Centerline weapons vs wing mounted weapons.

Long range deflection shooting, or, up close and point blank .... in both cases you have to know what your guns will do ... wing mounted or nose-centered.

George Beurling
Erich Hartmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MM

Aozora said:

What I don't see is hard data from anyone demonstrating that either configuration was better, given the myriad of different conditions and circumstances under which aircraft were shot down.

Click to expand...

Exactly the point I was making about 1000 posts ago.

Cheers

Steve

there was always plenty of confusion and crew opinions with the LW NJG's as to which was better, most likely having four weapons mounted in the belley to avoid blinding flashes as the cannons were fired - here though more conveniently located and center-line

You may be correct Aozora. Perhaps I did get a little overheated. Apologies.

We have the top pilots in air combat that ever lived saying centerline was better and yet I see continued post of no evidence of same. Since there IS no database of objective data, we are left with emprical data from the experts, and they have already spoken their opinion. I'm just saying that their opinions should carry the weight of truth since they are, by anyone's definition, the most successful fighter pilots of all times.

I can readily admit they had more opportunity to score than anyone else ever did and also fought longer, which might account for the scoring disparity but, still, these guys would know what they're talking about if anyone ever did.

Obviously, not everyone agrees with that, and while perplexing to me personally, it is what it is; so be it. I doubt an objective database will ever exist that can satisfy some in here, but maybe it will surface eventually ... though I doubt very strongly that wing-mount armament will ever be popular again unless we go to single-engine turboprop attack planes. If we do, they'll probably not be used as fighters unles they get attacked themselves and do so out of self preservation, so any data generated from here forward will be heavily biased toward centerline guns of the rotary cannon type.

Wish we had a real database of all WWII victories, but while I have been trying to collect one for years, not all the data are available. My database to date accounts for 137,928.8 victories in all wars and 11,054 pilots, with 112,809.33 victories being from WWII. In fact, most victory lists don't even tell you what plane the victor was flying, much less what type the victim was. They usally have name, nationality, date, number of kills, and sometimes the unit. You'd have to research tens of thiousands of victories to get type of victor and victim and, while I'm quite interested, I'm not THAT interested and don't have access to all the data anyway ... IF it exists at all. We already know that for many German and Japanese victories, the data are simply missing due to war damage. I'd think the data for most British and American victories are around somewhere, but I don't know where to find the requisite documents to finish the data that are available and create a single list with the desired data points.

By the way, the 11,054 pilots is far from all pilots of military planes, but surely accounts for a decent percentage of those with an aerial victory over an enemy. Many pilots flew combat patrols and never saw an enemy plane, making their sortie not an action sortie though it was flown during a conflict.

Some in here have posted data that come from documents I have never seen and it might be nice to collaborate and come up with a good database. I'd be interested if someyone wants to exchange some information and perhaps proceed together.

Thanks for the link MM.
just read the Beurling part - very interesting. He was a hell of a pilot and marksman. Maybe not a team player but certainly a guy I would want on my side rather than the opposition!

when you consider the caliber of the opposition he was up against I think it even more impressive!

I don't see how the opinion of a handful of top scoring aces who never flew a contemporary wing armament in combat (say the .50 cals of the P-51 or cannon/MG combination of a Spitfire) can possibly be an informed judgement. You might call it empirical evidence by the literal definition,I might feel they are simply expressing a prejudice.

It is not good evidence that centreline armament was any more effective. I don't know whether it was or not,but nor did they or anyone else. Just because,with their minimal or zero combat experience of an alternative arrangement,those men intuitively felt that their centreline armament was better doesn't make it so. How do we know that,had they flown a P-47 in combat, they wouldn't have decided that four .50 calibre machine guns in each wing was definitely the way to go?

The only Anglo-American ace I've ever heard expressing admiration for centreline armament was Bader and that was in the context of the destructive power of the 20mm cannon firing through the spinner of the Bf 109 F.
I don't remember hearing anyone one expressing the wish that they'd had a centreline arrangement over what they had."If only I'd had centreline armament I would have had 1.75 times as many kills",or something along those lines,though I suppose someone might have.

Cheers

Steve

"... The only Anglo-American ace I've ever heard expressing admiration for centreline armament was Bader"

Aces are the least representative of the "issue". They are generally great marksmen and superior pilots. As such, they will get the kill either by stalking from behind or through exceptional deflection shooting (like Beurling). The reality is that as soon as design permitted (jets) the guns migrated onto the centerline - F-86 Sabre = P-51 Mustang. Hawker Hunter = Tempest.

The question should be, IMO ... which configuration was better for the average pilot ..?

MM

Hi Steve,

That's one way to think of it for sure. You make a good case.

I was under the impression that the top three guys got their ideas about centerline armament precisely by flying wing-mounted armament planes and shooting at towed targets ... and deciding which was more effective. All flew the Fw 190 and probably more, including American and British planes that were captured. I KNOW Hartmann flew P-51's .... don't know if he, in fact, fired at targets or not. I suspect so since 50-cal ammo was certainly available to the Germans. But ... that is conjecture on my part and you make a good case.

The "average pilot" part is certainly the case.

Exactly what data are you looking for that might surface to say which configuration would be better? Maybe some of it exists somewhere.

in the LW case for day fighting it depended on the Allied fighter/bomber type encountered. by late 1943 the Fw A variants had proven superior to all Bf 109G types for engaging US 4 engines.

That makes perfect sense becasue they were much more heavily armed than the 109 was and 4-engine bombers don't exactly evade anything, especially in formation, except maybe another 4-engine.

stona said:

The only Anglo-American ace I've ever heard expressing admiration for centreline armament was Bader and that was in the context of the destructive power of the 20mm cannon firing through the spinner of the Bf 109 F.

Click to expand...

The document referenced in the very first post that started this thread was on this very issue. Wing Commander Churchill toured three fighter stations and in the discussions that followed '... it was notable that all five made the same comments ... and that their arguments and phraseology were almost the same ...'

The pilots were:

Group Captain Broadhurst, DSO, DFC, AFC (Station Commander Hornchurch)
Wing Commander Rankin, DSO, DFC (Wing Commander Training, 11 Group)
Wing Commander Tuck, DSO, DFC (Wing Commander Biggin Hill)
Wing Commander Boyd, DFC (Wing Commander Kenley)
Squadron Leader Wells, DFC (OC 485 Squadron)

Definitely no slouches in the air combat department. Off the top of my head, in his book 'Lucky Thirteen', Wing Commander Hugh Godefroy DSO, DFC Bar, Croix de Guerre with Gold Star (Fr) praises the Fw 190's centreline armament over the Spitfire IX's.

I can remember reading many cases like this, from pilots of various nationalities and air forces; French, German, American, etc. It appears to me that it was widely accepted that a more centred position of of the armament was preferable, and that wing-mounted weaponry was a necessary evil for the aircraft that used it.

I can't recall of a single case of a pilot expressing a preference for wing armament over that of fuselage armament.

Interesting to note that when the Bf 109F became operational Adolf Galland and one or two other top German pilots expressed disappointment at the reduction in weight of fire, in addition to which Galland was concerned that the centre-line armament would present problems to the average Luftwaffe fighter pilot. As we know he highlighted these concerns by modifying a couple of F-2s, one incorporating wing armament and the other had 13 mm cowl guns.

The Bf109F2 only had a 15mm motorcannon, and 2- 7.92 machine guns, Galland's disappointment might have been in the lightweight armament, not that it was centerline.
Molders liked it.

Maybe it would be reasonable to say that the advantages of the centreline armament (chiefly, line of sight aining) was appreciated by the pilots whereas the advantages of wing mounted armament (reduced complexity, potentially heavier firepower) favoured the designers. That's a pretty broad generalisation, I realise. The fact that Kurt Tank elected to mount the wing mounted cannon of the Ta-152 inside the propeller arc suggests he considered the added complexity of interruptor gear a good trade-off for the advantages of centre-mounted armament (or close to it).
The Ta 152 also compares well to later allied fighters in terms of outright firepower, thogh the diferring ballistics of its cannon may have been an issue.
On the other hand, by the end of the war British seemed to have pretty much setlled on 4x20mm wing mounted cannon as their optimum armament for single engine fighters, and I never heard of the pilots of Typhoons or Tempests complaining about ineffective guns. The USAAF fighters lagged behind a bit in this respect but as has been discussed elsewhere there were good reasons to stick with the lighter .5 cals
The fact that the pre-eminence of one armamanet layout other the other was not a settled thing after six years of war suggests to me that each had specific advantages, and designers chose accordingly depending on other design factors and the exact situations they expected their fighters to encounter in service.

The Ta-152-H was equipped with 20mm cannons in wing roots, as most of Fw-190. We could-should call those cannons 'center line' weapons?
The Ta-152-C have had additonal pair of cannons under cowling, roughly where the Fw-190s usually had MGs. So we have here a centerline battery of 4 x 20 mm and one 30 mm?

The benefits of a centerline battery, consisting of one 15-20mm and two MGs would be overweighted by brute power of a quartet of 20 mm cannons, provided the plane has engine power to carry those?

tyrodtom said:

The Bf109F2 only had a 15mm motorcannon,

Click to expand...

I know that but Bader (in the TV interview from the 1970s I referred to) called it a 20mm cannon,which just goes to show how fallible human memory is.
Steve

tomo pauk said:

The Ta-152-H was equipped with 20mm cannons in wing roots, as most of Fw-190. We could-should call those cannons 'center line' weapons?
The Ta-152-C have had additonal pair of cannons under cowling, roughly where the Fw-190s usually had MGs. So we have here a centerline battery of 4 x 20 mm and one 30 mm?

The benefits of a centerline battery, consisting of one 15-20mm and two MGs would be overweighted by brute power of a quartet of 20 mm cannons, provided the plane has engine power to carry those?

Click to expand...

Given that the wing-root cannon of the Ta 152/Fw 190 shared the advantages (eg closer to the line of sight of the pilot) and disadvantages (eg need for interruptor gear) as cowl mounted weapons, I would be inclined to include them in the centreline catagory for the sake of discussion. After all, even the cowl and hub mounted weapons were offset from line of sight to some degree. What were the last fighters to use true line of sight weapons? Probably something like the Sopwith Pup!

The SPAD XII fired a 37mm shell thro the center of the prop shaft.

The Hispano-Suiza aviation engine had to be geared to allow the gun to fire through the propeller shaft.

The Ta 152's wing root cannons are 25 cm farther away to each side from the centerline than the guns of the Fw 190, due to the extended wing.
I guess one could still call it within the centerline grouping though.