Deflection

[unreasonable]

Well no doubt geometry is precise but have a look at how people are reacting to its application in the game. That is subjective.

That may be true, but only because some people are ignorant of geometry, or may believe (correctly or not), that the game physics is incorrect in some way, or may not have grasped some of the subtleties of ACM. (That one is probably me :0)

 

The fact of disagreement does not mean that there are no facts. Reasoned debate helps to reduce ignorance and change subjective experience. Personally I have found this thread to be instructive and has helped me to clarify my thoughts.

 

In cases where debate does not resolve, it may at least reveal the existence of genuine issues where a case for true subjectivity can be made: the debate over can it be right to shoot down parachutes, for instance.

 

In short, please do not try to damp down debate over what are essentially empirical issues just because people disagree.

 

BTW I have no beef with the moderators - I have would have made the same comment to anyone.

Edited September 23, 2014 by unreasonable

[J4SCrisZeri]

No, no, I mean how far ahead of your target you have to aim.

oh, ok, got it, thank you

[=69.GIAP=RADKO]

Maybe but if you are in a turning fight and pulling Gs the target will be below your nose: an excellent reason to avoid turning fights IMHO!

 

It's all situational remember. Getting into a turning fight is precisely what you SHOULD be doing if you're in a Yak-1 for example.....but not when you're 3000m high. All situational. 

Edited September 23, 2014 by =69.GIAP=RADKO

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

Maybe it has to do with the vertical (and horizontal) convergence? As is now it is by default set at 500 m, meaning that the trajectory of the bullets are higher than if we had it at 150-200 (which is my "normal" convergence). Not the same "punch" but as the trajectory is higher, u don' need to lead that much?

[SharpeXB]

And you realize of course high angle defection (blind) is half the battle in a BnZ plane. If you don't learn blind defection, then you lose half your kills.

 

I was told during a good Qualification Course (based on the USAF) in another sim if you blind lead the target;

First, You've lost sight of them, which violates rule #1 "don't lose sight"

Second, you're in lead pursuit of a target that you can't see and than you assume can't see you, always assume the enemy can't see you, that's the goal right? So you're risking an aerial collision.

I don't have any period training or accounts of what pilots actually did in the war, I'm sure more risks are taken in war than flying by the book. Can't imagine any real air combat training that advocates spraying bullets at unseen targets. In games though players don't care about the risk of collision or wasting ammo, also they have the aid of icons and padlocks.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Sharpe

[Karost]

I was told during a good Qualification Course (based on the USAF) in another sim if you blind lead the target;

First, You've lost sight of them, which violates rule #1 "don't lose sight"

Second, you're in lead pursuit of a target that you can't see and than you assume can't see you, always assume the enemy can't see you, that's the goal right? So you're risking an aerial collision.

I don't have any period training or accounts of what pilots actually did in the war, I'm sure more risks are taken in war than flying by the book. Can't imagine any real air combat training that advocates spraying bullets at unseen targets. In games though players don't care about the risk of collision or wasting ammo, also they have the aid of icons and padlocks.

 

now I understand why people avoid blind spot shooting  because the rule #1 "don't lose sight" and I respect that rule.

I think it not look too bad to question the rule  or the book... why ?

-  if you  lose sight .... you lose situation awareness .. bad thing will happen like  collision with opponent or opponent take advantage. ( 10 year online play I never collision when apply blind spot shooting and not lose S.A. )

-  if you take blind spot shoot   to opponent who chasing your friend 6'olock your ammo may hit your friend not your opponent ..... (...ahh I did that one time )

-  hey but if I lose  sight just  2 sec. but I not lose S.A. for example I apply a vector roll maneuver then I can track him again in the next move ... that is count ?

by the way ,I respect people who keep the rule # 1 ...but please let me and other friends breaking the rule like ...  Hans-Joachim Marseille. 

 

[ "... Marseille's approach to the problem was typically unorthodox: a short dive to gain speed, then up and under from outside the circle, using the blind spot under the adversary's wing; close to 150 feet, a brief burst of fire, then up and away, using the accumulated speed of the dive to soar high above the circle; down again once more on the outside but this time coming from above at a moderate deflection angle of perhaps 30 degrees; ease the stick back, then, as the target disappears beneath the nose, a brief burst of fire, then up and outward once more, or down and outward, ready for another climbing attack..." Mike Spick. Luftwaffe Fighter Aces. page 123  ]

 

Edited September 23, 2014 by Karost

[SharpeXB]

Hey nice response from a period source. S!

[3instein]

When you are say in a turn fight and are pulling G's,is the gunsight/revi meant to move at all?

 

I mean is it meant to take into account the g-force you are pulling to give you a proper solution on target?

 

If it doesn't then what is the point of it?as you could just have a gunsight painted on your windshield,sorry for the nub question but I'm not very clued up on this.

 

Mick.

Edited September 23, 2014 by 3instein

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

No, there were no lead computing gun sights early in the war. It is an illuminated reflector sight which was state of the art at the time.

[Finkeren]

When you are say in a turn fight and are pulling G's,is the gunsight/revi meant to move at all?

 

I mean is it meant to take into account the g-force you are pulling to give you a proper solution on target?

 

If it doesn't then what is the point of it?as you could just have a gunsight painted on your windshield,sorry for the nub question but I'm not very clued up on this.

 

Mick.

A sight painted on the windshield will be absolutely useless, since you as a minimum have to align 2 points in order to make the sight work.

 

A reflector sight has the very large benefit compared to a standard iron sight, that it moves with your point of view and always points towards the convergence point for the guns. If you see the recticle moving across the glass plate it's because your head is moving. Thus there is no need to keep your head absolutely still in one position with one eye closed to keep the sight aligned as you do with a iron sight. You just have to keep the recticle inside the glass plate where it's displayed onto. Reflector sights are more flexible, easier to use and faster to aim and are now quite common in personal weapons like rifles, submachine guns and pistols as well.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Finkeren

[Finkeren]

A simpler form of the same general principle is the simpler tube shaped collimator sights used in WW1 and still in limited use at the beginning of WW2, especially in Japanese aircraft. Contrary to popular belief, these are not "sniper scopes" and generally don't magnify the target. They are simply a more effective easier to use sight that doesn't require you to hold your head absolutely still.

[VBF-12_Snake9]

A simpler form of the same general principle is the simpler tube shaped collimator sights used in WW1 and still in limited use at the beginning of WW2, especially in Japanese aircraft. Contrary to popular belief, these are not "sniper scopes" and generally don't magnify the target. They are simply a more effective easier to use sight that doesn't require you to hold your head absolutely still.

I hated to fly the Ki43 just for that reason.  Never could get used to that scope.  Limited my view and hurt my deflection shooting. 

[76SQN-FatherTed]

That is very nice blind deflection shooting (60% - max deflection is 90%, a head on shot has zero deflection, not 180%) but I have to point out that this was not a BnZ attack. You are below the target and only doing about 400kph. The Spitfire you shot down probably has more E than you do. You turn 73% and climb 210m during the attack. It is actually a well executed turnfight attack!

 

Anyway, confusion about terminology apart, I must practice some more!

 

I think most of us would equate a turnfight with trying to turn so that you can get a very low angle shot from behind.  What Karost seemed to be showing was that he didn't try to turn with the Spit ("saddle up") to get a shot, because that doesn't play to the 190's strengths - he may not be able to match the turn, even in the short term.  What he does instead is cut across the turn and fire blind, at high deflection, to where he thinks the Spit will be flying.  So whilst he hasn't hit the Spit in a high speed pass, he hasn't got sucked into a turn fight per se.

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

IMHO, I think the biggest issue in deflection shooting is people underestimating the angle off tail and the need to increase the lead of the shot.  In some cases this means in higher AoT's that the aircraft is under your cowling, and therefore not visible, when you open fire.

 

I'll be happy to see convergence finally be implemented so we know where we stand.

[Karost]

I think most of us would equate a turnfight with trying to turn so that you can get a very low angle shot from behind.  What Karost seemed to be showing was that he didn't try to turn with the Spit ("saddle up") to get a shot, because that doesn't play to the 190's strengths - he may not be able to match the turn, even in the short term.  What he does instead is cut across the turn and fire blind, at high deflection, to where he thinks the Spit will be flying.  So whilst he hasn't hit the Spit in a high speed pass, he hasn't got sucked into a turn fight per se.

Hey FatherTed, You are 100% right for reading my S.A. from my previous share trick.

 

You are right that I can not turn with Spit , 190 guys never made turn fight with Spit they just hit and run. 

 

70 degree change heading it is not made turn with Spit just moving the gun to shoot.

 

"What he does instead is cut across the turn and fire blind, at high deflection, to where he thinks the Spit will be flying" .... that is what I want to say..! in my share trick but my English is poor so I have to use screen shot and drawing line to tell the meaning.

 

Thanks.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Karost

[unreasonable]

I think most of us would equate a turnfight with trying to turn so that you can get a very low angle shot from behind.  What Karost seemed to be showing was that he didn't try to turn with the Spit ("saddle up") to get a shot, because that doesn't play to the 190's strengths - he may not be able to match the turn, even in the short term.  What he does instead is cut across the turn and fire blind, at high deflection, to where he thinks the Spit will be flying.  So whilst he hasn't hit the Spit in a high speed pass, he hasn't got sucked into a turn fight per se.

 

I understand that but my the original discussion was about shooting in a BnZ attack. If Karosts attack was a BnZ then I am changing my name to BraveSirRobin.  Just flying Fw190 does not make your attacks BnZ.

 

He starts and ends up below his target - his speed at the last screenshot was 370kmp, after losing 100kmp during his 70% turn.  He ends his attack low and slow!

 

Since his shooting was good (or lucky?) it looks as though it does not matter - the fact that the Spitfire appears to have another Hun on its tail and may not have even seen Karost probably helped.  If there were any other Spitfires around at that point (or he had missed) he is in deep trouble.

 

But so what? Just go and respawn.

 

 

. 

[ "... Marseille's approach to the problem was typically unorthodox: a short dive to gain speed, then up and under from outside the circle, using the blind spot under the adversary's wing; close to 150 feet, a brief burst of fire, then up and away, using the accumulated speed of the dive to soar high above the circle; down again once more on the outside but this time coming from above at a moderate deflection angle of perhaps 30 degrees; ease the stick back, then, as the target disappears beneath the nose, a brief burst of fire, then up and outward once more, or down and outward, ready for another climbing attack..." Mike Spick. Luftwaffe Fighter Aces. page 123  ]

 

 

If this diagram is to be taken seriously, the words in bold are the key here - the target is flown into the sight in full view, the wings of M's 109 are just about level.. M can fire while the target is still in sight as it slips under his nose out of view, or wait the 1/10 second or so while it slips under the nose. No problem with that. 

 

This is completely different from Karost's trick shot where the target is out of view for a while since Karost's wings are 90% to the target line and the target flies up from out of view into view, by which time it has been hit. 

 

Anyway, everyone is free to fly and shoot as they wish and good luck to them.    

[GP*]

One of the best explanations of deflection shooting I've ever seen. Now if I can only learn to implement it!!!!

 

 

 

It appears the video is by our BOS pilot, ZG26 Ruhland.

Definitely a nicely done video. Very clear explanations and solid execution. Realize that it's not quite a video on deflection shooting, but rather on how to prosecute a high-angle gun snap. Deflection shooting is required whether you're parked right on the turn circle or closing rapidly at a 9 aspect.

 

A high-angle snap is good for fighting bandits that out turn you (instantaneous or sustained, which is why it suites the 190 so well), or just keeping your energy up so you can separate after (low fuel, high threat environment, etc). However, the high heading crossing angle when you inevitably flush outside the turn circle can trigger reversal cues for a smart bandit who survives your attack.

 

Anyway, enough of the lecture chamber . Nice video.

[76SQN-FatherTed]

I understand that but my the original discussion was about shooting in a BnZ attack.

 

Since his shooting was good (or lucky?) 

Well originally I thought we were just talking about deflection shooting.

 

Interesting point about shooting being good or lucky.  If someone hits a 35M free kick around the wall and in to the top corner,  has he been lucky or supremely skillfull? Not being negative - this point actually really interests me as a sports/games-player in general.

 

Anyway, glad I could help Karost get his point across and I guess, unreasonable, I'll agree to disagree about definitions

[unreasonable]

Well originally I thought we were just talking about deflection shooting.

 

Interesting point about shooting being good or lucky.  If someone hits a 35M free kick around the wall and in to the top corner,  has he been lucky or supremely skillfull? Not being negative - this point actually really interests me as a sports/games-player in general.

 

Anyway, glad I could help Karost get his point across and I guess, unreasonable, I'll agree to disagree about definitions

 

Fair enough - so just to pick up on the luck/skill question, I would say that the degree of luck would inversely correspond to the prior probability of success of taking an action. So if I think I would probably make a shot one time in ten, and I make it, I am "lucky."

 

Of course the flyer cannot set up a controlled experiment to assess a frequency of hit vs misses from a specific situation, in reality he only gets one chance because each shooting opportunity is unique, but he needs to have some sense of the odds.  A more skilled operator will have a higher probability of success in a specific kind of situation, but looking at a single outcome in isolation can only give a certain amount of information, like taking a sample potato out of a sack to check their quality.   Maybe Karost can do his shot a high percentage of the time, in which case I would agree he was not lucky to make the shot.

 

But in any game, or air combat, equally he has to assess the consequences of his action, whether success or failure,  versus the case in which he does something else.  So the issue becomes assessing risk and return.

 

So to go back to deflection shooting, I would be happy to take low probability shots if taking them does not get me into a situation where my own risk is significantly increased. After all, if I miss, I can always try again.  I would actually rather not take even a high probability shot if it means maneuvering in such a way as to significantly increase my own risk!

[Karost]

for question about the best range to open fire for deflection shooting  for me is about 50 - 100 meters.

but mostly in depend on each situation  shooting a  high deflection  to where you thinks your target will be flying.

 

for any friends who interesting in deflection shooting

I found 20 mm ammo data sheet for German  MG 151/20 which show mv speed each 100 meter. -> http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/uploads/monthly_11_2013/post-12-0-70755500-1384893379.jpg  

 

I use this data update to my DF guide line table for MG151/20 and compare to screen shot which AI  BF109 shot me range about 250 meter while my Lagg3 speed about 350-400 km/h. that show in table  DFR = 5.3 ( 1 DFR = 9 meter [ fighter range ]) which it  is very close to the tracer travel to red cycle.

 

  

Edited September 25, 2014 by Karost

[Emgy]

^Interesting stuff, thanks for posting.

[DoWAlpha]

I find it hilarious how many people on here are talking about deflection shooting with charts etc... and they are actually talking about snap shots making their point irrelevant. After flying all the top sims for 15 years now this is the only one that I can see someone on my 7-8 or 4-5 O'clock, look over my shoulder see them truing to pull "lead" and then watch them fire as I'm looking directly at their canopy and even the emblems on TOP of their wings and then see the rounds hit! This literally impossible and makes no sense at all. In every other flight sim, I use being able to see their canopy on a deflection shot to determine if I can just sit their and let the enemy waste his rounds. Works every time on CLoD, DCS 1946 etc.... but on here it is a different story.

Edited May 7, 2019 by DoWAlpha

[Guest deleted@83466]

That's because either you, your opponent, or both of you have a bad ping time. 

 

p.s. you're responding to a thread that's been inactive since 2014

[[CPT]milopugdog]

The necrothread is real