Dog fights on the History channel

[drgondog]

PS - Soren, I would agree that the wing of the B-17 is stronger than the wing of the P-51 in terms of amount of force that can be applied before failure - but not stronger in context of sustained multiples of Gravity .. and not near as strong as an F-105 either in terms of relative strength or absolute strength.

And the point would be?

 

[drgondog]

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



This is what I said Soren-

"here are two shots of my father's various flak targets. The P-51B was hit by a 20mm, the P-51D by a 37/40mm.

A wing could be blown off by any of these - depending on a.) where it hit, and b.) how heavily the airframe/wing/tail was loaded stress wise when it was hit.

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.

So, you want to make a blanket statement about the 100% attrition of all aircraft hit by a 30mm from an Me 262?

Proof, please?



Talk about sticking your nose into unknown territory!

Is that statement anything like your rant?

It's bad enough when you make dumb claims - but compounded when you can't remember (or comprehend) what is written?

 

[drgondog]

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.

Bill simply said it was possible, depending on location (i.e away from spar, outboard of guns) and strees condition (ie manuever situation with associated loads) to survive a 30mm hit - no more - no less

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)

The Spit was stressed at 11G Ultimate, 51D at 12G ultimate ~ 9% higher load capability.


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.

You may go back and note that the 51B was a 20mm flak hit

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

You may go back and note that it was believed to be a 37/40mm flak hit on 44-72253 WR-Bbar - on the deck and he survived a snap roll on Mar 22, 1944 around Munich area

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.

Depends - if it lost an aileron you are right. If it was say, on the Star and missed damaging the spar badly enough to lose the outboard wing tip area, and aileron still worked, it was still probably able to fly and manuever

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

The point of this debate is that Soren sez the wing or fuselage of a fighter would be blown away with only one hit - presumably every time. We disagree.
As usual.

 

[Soren]

And you say I can't admit when I'm wrong! Lol!

 

[Soren]

PS: 1.3 * 6.5 = 8.45 G's, the P-51's ultimate load limit at combat weight (9,700 lbs)

 

[drgondog]

PS: 1.3 * 6.5 = 8.45 G's, the P-51's ultimate load limit at combat weight (9,700 lbs)

Wrong - as Usual - 6.59 LIMIT LOADat 9700 pounds about what it would run over the channel outbound to Germany - the 51B and P-51D had an 8G LIMIT load at 8,000 pounds gross weight per NAA and P-51 Pilot Handbook. 12G ULTIMATE LOAD at 8,000 pounds per NAA and Gruenhagen pg 119. For the P-51H it was 11G at Ultimate Load.

When do you suppose you will ever know the ratios from Limit to Ultimate? Clue - it is 1.5 not 1.3.

Degree. Industry experience Soren?

BTW - You never have produced one document supporting your claim that the ultimate Limit for Me 109 (of any variety) limit was "13G" - one of the never ending list of your claims matched by no facts... and of course you never provided the weight for that claim

Still dancing?

degree/work experience in aero and/or airframe structures..

Degree/work experience? Put up or shut up.

 

[kool kitty89]

Sorry, bill I missed the 20mm 37/40mm thing.

But one thing to note on the 37mm is that a normal HE 37 mm shell will carry quite a bit less than a 30mm mine shell. The US 37mm (similar in size to the german shells) shell used in the M4 cannon weighed about twice as much as a 30mm mine shell, but carried only 45-48g HE compared to 85 grams of the 30mm. (76g for the tracer)



And looking around, it seems only the mine shell was in common use with the MK 108. Soren any info?

The WWII Fighter Gun Debate: Ammunition

30 mm low-velocity (MK 108 )
Minengeschoß 108 El o. Zerl.
Only the Minengeschoß was fired by the MK 108, also in versions with day or night tracer. The ammunition was not interchangeable with that of the much more powerful MK 101 and MK 103, hence the addition 108. The letters El probably indicate the presence of Elektron, an incendiary compound, in the projectiles. Surprisingly, self-destruction fuses were not used, although German fighters were operating over the home country at this time in the war.

But obviously a wide range of ammo was designed and produced. (I's imagine the AP wouldn't be the best role for the MK 108 due to the low velocity)
Komet weapons: MK 108 cannon

 

[kool kitty89]

And guys please keep it civil, lets not mess up the thread again.

(that's what PM's are for)



But seeing the animation
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAN0tglzris (assuming it's accurate) the 30mm hit apears to be a glancing blow, appearing to be a dud. (which is fairly plausible seeing as some figures show that ~1/4 of them were duds iirc) And a 30mm mineround from a MK 108 wouldn't do much damage if it failed to detonate. (being soft and at a fairly low velocity by the time it ht the target, even initial velocity was only ~1.5 mach depending on alt)

 

[drgondog]

Sorry, bill I missed the 20mm 37/40mm thing.

No biggie KK

But one thing to note on the 37mm is that a normal HE 37 mm shell will carry quite a bit less than a 30mm mine shell. The US 37mm (similar in size to the german shells) shell used in the M4 cannon weighed about twice as much as a 30mm mine shell, but carried only 45-48g HE compared to 85 grams of the 30mm. (76g for the tracer)

Actually, I have no proof it was a 37mm or 40mm - just larger by estimate of Engineering at Steeple Morden when he bleeid that one in. Whatever large caliber (vs 20mm) most likely to by performing airfield defense.

And looking around, it seems only the mine shell was in common use with the MK 108. Soren any info?

The WWII Fighter Gun Debate: Ammunition


But obviously a wide range of ammo was designed and produced. (I's imagine the AP wouldn't be the best role for the MK 108 due to the low velocity)
Komet weapons: MK 108 cannon

Don't misunderstand this perspective I have.

1.) any 30mm was a devastaing air to air weapon
2.) Highly stressed fighter a/c inherently are tough, big bombers usually tougher
3.) one of anything below 30mm has a lower probability of a one hit kill unless it hits engine, pilot, fuel tank or main spar.
4.) a 30mm has a higher probability but not a 100% sure thing

 

[Soren]

Wrong - as Usual

You know what, you're a goddamn prick Bill! You've only proven me wrong twice, both times on VERY minor issues, but then being the prick that you are you not only use that as some sort of evidence in nearly all you're arguments no you also blow it out of proportions by claiming I'm always wrong! Well that's just as ridiculous as your claim that a P-51 is just as rugged as a bomber!

1.3 or 1.5, when one is relying on memory such figures easily get mixed.

So 1.5 * 6.5 = 9.75 G is the ultimate load. No protests from here.

Still looking forward to those pics of -51's taking direct hits from 88's and were still flying.. complete and utter bogus!

KK,

In operational service the Mk108 fired primarily HE(M) rounds, so the -51 hit on the wing was very lucky as if it was a HE(M) round it could've only been a glancing hit, which is most understandable seeing that the 262 attacked from straight behind the -51, and so the impact angle would've been close to 90 degrees when hitting the airfoil. At such an angle the MinenGeschoss wouldn't explode simply because the impact trigger didn't come into contact with the wing. Or it could've just been an AP round, who knows..

More on the HE(M);

The MinenGeschoss was designed to first penetrate the skin of an aircraft and then explode, causing maximum damage, but this also meant that at high impact angles, such as when hitting an airfoil directly from behind, it merely just glanced off. The N type seems to have been designed for not only penetrating the skin of an aircraft but also in such a way that if it came into contact with any liquid (say fuel, oil or hydraulic fluid) it would trigger the charge and the round would explode. Imagine that thing going off inside a fuel tank! The combined explosion could easily cut a bomber's wing.

 

[kool kitty89]

Guys stop!!!

The snide comments don't help anyone on this thread, they're best left to PM's or not at all. (Soren you should probably edit out that last one before it causes more trouble)

It doesn't matter who started it, it's escalating so drop it and debate and present your argument in a civil manner. I you'd stop talking past eachother (or not reading the wole reply) you'd realize that you are agreing on many points.

I know I'm not a mod, and I don't have any authority, but please don't mess this up. (and I'd immagine the mods and amdmin are getting kind of fed up)



Bill never said the P-51 could take a direct hit from an 88. He compared a B-17 taking an 88 to a P-51 taking a 30 mm.

And look Bill's pretty much agreeing, a different times you guys keep focusing on separate arguments and missing stuff:

Don't misunderstand this perspective I have.

1.) any 30mm was a devastaing air to air weapon
2.) Highly stressed fighter a/c inherently are tough, big bombers usually tougher
3.) one of anything below 30mm has a lower probability of a one hit kill unless it hits engine, pilot, fuel tank or main spar.
4.) a 30mm has a higher probability but not a 100% sure thing

 

[kool kitty89]

Also I'd immagine the N type shell's ballistics would be more important for the high velocity MK 103 as at those speeds the efficience difference between the rounds woud be more extreme, and generally a/c using the 103 needed the greater accuracy to get the long range advantage of that gun. In addition to the other advantages of the round. (Nightfighters carring the MK 103 apparantly exclusively used the type N shell with night tracer)


And thanks for the penetration properties of the round. (I think it was the 20mm mine round that was found to lack the desired penetration, though the HE(XM) probably improved that over the lighter HE(M) which also had 7g less HE)

 

[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.

I was inclined to agree with this and that was what I'd meant by overview.

And there are several episodes dedicated to the actions a single airfraft.

-Thunderbolt
-Mustang
-Hellcat (Zero Killer)

 

[drgondog]

education, experience..

even with those we make mistakes.

without these - mistakes are frequent and obvious.

education, experience - please?

 

[kool kitty89]

Bill why don't you just PM Soren about it?


Let's get back on topic.

 

[Soren]

Because Bill likes pissing matches KK.

However like I've said before, I don't enter into pissing matches as its downright childish ridiculous and most importantly proves nothing.


Moving on before this thread gets sidetracked anymore...

Now regarding HE(M) projectiles KK,

The energy retention wether it was fired from the 103 or 108 was still not an issue as the projectile was heavy enough to offset the less efficient form factor of the regular projectile at most combat ranges. However accuracy with the type N projectile would be better by virtue of its more efficient form factor.

As for the effective range of the bombers defensive armament, well it was a good deal shorter than that of a fighters armament as not only did you have to hit a much smaller target, you also had to hit a fast and moving target (Bombers normally fly relatively straight in their formations).

 

[kool kitty89]

And they had fairly limited ammo.

I understand the issue with the weight and sectional density Soren, I just meant it kind of wastes the use of a heavy high velocity MK 103 with the poorer shaped round. Not so much the effective range (which would be farther than one could accurately aim in many cases). The more important ting is the better shape, and thys energy retention, would keep a flatter trajectory which therfore allows simpler and more accurate aiming. It also means the rounds get to there targets faster.


And some rounds in the .50 cal range have excellent sectional density, the Russian 12.7 mm round weighing 52 grams. Which is still not very close to the 330 g 30mm mine shell, but is roughly equal to the standard British and German 20mm rounds (~130 g) and better than the 20mm mine shell or the Russian (and some of the Japanese) 20mm rounds and the German 15 mm round.

 

[parsifal]

Guys, this might be an intersting academic argument, but the chances of a direct hit by ground fire of a B-17 was extremely low. We have all seen the mugshots of huge chunks of B-17s missing, and B-17s being cut in half, but the truth is this was an extremely rare event. thats why people took pictures of them, because they seldom saw such things. In 1944, the average ammunition expenditure to bring down any aircarft using HAA for the germans was a whopping 16000 shels per kill. The majority of those hits were not direct hits, but hits at a distance from the plane. They didnt call them flying fortresses for nothing. It could take a lot of punishment.

I just dont see the point in arguing to the death (of this thread most likley) over an issue that is essentially peripheral anyway

 

[kool kitty89]

That's not what they were arguing about. They were arguing about the effects of the 30mm mine shell (HE(M)) on the P-51, then they went off on a tangent comparing the ruggednes of fighters vs bombers.

Now we seem to be getting somewhat on track again.

 

[drgondog]

Oh, did I hurt your feelings Soren?

That wasn' my intention.

Having said that, every time you try to pass youself as an knowledgeable practioner of either Aerodynamics or airframe structures I will thump your beak and remind you to stay away from 'absolutes'.

You are free to describe me as a 'prick' - i expect that from you.

Stick to facts. or express opinions without contempt for opposing views of your 'infinite' wisdom. You know a lot about some subjects, but aero and structures are not part of your core competency?

Have a good day.

Experience, Education?