Lucky13
Forum Mascot
I still go with the Wildcat! Got to have higher chance of survival with some armor and self sealing tanks.... Look at the Zero the wrong way and it'll burst into flames.
Best Fighter in the Pacific and CBI Theaters in 1942
- Thread starter syscom3
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Remember that tte Wildcat with armour and self sealing tanks had badest performances of that in the graphs
Hi Vincenzo,
>Remember that tte Wildcat with armour and self sealing tanks had badest performances of that in the graphs
I'm also not sure that the F4F-3 was the most representative variant for 1942 - it appears that the Guadalcanal campaign was mostly fought with poorer-performing F4F-4 aircraft, for example.
(Of course, they also met A6M2 aircraft that were not performing as well as the A6M3, but at least the higher-performing Zero variant seems to have made a combat appearance in that theatre.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>Remember that tte Wildcat with armour and self sealing tanks had badest performances of that in the graphs
I'm also not sure that the F4F-3 was the most representative variant for 1942 - it appears that the Guadalcanal campaign was mostly fought with poorer-performing F4F-4 aircraft, for example.
(Of course, they also met A6M2 aircraft that were not performing as well as the A6M3, but at least the higher-performing Zero variant seems to have made a combat appearance in that theatre.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Hi Tomo,
>But how do they stand against other targets, eg. how successful would be a fighter against a B-25 type of target?
>From that point of view, Zero would have much more trouble then Hurricane II or P-40E, since the .50cals would've make minced meat out of it. The cannon that has lower performance even compared with MG/FF just emphasizes the issue.
Hm, at least for a B-17 type of target, we can use the German reports as a guide line. German analysis showed that about 25 rounds of MG 151/20 ammunition had to hit a four-engined bomber to achieve a 95 % chance of desctruction of the bomber.
Due to the lower power of the A6M3's Type 99-1 cannon, that would be equivalent to about 51 hits. With 5 % to 9 % hits as used in the German reports, that would require about 560 to 1020 rounds to be expended by the A6M, which is considerably more than the available ammunition supply.
(With regard to the 12.7 mm machine guns - the equivalent total muzzle energy would be achieved by 153 rounds of API, requiring about 1700 to 3100 rounds to be fired under the above assumptions. That is not as far beyond the P-40E's actual capability as the above amount is beyond the A6M's.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>But how do they stand against other targets, eg. how successful would be a fighter against a B-25 type of target?
>From that point of view, Zero would have much more trouble then Hurricane II or P-40E, since the .50cals would've make minced meat out of it. The cannon that has lower performance even compared with MG/FF just emphasizes the issue.
Hm, at least for a B-17 type of target, we can use the German reports as a guide line. German analysis showed that about 25 rounds of MG 151/20 ammunition had to hit a four-engined bomber to achieve a 95 % chance of desctruction of the bomber.
Due to the lower power of the A6M3's Type 99-1 cannon, that would be equivalent to about 51 hits. With 5 % to 9 % hits as used in the German reports, that would require about 560 to 1020 rounds to be expended by the A6M, which is considerably more than the available ammunition supply.
(With regard to the 12.7 mm machine guns - the equivalent total muzzle energy would be achieved by 153 rounds of API, requiring about 1700 to 3100 rounds to be fired under the above assumptions. That is not as far beyond the P-40E's actual capability as the above amount is beyond the A6M's.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Hi Vincenzo,
>Remember that tte Wildcat with armour and self sealing tanks had badest performances of that in the graphs
No longer - I added the Brewster F2A-3 Buffalo
It's a rough analysis though, based on the sketchy data of the R-1820-40 engine on AEHS Home, and on the assumption that the F2A-3 had the same drag condition as the Finnish Brewster.
However, it's probably good enough to see why the Marines at Midway were not happy with the type ...
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>Remember that tte Wildcat with armour and self sealing tanks had badest performances of that in the graphs
No longer - I added the Brewster F2A-3 Buffalo
It's a rough analysis though, based on the sketchy data of the R-1820-40 engine on AEHS Home, and on the assumption that the F2A-3 had the same drag condition as the Finnish Brewster.
However, it's probably good enough to see why the Marines at Midway were not happy with the type ...
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Attachments
- Thread starter
- #89
syscom3
Pacific Historian
No one was happy with it.
I never listed it in my poll due to it being inferior in every catagory.
Many of fighter here are the same on my thread on best radial of '42, we need add only the only 3 with 12 cylinders engine (P-39, P-40 and Hurricane) and take out planes that fightning only in ETO/MTO/eastern front.
Need to remember the use of other fighter in CBI/Pacific like: CW-21B (nederland east indie) Mohawk IV (RAF) Hawk 75 A-7 (NEI) Brewster 339 (NEI, RAF maybe similat to usmc planes), Lancer (chinese), P-35A (USAAC in Philippines campaign) and japanese Type 96 (navy) and 97 (army)
Need to remember the use of other fighter in CBI/Pacific like: CW-21B (nederland east indie) Mohawk IV (RAF) Hawk 75 A-7 (NEI) Brewster 339 (NEI, RAF maybe similat to usmc planes), Lancer (chinese), P-35A (USAAC in Philippines campaign) and japanese Type 96 (navy) and 97 (army)
- Thread starter
- #91
syscom3
Pacific Historian
No, this is for aircraft in the PTO/CBI.
What made a good airplane in Europe didn't necessarily mean it was effective in the tropics against the highly maneuverable Japanese AC.
Something from another point of view, regarding Zero vs. B-17:
Since the fellow members provided a good info about Zero's success as a bomber killer (despite a pathetic weaponry), one must wonder why Germans struggled against same target (despite way better equipment C3 system available).
Henning,
When saying that MG/FF was not a super weapon, I take in account also the muzzle velocity and ammo count, so the HS-404 and ShVAK come out as better in my view.
Since the fellow members provided a good info about Zero's success as a bomber killer (despite a pathetic weaponry), one must wonder why Germans struggled against same target (despite way better equipment C3 system available).
Henning,
When saying that MG/FF was not a super weapon, I take in account also the muzzle velocity and ammo count, so the HS-404 and ShVAK come out as better in my view.
drgondog
Major
I would be interested in a statistical comparison of the formation strength (at least in Squadron strength) B-17 missions what % loss rate was experienced to Zeros? As most were without fighter escort it should be OK to compare PTO period of Feb 1942 to Jan 1943 against the period Aug 42-July 43 for the 8th AF.
Many post Java (DEI campaign) B-17 strikes were armed recon, and attacks on shipping - in combination with strikes on airfields and harbor shipping at Rabaul and various targets in New Guinea.
I suspect the FW 190 was a much more effective interceptor in 1942-1943 than the A6M
Since the 109s and 190s haven't wiped out the US viermots during 1943, I guess this would be a 'struggle'.
Well, this one got me thinking (from page 2 of this thread).
Now I know that it was a fair number of posts regarding this issue, but I agree with you that we do need a more throughout statistical analysis.
Well, this one got me thinking (from page 2 of this thread).
Now I know that it was a fair number of posts regarding this issue, but I agree with you that we do need a more throughout statistical analysis.
Hi Tomo,
>one must wonder why Germans struggled against same target (despite way better equipment C3 system available).
Hm, to me it looks like the German success against unescorted bombers would have stopped the daylight bombing offensive against the Reich if the USAAF hadn't deployed long-range escorts to keep the German fighters off the bombers.
Without data on the force ratios, it's hard to compare different situations. And the smaller the numbers of aircraft involved in an encounter, the greater the random "noise" ...
>When saying that MG/FF was not a super weapon, I take in account also the muzzle velocity and ammo count, so the HS-404 and ShVAK come out as better in my view.
Well, you asked for effect on a B-25 type of target, and against bombers muzzle velocity is not of much concern.
The Hispano II can be considered to be superior to the MG FF/M, at least once the armour-piercing incendiary rounds become available to replace the ball rounds in 1942. However, by that time, the MG FF/M had mostly been been replaced by the MG 151/20 in German fighters, except for the outer wing guns of the Fw 190A. (Until 1942, the Spitfire V only had 60 rounds per gun just like the Me 109E I believe, and by the time the Fw 190A-5 became available, a 90 round drum for the MG FF/M had been introduced into service - unfortunately, I don't know the exact time at which it first became available. The Hispano rounds on the average were about 10 % more powerful than the MG FF/M rounds, though.)
The ShVAK, well - it wasn't particularly powerful, and about half-way between the MG FF/M and the Hispano II in terms of muzzle velocity. The rounds of the MG FF/M in were about twice as powerful as those of the ShVAK, so the 120 rounds for the MG FF/M are equivalent to about 236 rounds of ShVAK ammunition. So the Me 109E had a greater ammunition supply than what the roughly contemporary Jakovlev and Lavochkin fighters carried.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>one must wonder why Germans struggled against same target (despite way better equipment C3 system available).
Hm, to me it looks like the German success against unescorted bombers would have stopped the daylight bombing offensive against the Reich if the USAAF hadn't deployed long-range escorts to keep the German fighters off the bombers.
Without data on the force ratios, it's hard to compare different situations. And the smaller the numbers of aircraft involved in an encounter, the greater the random "noise" ...
>When saying that MG/FF was not a super weapon, I take in account also the muzzle velocity and ammo count, so the HS-404 and ShVAK come out as better in my view.
Well, you asked for effect on a B-25 type of target, and against bombers muzzle velocity is not of much concern.
The Hispano II can be considered to be superior to the MG FF/M, at least once the armour-piercing incendiary rounds become available to replace the ball rounds in 1942. However, by that time, the MG FF/M had mostly been been replaced by the MG 151/20 in German fighters, except for the outer wing guns of the Fw 190A. (Until 1942, the Spitfire V only had 60 rounds per gun just like the Me 109E I believe, and by the time the Fw 190A-5 became available, a 90 round drum for the MG FF/M had been introduced into service - unfortunately, I don't know the exact time at which it first became available. The Hispano rounds on the average were about 10 % more powerful than the MG FF/M rounds, though.)
The ShVAK, well - it wasn't particularly powerful, and about half-way between the MG FF/M and the Hispano II in terms of muzzle velocity. The rounds of the MG FF/M in were about twice as powerful as those of the ShVAK, so the 120 rounds for the MG FF/M are equivalent to about 236 rounds of ShVAK ammunition. So the Me 109E had a greater ammunition supply than what the roughly contemporary Jakovlev and Lavochkin fighters carried.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Hey buddy! Would you mind tell my in what way the -4 were as worse performer than the -3 of the Wildcat? Slap me if I'm wrong here....
But, IIRC the -4 had another two .50's right, but as they fitted them with extra guns they lowered the amount of ammo for each gun, didn't they, so those couldn't have affected the performance that much or did they?
Henning, the Luftwaffe did have a whole 1943 to halt the daylight bomber offensive. Even though USAF suffered greatly, Luftwaffe failed. So it's fair to say that they struggled.
As for the numbers statistics for A6M vs. B-17/B-24, I myself would love to see them
The high muzzle velocity is a nice thing to have when attacking a tough target that had means to hit back, while the attacker is a very susceptible to the return fire.
When it comes to the early cannons, the MG-FF was better then HS-404 only in weight; ammo count was equal, muzzle velocity, rate of fire and shell power being better for the -404 (no Minengeschoss for the FF). So the 404 is better.
ShVAK is better then FF when we count in the muzzle velocity, rate of fire and ammo count; the MG-FF had a heavier shell and it is lighter. I'd rate ShVAK as better cannon.
The MG-FF/M receives bonus points since it had the Minengeschoss available, but the other stuff remains. I rate again the Allied weapons as slightly better.
The mount of the gun again doesn't favour the MG/FF(M), since it was mostly a wing gun in 109 190, while the Allied guns I compare were centrally mounted in 99% of Yaks,Lavotchkins, MS-406 and D-520.
As for the numbers statistics for A6M vs. B-17/B-24, I myself would love to see them
The high muzzle velocity is a nice thing to have when attacking a tough target that had means to hit back, while the attacker is a very susceptible to the return fire.
When it comes to the early cannons, the MG-FF was better then HS-404 only in weight; ammo count was equal, muzzle velocity, rate of fire and shell power being better for the -404 (no Minengeschoss for the FF). So the 404 is better.
ShVAK is better then FF when we count in the muzzle velocity, rate of fire and ammo count; the MG-FF had a heavier shell and it is lighter. I'd rate ShVAK as better cannon.
The MG-FF/M receives bonus points since it had the Minengeschoss available, but the other stuff remains. I rate again the Allied weapons as slightly better.
The mount of the gun again doesn't favour the MG/FF(M), since it was mostly a wing gun in 109 190, while the Allied guns I compare were centrally mounted in 99% of Yaks,Lavotchkins, MS-406 and D-520.
Hi Lucky,
>Hey buddy! Would you mind tell my in what way the -4 were as worse performer than the -3 of the Wildcat? Slap me if I'm wrong here....
Hehe, no need to ... you're wrong but the question was a good one. I bet the Navy pilots asked it, too!
As you can see indicated on my diagram, the F4F-3 weighed in at 3204 kg in fighter trim, a figure confirmed as typical by the evaluation report Claidemore posted above. The F4F-4 according to the BuAer Airplane Characteristics Performance sheets weighed in at 3617 kg, a gain of more than 400 kg without any gain of power and while drag increased quite a bit, too.
(At least, the increase in drag is evident if you compare the early-production F4F-3 tested for performance with the data given in the BuAer sheet for the F4F-4. However, BuAer also shows a markedly lower full throttle height for what should be a virtually identical engine, so both sources appear to be not perfectly consistent. I just see that Mike has a lot of new data on F4F Performance Trials which I haven't checked yet - maybe it will help to explain the difference.)
The hefty increase in weight was due to the re-design of the wings to include a folding mechanism, which was of great operational value since it allowed the carriers to take a lot more fighters aboard, and early war experience had shown that fighters were more important in naval warfare than anticipated. However, the weight increase probably exceeded everything that had been expected when Navy ordered the F4F-4, so I'm sure there were a lot of people who were just as surprised as you about F4F-4 performance.
Note that the evaluation report Claidemore provided shows that the US Navy had been guaranteed a top speed of 350 mph for the F4F-3 when they were just achieving 331 mph in practice. 19 mph is a big difference for early-war fighter aircraft ... and the F4F-4 was down to 320 mph.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>Hey buddy! Would you mind tell my in what way the -4 were as worse performer than the -3 of the Wildcat? Slap me if I'm wrong here....
Hehe, no need to ... you're wrong but the question was a good one. I bet the Navy pilots asked it, too!
As you can see indicated on my diagram, the F4F-3 weighed in at 3204 kg in fighter trim, a figure confirmed as typical by the evaluation report Claidemore posted above. The F4F-4 according to the BuAer Airplane Characteristics Performance sheets weighed in at 3617 kg, a gain of more than 400 kg without any gain of power and while drag increased quite a bit, too.
(At least, the increase in drag is evident if you compare the early-production F4F-3 tested for performance with the data given in the BuAer sheet for the F4F-4. However, BuAer also shows a markedly lower full throttle height for what should be a virtually identical engine, so both sources appear to be not perfectly consistent. I just see that Mike has a lot of new data on F4F Performance Trials which I haven't checked yet - maybe it will help to explain the difference.)
The hefty increase in weight was due to the re-design of the wings to include a folding mechanism, which was of great operational value since it allowed the carriers to take a lot more fighters aboard, and early war experience had shown that fighters were more important in naval warfare than anticipated. However, the weight increase probably exceeded everything that had been expected when Navy ordered the F4F-4, so I'm sure there were a lot of people who were just as surprised as you about F4F-4 performance.
Note that the evaluation report Claidemore provided shows that the US Navy had been guaranteed a top speed of 350 mph for the F4F-3 when they were just achieving 331 mph in practice. 19 mph is a big difference for early-war fighter aircraft ... and the F4F-4 was down to 320 mph.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Hi Tomo,
>Henning, the Luftwaffe did have a whole 1943 to halt the daylight bomber offensive. Even though USAF suffered greatly, Luftwaffe failed. So it's fair to say that they struggled.
Oh well, I'd have to see the USAAF raids on the map, but I think the real big and deep raids that were made in 1943 were all losing bombers in a magnitude that would have made continuous operations impossible. The USAAF only undertook these raids because they didn't expect these losses, and perhaps also because they thought they were shooting down far more German fighters than they actually were. I don't believe they would have continued like that into 1944 without the escort fighters ...
>The high muzzle velocity is a nice thing to have when attacking a tough target that had means to hit back, while the attacker is a very susceptible to the return fire.
The Germans found out that high firepower to minimize the time of exposure was far more important than muzzle velocity. Their evaluations gave the hit chance against a four-engined bomber at 500 m as 10 % for the high-velocity MK 103 and 8.3 % for the low-velocity MK 108. The higher firepower of the MK 108 easily made up for the lower hit chances, and another report which I have summarized in a Me 262 cannon thread on this forum showed that this superiority extended to even longer ranges than the 500 m mentioned in the Viermot report.
>When it comes to the early cannons, the MG-FF was better then HS-404 only in weight; ammo count was equal, muzzle velocity, rate of fire and shell power being better for the -404 (no Minengeschoss for the FF).
Hm, now I see that you're referring to the French Hispano - you might be right, I don't have data on the French ammunition. However, you could still mount two MG FF in the wings while the French fighters could only be equipped with a single HS-404, which is a weakness too. As you're probably aware, mounting the Hispano in the wings was rather difficult and attempts to get it to work were completely futile during the Battle of Britain.
>ShVAK is better then FF when we count in the muzzle velocity, rate of fire and ammo count; the MG-FF had a heavier shell and it is lighter.
Oh well, the ShVAK-armed fighters were really pitted against the MG FF/M-armed fighters when shots were fired in anger, so the comparison is not all that productive. Maybe I should try and find some good MG FF data to include it into my firepower comparison, too. It will of course score worse than the MG FF/M.
>The mount of the gun again doesn't favour the MG/FF(M), since it was mostly a wing gun in 109 190, while the Allied guns I compare were centrally mounted in 99% of Yaks,Lavotchkins, MS-406 and D-520.
True, wing-mounting is a clear disadvantage. However, that is not as much of a problem against bombers as it's against fighters, and your original question asked for bomber targets
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>Henning, the Luftwaffe did have a whole 1943 to halt the daylight bomber offensive. Even though USAF suffered greatly, Luftwaffe failed. So it's fair to say that they struggled.
Oh well, I'd have to see the USAAF raids on the map, but I think the real big and deep raids that were made in 1943 were all losing bombers in a magnitude that would have made continuous operations impossible. The USAAF only undertook these raids because they didn't expect these losses, and perhaps also because they thought they were shooting down far more German fighters than they actually were. I don't believe they would have continued like that into 1944 without the escort fighters ...
>The high muzzle velocity is a nice thing to have when attacking a tough target that had means to hit back, while the attacker is a very susceptible to the return fire.
The Germans found out that high firepower to minimize the time of exposure was far more important than muzzle velocity. Their evaluations gave the hit chance against a four-engined bomber at 500 m as 10 % for the high-velocity MK 103 and 8.3 % for the low-velocity MK 108. The higher firepower of the MK 108 easily made up for the lower hit chances, and another report which I have summarized in a Me 262 cannon thread on this forum showed that this superiority extended to even longer ranges than the 500 m mentioned in the Viermot report.
>When it comes to the early cannons, the MG-FF was better then HS-404 only in weight; ammo count was equal, muzzle velocity, rate of fire and shell power being better for the -404 (no Minengeschoss for the FF).
Hm, now I see that you're referring to the French Hispano - you might be right, I don't have data on the French ammunition. However, you could still mount two MG FF in the wings while the French fighters could only be equipped with a single HS-404, which is a weakness too. As you're probably aware, mounting the Hispano in the wings was rather difficult and attempts to get it to work were completely futile during the Battle of Britain.
>ShVAK is better then FF when we count in the muzzle velocity, rate of fire and ammo count; the MG-FF had a heavier shell and it is lighter.
Oh well, the ShVAK-armed fighters were really pitted against the MG FF/M-armed fighters when shots were fired in anger, so the comparison is not all that productive. Maybe I should try and find some good MG FF data to include it into my firepower comparison, too. It will of course score worse than the MG FF/M.
>The mount of the gun again doesn't favour the MG/FF(M), since it was mostly a wing gun in 109 190, while the Allied guns I compare were centrally mounted in 99% of Yaks,Lavotchkins, MS-406 and D-520.
True, wing-mounting is a clear disadvantage. However, that is not as much of a problem against bombers as it's against fighters, and your original question asked for bomber targets
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
