Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
For Panther: 102g shell x 4 cannons x 11 rps = 4,49 kg per plane per second. Sabre throws 1/4 more mass, but Panther fires shells, not ball. Advantage Panther, that carries 200 kg of guns vs. 180 kg of Sabre.
Energy transferred to the target is what matters which is also true with all weapons. Weapon fire over time of the Sabre starts out at a higher energy level than the Mig, but it may dissipate faster, or maybe slower. A lot depends on the aerodynamics of the projectile. I am sure someone out there knows.The aircraft that is shoot at don't care about muzzle enegrgy, what he cares is the damage he is about to receive. A bullet that has, say, 20% more muzzle energy is bound to make a hole in aircraft skinning, slightly better than a the bullet with lower muzzle energy. If a weapon system indeed 'spits' more energy than another system, but the effect on target is smaller, that there is no point in boasting with that.
Probability of one hit of the 37mm with a 5% hit probability per projectile is 30%. For hit by the 23mm it is 75%. For both combined is 83%. Maybe not remote but certainly not likely.I'll concur that 37mm shell was far heavier than 23mm, but they were both fired at same velocity, so the disparity in trajectories to 300-400 yds ought to be minimal. I don't see why should be hit by 37mm, 400 rps gun, regarded as remote possibility.
Without having terminal velocity, this is all an approximation. However, I think it does show the power of the six M-3 machine guns and why the AF kept them. Here is another way of looking at it. I have never heard the P-47 being under gunned. You can take the P-47 armament, add 600 rounds per minute, put it on the center line (I read somewhere the Germans thought one gun on the center line was worth two in the wings) and you can get a feel for what was coming out of the nose of a F-86.
take a Hawker Tempest ( usually not considered under gunned), add 480-600rpm (almost a 5th gun) and put it on the center line and that is what is coming out the front of a Panther or could have been coming out the front of a Saber.
A lot depends on whether you know why the Air Ministry stayed with the .303", rather than the .5" (which Leigh-Mallory was pushing for in 1941.) It had nothing to do with weight of shot, but everything to do with numbers. In ballistics tests, it was found that the .5" round was no better at penetrating German armour plate than the .303", and, as it went through the fuselage skin, it was just as liable to tumble as the smaller round.Not comparing the .303 to the .50 of course just wondering why its the same arguments used for the .50 and against .303 when they are being compared to competing heavier weapons.
Part of this superiority of the F-86's armament over the Panther's armament comes from using the wrong numbers. If the Panther used M3 20mm cannon it was using ammunition with 128-130 gram projectiles. The 102 Gram projectiles were usually used in the M-24 gun. the M3 used conventionally primed ammunition while the M24 used electrically primed ammunition so the ammo was not actually interchangeable. The M3's cycle rate is given as 720, 750 and 700-800rpm depending on source. At 720 rpm it is 12 rounds per second. 128gm shell X 4 cannon X 12 rps is 6.14kg per second vs 43 gm projectile X 6 guns X 20rps is 5.16kg per second. About a 19% advantage for the Panther using numbers in the low part of the range and not the absolute highest quoted.
Weight difference could add ammo, maybe close to a second of fire.weight of guns and ammo of the F-86 is 353kg. Weight of the Panthers guns and ammo is 363 kg. F-86 wins this one by under 3%.
Only real advantage for the F-86 is rate of fire and hit probability.
Since I assume the F9F has a similar radar ranging gun sight as the F-86, I didn't think any drop in trajectory would affect probability of hit.Trajectory and time of flight for any practical range ( 600yds or under) is not enough different to get excited about.
Forgive me if I am losing the logic here but if the
Sabre M3 firing 20 rps x 6 = 120 rps. Multiply 43 g per round gives you 5.16 kg per sec
Tempest, Seahawk, Meteor, Vampire etc 4 x Hispano V 12.5 rps x 4 = 50 rps, Multiply 129 g per round gives you 6.45 kg per second
How does this give the F86 more firepower?
I must be missing something, any pointers welcome
PS I am ignoring the much higher HE content of the 20mm which would add considerably to the difference
The AF did not change the F-86 until the M-39 cannon came. The M-39, firing at 1500 r/m and higher muzzle velocity, was MUCH more powerful than the M2 cannon. There also was no comparison to the firepower of M39 armed F-86 and the 50 cal. version.Finally its worth considering if the M3 was so effective why did the USAF change?
Does that sum it up?
Actually no, the projectiles hitting the target and the damage they do is what counts. If we look at an individual event, in this case a timed burst of fire e.g. one second, the important factors are probability of a strike, which is the probability of a strike per projectile calculated with the number of projectiles fired, and probability of damage given a strike, in this case the 20mm being three times more effective than the .50 cal
Here is a repeat of my post on another thread comparing the F-86 to the F9F in firepower, reformatted.
I did run a few simple probability calculations on probability of number of strikes given the probability of a strike for 47 r/sec (F9F) vs.125 r/sec (F-86). This is for a one second burst. Two 20mm rounds are used as a reference.
For 2% probability of a strike per projectile:
Out of 47 attempts, the F9F has a 24% probability of 2 or more 20 mm rounds hitting.
Out of 125 attempts, the F-86 will have 4 or more 50 cal rounds hitting (24%).
For 5% probability of a strike per projectile:
Out of 47 attempts the F9F has a 69% probability of 2 or more rounds hitting.
Out of 125 attempts, For slightly better probability, the F-86 will have 5 or more rounds hitting (75%).
For 10% probability of a strike per projectile:
Out of 47 attempts the F9F has a 96% probability of 2 or more rounds hitting.
Out of 125 attempts, the F-86 will have 7 rounds hitting (97%).
Obviously, the more round fired the higher the probability of hits. As shown here, for increasing probability of hits, the F-86 will deliver more hits, from 2x at 2% probability of a hit to 3.5x at 10%. As the planes get closer, or the pilot more accurate, or the aircraft more stable, etc, the advantage moves in the F-86's direction. As the planes move farther apart, the advantage moves to the 20mm. However, for any distance, the probability of equal hits always falls in favor to the F-86.
Given the Navy analysis of one 20mm equal three .50s, at about 5% probability of strike (five projectiles hitting out of one hundred), the F9F and F-86 are roughly equal in fire power, below 5% probability of strike, the F9F delivers more damage, above that, the F-86 is more effective, at least according to probability.
It also must be noted here that one poster pointed out that the armament of the F-86 is lighter than the F9F, although a couple of seconds less in firing time. Equal being equal, both are probably equal in weight per firepower. I did not check his numbers.
It is apparent to me that the six M-3 machine gun battery on the F-86 was reasonably equal in effectiveness and weight to the four M-2 cannon on the F9F, and for the Korean War, was as state-of-the art as the 20 mms, not just a "tweaked", old gun. I think the claim that the Korean War F-86 was under-gunned is a myth.