Fw-190 Dora-9 vs P-51D Mustang

[Soren]

Books books and books Rich

But I must mention that I made a couple of mistakes in the post which by now is 3 years old

First of all the max power output allowed on the Jumo 213A's in frontline service was 2,100 PS, not 2,240 PS. Second, the max climb rate of the Dora-9 *clean* was 22.5 m/s (4,380 ft/min).

Other than that everything is fine.

 

[thor]

can you recommend a book/books that list the aerodynamic statistics most completely for the 1930s-1950s aircraft ...

basically spanish civil war > korean conflict ...

this information would be most helpful ...

thanks again,

rich

 

[Soren]

Not many books list aerodynamics statistics, that is mostly derived from NACA documents as well as other German documents, which btw are mostly available on the internet

But there are a few, such as Dietmar Hermann's books on the Fw190 Ta152 series, in them are German documents on the aerodynamics of the a/c as-well as much useful physical information such as load limits etc etc.

But usually if you really want all the techinical details then go look up the documents of the subject in the NACA archive and when buying books make sure they are very technical, which they usually are if they are about a single aircraft.

Anyway this forum is a great place to ask for anything you might need on the subject, we've got a wealth of really knowledgable people on here who know a lot of this stuff and can provide all the specs data you need.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I think the P-51D and Dora were well matched, with the 190 having the advantage of roll rate and better armament, and the P-51 having the advantage of long range and a better high altitude performance.


I wonder if cannons in the wings of the P-51 would have helped it any. I think there was a discussion about this somewhere.

 

[Colin1]

I wonder if cannons in the wings of the P-51 would have helped it any

Unlikely
not fighter vs fighter anyway. 6 x .50 cals would make a mess of any Luftwaffe single-engined fighter, they were more than up to the job. Wondering whether cannons would do the job better is a bit like cracking walnuts with a 2lb sledge hammer and wondering if you couldn't improve things by using a 4lb sledge hammer.

Cannons WOULD do the job better but the difference fighter vs fighter would be largely academic.

 

[vanir]

Most armaments experts tend to agree a good example of a 20mm outlay is the best overall choice for ballistics, effective range and effect.
Other weapons were chosen for various reasons. Browning .303 early in the war for Britain due to its proven reliability and the untested nature of either the heavy Browning or Hispano types at the time as far as the Ministry was concerned.
For the US six fifties were found to be more than adequate for virtually all fighter roles, whilst eight fifties an excellent interceptor and ground attack armament. Postwar however they did switch to the 20mm, perhaps this was due to the lack of reliable guns with good ballistics and low weight in the 20mm class in local production any earlier. Even when GB adopted the Hispano for the Spitfire they kept either four .303 and later two .50 Brownings perhaps for fire rate and general reliability, though certainly some a/c like the Typhoon/Tempest had only four Hispano.

During the war probably the best 20mm design was the upsized Beresin used by the Soviets, which was effectively a rechambered .50 cal machine gun. The adaption had almost no effect on gun weight, so generally three were placed in the nose of Soviet fighters making for an accurate and deadly package with a high projectile rate. It fired the same round and had the same ballistics as the highly successful ShVAK.
The MG-151 was good in the early war, being uber-reliable with a good fire rate but was pase by latewar, if at least the standard. Both the ShVAK and MG-151/20 are fairly comparable to a late war Hispano.
The real revolution came with British and French copies of the revolver cannon being developed by Germany. These became the DEFA and Aden, and were originally designed in both 20mm and 30mm variations.

The Browning fifty certainly did suit US fighter training doctrine well. One point rarely considered is that different nations trained their pilots differently, well obviously due to different aircraft types in general use.
American pilots I'd give as having an emphasis of "laying down fire on the target" where Luftwaffe pilots were taught aerial marksmanship (the easiest form of which letting the target fill your windscreen before firing), for obvious reasons. Often they used centrally mounted single cannon.
Even the Lightning originally mounted the Oldsmobile cannon and a couple of defensive thirties, but this was switched almost immediately to a set of fifties with a Hispano for extra punch, maintaining that US fighter training doctrine I think. But even so some P-38 pilots have said they liked the way firing at a target was a different thing than in another fighter type, you shot differently and some preferred the difference. But I think the other way was quicker to teach rookies, faster proficiency with lower expertise perhaps.

So I'd say in conclusion: centrally mounted cannon or wing mounted heavies was either/or very good.

 

[LWulf]

Unlikely
not fighter vs fighter anyway. 6 x .50 cals would make a mess of any Luftwaffe single-engined fighter, they were more than up to the job. Wondering whether cannons would do the job better is a bit like cracking walnuts with a 2lb sledge hammer and wondering if you couldn't improve things by using a 4lb sledge hammer.

Cannons WOULD do the job better but the difference fighter vs fighter would be largely academic.

IMHO, the difference was very practical... Punctured aircraft from tracking shots vs aircraft heavily damaged with good snapshots is a very distinct difference actual combat pilots surely appreciated. The 6 x 12.67 mm package was adequate, not ideal. Just like the british machinegun package was adequate/did the job at the time, but was not ideal.
So in terms of firepower I see the Fw 190 D-9 as the better armed fighter.

 

[Colin1]

IMHO, the difference was very practical... Punctured aircraft from tracking shots vs aircraft heavily damaged with good snapshots is a very distinct difference actual combat pilots surely appreciated. The 6 x 12.67 mm package was adequate, not ideal. Just like the british machinegun package was adequate/did the job at the time, but was not ideal.
So in terms of firepower I see the Fw 190 D-9 as the better armed fighter.

Again
I'm not arguing the point
There is no question the Fw190 was more heavily-armed, I don't think more heavily-armed necessarily implies better-armed, certainly in fighter vs fighter combats; a solution from a Fw190 onto a P-51 would be highly likely to blow large pieces off the aircraft and result in its disintegration in mid-air - the P-51 has left the fight. A solution from a P-51 onto a Fw190 however, would cause catastrophic damage to enough systems to force the 190 out of the fight too. I've seen gun-cam footage of P-51s blowing the wings off Fw190Ds, I think the 6 x .50 cal P-51, fighter vs fighter, hit plenty hard enough.

 

[LWulf]

Again
I'm not arguing the point
There is no question the Fw190 was more heavily-armed, I don't think more heavily-armed necessarily implies better-armed, certainly in fighter vs fighter combats; a solution from a Fw190 onto a P-51 would be highly likely to blow large pieces off the aircraft and result in its disintegration in mid-air - the P-51 has left the fight. A solution from a P-51 onto a Fw190 however, would cause catastrophic damage to enough systems to force the 190 out of the fight too. I've seen gun-cam footage of P-51s blowing the wings off Fw190Ds, I think the 6 x .50 cal P-51, fighter vs fighter, hit plenty hard enough.

I am sorry, but you are indeed arguing the point. Of course the P-51 is perfectly able to down a 190. Nobody contradicts this. Cannons are simply more effective at shooting down enemy aircraft. The Fw 190 is the better armed fighter of the two. LW fighter aircraft were effective due to a combination of factors and the cannon is surely among them. Both aircraft's weapons could do their job, but the Fw 190 had the edge. Do you agree?

[edited for clarity]

 

[Colin1]

Of course the P-51 is perfectly able to down a 190. Nobody contradicts this. Cannons are simply more effective at shooting down enemy aircraft. The Fw 190 is the better armed fighter of the two. LW fighter aircraft were effective due to a combination of factors and the cannon is surely among them. Both aircraft's weapons could do their job, but the Fw 190 had the edge

Which is pretty much what I said

 

[The Basket]

Cannon armament was for the bombers which did the P-51 wasn't troubled with.

Such discussions are good but you are forgetting the big picture...how many were produced?

And how many Yaks and Spitfires and Tempests and Thunderbolts and Mustangs and Las and so on.

Pointless to say the D-9 is better if it is always outnumbered and about to be wreckage.

 

[LWulf]

Which is pretty much what I said

Ok, I guess this part of your message misleaded me:

There is no question the Fw190 was more heavily-armed, I don't think more heavily-armed necessarily implies better-armed, certainly in fighter vs fighter combats;

 

[LWulf]

I just need to clarify this further. What I understood from your post, Colin1, is that you compared the final result of a successful attack with the P-51 and Fw 190 D-9, concluding that any of the two could put the other out of a fight. Tho with the "not necessarily better armed" part I thought you simplified things and overlooked that for a kill the Fw 190 D-9 will usually need a snap shot, while the P-51 will generally need a tracking shot. This in turn gives the P-51a lower chance for the kill, more time on target and more time exposed to enemy attack.

 

[drgondog]

I just need to clarify this further. What I understood from your post, Colin1, is that you compared the final result of a successful attack with the P-51 and Fw 190 D-9, concluding that any of the two could put the other out of a fight. Tho with the "not necessarily better armed" part I thought you simplified things and overlooked that for a kill the Fw 190 D-9 will usually need a snap shot, while the P-51 will generally need a tracking shot. This in turn gives the P-51a lower chance for the kill, more time on target and more time exposed to enemy attack.

Most scores were 'tracking' shots from 5 to 7 o'clock. Anecdotally, they were also inside 300 yards when the shooting started. I agree the 51 would have been better served with 4x20 and 250rpg than 4 or 6 50 cal - but also agree w/Colin that it would be hard to make the case that a battery of 50 cal guns was not as useful as 20's in fighter to fighter battles.

It is interesting to me that there were no 'ace in a day' claims by LW pighter pilots in Tony Woods List (either 109 or 190) against USAAF fighters but there were more than 20 such days for US pilots vs German fighters.

Pilot skill of the German a/c is certainly a factor and also many German pilots bailed out w/o havin a shot fired at them - so no conclusions can be positively drawn from that comparison either.. Nonetheless there were many, many 'triples' for a single mission in which 280-330 rounds per gun were 'adequate'.

On the D-9 there are anecdotal references in Caldwell's books on JG 26 and other books that the LW pilots receiving the D-9s were happy that it was better than the Anton - but were somewhat disappointed in combat performance against Mustangs. As Dan and Erich and others pointed out this was a period in which the average pilots skills were less than the Allied pilots - and after mid January the numerical odds were terrible - meaning tactical situation AND pilot skill were unfavorable in the West.

My father flew the Dora 9, respected it and felt it was the equivalent of the Mustang with trade offs between them and summarized by saying he could easily project flying the Dora in combat. All anecdotal comments. He was not as favorable re: Me 109, particularly at high speeds and altitude.

 

[renrich]

I see we are back into the debate of which guns should a fighter be armed with. To me, it is not necessarily indicative of the performance in combat of gun armament to say cannon are better because a hit by a cannon shell is more destructive than a hit by a kintic energy round like the 50 BMG. A lot of other issues play a role such as the amount of rounds carried, the hit probability of six or four 50 BMGs taking into account the rate of fire, down range velocity, ballistic coefficient and resulting trajectory. This to be compared to the 20 MMs ( or 30 MMs) with the same factors. An extreme example would be in the Korean War, the Mig 15 carried two 20 MMs(23 MMs?) and one 30 MM. A hit by the 30 MM would probably be very destructive to an F86 but it is my understanding that the F86 seldom was hit by that 30 MM because of slow rate of fire, poor trajectory and not many rounds were carried. If a fighter with four 50 BMGs and 400 rounds per gun can expect to get hits more easily than a fighter with four 20 mms, because the 20 mms have a slower rate of fire or don't have as many rounds to expend, then I would hardly call the 20 MM armed fighter better armed. In WW1, most fighters could rather easily be shot down by 30 cal. MGs. In WW2 most fighters, particularly with a liquid cooled engine like the D9 and P51 had, could rather easily be shot down by a 50 cal. MG. Heavy bombers were another story. To me, it is kind of like elk hunting. There is no question that a 458 Win Mag will ruin a bull elk's day. But if I have a better chance of hitting him in a vital spot with a 270 Win, because he is on a ridge 350 yards away, I am better off with the lighter caliber. Some D9s were armed with four cannon and two MGs. Did that weapons load degrade it's performance any? I would be surprised if the D9 with that load performed as well as the one with two MGs and two cannon.

 

[LWulf]

Most scores were 'tracking' shots from 5 to 7 o'clock. Anecdotally, they were also inside 300 yards when the shooting started. I agree the 51 would have been better served with 4x20 and 250rpg than 4 or 6 50 cal - but also agree w/Colin that it would be hard to make the case that a battery of 50 cal guns was not as useful as 20's in fighter to fighter battles.

If most kills were achieved with tracking shots within 300 yards all the better if you have those 2 x 13 mm and 2 x 20 mm firing on target. If all you needed was a snap shot, with a tracking shot you could destroy effectively the target in a very short time. Even a poor shot would've made critical damage with just a few hits.
I am not sure what you mean with "more useful", but I've stated that while the 6 x .50 cals were adequate for the job, the 20 mms were more effective. Both could do the job, the 20 mm cannons were just more effective at it. You don't agree with that?

 

[Soren]

Most scores were 'tracking' shots from 5 to 7 o'clock. Anecdotally, they were also inside 300 yards when the shooting started. I agree the 51 would have been better served with 4x20 and 250rpg than 4 or 6 50 cal - but also agree w/Colin that it would be hard to make the case that a battery of 50 cal guns was not as useful as 20's in fighter to fighter battles.

It is interesting to me that there were no 'ace in a day' claims by LW pighter pilots in Tony Woods List (either 109 or 190) against USAAF fighters but there were more than 20 such days for US pilots vs German fighters.

Pilot skill of the German a/c is certainly a factor and also many German pilots bailed out w/o havin a shot fired at them - so no conclusions can be positively drawn from that comparison either.. Nonetheless there were many, many 'triples' for a single mission in which 280-330 rounds per gun were 'adequate'.

On the D-9 there are anecdotal references in Caldwell's books on JG 26 and other books that the LW pilots receiving the D-9s were happy that it was better than the Anton - but were somewhat disappointed in combat performance against Mustangs. As Dan and Erich and others pointed out this was a period in which the average pilots skills were less than the Allied pilots - and after mid January the numerical odds were terrible - meaning tactical situation AND pilot skill were unfavorable in the West.

My father flew the Dora 9, respected it and felt it was the equivalent of the Mustang with trade offs between them and summarized by saying he could easily project flying the Dora in combat. All anecdotal comments. He was not as favorable re: Me 109, particularly at high speeds and altitude.

I agree with everything you say here Bill, but I can't say the same for what Caldwell writes. He has written some very odd stuff in his book on the JG 26, things which go against everything the pilots have said themselves. Some of this is listed in Dietmar Hermann's book.

 

[thor]

i think it is mostly to do with the mission, the US never faced incoming bombers over their homeland ...
every country that did face bombers and needed to defend against them resorted to cannons.

the USAAF was an offensive force throughout the war so here is the question, do you want your ESCORT fighter to have heavy cannon when a heavy MG is more than adequate to deal with the bomber interceptors you are facing? clearly a stray .50 cal or two is much less of a threat to a bomber than a stray 30mm or two ...

imo the USAAF not using cannon was as much about what they did not want to shoot down as anything.
lethal FF can erode the bombers confidence in their escort pretty quickly.

had we ended up facing the IL2 in order to restore the pre-war governments in eastern europe i have a feeling we would have adopted cannons pretty quickly.

 

[Daviducus2]

I know that the IL-2 was heavily armored but I don't think such a slow, lumbering aircraft could have stood up to a hosing of 6 or 8 .50's.

 

[thor]

pretty sure the weight of fire of many german aircraft is superior to 6 - 8 .50s and by all accounts the IL2 was very difficult to bring down ...