Missile tactics versus gun tactics.

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Missile tactics versus gun tactics.
Maratabc 4/26/2013 1:07:57 PM

This will be a discussion of why the Americans and British made a serious technical error in the 1950s and 1960s.

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT

marat,jean 7/11/2013 1:57:33 AM

Some comments. Hawk is not proportionally equivalent to Falcon in structure or form. The radar control is SARH but not the radio command telemetry updating (Early HAWK used a separate channel in the illuminator and tracker radars. PAIRS of them.).

Neither missile had an impressive PK. (0.05 PK for Falcon and 0.14-0.19 depending on the national user for HAWK).

So all in all, Shooter's wild claims and false analogies add up to his usual fantasies and lies.

"Both Falcon and Phoenix can handily out turn AMRAMM, Sparrow, Sidewinder

and most other A2A missiles on the market today, with a much larger

margin the earlier you go!"

Proof?

" Both Falcon and Phoenix can out corner the AMRAAM at any given velocity! "

Proof?

1. Look at the early kill stats for Hawk in the middle east.
2. Look at published performance figures for all of those missiles. Falcon is possibly the only missile around to be able to pull 50 Gs at significantly less than Mach 1.2! Hawk at less than Mach 1.25.
Sparrow and AMRAAM can both pull around 50 Gs but only at very high speeds, well over Mach 2.5 and 3.2 respectively.

Which missile do you think will give the most effective maneuver, 50 Gs at Mach 3.2, 2.5, or 50 Gs at Mach 1.2?

1. None of that is proof that the Falcon or Phoenix can out turn Sparrow, AMRAAM or Sidewinder.

2. Provide these figures - website or publication will be fine.

Quote Reply

45-Shooter 7/11/2013 7:59:46 PM

"Both Falcon and Phoenix can handily out turn AMRAMM, Sparrow, Sidewinder
and most other A2A missiles on the market today, with a much larger
margin the earlier you go!"

" Both Falcon and Phoenix can out corner the AMRAAM at any given velocity! "

Which missile do you think will give the most effective maneuver, 50 Gs at Mach 3.2, 2.5, or 50 Gs at Mach 1.2?

1. None of that is proof that the Falcon or Phoenix can out turn Sparrow, AMRAAM or Sidewinder.

Well, yes, the early success rate of HAWK in the middle east is proof of it's aerodynamic power. The same for the FACT that Falcon made five kills in RVN with out a proximity fuse. How many Sidewinder and Sparrow kills would there be WO a Prox Fuse? Right! On top of that, watch any film of Falcon test shots or kills. It's out there, but I am not the guy to be able to find it.

2. Provide these figures - website or publication will be fine.

Quote Reply

Jabberwocky 7/11/2013 9:46:31 PM

Evidence, not stories Stewart. Evidence.

Anecdotes are not evidence. I repeat, anecdotes are NOT evidence.

You wouldn't generate quite so much anger in the forums if you supported your posts with proof.

Simply saying 'look it up yourself' is not evidence either. You are the one making the claims, therefore the burden of proof lies with you. Until a claim is proven, or at the least evidence is provided to support the assertion, then the rational position is one of skepticism.

Are you familliar with Hitchen's Razor: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"

P/K ratios are NOT evidence of the turning abilities of A to A missiles from different time periods. All they are is evidence of the success rate of that particular missile at that particular time.

Quote Reply

45-Shooter 7/11/2013 10:26:23 PM

I should not have to post "Proof" of things either self evident, or in the common knowledge. Those here with out experience should listen to those with it.
The real reason I draw such ire is because I do not kow-tow to the "Common" mythos. The planes I dislike, are very popular, especially among their Nationals. Yet a realistic appraisal of same leaves them wanting in many respects. The more hyperbole around it, the more they object to my perceived "Bashing" of it. Because I point out their foibles, Spitfire, Lancaster and Rafale fan hate my guts. They do not even listen to my arguments and reject them out of hand, even when supporting evidence is posted, like the disastrous cross channel raids by RAF Spitfires. If the Me-109 can do that going one way at a 1/1.2 loss ratio, but the Spit takes it in the shorts at 1/6, they are supposed to be equal? Right. When I try to explain some of the causes, I get more bashing out of hand WO consideration of the facts, or out right denial of those facts. When I post Vids of first hand experiences to support my claims, does anyone actually watch them? Lancaster is the same way. Simple proofs that are self evident to anyone with half an un-biased brain are slandered out of hand. If Rafale was such a great plane, why are the French cutting back/ They never even bought enough to arm CDG! Their claims of LO are easy to bust and they have their own radar ranges and know we have been tracking them from Ramstien, Germany with twenty year old F-15Cs and still I get bashed for simply asking "If it's so great, why has no-one else bought it?" Right!

Simply saying 'look it up yourself' is not evidence either. But when I post links to evidence, it is dismissed out of hand! The P-38 Videos are a case in point. You are the one making the claims, therefore the burden of proof lies with you. Until a claim is proven, or at the least evidence is provided to support the assertion, then the rational position is one of skepticism.

But it is not "Rational Skepticism"! Watch and spit vid and count the seconds as it rolls, 1-1000, 2-1000, etc and then tell me with a straight face it is as quick as the Videos I posted of "Un-boosted" P-38 rolls at 275 knots! Read the history of the Spiteful and then tell me Spitfire rate of roll was not a problem! So I've posted the proofs, but they were all ignored, or poo-pooh'd.

Are you familliar with Hitchen's Razor: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"

Certainly, but if the assertion is self evident, dismissal is self defeating!

P/K ratios are NOT evidence of the turning abilities of A to A missiles from different time periods. All they are is evidence of the success rate of that particular missile at that particular time.

Let me ask you one simple question, "Do you believe that aircraft with lower wing loading will out turn those with higher wing loading?" If you do, then simple examination of pictures should be self evident that missiles like Falcon, HAWK, Maverick and Phoenix will always out corner missiles like Sparrow and AMRAAM at any given speed. This IS one of those immutable laws of physics and ignorance of it is not the same as simple denial of the facts. Be honest.

Quote Reply

Jabberwocky 7/12/2013 12:09:30 AM

Its not about whether I like or dislike somthing, its about evidence. Your standard of evidence has been shown to be exceedingly poor. Repeatedly. When asked to provide proof, you provide either argument, anecdote or spurious reasoning. When provided with directly contrary evidence, or even conclusions drawn from your own evidence that disagree with yours, you are apt to ignore it. Consistently.

To the best of my abilities, I try to base my conclusion on facts and evidence. When someone else presents me with different conclusions, I want to see what facts they have based their conclusions on. If you present evidence to me that is sufficiently compelling, I will change my conclusions/opinion to accomodate the information. Hopefully, I do this in the manner most appropriate.

In a debating situation, which is essentially what you've reduced this to, facts should not be taken as a given. Evidence is needed to support claims, or they are simply that, claims. Stewart, you have the following tendencies which make attempting to engage with you in civilised discourse almost impossible:

1. Unwarranted assumptions presented as fact with no supporting evidence (B-17 4,000 lbr, Bf-109 with MG 151s);

2. Opinion presented as fact with no supporting evidence (Merits of the Bell XP-77);

3. Use of anecdotal evidence when presented with counter-factual evidence and argument (too many to mention);

4. Common resort to ad-homonim (general and specific) fallacies (too many to mention);

5. Tendency to tangentail argument;

6. Failure to take broader considerations into account (Spitfire/109 loss rates);

7. Unwillingness to incorporate new evidence/repetition of disproved assertions (too many to mention);

8. Failure to maintain a logical progression of argument;

9. Use of apples to oranges comparisons (Spitfire/109 loss rates)

Stewart, for several years I helped check and mark undergraduate level university history papers. Simple stuff, mostly first and second year literature review essays. If any of them held themselves to the standards of "evidence" and argument that you do, I'd not have possesed not a single seconds hesitation in failing them.

I've had debates with fundamentalist creationists who were more open to changing their opinions based on reasonable evidence that you are.

Quote Reply

45-Shooter 7/16/2013 8:42:11 PM

the AIM 9 would fly up the tailpipe and explode inside the defender plane. Or most of the time fly up along the side of target plane and then explodes.

This happened often enough that when Mig 21 pilots felt something wrong at the back end of their aircraft, they assumed a Phantom II had ambushed them and shoved a Sidewinder up their tailpipe. So they rode their SK-1 ejection seats out of the plane rather than wait for the Sidewinder to detonate. Some times they even ejected with out having anything wrong with their plane.

Quote Reply

45-Shooter 7/16/2013 11:45:05 PM

2. Opinion presented as fact with no supporting evidence (Merits of the Bell XP-77);

Supporting facts! The top speed as measured by actual tests of the XP-77 was, IIRC, 335 MPH at 5,000' with out the aid of a supercharger! Climb rate 3,600 FPM, IIRC. Again WO the aid of a Blower. Service ceiling over 30,000', again WO a blower. Range 550 miles, again, no blower. Given that except for top speed, it handily beat the numbers of the Mk-I/II and came close to the Mk-V, all WO a blower! Do you think it would have gotten any better with the addition of a supercharger, if so, how much?

6. Failure to take broader considerations into account (Spitfire/109 loss rates);

I do take the higher loss rate of Spitfires into consideration when they were operated over Northern France. My experience is that no-one else here does that. ( Take the huge difference in win/loss rates between Southern England and Northern France!)

7. Unwillingness to incorporate new evidence/repetition of disproved assertions (too many to mention);

Like the universal rejection of the Spitfire K/L Rates over Northern France into the assessment of the Spit's overall quality by ALL here?

8. Failure to maintain a logical progression of argument;

Got me here! I do tend to jump all over the place, but find that if I just answer points raised by others, I can keep a reasonable handle on my dyslexia?

9. Use of apples to oranges comparisons (Spitfire/109 loss rates)

Both planes are fighters of similar time periods, etc. They both had winning ratios at home and loosing ratios away, etc... But on the other side they have very different performance parameters? Which do you think is more important, the K/L Ratios, or the abstract performance numbers measured in very few attributes. For instance, as far as I know, there are no RAF tests of rate of roll for early Spitfires?

Stewart, for several years I helped check and mark undergraduate level university history papers. If any of them held themselves to the standards of "evidence" and argument that you do, I'd not have possesed not a single seconds hesitation in failing them.

I did not have a fiduciary agreement with anyone here and thus could not be held to the same standard as you and your students. However, I do understand your angst? My problem is that most of what we discuss here on this board is about ideas, more than things. But most here want to think about things, rather than ideas. Ideas are much more slippery than facts and are very much more important. This is also the core of the B-17/Lancaster argument. They argue facts of demonstrated performance that favor the Lanc and ignore those possible performance factors that favor the -17, but much more importantly, they ignore the ideas why each was the way it was. If the two planes rolls were reversed, there would be no argument what so ever about which was the better plane. Why does everyone here do that? Ignore the idea based part of the argument, that is?

I've had debates with fundamentalist creationists who were more open to changing their opinions based on reasonable evidence that you are.

OMG, I'm up the creek with out a paddle! I'm a Mormon!!! But I am also an ID guy. Have you ever heard of the six/seven numbers? Depending on who you read, there are 6-7 cosmological constants that are so precisely and exactly as they need to be, that if any one of them were 1% of 1% different than they are, the entire universe would not exist as we now know it! Sounds like Intelligent Design to me???

Quote Reply

45-Shooter This part of the reply dropped out? 7/17/2013 12:07:25 AM

; F href="http://www.google.com/search?q=b-17+plans&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=nRTmUbPGJuqzywH2lIFQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDgQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=679#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=ny_92ADkX-c89M%3A%3BE8BVAsDA1ilRKM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fforo3d.com%252Fattachments%252F122622d1265104679-blueprint-b-17-b-17.jpeg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252F" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/search?q=b-17+plans&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=nRTmUbPGJuqzywH2lIFQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDgQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=679#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=ny_92ADkX-c89M%3A%3BE8BVAsDA1ilRKM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fforo3d.com%252Fattachments%252F122622d1265104679-blueprint-b-17-b-17.jpeg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252 F href="http://www.google.com/search?q=b-17+plans&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=nRTmUbPGJuqzywH2lIFQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDgQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=679#facrc=_&imgdii=ny_92ADkX-c89M%3A%3BPr04HeWD_0MdYM%3Bny_92ADkX-c89M%3A&imgrc=ny_92ADkX-c89M%3A%3BE8BVAsDA1ilRKM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fforo3d.com%252Fattachments%252F122622d1265104679-blueprint-b-17-b-17.jpeg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252F href="http://www.google.com/search?q=b-17+plans&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=nRTmUbPGJuqzywH2lIFQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDgQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=679#facrc=_&imgdii=ny_92ADkX-c89M%3A%3BPr04HeWD_0MdYM%3Bny_92ADkX-c89M%3A&imgrc=ny_92ADkX-c89M%3A%3BE8BVAsDA1ilRKM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fforo3d.com%252Fattachments%252F122622d1265104679-blueprint-b-17-b-17.jpeg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252F" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/search?q=b-17+plans&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=nRTmUbPGJuqzywH2lIFQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDgQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=679#facrc=_&imgdii=ny_92ADkX-c89M%3A%3BPr04HeWD_0MdYM%3Bny_92ADkX-c89M%3A&imgrc=ny_92ADkX-c89M%3A%3BE8BVAsDA1ilRKM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fforo3d.com%252Fattachments%252F122622d1265104679-blueprint-b-17-b-17.jpeg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252 F href="http://www.google.com/search?q=b-17+plans&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=nRTmUbPGJuqzywH2lIFQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDgQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=679#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=ox1dw7DMcB4_DM%3A%3BFRJ3j479Tc6grM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252F href="http://www.google.com/search?q=b-17+plans&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=nRTmUbPGJuqzywH2lIFQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDgQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=679#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=ox1dw7DMcB4_DM%3A%3BFRJ3j479Tc6grM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252F" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/search?q=b-17+plans&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=nRTmUbPGJuqzywH2lIFQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDgQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=679#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=ox1dw7DMcB4_DM%3A%3BFRJ3j479Tc6grM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252 F> and the best for last F style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">F%" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/search?q=b-17+plans&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=nRTmUbPGJuqzywH2lIFQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDgQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=679#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=_plxE8wC6ZKrGM%3A%3Bz5oBSJiadyogYM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252 F style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">3B896Then calculate the size of the bay from the bottom view and the length/width of the image. Lastly, since Willy Messerschmitt in his book states that some of the late model Me-109Ks had two Mk-151-15s under the cowl and the Mk-103 in the engine! I would think he had a better grasp on what they built than any other person on the planet! The stories by my landlord in Germany during my first tour claimed that he flew one of those planes and had pictures to prove it. Since he also listened to old records of Hitler's speeches, I discounted his ranting's until confronted on this board. I wonder why all here dispute the facts as printed in so many books until recently?

Quote Reply

Jabberwocky 7/17/2013 1:05:19 AM

After all that and you still refuse to back your assertions with evidence? Not even a page number to this mythical "Willy Messerschmitt book" (did he actually write an authobiography/memoirs?).

And, to top it off, you're a creationist (ID is just creationism in a lab coat). I should have guessed really. No wonder what you espouse has no basis in reality or rationality.

I'm done with you. Your petulant refusal to move from your pre-concieved notions, in the face of evidence and reasoned logical argument, has rendered futile the participation of all others who attempt to correct you. Not a single individual on this board, nor the others you frequent, has agreed with any of your core assertions. Even a broken clock is right twice a day Shooter, but amazingly you can't even seem to manage that.

Quote Reply

oldbutnotwise 7/17/2013 3:42:00 AM

Sorry but try using the actual figures and not the bloated figures supplied by bell, the USAAF test never got close to those numbers, the whole design was so flawed and underperforming thet even bell admitted it needed a full redesign (and by the way the the fact that the ese test were performed at low altitude were the blower makes no difference) and note that these tests were NOT performed with full miltary equipment

I do take the higher loss rate of Spitfires into consideration when they were operated over Northern France.

yet you fail to take into account that the MAJORITY of Spi losses during this period were by ground fire, that and the fact that the Germans could pick and choose weather to engage makes the situation so different as to be uncomapirable

Like the universal rejection of the Spitfire K/L Rates over Northern France into the assessment of the Spit's overall quality by ALL here?

you really need to read more on this subject as you clearly do not understand it (or are you being delibrately ignorant)

Got me here! I do tend to jump all over the place, but find that if I just answer points raised by others, I can keep a reasonable handle on my dyslexia?

dyslexia does not cause failure of logical thought, in fact dyslexia is commonly found in those with jobs that require logical thought (something like 90% of computer programmers have some form of dyslexia)

They both had winning ratios at home and loosing ratios away, etc... But on the other side they have very different performance parameters? . For instance, as far as I know, there are no RAF tests of rate of roll for early Spitfires?

apple and oranges, you think that because of a couple of similarites that the the two can be compaired, when you actually look at it in sufficent details you relalise that the two have far less in common that that thier differences

Oh and there are Roll test of MkI spits but you have to pay for them they are not online

I did not have a fiduciary agreement with anyone here and thus could not be held to the same standard as you and your students.

problem is you hold your self to NO standards at all

However, I do understand your angst? My problem is that most of what we discuss here on this board is about ideas,

no its about history which is factual based

more than things. But most here want to think about things, rather than ideas. Ideas are much more slippery than facts and are very much more important.

only when you refused to back said ideas up with the required facts

This is also the core of the B-17/Lancaster argument. They argue facts of demonstrated performance that favor the Lanc and ignore those possible performance factors that favor the -17, but much more importantly, they ignore the ideas why each was the way it was. If the two planes rolls were reversed, there would be no argument what so ever about which was the better plane. Why does everyone here do that? Ignore the idea based part of the argument, that is?

because you only accept that your ideas are right never that they could be possibly wrong

I've had debates with fundamentalist creationists who were more open to changing their opinions based on reasonable evidence that you are.
OMG, I'm up the creek with out a paddle! I'm a Mormon!!!

I dont usually correct your spelling but surely you mean Moron?

But I am also an ID guy. Have you ever heard of the six/seven numbers? Depending on who you read, there are 6-7 cosmological constants that are so precisely and exactly as they need to be, that if any one of them were 1% of 1% different than they are, the entire universe would not exist as we now know it! Sounds like Intelligent Design to me???

that expalines a lot and I am not going there

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT