Aerial Combat

[Jinxter13]

Most of us, and that's a SWAG like and some love the excitement of the aerial duel a man and machine v another man and another machine. Every since the chivalrous days of the bi-winged Fokkers v Spads and other aircraft entered the prior to that unknown arena of the aerial dogfight up to the present day BVR duels in aircraft that can cover a distance in a mere matter of seconds what those bi-winged marvels took and hour or more to do the same; there is a side of these duels not readily discussed and in some circles not even mentioned. This side are those citizens on the ground who may look up in awe, or in nerve racking fear at the brave sky warriors and their steeds doing battle; yet the weapons used do not always hit their target and with gravity still a ruling force those 20mm projectiles or those half million dollar darts even that miss even though they are guided at times still miss, and at some point must fall back to earth; however gravity doesn't and they must go somewhere, Ok so some are designed that once released if they don't hit something in the air within a given amount of time self destruct. This still leaves the material they are constructed of to fall to earth and only chance governs where it lands. The same applies to the common bullet once fired it moves forward and down unless something in the air crosses it's path. Then once must consider that when a fighter, bomber or whatever it was that was shot down falls under the influence of gravity also and must return to terra firma from whence it came, again only chance says where it makes contact with mother earth. In battles fought on the open ocean this does not apply, marine life has a better chance of escaping these remains. The term collateral damage has been used in the case of bombs and missiles when they are employed and destroy a target and something other than the target gets damaged. Smart weapons have reduced the amount of collateral damage when ground targets are attacked, but in aerial warfare this damage is something that can't be readily calculated. It's a sad commentary to the legacy of mankind that war with all it's horrors at times cannot be avoided, and that with all our advances we are still unable to fight a victimless conflict if that will be even possible 5,000 years from now. One can only hope that by then war and human conflict will be a tragedy of the long distant past. By then the dreams and visions of sci-fi movie makers may be a reality and the opponents will be from world far far away from here.

Just some thoughts with hopes for a better world

Edited March 6, 2013 by #1 Greywolf

[Flyboyf18]

What about all the lead from those nit wits who fire their AKs into the air either in celebration of something or to protest something???????

As you said once that chunk of AK lead reaches apogee the law of gravity takes over and the lead returns to earth!!! Or does it?? If there is something or someone in the way before earth is reached.............

[Bigasshammm]

Pretty sure the bullet in the air thing was busted on mythbusters a long time ago. Anything falling for enough time is going to reach its own terminal velocity. The terminal velocity of a bullet is far less that its initial velocity after being fired. Since it was fired into the air the bullet would lose all of its initial velocity and thus would hit terminal velocity falling back to earth and would then be non lethal.

Now a plane falling out of the sky is a different story.

[Flyingfortress]

Pretty sure the bullet in the air thing was busted on mythbusters a long time ago. Anything falling for enough time is going to reach its own terminal velocity. The terminal velocity of a bullet is far less that its initial velocity after being fired. Since it was fired into the air the bullet would lose all of its initial velocity and thus would hit terminal velocity falling back to earth and would then be non lethal.

Now a plane falling out of the sky is a different story.

With all due respect, I think the family of the woman who was struck and killed on News Years Eve a few years ago would disagree. As per usual, the lunkheads here in Detroit were shooting their guns in the air when a spent round found the grandmothers skull and killed her deader then hell. The annual catch phrase since then has been "Bells Not Bullets on New Years".

[RKic]

I thought you were going to speak about combat aircrew who have no means of defense. I always wondered how nerve-wracking it must have been to be a radio operator or navigator on a bomber under fighter attack during WWII. The gunners could at least try to shoot back and the pilots could maybe try to get out of the way. But these guys just have to sit there and hope for the best.

I shudder to think.

[11bee]

I thought you were going to speak about combat aircrew who have no means of defense. I always wondered how nerve-wracking it must have been to be a radio operator or navigator on a bomber under fighter attack during WWII. The gunners could at least try to shoot back and the pilots could maybe try to get out of the way. But these guys just have to sit there and hope for the best.

I shudder to think.

IMO, the guys that had it worst were the ball turret gunners on B-17's and B-24's. Trapped in that tiny thing, with no chute, unable to get out if the plane took a hit and lost electrical power must have made them neurotic. If the turret locked in place and the aircraft had to make a wheels up landing, the first thing to be crushed was the turret with the poor SOB stuck inside.

They had big ones.... made of brass!

[Flyingfortress]

IMO, the guys that had it worst were the ball turret gunners on B-17's and B-24's. Trapped in that tiny thing, with no chute, unable to get out if the plane took a hit and lost electrical power must have made them neurotic. If the turret locked in place and the aircraft had to make a wheels up landing, the first thing to be crushed was the turret with the poor SOB stuck inside.

They had big ones.... made of brass!

Speaking to Mr Bunker (who I built the visible B-17 for)he's told me many times about their ballturret gunner who wouldn't stay there! He'd move the ball around as they were instructed to in order to let enemy fighters know the ball gunner was on the job. But each time the plane came under attack their ball gunner would fight tooth and nail to get the hell out. Can't say I blame him and Mr Bunker never said anything cross about him either. Like 11Bee said, Big Brass Balls!!!!!

[Santini35]

Pretty sure the bullet in the air thing was busted on mythbusters a long time ago. Anything falling for enough time is going to reach its own terminal velocity. The terminal velocity of a bullet is far less that its initial velocity after being fired. Since it was fired into the air the bullet would lose all of its initial velocity and thus would hit terminal velocity falling back to earth and would then be non lethal.

Now a plane falling out of the sky is a different story.

With all due respect, I think the family of the woman who was struck and killed on News Years Eve a few years ago would disagree. As per usual, the lunkheads here in Detroit were shooting their guns in the air when a spent round found the grandmothers skull and killed her deader then hell. The annual catch phrase since then has been "Bells Not Bullets on New Years".

You're both right,

"BUSTED / PLAUSIBLE / CONFIRMEDIn the case of a bullet fired at a precisely vertical angle (something extremely difficult for a human being to duplicate), the bullet would tumble, lose its spin, and fall at a much slower speed due to terminal velocity and is therefore rendered less than lethal on impact. However, if a bullet is fired upward at a non-vertical angle (a far more probable possibility), it will maintain its spin and will reach a high enough speed to be lethal on impact. Because of this potentiality, firing a gun into the air is illegal in most states, and even in the states that it is legal, it is not recommended by the police. Also the MythBusters were able to identify two people who had been injured by falling bullets, one of them fatally injured. To date, this is the only myth to receive all three ratings at the same time." mythbusters results

[Jinxter13]

Not going into details and if History has it right the most advantageous attack angle was/is from above and behind. If this holds and is true then a lot of "bullets" were fired and before the target was hit so there was lead flying toward the ground. For example "Operation Bodenplatte" had a lot of folks shooting at each other not choosing the exact spot to shoot at an adversary. In a twisting turning furball the firing angle was not always at optimum with regards to safety of those on the ground. Even when a bomber formation was being attacked the gunners when firing at an attacker could fire down only if no other bomber had strayed underneath. That's a lot of .50 lead heading toward the ground with no intended target and at the mercy of gravity, physics, aided by being fired from "Ma Deuce". If lead stocks get low we can reclaim a lot of what's in the ground in Western Europe. Either way if the target got shot down or not a lot of stuff was falling out of the sky with no regard for what it hit or hits. Another IFO I forgot to mention, I'm not sure how the Luftwaffe doctrines went at present, however after a period, Allied fighters were allowed to ditch the aux gasbags to clean the aircraft up for max maneuvering efficiency i.e. get into fighting mode. Again not choosing where they were jumped or when down to earth came numerous metal in some cases paper containers possibly with AVgas still in them, however is a soul was lucky enough he possibly heard better yet saw them falling and had a chance to move to avoid being beaned, a dwelling however took the full brunt of IFO. Since the gasbags were used first most likely they were empty, however they still were not feather light. Sabres routinely jettisoned gasbags when they saw MiG's.

Edited March 6, 2013 by #1 Greywolf

[Les / Creative Edge Photo]

Pretty sure the bullet in the air thing was busted on mythbusters a long time ago. Anything falling for enough time is going to reach its own terminal velocity. The terminal velocity of a bullet is far less that its initial velocity after being fired. Since it was fired into the air the bullet would lose all of its initial velocity and thus would hit terminal velocity falling back to earth and would then be non lethal.

Now a plane falling out of the sky is a different story.

The Mythbusters showed that a bullet fired 100% straight up will run out of velocity to then fall back to earth at its own terminal velocity. This though unlikely to kill you if hit by it may still hurt you. BUT! since most gun fire supposedly going up in the air is not totally straight up but fired at some other rate of angle, the bullet will maintain a level of velocity in its parabolic curve and as such where it ultimately lands could very well hurt or kill a person or animal.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Les / Creative Edge Photo

[Andre]

Wasn't a lot of damage to Tripoli during El Dorado Canyon done by Libyan AAA and SAMs coming down to earth again, rather dan the US bombs..?

Cheers,

Andre

[Cajun21]

Wasn't a lot of damage to Tripoli during El Dorado Canyon done by Libyan AAA and SAMs coming down to earth again, rather dan the US bombs..?

Cheers,

Andre

Andre,

Yes there was some damaged caused by "friendly fire". It was more so during Vietnam, especially over Hanoi and the other larger urban areas. The Vietnamse started to install the "Gopher holes" made from from large diameter sewer pipes for the people to hide in that were caught outside during a strike. It was more for their own stuff falling back to earth then the munitions from the strike force. Several times we would purposly fly over populated areas to limit the amount of anti air fired at us for fear of hitting there own people. Soon found out that the didn't care. Saw several SA-2's impact urban areas and, of course, it was claimed as a American bomb hit. Gotta' love the political minds!

Itch

[Mike C]

Pretty sure the bullet in the air thing was busted on mythbusters a long time ago. Anything falling for enough time is going to reach its own terminal velocity. The terminal velocity of a bullet is far less that its initial velocity after being fired. Since it was fired into the air the bullet would lose all of its initial velocity and thus would hit terminal velocity falling back to earth and would then be non lethal.

My memory of that particular episode of Mythbusters is totally different from yours. What they proved, from my own memory, was that in most cases the bullets would travel in a more or less ballistic path hence will still be lethal when they come down. The only way for the bullets to come down harmlessly is IF, and ONLY IF, the bullets are fired straight up PERFECTLY (i.e. perfectly perpendicular to the ground), which is almost an impossibility.

I believe wind plays an important factor in reducing the occurrence of those bullets travelling in a perfectly ballistic manner. I.e. as the bullets travel upwards, wind may/might knock it off its ballistic path, which may cause it to tumble and fall off harmlessly.

Just my 2cents....

[niart17]

I often wondered about the cases where a group of fighters had to eject drop tanks before starting a fight. Surely at some point those things had to do some serious damage to a house or farm (or cow or two) I know it's just the nature of the game, but that would ruin your whole day if you're out plowing a field when all of a sudden 20 or so drop tanks, often with fuel still in them, started raining out of the sky.

Bill

[TaiidanTomcat]

I have bad news for you all, Mythbusters is not the most perfect scientifically accurate measure of the world around us.

There have been multiple occasions on the show when they have tried to replicate something that did happen IRL and failed to do so.

[aerofan]

5,000 years from now, wars will be fought like in one from a Star Trek TOS episode where one side will fire a virtual weapon and the collateral damage will be calculated by a computer. Those unlucky to win the collateral damage lottery would have to goto the collateral damage facilities to bid adeu to the world. Ah yes, computers will solve all our problems. :lol:

[DutyCat]

It's a sad commentary to the legacy of mankind that war with all it's horrors at times cannot be avoided, and that with all our advances we are still unable to fight a victimless conflict if that will be even possible 5,000 years from now. One can only hope that by then war and human conflict will be a tragedy of the long distant past. By then the dreams and visions of sci-fi movie makers may be a reality and the opponents will be from world far far away from here.

Just some thoughts with hopes for a better world

Your comments on our inability as a species to avoid war is appreciated. We all want to make the world a better place.

I suggest that there is really no such thing as a victimless conflict. Everyone caught up in a war is a victim to a greater or lesser degree. Every man or woman lost is someone's child, father, mother, sister, or brother. If you are suggesting that war should be conducted exclusively between combatants and their machines, then I recommend you consider the more sophisticated merits of strategic warfare theory. Tactical engagements, on their own, are manifestations of a larger national effort and rarely win wars in and of themselves. It is the industrial infrastructure, economic power, and political will that matters. If you want to settle a conflict with minimal loss of life, don't drag it out with a series of attrition engagements over years and years. Go right to the heart of your enemy's economic, industrial, and political base. There is an old saying.."Amateurs think tactics. Professionals think logistics." Destroy that aircraft factory, shipyard, or oil refinery. The innocent "civilians" who work there are supporting the war effort of your enemy. They are complicit, unless they are being forced into the work. Either way, you have to destroy that capability, even if it means civilian deaths. More people, civilians and combatants alike will survive in the long run. This is a valid, pragmatic perspective, often ignored by civilian leadership. Whether the intentional targeting of a factory full of mom's, daughters, and tired old men building bombers is moral or not is a situational ethics debate on which I will not weigh in here.

Edited March 8, 2013 by DutyCat

[Old Dog]

I often wondered what it must have been like in a city where a heavy flack barrage was being put up, any shrapnel that didn't find a home would return to earth, probably not at lethal velocity but none the less one would think it would be similar to a hail storm. Did they go out and sweep the streets afterward to clean up all the metal shards ?

[Bad Turbine]

I have bad news for you all, Mythbusters is not the most perfect scientifically accurate measure of the world around us.

There have been multiple occasions on the show when they have tried to replicate something that did happen IRL and failed to do so.

I remember an episode where they took a scraped airliner and brought it up to pressure than shot the window out saying that it could not suck someone out.It was totally bogus as we have seen in reality.Their punks!

[Big Nick]

I often wondered what it must have been like in a city where a heavy flack barrage was being put up, any shrapnel that didn't find a home would return to earth, probably not at lethal velocity but none the less one would think it would be similar to a hail storm. Did they go out and sweep the streets afterward to clean up all the metal shards ?

Several histories of the Blitz and general WW2 bombing report that roof tiles and windows were smashed or cracked by falling anti-aircraft fire. There's an enduring myth of Londoners being machine-gunned by German fighters, it's more likely they were hit by bullets falling from high altitude dogfights or AA guns. Some roofs were damaged by falling barrage ballons and their cables.

http://www.1900s.org.uk/1942-45-children.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/92/a4029392.shtml (approx 8 paragraphs down)

[Edgar]

There's an enduring myth of Londoners being machine-gunned by German fighters, it's more likely they were hit by bullets falling from high altitude dogfights or AA guns.

You mean like the woman who related how, as 5-year-old in school, she and her friends heard an aircraft overhead, so rushed out to see it, waving to the (German) pilot. He waved back, then turned back, and machine-gunned the kids; don't be so ready to disbelieve everything you hear.

[11bee]

You mean like the woman who related how, as 5-year-old in school, she and her friends heard an aircraft overhead, so rushed out to see it, waving to the (German) pilot. He waved back, then turned back, and machine-gunned the kids; don't be so ready to disbelieve everything you hear.

I'm not sure I'd trust the memory of a 5-year old child. Not to say it isn't possible but it could also just be another myth. If you have any real info to back this up, please post, I'd be interested in reading up on it.