Dog fights on the History channel (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Hello parsifal,

Maybe or certainly my English is not as good as yours, but there seems to be some irrationality in your forwarded statement.
I would state that "if" an 88 shell really managed to land a "direct" hit in its best velocity and angle (no deflection, delayed detonation or off angle) the respective target was a goner, no matter if, B-17 or P-51.

Therefore there would have been no chance to photograph a B-17 that received a so called direct hit, unless pictured in hundreds of parts somewhere on the ground. Means I would doubt that those "chunk sized –missing parts photos" were really direct hits. (Maybe just damn close or ripping through the target without actually detonating).

So what does the term "direct hit" in English language actually define or describe, that is maybe the question to me.

Using German language I would call a 100% direct hit = Volltreffer = implements target destroyed, or direkter Treffer = direct hit – but does not automatically implement the total destruction of the target.
Sometimes it is just words; sometimes they can have very exact meanings

Regards
Kruska
 
Yes, kool kitty89

It certainly is a direkter Treffer, so again it comes to the question, what word or expression defines the German word Volltreffer in English? or how do you distinguish in English between a direct hit and a hit that causes total destruction?

Sorry I really don't want to make a language discussion out of this, but since different nationalities are presenting their posts on this forum, sometimes the "wrong" word or term can lead to misinterpretation and as such to heated discussions.

Regards
Kruska
 
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.
Click to expand...

Its actually a thread about a TV show.
 

For this particular 'heated debate' you would have to go back to Rochie's question "Could a Mustang survive a 30mm hit" (as shown in an episode of Dogfight - and theoretically true)

I simply said - "it depends, but possible" and then went on to explain my logic.

As to the B-17 (and other pics of both B-17 and B-24s hit in same general area by 88mm (or bigger - but not smaller at 22-26,000 feet?) I have a theory

Unlike many smaller aircraft designed today, there were more than 4 longerons that could serve as beam caps to take the bending (and torsion)loads created by that big ass tail of a B-17 (or B-24).. but the key ones for level flight conditions would be two remaining, intact, at approximately 4 and 6 o'clock plus the 10 and 2 o'clock longerons/caps plus enough skin attached to those longerons to maintain a shear panel/beam stiffener capability to prevent buckling.. otherwise you can't take out the torsion or compression loads... or be essentially intact from say 12 o'clock to 5 o'clock for the same reasons - and be lucky

It is obvious that both the B-17 and B-24 would be designed with a lot of structure capability at those locations given the cut outs for the Ball Turret and Waist guns.

Aircraft inherently designed for high G's (like a Mustang) usually have two (each) main beams top and bottom plus thicker skins - particularly if flush rivets are used

Some of the surviving ships have a locally buckled condition after landing when the final vertical loads (presumably) from the landing was just too much at the end.
 
If any shell 30mm and or other wise does not hit "bone" (something of substance motor, fuel tank, tail, longrod) it keeps moving ...If you don't hit bone when you shot a person they can keep going..Just do to a round being big has nothing to do with it ... Ground small arms fire downed alot of planes...

And the said P-51 hit by the Me-262 30mm did not hit bone so it hit the wing and out the other side ..I'm sure it happend all the time..At that time in the war who knows what the Me-262 was spitting out the 30mm.. I'm sure the not all exsplosive around went off .. Some were I read a lot more around did not go off then people think...
 

a very good analogy
 

Full with logical reasons and explanation, nothing to be added on my part

Regards
Kruska
 
Bill I don't think that was his question, he wanted to know if there was a term in english describing a hit that results in total distruction/a kill, opposed to a hit that directly impacts on a major portion of the aircrafts structure.

And personally I cant think of a decisive term for that, maybe critical hit, but that doesn't quite fit.
 
And Haztoys I don't think it would be very likely for a round to go "through and through" they're (mine shell) designed to deonate just after prnnetrating the skin, and some (type N) have additional fuzing for contact with liquids.
Plus at that angle (assuming the depiction in the animation is correct) a shot hitting the wing at an angle to go straight through isn't likely.

However as I mentioned earlier, and Soren adressed, a glancing blow (somewhat analogous to a grazing bullet) could easily have accured at such an angle and thus hit without activating the fuze and simply bounce off.
 

I was reponding to his second comment - since I was a party to the 'heated debate'

I thought you answered his first question well - and it was obvious that the 88mm did in fact make a 'direct hit' fused properly and went off in the middle of the bomber.

Beyond that it's all about expectations regarding what an 88mm Should do (or 30mm Mk108 He (M)) versus what it Did do.

The 88mm did hit a major portion of the airframe structure - 'bone' in the hunting vernacular but this prey Did run off, to die finally in a boneyard or live as a hanger queen in UK.

Try Obliteration to describe the 'hit' description he was looking for - as contrast with Direct Hit (but not fatal).. or Fatal.. or Mortal
 

Or the fuze was defective, or some Russian slave labor stuffed it with cotton candy, or it burst short of wing causing surface damage but not fatal - who knows?
 
or some Russian slave labor stuffed it with cotton candy
Click to expand...


Yes, all those are good, defective/dud ets or a hit that drtikes very close to parallel to the wing surface and doesn't activate the fuze and bounces off.

But I still don't think the scenario where the shell just punches through the wing is likely.
 
Hi Kruska

A direct hit in my opinion is where the shell contacts the aircraft, prior to detonation. the shell may or may not explode.

My point in that regard was perhaps a little unclear. The main point I was trying to make was that direct hits by German AA (heavy) was such a rare event as to be not worth worrying about. I was getting a little worried that the thread was likley to be closed unless we were able to cool things off a little
 
drgondog said:


Or the fuze was defective, or some Russian slave labor stuffed it with cotton candy, or it burst short of wing causing surface damage but not fatal - who knows?
Click to expand...


This is what I was trying to say..I have a friend who did 40+ missons as nav of a B-24 and some time as a P-51 pilot.. He said there seam to be less explosive rounds at the start of the time he was nav then at the closeing of the war..He did not know why...He never was in combat in the P-51..

I'm sure at the time the Me-262 came out and the Germans loosing the war ..It was hard to keep up and keep quality ..And the stuff I've read doing work with slaves was almost a wast of time ...

Don't get all worked up guys and get this lock.. It was war time and any thing could of happened and did happen..

And if the said P-51 pilot the was hit by the 30mm made it back to base...He would know if it he had been hit or not...

There were planes that got hit with one or two small rounds in the right place and went down ...And other planes that got the Sh$!t kicked out of them with bigger rounds and made it home ...How your luck... Or lack of it..
 

Hello parsifal,

Don't worry I am not taking this wrongly, it is just that if in German language you would say; despite a Volltreffer the B-17 made it still home, then this would be very hard to understand since a Volltreffer means "right in Target + detonation on point", making it highly unlikely for anything to "fly" back that has received a Volltreffer by a 88.

However some pictures clearly indicate a Volltreffer on a B-17, and the bugger still managed to fly home. (Which I would not have thought so before) The 88 shell just as someone said before "didn't hit bone".

So it was my mistake assuming that a "direct hit" and a "Volltreffer" might have a different meaning.

Regards
Kruska
 

Agreed.

The Mine shells were thin walled and fit with fuzes which just wouldn't allow them to go directly through both sides of a wing without exploding. What happened if it was the Minen Geschoss is that it simply bounced off and fell earthward, however the shells were fortunately selfdestructive and exploded after they had travelled a certain distance/time. (Wouldn't want such thinks exploding in peoples backyard)

Now reading about what ammunition types were used operationally it seems that the Me-262's were equipped pretty much exclusively with Mine rounds, so I think we can be fairly certain this was the type which struck Candelaria's wing.

Now as for the effectiveness of the 30mm Mine shell, well it was established that it generally took 5 hits to destroy a bomber, which demonstrates the lethality of the round. Now that coupled with the illustrated effectiveness of the Mine shell, we know a fighter wouldn't survive a hit with detonation from such a round and then fly on, and to think it could not only fly on but also continue to shoot down another two a/c is absurd!

So conclusion must be that the round failed to detonate on impact and the -51 got away with a scare.
 

That is one conclusion

Education, Experience in Aero/Structures? or is this supposition and speculation?
 
Even if a P-51 survived a hit from a 30mm mine shell detonation (wingtip, tail, blew a ~2 ft dia hole through wing or fusalage but held together) it would be in no shape to keep dogfighting, except maybe for a very good pilot.

And for refrence:
 
Hello kool kitty89,

And I don't think that a "good" pilot would take the risk of getting himself entangled or pursue a dogfight with a damaged a/c.

Regards
Kruska
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

Aircraft comparison for operational-level wargames and alt history forums
Replies
1
Views
55
GregP
J
fiatG.55 combat history
Replies
0
Views
711
Jerrybandit67
J
The real combat history of the Ki-43
19 20 21
Replies
411
Views
36K
MiTasol
the invention of the turbojet. A letter that changed history
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
N
The Great P-47 Range Debate on you tube now.
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
8K
Holtzauge
Menu
Log in
Register