Comments by "Gort" (@gort8203) on "DOGSHIP: Why Have We Forgotten The Most Common Interceptor Of The Cold War?" video.

A lead collision pursuit curve is not designed to provide a head-on attack. It provides a quicker intercept than a pure pursuit curve in which the interceptor just points at the target. The aspect of the final engagement depends upon the relative positions of the interceptor and target when the intercept is initiated, as well as any maneuvering by the target.
28
Why not add the kitchen sink as well. The airplane could not carry both the rockets and the cannon. Also, calling the rockets inaccurate is misplaced criticism. That's like calling the shot pattern of a shotgun inaccurate. The idea was to blanket the area of the sky containing the bomber with a pattern of rockets so that at least one would hit. If the rockets were too accurate, they would all hit the same point, leading to all of them missing in what is known as an accurate miss.
6
@sergeipohkerova7211 No, the aircraft could not carry both cannon and the rocket armament without significant performance penalty. You seem to think airplanes are magic vehicles to which weight and internal space don't matter. It's not about "extravagance", it is about reality. Don't compare the destructive power of single shot pellet to a single explosive warhead. The shotgun analogy was about using a spread of projectiles to hit a target, not the destructive power of the projectiles. They were accurate enough, and like I said great accuracy was not desired. Don't compare that to firing pairs of air to ground rockets at a ground target, which is an entirely different thing. I get a kick out of the assumption that these rockets were useless against bombers. Like you said yourself, they (thankfully) didn't get a chance to perform in combat, but when tested against a B-17 they easily destroyed it. Again, reality interferes with assumptions.
6
@sergeipohkerova7211 My intent was not to confront you personally, but it was to confront your assumptions and speculation with facts, some of which were mentioned in the video. But One thing we certainly do agree on is that it is good that these aircraft never had to test these theories for real.
4
@djbiscuit1818 It was not my assumptions that led USAF to arm the Sabre Dog with Mighty Mouse rockets instead of cannon. I did not make that choice. I stated that this aircraft could not carry both these rockets and a set of cannon. These were alternatives to each other, and I think the video even alluded to that. Cannons would certainly be more accurate when fired from behind under visual conditions. However, at the time it was thought that the pilot would have insufficient time to accurately aim guns during a head on attack. The rockets could be salvoed more quickly, and only a single round need hit the target to disable it. Not my assumption, but that of those guiding development of the airplane. Cannon were also seen as insufficiently destructive, with multiple hits being necessary to ensure disabling a heavy bomber. A sufficiently destructive gun installation would not only have heavy recoil but would be a much heavier installation than rockets of equivalent destructive capability. Not my assumption, but reportedly the USAF thinking at the time. So perhaps Mighty Mouse rockets did not live up to the hopes for them, but USAF did not return to guns. What replaced these rockets on bomber interceptors? Not cannon, but larger and more sophisticated guided missiles. These facts all tell me something. They may tell you something different. Feel free to challenge the USAF assumptions of the time. I think their number is in the phone book (I’m dating myself again), but I suspect those who made these assumptions and decisions are unable to come to the phone.
3