# Hellcat and Corsair vs. Messerschmidt 109 and FockWulf 190



## Ghostdancer (Mar 16, 2010)

The Hellcat and Corsair which saw service in the Pacific - as far as I know. How would these have matched up to the German Messerschmidt 109 and FW-190. Always wondered about this.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 16, 2010)

Which version of each aircraft is involved in the comparison?


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 16, 2010)

Gotta have the specifics, as well as the roles ur trying to compare.... Pacific vs ETO is not a good means of comparision...


----------



## Ghostdancer (Mar 16, 2010)

Whichever versions were the most advanced late in the war I guess, in air to air combat.


----------



## davebender (Mar 16, 2010)

The Hellcat and Corsair entered combat in quantity during mid 1943. So I think that's a good starting point for this discussion.

Me-109G6
Fw-190A5. Fw-190A6.

The Hellcat and Corsar will be early models.
F6F-3 (I think this was the first production model)
F4U-1.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Mar 17, 2010)

I would say that the Hellcat and Corsair would match up well with the Focke Wulf. The Hellcat would have a speed disadvantage vs the FW 190. I think the F4U and Fw 190 are about a close as two completely different planes could be. I think any fight between these would be pilot vs pilot for sure.

The Me 109 would have some advantages at higher altitudes than all 3 other aircraft, all owning to the better altitude capability of the Daimler engine. This fight would be dictated by altitude at which the fight begins. As altitude is lost, the Hellcat and Corsair become stronger.


----------



## davebender (Mar 17, 2010)

> F4U and Fw 190 are about a close as two completely different planes could be.


I agree with this. However I think the F6F would be outclassed by the Me-109G in most situations. In fact even the late war F6F-5 would have a tough time vs the 1943 Me-109G6.

*F6F-5. *
F6F Hellcat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
380 mph max speed. 
Me-109F4 and later have a speed advantage.

3,500 ft/min climb. 
The Me-109F4 and later have an advantage.

6 x .50cal MG. 
All Me-109G (with 3cm prop cannon) have a firepower advantage.

.16 hp / lb. 
The Me-109F4 and later have a superior power to weight ratio. That translates into superior acceleration.

Wing loading is roughly equal. Both should be good in stall fight. 

The F6F is more rugged by virtue of being twice as heavy. There is more metal to shoot away. However ruggedness doesn't count for much when the opponent is firing 3cm mine shells (Me-109G) or 4 x MG151/20 with mine shells (Fw-190).


----------



## renrich (Mar 17, 2010)

Late war F4U4 would be slightly to decidedly superior at altitudes where most combat took place to any FW190 or ME109. The F6F5 would not have much if any edge on late model DWs or MEs. If combat took place very far from base, both German fighters would be severely handicapped.


----------



## davebender (Mar 17, 2010)

> If combat took place very far from base, both German fighters would be severely handicapped.


That holds true for any fighter aircraft. The defender gets ground (or ship) based radar assistance and the pilot is not fatigued by several hours of flying. Not to mention the defender has a nearly fully tank of fuel while the attacker must keep one eye on the fuel guage.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 17, 2010)

Check this out. Comparison by USN of FW, Hellcat and Corsair. 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## renrich (Mar 17, 2010)

The point is, Dave, that the Corsair and Hellcat could fight much further from base than could the two German fighters.

The F4U4 was a horse of an different color than the F4U1 in the comparison, Claidemore. It was a real upgrade in performance over the earlier Corsairs.


----------



## zoomar (Mar 18, 2010)

Which why it is hard to compare two German land-based interceptors used in Europe with two long-range naval fighters primarily used in the Pacific. Both German planes had to be armed with cannon to bring down well-protected multi-engined heavy bombers as well as fighters. The US planes could do with their paltry six .50 cal MGs because they were primarly facing lightly constructed Japanese fighters and poorly protected bombers such as the Ki-21 and G4M.

Aren't there numerous instances of FAA Hellcats engaging FW190s and Bf109s in the ETO?


----------



## renrich (Mar 18, 2010)

Zoomar, those "paltry" six fifties or four or eight shot down many, many enemy aircraft of all descriptions in the PTO and ETO and for that matter, in the Korean War. To say that you underestimate the 50 BMG perhaps is an understatement. Only a few encounters between FAA Hellcats and LW fighters occurred.
The fact is that in an encounter between two fighters, six fifties would arguably be more effective than cannon.


----------



## zoomar (Mar 18, 2010)

I knew "paltry" would get a rise out of somebody. 

You do have a point that six .50s work against Luftwaffe fighters. I've seen enough gun camera footage to know that. I've also seen a lot of footage where those.50 cals are peppering away at an Fw-190 or Bf-110 for what seems like forever before the German turns over and heads down. This tells me that, to get a kill with just MGs , it works best if the shooter is an experienced pilot who can stay on an enemy's tail for a long time and the shootee is a rookie who can barely fly his Fw190 in a straight line, let alone dodge his way out of Chuck Yeager's line of sight. Given pilots of equal experience and skill, I'd take an Fw190 with four 20mm cannon or a Bf-109 with a couple of 15mm cannon and a 30mm gun in the propellor hub anytime. I suspect most USAAF pilots would say the same thing.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 18, 2010)

zoomar said:


> This tells me that, to get a kill with just MGs , it works best if the shooter is an experienced pilot who can stay on an enemy's tail for a long time and the shootee is a rookie who can barely fly his Fw190 in a straight line, let alone dodge his way out of Chuck Yeager's line of sight. Given pilots of equal experience and skill, I'd take an Fw190 with four 20mm cannon or a Bf-109 with a couple of 15mm cannon and a 30mm gun in the propellor hub anytime. I suspect most USAAF pilots would say the same thing


You suspect?
That's quite a leap of faith.
For my part, I'd imagine that 'most USAAF pilots' would baulk at the prospect of trying to harmonise the assimilar trajectory paths and muzzle velocities of the two cannon calibres you mention. In your 'pilots of equal experience and skill' scenario, who's going to have the biggest headache putting a solution on his opponent, considering that they're highly likely to be executing high-g evasive combat manoeuvres to stay out of harm's way? 

They might also be worried about the limited ammunition supply, especially as they're the ones playing away from home.

You're not the first who's come on here and under-estimated the destructive power of 6 x .50s or even 4 x .50s in fighter vs fighter combat. If you have any documental evidence of USAAF pilots complaining about their armament over that of the Axis fighters they were facing, we'd like to see it.


----------



## renrich (Mar 18, 2010)

Zoomar, I have personally seen what a single 50 BMG will do to targets on the ground like trucks and Light armored vehicles. I also know what a fighter plane from WW2 looks like as well as once worked in a factory building rear fuselages of F101s. I feel sure cannon were more useful against slow big targets like four engined heavy bombers but I wonder if some LW pilots would have liked to have had six 13 mm MGs instead of the cannon against a fast small target like the P51?


----------



## zoomar (Mar 22, 2010)

I really can't disagree that mixed MG and cannon armament carries with it poor ballistic consistency. Also, if the main opponent of the Luftwaffe were fighters and not 4-engined bombers, may pilots may have wished for 6 heavy MGs rather than a single 30mm cannon and 2 15mm. That takes me back to my original point that you really can't compare the armament of the F4U/F6F with the Bf109/Fw190 without considering the nature of their main opponents. The main opponent for the US navy planes were lightly built Japanese aircraft, while the German fighters' main opponents were heavy bombers.

However, the fact remains that the USAAF was virtually alone in retaining machine guns after all other nations switched to a mixture of cannon and MG's, or as the British did, to four 20mm cannon. Personally, I'd consider the armament scheme of the Tempest virtually ideal for a mid-late WW2 multipurpose fighter: four relatively fast firing guns with the same ballistics and explosive shells.


----------



## renrich (Mar 22, 2010)

Quite a few Hellcats were armed with mixed cannon and mgs and a number of Corsairs were all cannon armed. Apparently the six 50 mgs was more suitable. However the F4U5 which was roughly contemperaneous with the Sea Fury was all cannon armed. The F8F was originally armed with four MGs but later was switched to cannon.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 22, 2010)

zoomar said:


> However, the fact remains that the USAAF was virtually alone in retaining machine guns after all other nations switched...


...and if they didn't work for them, they wouldn't have retained them either; fighter vs fighter, 6 x .50s was a big punch.


----------



## renrich (Mar 22, 2010)

People who are not familiar with the 50 BMG, I believe shortchange it. It is not nearly the same animal as a rifle caliber, not even magnums and elephant rifles. I can only imagine what six-fifties would do converging on the target having seen what a single will do.


----------



## riacrato (Mar 22, 2010)

The Fw 190 had 4 20mm before any 8th air force bomber ever saw european skies. The MG 151 was designed as an allrounder aircraft cannon, never as a anti-heavy-bomber gun.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 22, 2010)

zoomar said:


> ...
> Also, if the main opponent of the Luftwaffe were fighters and not 4-engined bombers, may pilots may have wished for 6 heavy MGs rather than *a single 30mm cannon and 2 15mm*.
> ...



Out of curiosity: what fighter carried one 30mm and 2 x 15mm (simultaneusly, of course)?


----------



## davebender (Mar 22, 2010)

I don't think anyone is underestimating the .50cal machinegun. But the fact remains they don't have nearly the destructive effect of 4 x 20mm cannon or a 30mm cannon. That makes a difference in boom zoom combat where you may only land 1 or 2 hits during a high speed pass.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Mar 23, 2010)

Fighter vs bomber, the cannon is better. Bigger, slower targets, much more likely to get slower firing rounds onto target. And they cause more damage, which is needed on the bombers.

Fighter vs fighter, the large caliber machine gun is better. A much smaller, more agile, harder to hit target. Volume of fire is more important. Multiple rounds from a .50 will certainly do damage. Even if you don't "kill" the enemy plane, he will likely try to disengage and go home to lick his wounds. (if the plane makes it home) But the plane is put out of that battle, so the weapon was affective.

I think the old handgun saying " I'd rather hit with a .22, than miss with a .45" comes to mind.


----------



## riacrato (Mar 23, 2010)

Disagree strongly. No evidence that 4x20mm was in any way inferior to 6x .50cal in the dogfighting role.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 23, 2010)

MikeGazdik said:


> Fighter vs bomber, the cannon is better. Bigger, slower targets, much more likely to get slower firing rounds onto target. And they cause more damage, which is needed on the bombers.
> 
> Fighter vs fighter, the large caliber machine gun is better. A much smaller, more agile, harder to hit target. Volume of fire is more important. Multiple rounds from a .50 will certainly do damage. Even if you don't "kill" the enemy plane, he will likely try to disengage and go home to lick his wounds. (if the plane makes it home) But the plane is put out of that battle, so the weapon was affective.
> 
> I think the old handgun saying " I'd rather hit with a .22, than miss with a .45" comes to mind.



also some 20 mm have high volume of fire and a (limited) multiple hits from a 20 was sure destroyed fighter


----------



## zoomar (Mar 23, 2010)

renrich said:


> Quite a few Hellcats were armed with mixed cannon and mgs and a number of Corsairs were all cannon armed. Apparently the six 50 mgs was more suitable. However the F4U5 which was roughly contemperaneous with the Sea Fury was all cannon armed. The F8F was originally armed with four MGs but later was switched to cannon.



The fact that late war or post war US types such as the F8F and F4U5 adopted the same 4x20mm cannon armament layout as the British Hawkers (Temepest, Typhoon, Fury, etc) helps show that 4x20 cannon is probably the most versatile all-round fighter armament - and even the USN came around to this way of thinking. Sufficient RoF and number of barrels for effective dogfighting, yet packing the punch needed to damage key aircraft structures.


----------



## zoomar (Mar 23, 2010)

riacrato said:


> The Fw 190 had 4 20mm before any 8th air force bomber ever saw european skies. The MG 151 was designed as an allrounder aircraft cannon, never as a anti-heavy-bomber gun.



True, but the Fw-190 was designed with potential European theatre fighters in mind (self-sealing fuel tanks, armor, strongly built, etc - as well as large multiengined British bombers). Further evidence, in fact, that the early decision to upgun the Fw-190 to a four-cannon standard (plus the two MGs) created a very versatile fighter, excellent in fighter vs fighter combat and mid-altitude bomber interception.

The four and six .50's mounted on most USN and USAAF types were indeed powerful enough to damage and destroy fighters, but I remain convinced that this standard was in part kept because the Americans never had to face a determined or effective bombing campaign, because they could easily take down most poorly protected Japanese fighters and bombers, and because they proved to be acceptable (although probably not ideal) against the well protected Fw-190, Bf-110 and Me-410 heavy zestorers they encountered in Europe in conditions of general US air superiority. I'd argue that only with the P-47 D, with its eight .50 cals, did the USAAF have a fighter that equalled the hitting power of the Fw-190.


----------



## Glider (Mar 23, 2010)

zoomar said:


> I'd argue that only with the P-47 D, with its eight .50 cals, did the USAAF have a fighter that equalled the hitting power of the Fw-190.



Sorry but the firepower of a P47 was about equal to a Spit with the E wing. The 190 had another couple of cannon.

Most people agree that the 151 was equal to the Hispano II used by the RAF so in short, the P47 was well behind the FW 190 in its firepower.


----------



## renrich (Mar 23, 2010)

The points which I think are ignored by the cannon advocates are: The US fighters with 50 cals were mostly more long ranged than the other combatant's fighters and thus were more exposed to combat for a longer time. They could carry more ammo and had longer firing times. An escort fighter with no ammo is almost useless. The 50 cals were adequate in use against the EAs that were encountered in both the the ETO and PTO and their faster rate of fire, higher down range velocity and longer firing time made it easier to get hits. If a pilot has twice the firing time in his guns, he is more likely to hold the trigger down longer and make hits more likely.

There is no question that a hit from a cannon can be more lethal than a hit from a 50 cal but neither weapon's projectile is infallible. There are plenty of examples where US fighters received multiple hits from cannon and came home. I think an analogy that shows how a lighter caliber weapon is superior because of ROF and velocity is the Mig 15 which was armed with two 20 mms and one 30 mm. I have read that the 30 mm in the Mig was largely ineffective against the F86 and in Viet Nam, whereas the faster firing and higher velocity 20 mms did most of the damage.

The fact is that the AAF continued to use the 50 cal BMG in it's jets until well after WW2. The USN used 20 mms in Corsairs and Hellcats that were dedicated night fighters where the target was probably a slow flying bomber or recon plane, not a fighter. 

An example of how the lower ammo supply of a cannon armed AC limited the usefulness of a fighter is the early war A6M with only 60 rounds for each of it's 20mms. At Midway, the effectiveness of the CAP of the Kido Butai was heavily influenced by the need of the Zeros to land and rearm.

To me, another analogy to the 50 BMG versus cannon discussion is the choice of shotgun shells when hunting geese and doves. Most hunters hunting doves, a small and fast moving target, use 7.5s or 8s because the density of the pattern makes it easier to get hits and those small shot are adequate to bring down a dove. Hunting geese you go to number 2s because the number 2 is adequate to bring down the goose. That number two is more than adequate to bring down doves but the pattern is much less dense and that pattern would make it much harder to obtain a hit. I believe that we all tend to think of aircraft weapons in WW2 creating a very small impact point at the point of convergence at the optimum range but the fact is that there are many factors which cause the projectiles to spread into something more like a shotgun pattern. The denser the pattern the more likely to get a lethal hit.


----------



## Glider (Mar 23, 2010)

The argument that US fighters with 0.5 were longer ranged than fighters with 20mm, is with the exception of the P38, is a fallacy. 
The guns were synchronised to a certain distance, it varied and to a degree was a personal choice but for the sake of the example lets say it was 300 yards.
At 300 yards the guns are synchronised to a point, it goes without saying that at 600 yards the shells will be the same distance apart as the guns are on the firing aircraft. At much over that, you can blaze away all day and not hit a thing as the shells are getting further apart and you would be lucky to hit a wingtip. Some shells will hit because of the scatter and forces on the wing causing it to flex but there is no concentration of fire. Indeed in this situation the 20mm is better as a couple of random 50 bullets will probably do little if any damage but one 20mm is likely to damage whatever it hits.
For obvious reasons the P38 with its centerline guns is a different thing altogether.

To this should be added the well known fact that the vast majority of all pilots of all nations had to be close to hit anything in the first place. 

I understood that USN Night fighters sometimes had the 20mm, because they had to get a first time kill and the firepower needed to be upped. If for whatever reason the target bomber escapes the first shot it was very difficult to get it in your sights a second time as it will evade. The workload in a WW2 single seat night fighter cockpit against a target that is evading you, was such that it was likely to get away. 

Where I do totally agree with Renrich is on:-
a) For long ranged escort missions you need a decent firing time as you don't want to hundreds of miles behind the lines and no ammunition. Generally speaking the .50 had the advantage, there were a few fighters that could match the firing time of the Mustang and P47 but they were few and far between
b) The .50 was more than sufficient against the targets they had to face.

Because of these two reasons the 50 M2 was an excellent weapon for the task it was asked to do.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 23, 2010)

US Air Force found in Korea that keeping the .50 had been a mistake, even at the higher rate of fire of the M-3 guns. The Air Force had also given up on the .50 as bomber destroying armament as shown by the SIX 20mm cannon armament of early F-89s

Many early FW 190s carried 2 different types of 20mm cannon. The MG FFs had a lower rate of fire, a lower MV and a much lower ammo capacity. Using guns with 3 different MV and trajectories in the same plane may sound impressive but does little for actual results.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 23, 2010)

The fast moving agile hard to hit fighter plane target is a myth. In actuality over 90% of fighter vs fighter kills were on completely unsuspecting targets flying straight and level, ie 'bounce' situations. The 109 shot down more fighters than any other plane, and did it primarily with one cannon and two machine guns. 

The argument that the .50 was adequate is no more relavent in this discussion than the argument that the .303 was adequate in BoB. Sure they both got the job done, but there is no doubt that a more powerful weapon would have done it better. Both weapons might have been adequate, but they were not optimum. 

The fact that the .50 was retained by the US air forces when other nations were switching to cannon is not a convincing argument. The US is not immune to making less than optimum choices in weaponry. The 7.62 and 5.56 for example, both used by NATO at US insistence when other countries were looking at 'intermediate' 6mm rounds and which people who know are once again advocating. 

The .50 was still in use in Korea, where it proved to be barely adequate and was subsequently dropped from use in air to air combat. (as previously posted)

For another hunting analogy (the other end of the spectrum from doves), consider W.D.M.' Karamojo' Bell, who shot 300 elephants with a 6.5 Mannlicher. It was adequate to the task, but it was not optimum.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 23, 2010)

claidemore said:


> The fast moving agile hard to hit fighter plane target is a myth. In actuality over 90% of fighter vs fighter kills were on completely unsuspecting targets flying straight and level, ie 'bounce' situations. The 109 shot down more fighters than any other plane, and did it primarily with one cannon and two machine guns.



When more 109s are made than any other fighter (by far) that means that they are going to engage in more combats (again, pretty much by far) which should result in more planes shot down in total numbers. The statistic that the 109 shot down more planes doesn't really tell us much. Even a statistic of planes shot down per 1000 planes manufactured doesn't tell us a whole lot considering all the other variables.


----------



## Timppa (Mar 23, 2010)

claidemore said:


> ,In actuality over 90% of fighter vs fighter kills were on completely unsuspecting targets flying straight and level, ie 'bounce' situations



You have a source for this ?


----------



## JoeB (Mar 23, 2010)

But along with the concept of optimum v adequate goes, how far from optimum? Our friend Tony Williams (a true expert on a/c guns) has really influenced a lot of people with the paper on his site about comparative aramament effectiveness. But I'm quite convinced the issue is blown *MASSIVELY* out of proportion by now, when the question is F6F v Fw190 and the discussion ends up 'but what about that terrible .50's armament'.

Korea is a good comparison to make for two reasons:
1. in the situation (near Mach combat) and targets (jets tougher than props) there was a lot of opinion among USAF combat pilots that .50 had become suboptimal (though it was still not unanimous, and also the eventual alternative was a very high performing 20mm by WWII standards). In WWII there was almost no opinion against .50. Why were WWII USAAF pilots so much more naive or 'NIH' minded than USAF ones in Korea on this issue? or a simpler explanation is that .50 was only pretty slightlly less than from optimum for the circumstnances and mission in WWII time, maybe not clearly objectively away from optimum at all, when all the subtleties are taken into account, with all due respect to Tony W.

2. The re-examination of armament in Korea came in context of a fighter-fighter kill ratio of around 6-7:1 in favor of the .50 armed a/c according to each side's loss records, perceived to be around 10:1 from the US side at the time. Both those numbers, but especially the first, are quite high by WWII standards (the difference between real and claimed ratio is narrow by WWII standards, also). An actual 6+ ratio, with top of line enemy fighter as the overwhelmingly most common target, was not common in WWII and rarer still to have been maintained over such a long period (of course it varied back and forth in Korea but wasn't less than 3 over any sustained period). This doesn't mean the .50 was really optimum by the early 1950's, but it's again context, v blowing the issue out of all proportion.

I think spending much time on armament when predicting F6F/F4U results in ETO is ridiculous frankly, because not only blowing out of proportion but other US a/c with the same armament fared well in ETO, and in many cases no better in PTO than the naval fighters.

Joe


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 23, 2010)

In understand that in Korea, it was common for Migs to return to base with lots of .50 holes. During WWII, the USN determined that a 20mm AP had 2-1/2 to 3 times the destructive result as a .50 API, round for round, depending on range. 

In Korea, with the more robust airframes and skins, the 20mm may have exceeded the WWII margin of superiority.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 23, 2010)

JoeB said:


> But along with the concept of optimum v adequate goes, how far from optimum? Our friend Tony Williams (a true expert on a/c guns) has really influenced a lot of people with the paper on his site about comparative aramament effectiveness. But I'm quite convinced the issue is blown *MASSIVELY* out of proportion by now, when the question is F6F v Fw190 and the discussion ends up 'but what about that terrible .50's armament'...



People skip the conclusion of one of mr. Tony Williams' articles, and that conclusion is roughly "while US fighters could've used some 'better' weapon, their .50 cals were up for their task".


----------



## JoeB (Mar 23, 2010)

DAVIDICUS said:


> In understand that in Korea, it was common for Migs to return to base with lots of .50 holes.


One issue there though is often really? Even at the time US pilots were often under impression this had occurred (they'd hit MiG's a lot but didn't appear to go down), and seems confirmed by Soviet accounts, publicized much later, giving examples of lots of hits but MiG survived. But, one of the Russian language works on air war in Korea is pretty much just a transcription of the combat summaries of the Soviet MiG units (unfortunately only covering the first several months, subseqent volumes by this author never appeared  ) and there aren't actually many cases mentioned of a/c with lots of holes coming back, though often the number of hits to a/c is mentioned. And some involved a fair number of hits to returning a/c, but not a lot relative to the several dozen air combat losses in the period (as mentioned in the book, which track pretty well though of course not perfectly with US claims in the same period). And none of those a/c were hit dozens of times as mentioned in some memoirs which in turn have appeared in MiG-15 books in English in recent years. I guess the numbers of hits might have grown in the imagination over time . And in other cases in the transcribed combat reports, for example, a MiG deadstcked hit just 3 times, engine ko'd.

Of course fast firing (6*1200rpm M3 .50 cal) light caliber armament would be expected to wing but not knock down more a/c than a slower firing heavier caliber armament even if it was equally effective. The question would be how many. I don't view the descriptions in the book I mentioned as the end of this story but rather IMO the .50 cal v MiG issue really needs more data to nail it down. 

Joe


----------



## renrich (Mar 23, 2010)

Glider, I hope you did not misunderstand my post when I said the US fighters were mostly longer ranged. I was not talking about the armament but about the fact that the fighters were able to go longer distances. I fail to understand why the critics of the US fifty cal armed fighters, which shot down many many EA in all theaters of the war, can't admit that the longer firing times, compared to cannon armed AC, were a substantial advantage. The early P51s carried 125 rounds of 20 mm ammo for each gun which gave them a firing time of 12.5 seconds. The P51s with 50 cals carried enough ammo for 20 seconds of firing time. If I am in a bomber I would surely feel better that my escort fighters were carrying ammo for more firing time rather than less, especially when the 50 cals had proven to be very effective against enemy fighters.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 23, 2010)

JoeB said:


> Of course fast firing (6*1200rpm M3 .50 cal) light caliber armament would be expected to wing but not knock down more a/c than a slower firing heavier caliber armament even if it was equally effective. The question would be how many. I don't view the descriptions in the book I mentioned as the end of this story but rather IMO the .50 cal v MiG issue really needs more data to nail it down.
> 
> Joe



I agree with you. Lots of talk about Mig 15s landing with bullet holes, but how many F-86s landed without them. In other words how many were fired upon but were missed. In a one second burst the F-86 will fire 120 rounds, the Mig 15 will fire 34. So, considering the muzzle velocity of the 50 cal is about 30% higher than the opposing projectile, thus easier to aim, there is almost four times the probability of a strike for an equal firing time for the F-86. We don't know what the probability of kill given a strike for either weapon so we guess. The Navy says the 20 mm was 2.5 times more damaging than the 50 cal, if that relates directly to a probability of a kill, then I would say the f-86 was more effectively armed. Complexing the issue is the vulnerability of different sections of the aircraft. A single 50 cal bullet through the engine section of the Mig would almost assuredly incapacitate the aircraft as would a 23 mm. However, one or two 23 mm could take off a wing whereas a good number of 50 cals would be required.

An interesting side note is that the F-86 had about 14 seconds of ammunition, the Mig had about 6 second, according to wikipedia data.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Mar 24, 2010)

Talking about the Korean air war, in regards to WWII battles is not relevant. If we can go forward, we can go backwards. In WW1, a pursuit aircraft with 4 - .30 caliber weapons would have been devistating. But the .30 caliber weapon was proven to be too small in WWII. The volume of fire was great, but the destructive ability of the round was not good for the newer stressed skin aircraft. The .50 caliber was somewhere in between the volume of fire of the .30 cal, and the destructive ability of the 20mm.

And again, this really only applies to the Allies. The allied fighters did not have to face the mass armadas of heavy bombers. The mission was different. IF, and only IF, the Luftwaffe or Japanese didn't have to face bombers in large numbers, and only had to worry about fighting other fighters , those air forces would not have needed to rely so much on cannon.

There is no question that a 20mm cannon causes much more damage.

I think if you look at it closely, the USAAC agrees with this. ( not that I don't believe they had many wrong perceptions of the air war in pre-war doctrine) The one fighter that was really designed from the outset to intercept and destroy bombers, the P-38 Lightning, had the 20mm cannon installed.

And, I cannot recall in the many autobiographies I have read from WWII, any pilot complaining about the .50 calibers not getting the job done.


----------



## Glider (Mar 24, 2010)

renrich said:


> Glider, I hope you did not misunderstand my post when I said the US fighters were mostly longer ranged. I was not talking about the armament but about the fact that the fighters were able to go longer distances. I fail to understand why the critics of the US fifty cal armed fighters, which shot down many many EA in all theaters of the war, can't admit that the longer firing times, compared to cannon armed AC, were a substantial advantage. The early P51s carried 125 rounds of 20 mm ammo for each gun which gave them a firing time of 12.5 seconds. The P51s with 50 cals carried enough ammo for 20 seconds of firing time. If I am in a bomber I would surely feel better that my escort fighters were carrying ammo for more firing time rather than less, especially when the 50 cals had proven to be very effective against enemy fighters.



Whoops it looks like I did misunderstand part of your posting. Apologies.
As you can see I did agree with the point that you made that the 50 cals were a good compromise between effectiveness and firing time, says he trying to save face.


----------



## renrich (Mar 24, 2010)

Glider, not a problem. I can see where the post was misleading and rather unclearly worded. A common problem with me. Perhaps the best armed single engine fighter of all might have been the Hellcat that had two 20 mms and four 50 cals. The 20 mms had 225 rounds each for a firing time of 22.5 seconds. The four MGs carried 400 rounds each for a firing time of 26.7 seconds. O f course the Hellcat had a huge wing with lots of space inside.

In Dean's book, upon close reading he makes an interesting point or two. Some of the US fighters with all wing guns had the guns synchronised in a box pattern instead of a converging at one point pattern. Another observation was that the gun sight had to be set to allign with a certain flight condition since the pitch angle of the fighter varied with speed and altitude. Some average condition, such as, say, the pitch attitude for two thirds maximum speed at a medium altitude, might be selected.


----------



## Glider (Mar 24, 2010)

There is no doubt that the Hellcat with 2 x 20 and 4 x 0.5 was formidable the only problem being that you had as much chance of firing 225 rounds through a US 20mm without a jam, as I have of going to the moon. OK I exaggerate a bit, but you get the picture.
I have always said that my personal choice would be the Fiat G55 3 x 20mm with 240 RPG in the wings and a massive 400 rounds for the centreline 20mm.
The question about synchronisation is an interesting one which is why I said that it was almost a case of personal choice. I have heard of all sorts of combinations. The standard RAF large box pattern that was soon abandoned, all the guns set at a point, four guns at one point and four at a further point, all guns set at one point with tracer in two of the guns adjusted so that the tracer did match the centre point, paired guns at different ranges, small box patterns, mg's at a short range 20mm at a longer range. As I said, its almost a case of take your pick.


----------



## claidemore (Mar 24, 2010)

Timppa said:


> You have a source for this ?



Yup, combat reports, gun camera footage, pilot anecdotes. I'll admit 90% is a generalization, but it's not far off the mark. 

If you go to YouTube and pick a random sample of 10 gun camera clips,you'll be lucky to find one or two where the e/a takes violent evasive action. Most are straight and level or in a slight bank. You mostly only see a hard turn after the victim receives a burst, ie the bounce situation I referred to earlier. 

When you run through a list of combat reports there will be aprox 7 where the e/a didn't know the attacker was there, 2 or 3 where they simply dive away and the combat ends up with straight and level shots at varying ranges once they run out of altitude, and an occasinal combat where they actually engage in a dogfight with both pilots in an agressive state of mind. 

Twisting, turning, snap shooting dogfights were not the norm in higher speed WWII air fighting and the perception that it was comes from games and sims, not actual combat.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 24, 2010)

Glider said:


> ...
> I have always said that my personal choice would be the Fiat G55 3 x 20mm with 240 RPG in the wings and a massive 400 rounds for the centreline 20mm.
> ...



Excellent choice - always liked it


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2010)

I'd agree with Claidmore as well.


----------



## renrich (Mar 24, 2010)

I agree that in fighter versus fighter combat, the vast majority of kills took place on zero or low deflection shots from the rear when the target did not see the attacker. I believe that kills on bombers was a different story and obviously when a bomber damaged or shot down a fighter it was different.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 24, 2010)

renrich said:


> In Dean's book, upon close reading he makes an interesting point or two. Some of the US fighters with all wing guns had the guns synchronised in a box pattern instead of a converging at one point pattern. Another observation was that the gun sight had to be set to allign with a certain flight condition since the pitch angle of the fighter varied with speed and altitude. Some average condition, such as, say, the pitch attitude for two thirds maximum speed at a medium altitude, might be selected.



This is a bit confusing. I have heard fighter pilots on TV state that they requested the pattern for their guns so that I would guess many were personalized, which makes sense, at least for the experienced pilots.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 24, 2010)

renrich said:


> In Dean's book, upon close reading he makes an interesting point or two. Some of the US fighters with all wing guns had the guns synchronised in a box pattern instead of a converging at one point pattern. Another observation was that the gun sight had to be set to allign with a certain flight condition since the pitch angle of the fighter varied with speed and altitude. Some average condition, such as, say, the pitch attitude for two thirds maximum speed at a medium altitude, might be selected.



This is a bit confusing. I have heard fighter pilots on TV state that they requested the pattern for their guns so that I would guess many were personalized, which makes sense, at least for the experienced pilots.


----------



## renrich (Mar 25, 2010)

I would guess that there was a SOP in a given squadron for gun convergence patterns until a pilot got a reputation and could individualise his choice.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 25, 2010)

renrich said:


> I would guess that there was a SOP in a given squadron for gun convergence patterns until a pilot got a reputation and could individualise his choice.



Sounds reasonable. Maybe there is some experience out there.


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 28, 2010)

if you wanted you K 14 gyroscopic computing gunsite to work guns would have had to be set to a specific range. it had an analog computer with would figure range and lead by moving the ring to the wingspan of the EA....if you were in a turn ior pulling any Gs the gyro would adjust the pipper. in alot of the camera footage of tail shots you dont even see the attacked pilot making any evasive moves...even after getting hit. which says he was possibly hit before, or ??? a lot of the reports i read talk about bouncing bandits but most went into a chase. 

Mustang Encounter Reports
P-47 Encounter Reports

now these may be a sampling of the more exciting reports....


----------



## timmo (Mar 31, 2010)

SOP for harmonisation?

Yes - in our squadron - No 1 - before I joined - it was brought down to 250 yards.

'Twas SOP for all my operational time.

= Tim


----------



## strike2010 (Jun 6, 2010)

between american fighters and germans best i bet fockwulf will best hellcats and fockwulf vs corsair in a fair matchs. BUT how about pitting japanese KI-84 against fockwulf or messhermit? ki-84 was in late stages of the war in pacific so its exploits is not maximize at the same time japanese arforce has gotten short on best pilots but KI-84 got its best against corsair downing 3 and put some heavy damage in a 30 minute war against corsair of gunter hill carrier. 
i think ki-84 and fockwulf is interesting it could be a fair match but i my idea is ki-84 manueverability, weapons,agility and top speed will outclass fockwulf and more terrifying against messhermits.


----------



## renrich (Jun 7, 2010)

Uh, what did he say?


----------



## looney (Jun 8, 2010)

in short? In WW2 the 6x .50 where good enough to shoot down a fighter. But you would need about 2-3 seconds worth of shooting, which wasn't a problem late war wath less trained opponents. The main reason germans developed bigger guns was to make killing easier. 2 rounds of 30mm would bring a heavie down, I recon 1 round of 30mm would bring a fighter down. The experten of germany would have had enough with a few rounds the novices recuired more.

I personally think the 20mm was the optimum size gun for WW2. Ok rate of fire (600rpm+ ) and hard hititng power (specially the Mine-shells).

Getting back on topic, if the pilots where equal in talent and knew their aircraft limitations the one with the 1st shot would have probably won, same as it was in WW2 and Korea. The aircraft both have it's strong points and it's weaknesses. There is no clear winner.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 8, 2010)

looney said:


> in short? In WW2 the 6x .50 where good enough to shoot down a fighter. But you would need about 2-3 seconds worth of shooting, which wasn't a problem late war wath less trained opponents. The main reason germans developed bigger guns was to make killing easier. 2 rounds of 30mm would bring a heavie down, I recon 1 round of 30mm would bring a fighter down. The experten of germany would have had enough with a few rounds the novices recuired more.
> 
> I personally think the 20mm was the optimum size gun for WW2. Ok rate of fire (600rpm+ ) and hard hititng power (specially the Mine-shells).
> 
> Getting back on topic, if the pilots where equal in talent and knew their aircraft limitations the one with the 1st shot would have probably won, same as it was in WW2 and Korea. The aircraft both have it's strong points and it's weaknesses. There is no clear winner.



Usually the clear winner was the pilot which spotted the other first, attained a tactical advange, and pursued the victim.


----------



## looney (Jun 8, 2010)

@drgondog, I know... I wanted to make it a bit clearer, reducing some more variables. For example: If you spot an enemy at your 6 o'clock high, you most likely screwed even if he doesn't spot you directly, he most likely will before you can get a better position.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 8, 2010)

[


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 11, 2010)

Great post Bill lol...


----------



## drgondog (Jun 11, 2010)

lesofprimus said:


> Great post Bill lol...



In retrospect - probably my best post..


----------



## Nikademus (Jun 11, 2010)

succint-ness in internet posting is to be admired and appreciated.


----------



## wwii:)aircraft (Jul 26, 2010)

I know i just coming out of nowhere, but I'd say the both the fw 190 and bf 109 were superior to the hellcat and corsair.
Bf 109 was superior to the hellcat while the Fw 190 was superior to the corsair

bf 109F4 vs F6F-5
109 was faster, climbed better, and turned better at high speeds (and high altitude)
the hellcat dived better, had a superior armament, and turned better at low speeds (and low altitude)

G6 vs f6f-5
basically the same thing as before except the hellcat was increasingly more maneuverable

any bf 109 variant after the G6 outperformed the hellcat in every way except for a turn and dive

F4/G6 vs F4u
The F4 out turned and out climbed the corsair at all altitudes
The G6 out turn the corsair above 20,000ft and outgunned the corsair
The corsair was faster and had a superior climb

Fw 190A vs f6f
Fw 190A was faster, barely dived better, rolled better and had a superior armament
The f6f only true advantage was maneuverability

Fw 190A vs F4u-1
Fw 190A had a superior armament, and roll
F4u was faster, and barely dived better

id say both were overall tied in a turn and in a climb

as for armaments id say the cannons are better
the german fighters had the 30mm mk 108 and 20mm mg 151/20 cannons both of which the ROF were impressively fast (the mg 151 actually had a faster ROF than the m2 .50cal)

it only took one shot from a mk 108 and a few shots from a mg 151/20 to take down a hellcat or corsair
even though the m2 .50cal had more ammunition and overall had a faster ROF, both the 30mm and 20mm (particularly the 20mm) were more versatile doing a better job of taking down bombers, tanks and ships as well as fighters.

but more ammunition would be more fit for long range fighters such as the Hellcat and Corsair, both of which are fighting against very lightly armored japanese aicraft.


----------



## renrich (Jul 26, 2010)

Navy comparison tests between the F4U and F6F against the FW190 showed that both Navy planes if flown to their strengths would defeat the FW190. One key is that if the combat was flown 300 miles from base the FW would have no chance. factor that in to your calculations. How many tanks and ships did the German fighters disable? I submit very few compared to ships disabled by the two navy planes.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 27, 2010)

renrich said:


> How many tanks and *ships* did the German fighters disable? I submit very few compared to ships disabled by the two navy planes.


I would imagine 
there's an element of opportunity missing for the Fw190 here. I'd like to see the comparison F6F vs Fw190, I can't see the Hellcat besting the Focke-wulf unless the German pilot wants to start turning with the American fighter.


----------



## renrich (Jul 27, 2010)

Read on the Williams site the comparison between the FW and the F6F3. " The FW could not follow the F6F in any maneuver and the F6F could follow the FW in all maneuvers."


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 27, 2010)

renrich said:


> Read on the Williams site the comparison between the FW and the F6F3. " The FW could not follow the F6F in any maneuver and the F6F could follow the FW in all maneuvers."


Sorry
but I can't see the F6F following the Fw190 in an evasive snap-roll

I can't see it outclimbing the Fw190, it's not as fast as the Fw190 and I'd need to get home and see some figures to verify combat acceleration; the F6F was R28-powered but it was also a big bird.


----------



## Just Schmidt (Jul 27, 2010)

The british used both the hellcat and the corsair, and while it would surprise me if they didn't use the hellcat there, then I'm certain they used the corsair in ETO.

So this thread needn't be all theoretical.


----------



## renrich (Jul 27, 2010)

Firstly the F6F saw combat in the ETO and it seemed OK but the sample is small. Likewise the F4F with the same limitations. It appears that the Corsair saw no combat although it was used by the FAA in the ETO.

I have thought a little about what I would like to say on this subject so here goes.

I joined this forum several years ago with a lot of half baked opinions and knowledge. I "knew" that my favorite fighter, the Corsair overall was the best fighter in WW2. In some ways that could be true but I have learned a lot in those several years by reading posts on this forum and by doing research in books and on the internet.

I can go on the internet or look at a book and look up the Corsair and find:
Vmax-446 mph
Service ceiling-41000 feet plus
Range-more than 1000 miles
Could carry a 4000 pound bomb load
Had one of the best roll rates of any fighter-360 degrees in a trifle over two seconds

Open and shut case. Name another fighter that could do that. Right? well, maybe.

The problem is that those figures are for the F4U4 which only saw combat in the last few months of the war and they only portray the AC in optimum conditions. It sure could not go 1000 miles with a 4000 pound bomb load or go 446 mph except when in perfect condition and with WEP at it's critical altitude and that for only a few minutes.

The F4U1 which first saw service in February, 1943, at it's best could not do 400 mph which was slower than the XF4U.

So when we compare the FW190 with the Hellcat or Corsair or any other airplanes we must ask, Which Corsair or Hellcat or FW. At what altitude? How far from base? With what load? What are the tactical conditions? And finally, who is at the controls? Opinions are nice but they need to be informed opinions.

Even informed opinions are sometimes screwy. Eric Brown a rather famous FAA and test pilot flew against the FW190 in combat. He also flew captured versions of it as well as Hellcats and Corsairs. He liked the Hellcat and FW190 and held the Corsair in low regard. In comparing the aircraft he said that ACM with the Hellcat versus the FW190, it would be close with the outcome determined by pilot skill. He said the Corsair would be defeated by the FW190. I have never read anywhere that the Corsair was not superior to the Hellcat in ACM. Go figure.

The USN, in a comparison with the Hellcat, Corsair and FW190 found that none of the AC were clearly superior to the others except in certain characteristics with the Corsair having an edge over the Hellcat everwhere. Using modern terms they said that both Hellcat and Corsair should use angles tactics rather than energy tactics to defeat the FW190. The FW could choose whether to accept combat if at certain altitudes. It is also clear that both Hellcat and Corsair were far superior to the FW190 if a long way from base. When the engine quits running a fighter is hurting.

If one gets into the art of ACM, it suddenly dawns that if a skilled pilot in any of the premier fighters in WW2 is aware of the attacker, he can, if he wishes make it impossible for a successful attack to be made, except under extremely adverse tactical conditons. A P47 caught on the deck with no speed is hurting against a FW190. An FW 190 at 30000 feet is hurting against a P47. A P51 pilot who keeps his head is pretty safe against an Me262 as long as he can see the Me262 before the Me is in firing position. All that stuff about whose Vmax is higher can be offset by maneuvering and awareness. And a Vmax difference of ten or twenty mph is usually not tactically significant especially depending on altiude.

Bottom line is that pilot skill usually determined who won unless the tactical situation was terrible for someone. Even a rookie in a P51 had a ME262 at a disadvantage if the ME had his gear down and was out of fuel.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 28, 2010)

We must be careful when comparing aircraft from printed data. Quite often we find that the tech/test data are based on different criteria. A review of the available data on these aircraft reflects the following gross weight used in performance evaluation. American aircraft are most often evaluated at a “fighter weight”. This weight is usually based on aircraft configured for air-to-air fighting with full normal internal fuel. American aircraft are also, typically, provided with greater internal fuel capacity compared to its German counterpart (fighter based internal fuel for the F4U is 178 gallons compared to 106 gallons for the Bf-109 and 138 gallons for the Fw-190). Some German aircraft performance evaluations are at a fighter weight, others may be at different weight. 

In reviewing data included in “America’s Hundred Thousand” (AHT) and in “Spitfireperformance” (spf) on these aircraft, I found the following weight comparisons of test weight, empty weight, and loaded weight (test weight minus empty weight).

F4U-1 test weight 12,039 lbs (AHT), 12,162 lbs (spf), empty weight 8762 lbs, loaded weight 3277 lbs.

F6F-5 test weight 12,740 lbs (AHT), 12,420 lbs (spf), empty weight 9079 lbs, loaded weight 3341 lbs

Bf-109G-6 test weight 7187 lbs (spf), empty weight 6050 lbs, loaded weight 1137 lbs

Fw-190A-5 test weight 8818 lbs (4000 kg) (spf), empty weight 7942 lbs, loaded weight 876 lbs.

It obvious that the test were not good for comparisons, certainly in the maneuvering area. The weight of the Fw seems very low, maybe strickly a test bird. The loaded weight for a fighter should be close for the same mission.

In my opinion, to accurately determine the performance of aircraft all things must be equal. For instance these four aircraft should have enough fuel on board to fly identical combat profiles and all have, say, 15 sec of ammo available. 

There are a couple of interesting items in the Navy test of the F4U, F6F, and the Fw-190. First is that the Fw-190A-4 is much lighter than the Fw-190A-5, and the F4U was carrying 540 lbs more fuel than the Fw, and the F6F was carrying 660 lbs more fuel than the Fw. This would have made significant difference in maneuver.

Over all, I think the F4U-1 and the Fw-190 would have been formidable foes and the 109 would have advantage at the higher altitudes. The F6F-3 would have been at a disadvantage. The F4U-1D, when it came out, should have had a clear advantage over all.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2010)

I have to agree with davparlr here. I don't think one can just simply compare these aircraft straight out. There are just too many variables. 

At what altitude, or at what speed for example? Pilot skill really comes into play when we talk about the top fighters anyhow.


----------



## renrich (Jul 29, 2010)

Dav, very good and informative post. It is fun to do all these comparisons but in the end, they are somewhat meaningless and useless.. They do force us to do some research in depth. And in the end, as Chris says, pilot skill plays a major role.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 29, 2010)

Pilot skill needs to be left out of a comparison
otherwise equalising all of the other variables becomes meaningless. Pilots, for comparisons sake, need to be of notionally equal competence and with no speed/altitude/other advantage over his adversary. If you fail to do this, you are comparing the pilots, not the aircraft.


----------



## Just Schmidt (Jul 29, 2010)

It is indeed a point that aircraft never fought each other in the 'laboratory' (and have nobody at all heard about any 'live' combat between our birds?).

To complicate matters different nations used different qalities of fuel, whereas I assume the controlled tests use the same for all aircrafts involved. To this we can add the different tactical circumstances as mentioned by Renrich.

And though pilot skill generally should be left out, it remains to be considered that some aircraft definitely were more forgiving to fly than others, and therefore better or worse for pilots of differing skills and experience, and maybe even temperament.

The last point leeds me to hazard my mostly intuitional assessment of the four aircraft, where I believe the F6F5 was outclassed by the others, but probably the easiest to fly. I suspect that the Fw 190A-5 and F4U1 were about equally superior to the rest, though the Bf 109G-6 had an advantage flying top cover, at least if the top is 8km+.

Though these comparision threads in the end hardly can prove anything conclusively (exept for the obvious), they are fun to read and a lot of facts I never was aware of pops up in passing, making them as useful as any historical discussions can be.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 29, 2010)

Just Schmidt said:


> To this we can add the different tactical circumstances as mentioned by Renrich.
> 
> And though pilot skill generally should be left out, it remains to be considered that some aircraft definitely were more forgiving to fly than others


If you want to know why an aircraft that should have done better in a particular theatre, didn't, then different tactical circumstances would need to be investigated, run them anywhere else and you are skewing your results; just as biassing the pilot skill only compares the pilots, introducing tactical advantages only highlights the tactically advantaged, regardless of how good his 'plane is.

If you want to know who's running the best ship, they need to become lab rats, it's a controlled environment. Test them in as many flight regimes as you like but test them equally and see who fares best; the 'plane with the most ticks in boxes is likely the better combat aircraft. Done dilligently, the forgiving nature or otherwise of a particular aircraft should be revealed anyway.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 29, 2010)

All the comments about pilot ability is correct. I perceive that the relationship of a pilot to his aircraft is similar to a coach to his football team. Each team has its strengths and its weaknesses and the successful coach knows how to effectively use his teams strengths against his opponent's weaknesses. An aircraft has many features that affect it use in combat, airspeed, climb rate, acceleration, turning ability, firepower, armor, range, diving ability, roll rate, stability, armament, pilot visibility, size, producability, reliability, survivability and so on. Since some of these factor are counter to others, for instance stability often is lost with increased roll rate, there is no perfect fighter aircraft. Also, some capabilities are more important than others, e.g. much more technology has gone into making fighters faster that increasing turn rate. Aircraft are also designed to differing criteria. Like the football team, fighters have strengths and weaknesses. But some football teams have more strengths and fewer weaknesses than opposing teams and therefore the coach's job is much easier. So too, is the fighter. Some fighters have more tools for the pilot to work with. This certainly makes the pilots tasks easier but does not mean he will win every time. All this makes comparisons outside the mission assignment as difficult. Very few would argue with the statement that the P-51 was the best long range escort fighter in the war. It had all the tools it needed, high speed, long range, endurance, high altitude performance and fire power. However, it was not the best at low altitude nor for ground attack. So, after all this rambling, comparisons of aircraft superiority really is a discussion on how many tools are available to the pilot of one aircraft than for the pilot of the opposing aircraft for the mission defined.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 29, 2010)

davparlr said:


> ...comparisons of aircraft superiority really is a discussion on how many tools are available to the pilot of one aircraft than for the pilot of the opposing aircraft for the mission defined.


Agreed



Colin1 said:


> ...the 'plane with the most ticks in boxes is likely the better combat aircraft


----------

