Tony WilliamsSomething I posted on another board re overclaiming:
There are three different figures when it comes to shoot-downs and, as these differ a lot, it is always important to specify which you’re talking about.
1. Claims: what the pilots/gunners say they shot down.
2. Confirmed kills: what the home side’s intelligence officers agree they shot down.
3. Postwar verified kills: the most likely number of shootdowns taking into account the enemy’s loss figures.
The third figure is just about impossible to get in some theatres, but there is relatively good information about the ETO.
Overclaiming happened everywhere, but the degree of overclaiming varied according to the circumstances – basically, how many planes were involved. So night-fighter claims were probably the most accurate, as these usually consisted of one-on-one combat with time to observe the outcome.
As the size of formations increased so the overclaiming went up, partly because there was more chance that more than one plane shot at a given target, partly because there was usually no time to observe whether a smoking plane really crashed or got back to base.
Shoot-downs by bomber gunners in large formations were most overclaimed because there were probably several gunners firing at each plane which went down, and they all slapped in a claim. Intelligence officers tried to allow for this, but as we know from postwar figures from the other side, they didn’t even get close to reality: the ‘confirmed kills’ were several times higher than enemy losses.
Put all of that together and the claims around the USAAF daylight bomber raids can be expected to be the most inflated; not because the US pilots and gunners were less honest but simply because of the circumstances.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Tony WilliamsThe problem with the Russian pilots IIRC is that they were only sent in for short periods before being rotated out again, in order to give combat experience to as many squadrons as possible. That meant that they were just beginning to get the hang of jet combat when they were replaced by another lot….which is not the best way to run a war!
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Tony WilliamsAs flying machines, there wasn’t much in it initially; each had its strengths and weaknesses. The MiG was better at altitude, the F-86 lower down. When the later version of the F-86 with the all-flying tail appeared during the war, it gained an overall advantage.
The armament of neither plane was optimal: the six .50 M3 hit more often but not hard, the MiG’s cannon hit harder but rarely. A quartet of 20mm Hispanos would have been better than either, but the only planes carrying those (Aussies, plus USN) were not competitive as flying machines.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Tony WilliamsThere’s no reason from a purley mechanical point of view why a gun couldn’t fire in space, although conventional aiming techniques would be somewhat problematic because with no gravity there would be no bullet drop, which is allowed for when sighting a gun on Earth. Hence the projectile would just travel for ever in a straight line……………
That depends on how close it is to a body exerting a gravitational pull. There is certainly a gravitational pull in Earth orbit, which is why it is necessary to to orbit the Earth at high speed to counteract it. If a satellite stopped dead, it would fall rapidly back to Earth.
TW
Tony WilliamsTony WilliamsThe Soviet NS-37 was very powerful and the recoil from firing it caused the planes to move off aim, so they could only get off two or three shots before having to stop to reaim. That wouldn’t ally to the VYa-23, though – in the Il-2 those had quite a large ammo capacity and I expect would have been used full-auto.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Tony WilliamsThe one advantage that velocity would have given them in aerial combat is stand-off range. Had things worked out the way the Luftwaffe hoped, the Me 410 armed with the BK 5 could have shelled the (unescorted) US bomber fleets from well beyond the range of defensive .50 fire. However, it turned out that aiming accurately enough to hit anything at long range was beyond WW2 capabilities, and the heavy fighters were highly vulnerable to escort fighters. So they were an all-round failure in the role and, on the few occasions they were tried, achieved nothing.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Tony WilliamsTony WilliamsI have some information about it, and there is one at Cosford IIRC. It was indeed the first British AAM to see service, and was used first (in 1958) by the Sea Venom, followed by the Javelin, Sea Vixen and Lightning. Production ended in 1969 – it began to be replaced by the improved Red Top in 1964. What exactly did you want to know?
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Tony WilliamsTo summarise – the plane was always technically known as the Bf 109, in all versions, by the RLM (German Air Ministry) which was responsible for deciding such matters. Willi Messerschmitt tried very hard to get them to change the designation to Me 109 – which is why you will see the term used in Messerschmitt’s publicity material, and even on factory ID plates – but the RLM refused. So it was properly the Bf 109 to the end.
However, the Allies always knew it as the Me 109 and the Luftwaffe informally called it that as well. So in popular usage it’s fine to call it the Me 109.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Tony WilliamsTony WilliamsThe Australian Navy has selected Mistral for its CIWS. This is for the Anzac class of frigates which are armed with ESSM. How good a choice is this?
I find it surprising. If you’ve got ESSM then you have a relatively short-range SAM system anyway. Since a ship needs an accurate automatic cannon to deal with small boats etc it would seem to make more sense to get a gun CIWS to do both jobs. If you don’t want the full anti-missile capability then buy something like the Mauser MLG (one fast-firing 27mm revolver cannon, remotely aimed).
IIRC Mistral was designed as a small AA missile. I’d be surprised if it were in the same league as Sea Wolf, say, when it comes to the anti-missile role.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Tony WilliamsDon’t forget that the faster the speed of the anti-ship missile, the larger the radius of any turn which can be achieved for a given G force. So while supersonic AShMs give less time to destroy them, they provide steadier targets.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Tony WilliamsThere is, of course, no “right answer” to this debate, because there is no ideal solution. As with other types of military equipment, it’s a question of choosing the best compromise (or in this case, choosing the best set of compromises in terms of the weapons suite for the ship – and the fleet).
For instance, the primary air defence weapon of the USN is the carrier-borne fighter plane. The various missile and gun systems are just a back-up to that. Then comes the Standard missile in various versions,then ESSM, then Ram, then Phalanx. Does any ship have all of these? Not as far as I know – they select from this suite of weapons according to the perceived need.
Other navies have to watch costs more closely, and each of these weapon systems is very expensive. So they select carefully. If they have a short-range AA missile, like ESSM or Sea Wolf, then there’s not much point in picking Ram as the CIWS because the characteristics are too similar. And since any ship needs a gun to deal with small craft, fire warning shots etc, it makes sense to combine this gun with the CIWS requirement – so you get Goalkeeper, Millennium or something similar.
If, OTOH, your ship has no AA missile system, then it makes sense to choose Ram (or something similar) as the CIWS and buy a cheaper gun system to deal with the lesser threats. It’s a matter of choosing the best combination (by best, I mean most effective for the money). The complicating factor is that no navy will want to have a wide range of different systems in service, so when designing the armament of any ship there will only be a limited number of weapon systems from which to choose.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Tony WilliamsBuy Millennium and you get a very versatile package. The 35mm AHEAD ammo is specifically designed for anti-missile purposes: the shell is timed to detonate in front of the target, sending a cone of high-velocity tungsten pellets into its path. So it doesn’t have to score a precise hit, and therefore has a longer effective range.
The same ammo can be used against small boats to great effect.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Sign In
