best fighter of ww II

[Maestro]

And by the way, I think what kills is energy, not weight. Let's compare...

It's a rotten analogy but anyway...

When arabs use stones to kill someone, they use small ones, yes ? So, what's the use of a 200lb stone if you can't throw it strong enough to kill someone ?

At least, that's what I think.

 

[Lightning Guy]

That info for the Spit factored in all six guns. And yes it did have better performance than the P-51B in terms of firepower, but not the P-51D.

Weight of fire gives some important information. It gives an idea of the number of rounds being fired, and the number of times a target may be hit. Weight is a key compontent of kinetic energy (1/2 mass x velocity sq.) and, unlike kinetic energy, the weight of a burst is constant for any range.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

When arabs use stones to kill someone, they use small ones, yes ? So, what's the use of a 200lb stone if you can't throw it strong enough to kill someone ?

a better one is why use a large stone and try and just your opponent, why not use a small stone and get it so accurate it'll not them out......................

 

[Lightning Guy]

It was just a poor analogy to begin with . . .

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

something like that happens in the film Braveheart, watch that and you'll see what he means.................

 

[plan_D]

The idea of of the P-51 out-gunning the Spitfire is stupid anyway, just by looking at it like that. Quite standard knowledge a 20mm round does more damage than a 12.7mm.

And it's most widely recognised the Mk. XIV was the best dogfighter of the war.

 

[Lightning Guy]

I've seen it several times. Great film. Of course, throwing a pebble isn't going to knock someone out since it doesn't have enough weight behind it.

 

[plan_D]

He didn't throw a pebble, he threw a rock. And I bet you I could knock someone out with a small rock.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

if you get it in the right place......................

 

[plan_D]

Do you want to stand there and let me try?

 

[Lightning Guy]

I know he throw a rock, my point was you need some weight or else you've achieved nothing. A single 20mm round does more damage than a single .50cal round. But the .50cal has a higher rate of fire by about 25% meaning more hits will be scored. The weapon itself is lighter meaning more can be carried, and very few (if any) fighters in WWII were capable of standing up to the sustained drumming of .50cal weapons.

 

[plan_D]

None can take a beating from 20mm either.

 

[Lightning Guy]

No, so we've reached a mute point. A Spit could down whatever it was shooting at an the Stang could down whatever it was shooting at.

 

[plan_D]

It's amazing how we argue over nothing.

 

[Lightning Guy]

Well, it terms of numbers, the Mustang did have a slight edge. It terms of real-world performance, it didn't really meaning anything. Though, personally, I wished the RAF would have phased out the .303 a little sooner and got the 4 20mm or 2 20mm and 2 .50cal versions of the Spit into action a little sooner.

 

[plan_D]

.303 ammo was in vaster numbers, I think. After all, we had countless that was ready to go out to France until it got invaded in 1940. And we used TRAINING rounds against the Germans.

Still a mix of .50cal and 20mm would have been better, agreed.

 

[Maestro]

Still a mix of .50cal and 20mm would have been better, agreed.

I agree too. A mix of 20mm and .50cal would have been great.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

so once again more mass agreement......................

 

[Lightning Guy]

You know . . . there was one aircraft that made excellent use of a mixed .50cal/20mm armament throughout the war

 

[plan_D]

One 20mm, which was 37mm at first.