.50 Cal vs 20 mm Hispano - Ground Attack

[Bremspropeller]

30 minutes ago, Lord_Flashheart said:

One does wonder why aircraft carriers (with far more concentrated flak than most ground targets) needed fighter cover? Surely their pew pew lasers could just shoot down every attacker.

 

Probably because they were pew-pewing mostly cal 50s :)

 

And because they were attacked by kamikaze who had a different concept of thinking about mission-survivability.

And because an aircraft-carrier usually doesn't sit behind a row of hedges, camoflaged.

And because aircraft-carriers usually won't set-up flak-traps.

And because aircraft-carriers are high-value targets, where even being out of the fight for a couple of days/ weeks is a strategical issue rather than a tactical one.

 

That's 4.5 reasons right there from the hip. Need more?

 

[LColony_Kong]

On 9/25/2019 at 6:16 AM, ZachariasX said:

When that straight line is directly at them or from them, you hit.

This is neither wholly true nor what I am addressing. Of course a plane flying straight at a gun is more likely to be hit. But this would only be guaranteed to occur if the plane was attacking the gun. But the train example you gave does not mean you would be flying at the guns, even with their being multiple ones. As a matter of geometry, the odds of you lining up exactly on a gun if you were attacking the train and not the gun are virtually nil--even if you might still be at a low deflection by happenstance. It also ignores that it is also unlikely that all the guns on said train are training on your aircraft. There are most likely more than one plane attacking, and unlike video games AAA guns are not a hive mind that all latch onto the same target with perfect efficiency. Range is also a factor even for low deflection targets (drop), and a target that you miss once might not be in such a great solution the second time.

 

On 9/25/2019 at 6:16 AM, ZachariasX said:

Also you should not mistake a 20 mm Flak Oerlikon with the aircraft mounted type.

Not news.

 

On 9/25/2019 at 6:16 AM, ZachariasX said:

You should also be aware that the Flak gunner has a much more stable platform to shoot, it's more like the mouse pointing that makes the Peshka rear gunner so effective.

No ww2 method of aiming and flak gun was even remotely analogous to mouse aiming. Whats just ridiculous. I might also point out that a gun a on train in the other example has precisely the opposite of a stable platform.

 

On 9/25/2019 at 6:16 AM, ZachariasX said:

If we had Flak tanks for CAP, then that would instantly be the end of low level attacks on any server featuring them. And people would turn rabid over it.

Yes one does wonder why anyone bothered with having anything other than AAA and big flak guns given that they make aerial attack obsolete apparently. Its a miracle we even have air forces.

 

On 9/25/2019 at 6:16 AM, ZachariasX said:

Trust me, you can crank 20 mm guns very well. Maybe not when odered by an NCO, but at things trying to hose you with nasty stuff. You see the aircraft somewhere, in 2, 3 seconds you have the gun pointing near him. And in case of Flak traps, you have all the time in the world for pointing, all you need to do is pedal to the metal when being told to do so.

Its not purely about being able to track "at speed," although that would be dubious or even laborious with some guns. You have to be able to track it precisely enough to hit it, and do that during the opportunity you get. That is NOT easy. This is why modern AAA systems are basically automated with radar.

 

AAA was dangerous, but decidedly on the losing end vs air power unless extremely concentrated. It is not that easy to track a target accurately with the controls on ww2 AAA pieces, doing proper lead is difficult even when you are stationary (FFS people people miss targets on the ground, even when they dont move!) The guns are not likely to all be tracking the same aircraft. They have limited magazine sized that have to be reloaded in combat (which takes crucial time even if its just tossing in another clip or magazine). There is so much wrong with the opinion that AAA was a virtual panacea that I hardly know where to begin outside of what I have already said.

 

 

[JtD]

25 minutes ago, Lord_Flashheart said:

One does wonder why aircraft carriers (with far more concentrated flak than most ground targets) needed fighter cover? Surely their pew pew lasers could just shoot down every attacker.

 

Probably, if they had stayed around for extensive strafing.

 

But as it is, you wanted to prevent the enemy from doing damage, which is what defense actually is about. Light AAA had a couple of seconds to kill an aircraft that came into range before it dropped its bomb, and that was often insufficient. So fighter cover was very useful.

[LColony_Kong]

Just now, Bremspropeller said:

Probably because they were pew-pewing mostly cal 50s

Im going to assume this was a joke.

 

Just now, Bremspropeller said:

And because they were attacked by kamikaze who had a different concept of thinking about mission-survivability.

Which should only make the planes in Europe even harder to hit? Dude just watch footage of kamakazes. Look at the absurd level of effort that goes into shooting one down. But this is an aside since i wasnt even referring to them. I was talking about just attack from planes dropping bombs or torps.

 

2 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

And because aircraft-carriers usually won't set-up flak-traps.

No they just have a bazillion more guns, that are basically never caught napping, and its far more concentrated.

 

3 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

And because aircraft-carriers are high-value targets, where even being out of the fight for a couple of days/ weeks is a strategical issue rather than a tactical one.

This is immaterial if the God-flak you think was reality could protect them.

 

3 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

And because an aircraft-carrier usually doesn't sit behind a row of hedges, camoflaged.

This has got nothing to do with the accuracy of the guns.

 

4 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

That's 4.5 reasons right there from the hip. Need more?

You will need to try again, because none of your points made sense.

4 minutes ago, JtD said:

 

Probably, if they had stayed around for extensive strafing.

 

But as it is, you wanted to prevent the enemy from doing damage, which is what defense actually is about. Light AAA had a couple of seconds to kill an aircraft that came into range before it dropped its bomb, and that was often insufficient. So fighter cover was very useful.

Most carrier attacks involved split groups or waves, separate attacks that are comparable to repeat attacks so far as those gunners are concerned. More casualties are doubtless taken with more opportunities to shoot, but it was not a death sentence. It is simply counter factual for you guys to claim AAA was a good as you all seem to think it was. A plane that comes back for another pass presents all the same problems it did on the first pass (am assuming an alert gunner both times, such as a naval battle).

 

One does wonder how air force planes ever managed to attack with different set of planes, since apparently after the few few made their attack, the target was neigh-on invincible and all future attacks without surprise as an aide were doomed to lose more planes than it was worth. Except this isnt what happened. I guess all those flak laden German airbases that got the crap strafed out of them should have been able to just plink those escort fighters right out the sky. You guy seem to be equating the relative danger to flak as a cause of losses to explicit capability.

[unreasonable]

For most applications of flak defence, it is not about shooting down every attacker. It is about shooting down enough, or just making the area dangerous enough, that attacking planes have difficulty in carrying out their attacks. They may have to fly higher than the flak can reach, or so fast and low that the time to get on target is limited, or use elaborate and resource intensive  flak suppression tactics.  The fewer hits the attackers get on the protected target, the better the flak is doing it's job, even if it shoots down no planes.   

 

Carrier groups are a very specific case: when one dive bomber, torpedo or kamikaze can put a capital ship out of action for months - or even sink it - your combined fighter plus AA defence really is aiming to destroy or drive away 100% of attackers. Hence the enormous number of guns (and CAP).    

 

It is a matter of cost effectiveness.  From the attacking air unit's point of view - or at least that of the staff officers planning their missions - a loss rate of close to 100% of an air strike against a carrier could be quite acceptable if it hits the target. For attacking ground units in a prolonged campaign like Normandy 1944, rocketing horse drawn transport and such like, they were probably aiming not to exceed 5% average losses per sortie. This was the Bomber Command target IIRC. This gives the pilots a chance to survive a tour. If the loss rate goes over 10% for any length of time the attack is going badly wrong. 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

[Bremspropeller]

42 minutes ago, Lord_Flashheart said:

Im going to assume this was a joke.

 

Which should only make the planes in Europe even harder to hit? Dude just watch footage of kamakazes. Look at the absurd level of effort that goes into shooting one down. But this is an aside since i wasnt even referring to them. I was talking about just attack from planes dropping bombs or torps.

 

No they just have a bazillion more guns, that are basically never caught napping, and its far more concentrated.

 

This is immaterial if the God-flak you think was reality could protect them.

 

This has got nothing to do with the accuracy of the guns.

 

You will need to try again, because none of your points made sense.

 

0) Yes, I'm fun at parties. You should see me!

 

1) Kamikaze footage shown is the most interesting, exciting and dramitic footage there is. What's not shown on TV is the gazillions of times where the Kamikaze was shot down - by flak - a long ways away from the carier. Also, attack-planes dropping bombs, torps or themselves onto the crrier usually don't come in single-ship, but in squadron or group/ air group strength and usually stacked in altitude. Thats a much different environment than zapping an airplane out of a formation consisting of two flights, consistently, over months.

 

2) A bazillion of guns - all with different arcs of fire, and yes, napping and being surprised several times.

 

3) There is no god-flak, but an attrition-rate of up to 30-ish% right up to the last couple of days of the war.

 

4) No, but a) neither has the effectiveness of flak* and b) it's a hell of a surprise, which an aircraft-carrier seldomly poses to an attacking airplane.

 

5) Disagree 100%.

 

BTW: Some more food for thought here.

The effectivity of flak should probably not be expressed in numbers of aircraft shot down, but by impact on enemy operations:

Changes in tactics, additional sorties flown that were needed to take care of flak, etc.

That's where a tactical problem can reach strategical levels: Binding fighter-bombers onto anti-flak missions, instead of having them fly a more offensive type of missions/ sorties some other place.

 

____

* Flak doesn't have to be "accurate". Flak may saturate the area with lead - the polar opposite of accuracy - and deny an airspace. Flak may also score a kill by sheer number of runds spent, instead of being accurate. Ask german ground-attack pilots on the Eastern Fromt, or the Americans in Korea and SEA.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Bremspropeller

[cardboard_killer]

By 1944 a third of all Germany artillery was for AA use (some of which had a dual purpose use, but all were deployed first as AA then as AT if necessary). That's a huge commitment when you think of all the army's ground artillery in use against the USSR, and at the same time all that was emplaced along the Channel, in Italy and the rest of the occupied territories from Norway to the Dodecanese . The German 8.8 cm was limited in range against the high flying bombers, so gave way to the 10.5 cm and 12.7 cm guns as the war went on. Number of shells per bomber destroyed increased as the war went on. IIRC (and I may not), I think something around 5,000 rounds were used for each bomber destroyed in 1944. This is an underappreciated affect on the German war effort for which the WAllies don't get enough credit.

Edited September 26, 2019 by cardboard_killer

[ZachariasX]

13 hours ago, Lord_Flashheart said:

You have to be able to track it precisely enough to hit it, and do that during the opportunity you get. That is NOT easy.

I didn‘t say it easy, but you can make it easy enough to be effective. Trust me, I have some personal experience with those 20 mm guns (the old ones with daft gunsights) to have a pretty good idea on what you can hit or not. Also, you don‘t „track“ with these guns. You aim and you shoot while the gun is stationary. Think of it as shooting 10 rounds as a single shot. You cannot hose your target with these guns. Shots are very short intervals, you have to look closely to see the gun stop the motion. Also you have 20 rounds per clip. It means you can fire twice per clip. Or eight times if you select just one gun of the quadruple arrangement each time. 

 

Also, just look at the loss numbers of 2TAF aircraft due to Flak in the last month of the war. It is simply not true that they just were „too many“ guns. It is much rather that the Germans had a pretty good idea on what to do with them.

 

And yes, Flak guns are very stable gun platforms, at least when not on a moving train.

Edited September 27, 2019 by ZachariasX

[CIA_Yankee_]

On 9/25/2019 at 6:28 AM, unreasonable said:

Unfortunately, in the game we can only surprise gun crews if the mission designer uses a complex trigger mechanism: which does not seem to happen. 

 

Are you sure? I absolutely observed this behavior constantly, at least on Combat Box. And I believe I've seen it on Wings as well. The first pass tends to be safe(r), it's when you're coming around for your second pass that you need to be super careful (and hopefully have kept your speed high).

 

Back when Combat Box had top notch AAA, I learned to take out targets with my P47 using speed and making as few passes as possible. Start at 5k feet, then shallow dive to the target so you arrive at extreme speed, drop a couple of bombs, then use your energy to come back around and do another high energy pass, then bug out. It worked quite well. Though we'd also sometimes have a fighter come in and distract the AAA while another moved in to kill them. Worked remarkably well.

[ZachariasX]

Here is what the US thought of the Flak threat in August 1945.

 

I quote one main conclusion:

 

Yet the hard truth was to become clear: That flak was by far the most dangerous weapon the strategic fighter had to face. But not heavy flak, but light, at low altitude — automatic weapons and small arms fire. [...]

 

Or you could have just asked any of those pilots what was their biggest concern. You would have gotten that answer as well. 

[unreasonable]

7 hours ago, 71st_AH_Yankee_ said:

Are you sure? I absolutely observed this behavior constantly, at least on Combat Box. And I believe I've seen it on Wings as well. The first pass tends to be safe(r), it's when you're coming around for your second pass that you need to be super careful (and hopefully have kept your speed high).

 

I do not know how those servers have set up their flak: my comment was in reference to the Career mode.  I know there is a way to simulate surprise by combining the attack area command with activation zones: I have done it in test missions to limit the range at which flak guns will fire. Practically speaking, though, I have never observed it when playing SP.  If mission makers have incorporated this into MP missions then good for them: it is certainly more realistic. The only way to be sure would be to open the mission in the editor and see how the flak guns are set up.

 

 

[JtD]

In 1941/1942, the USN/USMC flew 2000 sorties against targets defended by AAA, it lost 77 aircraft to AAA, with another 117 damaged (4% lost, 6% damaged). Worst year in that regard, because it was the only year a major portion of the targets were enemy capital ships. 1943 the figures were 1% lost, 7% damaged, 1944&45 about 1% lost, 5% damaged. Personally I have a pretty clear picture about AAA effectiveness.

 

Trends that helped the USN/USMC to keep the figures in check, even though enemy AAA improved throughout the war: Better aircraft, better anti-AAA tactics, the latter included well timed and coordinated attacks by large waves of aircraft against well defended targets, as to minimize firing time of AAA and therefore the risk for the individual aircraft.

 

Btw, average ammunition expenditure from 121000 action sorties in 1945 was 420kg of bombs, 1.7 rockets and 360 rounds of ammunition. Top ammo spender was the PB4Y, using more than 1500 rounds on average per action sortie.