An attacking Stuka is going around 100 m/s, maybe 75 if not in a steep dive. So the engagement time at those ranges is a second and a fraction.
How do you calculate that ? Or are you assuming they acquired the target a second before they opened fire ?
Really the shot might start as far away as 400m and the pilot might pull out after getting to half of that, 2-3 seconds later.
Did you actually bother to look at the vid showing the engagement method ?
The firing rate would burn all 12 rounds in 2 1/4 seconds anyway, using both guns.
AFAIK the BK-37 had single shot capability. In fact, how smart would it be to go full auto with a 12rpg ammo load out ?
Oh, I get it. You are still hung up on the A-10 Gatling gun with a ****load of DU ammo comparison.
Stretching that into 2 passes would have been rare.
If they did full auto. Which I am certain they did not.
The point blank claim is again not very credible, and is probably giving the force something to aim for rather than actually routinely done etc.
I doubt that. With a high speed FW-190 that would be plausible. With the slower Ju-87 I'd have to say you would have to go for point blank shots just to minimize the risk of getting shot down by the flak if you had to do more than 2 passes at the same target. Rudel reportedly (supposedly, whichever you like) wrecked 7 machines in his worst day. The FLAK/CAP loss ratio would indicate they were not doing high angle highspeed full auto passes on a regular basis.
As for bomb accuracy and CM, consider SBDs at Midway. It was a war changing outlier on the achievement side. But the number of hits compared to bombs dropped ran about 1 in 8. The target sizes are, in CM terms, 11 to 13 tiles long and 1 to 1.5 times wide. The hits actually achieved against targets that size suggest the 50% circle is more like 8 tiles across, or in other words only about half dropped can be expected to land within 80 meters of the aiming point. And that is for dive bombing, which was inherently far more accurate than the shallower glide bomb approaches typically used by fighter bombers.
More than a few flaws in that comparison:
The accuracy rate should not calculated in this case from the target center point but the aiming center point. This because it was not the same bomber on the same dive vector doing all the bombing but separate machines on parallel dive vectors on the same target.
There is no 50% circle since every single bomb (and impact point) is an individual. Each also had a separate aiming point so your 80 meter radius from aim point propability is out the window.
Most of the dives were doomed to miss before the dive started because the dive start point determined the aim point. If the aim point was off the pilot could do only so much to alter it or to try to use the chosen one by altering the release point.
There is a reason they sent out entire squadrons at a time.
Yep. So that more than (even) one would get even a fair statistical chance of surviving the CAP and the FLAK to the ordnance release point. There were instances where the entire squadron was plucked down or blocked way before they reached the target. Or were entire squardons made it to the attack point and they all missed.
A complete air supremacy B enemy fighters everywhere
Now, who is buying the propaganda line, hook and sinker ?
A total networked C3I B a radio
So ?
A J-Stars spotting targets B mark I eyeball
Both prone to all kinds of spoofing and misidentification.
A night vision and IR B dawn patrol
See above. Plus the camo discipline was undone by the early mufflers in the machines belching smoke and sometimes flames.
A stationary dumb targets B the Russian front
The difference being ?
A tightly packed target area B the Russian front
You are a selfproclaimed expert on EF technics, tactics and doctrine. Given the Red Army tactics and doctrine would you say (and deny your own axioms) that the Red Army deployment stressed dispersal of forces and loose deployment, especially when setting up an attack , thus denying the enemy a target rich environment ?
A desert terrain B some steppe, lots of forest
Which would mean the A-10 would have failed in Europe in case of a shooting war ?
A guided missiles B deflection shooting
Deflection shooting against (relatively) stationary targets ? Really ?
A HEAT warheads B plain AP
Composite armour vs plain steel plate.
A cluster bombs B 37mm or dumb frag bomb
The Germans did have cluster ammunition available.
A 1000 rounds cannon B 12 rounds cannon
675 kmh vs 344 kmh max speed.
A 70 rounds per second B 2 rounds per second
See above.
A claim 0.25 tanks per sortie B claim 0.2 tanks per sortie
A actually got 0.1 to 0.15 B actually got jack
B got jack only because that is the only way to make the A-10 not look sucky ?
Tero got a reaction from Kineas in The Bouncing .50 cal - can it kill a tank?
