[Rob Philips]

Hi Tony,

Thanks for this. I note that "hitting capability" or "hitting probability" is not defined in these articles, as a subject that is said to be too complicated to be dealt with within the scope of these articles, and that pilot skills are the most important factor in any definition of "hitting capability".

I also note your remarkable analysis of the ideal WW2 fighter aircraft armament, based on combinations of features of the best guns & ammo types available then, to which is added an expectation of a possible development of these during that period. Here too, "hitting capability" is not present in the equasions.

Do you consider it possible to design a passable definition of "hitting capability", if we leave pilot skills and aiming aids out of the equasion?

I'm sure that pilot skills are of prime importance here. But it seems passable to leave that out, at least for now, as it would apply to any other measures designed to increase hitting capability.

I believe that a consideration about hitting capability precedes considerations about power of armaments to inflict damage on target. Therefore excursions into the effectiveness of AP versus HE would not be needed at this stage.

If that would strike you as too theoretic, then allow for the use of HE, effectively meaning using 20mm, and then give a go at defining hitting capability.

The relevance of this would be to analyse technological ways that could have helped the average marksman to achieve better results. A historical exercize only, as hardly any of this would apply today.

Regards,

Rob