Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ass Eagle]

Well good luck with that. Unless you can go back to 1944, or look at German gun footage and count it yourself. If the Germans hit with every round fired from a mg151 or mk 108, or 50%, Or 25%, Americans and the British planes would be dropping out of the sky like rain. Or look up the same statistics for allied fighter, then defer what you wish. Or ask somebody who flew for the Luftwaffe (www.facebook.com/ theo.nau). Thanks for the interesting debate.

[Marjak]

Ok, got it. But as I understood this thread was not supposed to change the values of the MK 108 but provide only some generall discussion about the efficiency of the gun.

So, telling us that the hit probability in WW2 was estimated 2% by the LW, is no real claim for me, more an information. Anyway what should be changed in the game because of that?

I for myself indeed gave some numbers about content of explosive in the Minengeschoss for the MK 108. But actually almost all weapon values need a revision and even the changes that came along with UP 3 are non perfect though. Still that was no claim by me, more an information as well.

I`m working on correcting some values for personal use now quite a while but it is more a hobby of mine. But if there is a common interest in making a new weapon mod I can provide very detailed information about German guns, beltings and projectiles. Anyway this should be a joint project, in which first all the information should be gathered.

Cheers

[LuseKofte]

But there where no such thing as a inquiry when the choose to arm US ac with 50 cal, it was the best option. The firmly believed and I think they where right. 50 cal was sufficient in terms of get the job done, it was none saying 50 cal was better than 20 or 30 mm cannon.
The way german aircraft was designed you really did not want to go frontal with them anyway. It was logistical reasons for that choose nothing else.

[Typhoon Ib]

The challenge is not on me, the challenge is on YOU.
You put the 2% here, which came from some other guy, who had it from a book (whiich one?) and that book has its sources in a german study hopefully.
so far all you said was: i heard it from a guy who knows a guy who runs a website.


be pissed off all you want - but when you open up your mouth you better know what you are talking about.
Or if you do not, then do not use numbers.

Joke is on you my friend.
your claim, your job, your task.

[Ass Eagle]

Well I'm not pissed. You ask the impossible document. On the flipside of the coin, you show where the average Luftwaffe pilot scores better then 2~4%. You can't. You can certainly find reports on the average American, British gunnery accuracy, and differ and assumption from there about the Germans. Remeber, the only "fact is death. If you know me, you know I'm a huge fan of the Luftwaffe.  Cheers.

[SAS~Storebror]

You ask the impossible document.

If it was impossible, where would the "2%" come from then?
I tell you.
There's a whole lot of bullshit written about marksmanship.
Want examples?
This site tells us about a 91% hit rate for Eddie Rickenbacker: http://acepilots.com/usaaf_bong.html
These guys tell us about an average 5% hit rate for WW2 pilots: http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/74114-b-17-useless/
And this one has 48% for Erich Hartmann, 82% (?) for Frantisek Perina and 4½% to 20% from a boy's father lol: http://www.rafcommands.com/forum/showthread.php?15129-Aircraft-accuracy-rates-when-firing-at-a-target

If anything is proven by these "numbers", than it is the fact that if you ask 5 people about WWII marksmanship, you'll get 10 different answers back.
Just don't run around telling "numbers" you can't back up. Thanks.

If you know me, you know I'm a huge fan of the Luftwaffe.

Nice for you. What I know is that within the past two weeks you tried to turn a 109E-3 into an F prototype, you told us about Erich Hartmann being a bad shooter and now we're here talking about your "2%" thing for endless posts.
I'm through with it.
If you want me to take you serious again, give me a couple of good reasons.

Best regards - Mike

[greybeard]

The source is this:


http://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Aircraft-Combat-Development-World/dp/0853689261

A 1976 book by Alfred Price. I've its Italian translation. At page 62, it reads:

"During the analysis of the films taken during the fighting, Luftwaffe experts remarked that an average pilot could hit a bomber with only 2% of rounds fired."

He also says:

"It turned out that most of the bombers were shot down by pilots well above the average, with ability to score a lot more than 2% of rounds fired, or the bombers had already been damaged by flak and, abandoned formation, were finished with a long attack at close range."

Regards,
GB

[Knochenlutscher]

20 Shots for one Möbelwagen.
Schulz, get us the "LASER"

[SAS~Storebror]

During the analysis of the films taken during the fighting, Luftwaffe experts remarked that an average pilot could hit a bomber with only 2% of rounds fired.

That's understood and the source book was given, but shouldn't there be the "remarks" of the "Luftwaffe experts" somewhere but under Mr. Price's pillow?
At the risk of repeating myself, I doubt that this is anything but an attempt to spoof an assumption for a fact: We all know what guncam films look like. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how you would want to count hits from a 6-gun/cannon fighter using just these crumbly movie cuts?

Best regards - Mike

[SAS~Skylla]

My 0.02$ to the hit ratio discussion going on here:

As Mike and Typhoon are saying: it is better to support what you said with statistics, made early after the war in best case

But:

The problem I see in this is simple:
You just can not make any useful statistics about this. You just can't. There were so many pilots in the Luftwaffel, some were shot down in their first fight, others we still know as aces today. Only a fraction of the flown sorties were recorded with cameras. You can only estimate the hit ratio with the pilots statement after the flight (if he returned), with some of this blurred guncam films, and - after the war - with other statistics from the enemy Airforce based on the same. About the pilots statements: those guys were under extreme stress, had to fear death in any second ... it might have been even hard for them to tell who killed what bomber ... I'm sure they didn't count any hits ... About the bombers: you can count hits on a plane which made it back home, but you don't know if these hits were caused by flak, one fighter, two fighters or a whole staffel of them ... and who counts hits on the crashed planes?
don't trust any statistic you didn't fake by yourself ...

Best Regards,
skylla

Who finds a mistake in my English may keep it

[Typhoon Ib]

Well I'm not pissed. You ask the impossible document. On the flipside of the coin, you show where the average Luftwaffe pilot scores better then 2~4%. You can't. You can certainly find reports on the average American, British gunnery accuracy, and differ and assumption from there about the Germans. Remeber, the only "fact is death. If you know me, you know I'm a huge fan of the Luftwaffe.  Cheers.

that is exactly my point!

i am not saying anything.

what i do, is ask you to prove what you say, provide Documentation.
If not "THE" document , because i know it might be impossible, then it would help underline your "2%" figure, stabilize your credibility if you could lead us  as close to this document as you can.

This is a classic  debate style...
dude A claims something in front of the crowd.
dude B asks for proof.
dude A attempts to discredit dude B, and not win the crowd's favor by providing facts,
but by making crowd laugh at dude B.
an indirect sympathy is created towards dude A, labeling B as a man asking the impossible.
The claim of dude A is simply... forgotten due to humans being humans.

WE are here to find as much truth as we can, or in my case, observe the process. [insert aaron paul science picture]
What are YOU here for?

[sniperton]

I can easily imagine that some LW officials watched some gun camera films and were shocked to see that the half-trained rookie pilots (who were the "average" towards the end of the war) were quite ineffective against bombers. 2 percent is only an estimative numerical value to express that bitter experience, and is not meant as a statistical figure. Whether they "reported" it officially in a document or only remembered it when questioned by the Allied after the war, we do not know. (Many LW documents were burnt in the last weeks of the war). Anyway, I strongly believe that such numbers are informative in a way, but cannot be taken at face value. "2 percent" is here a numerical metaphor for "Jesus Christ, how ineffective these poor young bustards are!" or "rookies only hit by chance".