BALL TURRET in action

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

enjoy!

Edited January 25, 2013 by ACEOFACES

[Skoshi_Tiger]

Cool, though unfortunately, due to oppressive local gun laws and a highly vocal minority of the community that frowns on such devices, I would be unable to purchace one of those!

 

Neither would I be able to buy one of these!

 

 

Come to think about it, even it I could legally buy one I doubt I could sneek it past the wife! 

 

"Honey! we might get a delivery later on. I bought something on E-Bay!" might not cut it!

 

Cheers!

Edited January 24, 2013 by Skoshi_Tiger

[sop]

aoa= #1  I feel gay for aoa right now   edit wait I always do

Edited January 25, 2013 by sop

[NZTyphoon]

Cool, though unfortunately, due to oppressive local gun laws and a highly vocal minority of the community that frowns on such devices, I would be unable to purchace one of those!

 

Neither would I be able to buy one of these!

 

 

Come to think about it, even it I could legally buy one I doubt I could sneek it past the wife! 

 

"Honey! we might get a delivery later on. I bought something on E-Bay!" might not cut it!

 

Cheers!

 

You might find it easier sneaking this one through:

 

 

"Just need it to deal with those pesky Koalas that keep chewing up the gum trees..."

[JG4_Sputnik]

Good stuff
Though I would't fit in there anyway...

But it's interesting how "slow" that gun was. I had in mind that this was somehow an WW2 Uzi ???

[SYN_Repent]

it's TURRET, just saying......

[BG09]

Another fantastic BALL TURRET:

 

[Skoshi_Tiger]

Maybe not about ball gunners but ...

 

[FlatSpinMan]

That Polsten Quad is something out of Robocop (80's version). Frikkin' scary to see - the operator would really be controlling the weapon system like his own body.

Really interesting to see.

 

I was also struck by the rate of fire of the turret guns.  The size is remarkable too - so tiny! I have seen the real thing once or twice (in "Les Invalides" in Paris, and I *think* in the Peace Museum in Osaka, but I may be imaging that) before but thought they were mock-ups, but from this video I guess they were actually full size.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

aoa= #1  I feel gay for aoa right now

Where ya been sop, we needed a REAR gunner in RoF the other night!

 

 

it's TURRET, just saying......

DOH! Edited January 25, 2013 by ACEOFACES

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Quite a recoil on those .50cals Thanks for sharing AoA

[sop]

Where ya been sop, we needed a REAR gunner in RoF the other night!

 

 

DOH!

 

Fighting,  

  where you been>?  lolz             

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

So who is that rear gunner? It can't be you because that rear gunner didn't shoot his own tail off!

[sop]

I only shoot tail off when gunning for you

love sop

o7

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

I knew it!

[4./JG53_Wotan]

This thread reminds of a reply ^Tony Williams once gave on another forum:

If you want to make bomber gunner fire realistic, the simplest thing to do is to load the guns with blanks. They fired tens of thousands of rounds for every plane shot down.

If you can pick up the book, "Gunner:- An Illustrated History of World War II Aircraft Turrets and Gun Positions"

ISBN 1 84037 304 0

by Donald Nijboer

*Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Skoshi_Tiger]

I doubt that has anything to do with the accuracy of the defensive weapons modeled in the sim, rather the stupid mistakes of the attacking fighters. 

Edited January 28, 2013 by Skoshi_Tiger

[4./JG53_Wotan]

I doubt that has anything to do with the accuracy of the defensive weapons modeled in the sim, rather the stupid mistakes of the attacking fighters. 

You would be wrong - as I said go read the book, "Gunner:- An Illustrated History of World War II Aircraft Turrets and Gun Positions". In it there is war time test data done on the ground with both the B-24 and B-17 firing 12 round bursts from their guns at 600m - that is static on the ground / engines off.

[Skoshi_Tiger]

Pilot behaviour in real life bears very little resemblance to virtual pilot behaviour in a game.

 

If you don't want to be shot by defensive gunners don't attack from their dead six with only a few kph overtaking speed.  Use deflection shooting, slashing attacks and your superior speed and ability to climb to put yourself in better position to attack and minimise the danger to your self.

 

Many of the people complaining about "Sniper tail gunners" just put themselves in the worst possible position.

[4./JG53_Wotan]

Pilot behaviour in real life bears very little resemblance to virtual pilot behaviour in a game.

Bomber gunners were lucky to hit anything in real life - that's a proven fact.

 

One of the tactics of the the Sturmgruppen were to fly right up to a bomber formation - dead 6 and shoot them down and they did so in droves:

 

" My Staffel was in position about 1,000yd behind 'its' squadron of bombers. The Staffel leader ordered his aircraft into line abreast and, still in close formation, we advanced on the bombers. We were to advance like Frederick the Great's infantrymen, holding our fire until we could see 'the whites of the enemy's eyes'.''

 

The tactics of the Sturmgruppe were governed by the performance of the wing-mounted 3cm cannon. Although the hexogen high-explosive ammunition fired by this weapon was devastatingly effective, the gun's relatively low muzzle velocity meant that its accuracy fell off rapidly with range . With only 55 rounds per gun, sufficient for about five seconds' firing, the Sturmb???

Edited January 28, 2013 by 4./JG53_Wotan

[MiloMorai]

Skoshi, my Dad's log book has in interesting comment in it.

 

The instructor wrote: "excelent shooting" for his 5% hit percentage on the drogue target.

[Skoshi_Tiger]

Skoshi, my Dad's log book has in interesting comment in it.

 

The instructor wrote: "excelent shooting" for his 5% hit percentage on the drogue target.

 

It is a testament to the skill, training and determination of your father. No body is saying that it was an easy task, by any means. By a "drogue target" I assume your talking about a target towed by aeroplane? That would involve deflection shooting (otherwise the towing vehicle would get in the way?)

 

If you don???

[4./JG53_Wotan]

If you don???

Edited January 28, 2013 by 4./JG53_Wotan

[Skoshi_Tiger]

 Your opinion as a "sim pilot" has no bearing on the facts that have have thoroughly examined by more qualified people then you or I.

I'm glad you agree that neither of us "sim Pilots" are qualified to argue on this topic and that no ammount of "Flight Sim" experience makes us any more qualified to talk about this topic. Thankyou!

 

It's a very silly descussion actually. I am talking about the sim pilot who camps on a bombers tail at extremely short range, generally after a climb to height which bleeds off their speed giving them a very small convergence speed during their attack. Then complaigns about being shot by "Tail gun Sniper". I think you are arguing about something else.

 

Could you please look through your book and see what Mr Williams advises about positioning of attacking aircraft during an attack and how it effects the probability of being hit. (I don't have access to the tome so it would be interest see his point of view)

 

If you look at the training material given to the actual aircrew you find one very interesting thing is that very few of the example given depict a straight  on tail attack.

 

This one is taken from http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/AirGunnery/SIGHTS.html#S3 (transribed from US Army Air corp training manual.)

 

The closest I could find was

 

TAIL attack . . . Tail attacks may come from above, below, or at your level. They give the fighter the longest time to fire at you???

Edited January 29, 2013 by Skoshi_Tiger

[4./JG53_Wotan]

Its a silly discussion because you just don't have the knowledge base to work from. There are plenty of books that detail the tactics of the Sturmgruppen. There are multiple books out their that go into great detail about gunnery in general and how effective bomber gunners were.

 

You brought up "sim pilots". What I quoted was Tony Williams referring to the effectiveness of real bomber defensive gunnery:

If you want to make bomber gunner fire realistic, the simplest thing to do is to load the guns with blanks. They fired tens of thousands of rounds for every plane shot down.

That quote is absolutely 100% correct. The effectiveness of bomber defensive gunners was very poor. The Luftwaffe all but gave up a head on and flank attacks. After the first pass it ended in tail chase any way. Only experienced pilots were able to shoot down bombers in head-on attacks. The Luftwaffe created battle formations, "gefechtverband" that would attack a combat box from the rear just like in the quote I posted above.

 

Sure the Luftwaffe suffered casualties from bomber defensive fire but in general defensive fire from bombers gave the crews a morale boost while intimidating the attackers - well beyond the real effect they had in damaging and shooting down the attackers.

 

 

[Skoshi_Tiger]

Wotan, you seam to be fixated by that single passage by Mr Williams, which to me seams to be a generalised comment made off the cuff. I'm sure he qualified that statement and put it into context. What was that context?

 

It's very interesting to note that as aircraft speeds increased and the chances of actually hitting an attacking fighter in anything other than dead six position (even with radar direction systems) decreased, aircraft designers removed defensive guns from their bomber. With the tail position being the last to be dispensed with.

 

I wonder why the tail gun remained on American B-52's and Soviet aircaft until modern times when other forms of defencive guns were removed. I would argue that this was because they had the best chance of actually being useful and detering a simple dead six approach from an attacker. Now they are fairly much obsolite due to the small chance of any aerial combat occuring inside of gun range. Speed and stealth now being the seen as more useful in a design.

 

If I remember correctly the last time an attacking fighter was actually shot down with defensive gun was in the mid 70 during the Vietnam war. The chances of it being the last are exceptionally high.

 

But as you say this is all moot anyway, as neither you nor I are qualified to agrue about this.

 

Cheers!

Edited January 29, 2013 by Skoshi_Tiger

[4./JG53_Wotan]

The context of Tony Williams quote is clear, and is supported by USAAF war time tests I posted above, and by tactics used by the Sturmgruppen in the quote I provided. I gave you a link to Tony Williams website and to his forum and gave you a book suggestion.

 

You are making rationaliztaions, with no supporting evidence, based on your "sim pilot experience".

 

If you want to debate what Tony Williams stated in that quote, or if you do not understand it, then visit his forum.

 

I will be unable to post for the next several days but if you want to keep up this circular discussion I will pick it up when I get back...

[wiseblood]

I will wait for this circular discussion to come back when the game is released and you still get shot by bomber gunners and you post about how much you don't like that.

 

Have you or Tony actually crunched the numbers on this? Repeating the quote like this kind of seems like the equivalent of clutching a primitive tribe's bullet proof talisman. It sounds like both of you think "tens of thousand" of rounds is some ridiculous number, only, without realising they have thousands and thousands and thousands of rounds and hundreds of gunners. That doesn't sound like quite the length of odds you think it is.

 

[Skoshi_Tiger]

[Just fixed up some stuff for you Hope you don't mind.]

The context of Tony Williams quote is clear, and is supported by USAAF war time tests I posted above, and by tactics used by the Sturmgruppen in the quote I provided. I gave you a link to Tony Williams website and to his forum and gave you a book suggestion.

WE [sic] are making rationaliztaions, with no supporting evidence, based on OUR  [sic] "sim pilot experience".

If you want to debate what Tony Williams stated in that quote, or if you do not understand it, then visit his forum. [Tried]

I will be unable to post for the next several days but if you want to keep up this circular discussion I will pick it up when I get back...

 

Sorry Wotan, although you gave me a link to Tonys web site and forum, I cannot find the document you quoted. There is no search function for his articles and his forum returns a big zero matches when I try to search.

 

When I tried to search with Yahoo and Google the only results I found were from you repeating your quote from Tony Williams (made in 2005 I think).

 

It would be really helpful if you can give me a direct link to the document where you found your quote. Even though there are a lot of interesting article on the site I can't see any on the Topic of WWII Defensive guns for bombers.

 

The context is not clear, because as I said the it seams like an "off the cuff comment" and to put it into context we need to see the discussion in which it was made in.

 

Flight sims have progressed quite a way since 2005( introduction of new physics modeling and AI routines and Techniques etc) and Tony may have re-appraised his attitude since he made that comment time. It would be interesting to see what sims he had experienced using that prompted him to make that statement.

 

Cheers!

[Skoshi_Tiger]

 It sounds like both of you think "tens of thousand" of rounds is some ridiculous number, only, without realising they have thousands and thousands and thousands of rounds and hundreds of gunners. That doesn't sound like quite the length of odds you think it is.

 

 

Personally I don't think 10,000 of rounds per plane destroyed is unreasonable when you look at the number of rounds fired per plane destroyed, the many different tactics employed by fighter to make it difficult for the defensive gunners and the conditions under which these forms of combat took place. 

 

Wotan seams to have taken umbridge at my suggestion that fighter pilots can use tactics to minimise their chances of being hit and if you make stupid "Sim Pilot" mistakers like sitting a short distance away from bombers six for prolonged periods you stand a good chance of being hit.

 

 

Tail Approaches - The following video from a US Navy training film talks about tail approaches and recomends that they are only used against fighters. It also points out some obvious issues when used against bombers.

 

 

The rest of the video is quiet interesting  for fighter piloting technique.

 

 

Cheers! 

Edited January 30, 2013 by Skoshi_Tiger

[wiseblood]

I'm not disagreeing with the figure, just the implication that it's the same thing as being shot at with blanks. That Not How Probability Work. I think you found a pretty good indicator of this in the casualty figures (which isn't even hits, but hit sufficiently hard to be taken out of the attack) mentioned in the account wotan posted earlier. I wouldn't mind seeing a closer breakdown of it but if it's truly in the order of 10-20% losses, per attack pass, of the most heavily armoured interceptors fielded, then yeah, I'm pretty sure they would rather have taken the shot-at-with-blanks offer if it was on the table.

 

Anyhow I am sure that they will build on the work done in RoF 1.026 on dispersion/etc firing from gunner positions and that this will still result in some quality forum tears.