Best armed fighter

We are just recently using up all the WWII and Korean War surplus of 50 Ball and API in Iraq and Afghanistan

Click to expand...

Hehe, yes they're used for general use. But against thickly armoured targets we sure don't use WW2 or Korean API rounds, trust me on this one

Now if you meant against Jeeps trucks, well then the 7.62 will easly ruin the engine as-well. But these aren't armoured and the engines aren't as robust as the 12 cylinder engines used in a/c during WW2.

I'm not surprised that it sometimes only took 150 rounds to down a fighter. Usually a pilot will bail out of an a/c which he could've otherwise easily brought home just because he knows that there's an enemy behind him ready to shred him to pieces if he proceeds flying. This happened a lot in the late war years with the majority of LW fighters being piloted by rookies.

As for protection, I don't think German fighters were better armoured than Allied fighters in general, I'd say it was similar. The difference was that German fighters were more powerfully armed.

The P-39 with 6 50. caliber guns and a cannon was pretty well armed. Capable of taking down a few bombers at least on one mission.

The fighters designed for WW2 had only one purpose and that was to take a gun or guns into the air and shoot down the other fellow's airplanes. The LW and the Japanese air forces eventually got to the point where their primary concern was shooting down Allied bombers. The USAAF in the ETO fighters were primarily tasked with shooting down LW fighters, mostly single engined. In the Pacific, the USN, Marine and AAF fighters did not have large enemy bombers except for the big flying boats to contend with. The Hellcat, mostly armed with 6-50 cals had a kill ratio of around 15 to 1, shooting down 5257 enemy AC and only losing 270 to enemy AC. The Corsair killed 2155 for 189 losses to enemy air. It seems that those 50 cals were very effective but one could say that some of the Japanes AC were flimsy and their pilots became very poorly trained. In the ETO, the original P51s had four 20mm cannon. When the Merlin P51 came out it mounted four and later six 50cals. The reason for going to the 50 cals may have been because of weight, recoil forces, reliability issues, logistics or other factors. The P51 pilots had to be trained, perhaps on some dusty field in Texas and then put on a ship and sent thousands of miles across the Atlantic along with all their gear to England. Their aircraft likewise along with all the spares and all the maintenance people had to be shipped across the Atlantic. Then all the beans, bullets and other support supplies had to be shipped as long as they were over there. Then those pilots had to get in those cockpits of those P51s that carried those four or six fifties and take those guns several hundred miles into Europe and line them up on LW fighters trying to shoot down bombers and try to prevent them from doing so. During the time they were doing that they destroyed 4239 LW AC while losing 2520 of their own. Those 2520 could have been losses from enemy air, ground fire, engine failure, running out of gas, pilot heart attack or running into rocks in cloud. I don't know if the above statistics could be the result of inexperienced LW pilots or poor equipment but they appear to show that for the mission of taking some guns and flying a long way into enemy territory and decimating the enemy, the P51 with either four or six 50 cals was the best armed fighter.

Hi Soundbreaker,

>The P-39 with 6 50. caliber guns and a cannon was pretty well armed. Capable of taking down a few bombers at least on one mission.

Hm, which P-39 variant had 6x 0.50" guns? I've got manual for the P-39Q here and only 4 are listed.

But don't overestimate that big 37 mm cannon ... it's not particularly impressive, firing a big shell with less explosive content than that of a 30 mm mine shell at a "slow" muzzle velocity of 610 m/s - at a rate of fire of just 2.5 shells per second.

(Note that the "slow" velocity of the shell would certainly get bashed if the gun were Luftwaffe equipment. As the abovementioned German analysis points out however, this is secondary to other, more important parameters.)

Anyway, here is the direct comparison:

1x 37mm M4 - 30 rpg, 12 s duration - 123 kg - 0,9 MW firepower - firepower per weight: 7,4 kW/kg
1x MK 108 - 60 rpg, 6 s duration - 95 kg - 5 MW firepower - firepower per weight: 52,9 kW/kg

The resulting firepower in relation to selected other fighters:

Ta 152H: 7,6 MW
Me 109K-4: 5,5 MW
Tempest: 4,9 MW
Fw 190A-4: 4,3 MW
Spitfire VC: 2,5 MW
P-47D: 2,3 MW
P-38: 2,2 MW
P-39Q: 2,2 MW
Me 109G-6: 1,8 MW

Nothing to write home about ... though having a central cannon is of course a good thing. I'm not sure about the impact of synchronization on 2 of the 4 12.7 mm guns right now, if I remember they lost quite a bit more rate of fire to synchronization than the electrically primed German guns for example. (Synchronization losses are not considered here.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Soren said:

Hehe, yes they're used for general use. But against thickly armoured targets we sure don't use WW2 or Korean API rounds, trust me on this one

Trust but verify. The M8 API used in WWII, Korea, etc all the way though Afghanistan is still in use even by snipers using the Barrett M107. The much newer M962 SLAP-T has far greater penetration capability over the M8 API especially against 500 Brinnell hardness.

Now if you meant against Jeeps trucks, well then the 7.62 will easly ruin the engine as-well. But these aren't armoured and the engines aren't as robust as the 12 cylinder aircraft engines.

.50 Caliber Browning (12.7 x 99 mm) Ammunition



And the 7.62 doesn't have 25% of the mass of the 50 cal. Size does matter against an engine block.

Cartridge, Caliber .50, Ball, Armor Piercing Incendiary, M8


Used by M2 and M85 machine guns, and the M107 Long Range Sniper Rifle. The cartridge combines the functions of the M2 armor piercing bullet and the incendiary bullet, and is used against flammable targets and light-armored or unarmored targets, concrete shelters, and similar bullet-resisting targets.

Armor Penetration.
500 meters: 0.63 in (16 mm)
1,200 meters: 0.32 in (8 mm)

Incendiary composition: 15 grains (0.97 g) IM 11

The cartridge is identified by an aluminum bullet tip.

Type Classification: OBS - MSR 11756003


I'm not surprised that it sometimes only took 150 rounds to down a fighter. Usually a pilot will bail out of an a/c which he could've otherwise easily brought home just because he knows that there's an enemy behind him ready to shred him to pieces if he proceeds flying. This happened a lot in the late war years with the majority of LW fighters being piloted by rookies.

It also happened when the ammo storage blew up, wing spars failed, pilots shredded, fuel tanks ruptured, and the airplane either blew up or fell apart - independent of pilot skill when he catches a well aimed burst at 200 yards or less.

As for protection, I don't think German fighters were better armoured than Allied fighters in general, I'd say it was similar. The difference was that German fighters were more powerfully armed.

Click to expand...

A Mustang had only .4 inch armor plate, I suspect the 109 had thicker but not exactly sure of the composition - but doubt hardened steel comparable to medium/heavy armor.?

Bill, while I agree that the US fighters' armaments were adequate for pretty much all they were used for, I do feel that they would have been more successful with a heavier cannon armament. (or maybe even a gun firing the US .60, though that eneded up as a 20 mm round rather like the 15 mm Maucer round did)

There are a viarety of options for heavier guns that weren't exploited (a .60 cal or 20mm derivative of the Browning or modified Oerlikon FFL, possible the 23mm madsen as a heavier gun) that should have been less problematic to develop than the Hispano. (which was more problematic than it should have been for the US industry)

But this is a topic deserving of its own thread, and probably in the weapons section. (and one that I've been wanting to start, but I'd rather gather some more technical info first)

Bill,

Look at the data you provided, the .50 cal API round will penetrate 8mm of vertical standard RHA armor at 1,200m (I suspect they mean 1,200y). That won't do at all against armoured targets, hence why we don't use these against armoured targets. When faced with armoured targets we use sabot rounds.

As for the pilot's armour in the Bf-109, on most models it is a 8mm face hardened steel plate of very good quality.

Soren
one could not count that pilot 's back armour in 109G keep .5 API out, one case when the API went through the back armour and killed the pilot which immediately come into mind is that of L. Otto Fönnekold, 109G-6, WNr. 441931, 31.8.44 at Budak. Only one case but I don't have info on very many cases in which 109's back armour was hit by .5 Browning bullets. Other cases of hits which immediately came into mind are one in which the back armour withstood a hit by a Soviet 20mm shell and one in which the stack of aluminium sheets with combined thickness of 22mm, one version of 109G back armour, slowed 2 Soviet 20mm shells or their fragments enough that they stopped inside the fuel tank.

Juha

Hi Koolkitty,

>I agree that the US fighters' armaments were adequate for pretty much all they were used for [...]

"Adequate" - I have often seen this term used in discussions of US WW2 air-to-air weapons, usually to veil the fact that they were outdated and overweight. Sure, the US won the air war anyway, but that doesn't tell us much about the quality of their guns. The RAF won the Battle of Britain with 7.7 mm machine guns ... despite rifle calibre guns being obviously inadequate weaponry.

>I do feel that they would have been more successful with a heavier cannon armament.

If you had suggested to a 1944 Mustang pilot that you could increase his firepower by 50%, give him a centreline battery like the one that made the P-38 such a great firing platform, and get rid of more than 500 lbs of dead weight in his aircraft, it's hard to imagine he'd have declined because his armament was already "adequate". I think it's rather more likely that he'd have enthusiastically accepted your offer, and named his first-born son after you.

The benefits I describe are just what designing the P-51D for a Focke-Wulf-style battery of two wing root cannon would have done for him:

6x ,50 Browning M2 - 400 rpg - 438 kg - 1,7 MW firepower
2x MG 151/20 - 250 rpg - 191 kg - 2,5 MW firepower

That is what technology can do for you ... of course you can win a war with inferior guns, but it will cost you.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Or of course, switch back to the 4 x 20mm and make them reliable.

Juha said:

Soren
one could not count that pilot 's back armour in 109G keep .5 API out, one case when the API went through the back armour and killed the pilot which immediately come into mind is that of L. Otto Fönnekold, 109G-6, WNr. 441931, 31.8.44 at Budak. Only one case but I don't have info on very many cases in which 109's back armour was hit by .5 Browning bullets. Other cases of hits which immediately came into mind are one in which the back armour withstood a hit by a Soviet 20mm shell and one in which the stack of aluminium sheets with combined thickness of 22mm, one version of 109G back armour, slowed 2 Soviet 20mm shells or their fragments enough that they stopped inside the fuel tank.

Juha

Click to expand...

Hmm, test show that you could pretty much rely on that back armor in the 109F/G. The composition was a 8mm back plate, and a 10mm head plate (later variants 10mm head plate with a 60mm armored glass in it). Under the pilots butt there was two pieces of 4mm plates.

Behind the pilot there was the fuel tank, through which the bullet has to pass through, and slow somewhat further down, and behind the fuel tank there was a large 30 layer dural plate of ca. 22mm thickness as you describe.

This dural layer was effective in stopping incendinary rounds on its own:

Aircraft Evaluation Report, GERMAN MESSERSCHMITT-109 F, prepered by Materiel Command, Engineering Division, Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio, summarized the results of British firing trials on the effectiveness of the Leichtmetallpanzerung :

"Additional armor has been found on "109-F" airplanes recently inspected. This is in the form of a laminated dural bulkhead placed approximately 6 inches [152 mm] behind the tank. Total thickness of the thirty laminations used is about 7/8 inches [22,25mm].
The British have carried out tests on one of these bulkheads with the following results : from 100 yards range dead astern, .303 inch and .5 inch incendiary ammunition will not penetrate the dural bulkhead. At this range 20 mm HE/I(high explosive / incendiary ) is still effective in penetrating the bulkhead and ingniting the tank. At 200 yards range, the effect of the interposition of the dural bulkhead is that at 5 degrees off dead astern, .303 A.P. (armor piercing) is completely ineffective against the pilot, but .5 AP in about 30 percent of cases will pass through the bulkhead and will penetrate the 8mm pilot`s armor, even if it has to pass through the tank below fuel level.* Twenty mm A.P. will still be effective in penetrating the pilot`s armor. Subsequent tests reveal that U.S. .50 caliber M1 incendinary ammunition is capable of penetrating the dural plate effectively."

* This is IIRC a mistranscript from the British report, which stated that in 30% of the cases of hits where the the projectile passed above the fuel line in the test setup to .50 AP could penetrate, but in 70% it couldn't, neither could hits that passed through the fuel tank.

The layered "Leichtmetallpanzerung" was appearantly removed though on late Gs and Ks because space was needed for the 115 liter MW50 booster tank (though some drawings show its still present..), though the light alloy tank and the liquid in it must have offered some ballistic protection as well.

Overall, I would say the pilot was reasonable safe in the Bf 109G from attacks with .50 API from astern at typical combat ranges.

Hello Kurfürst
that was what I tried to say but I was not clear enough, I meant that the back protection kept most .5 Browning AP/APIs out but not all so pilot could not trust on that the back armour would safe him, odds were that it could keep single hits out but that wasn't sure. And its a matter of opinion how satisfied one was with the fact that from little under 180m one third of .5 AP hits will penetrate the back armour.

Merry Christmas to all

Juha

As mentioned earlier, the P51 came with four wing mounted 20 MMs. Some P51As mounted four 50 cals in the wings and two 50 cals in the nose, firing through the prop arc. The F4U1Cs mounted four 20 mms in the wings. Some late model F4U4Cs mounted the four 20mms. One wonders if the reason why the cannon armed AC did not remain in production was reliability problems and that the reliability problems gradually were solved which was reflected by the F4U4Cs? Another reason the 50 cals could have been favored by the US was that they were almost omnipresent in all US aircraft, ground and sea forces and on all fronts and sticking with them, in spite of a small loss in effectiveness, minimised logistical problems insofar as technicians, ammunition and spare parts were concerned.

Soren said:

Bill,

Look at the data you provided, the .50 cal API round will penetrate 8mm of vertical standard RHA armor at 1,200m (I suspect they mean 1,200y). That won't do at all against armoured targets, hence why we don't use these against armoured targets. When faced with armoured targets we use sabot rounds.

As for the pilot's armour in the Bf-109, on most models it is a 8mm face hardened steel plate of very good quality.

Click to expand...

All the figures were given in meters.

I didn't specify that the M8 API is designed abainst hardened targets I said it would work well against pilot armor, engine blocks, fuel cels, spars, etc, at 200 yards or less. yards. I still say that.

You say it won't?

I say a well aimed burst into the cockpit from any astern angle will shred a luftwaffe protected pilot. You say it won't?

I say the same will destroy a 109 or 190 engine. What say you?

I say the 50 worked just fine against LW fighters. You say what?

I did NOT say a .50 was better than a 20mm. I DID say 6x 50.'s in a P-51D (both M2 and later M3) are preferable to one 20mm 151/20. You agreed IIRC.

The 4 cannon Hurricane was a pretty decently armed bird. They had spitfires with the same four cannnon as well. They were pretty good intercepting both German bombers and their fighter escorts. A 20mm HE round just does a lot more to wreck an airframe than a .50.

Still, I have to give respect to the P-47 with its 8 .50s, seems like you're in a whole new level of power that isn't accounted for by a 33% increase. Watch the gun camera footage and you'll see enemy planes disintegrate when they fall into P-47 gunsights.

Juha said:

Hello Kurfürst
that was what I tried to say but I was not clear enough, I meant that the back protection kept most .5 Browning AP/APIs out but not all so pilot could not trust on that the back armour would safe him, odds were that it could keep single hits out but that wasn't sure. And its a matter of opinion how satisfied one was with the fact that from little under 180m one third of .5 AP hits will penetrate the back armour.

Merry Christmas to all

Juha

Click to expand...

I admit that I wouldn't be happy with a 30% chance of being drilled and thats assuming that you only get hit by one shell.

drgondog said:

All the figures were given in meters.

Click to expand...

True, but since when have the Americans begun to measure in meters

I didn't specify that the M8 API is designed abainst hardened targets I said it would work well against pilot armor, engine blocks, fuel cels, spars, etc, at 200 yards or less. yards. I still say that.

You say it won't?

Click to expand...

No, what I'm saying is that the .50cal API round wasn't capable of penetrating the pilots armour in most German fighters at the most common engagement ranges. At 100y tests have apparently shown that 30% will penetrate the 8mm armour plate in the 109, while 70% won't. At >200y I suspect the .50cal API was incapable of penetrating the pilots armour of the 109 190. (The 190 featured 13mm pilots armour)

I say a well aimed burst into the cockpit from any astern angle will shred a luftwaffe protected pilot. You say it won't?

Click to expand...

I say it depends a lot on the range, but in general I'd disagree with you on that note. I think that at a range of over 200y, perhaps 300y, a well aimed burst wont kill the luftwaffe pilot if only hits on the protected areas are achieved.

I say the same will destroy a 109 or 190 engine. What say you?

Click to expand...

A burst of .50cal rounds will destroy most engines.

I say the 50 worked just fine against LW fighters. You say what?

Click to expand...

I agree, but they could've have mounted a far more efficient armament, like the Hispanos.

I did NOT say a .50 was better than a 20mm. I DID say 6x 50.'s in a P-51D (both M2 and later M3) are preferable to one 20mm 151/20. You agreed IIRC.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree.

Glider said:

I admit that I wouldn't be happy with a 30% chance of being drilled and thats assuming that you only get hit by one shell.

Click to expand...

Wtf it's not like the average fighter had more or better pilot armor. Likewise Spitfire or Mustang pilot armor will have a hard time stopping a 20mm shell so what's your point. Oh right, make axis aircraft look bad by pointing out flaws that are non.

Juha said:

from little under 180m one third of .5 AP hits will penetrate the back armour.[/I]

Click to expand...

Hi Juha, and Merry Christmas to you and everyone around in this great discussion board!

This is not exactly what the report says though, I found the original British one in the meantime, and it says that 30% of those .50 AP rounds will penetrate the pilot backplate which hit above the fuel line in the tank (which is is impossible if the tank is full, and its always full until the droptank is emptied completely).

IMHO that is pretty good, in fact, as far as stern attacks considered, it seems to be the best protection offered by any WW2 fighter (with the exception of P-39 perhaps, because of rear mounted engine). But you are certainly right is there's no 'certain' protection offered, especially not amongst rather lightly armored WW2 fighters!

Kurfürst said:

This is not exactly what the report says though, I found the original British one in the meantime, and it says that 30% of those .50 AP rounds will penetrate the pilot backplate which hit above the fuel line in the tank (which is is impossible if the tank is full, and its always full until the droptank is emptied completely).

Click to expand...

Kurfurst - is the brit Mk II .5 cal same as M8 API or ball M2?