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
45-Shooter    Right on!!!   5/22/2011 11:31:01 AM

>>
Then read this, if you prefer. It tells us how 20mm and 30 MM cal fire blew half the flight deck off a B-17G. I figure it might have been the 20mm's that did the damage, don't you?I would point out that the word "caliber" is a generic term that is dimensionless with out the units appended to it. If you go back to the original source, you find it was 30 MM shells that did most of the damage. BUT, that is not important to my argument. What is, and can be found at the site in your link, IS THAT NO CREW MEMBER WAS INJURED buy all that damage! Seems HE shell is much less effective than you claim? Note that the list of injuries listed on the other web site with all the very neat pictures are also ALL minor in nature! 

PS, note the damage far from the 20mm strike on the previous picture.  I added the words in red with yellow highlite, which you failed to include, just to clarify your obvious meaning!

I do note it! Note how fragments failed to perforate the thin plexiglass side window by the "Cheek" gun! Note that with the "entire" flight deck "shot away" there are few fragment holes threw the thin skin of the ajaisent fuselage area! Also note the lack of casualties from said hits as stated in your link!

All in all, a very convincing argument for my point of view!




 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       5/22/2011 1:02:03 PM

Shooter, first of all, as I said in my post at page 11 (RedParadize    .50 vs 20×110mm   5/17/2011 11:33:10 AM)

I aknowlege that 12.7mm might have a better hit probability because more round are fired generaly speaking. But talking  about HE vs AP, your argument doesn't stand.  Let me cote your own comment, cause the explanation can be found in it:
From 45-Shooter       5/22/2011 1:50:27 AM

"There are many so called "Single point failure" spots on every air craft! A single hit at that point downs the plane, sooner or later... Lets spare us the redondant example  ...Any hit, regardless of caliber on any of these systems has a chance to down the plane, some more than others, but every single one could be fatal to any plane!"

That is also true for 20 mm splinter. This is your failure to under stand! Fragments from a 20 MM shell have little to no power to penetrate any of those "Single point failure" items! Look at ALL of the pictures in BOTH of those links! Note the lack of fragment holes in the thin skin of the target plane. Did you know that the average thickness of air craft skin is 0.76 MM? Little more than the thickness of an old style beer can! If the fragments will not go through that, why would you think they will perforate the crankcase of an engine or the pilot's seat back armor? I don't know where you got your blast area of effect for the 20mm but they are wrong, Google the 5.56 x 20 MM combo gun that fired a air bursting munitions over the heads of enemy infantry. Watch the many videos of those explosions and the lack of effect knowing that each of those shells is more than twice as powerful as the 20 MM Hisso shell. Watching that will quickly rid you of these silly notions of destructive power!  Modern grenade don't pack much more energy than a 20mm HE round, Boy did you miss this one! The 20 MM Hisso has between 2.6 and 6.5 grams of HE in it depending on the type and whether it has a tracer element or not. The M-26, an arch typical and THE most widely used hand grenade has 156 grams of HE in side! Since when does 2.6 grams equal 156? RIGHT! but they do trow alot of relatively slow and small pelets that yes would be enough to seriously damage to any ww2 plane. The M-26 has 10.5 feet of notched steel wire wound inside it that when combined with the "Coined" metal body forms about 900 fragments which are dangerous to people to about 20-25 meters! Go read any of the reference works like Janes Ammunition Handbook if you doubt this. The ratio between the 156 grams of HE in the M-26 give the remaining ~270 grams of metal a significant velocity and power to do damage. the best possible 20 MM Hisso shell has 6.5 grams of HE and 123.5 grams of metal. The two ratios of body to explosive ratios are; 1 HE to 1.72 grams of metal and 1 gram of HE to 19 grams for the 20 MM Hisso! You tell me which of these two will impart the most energy to it's fragments? RIGHT!


 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       5/22/2011 1:05:36 PM






They did not switch until the advent of the M-61 Vulcan gun in 20 MM! Note that the .50 worked more than "Well enough" in Korea Vs a plane every one knows is tougher than any in WW-II!


Apparently you haven't heard of the Colt M-39 in while conducting your "expert research" ... sorry, I'm smirking.


You are right! I'd forgotten that one! But the F-100 never shot down another plane in combat, it was a ground attack AC!


What about the Crusader with it's Mk-12's?
It's a Navy plane. They started the switch during the big one because of comonality issuse with the rest of the Navy supply chain.

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       5/22/2011 1:21:51 PM




 




http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/body/side2.gif" width="375" height="233" />




I have a question, it is rater vague but how "deep" the 20mm round have explode ? Looks like it exploded between the 2 layer of plate. must be a minengeschob right? (mine-shell)

 

By the way, I got some Pentaerythritol tetranitrate explosive used in shell. Quite intresting. (For that kind of information, I think wiki is not bad at all)




The shell exploded right above and next to the longeron that is at the bottom edge of the forward part of the hole and even with the frame that divides the two sections of the hole. The total lack of fragmentation indicates it was probably a Mine shell of either 20 or 30 MM. Note the total lack of fragmentation perforations in the rest of the plane around the impact site!

Look closely at the frame and longerons next to the impact site. Note that there appear to be only 3-4 holes in those frames from the detonation. How do you explain that?

Also note that the entire left most portion of the hole was caused by the slip stream tearing the damaged panel from the framing underneath. The forward portion of the hole is from the blast which was trapped between the interior and exterior panels. The weaker panel was torn off and fell away.

Note that if you look closely at the bottom edge of most central piece of torn skin, you can see the entrance hole made by the shell. The lighter colored longeron below it shows through the hole. Note the complete absence of fragment holes in all of the skin panels!

Can any one here dispute any of these claims?

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       5/22/2011 1:46:18 PM


To sum all this up I:

1. Agree that armament mounted on or near centreline better than widely wing mounted.

2. Disagree that this compensated for the other inadequacies of the P-38 compared to other fighters in the ETO.
3. Agree that this is one of the reasons why the Bf-109 was the best all round fighter in the world until the advent of the Fw-190, which then took the mantle as best for the rest of the war.

4. Disagree that 12.7mm AP came close to equalling the penetrative power of a 20mm AP at anything like normal combat ranges.


5. Don't know for sure which of 20mm HE or 12.7mm AP was more effective against WW2 bombers because I don't know the probabilities of the 12.7mm hitting something important versus tha 20mm hitting or exploding next to something important.


6. Consider that the 20mm HE was be more effective against fighters than the 12.7mm AP because any 20mm hit on a fighter is likely to be close enough to something important to cause serious problems.

Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       5/22/2011 10:22:57 PM







To sum all this up I:




1. Agree that armament mounted on or near centreline better than widely wing mounted.




2. Disagree that this compensated for the other inadequacies of the P-38 compared to other fighters in the ETO.


3. Agree that this is one of the reasons why the Bf-109 was the best all round fighter in the world until the advent of the Fw-190, which then took the mantle as best for the rest of the war.




4. Disagree that 12.7mm AP came close to equalling the penetrative power of a 20mm AP at anything like normal combat ranges.





5. Don't know for sure which of 20mm HE or 12.7mm AP was more effective against WW2 bombers because I don't know the probabilities of the 12.7mm hitting something important versus tha 20mm hitting or exploding next to something important.







6. Consider that the 20mm HE was be more effective against fighters than the 12.7mm AP because any 20mm hit on a fighter is likely to be close enough to something important to cause serious problems.

Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       5/22/2011 10:25:15 PM









 








http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/body/side2.gif" width="375" />










I have a question, it is rater vague but how "deep" the 20mm round have explode ? Looks like it exploded between the 2 layer of plate. must be a minengeschob right? (mine-shell)



 



By the way, I got some Pentaerythritol tetranitrate explosive used in shell. Quite intresting. (For that kind of information, I think wiki is not bad at all)












The shell exploded right above and next to the longeron that is at the bottom edge of the forward part of the hole and even with the frame that divides the two sections of the hole. The total lack of fragmentation indicates it was probably a Mine shell of either 20 or 30 MM. Note the total lack of fragmentation perforations in the rest of the plane around the impact site!

Look closely at the frame and longerons next to the impact site. Note that there appear to be only 3-4 holes in those frames from the detonation. How do you explain that?


Also note that the entire left most portion of the hole was caused by the slip stream tearing the damaged panel from the framing underneath. The forward portion of the hole is from the blast which was trapped between the interior and exterior panels. The weaker panel was torn off and fell away.


Note that if you look closely at the bottom edge of most central piece of torn skin, you can see the entrance hole made by the shell. The lighter colored longeron below it shows through the hole. Note the complete absence of fragment holes in all of the skin panels!


Can any one here dispute any of these claims?



The claims can be disputed on relevance. The lack of fragmentation clearly does not translate into a lack of effectiveness, demonstrated by the fact that the blast blew a stinking great hole in the side of the airframe. Imagine that in an engine.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       5/22/2011 10:36:26 PM




>>


Then read this, if you prefer. It tells us how 20mm and 30 MM cal fire blew half the flight deck off a B-17G. I figure it might have been the 20mm's that did the damage, don't you?I would point out that the word "caliber" is a generic term that is dimensionless with out the units appended to it. If you go back to the original source, you find it was 30 MM shells that did most of the damage. BUT, that is not important to my argument. What is, and can be found at the site in your link, IS THAT NO CREW MEMBER WAS INJURED buy all that damage! Seems HE shell is much less effective than you claim? Note that the list of injuries listed on the other web site with all the very neat pictures are also ALL minor in nature! 



What bullsh1t, calibre refers specifically to to rifle calibre ammunition. As for crew injuries, the article doesn't even talk about that. What's more, you contradict your previous assertions that 20mm HE was effective with a couple of hits when it hit head on - because it would kill the crew.

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       5/23/2011 11:22:23 AM
You are right about the picture of the fuselage side panel being good evidence about what an HE shell can do. Read my analysis of that picture in a prior post.
As to the ball turret and it's gunner who survived missing a toe to frost bite, the shell hit the face of his armored glass just an inch or two from his gun sight near the middle, OR by the right edge. It's hard to tell. But none of that is important, what IS important is that the shell failed to perforate the glass and injure the gunner enough to make him a casualty. If you had gone to the site linked to in the prior post, you would have known that and seen dozens of pics, all showing much the same lack of serious effect! The only way that HE damages a plane from that era is to strip away so much skin that there is not enough left to support the loads on it. To actually down a plane, you have to damage the critical and soft squishy stuff inside. The plane and it's monocoque skin are amazingly tough and very strong. Go to that web site. Look at all of those pics and you will see that aircraft are very hard to destroy. If they survive an 88 MM shell with regularity, why would you think that a 20 or 30 MM one would work as well as the larger one?

One of my favorite films is of a severely damaged B-17 trundling along with a Bf-110 flying in formation behind and pumping 20 MM shells into it seemingly WO EFFECT!

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       5/23/2011 11:46:35 AM
The F-86H was introduced in around 1954, a lot sooner than the introduction of the Vulcan which you claimed was when the US finally got into the 20mm game. As I understand it they had problems getting 20mm's to work. I don't know why, but that doesn't offset the fact that the Brits, Germans, Russians and Japanese all seemed to manage to do it.
Neat! 1954 was the same year that they introduced the M-61 Vulcan gun in the F-104 prototype.

The main types of combat rounds and their main characteristics are listed in the table below.

Designation Type Projectile Weight [g] Bursting charge [g] Muzzle Velocity [m/s] Description
M53 API  ? 4.2 g incendiary[7] 1030 6.3 mm RHA penetration at 0 degree impact angle and 1000 m range.[7]
M56A3/A4 HEI 102[8] 9 g HE (RDX/wax/Al) and 1.5 g incendiary[7][8] 1030 Nose fuzed round, no tracer. 2 m effective radius to produce casualties to exposed personnel.[7] Fragmentation hazard out to 20 m.[8] 12.5 mm RHA penetration at 0 degree obliquity at 100m range.[7]
PGU-28A/B SAPHEI 102.4 [9] 10 g[8] 1050 Multi-purpose fuzeless round with an incendiary charge in the nose setting off the HE behind it with a slight delay to maximize lethality against aircraft. No tracer or self-destruct. A zirconium pellet at the bottom of the HE cavity provides additional incendiary effect.
That worked out really well didn't it?
The table pointed out that the much more modern and powerful M-56 20 MM shell had an effective fragment radius of 2 M! This with a shell body only 75% as heavy and containing 100% more HE than the 20 MM Hisso of WW-II fame. It also pointed out that the SAP shell would perforate 12.5 MM of armor at 100 M! Wow! Almost as thich a plate as the .50 can do at 600 yards?
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics