/sci/ is this accurateI say it's bullshit but I can't see why
It is correct, the bullets you fire will maintain the momentum of the aircraft and only slow down over time due to drag. That means they will hit ahead of where you aim if you're aiming sideways like that.
>>16170185>>16170196Doesn't recoil hinder shooting to the sides?
Seems like the sights on the gun would have some kind of adjustment for current air speed.Nice aerial combat video barely related to the thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv1ZN8c4_Gs
>>16170211The gun is mounted directly to the airframe on a spindle thing. The only recoil is a vague, gentle push due to the weight of the bomber.
>>16170250That image is for the B-25. It wasn't until the Lancaster and B-29 that radar-aimed turrets started showing up.
>>16170185That image is misleading because it doesn't show the paths the bullets actually take. The bullets move with you. I fixed it up for you
>>16170292Here's the rest of the book as wellhttps://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/AirGunnery/SIGHTS.html
>>16170292very unintuitive but holy shot it's trueI've been misled by applying rules for a static shooter against a moving target and my own native intuition and ignorance! at last, I truly see...fuck that one plane fighting video game too btw
Just switch to the reference frame of the plane and it makes sense.Even if the fighter is approaching very fast, it appears to be falling back unless it's on an intercept course. So you aim where it's going to be, from your reference frame.
>>16170185No, it's false, or at least misleading. You need to aim just like you would from your perspective, as your plane speed affects your POV exactly as much as your bullets. Funny to see that some jew probably unknowingly sabotaged the allied airforce.
>>16170389It's true, it's just hard to read at first. It isn't accounting for drag and other factors, it's only focusing on inertia in that illustration. It's demonstrating where your bullets will end up depending on your aim if you are moving.The point of the illustration is to show that bullets move with you.
>>16170401The point is that it's actually yes, in some made up sense true, but irrelevant in practice, as the pilot will see it from his own moving perspective, so he needs to shoot just like he intuitively would. In other words the plane will seem to fly backwards if he needs to shoot behind it.
>>16170403>the pilot will see it from his own moving perspective, so he needs to shoot just like he intuitively wouldExcept you aren't stationary. Look at my new illustration here >>16170292. If you shot anywhere in front of the fighter you'd miss him because the bullets move with you. The point is that you can't shoot in front of the moving object like you usually could if you were stationary. You have to either shoot directly at the fighter if he's close enough or behind him so your sideways-moving bullets can hit him.
>>16170410correction- The only way you could shoot in front if the fighter is moving faster than you.
If you shoot in every direction all at once, you will guarantee a hit
>>16170410>Except you aren't stationary. Except that motion is relative. You need to shoot exacly as you would.>>16170410>The point is that you can't shoot in front of the moving object like you usually could if you were stationary. You have to either shoot directly at the fighter if he's close enough or behind him so your sideways-moving bullets can hit him.Maybe, from the ground perspective. Not from the plane's perspective, as it is also moving, and the people in it will see exactly what the need to see, and the plane will seem stationary or moving backwards in such a case.
Speed, direction, angle. Too many factors for a human to judge accurately. Even with tracer bullets it was notoriously difficult to judge.That's why the US bombers adopted a tight box formation and armed their bombers with gazillions of machine guns. Didn't take evasive maneuvers. They just sprayed the air around them in a general direction. Put enough metal in the sky and you are bound to hit something. Makes you wonder though how many of their own they brought down.
>>16170422your motion forwards is vital. You can't treat it like you're stationary. Your motion forwards makes the plane take a relative south-west velocity instead of a south one. That south-west velocity is enough to make the bullets miss combined with the inertia of the bullets
>>16170455>You can't treat it like you're stationaryAs far as you're concerned you are stationary. You don't aim according to what some faggot peering down on you from orbit with a telescope sees. If in your frame the enemy plane is moving in one direction, all you have to do is lead him.
>>16170185It makes more sense when you draw where the big plane is going to be when the shots hit
>>16170479Real life isn't a video game. Your speed is vital
>>16170502In your own reference frame, in which you are aiming, your bomber has zero speed. Redo your analysis taking this into account.
>>16170420This anon gets it
>>16170389>unknowingly
>>16170185Typical velocities for aircraft cannons may be around 1000 m/s, roughly mach 3. Multiple times the speed commonly seen by bombers and fighters too, even in modern days. If you aim infront of the passing aircraft, as would be vorrect to do in a stationary ground based role, you'd miss your mark by the distance your craft has travelled during the time it would have taken for the bullet to rach its target. To adjust for your speed you'll have to aim closer infromt of the other aircraft, directly on or even behind, depending on your speed and the distance.If you break the motions of each of the three objects down in 2 vectors each you may better understand this.
>>16170598My craft hasn't moved any distance. It's completely stationary in my chosen reference frame. You do have to aim behind the oncoming plane but don't understand what's actually going on.
Relativity. Your plane is standing still and the enemy plane is coming towards you.Fun fact: relativity comes from this. Its just photons and not bullets. You can't prove otherwise.
It makes sense if you fix the bomber as steady and combine both planes' velocities onto the fighter. Then it's obvious where it's going to be.
>>16170185
>>16170783
>>16170612based...so...fvcking...zasedeinstein was smart after all, huh?!
>>16170292>it doesn't show the paths the bullets actually takeIt actually does, though, that's the tricky thing. Intuitively it feels like your drawing but the bomber's momentum makes the bullet travel like in the OP. If you imagine the line of sight moving with the bomber (as in your picture) and imagine the bullet travelling along it as it moves, you end up with the bullet trajectory in the OP.
>>16170821To illustrate
>>16170783>>16170787Right. Now make it from the POV of the plane.>>16170821>>16170824We agree on that. But you are moving with the plane. Draw it from the perspective of an observer on the plane.
>>16170835>But you are moving with the plane. Draw it from the perspective of an observer on the plane.I did both. Red is relative to the plane, dotted line is the actual trajectory.
>>16170842Then you got it wrong.
>>16170846I don't believe I did. The bullet moves along the red line (relative to the plane in motion) and along the dotted line (relative to the plane's original position at the moment the bullet was fired).
>>16170846>>16170852
>>16170852Good. Now, if you were on the plane, would you see the former, or the latter?
>>16170873What do you mean, what would you see? You must aim according to the red line, and relative to you, the bullet is going to stay on that red line. The whole point is, however, that that leads to the trajectory of the dotted line, because you are moving, and the red line with you. And that is why you aim behind the fighter.
>>16170886No, the reason why you aim behind the fighter is that it's moving backwards from your POV.
>>16170185>itt midwits that haven’t played tribes
>>16170893>it's moving backwards from your POV.I don't think that's rightAnyway, the fighter's not even in my illustration. Just take an arbitrary point in space that you want to hit. You will have to aim to the left of it.
>>16170903>>it's moving backwards from your POV.>I don't think that's rightThen take these gifs >>16170783>>16170787and stabilize them, so that the black plane stays where it is. I'm on my phone, and can't find an app tgat can do it.
>>16170905I think I see your point, actually. However, it is only one way to look at it. It doesn't invalidate anything I've said.
>>16170905>>16170909Anyway, the confusion arose from your ambiguous wording. The fighter is moving towards you, relatively speaking, because you are moving towards it, i.e., where you're going forwards, it is going "backwards". It does not appear to go backwards relative to its own orientation.
>>16170913The confusion arose because you're a midwit who got lost somewhere in his own thought process, and spent the day arguing for nonsense, when the intuitive solution is obviously correct.
>>16170957My solution is no less correct because it describes the same motion from a different frame of reference. I also only just got here only to have some belligerent overcompensating twat pick fights with people because he seemingly doesn't understand their explanations of the same thing. I've been more charitable with you than you deserved, honestly.
>>16170957>>16170976Also, it turns out that "aim for the spot where the plane is going to be relative to you and not where it appears to be going in an absolute sense" is not *that* intuitive, if they had to write a fucking manual about it.
>>16170981The manual in OP is wrong, and you spent the day arguing for it.
>>16171002The manual is absolutely correct, and you are wrong if you say that it isn't. If you do not understand that it is describing the exact same thing that you are describing, your understanding of physics is incomplete. You were also wrong for using the word "backwards", implying a direction relative to the fighter, rather than the more correct "towards you", which is what you meant. Finally, you are wrong to insist I've been arguing with you all day. I got here two hours ago. And I've got better things to do now as well. You're an unpleasant and tiresome person and the only reason you have to be arguing with anyone here is because you're needlessly hostile and vague, and apparently don't understand what anyone else is talking about. Have an awful day and I hope you stub your toe.
>>16171016>. If you do not understand that it is describing the exact same thing that you are describing,No it isn't exactly the same. There are times when it will seem moving backwards, and you need to aim behind it. In other times it won't look like it's moving backwards, and following the manual makes you aim plain wrong. It isn't remotely the same, the manual gives advice that is plainly wrong, and never useful, and would sabotage the war effort to such an extent that the authors would probably get punished for treason for writing it.>You were also wrong for using the word "backwards", implying a direction relative to the fighter, rather than the more correct "towards you", which is what you meant.I meant backwards.
>>16170835>>16170905
>>16171044
>>16171044>>16171047Thank you.
>>16170389>>16170410The exact vector of movement is sometimes hard to perceivethe point is just that you can't aim exactly in front of the nose of the plane (which might be counterintuitive to some), since the nose doesn't point in the direction of its movement relative to you (contrary to normal static shooter situation)but if you can exactly perceive the vector, then it's extremely intuitive from the perspective of the bomber where you should aim (only unintuitive to the stationary observer on the ground)I think you guys don't understand the different perspectives of this
>>16170185where to aim depends on if both are stationary, one is moving, both are moving, if you are moving is the target in front of you or is it behind you. If both planes are moving - flying in the same direction at the same speed, then you shoot at the the plane. If the plane you are shooting at is going faster you need to lead it, if slow, shoot behind it. like the choppa door gunner said, to shoot women and children you just don't lead'em as much.
>>16170605If you want to use (((you)))r frame of reference then please do not ignore the fact that the bullet now moves relative to your frame of reference. This doesn't change a thing. Aparently (((you))) are failing to understand the phenomenon as well as frames of reference.One can choose an arbitary frame of reference and make neccessary adjustments, the results remain the same.
>>16171032>No it isn't exactly the same.It is *exactly* the same. >There are times when it will seem moving backwardsNot if your trajectories are perpendicular.>In other times it won't look like it's moving backwards, and following the manual makes you aim plain wrong.The manual shown isn't instructing you for those situations. What are you even talking about? The OP shows precisely one situation. >I meant backwards.You are backwards.If the manual says shoot here to hit, and I shoot there, and I hit, then how is the manual wrong?
>>16171044>>16171047oh wow it's exactly the same as before only stabilised
>>16171493>If the manual says shoot here to hit, and I shoot there, and I hit, then how is the manual wrong?The point is that you wouldn't hit.
>>16171497And it shows that you need to lead the plane exactly as you would.
>>16171044>>16171047based and pixelpilled
>>16171738Right, and that is where you are simply wrong. >>16171746It shows us nothing new. It shows us precisely what the OP shows, in fact. I think you have brain problems.
>>16172020You would not hit, and if it's real, it explains the massive dominance of Germany in the air, despite being totally outnumbered. The allies were mislead into aiming wrong.
>>16172051Do you have a learning disability m8? All the images posted ITT show the same thing. They all agree with each other. Changing the frame of reference changes nothing about the relative motion. I really don't understand why you declare everything wrong except the one that's focused on the bomber. They. Are. The. Same. You daft pillock.
>>16172056>>16172056 It's totally fucking wrong, calling it just "misleading" was much too generous, it's wrong, as it makes you aim wrong, and it talks about something that doesn't have to concern anybody on the plane, as it gets nullified by the fact that they are themselces moving with the plane, at the speed the bullets get boosted forwards by its motion.It's wrong, there is no question about it.
>>16172062How is it wrong if it's the same thing as the one that isn't wrong? Or why do you think it isn't? Actually make a point instead of just repeating "it's wrong", dingus.
>>16172064All right. Let's say you're on a train, and you want to throw a ball from the left so that the person on the right seat can catch it. Where do you need to aim? Now you're on a train, and there is another train riding at the exact same speed on the other rail. You want to throw a ball to the person on the other train, where do you need to aim to hit the window?
>>16172068In both scenarios you would aim normally, i.e. at the thing you want to hit, because both the seat and the other train are stationary in your frame of reference. Unlike in the OP.
>>16172074Exactly. The effect in OP does not concern you.
>>16172078It does in the situation in the OP, which is different from the one you described. Indeed, if the fighter were flying alongside the bomber and keeping up with it, you don't have to lead.
>>16172080It's just wrong. Why do you keep arguing for it? You're just wasting your time.
>>16172087Giving up? Why are you wasting all of our time arguing with nothing to show for it?Look, you think >>16171047 and >>16171044 are correct, right? Because they are simply the same as >>16170787 and >>16170783. And those simply show the same as the OP. Look at the angles. I don't know where the misunderstanding is so I can't make it any clearer than this.
>>16172097>>16172097The gifs show you need to lead exactly as you intuitively would. (in fact you may need to compensate for the drag on the bullets by aiming more forward, rather than backwards)
>>16172104>The gifs show you need to lead exactly as you intuitively would.Whether or not it's intuitive is besides the point. It's also exactly what the OP instructs you to do.
>>16172104>>16172110This is the first frame of the AIMING BEHIND gif, the one that hits. It shows the same angle for the bomber's gunner as the OP does in the part where it instructs you to aim behind the fighter's tail to hit it. Now, I think what you might be thinking is this: if you look at the path of the fighter relative to the bomber, then this IS leading it, this IS aiming at where it's going to be; but that is precisely the point of the OP. It doesn't change the fact that the angle shown in the OP is the one that accomplishes this.
All you retards is the reason engineers had to invent analogue ballistic computers for the B-29 gun turrets.
>>16170185This is very similar to the "Shoot the monkey" problem.
>>16173227The what problem?
>>16173530The problem is the monkey
The point is that the fighter is moving backwards relative to you because you're blasting along, so his heading is misleading.
>>16173227That problem is also bullshit. Either the hunter can't aim, and wouldn't hit the monkey in the first place, or it would have to help.
>>16172337no people are much better at shooting on average especially when trained, targeting computers just make it easier to kill the person trying to kill youthis thread is a psyop with a very dedicated anon gaslighting people constantly, its 2024 and people are debating conservation of momentum like its brand new and undiscovered, aka, they're just a bunch of trolling faggots
>>16173556>gaslightingGaslighting is a bit more sophisticated than simply going "that's wrong"
>>16173562yeah thats why people are 'writing' paragraphs and using images to assert their false knowledge who am I kidding, youre just a bot using me a training prompt
>>16173619No, the person who doesn't get conservation of momentum has no argument, no paragraphs, and no images. It couldn't be more obvious that he's baiting. He can't dispute anything except by insisting "it's wrong".
>>16173556We both acknowledge the conservation of momentum, the other side refuses to acknowledge that the gunner has the same momentum, so there is no difference that he needs to compensate for.
Fags
>>16173632Why do you think the gunner's "momentum" matters? The momentum of the bullets conveyed by the bomber is what matters, and is what is accounted for by the OP. You say you acknowledge this but then you explicitly deny it. Simply saying it doesn't make it so.
I would never fire at a german hero so the example is impossible.
>>16173556>>16173619>ahhh help I'm being gaslit by physics
>>16173636You don't need to take it into account because you are also moving forvard you fuckhead.
>>16173641That's... precisely why you do take it into account.You know what, I have to correct myself a little. You do acknowledge that one of the gif sets is correct. You just fail to realise it's the same as the other lol
>>16170185Its accurate
>>16173641You know if you continue to insist upon your bullheaded thesis, why'd you never respond to >>16172122? You acknowledged this one as correct. I thought you'd just slinked back in shame after realising your mistake.
>>16173648You're clearly mentaly ill.
>>16173650hospital. Now
There's a certain poetry to the fact that the guy who insists on just using his intuition has a terrible intuition. You're the reason this manual exists. Have fun explaining to the brass that you risked your entire crew by deliberately ignoring your training because you thought you knew better.
>>16173652No you. You are mentaly ill, and the reason why it's impossible to explain it to you any better is that it's simply impossible to determine why you're wrong, because the problem is somewhere inside your head, ypur thought process. It's impossible to tell where exactly you needxto be corrected, because it's impossible to tell why you think so when it's obviously wrong.
interesting, and very misleading graphic. A few extra lines or symbols would've made it more clear
>>16173661No, the real reason why this manual exists is that >I have never seen it and I know nothing about it, but I will lecture you about it, because I'm le smart(the real reason why you got kicked out that time)
>>16173662I was about to tell him the same lol. I'm actually really curious about his thought process but he doesn't seem to be able to articulate it very well.>>16173671Don't project your inferiority complex on me. You're the one who started to repeatedly insist everyone besides you was wrong and calling them midwits before even attempting to explain yourself. Clearly some sort of desire to be perceived as the smartest person in the thread.
>>16173675>>16173662Oh shit I thought you were replying to >>16173650 lmfaoYour reply is actually the perfect reply to your own bullshit, that's how much you're projecting.
>>16173662Anyway, if you want to gain some insight into my thought process (or an understanding of physics) maybe refer to one of the many graphics ITT showing the vector of the fighter, the angle of the gunner, the trajectory of the bullets, or the momentum of the bomber? Meanwhile the only hint I have as to your misguided beliefs is "you also have momentum". Yeah, I know. I wouldn't relish this so much if you hadn't been such an arrogant prick from the start btw.
>>16173675Because it is wrong, because you're also moving. Let's declare the direction you are moving 600km/h in the direction x. We both agree that the bullets that you fire are going to be propelled forward an additional 600km/h in the direction x. Where we disagree, and what you can't comprehend, is that you don't need to compensate for it, as the fact that you're moving with the plane means that everything will seem to you moving an extra -600km/s in the dimension x.
>>16173685If you're going to translate the frame of reference like that you need to account for the vector of the fighter within that frame of reference. Either way the angle of the gunner is correct as shown. If the fighter is coming towards you at a relative 600 km/s then you have to angle your shot to the left of it (your left) in order to lead it. That is the angle shown.
>>16173685>>16173693Again, can you confirm to me that you believe >>16171047 to be correct? Because you can see the angle relative to the fighter, right? Tell me you're able to see that.
>>16173693That's why I specified in the dimension that equals the direction of your flight. You say, that, I don't know, the fighter is moving 200km/h in the direction x, so you need to substract your speed, and aim as if it was moving -400km/h in the direction x. I say that you will fucking see it moving -400km/h so you don't need to bother with the calculation, and don't confuse the poor gunner with your math bullshit.
>>16173710>the fighter is moving 200km/h in the direction x, so you need to substract your speed, and aim as if it was moving -400km/h in the direction x. I say that you will fucking see it moving -400km/hwhatNone of this makes sense. Draw a diagram already. Because right now you're saying the speed of the fighter is irrelevant even though you've described it flying away from the bomber. Look, ask yourself, which is more likely? A US airforce manual which was produced by a collaborative Allied effort that must've been checked and couble-checked before being distributed to countless men who all put its contents repeatedly into practice in life or death situations is wrong, alongside everyone who was able to make sense of it here? Or your understanding of physics is wrong?
>>16173710So waitThe maths show it's moving -400 km/h relative to youYou say you see it moving -400 km/h relative to youWhere do they disagree? And how do you end up with a different angle for the gunner?
>>16173718Let's use the gives. The bomber (the big black plane) is moving [1,0]px per frame. The fighter (the small, lighter plane) is moving [0,-1]px per frame.To compensate for the fact that the bullets will get carried forward, you need to aim as if the bomber was actually moving [0,-1] - [1,0] = [-1, -1]. That is exactly what the gunner on the bomber sees. (>>16171047)
>>16173733>as if the bomber was actually moving [0,-1] - [1,0] = [-1, -1].*fighter
>>16173733Yes, yes, we agree on every single thing about that. Now, you do realise that that gif shows what the OP does, right? That the angle is the one prescribed by the manual that you dispute?You literally cannot say one is correct and the other is not. If you do, you must misunderstand one or the other. And I don't see how that's even possible because it's immediately obvious that the angles are the same. You cannot tell me that the gunner in that gif is aiming ahead of the fighter's nose rather than behind its tail at the moment the trigger is pulled.
>>16173718It isn't about what is likely, it is wrong. If it is, indeed, real, the most pikely scenario is that>a group of jews and similarly disabled people came up with it.>when it was tested in practice and it failed, the people got lectured that they didn't understand it correctly>it became common knowledge among the people that you need to ignore the chapter>the bullets hit, the jew was proud that he made them so, and everybody was happy, except for me, as I now have to argue over it with you.
>>16173770No, I still think it's far, far, overwhelmingly more likely that you are wrong. Not in the least reason because you are disagreeing even with yourself on the correct angle.>jews and similarly disabled peoplelol yeah this is about your psychological need to put yourself above them, isn't it? Physics don't enter into it, you must dispute da J00s no matter what
>>16173770>>16173742How many times is this now that you run away instead of acknowledging your approved gif agrees with the manual on the correct angle? Honestly, and you're whining about gaslighting whilst trying to convince people these are different?
>>16173788>>16173815I don't know, I'm not running away, I just ran out of ideas for how to argue with you. You're a mentally ill man who keeps arguing for something that is clearpy wrong, now by trying to redefine what it means that something is "wrong", but in the only practically relevant sense it's wrong.
>>16173832>I just ran out of ideas for how to argue with youYou mean you ran out of ideas to keep the bit going. All right, I got you. Good run.I have pointed you literally in the direction of the angle, the one you have explicitly said is wrong. Do you acknowledge it or no? >now by trying to redefine what it means that something is "wrong", but in the only practically relevant sense it's wrong.I'm not going to expend brain power trying to decipher this. I don't know what's happening in your head but I reiterate: you've got brain problems.
>>16173832Honestly though, why is it that every time we come to your specific claim - that using the angle in the OP leads you to miss - that you abruptly fall silent and "don't know" how to argue any more? Of course you don't know, you painted yourself into a corner. You're with us every step of the way, up to and including looking at an illustration, and then comes >???>Therefore it's wrong!We're literally looking straight at the same thing, and you cannot recognise it. But neither can you acknowledge it. You say the gif is correct (I agree). I ask you to confirm that you think the angle shown in the gif, which is the same as the OP, is correct. And then, nothing from you. For three times in a row. Because of course you can't acknowledge it so you just go away and come back later pretending nothing happened. I really think your brain might be incapable of letting you consciously process that you made a mistake. But if it's a bit, pretty good.
>>16173890>Honestly though, why is it that every time we come to your specific claim - that using the angle in the OP leads you to miss - that you abruptly fall silent and "don't know" how to argue any more?Because it's completely clear what the authors meant, and what error they made to make them claim this, but somehow the latter seems to be impossible to grasp for you. As if there was some kind of hard limit for your brain, and, this was above it. I don't know. I just don't know what I need to expkain, because to me it seems obvious.
>>16173914It's so completely clear you've been unable to articulate it all this time. But you can't argue with results, can you? You say the angle is wrong, that it would cause you to miss. Yet it is the same angle in the gif that you approve. Can't help but notice that you once again didn't even acknowledge it. You ultimately cannot defend your claim because there is always one step missing, one crucial thing that will necessarily have to remain vague, the "obvious" that is obvious only to you. But the actual obvious thing is the angle. If the angle hits, it's correct. If it doesn't, it's incorrect. You say it's incorrect. But it hits. We can visually confirm this.
>>16173918>It's so completely clear you've been unable to articulate it all this time.No, the probem goes much deeper than that. I don't know what needs to be articulated, because to me it seems wrong for a very obvious reason. I don't knowwhat you could be missing to get it.
>>16173926>No, the probem goes much deeper than that. I don't know what needs to be articulatedSkill issue>because to me it seems wrong for a very obvious reasonAnd yet again, you cannot explain it. Because every time you do, you end up describing exactly what's in the OP and then just saying that's wrong.And you still can't acknowledge the angle lmaoSay it. Say that the angle in the gif is wrong even though it hits and even though you've declared the gif is correct. Go on.
>>16173939The angle is correct, that isn't the reason why it's wrong. The reason why it's wrong is that you misunderstand what the gunner will see, and what he needs to do to obtain that angle.
>>16173949No, I understand perfectly. If you look at it from the bomber's frame of reference the fighter moves towards it and the angle shown in the OP is leading it. That's not the only way of achieving the same result, but they're all saying the same thing from different frames of reference. If the angle isn't wrong, then it's simply not wrong. Look, if you're not the person who has been saying throughout this thread that using the angle shown in the OP would cause you to miss, then I'm not sure what the disagreement is. If the problem is that they got the right result but via the "wrong" way, I dunno, still weird, but it certainly doesn't amount to the sabotage and failure that was claimed at various points ITT. >Nooo, you're supposed to arrive at that exact same angle by translating to your frame of reference instead of compensating for your momentum in a different frame of referenceSame dif m8. That's how frames of reference work.
>>16173960It will make him miss, and shoot at the wrong angle that is not the angle shown in the gif.
>>16173976It is the same anglelmao how are we still at this pointYou are simply denying the thing we can all see>The angle is correct, that isn't the reason why it's wrong.>Why's it wrong then?>It will make him shoot at the wrong angleNo words.
>>16173976The angle in the gif was arrived at by following the instructions in the manual. If someone is shooting at the wrong angle, they're not following it correctly. So if I can arrive at the right angle following the manual, maybe the problem is with you.
>>16174011>If someone is shooting at the wrong angle, they're not following it correctly.--->>16173770Q.E.D.
>>16174130>Am I doing it wrong?>No, it's the Jews who are trying to trick me!All right you sad wanker. Fact is, I and the person who made that gif both independently arrived at the correct angle and we both agree that the manual is correct in explaining the reason for it. That means we both did what you claimed would lead to the wrong angle - and arrived at the correct one instead. You haven't been able to explain what's wrong with it except that it's so obvious you can't explain it - nor can you even show it either, or how following the manual would lead to anything other than the angle that we all agree is correct. If I knew the mistake you were making, I'd correct you, but of course you're unable to explain that either. Barring a sudden epiphany on your part, I think this conversation is pretty much concluded. I've given you enough chances and you have absolutely nothing to show for yourself except insistence on a Jewish conspiracy to teach physics wrong.
>>16174319I see why they concluded that physical removal was the only viable solution.
>>16174440Because they were boneheaded idiots working towards a preconceived conclusion, just like you?"Jewish physics" (also known as physics) won the war, btw
Why is it always the one person who is stubbornly wrong about something who always seeks to blame it on the Jews for no imaginable reason? It's honestly a pattern I've noticed by now on /sci/ no matter what a thread is about. Could it be one guy who's just wrong about everything?
>>16174477Or, in other words, I guess anti-Semitism is an expression of a deeply-felt insecurity and narcissism. Jews are the ultimate scapegoat that enable them to never, ever have to back down from even the dumbest hills they've chosen to die on.
>Order cabinet from IKEA>Follow the instructions>Have like a dozen screws left over, cabinet is wonky and skewed>Call customer service>"Sir, are you sure you followed the instructions correctly?">"Fuck you Swedish kike, it's obviously wrong"
>>16174447Because you just won't ever admit defeat. That is your only weapon. You won't ever yield, no matter how wrong you are. Valid points get dismissed, evidence declared all just people not understanding correctly. Eventually, everybody simply stops arguing with you, and then you declare that you won, promulgate your point as the new standard, and anybody who still resists gets labelled as an asocial psychopath who refuses to follow the new social norm that "the society agreed on" and removed from society. Look at this. The people must have argued with you, just as I do. You must have been told that it just didn't work. You called everybody too stupid to follow, and made the computers (which presumably didn't have optical detection back then, and relied on other means, or maybe the design got secretly modified so that it worked - or maybe it didn't but you wouldn't back off anyway) 80 years later you still keep arguing that you were right.>"Jewish physics" (also known as physics) won the war,I don't see how. I bet you still don't know much else that a lot of uranium together creates heat, and the other secret thing that you figured out by accident, and you still rely on nobody willing to risk to test that there are no codes after all.
>>16173640whats your end goal by shitposting eh?
>>16174923>Because you just won't ever admit defeat. That is your only weapon. You won't ever yield, no matter how wrong you are. Valid points get dismissed, evidence declared all just people not understanding correctly. Eventually, everybody simply stops arguing with you, and then you declare that you won, promulgate your point as the new standard, and anybody who still resists gets labelled as an asocial psychopath who refuses to follow the new social norm that "the society agreed on" and removed from society.That is a LOT of projection from you lol.You've been on the back foot this whole time, never providing evidence to begin with, falling silent when you had no reply, yet will you admit defeat? No. You just declare me a Jew and fit for removal in order to reshape even the laws of physics according to your whims. Literally imagining yourself as a victim of the nazis here whilst also larping as a nazi. There's more things wrong with your brain than just the physics thing, that's for sure.Look, my man, maybe this is the "obvious" thing that's been eluding you: yes, the bullets will go exactly where you're pointing, relative to your frame of reference. But literally everything else is moving relative to you. The fighter. The Earth below you. No reference point is going to remain stationary. That's where your intuition fails. And I already illustrated this precise point btw >>16170824. Which you also declared wrong without further clarification.
>>16170185go back to high school
>>16174941If an undeservedly smug nazi is choosing to die on the hill of his incredibly poor grasp of physics I'm happy to oblige him.
>>16175131That is to say, "where you're pointing" is continually moving forward relative to the Earth. So then what you end up with, relative to the Earth, is... >>16170185 this.
>>16174941>>16175137And I mean you gotta admit, there's something fascinating about a mind that, failing to grasp a pretty simple physics problem, will spontaneously generate a whole new global Jewish conspiracy that shaped the course of the past century all to make it look like he is wrong in this thread when he surely can't be wrong about anything as that would hurt his feelings
>>16170598>>16170482These are correct.
>>16170185What is misleading about the photo is that it does not show the pilot plane moving, this would have it imply that it is from its perspective, but if it was the enemy plane would not move down the y axis in a straight line (like it has in the original pic rel), but diagonally to the left as well.alot of people in the thread have tried to illustrate this but>>16171047>>16171044is the most clearest and well done.
>>16170292No, because the bullet still leaves the plane at its original position. The trajectory looks more like this
>>16175185what would be even clearer than >>16171044 would be, in the original pic, it shows the enemy plains original position and a ghost position of where the plane would be (though incorrectly) after unit of time. I think the point the original picture was making is if you (from the perspective of inside the plain) aim it at where the plane would be you miss. Pic rel hopefully helps.
>>16172051>the massive dominance of Germany in the airok so you're just baiting
>>16175148I didn't come up with it, they were literally kicked out of germany for their fake physics.
>>16170389>I don't understand what vector addition is>therefore jews or something
>>16174477>Could it be one guy/sci/ is a slow board, so probably.
>>16175283I tried vectors as well with no success. >>16173733
>>16175386I'm starting to think that you're trolling, I've seen some dumb fucks on this website over the years but I have a hard time believing that you can't add.
>>16175188Bullets don't go around corners, Anon. It's this >>16170864
>>16175211It may be misleading to an inferior mind, but what you fail to realise is that the "ghost" plane is entirely correctly placed from the chosen frame of reference. If you're going to adapt it to the bomber's frame of reference you have to redraw the bullet trajectory as well - but that would be so misleading and unintuitive as to amount to, gasp, treason.
>>16175429>I'm starting to think that you're trollingStarting?
>>16175188>>16175433Upon reflection I probably replied seriously to very stupid shitpost, but then, I've seen some shit in this thread
>>16175275Ah, yes, physics disputes, the one reason that Jews were, er, "kicked out" of Germany.The physics that the Germans refused to acknowledge was Einstein's theory of relativity and other theoretical physics. Not conservation of momentum, you dumb larper.
>>16175275>>16175492Should mention that the Germans came around to "Jewish physics" by the end of the war because they wanted a nuclear programme and you can't argue with results lol
>>16175429There is no addition in that post. Do you even read? >>16175492Kind of ironic that this problem is sort of similar to relativity.>>16175521The bomb had no effect because it wasn't real, and it would come too late even if it wasn't.
>>16175433The air resistance makes it follow a curved path
>>16170185you can experience this in video games sometimes.it s more intuitive when you consider that from the perspective of the shooter, it looks like the bullets are bending, as if they are being blow by the wind. thats how it appears to you anyway.
>>16175673Not like that it does. >>16175687No, it'll still look like a straight line. Just a different straight line from how an observer from the ground would see it.
>>16175211>>16175437It's not unintuitive at all. If you want to show it from the bomber's frame of reference, it simply looks like this.
>>16170185It's real. Try throwing a ball at a trash can while running: see where your aim is
>>16175906>Trying to make me do exercisenice try Jew
Something strikes me about the guy who came into the thread absolutely convinced that the manual and everyone else was wrong, started arrogantly calling people names, had to be prodded into even attempting to explain himself, managed a half-hearted "it's so obvious I shouldn't have to explain it but you're all just missing it", before throwing up his hands and crying about being persecuted by Jews who changed the entire scientific consensus on physics and refused to see how obviously correct he was. I'm reminded of the oft-cited passage from Mein Kampf that anti-Semites are so fond of:>Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.Tellingly, Hitler is unable to give an example of how he struck such a "telling blow". One cannot help but get the impression that Hitler, though entirely convinced that he was correct and indignant that his interlocutor won't acknowledge it, actually had his ass rhetorically handed to him, but he simply couldn't admit it to himself or his readers. Just as this guy will probably remember this thread as an example of sneaky Jews being sneaky instead of him not grasping conservation of momentum and frames of reference. Anti-Semitism is, for a large part, projection, ascribing all of one's own negative qualities to a designated scapegoat to place them outside oneself.
>>16177341Of course, I wrote about the consequences here. >>16174923
>>16177365Yes, like Hitler you'll go on to advocate a genocide of everyone who symbolically stands for the person refusing to acknowledge you as right about everything before you'll ever admit that maybe the reason you fail to convince is that you're just not as smart as you think you are. Imagine that, one of the great tragedies of the Twentieth Century, born from someone poorly coping with getting BTFO. Indeed, if Jews did not exist, the anti-Semite would have to invent them, as they frequently do, and you did ITT.
>>16177380No. They wouldn't. Everybody would be happy if people like you just didn't exist. Do you understand that the quote is probably so popular because all intelligent people know having such stupid arguments from personal experience? (which isn't necessarily limited to jews)
>>16177972>Everybody would be happy if people like you just didn't exist.All you have to do to be happy is commit genocide! And only then will you discover that wasn't it, you didn't magically become smart by killing all the naysayers. Well, probably not; probably you'll just have a massive circlejerk forever about how totally correct you all are together and never let the facts disturb you any more.I understand the quote is popular because it appeals to a narcissitic impulse. Hitler is an unreliable narrator, but we've all seen this same unreliable narrator in the guise of a twelve-year-old who was humiliated in the schoolyard.>I was right but no one admitted it!>No I can't tell you what the argument was about, just accept that I was right!>I had the best arguments but they came up with counter-arguments, unfair!>I still think I was right!>Waahhhh I hate them I hate them!Of course the quote appeals to many people because they, too, feel humiliated and inadequate and have no recourse any more besides an appeal to emotion. You THINK you are intelligent, you have an emotional investment in your self-image as an intelligent person, and you can't bear it being undermined in such a way. Quotes like this, and anti-Semitism in general, help to assuage their own wrongness, their own feelings of inadequacy, and transfer it entirely to an imaginary Other. But a genuinely intelligent person would be open to the possibility of being wrong. Which, indeed, you weren't, displayed hubris from the very start. I, on the other hand, was desperate to learn if perhaps you had some insight that I had missed; but after repeated attempts I was forced to conclude you had nothing at all to offer. Yet you never even considered your opposition, did you? They were wrong and only fit to ignore.Case in point re: inventing Jews: I'm still not Jewish you mongoloid nazi twat. I'm simply right, where you aren't, and in your head that's the same thing. QED
>>16178105No, the problem is that you are stupid, but insist on lecturing pepple mich smarter than yourself. I got yet another idea: From the bomber perspective. What is the relation between the angular velocity of the fighter, and the angle of lead that is necessary?
>>16178115I'll consider this when I'm not in a hurry but I wwould be remiss not to point out that this:>No, the problem is that you are stupid, but insist on lecturing pepple mich smarter than yourself.Is blatant projection of course
>>16178121No it isn't projection. It's your insistence on things that are false.It doesn't matter you are not ethnically jewish. I wonder if it actually involved ethnicity, or if it's only a post war fabrication. People like Heisenberg, Bethe, Schroedinger got kicked out all the same, despite not being Jewish.
>>16172074>In both scenarios you would aim normallyOnly true in vacuum as nearly all written here.
>>16178131Yes, that is true. I didn't want to bring a yet another issue into the already confused argument; it would require you to aim more forward, if anything.
bump
>>16178127>No it isn't projection>*Proceeds to project*>>16178115>What is the relation between the angular velocity of the fighter, and the angle of lead that is necessary?All right, I've considered this, and realised: I don't see what you're getting at. What angular velocity? The fighter is on a steady course. If you're hinting at the relation between the vector and the angle, that has been covered extensively by plenty of illustrations. Yet the most you can do is hint at some other solution that always remains out of reach. You're good at telling people they're wrong, but not why. I think you're being vague on purpose because if you were to commit to anything you could be definitely wrong, but as long as you aren't, you can just keep vaguely hinting that everyone else is. So what are you getting at? >>16178131>>16178143Yes, again, when we're talking about two objects that are stationary within the same frame of reference, that obviously holds, but we aren't.
>>16178998>Yet the most you can do is hint at some other solution that always remains out of reach.That's what it feels like when you are the retard. Not like the Hitler quote above, that's what it feel like to talk with one.
>>16179316Yet you're not clarifying what you mean. You're not making an illustration that clearly shows what you think is correct. All you can do is cast aspersions on others, declare them wrong, and admonish them to change this or that. Then, when it's inevitably pointed out to you that this has already been accounted for, you get huffy and indignant and declare that you're not going to explain it any more. There is, of course, the very real possibility that you're not making sense to me because you're not making sense at all. But as long as you keep rationalising that as a Jewish conspiracy against you, you'll never be able to grow as a person.It's actually really fitting that you brought up "Jewish physics" because what that really was was a bunch of hacks who wanted to keep on teaching shit like luminuferous ether was real because they couldn't keep up with recent developments, and they jumped on the opportunity when Jews were barred from teaching at universities under the Nuremberg laws (for reasons entirely unrelated to physics). And then Heisenberg, himself not a Jewish physicist but still a "Jewish" physicist, told them to get off his back because he was only adhering to the facts, and before the end of the war, adherence to "Aryan physics" became untenable even among top nazi officials.You chose the side of petulant butthurt in the face of inconvenient evidence. >that's what it feel like to talk with oneAlso, I don't suppose it's actually what you meant; but what you just told me is that the confusion that I feel is what it feels like to talk to a retard, i.e., you. Linguistic precision is another established weakness of yours. But you are accidentally correct. Yes, any remaining confusion exists because you are a retard unable to express himself. I understand physics. Yet I don't understand your gibberish.
>>16179505I have no idea what needs to be clarified, as I've written before. What do you think is more likely? That people were antisemitic, for no reason whatsoever, and that is what made them call it bullshit? Or that the incessant pusshing of bullshit made people antisemitic?
>>16179512>I have no idea what needs to be clarified, as I've written before.What's preventing you from just explaining/illustrating how you think the angle is determined and why? It's easy to just yell "wrong" isn't it? I've explicitly asked you where you think angular velocity comes in, by the way. Your response was to call me a retard and namedrop Hitler some more. >That people were antisemitic, for no reason whatsoeverI've already identified the reason. You're a narcissistic little shit who needs a scapegoat for his own inadequacies. Just like the proponents of "Aryan physics" who preceded you. Interesting of you to now make an appeal to probability. It has been noted that the effect of fascism upon public discourse is to undermine authority and reduce every fact to mere opinion that can be argued ad nauseam so that the public becomes overwhelmed with the responsibility of determining the truth. I'm starting to suspect it's not a deliberate tactic but merely a consequence of fascist psychology. You just can't stand being wrong.
>>16178143>it would require you to aim more forward, if anything.The aiming depends on the angle to the airstream. Further, because we are in an gravitation dependent 3D setting, on the angle to the gravitational center of the earth too relative to the angle of the airplane to that. > into the already confused argumentThere was a time i thought /sci uses question like that for a competition who make the most idiotic statements possible. Today i have a the faint suspicion that i am wrong.
>>16179747>The aiming depends on the angle to the airstream. Further, because we are in an>gravitation dependent 3D setting, on the angle to the gravitational center of the earth too relative to the angle of the airplane to that.I reckon these engagements tend to take place in a close enough range that the effect of these is negligible.
>>16179755>I reckon these engagements tend to take place in a close enough range that the effect of these is negligible.Afaik these effects are valid on any shooting range. I doubt there are invalid at far higher windspeeds. Further these are only the static forces. I heard that fighters do curves while shooting of each other (a disputable behavior of the apes they calling them self crown of the creation btw,) so there are different momentums to consider.
>>16179666>What's preventing you from just explaining/illustrating how you think the angle is determined and why?I've made several attempts and so did somebody else above. I have no further ideas, the core of our disagreement is that you don't understand that the bullets won't get pushed forward from the plane's frame of reference, as you are already moving with it.
>>16179764>Afaik these effects are valid on any shooting range.With a fast enough projectile at a close enough range, also depending on the size and speed of the target, the bullet drop from gravity is not going to be relevant. At ranges where it becomes relevant, a machine gun on a bomber might not be accurate enough anyway. >>16179767You've made several abortive attempts, yes, but always stopped well short of making any sort of point. How hard is it to do what several people have done before you: draw a diagram? >the core of our disagreement is that you don't understand that the bullets won't get pushed forward from the plane's frame of referenceI never disputed this. In fact I took it into account in my drawing here >>16170824. It was deemed "wrong" for unspecified reasons. If you think this is the core of our disagreement, you don't understand my diagram.
>>16179785The plane and everything on it is moving 400km/h. That includes you, the guns, and the rounds before you shoot them, and they won't get any additional 400km/h when you shoot them. It only looks like that from the stationary point of view, as the frames of reference are moving in relation with each other.
>>16179793Again, nothing new, already accounted for, explicitly results in the trajectory shown.
>>16179800>And, we don't disagree about those, we disagree about what the gunner sees, and where he has to aim to achieve those trajectories.
>>16179807sry for the greentext
>>16179807What does the gunner see and do? And what do you think I think the gunner sees and does?
>>16170185Assuming their paths are perpendicular, it depends on the fighter's speed compared to the bomber. Red lines are paths the fighter can take relative to the bomber>a = if fighter was stationary>b = if bomber was twice as fast as fighter>c = if bomber had same speed as fighter>d = if fighter was twice as fast as bomber>e = if bomber was stationary If the fighter is slower than the bomber, the bomber should aim at the green area. If the fighter is faster than the bomber, the bomber should aim at the yellow area
>>16179818I don't think you have any coherent idea of what he sees, you just miss that cognitive capacity.
>>16179867Another cop-out! What a surprise. >I just don't know what to clarify!>Clarify this>noAnd yet clearly it is you who has no coherent idea of what the gunner sees, because you are unable to convey it, and you are unable to arrive at a conclusion in line with known physics.
>>16170185Oh this is easyPlanes do not instantly travel in the direction their nose is pointing. If I'm traveling forward, and I see an enemy on my left, and I point my nose left to shoot at him, I will still be traveling forward for a while. It's like steering a boat, you can't instantly change direction.
>>16179853You're not taking the bullet's trajectory into account. If you aim at the yellow area, the bullet will pass in front of the fighter before it arrives where you're aiming.
>>16179906Black line is the path the bullets take. If the bomber aims in front of the fighter the bullets can still hit if the fighter if it's moving faster than the bomber. Yeah, if the bomber and fighter were the same speed the bomber aiming in front of the fighter wouldn't work (the black line doesn't cross c).
>>16179932I feel like this is some Hercules and the turtle shit if we go to measure all the speeds involved. Remember, that black arrow is going to move with the bomber. Where is it by the time the fighter reaches the intersection?
>>16179876You are just too stupid. The problem is that any argument or piece of evidence made against you only makes you more sure, the better the argument the worse. The problem is that when people stop arguing with you, you declare a victory and force everybody to accept your wrong view. I read that in Iran they lock you up in a white room where nobody disturbs you until your delusions dissolve, sadly that isn't an option here
>>16179941>Remember, that black arrow is going to move with the bomber. Where is it by the time the fighter reaches the intersection?The same place. I should have said the bomber is stationary in the pics, only the fighter is moving across the drawing. I copied those gifs >>16171047. The gifs are only true if the fighter and bomber are the same speed
>>16179954You've yet to provide any good argument or even a single piece of evidence. You're the one who has to rationalise his own incompetence as a Jewish conspiracy and fantasise about murdering everyone who disagrees with you or locking them up.
>>16179958By stationary I don't mean it has 0 speed, I mean it's from the POV of the bomber
>>16179958So I guess the conclusion is OP is correct with a caveat?
>>16179972Yeah OP is correct. If you look at the book from where that pic comes from the diagrams immediately before OP's pic are showing how to hit stationary objects while you're moving. OP's pic is treating the fighter as a stationary object OR one that is far away enough that it's practically stationary to you regardless of its speedhttps://maritime.org/doc/pdf/Air_Crewmans_Gunnery_Manual_1944.pdfpage 130
>>16179972>>16179994If we scale it out OP's pic makes even more sense. The fighter can be moving twice as fast as the bomber but the bomber can still aim behind the fighter to hit it (aim at green area). If the fighter is far away enough it's speed becomes irrelevant
>>16179932>>16180005So here we can also see that any path that would allow the fighter to threaten the bomber is one that would require the bomber's gunner to aim behind it to hit (or to its left - which is the same thing)
>>16179960You know, if you're just baiting, it's surely masterful. Few would be able to milk so much ill will out of something this stupid.
>>16180171Are you sneakily complimenting yourself for keeping the con going so long?Look, at the same time you were whining that it's impossible to explain the intricacies of Aryan Physics to me, someone else just posted this >>16179853 and engaged in conversation to clarify it, and even included the conditions under which you WOULD be correct.
>>16170250sweet video, thanks
>>16170292Nice, saved
>>16182656Did you really have to bump the thread for that from page 10
>>16173731That's his fucking point. Anyone who doesn't get this has an understanding that is *ahem* retarded.
>>16182691>Yeah you are CORRECT you idiot>I agree with you wholeheartedly you fucking moronSo what was the disagreement, then?
>>16182704OP claims that there is a difference that you need to correct for.
>>16182789Yes. That difference accounts for that -400. Precisely because of where the figher is actually going to be, relative to you. The OP is entirely correct about this and you're not even disagreeing. You're just not understanding.
>>16182800I hope that everybody agrees that you are either baiting or retarded.
>>16182829Even with the overwhelming consensus on my side I'm still disappointed there appear to be at least two of you overconfident retards.
>>16182829But seriously, you explicitly agree with the OP. The OP says, shoot as if the fighter is moving -400 kmh relative to you (well it doesn't use numbers, but if we translate it to the example), you say shoot as if the fighter is moving -400 kmh, there is LITERALLY no disagreement at all and you only think there is because you don't seem to get what is being depicted or what the thing you're talking about actually looks like.
>>16182835The disagreement isn't about where he needs to shoot, the disagreement is what he sees, and if there is a compensation that needs to be made, OP says there is, I say there isn't.
>>16182890You contradict yourself within the same post. There is no disagreement about where he needs to shoot, YET you also say no compensation needs to be made, YET you also say the disagreement is about what the gunner sees even though we're explicitly in agreement about that?Come on, you don't know what you're talking about. That's the real problem here.
>>16170185you must have low spatial intelligence if you can't see why the manual is 100% correct.
>>16182956True Aryans reject spatial intelligence and just walk into poles
>>16182900Imagine it with ships. When you get information, from the land coordinates, that there is enemy ship, in this location moving this way, you compensate as in OP. When you measure its location and velocity with instruments on your ship, you get the correct data, as the instrument is moving with your ship.
>>16183452Anon, for fuck's sake, we've been over this countless times by now, we know. We fucking know by now that it depends entirely on the frame of reference you're using.But the OP is not wrong, and one frame of reference is not "more" correct than another. Either way you end up describing the exact same movement, and the exact same angle.
>>16183452>>16183460I mean fucking seriously>Hey USS Fucknut, an enemy ship is heading your way at a speed of twelve knots, heading East>Oh well we're heading West at a speed of eight knots, so I guess we have to aim as if it's coming our way at twenty knots>Let's check our instruments>Wow they detect the enemy ship coming for us at a speed of twenty knotsIt's. The. Same. If you're looking from your frame of reference you are still, in effect, compensating, and it will be clearly visible as such from another perspective. I really don't get what your problem is at this point.
>>16183460>>16183503 The gunner is going to see it from the plane's frame of reference, so it doesn't make sense to teach him to compensate in a way that he would need to if he saw it from another perspective, so it's wrong.
>>16183772The gunner is going to see a far-off plane with no points of reference that aren't also moving. The intuitive thing is to reason that the plane is heading forward, so you aim ahead of its nose (like you would for a running fox). This is the misconception specifically addressed. If you don't get why that might be a useful thing to say to a bunch of conscripted farmhands before they get on a plane the first time, get your autistic head of your unempathetic arse. >compensate in a way that he would need to if he saw it from another perspectiveYou are still wrong about this, by the way. It translates 1:1 to the bomber's frame of reference. See, once again, >>16170824 for an example of how the gunner's angle leads to a flatter trajectory whilst still looking exactly the same from his perspective. Plainly, the OP is telling you to aim where you're going to hit the fighter.
>>16184126>The gunner is going to see a far-off plane with no points of reference that aren't also moving. That's the point.>The intuitive thing is to reason that the plane is heading forward, so you aim ahead of its noseThat's bizarre. Even if true, the advice still isn't correct.>It translates 1:1 to the bomber's frame of reference.You don't need to translate anything as you already are in its frame of reference.
>>16184139>That's the point.I don't think you get your own point, then.>That's bizarre.It's intuitive. You have your idea of what it's going to look like, but I assure you, it's going to look very different when you're up in the air.>Even if true, the advice still isn't correct.It absolutely is. It tells you the angle you need to hit. That angle hits. It is correct by any possible definition of correct.>You don't need to translate anything as you already are in its frame of reference.A bomber gunner isn't necessarily going to think in frames of reference. Either way, though, that doesn't detract from the correctness of the OP. See also >>16179994Is there a single illustration ITT that you think is correct, btw?
>>16184139>>16184147Is the disagreement we're having a purely semantic one? That you think that the answer is "incorrect" because you believe it's a counter-intuitive way of explaining it? That's a question for scholars of didacticism, then, not physics. The physics are unambiguously correct. You should be more precise in your wording.
Does this account for the fact that the fighter is both moving probably twice as fast as the bomber, and that the fighter is aiming not at the bomber but a point in space ahead of it?
>>16170185Here Trigger Joe, let Mel Blanc teach ya fallout stylehttps://youtu.be/DWYqu1Il9Ps?t=1562:36 starts the relevant part
>>16184167OP's pic isn't to scale, >>16180005 shows what it's trying to convey. Even if the fighter is twice as fast the bomber can shoot behind it to hit it due to how far away it is
>>16184209Yes, if there is one thing that can be said to be "incorrect" about the OP it's that they either had to condense the distances involved, or make some unstated assumptions regarding the relative velocities of both planes. But given that it doesn't specify any exact numbers, I hesitate to call that incorrect. It is correct on general principle, which becomes more clear when considering the context of the full manual.
>>16170185I think this image in particular is confusing because in this image in particular the fighter appears to be well out in front of the bomber and is just going to fly through a point in space out in front of the bomber, perpendicular to its flight path. We know that if you're the nose gunner and a plane is directly in front of you flying across your flight path, you have to lead it. At distance infinity, you have to aim "behind" it. Somewhere in between you must aim right at it. Without doing any math, this picture makes it look like the fighter may be close enough to the nose that leading it is the right answer.The subsequent pages of the manual are much more intuitive as they describe how to shoot at a plane on a pursuit course. You "lead" the target by shooting at where it will be: your flight path makes the target fall aft so you "lead" it by shooting aft of it.
>>16173647maybe
>>16170185You can test it yourself by drawing a force and energy diagram and doing some vector calculus
