Air attack effectiveness

[SunlitZelkova]

Loitering for any considerable length of time in an area where many tens of thousands of rounds are being fired into the sky is not especially recommended, sure (though of course even if you get hit, very likely in the wing, by a rifle-calibre round having lost the vast majority of its energy, it is hardly instant death!). This is... not quite the same as saying that it is suicidal for aircraft to approach within a mile of infantry in platoon strength, though :p.

In reality aircraft have a hard deck of ten thousand feet, loitering below that is truly instant death.

But as for long range sams, advanced high altitude systems and so forth I'm fine with the game modeling them. Any effective use of unguided weapons is mostly impossible given the altitude required. This is why there are no statistics on tanks bombed in Ww2 or anything, it isn't possible.

This is incorrect. There were no guided air-to-ground munitions in Korea.

However, available scholarship on the subject (Edwards 2010: 85, 87) reinforces the central role of CAS in the air war (accounting for approximately 15% of all UN sorties) and provides CAS as assisting in stabilizing UNC lines during critical points. The steady withdrawal to the Pusan Perimeter in July/August 1950 and the maintenance of the same was greatly assisted by CAS aircraft. During the Pusan fight, CAS is credited with inflicting equal enemy casualties as ground assets while destroying nearly three-quarters of DPRK mobile equipment and artillery [Emphasis added]. Likewise, during the Battle of the Chosin Reservoir, CAS is credited for 50% of CCF casualties. While CAS aircraft provided critical tactical support to ground forces, proximity to enemy infantry and air defenses negatively affected loss statistics.

https://dpaa-mil.sites.crmforce.mil/dpa ... AirBattles

The UN flew 1,040,708 sorties during the war. So about 156,000 or so were CAS. With unguided rockets (HVAR or Tiny Tim) or dumb bombs.

Most of the aircraft flying these were F-84s. 249 of those were lost in combat while 86,408 sorties were flown. If I am doing my math correctly, for every 347 missions flown 1 aircraft was lost.

The F-84s did not abort or attack “easy” targets 346 times. Most were against infantry. Because of the massed nature of communist infantry tactics at the time, there would have been plenty of PPSh sub machine guns to open fire. Yet the loss rate is low.

This would indicate CAS overall had a low loss rate, while using unguided weapons like rockets and bombs.

PPSh fire rate is 1250 RPM or so. AK-47 is 600 RPM. This doesn’t take into account heating and what not.

How can you claim automatic weapons should have a super high anti-air kill rate when this doesn’t appear to be the case based on the Korean War?

[BobTank63]

I'd like to see the historical case for 10k soldiers shooting into the air at once.

It doesn't need that many. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MUgluYZRsPU

Your source is actual Vietnamese propaganda. Do you have a better one?

[mustang191]

I'd like to see the historical case for 10k soldiers shooting into the air at once.

It doesn't need that many. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MUgluYZRsPU

Your source is actual Vietnamese propaganda. Do you have a better one?

The USAF claimed 80% of phantoms were lost by ground fire, the rest by SAM and Migs. Ground fire of any kind was by far the biggest killer. Whether it's rifles or bigger versions of rifles is immaterial.

Loitering for any considerable length of time in an area where many tens of thousands of rounds are being fired into the sky is not especially recommended, sure (though of course even if you get hit, very likely in the wing, by a rifle-calibre round having lost the vast majority of its energy, it is hardly instant death!). This is... not quite the same as saying that it is suicidal for aircraft to approach within a mile of infantry in platoon strength, though :p.

In reality aircraft have a hard deck of ten thousand feet, loitering below that is truly instant death.

But as for long range sams, advanced high altitude systems and so forth I'm fine with the game modeling them. Any effective use of unguided weapons is mostly impossible given the altitude required. This is why there are no statistics on tanks bombed in Ww2 or anything, it isn't possible.

This is incorrect. There were no guided air-to-ground munitions in Korea.

However, available scholarship on the subject (Edwards 2010: 85, 87) reinforces the central role of CAS in the air war (accounting for approximately 15% of all UN sorties) and provides CAS as assisting in stabilizing UNC lines during critical points. The steady withdrawal to the Pusan Perimeter in July/August 1950 and the maintenance of the same was greatly assisted by CAS aircraft. During the Pusan fight, CAS is credited with inflicting equal enemy casualties as ground assets while destroying nearly three-quarters of DPRK mobile equipment and artillery [Emphasis added]. Likewise, during the Battle of the Chosin Reservoir, CAS is credited for 50% of CCF casualties. While CAS aircraft provided critical tactical support to ground forces, proximity to enemy infantry and air defenses negatively affected loss statistics.

https://dpaa-mil.sites.crmforce.mil/dpa ... AirBattles

The UN flew 1,040,708 sorties during the war. So about 156,000 or so were CAS. With unguided rockets (HVAR or Tiny Tim) or dumb bombs.

Most of the aircraft flying these were F-84s. 249 of those were lost in combat while 86,408 sorties were flown. If I am doing my math correctly, for every 347 missions flown 1 aircraft was lost.

The F-84s did not abort or attack “easy” targets 346 times. Most were against infantry. Because of the massed nature of communist infantry tactics at the time, there would have been plenty of PPSh sub machine guns to open fire. Yet the loss rate is low.

This would indicate CAS overall had a low loss rate, while using unguided weapons like rockets and bombs.

PPSh fire rate is 1250 RPM or so. AK-47 is 600 RPM. This doesn’t take into account heating and what not.

How can you claim automatic weapons should have a super high anti-air kill rate when this doesn’t appear to be the case based on the Korean War?

Thank you for the example.

First you have to consider what a sortie means. Not all sorties actually happened. Consider that 635,000 tons of bombs were dropped in Korea and there were 20,000 b 29 sorties with 10 ton payload. Thus the attack sorties dropped around 400,000 tons. B 26 were used in a interdiction role ("easy targets" like civilians and trains). 60,000 sorties with two tons. 280,000 tons left and a million sorties.

A saber carries two mk 65s. Thus only 1/3 of the sorties max carried bombs. That's about 50,000 of the CAS sorties. Note there were also HVAR sorties, which have the same tonnage, 16 50 lb rockets. I'm guessing those are included.

Furthermore some sorties abort or are against easy targets. On September 23rd, after the Inchon landings, many British died of friendly fire. "Easy targets" means the several percent of casualties due to friendly fire which are worse for CAS aircraft with no real way to identify multi national forces.

In the high case all the 50,000 CAS sorties were real, in the low case 5,000 of them had a useful outcome. Chosin was a human wave attack thus an "easy target". Thousands of allied aircraft were lost or damaged and its plausible the majority of CAS sorties were either friendly fire or killed quickly. For the f 84s you're excluding the damaged planes, which would be several times higher, excluding the friendly fire, and again due to the bomb tonnage not all the sorties can be real.

[BobTank63]

It doesn't need that many. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MUgluYZRsPU

Your source is actual Vietnamese propaganda. Do you have a better one?

The USAF claimed 80% of phantoms were lost by ground fire, the rest by SAM and Migs. Ground fire of any kind was by far the biggest killer. Whether it's rifles or bigger versions of rifles is immaterial.

Source? Also, it's much more likely that the "ground fire" is dedicated AA cannons, not guys just firing rifles into the air.

If you want to be taken seriously you have to provide credible sources with examples of planes being shot down by rifles.

[thewood1]

I think the DARPA source is the best one shown so far.

[mustang191]

Your source is actual Vietnamese propaganda. Do you have a better one?

The USAF claimed 80% of phantoms were lost by ground fire, the rest by SAM and Migs. Ground fire of any kind was by far the biggest killer. Whether it's rifles or bigger versions of rifles is immaterial.

Source? Also, it's much more likely that the "ground fire" is dedicated AA cannons, not guys just firing rifles into the air.

If you want to be taken seriously you have to provide credible sources with examples of planes being shot down by rifles.

They would die anyway, the fact sams got them first doesn't matter. Also, you are simultaneously asking for a source and then rejecting the source.

[BobTank63]

The USAF claimed 80% of phantoms were lost by ground fire, the rest by SAM and Migs. Ground fire of any kind was by far the biggest killer. Whether it's rifles or bigger versions of rifles is immaterial.

Source? Also, it's much more likely that the "ground fire" is dedicated AA cannons, not guys just firing rifles into the air.

If you want to be taken seriously you have to provide credible sources with examples of planes being shot down by rifles.

They would die anyway, the fact sams got them first doesn't matter. Also, you are simultaneously asking for a source and then rejecting the source.

AA cannons are not SAMs.

I added the caveat because the source you posted the last time I asked was actual Vietnamese propaganda.

Please provide a source.

[mustang191]

Source? Also, it's much more likely that the "ground fire" is dedicated AA cannons, not guys just firing rifles into the air.

If you want to be taken seriously you have to provide credible sources with examples of planes being shot down by rifles.

They would die anyway, the fact sams got them first doesn't matter. Also, you are simultaneously asking for a source and then rejecting the source.

AA cannons are not SAMs.

I added the caveat because the source you posted the last time I asked was actual Vietnamese propaganda.

Please provide a source.

https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0213vietnam/

ore than 83 percent of USAF's total combat losses were to ground fire—mostly anti-aircraft guns

//

Now you will claim it's impossible to kill a plane with a rifle, which is obviously wrong.

[BobTank63]

They would die anyway, the fact sams got them first doesn't matter. Also, you are simultaneously asking for a source and then rejecting the source.

AA cannons are not SAMs.

I added the caveat because the source you posted the last time I asked was actual Vietnamese propaganda.

Please provide a source.

https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0213vietnam/

ore than 83 percent of USAF's total combat losses were to ground fire—mostly anti-aircraft guns

//

Now you will claim it's impossible to kill a plane with a rifle, which is obviously wrong.

"Ultimately, more than 83 percent of USAF’s total combat losses were to ground fire—mostly anti-aircraft guns."

Dedicated anti-aircraft cannons are not rifles, rifles aren't dedicated AA cannons. SPAA vehicles and AA emplacements are already in the game. I'm not sure what the issue is.

[mustang191]

AA cannons are not SAMs.

I added the caveat because the source you posted the last time I asked was actual Vietnamese propaganda.

Please provide a source.

https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0213vietnam/

ore than 83 percent of USAF's total combat losses were to ground fire—mostly anti-aircraft guns

//

Now you will claim it's impossible to kill a plane with a rifle, which is obviously wrong.

"Ultimately, more than 83 percent of USAF’s total combat losses were to ground fire—mostly anti-aircraft guns."

Dedicated anti-aircraft cannons are not rifles, rifles aren't dedicated AA cannons. SPAA vehicles and AA emplacements are already in the game. I'm not sure what the issue is.

There's no issue, it's obvious rifles kill planes easily.

[BobTank63]

https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0213vietnam/

ore than 83 percent of USAF's total combat losses were to ground fire—mostly anti-aircraft guns

//

Now you will claim it's impossible to kill a plane with a rifle, which is obviously wrong.

"Ultimately, more than 83 percent of USAF’s total combat losses were to ground fire—mostly anti-aircraft guns."

Dedicated anti-aircraft cannons are not rifles, rifles aren't dedicated AA cannons. SPAA vehicles and AA emplacements are already in the game. I'm not sure what the issue is.

There's no issue, it's obvious rifles kill planes easily.

Source?

[mustang191]

If anyones interested there's some research by the army.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-AK-47-sh ... helicopter

A mg burst has a 10% chance of hitting a helicopter. So five is 50%, and a jet is about twice as fast.

So according to the army's own research a platoon of infantry can easily kill a jet in a single burst. You can also read the army field manuals where they do this.

[BobTank63]

If anyones interested there's some research by the army.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-AK-47-sh ... helicopter

A mg burst has a 10% chance of hitting a helicopter. So five is 50%, and a jet is about twice as fast.

So according to the army's own research a platoon of infantry can easily kill a jet in a single burst. You can also read the army field manuals where they do this.

I don't know how you get from "MG burst has 10% to kill a Cobra helicopter" to "infantry platoon can take out any jet with a single burst". That is an extremely illogical leap.

[mustang191]

"Ultimately, more than 83 percent of USAF’s total combat losses were to ground fire—mostly anti-aircraft guns."

Dedicated anti-aircraft cannons are not rifles, rifles aren't dedicated AA cannons. SPAA vehicles and AA emplacements are already in the game. I'm not sure what the issue is.

There's no issue, it's obvious rifles kill planes easily.

Source?

What I'm saying is mathematically obvious, there's no point in asking for source.

[BobTank63]

There's no issue, it's obvious rifles kill planes easily.

Source?

What I'm saying is mathematically obvious, there's no point in asking for source.

No it isn't.

[mustang191]

If anyones interested there's some research by the army.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-AK-47-sh ... helicopter

A mg burst has a 10% chance of hitting a helicopter. So five is 50%, and a jet is about twice as fast.

So according to the army's own research a platoon of infantry can easily kill a jet in a single burst. You can also read the army field manuals where they do this.

I don't know how you get from "MG burst has 10% to kill a Cobra helicopter" to "infantry platoon can take out any jet with a single burst". That is an extremely illogical leap.

Obviously your trolls bore me, I rest my case.

[BobTank63]

If anyones interested there's some research by the army.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-AK-47-sh ... helicopter

A mg burst has a 10% chance of hitting a helicopter. So five is 50%, and a jet is about twice as fast.

So according to the army's own research a platoon of infantry can easily kill a jet in a single burst. You can also read the army field manuals where they do this.

I don't know how you get from "MG burst has 10% to kill a Cobra helicopter" to "infantry platoon can take out any jet with a single burst". That is an extremely illogical leap.

Obviously your trolls bore me, I rest my case.

Have a good day Mr. Troll.

[mustang191]

I don't know how you get from "MG burst has 10% to kill a Cobra helicopter" to "infantry platoon can take out any jet with a single burst". That is an extremely illogical leap.

Obviously your trolls bore me, I rest my case.

Have a good day Mr. Troll.

You need to ask what source you want. If you merely want PK of anti aircraft that's easy.

Notice that machine guns are simply rifles with more ammo. It's the same thing. The m240 is the same caliber as a rifle .

If you ever decide to stop trolling here is a extensive study on the PK of anti aircraft weapons.

https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/h ... 129956.pdf

[BobTank63]

Obviously your trolls bore me, I rest my case.

Have a good day Mr. Troll.

You need to ask what source you want. If you merely want PK of anti aircraft that's easy.

Notice that machine guns are simply rifles with more ammo. It's the same thing. The m240 is the same caliber as a rifle .

If you ever decide to stop trolling here is a extensive study on the PK of anti aircraft weapons.

https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/h ... 129956.pdf

I want a source that shows a specific example of a jet aircraft getting shot down by a rifle.

[BobTank63]

I just checked your source talks about air-to-ground, not Anti-aircraft fire.