Centerline weapons vs wing mounted weapons.

[GregP]

I think the #1 is wrong. Different calibers are not an issue; different ballistics are. If they start with the same muzzle veliocity, the separation should be minimized well enough to make it not a great issue except at very long ranges.

Otherwise, you have a good summary except, the top aces ALL preferred centerline-mounted armament and they accounted for a great portion of the kills, so it had a demonstrated advantage despite any disadvantages. Today, since most jets have fuselage-mounted guns ... if they HAVE guns, the issue is sort of moot since cernterline or very close to it is the norm.

 

[CobberKane]

I think the #1 is wrong. Different calibers are not an issue; different ballistics are. If they start with the same muzzel veliocity, the separation should be minimized well enough to make it not a great issue except at long ranges.


True - different ballistics would have been a better choice of words. I was thinking of the German use of the 30mm cannon here, or the American 37mm a la P39/63.
I think the mass centralisation advantages of the centre mounted armament is an often overlooked factor. But when you say ALL the top aces preferred centre mounted armament, do you mean the German aces? Most of the allied aces (excluding the Soviets) flew fighters with wing mounted armament I would have thought.l

 

[riacrato]

On the Fw 190: I think it's interesting to note that the inner four "centerline" weapons were grouped together on one button while the outer two were on the other. Iirc that stays the same even after the outer, too, are replaced with MF151 from A-6 model onwards.

That indicates to me the inner weapons were treated differently from the outer. Likely it was thought that when attacking the enemy from a distance or when at a different banking angle the chance for the outer weapons to actually hit were seen as low. I assume the outer weapons were only to be used when up close and at the right angle.

 

[GregP]

Hi Cobber,

Yes you are right. All the top aces were German. I have a database with 11,054 people listed who have shot down an aircraft in aerial combat with a combined 133,068.8 individual victories and 4,862 shared victories. Of these, 9,146 men shot down 5 or more, making them "aces." The top 126 aces are all German with #127 being from Finnland. That would be Eino Ilmari Juutilainen with 92 victories. He is tied with two Germans. All of these aces are from WWII.

These top 126 WWII aces were awarded 17,404 victories among them with zero being shared victories. Hartmann, Barkhorn, and Rall had 928 victories among themselves and all flew the 109 out of choice since all had opportunities to fly the Fw 190. Barkhorn had a stint in 190's but the bulk of his victories were in the 109. If you add the next three guys, Kittel, Nowotny, and Batz the total rises to 1,690 among 6 guys. But Kittle flew both the 109 and 190 and I don't know how many he had in each mount. Nowotny and Batz had almost all their victories on the Eastern Front in the 109 (255 of 258 and 234 of 237 respectively).

So, here are 6 guys with 1,690 victories, with most being while flying centerline armament in the Bf 109.

I'd say centerline armament stands out as a major factor in air-to-air combat success.

In WWII, by comparison, the top three Australians had 52 vicotries; the top three Canadians had 67; the top three Finns had 221; the top three British had 88; the top three Italians had 62; the top three Japanese had 229; and the top three Americans had 112.

I don't know if the Finns were flying 109's or Buffalos, or if the Italians were flying centerline or wing armamment, but the rest were almost certainly flying wing armament with their success being significantly less than than the German predominantly centerline armament.

We can argue the merits of a target-rich environment on the Eastern Front, but their success was far and away better with their centerline-armament than anyone else flying wing-mounted armament. I won't engage in what-if the Germans had flown wing-mounted armament because that speculation didn't happen and nobody can say what effect it might have had with any degree of accuracy. One person's opinion is as valid or invalid as another in this.

 

[stona]

Those statistics do not show that centreline armament was a major factor in air to air combat at all. They show many things not least of all the length of time that Luftwaffe pilots remained on active service rather than flying desks or training their replacements.
It might be more illuminating to compare the number of kills in relation to the total number of sorties flown,or even sorties in which the enemy was engaged,by the various aces.
Cheers
Steve

 

[GregP]

Let's say we interpret things differently and not argue about it. Though I am a pilot, I'm not a fighter pilot.

The preferences of the top three aces of all times have been expressed in publically-available interviews and all mention centerline armament as a primary factor. I'll take their opinions any day over anyone's conjecture, but don't feel it is worth one single bitter word. So, I have absolutely nothing bad or sarcastic to say if you choose to believe otherwise. On the contrary, I look forward to seeing your conclusions.

I think srties and action sorties are available for some guys, but far from all. If you have the information, perhaps you'd share it? Getting the information is the trickiest part!

Funny, my aerial victory list incluses a lot of information, but not the sorties and action sorties, the victim's aircraft type, or the victor's aircraft type. You'd think the people saving the data would include such basics, wouldn't you?

Cheers back to you, Steve.

Greg

 

[stona]

I'm not a pilot,but I was a chemist. Statistics is something scientists "do".
There's just too many variables to make any conclusion from victory lists that the style of armament has anything to do with success rates. I've already alluded to the sheer length of time that many Luftwaffe pilots remained in action compared to their allied counter parts.
There are all sorts of other criteria which skew the results,the opposition,the tactical and strategic direction of the air battles would be two major factors. The statistics from the opening phase of Barbarossa make some interesting reading. I very much doubt the large number of Luftwaffe claims are due particularly to the style of it's two principal fighters' armament.
Centerline armament may or may not have been a factor in the success of some of these man but the statistics you are quoting absolutely do not demonstrate that.
As for over to me,I'm innocent until proven guilty. I need to see some statistics that demonstrate that centreline armament made Luftwaffe pilots more effective than their opposition and that I have not seen.
The "top three aces" are bound to praise the armament they had. What were they comparing it to? None of the Luftwaffe's front line fighters had anything else.
Back to you
Cheers
Steve

 

[Shortround6]

Center line armament may very well be more effective than wing armament. The question is, is it twice as effective? or 1.25 times or 1.5 times or _____ more effective. The twice as effective just seems a little too glib or pat of an answer.

 

[GregP]

I'm an engineer and engineers do statistics, too. There ARE no statistics available for what we are researching. If you don't save the data (they didn't), there is little danger you can use it later to find trends and truths.

So we fall back on emperical evidence. The evidence is simple, the most successful guys in the role of fighter pilot used centerline armament with great success ... much greater than those who used wing-mounted armament. These same top pilots usually alluded to centerline armamenrt as being a big factor, certainly the top three did.

The Fw 190 is very tough to categorize as it had both centerline and wing armament. I know for sure that there is nobody out there who can say which armament fired the bullets that downed a kill, so I don't even consider the Fw 190 in either category as it fits into both with indeterminant results.

The Spitfire is ALL wing-mount as are the Hurricane, Mustang, P-47 and more. The Zero has both, but many planes have only centerline or wing-mount and not both. Yes, some versions of the 109 also had both centerline and wing-mount, but the top aces often removed the wing-mount guns, particularly in the F-model, and went with centerline. We KNOW Hartmann did so, even on some G-models he flew.

Take the top three 109 guys against the top three Spitfire, Hurricane, Mustang and P-47 guys. Include whatever planes you want.

None of the wing-mount planes came even close to the top three 109 guys. The USA's top two aces both flew centerline armament only planes (the Lightning).

Since we will NEVER have any statistics that show the armament placement versus action sortie victories or claims, we have to use the information we have to make judgements. I simply judge that the available evidence shows centerline armament was demonstrably better and was preferred by most of the highest-ranking pilots.

That's enough for me to agree with them until such time as some data are available that contradict the conclusion. To date, I haven't seen it, but am willing to look at any data to try to dispell the notion. So while I have decided and have an opinion at this time, I am open to changing my mind if and when sufficient evidence becomes available.

I hope the data surface, but hold out little hope for it since the war ended and 1945 and the data still haven't been uncovered yet by interested people who have been digging around for just such information. I believe the loss data are reasonably accurate as far as they go, but don't believe they are complete.

While I was working for Motorola I was the software liaison to the US Navy and ran the data colelction task for the Navy Standard Missile Depot Repair Program at Motorola. The Standard Missile is a 13-inch diamter missile that is either surface to surfce or surface to air. The Navy accounts for everything whenver an inventory is taken. I'll never forget working on a project to get all the back data together. I went over monthly reports for Standard Missile for more than 10 years, and came up with what looked to me like the most consistent data available.

Then we had a bomb dropped on us. One of the weapon stations got a new commander and he went around the base and ordered that it be cleaned up and made to look ship shape. They found two railroad cars just outside the base on an old siding of track that had been sitting there for at least five years and the locks were rusted shut.

When they cut the locks off, there were 15 Standard Missiles in containers, ready for deployment. Nobody knew how or when they got there and all had been listed as "expended in test" on the monthly reports, yet there they were, untouched in years, just off-base, in railroad cars. When the Navy has to account for the inventory, the inventory apparently gets accounted for whether they can find it or not.

Tell me the same and worse didn't happen in WWII anywhere out there in the confusion of the war and the immediate post-war data collection. Right ... So when the claims are reconciled with admitted losses, I still think somebody is either fibbing to make themselves look better or some data are simply missing.

That's why I stick with the official victories awarded to the pilots by their own armed services ... I think it is the best data available to compare the pilots, planes, etc. against each other ... if the data are complete enough to track a particular thing. If not, then we'll never really know. All we have are combat reports and the views expressed in interviews ... usually with better-known pilots who distunguised themselves somehow in the conflict.

Probably there are people who agree with me; there are certainly people who don't, yourself included. I find the discussions interesting, and would not offer to say whether my take on things or anyone else's is more accurate. I don't think either of us will ever be able to prove our point to the other one. But I enjoy the challenge, the stories, and data uncovered.

Thanks for the links above to the RNZAF and RAAF above! I already have them stored on Excel along with all the other data I have accumulated. Now I just have to analyze them ...

 

[Milosh]

None of the wing-mount planes came even close to the top three 109 guys.

Neither did the number of sorties.

 

[GregP]

You have the sortie data for the wing-mount planes? Including both sorties and action sorties?

If so, I'd be interested in seeing it.

 

[Milosh]

Hartmann flew something like 1200 sorties and had combat in about 800.

Barkhorn flew 1,104 operational sorties.

Rall flew 621 combat missions.

You think Gabreski flew that many sorties in his P-47s and Spitfires?

 

[GregP]

Depending on what sources you read, Hartmann flew between 1,400 and 1,425 sorties (1,404 is the most quoted number) with 800 to 850 being action sorties. He shot down 352 (claims) including 189 LaGG's, 81 P-39's, 25 Yak-9's, and the rest in descending order include 2 P-51's and 3 La-5's.

Barkhorn flew 1,104 sorties as you say, with 301 being action sorties.

I have Rall's total at "1,000+" sorties with 621 being action sorties, as you say.


Gabreski flew 166 action sorties in WWII and was credited with 28 air victories and 3 on the ground (shown but not counted in his total. I have no sortie total of other-than-action type. He had a futher 123 action sorties in Korea with 6.5 MiG victories. So his total was 289 action sorties, just short of Gerhard Barkhorn's. His 34.5 victories are the results of exactly what Barkhorn himslef in an interview.

I believe his words were to the effect: One reason for the high victory tally of the German pilots was oppurtunity. An Allied fighter pilot might fly 10 or more missions and not even see a German aircraft. The German fighter pilot, on the other hand, was never without a potential target around. Allied planes were everywhere. We simply had more opportunity and satyed in the fight until we won, lost, or died. That I survived was as much luck as skill. Enemy plaens were hunting us on every flight that was anywhere near the action.

 

[CobberKane]

Hi Greg,
A couple of observations on your position that effectiveness of centreline armament is illustrated by fact that the highest scoring aces of the war (all German) used it. Firstly, I don't think you can so easily dismiss other factors such as the quality of the opposition as having much greater bearing on the scores of Hartmann et al - as can be evidenced by the fact that the LW pilots you've mentioned scored the great majority of their kills against opposition who were also using centerline armament - the Soviets. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think ALL USSR fighters were thus armed, yet we do not see Soviet pilots scoring 300 plus kills against the LW. What prevented them doing so? Assumedly other factors such as quality of training, equipment and leadership - what have you. If these factors were disadvantages to the Soviets they were certainly advantages to the Germans. The fact that the top scoring LW aces were hugely more successful than their Soviet counterparts, when both used aircraft with centreline armament and similar firepower, suggests that other factors were the cause of the disparity in scores .
Secondly, while it is true that the USA's two top scoring aces flew the P-38 with centreline armament, it is also true that seven of the top ten US aces flew fighters with wing mounted armament. Johnny Johnson equalled McGuires score in aircraft with wing mounted armament, and Pat Prattle very likely exceeded Bongs score, with most of his victories coming in fighters with wing mounted armament (the balance being in Gladiators).
I think both systems had their advantages and disadvantages, but holding up the exploits of such as Hartmann as strong evidence of the overall superiority of centreline armament seems to be drawing a long bow.

 

[Aozora]

It could also be argued that America's leading ace, one R Bong flew the P-38 with centreline armament, and most Russian aces flew fighters with centreline armament, including the P-39 etc etc. However, without some decent empirical data all the surmising doesn't really achieve much because there are far to many variables in air-to-air combat. For mine, until the advent of reliable gyro gunsights, the marksmanship and flying ability of the pilots was far more important to the outcome of combat than whether or not the armament was wing or centre mounted except, perhaps, at longer ranges.

 

[GregP]

You doubters could be right, but I'm basing my opinion on the opinion of the top three aces off all time. Hard to say they're wrong ... unless you purport yourself as an expert beyond the top three aces of all time. I'm certainly not. I doubt anyone else is either, and that doubt fuels my contention.

If there are any aces out there who think otherwise, please chime in here ... along with your name and record.

Otherwise, I'll stick with the opinions of people who shot down HUNDREDS of other aircaft over modern revisionists who weren't ever in aerial combat in any capacity. The guys with the opinions WERE.

C'mon, get real. Yoy think YOU are better than Hartmman, Barkhorn, or Rall, then prove it with publically available figures. Otherwise ... centerline armament IS better since THEY say it is, not me at all. They are many times better than any other pilot who competed in WWII and lived to tell about it. They deserve the benefit of the doubt until it can be proven otherwise ... and you can't do that with any available data that I know of.

So ... you think what you want to think in good health.

I'll do the same with the confidence that my opinion is in agreement with that of the top three aces of all time, and I'll be right until proven otherwise by anyone who shoots down 353 enemy aircaft and thinks otherwise by virture of having done so with wing-mounted armament alone. Tough since ALL jets have centerline armament, but someone may do it at some time. Ya' never know, do you?

There are NO data to prove otherwise anywhere that have been uncovered and made public that I know of. If you have it or know of it, PLEASE post it so we can be educated.

Argue with data or go away.

Any moderator, please tell me if I'm out of line here. If so, I retract all of the above and will refrain from further argument on this subject but still continue to think centerline is better without further comment from me in any form.

 

[CobberKane]

Peace, Brother! I've got no problem at all with you sticking to your centreline guns. And you're right - I don't have any data to suggest the wing mounted weapons are better than centreline, any more than you have any data to suggest they aren't. The big three of the LW liked centreline weapons, though the fact that the Soviets had similar armaments without coming anywhere near matching Hartmman, Barkhorn, or Rall in kills sugests that other factors were responsible for the diference. The American/British experience seems to have been that the best pilots flying aircraft with both arrangements were equally successful. If aces like Hartmman, Barkhorn and Rall said they prefered centreline weapons I'm sure there were advantages they made good use of, but extrapolating their worthy opinions to a blanket conclusion that centerline weapons are better than wing mounted, full stop, seems a bit much.
And mate, a 'revisionist' is either someone who criticaly examines the known facts, or someone who denies them. As I never denied anything, I'll assume you meant the term in the first sense - thank you!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Just keep it peaceful guys.

 

[cimmex]

I cannot see what you are debating here. Ask a sniper whether he would prefer a rifle were the sightline is close to the barrel line or one with sightline offset to the barrel. I think the answer would be clear. This is not a matter of belief but a matter of physical law and geometric .
cimmex

 

[CobberKane]

I cannot see what you are debating here. Ask a sniper whether he would prefer a rifle were the sightline is close to the barrel line or one with sightline offset to the barrel. I think the answer would be clear. This is not a matter of belief but a matter of physical law and geometric .
cimmex

Surely you're not going to deny me my God-given right to mount spurious arguments and arbitrarily gainsay other contributors?
Seriously though, there are a few more factors involved in arming a fighter plane than arming a sniper. If the superiority of centreline armament was a lay-down miserere, nobody would have been building fighters with wing mounted armament come 1945. To clarify my opinion, I think it was horses for courses. Some fighters, by design and intended purpose, lent themselves well to the centreline arrangement with it's attendent advantages. Others were better able to take advantage of what wing mounted armament offered. Many of course used both. So in that respect I agree - not much to argue about!