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       5/24/2011 12:17:45 AM



Do you think that something that have about the same kinetic energy of a 7.62x51 NATO bullets cannot penetrate a "old style beer can" and damage vital part afterward? What about 10 of them? think about it, they will spread in a cone shaped patern after the explosion, how likely they will hit something vital?




shooters claim is nonsense, we ran tests on thin skins with various calibre weapons when testing recoil management systems.  tests were done on calibres ranging from .22LR to 40mm and included AP, HE and in the larger calibres various sabot types.. 

HE basically turned thin skins into collanders, AP has to hit something vital or structural to have an effect, if it hits something structural then you're banking on extant stresses to assist in that platforms degradation - hopefully rapid catastrophic. 
both AP and HE will do the job under various conditions, but the formers effect on a thin skin to achieve the same structural distress requires a higher rate of fire - or it has to hit something significant.
one of the reasons why there was a shift from 20mm to 30mm (aden or defa) was that the latter imparted much much more destructive energy, exponentially greater than 20mm.
I've seen the after effects of the 36 barrel metalstorm weapon on a thin, and a subsequent test using 20mm HE.  in both tests that thins occcupants would have died pretty quickly, the surface area of effect was in sq metres at a preset range.  for an AP to have the same effect you'd have to directly kill the occupants so the placement of shot was far more critical.
the notion that shooter has that 20mm HE was not effective is just nonsense.  both the sth africans and czechs ran similar tests using 20mm anti-personnel/anti materiel dismounts and came to the same conclusions.  in these cases using a qualified marksman and AP against a thin renders better results because its a targetted shot - ie they aim for the engine block, and then the driver.  in aircraft on aircraft, the parameters of kinetic engagement are far different
I did ge
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/24/2011 12:49:38 AM

Secondly, when you state that shooting at the engine block will stop a car, that is just silly! Go to Deniel's web site to read what they say! Look at the pictures of the oil drums shot with the 20 MM NEOPUP! Count the number of fragment holes! Then tell us all how many there are with modern ammo! Note that few frags were able to perforate the BACK SIDE of the target oil drum!!!!!! Then tell me that it will kill a car engine. RIGHT!


There's internet experience - and there's real world experience
when you test AM weapons with AP rounds, you actually shoot at engine blocks as part of the test vignettes.
 
ie we do it now as an empirical test
 
thanks for playing, but thanks for reinforcing that you actually don't have a clue.
 
stop wasting peoples time.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       5/24/2011 1:26:45 AM




Secondly, when you state that shooting at the engine block will stop a car, that is just silly! Go to Deniel's web site to read what they say! Look at the pictures of the oil drums shot with the 20 MM NEOPUP! Count the number of fragment holes! Then tell us all how many there are with modern ammo! Note that few frags were able to perforate the BACK SIDE of the target oil drum!!!!!! Then tell me that it will kill a car engine. RIGHT!





There's internet experience - and there's real world experience


when you test AM weapons with AP rounds, you actually shoot at engine blocks as part of the test vignettes.

 

ie we do it now as an empirical test

 

thanks for playing, but thanks for reinforcing that you actually don't have a clue.

 

stop wasting peoples time.




Thats nice, you state on one post that a HE shell will disable the engine in a car, then in this post you say you test AP shot. Which is it?
 
Quote    Reply

Ispose    Re: RedParadize   5/24/2011 1:42:49 AM
 
Like what i said in many of my previous post, hit probability is most likely better with .50 when piloted by average pilot. But experienced pilot wont need long salvo to hit target.
The .50's give you longer firing time and as much lethality per second of firing...you can engage more targets...Look at McCampbell shooting down 9 Japanese Aircraft in one flight with 6x .50's. You don't need to fire longer on the target with multiple .50's than you would with say a BF-109.
 
I would you rater fly a FW-190 when going agaist a heavy bomber formation. Requirement is the thing here I believe.
I wouldn't...the FW-190 was easy meat for the P-47's and 51's at the altitude the Heavy's flew at...they were picked off like flies. Against unescorted Bombers they did OK...even wallowing at 20,000+ ft they could set up passes against the bombers. I would still much prefer flying a P-47 against heavy bombers than a 190...much faster, about the same firepower, and much, much more survivable.
 
 
Quote    Reply

RedParadize       5/24/2011 1:52:13 AM

Your statement that 20mm fragment had little to no energy is a nonsense. I never said that, ever! why? because of conservation of energy. 

Quote from 45-Shooter 5/17/2011 12:13:45 AM:


"In the first case (hispano) the shell body broke up into 10-12 large fragments and in the second (mine shell), hundreds of smaller bits."

10-12 fragment you say?
 
Ok lets say 10.

If a 130g 20mm hisp split in 10 fragment it most likely make fragment of 11.9g(minus the explosive) on average right? NO! there are more than 10-12 total splinters! There are generally one huge one, 9-11 medium sized and a couple of hundred or so dust particles! The dust weighs 60-70 grams in total and can not damage anything! The base of the shell weighs 20-30 grams and the explosive pushes it backwards subtractin the energy or the explosive from the KE of the shell's forward velocity! The base is typically found laying at the bottom of the target barrel! The medium sized franments weigh between 1/2 and ONE gram! The 9-11 "Medium" sized frags are going on AVERAGE 900M/S and have 200-400J of energy each! Because of their LOW sectional dencity and odd shape, they have very little power to perforate anything substantial! TOO BAD, WHA WHA WHA! So each splinter have about 3808 joules of kinetic energy at muzzle velocity without the propulsive power of the explosive of the shell itself.

As highlighted in Yellow, the number of fragment is from you. I am using your own argument agaist you here.
 
I note that your so called "medium sized frags" have a average weight of 0.6 to 1.25 gram... so the rest is dust right? I would be curious to see whats the weight of the hundreds of small bits produced by a mineshell given to your definition.
 
I find hard to believe that 6.5g of explosive can pulverize forged steel to atomic level without having any effect on target AND negating 36480j kinetic energy. Must be because of black matter. I asume that given your definition of the world a shotgun would have no effect at all on the aluminium skin like a" old style beer can" nor to any element behind it. 
 
I suggest we shoot a 20mm hispano shell on you holding a "old style beer can" to see what happen to you. You could also hold a transmision box in your other hand as a sheild.
 
Quote    Reply

RedParadize       5/24/2011 2:20:41 AM

 
Like what i said in many of my previous post, hit probability is most likely better with .50 when piloted by average pilot. But experienced pilot wont need long salvo to hit target.

The .50's give you longer firing time and as much lethality per second of firing...you can engage more targets...Look at McCampbell shooting down 9 Japanese Aircraft in one flight with 6x .50's. You don't need to fire longer on the target with multiple .50's than you would with say a BF-109.


 

I would you rater fly a FW-190 when going agaist a heavy bomber formation. Requirement is the thing here I believe.
I wouldn't...the FW-190 was easy meat for the P-47's and 51's at the altitude the Heavy's flew at...they were picked off like flies. Against unescorted Bombers they did OK...even wallowing at 20,000+ ft they could set up passes against the bombers. I would still much prefer flying a P-47 against heavy bombers than a 190...much faster, about the same firepower, and much, much more survivable.

I would say that the P-47 was the first US made fighter to be a match to FW-190 and late version of the BF-109. It was superior to the BF in most situation. but against the FW its was a match and thats it.
 
But my point was about engaging B-17 with .50... the german found the 13mm unadequate agaist bomber for good reason.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/24/2011 2:51:34 AM

Thats nice, you state on one post that a HE shell will disable the engine in a car, then in this post you say you test AP shot. Which is it?

seriously sport are you  completely stupid?  again read everything I said, it is specific and addresses everything you trty to bounce around with when trying to change the parameters

if you can't phuquing understand plain simple english then do us a favour by not answering at all

I have not said anywhere that HE will disable an engine - it is a direct response to :

the notion that shooter has that 20mm HE was not effective is just nonsense.  both the sth africans and czechs ran similar tests using 20mm anti-personnel/anti materiel dismounts and came to the same conclusions.  in these cases using a qualified marksman and AP against a thin renders better results because its a targetted shot - ie they aim for the engine block, and then the driver.  in aircraft on aircraft, the parameters of kinetic engagement are far different

and to this nonsense:

Secondly, when you state that shooting at the engine block will stop a car, that is just silly!

in the real world where we test weapons against real platforms we do fire AP into engine blocks.  We test weapons against conditions that are close to real world as much as possible,  That means that a vehicle is pulled on a sled at nn mph/kph, released while it has "nn" momentum and then shot at with various weapons and rounds to test stopping power etc...  Its designed to assess safe stopping distance in case that vehicle is loaded up with an IED, its designed to establish SOPs so that troops can identify safety critical parameters and terminate the threat before said vehicle can come close and cause unnecessary additional damage.  Now in the fantasy world of the internet where you are doing all your research it might be different.

its also why patrol vessels with 50 cal guns fire ahead with mixed tracer on a warning shot and if the vessel does not stop then its AP into the block house to shoot AT the engine block

marksman are trained to fire at a vehicle at "nn" range to disable it and its the block that they shoot at because if they shoot the driver the vehicle can still continue on and be loaded with explosives.  shooting the block is designed to stop the vehicles forward momentum so that even if the driver survives he cannot steer and drive the vehicle into your area.  None of that debate has anything to do with HE canon fired at thin skin aircraft.  The discussion was about relative effect of different weapons solutions against different types of targets - ie types of thin skins and how a weapon can compromise that platform.

and if you are going to try and quote sites in a lame attempt to make it look like you know what you're talking about then at least make the effort to spell the company names correctly.  eg DENEL and DEFA

and again, one of us has actually been involved with ballistics tests - its obviously not you .  all the google scraping and capital letters does not hide the fact that you have next to zero idea what you're talking about.

again, my discussions about effect and energy with HE Canon and AP .50 cal has been specific..

if you don't know, then don't pretend to know because all the vain attempts to pull data from the internet means squat when you fail the basics.

If I don't know I'll say so or I'll qualify myself within parameters - thats something that you'd be  wise to do because its pretty damn apparent that you've never actually been involved with any of this beyond hoovering the internet and even then you don't get the basics right. 

seriously, I'd get better engagement out of a fire hydrant. and the fact that you don't know basic concepts but pretend to do so starts to make you look and sound like a troll who's oxygen is based on people responding, not on trying to learn something that you clearly can't grasp and repeatedly get wrong
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    GF   5/24/2011 3:55:19 AM

seriously, I'd get better engagement out of a fire hydrant. and the fact that you don't know basic concepts but pretend to do so starts to make you look and sound like a troll who's oxygen is based on people responding, not on trying to learn something that you clearly can't grasp and repeatedly get wrong

 
But you have to admit that this is way more fun than pissing contests about the Rafale and F-35 between a bunch of people who don't have the clearances to contribute intelligently and perhaps a few who can't, because they would be in breach of their clearances. My work is done http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emwink.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" />.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    This is kinda interesting ...   5/24/2011 3:58:12 AM

PROJECT VAL
Combat testing The Cannon-armed Sabre

by John Henderson in collaboration with Lon Walter

It didn't take long for the pilots in Korea to realize the MiG-15 had more firepower than the F-86. In January 1951, Lt.Col. Bruce Hinton, 336th FIS Commander, briefed the 4th FM staff on the 21 days of combat recently flown out of Kimpo. His briefing included the admonishment THAT THE FIREPOWER OF THE F-86 IS NOT SUFFECIENTLY DESTRUCTIVE, AND SHOULD BE MODIFIED WITH A CALIBER HEAVY ENOUGH TO INSURE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE WITH A MINIMUM NUMBER OF HITS.

By September 1951, experienced Sabre pilots who had returned to the US brought with them the news that the F-86 needed heavier firepower. These included America's first three jet aces - Jim Jabara, Dick Becker, and Hoot Gibson; as well as WW2 aces John Meyer, Ralph Taylor, Billy Hovde, Glenn Eagleston, Bob Rankin, Jim Brooks, and Ben Emmert. Their reports also included other improvements that were needed, such as a more powerful engine and better gunsight - both of which were already being developed.

At Headquarters USAF, Col. Benjamin O. Davis, Chief of the Fighter Branch, Directorate of Operations, was given the overall job of solving F-86 gunnery system problems. This would eventually lead to the replacement of the Al CM gunsight with the type A-4; and the M3 .50 caliber machine gun with a more potent weapon. The latter program was to become Project GUN-VAL.

Under Lt.Col. John England, Chief of the Fighter Gunnery Section, a Gun Evaluation (GUN-VAL) Committee was formed - which included many 4th FIG combat veterans. Among the evidence they reviewed was a paper written by Maj. Martin Johansen, which was supported by his gun camera film showing a MiG-15 absorbing multiple hits from .50 caliber bullets without any evidence of mortal damage to the pilot, airframe, or engine. A decision was made to proceed immediately with a test of two 20mm cannon capable of high rates of fire. These were to be installed in specially modified F-86s. When available, they were to be combat tested if the Korean War was still on-going. The Los Angeles Division of North American Aviation was contracted to modify 12 undelivered F-86s with rebuilt gun bays and four 20mm guns. These were to be tested by NM pilots before delivery to the USAF. 10 of the Sabres were to receive Mauser guns designed in Germany during WW2 but never installed in combat aircraft. Much later, the remaining 2 aircraft got Swiss-designed Oerlikon guns that had been successfully used in WW2. The Oerlikon installation eventually proved unsuitable; and after testing at Eglin AFB, that portion of GUN-VAL was terminated.

The Mauser cannon design had been captured from the Germans during the waning days of WW2, finding its way to the Springfield Armory, then to Ford Motor Company (FMC) for further development. For the GUNVAL Sabres, FMC provided NM with models designated as T-160 20mm cannon; a gas operated, electrically fired, belt fed, revolving cylinder gun with a cyclic rate of 1400 rounds per minute. The ten F-86s with T160 guns were re-designated F-86F-2, while the Oerlikon-equipped models received later, became F-86F-3.

Major structural modifications were required to enlarge the Sabre's gun bays to accomodate the 170 lb., 6 foot long cannon. The prototype guns received by NM from Ford required improvements to the gun feed and firing mechanisms before they could be used in the F-86. The NM Armament Department, headed by Paul Peterson (who designed the GUN-VAL installation) and engineer Jim Robertson, identified and corrected these problems.

As planned, NM test pilot George Welch flew the inflight firing tests. He pronounced the guns to be functionally reliable. But there were no tests of gun gas purging or ingestion at high altitude, a problem that would surface in Korea. All 10 F-86F-2s were delivered in 1952; 8 were destined for Korea, and 2 went to the Armament Center (AFAC) at Eglin AFB for engineering tests. Three USAF pilots flew firing tests at Edwards AFB in the Korea-bound aircraft, before the Sabres were flown to McClellan AFB for processing and shipment to the Far East.

The three pilots, Lt.Col. Don Rodewald (Air Research & Development Command), Maj. Ray Evans (APGC Detachment Commander), and Capt Lonnie Moore (APGC), were joined in Korea by Lt.Col. George Jones (Air Training Command, Nellis AFB) and Lt.Col. Clay Peterson (Tactical Air Command). Under the Aegis of APGC, these five pilots comprised the "dedicated" GUN-VAL pilot team in Korea. Additionally, pilots from the 4th FIG would also fly the GUN-VAL Sabres in Korea, including Lt.Col. Vermont Garrison, Maj. Bob Moore, Capt. Murray Winslow, l Lt Dan Druen, and l Lt Jerrold Bradley.

Once in Korea, the GUN-VAL detachment, including the aircraft, 5 pilots, a 12 man armament specialist team from Eglin, and 4

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/24/2011 4:22:25 AM

But you have to admit that this is way more fun than pissing contests about the Rafale and F-35 between a bunch of people who don't have the clearances to contribute intelligently and perhaps a few who can't, because they would be in breach of their clearances. My work is done http://www.strategypage.com/Images/emwink.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" />. 
My mistake was the assumption that you could actually steer the debate into something resembling real world facts and not another spectacular example of google-fu.

I'm done with this muppet. He can continue to be a hero in his part of the internet  universe where others are prepared to suffer fools because they have infinitely more patience than I can ever muster up.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics