Allied airframes, German parts

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Lighthunmust said:
NONSENSE!
Click to expand...

bah! two 12.7mm guns are NOT going to do much to a B-17. unless the German goes head-on and scores direct hits to the cockpit.
but most Germans thought it was suicide to attack a 17 head-on.. and most avoided to do so.
wheras the Mk 108 cannon could dispatch a B-17 with a few hits. zoom boom my friend.
 

Early in the air war, when the B-17 had only a 30. cal machine gun in the nose, a increasing number of LW pilots began making frontal attacks against 8th AF bomber formations with a certain degree of success; As far as I know, the FW-190 was deadly in this kind of attack.
Later when the B-17G was fitted with the twin .50 cal in its nose turret, it served as a sufficient deterrent to discourage German fighters from such attacks which were indeed suicidal to a certain degree.
 

If you are going to reply, try to do it in proper context. No one wrote anything about what "two 12.7mm guns" are going to do to a B17.

"most Germans thought it was suicide to attack a 17 head-on.. and most avoided to do so." and yet that was probably the most effective for achieving success and frequently used.

"the Mk 108 cannon could dispatch a B-17 with a few hits." Of course it could but frequently did'nt get the hits.

Trite phrases such as "zoom boom" don't make for a good argument. On the other thread I started which resulted in the creation of this one you used this same style of reply. Please stop with the minor league effort and step-up to the Majors. Your "zoom boom" delivery of comments is not effective.
 
you: "The .50 caliber MG with sufficient ammunition supply was a very good compromise of firing time and power for shooting down any WW2 aircraft"

the other guy: "Against 4-engine bombers like the B-17 it would be useless ,only canons could take it down"

you: "NONSENSE"

now what context are you talking about?

zoom = flying at least 100km faster then your opponent so their guns can't track you accuratly,
boom = hitting your target
repeat.

works everytime till your number is up. far from "minor league effort"
 
ctrian said:
Double the fighters means significantly more losses for bombers leading to cancellation of bomber offensive.
Click to expand...

Luftwaffe have had more fighters in West in 1944, than it could put into sky (2000 available vs. 800 flying?). They tried it your way, only to found out it's not working.

The role of the day fighters was to shoot down bombers not dogfight with P-47 and P-51.
Click to expand...

So the 109s 190s were just ignored by Allied fighters making long-range fighter sweep? Not true.

Obviously the Luftwaffe would need to be much larger with more pilots, fuel ,airports etc that has a chance of happening similar to adopting allied airframes ie 0,00%
Click to expand...

Thanks for reminding me that hypothetical stuff cannot happen
 


Thanks for confirming the point I made about your replies. I will not be responding to anymore of your posts unless the quality improves.
 

You're welcome
 
As I've herd Guntehr Rall roughly said in Defence of the Reich documentary (or similar) "Sometimes we'd fly 6 or more missions a day against bombers..." or "We used to joke that in the Luftwaffe that you'd get either a iron cross or a wooden cross..."

There's more than just pilot opions/preferences, organsiations, standardisations, the clique of each countries leading accademic/business/gov/mil persons opinions/requirements/established processes etc on design construction theories/issues and what ends up being solved, the needs of development verses production upon quantity, supply and field usage/testing.
Thus my own opinion of my generalisation of WW2 (pre SAM/AAR) generation aerial equip, history, engineering actions/operations etc, is...

Against bombers you want a larger caliber round with more incedary/explosive/piercing content to take account of the larger A/C's greater structural requirements and spaces, but with enough rounds to 'get the aim on' with the weapons characteristics RoF.

Verses fighters, you'd want more chances of getting the aiming on for any given weapon - fighters manouver much more and are generaly lighter built, and so more rounds can mean sub 30mm weapons for enough ammo for dogfighting/chances of achieving hits.

Also, training permiting, higher average marksplaneship/marksmanship or weapon platform accuracy stabilty, would gravitate those skilled/equipable to the next biggest caliber for a given loss in ammo count for similar target damage.
 
Lighthunmust
I admit to being suprised by your reply in post 37. I thought my replies were specific to the post you originally put, were without rancour and supported by a number of facts or logic.

The problem was that your position re rate of fire and effectiveness of the M2 were ones that I disagreed with and supported. To now say that you have always considered the M2 to be overhyped goes against the earlier position.

PS I did notice the may in your posting to give you a cop out option.
 


Glider,

I do not think your replies contained any rancor. The support for your position did contain some facts and logic. Your only misstatement was that I wrote that the USAF was happy with the M3.

I have parsed the text of my post #37 and have not found the word "may" contained within it. What "cop out option"?

I think you are missing some nuance in my posts. The M2 can be over-hyped and still not be as ineffective as portrayed in some sources and the opinions of forum members. The German cannons effectiveness can be exaggerated and still be more effective than the M2. These two sentences are not examples of cognitive dissonance. What should surprise you is that I as a former member of the American military would ever say the M2 is over-hyped. That being said, a .50 bullet is extremely effective against personnel and moderately effective against lightly armored targets. Some of the nuance of my posts is that I am writing from the position of attempting to destroy the bomber using antipersonnel/antimaterial tactics instead of the antimaterial/antipersonnel tactics most posters to this thread have been supporting. I am taking a position on a topic to explore for greater truth, I am not falling on my sword to defend an absolute truth.

Since my last posting I went to my library to research the topic of the Luftwaffe battle against the bombers. In a book about Jagdflieger and their tactics I am finding information that on the surface appears to support my position much more than I expected. It is 1:00AM here and I need to get some sleep. I'll post that information tomorrow.

Glider I never perceived rancor in your posts. If you perceived rancor in my replies, I assure you that was not my intended sentiment.

My apologies to tomo pauk for my causing his thread to drift from the original topic. Please let me know if you want this discussion taken elsewhere.
 
Waxing hormonal, boys? Stand down and consider the point.

I suppose it is axiomatic that any perceived technological progress on the part of an adversary causes a reaction. Any force tries to maintain the greatest force projection it is capable of maintaining. Regards
 
"Zoom boom" as far as I remember is an accepted phrase for the type of tactics used by the various AFs in WWII - was the primary mode of attack used by Erich Hartmann.

Frontal attacks were the first tactics to be used by the LW and they later switched when the armament of the B-17s were upgraded in the nose and new tactics were developed with heavier armed Fw 190s. Frontal attacks were still used by not as a main feature of a LW attack later in the war.

And I agree with Adler - seems like we now have 2 convoluted threads with fiery opinions being blasted back and forth. Everybody chill.
 
davebender said:
That aircraft and the highly regarded P-51D entered service during the summer of 1944. By then the Me-262 is Germany's only hope to defeat the hordes of Allied bombers.
Click to expand...

True, but in the winter of 1943, when the day war over Germany was in grave doubt for the allies, the unanticipated appearance of the also highly regarded P-51B set the Germans back on their heels as much as the T-34 did and from then until June 6, 1944, the highly contested German skies became the domain of the Mustang. Germany was unable to recover from this lapse in anticipation of an aircraft as capable as the Mustang.
 
Perhaps Bill (drgondog) could chime in, re. numbers involved (close long range ecsorts vs. defenders).

Milosh, IIRC you've posted a link to a site with numbers of German AC in 1944, both available in service. Could you please repost that?

Lighthunmust, if we all can keep our posting within forum guidelines, I'm okay with any opinions good data posted in 'my' threads
 
Last edited:

Quantity or quality?
May '44 : LW West - 988 SE fighters , 245 TE Fighters,Source Luftwaffe data book.
Same month for USAAF ETO - Heavy bombers 2,937 , Fighters 3,382 ,source USAAF statistical digest table 89.
 
ctrian said:
Quantity or quality?
Click to expand...
both. The P-51B, with the -3, or -7 engine and at 60" or 67" of boost, except at a few discrete altitudes below 10k, was faster and climbed better than the Fw-190A-5 from SL to 30k+, and while the P-51B with -3 engine did not climb as well as the Bf-109G, the P-51B with a -7 engine and 67" boost, was roughly equal to the Bf-109G. All variations of the P-51B was significantly faster than the Bf-109G, averaging 20 mph faster to 25k where it was 30 to 40 mph faster at and above. These numbers represented the typical interceptors the Germans could throw up. And this was with 180 gallons of gas in the P-51 versus 105 gallons in the Bf-109.

May '44 : LW West - 988 SE fighters , 245 TE Fighters,Source Luftwaffe data book.
Same month for USAAF ETO - Heavy bombers 2,937 , Fighters 3,382 ,source USAAF statistical digest table 89.
Click to expand...

I can't, but I believe there are those on this site that will take issue with the concept that the P-51 always fought from a position of superior numbers over Germany. Is the number 3,382 all fighters including those that cannot make Germany. How many were P-51s?
 

Thanks tomo pauk,

I was considering posting more data on this topic after researching some sources I found that narrowed the MG<Cannon effectiveness gap. I even considered explaining in a hypothetical situation how German aircraft with the armament and capabilities of P-47s and P51s would have been more effective in the futile defense of the Reich. I have decided not to do either. I'd rather spend my time on other things.

Apologies again for the thread drift, and thanks for letting me play.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

German WW2 seaplane bases
Replies
1
Views
639
Dimlee
S
Researching German Aircraft Armor; Actual Use & Accounts
Replies
2
Views
337
sopwith21
S
Alternative German tanks & AFVs
6 7 8
Replies
157
Views
7K
tomo pauk
N
German aircraft ID?
Replies
3
Views
753
DerAdlerIstGelandet
R
A look at German fighter Ace kill claims
24 25 26
Replies
506
Views
27K
Juha3
J
Menu
Log in
Register