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

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