but on a basis of
calculations by gunnery experts in the Air Ministry Armaments Branch,
this harmonization was called "Fighter Command Standard Spread
Harmonization".

When the guns and sight were harmonized to this standard against the
"pattern" boards it looked as if all the guns were aimed in slightly
different directions. The reasoned explanation for this method was
that the calculated "dispersion" pattern would ensure the maximum
number of rounds would hit the target from any one burst of fire. With
experience, says Bee, many pilots doubted this and so, at Newchurch,
they took matters into their own hands. They knew the Tempest was
extremely stable and the four 20mm cannon had a fairly high accuracy
over a range of 1000 yards. The V1 however was a difficult target with
its 3 foot dia fuselage making it difficult to see at long range. Bee
proposed that his "wing" re-harmonize to 300 yds "point
concentration". 11 Group's Armament Branch did not give a sympathetic
response so he re-harmonzied the guns on his own Tempest (JN751)
anyway. He says the results were spectacular exploding a V1 with one
burst and getting two or three more that day. He ordered the change
to be made to the Tempests of his Wing and saw an immediate
improvement in "hits" from his pilots.

>So, (Tony/Emmanuel?) . . .

??? Who?

>. . .what would the chances have been of knocking out a
>V1 with guns harmonised for 600 yards

No idea. Not going to get into a speculative argument over this, we've
all seen the trouble such argument causes on ram. I am just airing
the words of Roland Beamont who was there. The steps and actions they
took worked and worked well. Those actions and decisions were made in
light of circumstances and conditions at that time.

I strongly recommend you get hold of a copy of his book(s) on this
period of Bee's very full life.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cheers
LesB

[Guy Alcala]

LesB wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:26:18 +0100, Dave Eadsforth
> > wrote:
>
> >If the optimum range was 300 yards, would this simply be because of guns
> >being harmonised for about that distance because encounters with enemy
> >aircraft could not be excluded? Short range was clearly preferable
> >against manoeuvring targets, but the V1s were not taking evasive action,
> >and if the Tempests were dedicated to V1s then other harmonisation
> >patters might have been possible.
>
> Again, relating Bee's tales. The 300 yard range had been found by
> trial and error, but the growing success at intercepts was offset by
> the fact that too many were still failing to destroy their targets.
> The fighters (Mossies, Tempests, Spits, et all) were firing off all
> their ammo without causing lethal damage. Seems there was a clear
> reason for this.
>
> Throughout the war the guns of fighters had been harmonized not on a
> point for optimum concentration at a given range, but on a basis of
> calculations by gunnery experts in the Air Ministry Armaments Branch,
> this harmonization was called "Fighter Command Standard Spread
> Harmonization".
>
> When the guns and sight were harmonized to this standard against the
> "pattern" boards it looked as if all the guns were aimed in slightly
> different directions. The reasoned explanation for this method was
> that the calculated "dispersion" pattern would ensure the maximum
> number of rounds would hit the target from any one burst of fire. With
> experience, says Bee, many pilots doubted this and so, at Newchurch,
> they took matters into their own hands. They knew the Tempest was
> extremely stable and the four 20mm cannon had a fairly high accuracy
> over a range of 1000 yards. The V1 however was a difficult target with
> its 3 foot dia fuselage making it difficult to see at long range.

<snip>

I think this last point is what would make trying to fire at longer range
difficult/impossible. If you can't see the target to aim, everything else is
irrelevant.

Guy

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, Dave Eadsforth
> writes
>In article >, LesB
> writes
>>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:26:18 +0100, Dave Eadsforth
> wrote:
>>
>
>Not a totally flawed principle - it was designed to cater for the
>marksmanship of the average pilot who did not perform well with a fully
>converged 'point' pattern. A point focus gives a lethal zone of two
>cones with their apexes touching - good for dead astern attacks.

Whoops - pardon slip of finger - meant to say triangles, not cones.

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Dave Eadsforth > writes:
<Snip - in reference to teh possibility of offsetting an interceptor's
<gun boresight line to keep said interceptor out fo the blast of an
< exploding V-1 >

> So, (Tony/Emmanuel?) what would the chances have been of knocking out a
> V1 with guns harmonised for 600 yards and from a high position behind
> with a gyro sight? (The gyro sight allowed up to 800 yards range, I
> believe.) The lethal zone would have been just as good (if not in
> theory slightly better with wing mounted guns) at 600 as 300.
>
> Maybe such approaches were tried, but weren't reliable enough? Could
> routine air turbulence have thrown off effective shooting at longer
> ranges? Did the sighting pattern on early gyro sights dance a bit too
> much?

I don't know about during the War, (Other than Shrage Musik, of
course, but that's rather different) but Post-War, something similar
was tried on the FJ-2 Fury. (Sea Sabre) The guns were harmonized for
a "typical" lead angle corresponding to a "normal" altitude, airspeed,
and G loading, so that the airplane wouldn't have to pull its nose
ahead of the target in order to pull lead. (Which, if both the shooter
& the target can pull about the same G, would be an advantage)
The pilots, as I understand it, hated it. Smooth tracking, which the
gyro sights required, was nearly impossible. Tracking was no longer a
relatively simple matter of rolling & pulling. The pipper apparently
wandered around like a clock pendulum, and smooth trackign just
couldn't be performed by Earth Humans. It really halps to have the
gun sightline along the roll axis of the airplane.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Dave Eadsforth]

In article >, LesB
> writes
>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:45:51 +0100, Dave Eadsforth
> wrote:
>
>>>>So, (Tony/Emmanuel?) . . .
>>>
>>>??? Who?
>>
>>Um, newcomer to this newsgroup? :-)
>
><Grin> No, not really, been here a few years, but don't post much
>these days - was just on a fly-by when I saw the thread. Long-time
>members may remember me as the Canberra Man, - I have the Canberra
>Tribute web-site.
>
>So, what means this (Tony/Emmanuel) stuff then? ;-D

A couple of guys who post here from time to time and who know a bit :-)
about the effectiveness of aircraft armament
>
>>I concur, a newsgroup such as this, so mercifully devoid of speculation,
>>should remain so...
>
>As is any group that has Traver in it ;-). But good to see Gord,
>Dudley, Drew et all still posting common sense.
>
>>> I am just airing
>>>the words of Roland Beamont who was there.
>>
>>Worth doing.
>
>Right. But not just from his books. Every year, in company with a few
>others of the Canberra Assoc, we visited with Bee at his local pub on
>May 13th - anniversary of Canberra's 1st flight. Many a tale from the
>man, some scary, a lot that were funny, some that will never see the
>light of day, but all fascinating - such a breadth of experience in
>one person!

Okay, I'm envious - along with half the rest of the aviation world!

> And still, right to the end, a fair capacity for a pint!
>;-D
>
Glad to hear that!

>>True - they had to find an effective, if occasionally risky, solution.
>
>Name of the game I reckon - still happens.
>
>>So, your point about seeing the target appears to be a crucial one.
>
>Was easier at night when they vectored on the glow of the ramjet.
>
>>'damage from the explosion of the V.1. had been suffered by aircraft
>>attacking within two hundred yards.'
>
>Some damage from debris, but mostly the fact that the fabric covering
>of the control surfaces would catch fire.
>
Must have irritated...


>[. . . ]
>Another point mentioned by Bee was that coming in from above gave the
>pilot some indication of the land underneath. This, it seems, was a
>consideration when shooting down a V1, they would try to do it over
>farmland rather than towns/villages. This is an aspect that I for one
>had never thought of before. Always thought that *heat of battle*
>ruled the day, but seems not. Bee and his pilots considered this when
>attacking.
>
And I guess the people who were saved by this thoughtfulness would never
have known...

>> - the gyro sight did make deflection shots a lot more reliable, and
>>the V.1. would have been more visible from such a low (deflection)
>>position.
>
>See above.
>
>> However, exploring the full capabilities of the gyro sight might have
>>required a leap of faith too great for 1944. Probably not even considered,
>>given the need to down V.1.s reliably without delay.
>
>Very true. As far as the re-harmonizing of the guns is concerned, an
>NZ 486 Sqd Tempest pilot I know says that they went on to use the
>point-concentration method to amazing effect when they later moved on
>to ground attack.

I can believe that - if the pilot was good enough to hit the target then
there would not be too much left of it - 37,000 foot pounds of whack per
round even if it didn't go bang on impact.
>
>
>Regards
>Les Bywaters
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>English Electric Canberra Tribute Site
>http:\\www.netcomuk.co.uk\~leb\canberra.html

--
Dave Eadsforth