Dog fights on the History channel

[Soren]

Comparing fighters and bombers is pure nonesense. A bomber is far more ruggedly built and features much larger fuselage and wing sections. A 30mm HE(M) certainly wouldn't tear the wing off a bomber, and I never even implied that it would. However against a fighter it's an entirely different story, as evidenced by the end result of that test against a Spitfire's aft fuselage.

The only thing I have ever said is: Normally a hit by 30mm HE(M) projectile was enough to tear off the wing or rear fuselage of a fighter. A bomber is another story.

But hey since the 88 was brought up, I'm sure a P-51 would take a direct hit from that as-well, heck if a bomber can take it so can a P-51!

________________

KK,

The aerodynamic shape of the MinenGeschoss was good enough for all usable distances, the very weight of the round ensuring good energy retention.

 

[kool kitty89]

But the N type HE tracer with 76 g HE looks pretty good, comparable to the shape of standard HE rounds. (and I think it's mostly the tracer limiting the capacity not the shape)

I know the 30mm round had enough weight to retain energy pretty well ( though the velocity was already low for the MK 108 ), I was just interested by the design of the N-type shell.

 

[kool kitty89]

And soren Bill was comparing a direct hit from an 88 mm to a fighter hit by a 30 mm.

There excellent examples of B-17s and B-24s being hit by 88mm shells which burst inside the bomber aft of the wing and flew home.

And the bottom pic of the P-51's tail looks like it could have been a HE(M) if it had detonated near the tip of the fin, the top pic of the 'stang's tail with a hole through the middle does not. (in fact it almost looks small enough to be a 20mm HE(XM) shell hit)

 

[kool kitty89]

But these Dogfight shows aren't really about the individual planes but a situation in which someone overcame odds or such. I think a show on some of the actions of Buffalo pilots getting kills and how they did it in a supposedly inferior craft would be interesting.

That's what I had in min when I said "about the Buffalo."

Not the plane, but how it was used and what it accomplished.

The same thing could be done with the P-39, though I think the Buffalo is a better example with a more interesting history.

 

[Soren]

The difference between 1x 30mm Mk103 round, 2x 30mm Mk108 rounds 2x 20mm MG151/20 rounds:

As one can see a 30mm HE(M) round packs allot more wallop than a 20mm round.

Damages caused by 20mm cannon shell:

 

[Soren]

Here's what a direct hit from an 88 looks like on a B-17 bomber:

 

[Soren]

But the N type HE tracer with 76 g HE looks pretty good, comparable to the shape of standard HE rounds. (and I think it's mostly the tracer limiting the capacity not the shape)

I know the 30mm round had enough weight to retain energy pretty well ( though the velocity was already low for the MK 108 ), I was just interested by the design of the N-type shell.

Both shells will retain energy better than any rifle round, despite their flat nose, the high weight and therefore sectional density ensured energy retention was good. However the N type projectile obviously retains energy better than the regular MinenGeschoss, but in combat it would've proven nonessential.

As for the velocity of the MK108 round, well 505 m/s is enough to make sure that the target has zero chance of dodging - German Zertörers used to effectively lob shells at the bombers beyond the effective range of their defensive armament.

The Mk108 only had one small downside and that was the relatively high deflection needed to hit an enemy in a tight turn.

 

[kool kitty89]

I know (the 20mm statement), and the numbers are nice too: 30mm HE(M) ~330 grams with 85 g filler. (76g HE for the type N tracer) compared to 151/20's 20mm HE(M) ~92g with ~18 g HE, or HE(XM) 104 g with 25 g filler.

 

[kool kitty89]

I think the Bomber's .50's could reach pretty far out (over 500 m, probably still effective out to 1000m) to a distance where hitting with the 108 would require an expert marksman, but usually gunners waited till they were in closer (in less they had a really good clear shot) as fireing at long range would deplete their limited ammo too fast.


And the deflection and trajectory problem is much more of a problem if trying to use a MK 108 in a dogfight, not impossible, but not easy either. (and probably not outside 300 m)

 

[JoeB]

I understand they're "claims" ad are somewhat inflated (and a lot of the kills wouldn't have been against fighters but:

Those are claims and are quite a lot inflated, so I don't really see the 'but' or why we'd quote such numbers when easily accessible references give the numbers from both sides.

I added up British/Dutch Buffalo combats in "Bloody Shambles" by Shores et al. as follows:
v. Type 97 Fighter (later 'Nate'): 6 combats, 12.5 Buffaloes downed for 1.33 Type 97's downed (claims are prorated v losses where more than one type on one side was claiming in a given combat)
v. Type 1 Fighter ('Oscar'): 8 combats, 18 Buffaloes, 4 Type 1's
v. Zero: 8 combats, 15.5 Buffaloes, 4 Zero's. This included the only two side documented successful combat for Allied Buffaloes: Jan 18 1942, combined formation of 243 and 488 Sdn Buffaloes jumped 22nd Air Flotilla Zeroes over Singapore and downed 2 for the loss of 1 Buffalo written off on landing.
Type 0 Observation Seaplanes (Pete) acting as fighters shot down 2 Buffaloes w/o loss in one combat.
Fighter-fighter exchange ratio 1:5.25 against the Buffalo.

The Brit/Dutch Buffaloes also downed 5 non-fighters confirmed in Japanese accounts.

This excludes combats where the Japanese side is not reported, but that's only 8 more Buffalo air combat losses to add to the 57 above.
[edited to a add a couple of incidents in vol 2 of Bloody Shambles]
US Buffaloes had one air combat, at Midway: VMF-221 lost 13 F2A's and 2 F4F's for probably 2 Zeroes and 2 Type 97 Carrier Attack Planes ('Kate').

The Buffalo's lack of success in Allied hands was due in part to factors besides the plane itself (but success and failure is virtually never just about the plane); but it was a failure, again in Allied hands.

Joe

 

[kool kitty89]

There were no bomber kills with the Dutch/Brit Buffalo?

 

[JoeB]

There were no bomber kills with the Dutch/Brit Buffalo?

As mentioned, there were 5 kills by Brit and Dutch Buffaloes against non-fighters which are confirmed in Japanese accounts: 2 Type 99 Twin Engine Light Bombers ('Lily'), 2 Type 99 Army Recon Planes ('Sonia'), and 1 Type 100 Hq. Recon Plane ('Dinah') (interesting that Buffaloes could catch a Dinah).

There were a few other claims of non-fighters in combats where the Japanese side isn't known, but not many. Also as mentioned, I've only counted combats for which both sides' accounts are known. I haven't counted Buffalo losses in any other combats, nor their claims in any other combats. It gives the fairest picture I think, and the claims v actual losses in the combats where both sides *are* known show that neither sides' claims were reliable in that theater and time. Moreover the combats where both sides are known are the majority.

In general there are relatively few cases where intercepting fighters actually took a heavy toll of escorted bombers while fighting at a highly unfavorable exchange ratio w/ escorting fighters. If you're going 1:5 against the enemy's fighters, you're unlikely to get anywhere much with his bombers when those enemy fighter are around, probably too busy trying to avoid being shot down. And downings of unescorted bombers, especially small and lightly armed ones like those above, don't really prove much.

Joe

 

[smg]

Here's what a direct hit from an 88 looks like on a B-17 bomber:

wow

 

[buzzard]

Here's what a direct hit from an 88 looks like on a B-17 bomber:

I know the '17 was a tough bird, but

How about the poor waist-gunner?

JL

 

[drgondog]

Comparing fighters and bombers is pure nonesense. A bomber is far more ruggedly built and features much larger fuselage and wing sections. A 30mm HE(M) certainly wouldn't tear the wing off a bomber, and I never even implied that it would.

You are aware that heavy bombers and transports were usually designed to 3g positive limit load and that fighters were designed for ~ 8g? No?

So you are right - no one in their right mind would suggest that a bomber is designed to take higher stresses than a fighter.

While you are right about the greater size you are wrong about the design stress load capability.

If you will go back to the answer a gave to the original question - I suggested that the ability of a Mustang wing to take a heavy explosive projectile depended on several factors - not the least of which was whether the 30mm hit a heavily stressed (or 'loaded') section of the wing.

Soren, your snout moves into unfamiliar territory - again.. earlier it was aerodynamics and now it's structures. What else do you know nothing about that we can debate?

 

[Soren]

LoL, get over yourself Bill! You're clueless on this subject and many others as you have so thuroughly demonstrated many times now. (Let me guess now Bill is going to pull up the suction debate, get ready to be sidetracked thread!)

And now Bill is trying suggest that I claimed bombers were designed for higher stress levels in terms of G forces! This gets crazier by the post!

But hey, lets give Bill a chance to find that exact phrase where I according to him said: B-17's can make 12G turns, a P-51 can only take 8G, oh yes..

Bill apparently doesn't know that the weight an a/c's wings have to carry is multiplied by the amount of G's excerted on the a/c.

So lets see 4,575 kg times 6.5 equals = 29,734 kg Wow! thats the weight of a B-17!! Well 29,710 kg times 3 however results in = 89,130 kg ! Hmm... Nearly three times the weight! But hey since the P-51's wing can take up to 8 G's at a weight of 8,000 lbs I'm sure it can withstand the blast of an 88mm round just fine, nevermind that if a B-17 or B-24 was ever hit directly in the fuselage it usually split in two, cause those bombers were so weak anyhow Heck this one only withstood a fighter tearing straight through it and then flew another 90min to home base where it landed safely after which it broke in two:

Pfff! Thats nothing! A -51 would've maybe just lost a panel or something and thats it, the pilot would probably barely have noticed it

What Bill also obviously doesn't know (Yep, he obviously really doesn't) is that bombers were DESIGNED BUILT to carry huge loads and at the same time to withstand enemy attacks! The next thing he is clueless about is that when effectiveness against enemy machine gun cannon is a concern bigger is always better!

But just like I predicted Bill is now trying to suggest that a P-51 can take a direct hit from an 88mm!! Well yes, sure Bill ofcourse it can, it's a P-51 so it can ofcourse take more punishment than a bomber! I mean if it takes the massive power of a single rifle round to down a P-51 I'm sure a cannon shell would be useless


Talk about sticking your nose into unknown territory!

 

[rochie]

hey soren the P-51 30mm hit episode is here the actual hit is about 4 mins in have a look

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAN0tglzris

 

[kool kitty89]

Cool that's new, any more on youtube that haven't been posted. (see a couple pages ago for wat les put up, and I added some)


Oh ther's some here:
YouTube - luke650529's Channel

 

[kool kitty89]

Soren you're right, I don't know where Bill was going with that, except weight for weight the P-51 was stronger, but even so strenght in terms of ability to withstand loads is different than the ability to withstand battle damage or heavy shock.

Some uninformed people for example will assume that since the F4F could take a hell of a lot of damage while the Zero was very fragile (in terms of damage or shock resistance) would mean the Wildcat could take more G's, but in reality the Zero had a quite strong structure for its weight and for this type of loading. (it could probably pull more G's than the Wildcat, and the Ki 43 moreso, but the Zero's frame was not good with aerodynamic loads high speeds though reaching the structural limit well before compressibility at a little over 410 mph)


Though in this case the P-51 does have a fairly tough airframe in terms of construction. (quite a bit tougher than say a spitfire, engine vulnerability aside)


But that first pic of the P-51 Bill posted realy doesn't look like a 30mm hit (even for a normal HE round) but more like a 20mm mine shell hit.

The bottom pic with 1/2 the fin ripped off could have been a 30mm hit near the tip of the fin.

And a wingtip hit from a mine round (that detonated) may not have been a definite kill but it probably wouldn't have left the P-51 in fighting condition.



Again, Soren do you know the mix of ammo that the Me 262 carried?

 

[drgondog]

LoL, get over yourself Bill! You're clueless on this subject and many others as you have so thuroughly demonstrated many times now. (Let me guess now Bill is going to pull up the suction debate, get ready to be sidetracked thread!)

And now Bill is trying suggest that I claimed bombers were designed for higher stress levels in terms of G forces! This gets crazier by the post!

But hey, lets give Bill a chance to find that exact phrase where I according to him said: B-17's can make 12G turns, a P-51 can only take 8G, oh yes..

What you said was this

" Comparing fighters and bombers is pure nonesense. A bomber is far more ruggedly built and features much larger fuselage and wing sections

How much bigger is a Ju 88 (bomber version) compared to a Lightning or P-47? How much bigger is an A-20 or Douglas B-26 to an F-4 or F-105 or an A-10? Want to compare ruggedness or 'strength' in terms of ultimate or Limit loads?Do you want to compare the load capability and stress level capability of the 'bigger B-17' to the F-105? The B-17 is 8 feet longer - it must be stronger, right?

You live in the world of absolutes. Show us that 'bombers are built more ruggedly and are bigger'

Bill apparently doesn't know that the weight an a/c's wings have to carry is multiplied by the amount of G's excerted on the a/c.

I believe I do Soren. Illustrate that your 'bomber' is bigger and more ruggedly built and compare the load of a B-17, the speed, the G forces and the stresses that a B-17 can take versus an F-105?

I didn't claim that a 51 can take the total damage that a B-17. What I did say is that it is possible for a 51 to take a 30mm hit and survive. You said 'no way' and I asked you to prove it.. and here we are.

Soren - 'weak' and 'strong' are relative terms. Design Limit Loads and Ultimate Limit loads expressed in G forces are not. They are THE foundation for airframe design - not absolute forces. Any pilot and/or airframe guy would know that. Curiously, like aerodynamics, you are not familiar with the terminolgy or the context of terms that you use for airframe structures discussions.

Having a degree in engineering and practicing airframe structures in aviation industry is not relative except in contrast to your background.

I posted my degree Soren and invited you to post your credentials for your statements. I am still waiting.

What Bill also obviously doesn't know (Yep, he obviously really doesn't) is that bombers were DESIGNED BUILT to carry huge loads and at the same time to withstand enemy attacks!

Some bombers were designed better than others with respect to taking battle damage.. has nothing to do per se to Design Limit and Design Ultimate loads Soren.. Some bobers are much bigger than others, some bombers are smaller than fighters.

A B-17 empty cannot survive the stresses imposed by an 8g pullout that a 109 or Spit loaded can easily survive. An A-20 and Mossie are the closest 'bombers' to large fighter sizes can not take either the raw aerodynamic forces or the resultant stresses of an F4U or P-38 or P-47 even though the A-20 is 'bigger and heavier' and has a larger cross section and wingspan.

But just like I predicted Bill is now trying to suggest that a P-51 can take a direct hit from an 88mm!! Well yes, sure Bill ofcourse it can, it's a P-51 so it can ofcourse take more punishment than a bomber! I mean if it takes the massive power of a single rifle round to down a P-51 I'm sure a cannon shell would be useless

You have both a severe reading and comprehension problem Soren. I have not said that..


Talk about sticking your nose into unknown territory!

I have re-stated what I said.

Ball is in your court.

Your airframe structures design experience and your degree please?

and explain again how a B-17 which is bomber, and by your definition (as everyone knows) is 'more ruggedly built with larger wingspan' than say an F-105, is more 'rugged'.

Proceed with your proof Professor and please let everyone know what your academic and airframe industry work experience credentials are for this discussion?