Take command of air and naval assets from post-WW2 to the near future in tactical and operational scale, complete with historical and hypothetical scenarios and an integrated scenario editor.
Since reading seems to be a critical point of failure in this thread, I'll make it easier...
from the abc news article:
"On October 13, an F-16 encountered small arms fire. That small arms fire did impact one of the aircraft’s stabilizers and caused damage to one of the munitions it was carrying,” according to Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis. “As a precautionary measure it jettisoned two of its fuel tanks and three of its munitions and safely returned to the base.”
thewood1 wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 11:09 pm
Since reading seems to be a critical point of failure in this thread, I'll make it easier...
from the abc news article:
"On October 13, an F-16 encountered small arms fire. That small arms fire did impact one of the aircraft’s stabilizers and caused damage to one of the munitions it was carrying,” according to Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis. “As a precautionary measure it jettisoned two of its fuel tanks and three of its munitions and safely returned to the base.”
That book contains CIA translations of Vietnamese news broadcasts, not CIA research into rifle effectiveness against AA.
Well, I mean, that's the only source there is. The 80% number is probably based on propaganda too. Did america go to Vietnam and recover their aircraft? Sometimes they could have but ultimately nobody knows who shot anything down besides the killer.
That book contains CIA translations of Vietnamese news broadcasts, not CIA research into rifle effectiveness against AA.
Well, I mean, that's the only source there is. The 80% number is probably based on propaganda too. Did america go to Vietnam and recover their aircraft? Sometimes they could have but ultimately nobody knows who shot anything down besides the killer.
I guess that means you have no evidence and that the AA modeling in CMO is fine (at least with respect to rifles).
That book contains CIA translations of Vietnamese news broadcasts, not CIA research into rifle effectiveness against AA.
Well, I mean, that's the only source there is. The 80% number is probably based on propaganda too. Did america go to Vietnam and recover their aircraft? Sometimes they could have but ultimately nobody knows who shot anything down besides the killer.
I guess that means you have no evidence and that the AA modeling in CMO is fine (at least with respect to rifles).
It's process of elimination. What else would make the kill?
Vietnam had machine guns, which is an infantry weapon, which is the only other thing. The ZPU is just a dashika used in a anti air role. Rifles, or at best squad weapons, were all they had.
Well, I mean, that's the only source there is. The 80% number is probably based on propaganda too. Did america go to Vietnam and recover their aircraft? Sometimes they could have but ultimately nobody knows who shot anything down besides the killer.
I guess that means you have no evidence and that the AA modeling in CMO is fine (at least with respect to rifles).
It's process of elimination. What else would make the kill?
Dedicated AA emplacements and SPAAs. These are 23mm cannons, not rifles.
I think the Korean War is a great benchmark for this discussion. From F4U Corsair Units of the Korean War from Osprey with data scattered across multiple pages, but most on Page 50.
USN total sorties was 255k sorties. 75% of sorties were ground attack and 1/3 of those were direct CAS. So 191k sorties were ground attack. These were all low-level attacks with AD-1s and F9Fs. No high-altitude with pull up altitudes measured in hundreds of feet. Total combat losses were 358. 90% attributed to ground fire. It was stated that the majority of that was 20mm or greater. So lets say that 260 losses were to 20mm or greater. That leaves, at most, about 100 losses to rifle caliber rounds. So now you have to assume a large number of those were actual AA machine guns. But lets say all rifle caliber rounds were soldiers firing into the air. That means out of almost 200,000 separate sorties, you have at most 100 losses that can even remotely be caused by rifle rounds. Even that is an over-estimate. Even if you assume double that had enough damage for a mission kill with an aircraft returning to base, that's still a total of only 300.
Keep in mind that the AD-1 and the F4U flew very low and relatively slow attacking large concentrations of troops. I'll also point out that the USN has 1.5 times as many operational accident losses in combat aircraft than in combat losses. That means you were more likely to go down due to accident than with a rifle caliber round.
In fact, a quote in that same book had one squadron leader state that pilots feared 37mm and greater flak over any other type of AAA. Thats because those dedicated AAA guns had the sighting, traversing, and training to be a real threat.
I just checked your source talks about air-to-ground, not Anti-aircraft fire.