Shortround6
Major General
BTW I would note that unless you get into rather ridiculous guns like MK103s or 50mm cannon the fighters cannot out-range the .50 guns on the B-17s.
Bf-109s and FW190s against B17s
- Thread starter Cpt. John
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
From what I read the problem was a little more complex. The maximum rate of climb of the spitfire and hurricane was at much different forward speed due to the completely different wings. It wasnt just a case of the Spitfires having to throttle back the hurricanes also had to climb at a reduced angle for them all to stay in the same piece of sky. The result was that spitfires and hurricanes together climbed slower than hurricanes on their own.
GregP
Major
So, what exactly is the question in the poll above and what is an Fw 109?
Are you asking which one we'd rather fly? Which one was probably more effective? Which one we liked best? I don't want to answer until I know what you asked!
Are you asking which one we'd rather fly? Which one was probably more effective? Which one we liked best? I don't want to answer until I know what you asked!
Assuming he is asking which you would want to go hunting B-17's in, I would go with a Fw-190D-13. My reasoning is based on the assumption I will encounter a "few" of those pesky P-51's, P-47's, or P-38's that roam Germany. I believe it only has 3 guns (20mm). While it might be considered "under gunned" compared to a Mustang/Thunderbolt/Lightning it's performance would be more useful getting to, into, and out of the bomber formations.
Cheers,
Biff
Cheers,
Biff
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 902
- Feb 16, 2013
3 centrally mounted MG151/20's on a D13 would not be undergunned against any American fighter sporting 6 or 8 M2's.
That is almost an ideal armament arangment for the time, in my opinion. Whether it be a Fw190d13, or Yak3P with the 3 B20 cannons in the nose
That is almost an ideal armament arangment for the time, in my opinion. Whether it be a Fw190d13, or Yak3P with the 3 B20 cannons in the nose
I think one of the 'Doras' would be a smart choice, my back up would still be an A-8, but without the 337.3 extra Kg of armour, as fitted to the R2.
Otherwise an Me 262 might be a good idea, but it would be a toss up whether the Americans or your own aircraft got you
Cheers
Steve
Latter Fw 190D13 were to be equipped with the Jumo 213EB (replacing the Jumo 213F). This aircraft was a monster expected to do 488mph at high altitude and over 400 at sea level. The Forsyth book also notes that the Luftwaffe was already experimenting with the MG213 revolver breach canon on the Fw 190. Somewhat surprisingly they could be synchronized with the propellor as the revolving breaches locked before shooting.
The removal of the outer guns meant Fuel tanks were planed to be fitters there, particularly the ground attack versions which would have received toss bombing sights.
We are getting into Nazi paper planes again. As of April 7th 1945 just two D-13s are known to have been at operational units. We can let Biff have one of them, but really they are as irrelevant as the Ta 152 and other late war aircraft that were produced in minimal numbers.
Cheers
Steve
Cheers
Steve
Shortround6
Major General
Original question was what was better against the B-17 and B-24. Yes you have to survive the escorts but the difference between 488 mph and 400 mph is going to be minimal against 180-200 mph bombers. Whatever you gain in less exposure time to defensive guns you loose in less firing time and aiming time for attacking. And with less firepower additional firing passes are needed.
- Thread starter
- #30
Cpt John
Aberdeen Proving Ground did a post war analysis of which fighter was most effective against the B-17/B-24 based on German combat films.
Please see
http://www.germanluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/a/Alliierte/US Air Combat Records WW II.pdf
Eagledad
Aberdeen Proving Ground did a post war analysis of which fighter was most effective against the B-17/B-24 based on German combat films.
Please see
http://www.germanluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/a/Alliierte/US Air Combat Records WW II.pdf
Eagledad
drgondog
Major
Biff - notably 3x20mm is far more balanced and effective than every Bf 109 in standard fighter mode. The 30mm was unquestionably the most powerful over 20mm but ballistics forced more closure to the B-17/24. As far as under gunned, no way 3xMG151/20mm are less effective than 6x or 8x 50 Cal.
Fascinating document.
Interesting to see how much better the 190 is than the 109 in taking on bombers. Although I wonder how much of the disparity was due to the Sturmböcke 190s ...
I'm actually of the same thoughts regarding numbers & calibers per the Fw-190D-13. I was alluding to previous conversations / debates about the quality of 6-8 x 50 cal's versus the less numerous, heavier 20mm but firing at a slower rate.
Cheers,
Biff
Shortround6
Major General
the 20mm vs .50 ca; was pretty much the Hispano vs .50. They had some of the same strengths and weaknesses. Against the MG 151/20 things may change a bit. The .50 being longer ranged (shorter time of flight) for one thing. Another is that figuring by arbitrary measurements (Muzzle horsepower?) the MG 151/20 and the .50 cal are closer together. Actual target effect may differ considerably.
drgondog
Major
Biff - the Mg 151/20 had a rate of fire about 750rpm - 25% faster than the M2 50 Cal. The FW 190 versions with 4x20 plus two MG/151 15mm were even more devastating. When the Poll changes from "FW 109" I will cast the correct vote.
Shortround6
Major General
Bill, I believe the M2 aircraft .50 cal was firing at 750-850 rpm by the time the B-17s and B-24s were flying over Europe. Sources differ and the 850 may be on the high side but 750-800 seems to be widely reported for wing guns. During the 30s and through most of 1940 they did fire at 600rpm or less (much less if synchronized). The ground guns stayed at 600rpm or less until modern times.
I believe the change in rate of fire could be achieved by changing just a few parts, including the buffer? and could be done at squadron level.
The 20mm big advantage was of course the HE ammunition. However the ammo belts were seldom 100% HE.
Luftwaffe belts (as with everything else) varied with time and place but were generally 1 : 1, 3 : 1, or 2 : 1 of HEI (mine), HE/T and APHE.
The Muzzle horsepower rating is a bit bogus although perhaps useful for comparing a gun design. The 20mm Hispano had about 3 times the muzzle energy of the .50 cal and taking the muzzle energy times the rate of fire and converting it to HP gives the Hispano (at 600rpm) somewhere around a 2.2 advantage over the .50 (at 780rpm) (depends on exact loads/ barrel length and rate of fire) and doesn't count explosive charge.
Of course power at the muzzle is hard to translate into target effect at "long" (even 300yds or more) range. And trying to figure out the target effect of the HE and incendiary payloads can lead to long and bitter arguments.
The US .50 went through a major ammunition change just before the war, then saw the introduction of the M8 API round in late1943/early 44 which almost totally displaced the early mixed belts of AP, incendiary and tracer (2 : 2 : 1 ratio although the tracer fell out of favor) by the time the FW 190D-9 and later really show up in numbers the US is using small quantities of the M23 incendiary round. Much higher velocity and a major increase in incendiary payload although penetration is lousy. This is the major round used in Korea.
I believe the change in rate of fire could be achieved by changing just a few parts, including the buffer? and could be done at squadron level.
The 20mm big advantage was of course the HE ammunition. However the ammo belts were seldom 100% HE.
Luftwaffe belts (as with everything else) varied with time and place but were generally 1 : 1, 3 : 1, or 2 : 1 of HEI (mine), HE/T and APHE.
The Muzzle horsepower rating is a bit bogus although perhaps useful for comparing a gun design. The 20mm Hispano had about 3 times the muzzle energy of the .50 cal and taking the muzzle energy times the rate of fire and converting it to HP gives the Hispano (at 600rpm) somewhere around a 2.2 advantage over the .50 (at 780rpm) (depends on exact loads/ barrel length and rate of fire) and doesn't count explosive charge.
Of course power at the muzzle is hard to translate into target effect at "long" (even 300yds or more) range. And trying to figure out the target effect of the HE and incendiary payloads can lead to long and bitter arguments.
The US .50 went through a major ammunition change just before the war, then saw the introduction of the M8 API round in late1943/early 44 which almost totally displaced the early mixed belts of AP, incendiary and tracer (2 : 2 : 1 ratio although the tracer fell out of favor) by the time the FW 190D-9 and later really show up in numbers the US is using small quantities of the M23 incendiary round. Much higher velocity and a major increase in incendiary payload although penetration is lousy. This is the major round used in Korea.
drgondog
Major
Shortround - I agree with everything you just posted with one caveat. I have read a lot of squadron reports that touch on armorer comments that the initial rate of fire for the 50's was 650+. I bow to your superior knowledge with respect to the buffer spring adjustment with another note that 355th armorers reduced jamming occurrences by reducing the buffer spring load - but no comment regarding ROF difference estimates.
As an aside, listening to a conversation between Henry Brown and dad - the subject of explosive round test was touched on with the follow on comment that the two were glad it didn't continue because of pre-detonation happenings not far out of the barrel. Neither are around fro me to pursue this, but I have searched far and wide with no success to identify the round or the program.
As an aside, listening to a conversation between Henry Brown and dad - the subject of explosive round test was touched on with the follow on comment that the two were glad it didn't continue because of pre-detonation happenings not far out of the barrel. Neither are around fro me to pursue this, but I have searched far and wide with no success to identify the round or the program.
