Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Yeah just like the P-38In daylight the mossie would get torn to shreds just like any other 2 engined heavy fighter
Kris
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yeah just like the P-38In daylight the mossie would get torn to shreds just like any other 2 engined heavy fighter
You are comparing a P-38 with a Mossie? I will admit I'm not an expert on the P-38, but in a 1 vs 1 fight against a similar skilled pilot in a single engined fighter it's gonna loose.
The extra weight of the P-38Nope like said I'm not an expert, but the extra weight of the P-38 would be terrible in a dogfight. Weight reduced acceleration turning radius, which can be offset with more power. Then again more power costs more weight. It's a trade-off.
If a P-38 is comparable in speed and manouvrability with say a FW190 (not anti bomber outfitted) or a BF109 (without gunpods). I'll admit it my error asap.
From wiki: The P-38 was unusually quiet for a fighter, the exhaust muffled by the turbo-superchargers. It was extremely forgiving, and could be mishandled in many ways, but the rate of roll was too slow for it to excel as a dogfighter
Re your claim of more power equalling more weight, again, not necessarily true. I'm not at home right now but I would like to see figures for the powerplant weight gain between the V-1650-1 and the -9; some maybe but I doubt anything significant. I know the P-38 wasn't powered by Packard Merlins, before you point that out so anything similar that you can reveal on V-1710s is also good.
We are moving away from my main point: A mossie can't dogfoght, it simply isn't designed for it. And in daylight it will get shot up badly by any defense guns on a bomber and/or the fighter escort.
Hold the phone. 20 MM cannon don't necessarily have more range than 50 BMGs. In fact some 20 mms don't shoot as flat as the 50 cals and it would be easier to hit with the 50s at say 400-500 yards than with the cannons.
I can't think of any Axis bombers that had any defensive guns equal to the 50BMG. Some of the Japanese bombers had a 20 MM stinger and they were effective against a low deflection attack from the stern. In a daylight attack, in a low deflection run, the twin fifties either in a turret or hand held, or in the case of the TBF, the single fifty were very effective against fighters at quite long range. The 50 BMG shoots really flat and maintains it's energy very well.
I can't think of any Axis bombers that had any defensive guns equal to the 50BMG. Some of the Japanese bombers had a 20 MM stinger and they were effective against a low deflection attack from the stern. In a daylight attack, in a low deflection run, the twin fifties either in a turret or hand held, or in the case of the TBF, the single fifty were very effective against fighters at quite long range. The 50 BMG shoots really flat and maintains it's energy very well.
Without an escort a bomber fleet would get destroyed, 4 cannon would take out defensive fire before they got in the range of defensive MGs. The escort makes the difference but that isnt in the thread title. Without an escort most planes are effective bomber killers though.
Hold the phone. 20 MM cannon don't necessarily have more range than 50 BMGs. In fact some 20 mms don't shoot as flat as the 50 cals and it would be easier to hit with the 50s at say 400-500 yards than with the cannons.
I believe that a hit from a 50 BMG at 1200 meters on a fighter, especially a liquid cooled engined fighter could be damaging. I agree though that the defensive fire from Allied daylight bombers was mostly unaimed except in a general direction except when the tail gunners were able to fire at a fighter making a run from the six o clock position. The closing speed would not be as high and a no or low deflection shot would not be difficult for the gunner on the bomber.
I knew that the BOB German bombers were mostly armed with 7.7 mm MGs and that some German bombers carried 20 mm defensive guns but was not aware that they also used a 13mm MG similar to the 50 BMG.
Was thinking the other day about the manufacture of the M2 50 BMG during WW2. Had read that the RAF did not mount many of them on their bombers because they were unavailable. The M2 was not a trivial weapon and required a lot of material and labor to produce. There were around 100000 US fighters produced with perhaps an average of five M2s per plane. That is half a million M2s. The heavy bombers mounted ten or more M2s and there were more than 30000 B17s and B24s built so that is another 300000. Medium bombers must have used up another 200000 or more which makes a total of at least one million.When one counts all the M2s used in the US Army by ground troops, tanks and other vehicles and those used on sea going craft, there were a lot of M2s built. If they cost as much as $100 each which sounds reasonable then well more than 100M dollars must have been spent for them.