Effectiveness of Flexible Gun Fire?

[sightreader]

As I had mentioned before, Leon Bennett provided some very interesting analysis as to why a rear gunner would have a horrible time hitting any target that wasn't directly aft of the aircraft - the problem of the "double lead" (that is, you not only have to lead the enemy, but you have to anticipate the effects of your own plane's motion/slipstream on bullet flight).

His analysis seems to correlate pretty well with the directions in which pilots reported approaching two seaters unconcerned and the directions in which they really got thrashed by defensive fire.

Thus, my current hypothesis is that flight sim AI only models the problem of leading the enemy and ignores the problem of leading the motion of your own aircraft. Maybe that's why that nasty little 20mm stinger on the tail of the Betty was its only defense that Allied pilots didn't find laughable...

The question is, does anyone have data to back up or discredit this hypothesis?

I ask this because Bennett then turns around and makes relatively simple fixed forward lead problems seem horribly difficult for anyone but Einstein, a proposition that seems improbable based not only on the number of hits scored by inexperienced pilots, but also on the copious reports of single pass ambush victories.

I think data on the Me110 and Paul Defiant may also help here. The 110 was much feared before it was actually engaged. British pilots then remarked that the 110 displayed remarkable performance for a two seater, but the rear gunnery was hopelessly inaccurate, perhaps due to that very maneuverability.

Originally Posted by Chock

The moment a two seater turns, the instinctive thing many fighter pilots did (and still do in flight sims) is to turn with it on the inside, as you would against a single seater trying for a tracking deflection shot. This is not the correct thing to do, as it allows the rear gunner a clear shot on an effectively stationary target, and with your engine and prop being what he will hit.

Correct, but what happens is that AI gunners (unless patched) typically have little difficulty shooting in what should be awkward directions. Pilot reports seem to indicate they can throw off the observer's aim without seriously disrupting their own. Against AI, it feels like I have to completely abort my attack and wiggle about like I've got hornets chasing me and yet I still get eaten alive (something which, by the way, seems less of a problem in the latest patch of RoF).

I've also read many accounts of neophytes chopping up two seaters as their first kill, diving from above and behind through defensive fire, just where AI gunners seem to tear me to shreds.

[Ginger.]

McCudden knew a bit about nobbling two seaters. On more than one occasion he ran away from one that was competently handled by an experienced crew. In real life it only takes one... bullet, that is, to bring up the 'game over' screen!

[bristol scout]

Originally Posted by Ginger.

McCudden knew a bit about nobbling two seaters. On more than one occasion he ran away from one that was competently handled by an experienced crew. In real life it only takes one... bullet, that is, to bring up the 'game over' screen!

Well said mate---and indeed he spent long periods 'stalking' them---and rightly so, for this was THE job of scout pilots.

Terry,
You are right to say that the 'Biff' had a less than auspicious entrance---the aeroplane was revolutionary and aerobatically the equal of most stationary engined scouts....however 48 squadron was just out from England with new crews and a new machine.

That first encounter with MvR's KETTE of four(or five?) found the 48 squadron flight leader--non other than Leefe Robinson way out of his depth--V.C. notwithstanding (it was of no help that he had shot down an Airship (SL11) earlier)
Festner, Simon, and the 'master' himself all claimed Bristols.

You are also correct about tactics----here Leefe Robinson's lack of experience shows (but not lack of courage) instead of breaking up--which would have at least put 48 squadron 1 machine 'up'--they bunched, trying to cover each others tails (shades of B.F.110's 20 odd years later).

48 learned slowly that April--but we all know how the 'Biff' turned out.

Cheers,
Dave.

[Terrencejones]

The idea of a fighter with rear defence is obviously a fairly sound idea but for some reason it couldn't be made to work again some 20+ years after the F2b. I am curious as to why that would be the case. I cannot think of any other aircraft using the same concept design in later years that was able to emulate the success the Biff had. Although the Defiant was inspired by the Biff it was a complete failure. It's a little ironic that the Defiant unlike the F2b had the initial success! (my apologies for going of on a bit of a tangent)

Going back to the flexible gun. Didn't some notable pilots fix cutouts of gunners onto the back of their aircraft? The question is, did they do that to lure the enemy into thinking they were attacking a two seater or was it to deter them from being attacked from behind? Any pilots state the reason for it?

Terry

[sightreader]

Originally Posted by Terrencejones

It's a little ironic that the Defiant unlike the F2b had the initial success!

I assume, of course, that you're aware that the Germans hadn't seen a Defiant before and thought they were attacking a Hurricane, which made those 109s nice easy targets even for a rear gunner...

[Ginger.]

Yep, the Defiant did pretty well over the Dunkirk beaches, leading into a belief that it could hold it's own agin Jerry fighters. Sadly, it was sussed and slaughtered in much the same way as the Me 110.

[bristol scout]

But the fundamental flaw in the Defiant was not the two seat layout but the non existence of ANY forward firing guns for the pilot--which of course was the very strength of the 'Biff'--meaning that pilot and gunner needed a sort of telepathic connection that does'nt exist.

The aeroplane was quite good---within the parameters of it's design, and served on a bit as interim nightfighter--another similarity with the M.E. 110 (I used the 'correct' B.F. earlier--but much prefer the contemporary M.E.)

Dave.---ooops!--this is W.W.2 again---you naughty guy's will be getting me roundly castigated again... VERY painful that!

Dave.

[Ginger.]

Back to WW1 then!
There is a vivid passage in 'Flying Fury' where McCudden describes a feeling of utter dread when tackling one particular two seater. He convinces his self that one more pass and the excellent shooting rear gunner will surely kill him, he dives away and the Huns escape. Usually when he tackled high flying German two seaters they never saw him sneaking up on 'em.

[bristol scout]

dead right,

Which illustrates perfectly how deadly dangerous it is to get close to someone with a machinegun at a few tens of yards---fixed or flexible--as I said earlier 'dangerous times'

And for a McCudden ( or somene of his calibre) to have that sense of dread really brings it home just how deadly a game it was----I recall a comment in a book I read a long time ago 'The Friendless Sky' by Alexander Mc Kee'--which I have but can't find the page at the moment how on one of McCuddens kills he saw a load of photographic plates come showering out as it went down---VERY important work indeed!

Dave.

[Terrencejones]

Hi Dave,
I'd forgotten the fact the Defiant had no forward firing guns. I guess in a way the Defiant answered the question of whether a fixed gun or flexible gun was better.


McCudden mentions a particular fat German two seater that wasn't too well handled. If I remember correctly he along with a few others didn't have the heart to shoot it down as it was viewed with an amount of humour, as a result it flew a number of missions unmolested. He felt a little sorry when it was no longer seen. It speaks volumes to me as to McCuddens ability to maintain some humanity and although he viewed his job seriously he wasn't in the business of picking easy meat or a machine considered virtually defenceless to boost his score.

Terry