"(1) The duration of fire is not a decisive factor in determining the outcome of a combat."
Seems to me that running out of ammo before the enemy does would be a decisive factor that certainly could affect the outcome of a combat.
It may be considered a personal failing, but I always have issues accepting the
conclusions based on statistical study as holy writ. Particularly when terms are used that have multiple definitions and there is not enough context to be certain which definition is being used by the author.
IN this case, "duration of fire" means what, exactly? The length of a burst? In seconds? In rounds fired?? Or is it the amount of firing time the aircraft has? How much ammo the aircraft carries? This, among other things, leaves me a bit skeptical.
The report goes on to break down several factors into percentages and averages, based on 111 studied combats (involving P-47s I assume).
I don't question the math, only its application in making conclusions, and presenting those conclusions as hard and fast "happens every time" facts.
I do agree that the most common reasons pilots miss is "faulty aim", which is pilot error. But we always knew that. Every miss is shooter error, in one way, or another. I'm just unsure if the percentages given accurately reflect overall reality or just the small sample that was studied and analyzed.
Now I'm curious what part the gunsights played in missing targets due to pilot error. The P40s in the early months of the war had simple ring and post gunsites, replaced with reflector gun sites as the war went on, other fighter designs had them from the drawing board up. These sights do function as a form of rangefinder, and lead calculator, but using them correctly is a pilot function, and a training issue. But if the pilot misses, its still "pilot error".