Hellcat and Corsair vs. Messerschmidt 109 and FockWulf 190

[davparlr]

Of course fast firing (6*1200rpm M3 .50 cal) light caliber armament would be expected to wing but not knock down more a/c than a slower firing heavier caliber armament even if it was equally effective. The question would be how many. I don't view the descriptions in the book I mentioned as the end of this story but rather IMO the .50 cal v MiG issue really needs more data to nail it down.

Joe

I agree with you. Lots of talk about Mig 15s landing with bullet holes, but how many F-86s landed without them. In other words how many were fired upon but were missed. In a one second burst the F-86 will fire 120 rounds, the Mig 15 will fire 34. So, considering the muzzle velocity of the 50 cal is about 30% higher than the opposing projectile, thus easier to aim, there is almost four times the probability of a strike for an equal firing time for the F-86. We don't know what the probability of kill given a strike for either weapon so we guess. The Navy says the 20 mm was 2.5 times more damaging than the 50 cal, if that relates directly to a probability of a kill, then I would say the f-86 was more effectively armed. Complexing the issue is the vulnerability of different sections of the aircraft. A single 50 cal bullet through the engine section of the Mig would almost assuredly incapacitate the aircraft as would a 23 mm. However, one or two 23 mm could take off a wing whereas a good number of 50 cals would be required.

An interesting side note is that the F-86 had about 14 seconds of ammunition, the Mig had about 6 second, according to wikipedia data.

 

[MikeGazdik]

Talking about the Korean air war, in regards to WWII battles is not relevant. If we can go forward, we can go backwards. In WW1, a pursuit aircraft with 4 - .30 caliber weapons would have been devistating. But the .30 caliber weapon was proven to be too small in WWII. The volume of fire was great, but the destructive ability of the round was not good for the newer stressed skin aircraft. The .50 caliber was somewhere in between the volume of fire of the .30 cal, and the destructive ability of the 20mm.

And again, this really only applies to the Allies. The allied fighters did not have to face the mass armadas of heavy bombers. The mission was different. IF, and only IF, the Luftwaffe or Japanese didn't have to face bombers in large numbers, and only had to worry about fighting other fighters , those air forces would not have needed to rely so much on cannon.

There is no question that a 20mm cannon causes much more damage.

I think if you look at it closely, the USAAC agrees with this. ( not that I don't believe they had many wrong perceptions of the air war in pre-war doctrine) The one fighter that was really designed from the outset to intercept and destroy bombers, the P-38 Lightning, had the 20mm cannon installed.

And, I cannot recall in the many autobiographies I have read from WWII, any pilot complaining about the .50 calibers not getting the job done.

 

[Glider]

Glider, I hope you did not misunderstand my post when I said the US fighters were mostly longer ranged. I was not talking about the armament but about the fact that the fighters were able to go longer distances. I fail to understand why the critics of the US fifty cal armed fighters, which shot down many many EA in all theaters of the war, can't admit that the longer firing times, compared to cannon armed AC, were a substantial advantage. The early P51s carried 125 rounds of 20 mm ammo for each gun which gave them a firing time of 12.5 seconds. The P51s with 50 cals carried enough ammo for 20 seconds of firing time. If I am in a bomber I would surely feel better that my escort fighters were carrying ammo for more firing time rather than less, especially when the 50 cals had proven to be very effective against enemy fighters.

Whoops it looks like I did misunderstand part of your posting. Apologies.
As you can see I did agree with the point that you made that the 50 cals were a good compromise between effectiveness and firing time, says he trying to save face.

 

[renrich]

Glider, not a problem. I can see where the post was misleading and rather unclearly worded. A common problem with me. Perhaps the best armed single engine fighter of all might have been the Hellcat that had two 20 mms and four 50 cals. The 20 mms had 225 rounds each for a firing time of 22.5 seconds. The four MGs carried 400 rounds each for a firing time of 26.7 seconds. O f course the Hellcat had a huge wing with lots of space inside.

In Dean's book, upon close reading he makes an interesting point or two. Some of the US fighters with all wing guns had the guns synchronised in a box pattern instead of a converging at one point pattern. Another observation was that the gun sight had to be set to allign with a certain flight condition since the pitch angle of the fighter varied with speed and altitude. Some average condition, such as, say, the pitch attitude for two thirds maximum speed at a medium altitude, might be selected.

 

[Glider]

There is no doubt that the Hellcat with 2 x 20 and 4 x 0.5 was formidable the only problem being that you had as much chance of firing 225 rounds through a US 20mm without a jam, as I have of going to the moon. OK I exaggerate a bit, but you get the picture.
I have always said that my personal choice would be the Fiat G55 3 x 20mm with 240 RPG in the wings and a massive 400 rounds for the centreline 20mm.
The question about synchronisation is an interesting one which is why I said that it was almost a case of personal choice. I have heard of all sorts of combinations. The standard RAF large box pattern that was soon abandoned, all the guns set at a point, four guns at one point and four at a further point, all guns set at one point with tracer in two of the guns adjusted so that the tracer did match the centre point, paired guns at different ranges, small box patterns, mg's at a short range 20mm at a longer range. As I said, its almost a case of take your pick.

 

[claidemore]

You have a source for this ?

Yup, combat reports, gun camera footage, pilot anecdotes. I'll admit 90% is a generalization, but it's not far off the mark.

If you go to YouTube and pick a random sample of 10 gun camera clips,you'll be lucky to find one or two where the e/a takes violent evasive action. Most are straight and level or in a slight bank. You mostly only see a hard turn after the victim receives a burst, ie the bounce situation I referred to earlier.

When you run through a list of combat reports there will be aprox 7 where the e/a didn't know the attacker was there, 2 or 3 where they simply dive away and the combat ends up with straight and level shots at varying ranges once they run out of altitude, and an occasinal combat where they actually engage in a dogfight with both pilots in an agressive state of mind.

Twisting, turning, snap shooting dogfights were not the norm in higher speed WWII air fighting and the perception that it was comes from games and sims, not actual combat.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
I have always said that my personal choice would be the Fiat G55 3 x 20mm with 240 RPG in the wings and a massive 400 rounds for the centreline 20mm.
...

Excellent choice - always liked it

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'd agree with Claidmore as well.

 

[renrich]

I agree that in fighter versus fighter combat, the vast majority of kills took place on zero or low deflection shots from the rear when the target did not see the attacker. I believe that kills on bombers was a different story and obviously when a bomber damaged or shot down a fighter it was different.

 

[davparlr]

In Dean's book, upon close reading he makes an interesting point or two. Some of the US fighters with all wing guns had the guns synchronised in a box pattern instead of a converging at one point pattern. Another observation was that the gun sight had to be set to allign with a certain flight condition since the pitch angle of the fighter varied with speed and altitude. Some average condition, such as, say, the pitch attitude for two thirds maximum speed at a medium altitude, might be selected.

This is a bit confusing. I have heard fighter pilots on TV state that they requested the pattern for their guns so that I would guess many were personalized, which makes sense, at least for the experienced pilots.

 

[davparlr]

In Dean's book, upon close reading he makes an interesting point or two. Some of the US fighters with all wing guns had the guns synchronised in a box pattern instead of a converging at one point pattern. Another observation was that the gun sight had to be set to allign with a certain flight condition since the pitch angle of the fighter varied with speed and altitude. Some average condition, such as, say, the pitch attitude for two thirds maximum speed at a medium altitude, might be selected.

This is a bit confusing. I have heard fighter pilots on TV state that they requested the pattern for their guns so that I would guess many were personalized, which makes sense, at least for the experienced pilots.

 

[renrich]

I would guess that there was a SOP in a given squadron for gun convergence patterns until a pilot got a reputation and could individualise his choice.

 

[davparlr]

I would guess that there was a SOP in a given squadron for gun convergence patterns until a pilot got a reputation and could individualise his choice.

Sounds reasonable. Maybe there is some experience out there.

 

[bobbysocks]

if you wanted you K 14 gyroscopic computing gunsite to work guns would have had to be set to a specific range. it had an analog computer with would figure range and lead by moving the ring to the wingspan of the EA....if you were in a turn ior pulling any Gs the gyro would adjust the pipper. in alot of the camera footage of tail shots you dont even see the attacked pilot making any evasive moves...even after getting hit. which says he was possibly hit before, or ??? a lot of the reports i read talk about bouncing bandits but most went into a chase.

Mustang Encounter Reports
P-47 Encounter Reports

now these may be a sampling of the more exciting reports....

 

[timmo]

SOP for harmonisation?

Yes - in our squadron - No 1 - before I joined - it was brought down to 250 yards.

'Twas SOP for all my operational time.

= Tim

 

[strike2010]

between american fighters and germans best i bet fockwulf will best hellcats and fockwulf vs corsair in a fair matchs. BUT how about pitting japanese KI-84 against fockwulf or messhermit? ki-84 was in late stages of the war in pacific so its exploits is not maximize at the same time japanese arforce has gotten short on best pilots but KI-84 got its best against corsair downing 3 and put some heavy damage in a 30 minute war against corsair of gunter hill carrier.
i think ki-84 and fockwulf is interesting it could be a fair match but i my idea is ki-84 manueverability, weapons,agility and top speed will outclass fockwulf and more terrifying against messhermits.

 

[renrich]

Uh, what did he say?

 

[looney]

in short? In WW2 the 6x .50 where good enough to shoot down a fighter. But you would need about 2-3 seconds worth of shooting, which wasn't a problem late war wath less trained opponents. The main reason germans developed bigger guns was to make killing easier. 2 rounds of 30mm would bring a heavie down, I recon 1 round of 30mm would bring a fighter down. The experten of germany would have had enough with a few rounds the novices recuired more.

I personally think the 20mm was the optimum size gun for WW2. Ok rate of fire (600rpm+ ) and hard hititng power (specially the Mine-shells).

Getting back on topic, if the pilots where equal in talent and knew their aircraft limitations the one with the 1st shot would have probably won, same as it was in WW2 and Korea. The aircraft both have it's strong points and it's weaknesses. There is no clear winner.

 

[drgondog]

in short? In WW2 the 6x .50 where good enough to shoot down a fighter. But you would need about 2-3 seconds worth of shooting, which wasn't a problem late war wath less trained opponents. The main reason germans developed bigger guns was to make killing easier. 2 rounds of 30mm would bring a heavie down, I recon 1 round of 30mm would bring a fighter down. The experten of germany would have had enough with a few rounds the novices recuired more.

I personally think the 20mm was the optimum size gun for WW2. Ok rate of fire (600rpm+ ) and hard hititng power (specially the Mine-shells).

Getting back on topic, if the pilots where equal in talent and knew their aircraft limitations the one with the 1st shot would have probably won, same as it was in WW2 and Korea. The aircraft both have it's strong points and it's weaknesses. There is no clear winner.

Usually the clear winner was the pilot which spotted the other first, attained a tactical advange, and pursued the victim.

 

[looney]

@drgondog, I know... I wanted to make it a bit clearer, reducing some more variables. For example: If you spot an enemy at your 6 o'clock high, you most likely screwed even if he doesn't spot you directly, he most likely will before you can get a better position.