Corsair vs FW190

[drgondog]

Radial engine being somewhat more resistant to battle damage might be a good point to bring up when considering the other fighters vs the P51.

As the 8th AF fighter pilots would occasionally say, "If you want to send a picture home to your girlfriend, sit in the cockpit of the 51. If you wanted to GET home to your girlfriend, sit in the cockpit of the 47."

While I agree Dave's analysis and conclusions regarding the F4U.

One has to be careful regarding desirability of P-47 over P-51 based on a perception of survivability.

So far, I have loaded up the awards versus losses of 8th AF where the best statistical comparisons may be made in comparing the effectiveness in combat against the best comptetition.

With the caveat that these two ships were NOT flying in identical mission profiles, the Mustang had a superior kill ratio air to air and a lower loss ratio of US Fighter lost versus German Fighter aircraft destroyed on the ground.

Here is one of the problems with my analysis. The Mustang air to air (10:1) was largely over Germany. The 8th AF P-47 air to air (7:1) was more about Coastal defenses ranging from North Sea and Holland to Central and South Central France. Additionally, the Mustang edge was dominantly growing from Dec 1943 through 1944 when it was the primary air superiority fighter over Germany while the P-47 was range restricted.

Until the end of the war, aircraft destroyed on the ground had the same (separate) profiles in context of locations of enemy airfield locations and targeting. The P-51 had 5.6:1, the P-47 had 3.7:1.

What conclusions do you make there? It boils down to missions and sorties and there is no way I am aware of that one could arrive at a set of rational data to actually look at vulnerability per se - based on threat versus number of flights.

So, were the Luftwaffe defenses and pilot quality better in the West than Germany/Czechoslovakia stifling the P-47 scores? Or was the Mustang equivalent survivability or better due to other factors than coolant system?

Also - I like the idea of 4x Mg151 firepower but don't yet see how one can arrive at a conclusion that the Fw 190 firepower is the ultimate determinator. One could also say far more 190s were destroyed by Mustangs and Thunderbolts than vice versa, therefore .50 cal is better - and neither one make sense.

 

[Glider]

Wouldn't the chances of getting a hit depend somewhat also on the velocity both muzzle and downrange. The cannon rounds I have seen used by the LW mostly looked like having a poor BC.

You are correct in that the MV and effective range of the guns has an impact on the chance of a hit, but at the 2-300 yard range of most fighter combats the difference is not that great.

The duration of fire on the 6-50s would be greater also. The P51 with 4-50s and later the 6-50s seemed to more than hold it's own with the FWs.

Again you are correct in that the US aircraft were effective against fighters as was the German firepower, that I am not questioning. However if we are talking about one fighter for the war, you will need to attack other aircraft such as heavy bombers and I prefer the 190 for its flexibility. I have always believed that the 12.7mm would struggle against a B17 type aircraft.

My source shows the A8 to have two 13 MM MGs firing through the prop with 400 rounds each. Would they have the same ROF as wing mounted guns? 2- 20mm with 250 rounds, firing through the prop. Same question? 2-20mms outer wing with 125 rounds each. The D9 had two 13 mm mgs mounted over the engine with 475 rounds each. Same rate of fire question? Two 20 mms in wing roots with 250 rounds each. Same ROF question? The Corsair had 400 rounds each for the four inboard guns and 375 rounds for the two outboard guns.

The German weapons firing through the prop would have a reduced ROF wihtout question. The difference seems to vary but I believe its importance to be exagerated. The 190 with its six guns will have a ROF falling between the four gun P51 and the six gun US fighters. So if the P51B didn't have a problem hitting their targets, why should the Fw190?

You are also correct when you say that the US aircraft generally had more ammunition but the FW190 could use its wingroot guns with the engine mounted mg's seperately from its wing mounted weapons which would stretch the ammo. 2 x 20mm and 2 x HMG mounted on the centreline is still a very effective set up.
Also being on the centreline the FW would have an advantage at longer range as well as being more concentrated. This would more than make up any slightly improved ballistics for the 12.7mm.

One factor almost always overlooked by us "armchair experts" in one v one comparisons is range. In Lundstom's books he mentions how on several occasions the F4Fs had to fight on 50% power because they were running low on fuel and they had to conserve to get back to base. Would not be convenient to run out of fuel in the middle of a big fight.

Again you are correct and if we are talking about range then the US aircraft have a clear advantage. However I would describe the range of the Fw190 to be sufficient for the vast majority of purposes.

 

[drgondog]

Glider - If I had the power to do so - I would have stolen the Mg151/20 designs and armed every Allied Fighter with at least two, preferably four, to replace the 50s (and Hispano's)

 

[davparlr]

very good work davparl, but 33k false the scale

I should have caught that. I have 33k in my data base because there tends to be data available at 10km for German aircraft. I should have pulled that out.

I would question whether the D9 could outperform an F4U4 if the FW had all that armament and a full load of ammo.

The data I used appear to have been generated at loaded weight.

Dav, in Boone Guyton's book, he says the 1D could do 425 mph with WEP. Who would know better than Guyton?

!! Navy Spec 419 mph; Flight test F4U-1 w/water no. 17930, 432 mph; flight test, F4U-1 w/water, no. 50030, 425 mph; Navy comparison test F4U-1 w/water 436 mph; Dean, F4U-1D w/water 419 mph. I do not have Guyton's book. I tossed a coin.

The ROF of 6 x 12.7mm is very similar to the 4 x 20mm and 2 x 13mm of the 190. At most combat ranges the %age chance of a hit would be very similar and at longer ranges, the slightly lower chance of a hit with the 20mm would be more than made up by the extra power of the 20mm shell.

There was discussion on upgrading the 50 cals with 20mm at the Joint Fighter Conference in 1944, supported by both AAF and Navy combat pilots. The consensus was that, for the combat faced by the US forces, the 50 cal were quite sufficient for doing the job and they did not recommend upgrading the armament. This was recommendations by those whose life depended on weapons performance.

 

[HellToupee]

There was discussion on upgrading the 50 cals with 20mm at the Joint Fighter Conference in 1944, supported by both AAF and Navy combat pilots. The consensus was that, for the combat faced by the US forces, the 50 cal were quite sufficient for doing the job and they did not recommend upgrading the armament. This was recommendations by those whose life depended on weapons performance.

Heh I would choose the .50s to if the alternative 20mm was the American produced hispano

 

[Glider]

Glider - If I had the power to do so - I would have stolen the Mg151/20 designs and armed every Allied Fighter with at least two, preferably four, to replace the 50s (and Hispano's)

Personally I prefer the Hispano V to the 151/20 but I can understand the reasons.

 

[Glider]

There was discussion on upgrading the 50 cals with 20mm at the Joint Fighter Conference in 1944, supported by both AAF and Navy combat pilots. The consensus was that, for the combat faced by the US forces, the 50 cal were quite sufficient for doing the job and they did not recommend upgrading the armament. This was recommendations by those whose life depended on weapons performance.

I don't disagree with this statement at all. However, had the USA been faced with large numbers of B17 let alone B29 bombers, I am willing to bet a penny to a pound they would have changed their minds.
Its worth remembering that all F6F5 Hellcats were designed so they could be armed with 2 x 20 and 4 x 0.5 HMG's. Maybe the USN were willing to hedge their bets a little.

 

[davparlr]

Heh I would choose the .50s to if the alternative 20mm was the American produced hispano

I don't think they were considering reliability here, only the effectiveness of their 50 cals. I assure you that if they did not have faith in the effectiveness of the 50 cals they would be screaming.

 

[timshatz]

With the caveat that these two ships were NOT flying in identical mission profiles, the Mustang had a superior kill ratio air to air and a lower loss ratio of US Fighter lost versus German Fighter aircraft destroyed on the ground.

DD, that paragraph says it all. If both were in identical missions, then the statistical analysis would hold relevance. But given that the Mustang gravitated towards deep escort while the Thunderbolt was relegated to ground attack (for a number of reasons), the viability of comparing statistics has it's limits.

One telling point is the swap that occured between the 9th and 8th AF with regards to P51s and P47s.

 

[drgondog]

With the caveat that these two ships were NOT flying in identical mission profiles, the Mustang had a superior kill ratio air to air and a lower loss ratio of US Fighter lost versus German Fighter aircraft destroyed on the ground.

DD, that paragraph says it all. If both were in identical missions, then the statistical analysis would hold relevance. But given that the Mustang gravitated towards deep escort while the Thunderbolt was relegated to ground attack (for a number of reasons), the viability of comparing statistics has it's limits.

One telling point is the swap that occured between the 9th and 8th AF with regards to P51s and P47s.

Tim - Agreed - but the swap has its own sidebars.

The 354FG screamed when they lost the Mustang for Jug in November, 1944 and rejoiced when they got Mustangs back in late February 1945.

The reason the 9th was forced to take the Jugs and Lightnings wasn't because they preferred them, per se - but 8th AF re-equip along with 15th AF demands and PTO demands for long range fighters put a strain on P-51 Supply. As you know the 8th AF did not complete the transition until December 1944 (except for 56th FG)

I Do believe the 9th did just fine with the Jug and have no problem contemplating higher survival for the TAC mission than the 51 - but we truly don't know for sure.

 

[renrich]

I have speculated to myself how effective an armament package for the Corsair would have been with two fifties mounted well aft over the fuel tank and two 20mms in the wing roots, all four firing through the prop arc. The fuselage tank would lose capacity but the room saved in the wings where the six fifties had been could be used for SS fuel tanks which would more than make up for the shrinkage in the fuselage tank. Of course a fair number of Corsairs had four 20mms but apparently the Navy wasn't sold on them until the F4U5-7. Another factor about the FW, especially as a bomber killer is the poor visibility forward which precluded full deflection shooting, as noted in the comparison by the Navy with the Hellcat and Corsair. The Corsair had the ability to make all of the full deflection runs, both overheads and the high side, flat side and low side runs which were highly desirable when attacking a bomber. In contrast the only full deflection run the FW could make was the overhead from the rear. It therefore was stuck with the low deflection or no deflection runs from the rear or ahead. The ahead run gave the defensive guns a simple solution and allowed not much time to shoot and the run from the rear gave the defensive guns maximum opportunity and was the most dangerous for the attacking fighter.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Again it's just a game and not real life, but in Il Sturmovik the engine will stop working on a P-51 from just a few hits.

I think in real life the P-51 also had this weakness, because it wasn't as well protected as the P-47 from bullets.

A cannon on a P-51 would hae been a good thing I think.

 

[drgondog]

Again it's just a game and not real life, but in Il Sturmovik the engine will stop working on a P-51 from just a few hits.

There is no basis one way or the other for game assumptions to approach reality on Lethality and Vulnerability.

I think in real life the P-51 also had this weakness, because it wasn't as well protected as the P-47 from bullets.

Well, it was smaller and more agile (in General). The well documented disadvantages was the supply/return plumbing for coolant, and the the radiator/oil cooler in same location - so one hit in either for a 20mm would do it.

A cannon on a P-51 would hae been a good thing I think.

I have talked to more than a few LW pilots who were shot down (and survived obviously) that would Disagree with you - Lol. Depends on your point of view.

I believe that the combination of the K-14 and 20mm would have achieved superior results if RAF Hispano or Mg151. The US 20mm had jamming issues into the Korean War.

 

[HellToupee]

Spitfires with the Ferranti sight had a huge increase in effectiveness.

I don't think they were considering reliability here, only the effectiveness of their 50 cals. I assure you that if they did not have faith in the effectiveness of the 50 cals they would be screaming.

It would consern everything, pilots also tend to choose what they know, eg Bader preferred the 8 303s to the 20mm cannon.

 

[davparlr]

It would consern everything, pilots also tend to choose what they know, eg Bader preferred the 8 303s to the 20mm cannon.

Yes, the 50s were all they knew, but it does imply that, when their life was on the line, they were happy with the 50s, and this was not just one opinion.

 

[davparlr]

I have speculated to myself how effective an armament package for the Corsair would have been with two fifties mounted well aft over the fuel tank and two 20mms in the wing roots, all four firing through the prop arc.

There is some loss of rate of fire due to the interrupter gear. I think I read in one of the post that it was about a 25% reduction. Concentration of fire should be very effective.

 

[delcyros]

How many after action reports are aviable for US ETO escort fighters. Out of interest spoken, are enough information aviable, from a sample of a single unit with a specific timeframe wrt to:

A) number of rounds (.50al, P-47 and P-51 only) expanded for kill
B) approximate type of enemy aircraft shot down
C) approximate distance of aircraft shot down
D) weapon suite used (four, six or eight 0.50cal), preferably with type of ammunition

This would allow us to try a quantitative approach, e.g. a factor analyis.

 

[timshatz]

Delc, here are some that I picked up from this web site some time back. They are Mustang reports. Not sure if they have the info your looking for but I hope they help.

Mustang Encounter Reports

 

[delcyros]

Perfect, timshatz!

This does qualify as a sample base. Datacollection and analysis will take some time. When I resurface, we will have the analysis.

 

[drgondog]

Perfect, timshatz!

This does qualify as a sample base. Datacollection and analysis will take some time. When I resurface, we will have the analysis.

Delcyros - Mike also has P-47 encounter reports.

In general - start fire and stop fire rage estimate along with total number of rounds fired are part of the report.

There will always be a location, time, cloud cover, and most of the time general heading for start of engagement.

Almost all the post 1943 ammo is API with some tracer depending on pilot.

my father did not like to use tracer.