best fighter of ww II

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

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.
 
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.
 
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 ?
Click to expand...

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......................
 
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.
 
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.
 
He didn't throw a pebble, he threw a rock. And I bet you I could knock someone out with a small rock.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
.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.
 
You know . . . there was one aircraft that made excellent use of a mixed .50cal/20mm armament throughout the war
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

  • Locked
Attempted assassination of Trump.
Replies
2
Views
1K
DerAdlerIstGelandet
CANADA BANS 1500 TYPES OF ASSAULT WEAPONS IMMEDIATELY
2 3
Replies
47
Views
4K
Dana Bell
D
L
  • Locked
What Criteria should be used for determining the best land based piston fighter
9 10 11
Replies
218
Views
25K
Lighthunmust
L
  • Locked
Charity Auction for Signed Copy of Finish Forty and Home
Replies
2
Views
2K
ccheese
  • Locked
The Battle Of Kursk - the air battle
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
29K
parsifal
Menu
Log in
Register