Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109?

Guy Alcala wrote:

Mike Dargan wrote:

IBM wrote:

(ArtKramr) wrote in
:



A V-1 striking the heart of London can do far more damage than any
single ME-109. Should those who killed V-1's be held in higher
esteem?



Shooting or tipping a V-1 was a fairly hazardous activity.
Shooting could set off the warhead as evidenced by some of the
surviving gun camera footage and tipping the beast was essentially
a controlled mid-air collision.

Did the aircraft actually make physical contact? Or, did it lower it's
wing tip in front of the V-1 tip thereby disrupting the airflow and
causing the V-1's wing to drop?

Neither. The recommended procedure was for the fighter to fly parallel to the V-1 and
place the fighter's wingtip several inches to a couple of feet under the V-1's
wingtip. The airflow would cause the V-1 to roll AWAY from the fighter, tumbling the
gyro. It was sometimes necessary for the fighter to bank slightly away from the V-1 to
bring the wings into close enough proximity, but physical contact was not intended.

Guy

That sounds reasonable, Mike's 'method' sounds sort of
'self-defeating' (big time) to me.
--

-Gord.

Subject: Is shooting down a V-! better than shooting down an ME 109?
From: LesB
Date: 7/14/03 8:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time

The favoured method was shooting the thing down. Bee says they would

That way they would bring back GSAP footage to show to their grandkids. (grin)

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:26:18 +0100, Dave Eadsforth
wrote:

If the optimum range was 300 yards, would this simply be because of guns
being harmonised for about that distance because encounters with enemy
aircraft could not be excluded? Short range was clearly preferable
against manoeuvring targets, but the V1s were not taking evasive action,
and if the Tempests were dedicated to V1s then other harmonisation
patters might have been possible.

Again, relating Bee's tales. The 300 yard range had been found by
trial and error, but the growing success at intercepts was offset by
the fact that too many were still failing to destroy their targets.
The fighters (Mossies, Tempests, Spits, et all) were firing off all
their ammo without causing lethal damage. Seems there was a clear
reason for this.

Throughout the war the guns of fighters had been harmonized not on a
point for optimum concentration at a given range, but on a basis of
calculations by gunnery experts in the Air Ministry Armaments Branch,
this harmonization was called "Fighter Command Standard Spread
Harmonization".

When the guns and sight were harmonized to this standard against the
"pattern" boards it looked as if all the guns were aimed in slightly
different directions. The reasoned explanation for this method was
that the calculated "dispersion" pattern would ensure the maximum
number of rounds would hit the target from any one burst of fire. With
experience, says Bee, many pilots doubted this and so, at Newchurch,
they took matters into their own hands. They knew the Tempest was
extremely stable and the four 20mm cannon had a fairly high accuracy
over a range of 1000 yards. The V1 however was a difficult target with
its 3 foot dia fuselage making it difficult to see at long range. Bee
proposed that his "wing" re-harmonize to 300 yds "point
concentration". 11 Group's Armament Branch did not give a sympathetic
response so he re-harmonzied the guns on his own Tempest (JN751)
anyway. He says the results were spectacular exploding a V1 with one
burst and getting two or three more that day. He ordered the change
to be made to the Tempests of his Wing and saw an immediate
improvement in "hits" from his pilots.

So, (Tony/Emmanuel?) . . .

??? Who?

. . .what would the chances have been of knocking out a
V1 with guns harmonised for 600 yards

No idea. Not going to get into a speculative argument over this, we've
all seen the trouble such argument causes on ram. I am just airing
the words of Roland Beamont who was there. The steps and actions they
took worked and worked well. Those actions and decisions were made in
light of circumstances and conditions at that time.

I strongly recommend you get hold of a copy of his book(s) on this
period of Bee's very full life.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cheers
LesB

LesB wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:26:18 +0100, Dave Eadsforth
wrote:

If the optimum range was 300 yards, would this simply be because of guns
being harmonised for about that distance because encounters with enemy
aircraft could not be excluded? Short range was clearly preferable
against manoeuvring targets, but the V1s were not taking evasive action,
and if the Tempests were dedicated to V1s then other harmonisation
patters might have been possible.

Again, relating Bee's tales. The 300 yard range had been found by
trial and error, but the growing success at intercepts was offset by
the fact that too many were still failing to destroy their targets.
The fighters (Mossies, Tempests, Spits, et all) were firing off all
their ammo without causing lethal damage. Seems there was a clear
reason for this.

Throughout the war the guns of fighters had been harmonized not on a
point for optimum concentration at a given range, but on a basis of
calculations by gunnery experts in the Air Ministry Armaments Branch,
this harmonization was called "Fighter Command Standard Spread
Harmonization".

When the guns and sight were harmonized to this standard against the
"pattern" boards it looked as if all the guns were aimed in slightly
different directions. The reasoned explanation for this method was
that the calculated "dispersion" pattern would ensure the maximum
number of rounds would hit the target from any one burst of fire. With
experience, says Bee, many pilots doubted this and so, at Newchurch,
they took matters into their own hands. They knew the Tempest was
extremely stable and the four 20mm cannon had a fairly high accuracy
over a range of 1000 yards. The V1 however was a difficult target with
its 3 foot dia fuselage making it difficult to see at long range.

snip

I think this last point is what would make trying to fire at longer range
difficult/impossible. If you can't see the target to aim, everything else is
irrelevant.

Guy

In article , Dave Eadsforth
writes
In article , LesB
writes
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:26:18 +0100, Dave Eadsforth
wrote:


Not a totally flawed principle - it was designed to cater for the
marksmanship of the average pilot who did not perform well with a fully
converged 'point' pattern. A point focus gives a lethal zone of two
cones with their apexes touching - good for dead astern attacks.

Whoops - pardon slip of finger - meant to say triangles, not cones.

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

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

In article , LesB
writes
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:45:51 +0100, Dave Eadsforth
wrote:

So, (Tony/Emmanuel?) . . .

??? Who?

Um, newcomer to this newsgroup? :-)

Grin No, not really, been here a few years, but don't post much
these days - was just on a fly-by when I saw the thread. Long-time
members may remember me as the Canberra Man, - I have the Canberra
Tribute web-site.

So, what means this (Tony/Emmanuel) stuff then? ;-D

A couple of guys who post here from time to time and who know a bit :-)
about the effectiveness of aircraft armament

I concur, a newsgroup such as this, so mercifully devoid of speculation,
should remain so...

As is any group that has Traver in it ;-). But good to see Gord,
Dudley, Drew et all still posting common sense.

I am just airing
the words of Roland Beamont who was there.

Worth doing.

Right. But not just from his books. Every year, in company with a few
others of the Canberra Assoc, we visited with Bee at his local pub on
May 13th - anniversary of Canberra's 1st flight. Many a tale from the
man, some scary, a lot that were funny, some that will never see the
light of day, but all fascinating - such a breadth of experience in
one person!

Okay, I'm envious - along with half the rest of the aviation world!

And still, right to the end, a fair capacity for a pint!
;-D

Glad to hear that!

True - they had to find an effective, if occasionally risky, solution.

Name of the game I reckon - still happens.

So, your point about seeing the target appears to be a crucial one.

Was easier at night when they vectored on the glow of the ramjet.

'damage from the explosion of the V.1. had been suffered by aircraft
attacking within two hundred yards.'

Some damage from debris, but mostly the fact that the fabric covering
of the control surfaces would catch fire.

Must have irritated...


[. . . ]
Another point mentioned by Bee was that coming in from above gave the
pilot some indication of the land underneath. This, it seems, was a
consideration when shooting down a V1, they would try to do it over
farmland rather than towns/villages. This is an aspect that I for one
had never thought of before. Always thought that *heat of battle*
ruled the day, but seems not. Bee and his pilots considered this when
attacking.

And I guess the people who were saved by this thoughtfulness would never
have known...

- the gyro sight did make deflection shots a lot more reliable, and
the V.1. would have been more visible from such a low (deflection)
position.

See above.

However, exploring the full capabilities of the gyro sight might have
required a leap of faith too great for 1944. Probably not even considered,
given the need to down V.1.s reliably without delay.

Very true. As far as the re-harmonizing of the guns is concerned, an
NZ 486 Sqd Tempest pilot I know says that they went on to use the
point-concentration method to amazing effect when they later moved on
to ground attack.

I can believe that - if the pilot was good enough to hit the target then
there would not be too much left of it - 37,000 foot pounds of whack per
round even if it didn't go bang on impact.


Regards
Les Bywaters
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
English Electric Canberra Tribute Site
http:\\www.netcomuk.co.uk\~leb\canberra.html

--
Dave Eadsforth