In article ,
Dave Eadsforth writes:
Snip - in reference to teh possibility of offsetting an interceptor's
gun boresight line to keep said interceptor out fo the blast of an
exploding V-1

So, (Tony/Emmanuel?) what would the chances have been of knocking out a
V1 with guns harmonised for 600 yards and from a high position behind
with a gyro sight? (The gyro sight allowed up to 800 yards range, I
believe.) The lethal zone would have been just as good (if not in
theory slightly better with wing mounted guns) at 600 as 300.

Maybe such approaches were tried, but weren't reliable enough? Could
routine air turbulence have thrown off effective shooting at longer
ranges? Did the sighting pattern on early gyro sights dance a bit too
much?

I don't know about during the War, (Other than Shrage Musik, of
course, but that's rather different) but Post-War, something similar
was tried on the FJ-2 Fury. (Sea Sabre) The guns were harmonized for
a "typical" lead angle corresponding to a "normal" altitude, airspeed,
and G loading, so that the airplane wouldn't have to pull its nose
ahead of the target in order to pull lead. (Which, if both the shooter
& the target can pull about the same G, would be an advantage)
The pilots, as I understand it, hated it. Smooth tracking, which the
gyro sights required, was nearly impossible. Tracking was no longer a
relatively simple matter of rolling & pulling. The pipper apparently
wandered around like a clock pendulum, and smooth trackign just
couldn't be performed by Earth Humans. It really halps to have the
gun sightline along the roll axis of the airplane.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster