Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Best All-Around Fighter of World War II
sentinel28a    10/13/2009 3:38:03 PM
Let's try a non-controversial topic, shall we? (Heh heh.) I'll submit the P-51 for consideration. BW and FS, if you come on here and say that the Rafale was the best fighter of WWII, I am going to fly over to France and personally beat you senseless with Obama's ego. (However, feel free to talk about the D.520.)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Aussiegunneragain    45-Shooter   5/17/2011 3:56:31 AM

I don't know enough about the topic of aircraft gun firepower to get into a debate between you and my source, but I do know that in your assessment that penetrating rounds were more effective than explosive ones, you forgot one important variable - kinetic energy (e = 1/2M x V2). A 20mm x 110RB round had more than twice the hitting power than any 12.7mm round, so it could be effective from a longer range (allowing for a longer burst and more rounds) and for a given range would penetrate much further than a 12.7mm to do all that damage that you are talking about. Given that the HS.404 had a 700rpm cyclic rate of fire, compared to 800 rpm for the M-2, a couple extra M-2's wouldn't make up for the extra burst length and effectiveness of the HS against a bomber. 4 extras like the P-47 had might.

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Earl   5/17/2011 4:01:18 AM

The other important metrics where the P-40 was inferior to the Bf-109 or the Spit in contemporous models was in level speed and in line. You have to remember that the first really useable version (the original didn't even have self sealing tanks), the P-40B didn't get into frontline service until 1941, so was contemporous to the Bf-109F and the Spit Mk V. Both of those outperformed it by a considerable margin, though it was capable enough in the bounce, and tough, fast diving and fast turning enough if bounced itself, to be useful.

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Earl   5/17/2011 4:02:51 AM

The other important metrics where the P-40 was inferior to the Bf-109 or the Spit in contemporous models was in level speed and in line  rate of climb. You have to remember that the first really useable version (the original didn't even have self sealing tanks), the P-40B didn't get into frontline service until 1941, so was contemporous to the Bf-109F and the Spit Mk V. Both of those outperformed it by a considerable margin, though it was capable enough in the bounce, and tough, fast diving and fast turning enough if bounced itself, to be useful.




 
Quote    Reply

RedParadize    .50 vs 20×110mm   5/17/2011 11:33:10 AM
Regarding the .50 vs 20×110mm HS cal dilemma, I think we must take in consideration the hit probability. Given that more .50 can be mounted on a plane. Logic would suggest that .50 cal would have a better hit chance in a dogfight (relatively short range) given that more round are fired. But its a bit more complicated than that.
 
Its important to note that most of the gun layout had a convergent cone of fire, so firepower was concentrated only if the target is at the proper distance. That alone marginalize the firepower of the .50. But for average pilot or rookies, I think the .50 might be a better choice in dogfight.
 
On the other hand a single 20mm have much more chance to be fatal at any given range or hit location. A pinpoint cone of fire is less relevant when the average hit required to kill is 4. A experienced pilot with superior aiming skill is likely to favor this.
 
I would also carry here one of the most redundant GF argument: Requirement.
 
Keep in mind that Allies didn't really had to worry about heavy bomber while they where a big  treat to Germany. Gun layout had to follow different logic. Germany had to engage large bomber formation that where flak battery by themself. The heavier 20mm/30mm cannon is a much better choice when you want to destroy a maximum number of bomber in a single pass or out from its flak range.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Once more, again...   5/17/2011 1:12:32 PM
1) P-47 over Bf-109....depending on your definition of best all-around fighter is. 
   a. Unlike the Bf-109, the P-47 could be a bomber escort, due to range...
   b. Unlike the Bf-109 the P-47 could be a very effective A2G platform...the Bf-109 simply could not carry the ordnance load the P-47 could.
   c. Like the Bf-109, the P-47 was an effective A2A platform.
   d. So, in MY definition, that makes the P-47 the BEST all-around fighter, capable of doing many things, well.
 
2) Armaments.
   a. As I understand it, it is penetration AND explosives....that's what makes the 2cm round, potentially, more dangerous and effective.  It could EXPLODE, causing greater damage.  HOWEVER, all things being equal penetration was very important, too. An explosion on the skin of the a/c was far less damaging than an explosion in the interior of the a/c.  So the debate about a 2cm. v. 12.7 BMG needs to take into account the M/V of the PARTICULAR 2cm being considered, plus fusing.
   b. I think one of the better summaries of the debate, I have read, is that the US 1.27cm BMG was EFFECTIVE, even if it was not particularly EFFICIENT.  The Hispano-Suiza would have been more efficient, IF the US had been able to make it work, but the 1.27 cm did the job for the US, considering the target array, A6M's, Betty's, Bf-109's, FW-190's, and Ju 87/88 and Dorniers.  Against fighters and medium bombers, the 1.27cm BMG was very effective. 
   c. The Germans and to an extent the Japanese needed a different weapon because they faced heavy and super-heavy bombers, that even the 1.27cm would not down, readily.  Had the USAAF been facing Lancasters, b-17/24/29's and had ONLY the 1.27 cm BMG, the USAAF would have been in very big trouble.  As they did not, the discussion is essentially moot.  The Luftwaffe and the Japanese HAD to develop effective aircraft cannon, the US did not.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       5/17/2011 7:25:16 PM

I don't know enough about the topic of aircraft gun firepower to get into a debate between you and my source, but I do know that in your assessment that penetrating rounds were more effective than explosive ones, you forgot one important variable - kinetic energy (e = 1/2M x V2). A 20mm x 110RB round had more than twice the hitting power than any 12.7mm round, so it could be effective from a longer range (allowing for a longer burst and more rounds) and for a given range would penetrate much further than a 12.7mm to do all that damage that you are talking about. Given that the HS.404 had a 700rpm cyclic rate of fire, compared to 800 rpm for the M-2, a couple extra M-2's wouldn't make up for the extra burst length and effectiveness of the HS against a bomber. 4 extras like the P-47 had might.




Two points pertinent to your idea;
1. The lower MV and BC of the flat nosed 20 MM Hisso shell, or blunt nosed AP bullet from an 20 MM Cannon, will not be able to get as many hits as a weapon shooting higher MV/BC ammo. So that in contravention of your idea, the M2 will have both a longer firing bracket and an easier time getting hits at longer range. Then on top of that, it will shoot more bullets per second getting more hits per interval of time.
2. The important fact in determining perforation power of any projectile is the "Energy Density" it possesses. In the case of the 20 MM Hisso Mk-I/II/III with the long Barrel, that works out to ((840^2)X130)/2000= Energy in Joules/Frontal area of the projectile, or= ((840X840)X130)/2000=45864J= Energy/3.14159Cm^2= 14,599J/Cm^2!
Those same figures for the .50 Caliber Browning with the 660 Grain AP bullet at 3,000 F/S are ((915X915)X42.77)/2000=17,904J/1.317Cm^2=13,595J/Cm^2
As you can see the .50 Caliber has about 93% of the piercing power of the best 20 MM Cannon! The numbers for the 20 MM Mg-151 are very much less! (705M/S@109Gm=27,088J) / 3.14159=8,
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       5/17/2011 7:36:10 PM

Something to consider is that under most conditions, the P-40 was much closer to the other two in performance because it had much larger fuel tanks which meant that it could use more throttle for longer. As a case in point, if the Spit or 109 had to cover some distance between base and the mission AO, the it would have to do that at 25-55% throttle, or between 185-210 MPH! The 109 is just about the same. But if the P-40 has to cover the same distance, it's larger fuel tanks permit it to use 75% throttle to go about 310 MPH! I'd like to have 100 MPH in hand when the fight started, wouldn't you?

This is part of the point I keep trying to make that range is equally important to performance as other factors, may be more!
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       5/17/2011 7:42:58 PM

Most of what you say is true about all planes with wing mounted guns! The Blond Knight of Germany preferred the Me-109F/G/K with the single cannon, either 20 or 30 MM and that did not matter to him! He said the 20 was much better at shooting down fighter planes and the 30 MM everything else! He said the rate of fire and MV were more important than weight of shell shooting at fighters and other targets were easy either way!
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       5/17/2011 7:54:24 PM

1) P-47 over Bf-109....depending on your definition of best all-around fighter is. 

   a. Unlike the Bf-109, the P-47 could be a bomber escort, due to range...

   b. Unlike the Bf-109 the P-47 could be a very effective A2G platform...the Bf-109 simply could not carry the ordnance load the P-47 could.

   c. Like the Bf-109, the P-47 was an effective A2A platform.

   d. So, in MY definition, that makes the P-47 the BEST all-around fighter, capable of doing many things, well.

 

2) Armaments.

   a. As I understand it, it is penetration AND explosives....that's what makes the 2cm round, potentially, more dangerous and effective.  It could EXPLODE, causing greater damage.  HOWEVER, all things being equal penetration was very important, too. An explosion on the skin of the a/c was far less damaging than an explosion in the interior of the a/c.  So the debate about a 2cm. v. 12.7 BMG needs to take into account the M/V of the PARTICULAR 2cm being considered, plus fusing.

   b. I think one of the better summaries of the debate, I have read, is that the US 1.27cm BMG was EFFECTIVE, even if it was not particularly EFFICIENT.  The Hispano-Suiza would have been more efficient, IF the US had been able to make it work, but the 1.27 cm did the job for the US, considering the target array, A6M's, Betty's, Bf-109's, FW-190's, and Ju 87/88 and Dorniers.  Against fighters and medium bombers, the 1.27cm BMG was very effective. 

   c. The Germans and to an extent the Japanese needed a different weapon because they faced heavy and super-heavy bombers, that even the 1.27cm would not down, readily.  Had the USAAF been facing Lancasters, b-17/24/29's and had ONLY the 1.27 cm BMG, the USAAF would have been in very big trouble.  As they did not, the discussion is essentially moot.  The Luftwaffe and the Japanese HAD to develop effective aircraft cannon, the US did not.


You are sadly mistaken about this! The Americans DID shoot down many large AC with the .50 and it worked perfectly! Think BV-222/238, Me-232, and numerous Jap four engined sea planes that were as large or larger than a B-17! Ignoring these facts shoots holes in your argument. A famous American Ace and Test Pilot claimed in a Wings TV Channel interview that the .50 caliber was superior to the 20 MM used by others because it would penetrate deep into enemy aircraft instead of exploding on the surface doing little actual damage! I think Chuck Yeager knew as much or more about these things as any of us. Don't you?
 
Quote    Reply

earlm       5/17/2011 8:10:15 PM
45:  Read the stuff at Spitfire Performance to learn about Spit vs 109
 
For cannons vs mg's note that the Germans produced the MG151 in 15mm and 20mm versions.  IIRC the case was the same and the gun was the same save for the barrel diameter.  They had a choice between an mg type projectile and a cannon projectile and they chose the latter.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics