How did the Martlets rate against the European aircraft?

Glider · Oct 18, 2012

VBF-13 said:
Quite honestly I don't know how you can categorically conclude that. Four .50s converged on a bomber for just a matter of a couple of seconds would rip that thing in half. If they didn't do that they'd at least most certainly disable it in terms of its mission. And I'd think they'd suffice to take on any Luftwaffe fighter cover, as well.

Its a personal view but I beleive that Cobbers comments are pretty much on the nose.
No one can deny that the Fw 190 with its 4 x 20mm and 2 x HMG had considerably more firepower than the 4/6/8 0.50 M2 as carried on the USAAF fighters. Equally, no one can deny that the Luftwaffe decided to increase the firepower of the 190 with 30mm cannon when faced with the B17.
This alone again in my opinion tells me that against aircraft such as the B17, the 0.50 M2 would not have been adaquate.

Of course there are exceptions where luck or extra ordinary skill resulted in aircraft being shot down with few shots or by aircraft with little firepower, but generally the more firepowe the better.

It all very theoretical because if in the real world the USAAF had found themselves faced by large formations of B17 type aircraft the P51 and P47 would quickly be rearmed with 4 x 20mm. The first P51 were armed with 4 x 20mm and I am very confident the P47 would have easily been altered

Re converging for a couple of seconds being effective, at a 100MPH closing speed (probably on the low side) the fighter is closing at the rate of about 50 yards a second. So if, and its a big if, the convergence range is spot on then you are talking about fractions of a second, probably less than a fifth of a second, not a couple of seconds.
Throw in the spread of the gun, the vibration in the mounting, the bend motion of the wing and the fact that the bombers are firing back so judgement is not normally calm and considered and its easy to see why in the real world so few shots hit the target.

pinsog · Oct 18, 2012

Who cares if 4 50's could bring down a heavy bomber, the Germans didn't have any, end of story. 4 50's could bring down anything in the German inventory with out much difficulty, 109's, 190's, Ju88's, Fw Condors, were all brought down by 4 50's whether they were in a Wildcat or P51B.

RCAFson · Oct 18, 2012

Speaking of hitting the target, I just noticed this when looking at the weight breakdown for the Sea Hurricane IIC:

Sea Hurricane Mark IIC (Temperate). Aircraft Tare Weight (with 18 gallons coolant) 5,738 Ib; pilot and parachute 200 lb; four 20-mm cannon 425 lb; ammunition boxes and belt feeds (364 rounds) 327 lb; gunsight (gyro) 54 lb; oxygen equipment 15 lb; naval radio 92 lb; fuel (main, 69 gallons) 497lb; fuel (reserve, 28 gallons) 202 lb; oil (7.5 gallons) 68 lb. Aircraft Normal Loaded Weight 7,618 lb. (from Mason)

Note the gyro gunsight.

VBF-13 · Oct 18, 2012

Glider said:
Its a personal view but I beleive that Cobbers comments are pretty much on the nose.

No one can deny that the Fw 190 with its 4 x 20mm and 2 x HMG had considerably more firepower than the 4/6/8 0.50 M2 as carried on the USAAF fighters. Equally, no one can deny that the Luftwaffe decided to increase the firepower of the 190 with 30mm cannon when faced with the B17.

This alone again in my opinion tells me that against aircraft such as the B17, the 0.50 M2 would not have been adaquate.

Of course there are exceptions where luck or extra ordinary skill resulted in aircraft being shot down with few shots or by aircraft with little firepower, but generally the more firepowe the better.

It all very theoretical because if in the real world the USAAF had found themselves faced by large formations of B17 type aircraft the P51 and P47 would quickly be rearmed with 4 x 20mm. The first P51 were armed with 4 x 20mm and I am very confident the P47 would have easily been altered

Re converging for a couple of seconds being effective, at a 100MPH closing speed (probably on the low side) the fighter is closing at the rate of about 50 yards a second. So if, and its a big if, the convergence range is spot on then you are talking about fractions of a second, probably less than a fifth of a second, not a couple of seconds.

Throw in the spread of the gun, the vibration in the mounting, the bend motion of the wing and the fact that the bombers are firing back so judgement is not normally calm and considered and its easy to see why in the real world so few shots hit the target.

Interesting detail and pretty much conceded, Glider. But bombers are basically shells. Four 50s are going to tear a doorway into the fuselage of any of those, I don't care how big they are. The bigger the more firepower they're likely throwing out. One has to get around that and duck any fighter cover, as well. But four 50s on sight are sufficient to bring any bomber down, I'll still maintain.

CobberKane · Oct 18, 2012

Glider said:
Its a personal view but I beleive that Cobbers comments are pretty much on the nose.
No one can deny that the Fw 190 with its 4 x 20mm and 2 x HMG had considerably more firepower than the 4/6/8 0.50 M2 as carried on the USAAF fighters. Equally, no one can deny that the Luftwaffe decided to increase the firepower of the 190 with 30mm cannon when faced with the B17.
This alone again in my opinion tells me that against aircraft such as the B17, the 0.50 M2 would not have been adaquate.

Of course there are exceptions where luck or extra ordinary skill resulted in aircraft being shot down with few shots or by aircraft with little firepower, but generally the more firepowe the better.

It all very theoretical because if in the real world the USAAF had found themselves faced by large formations of B17 type aircraft the P51 and P47 would quickly be rearmed with 4 x 20mm. The first P51 were armed with 4 x 20mm and I am very confident the P47 would have easily been altered

Re converging for a couple of seconds being effective, at a 100MPH closing speed (probably on the low side) the fighter is closing at the rate of about 50 yards a second. So if, and its a big if, the convergence range is spot on then you are talking about fractions of a second, probably less than a fifth of a second, not a couple of seconds.
Throw in the spread of the gun, the vibration in the mounting, the bend motion of the wing and the fact that the bombers are firing back so judgement is not normally calm and considered and its easy to see why in the real world so few shots hit the target.

Pretty much spot on, i think.

My assertion that four .50s would be inadequate for knocking down heavy bombers is based on the experience and investigations of the luftwaffe, who had far more experience in this area than any other airforce. The Allies had none. If the Luftwaffe collected data and concluded that a fighter like the Fw190 with at least three times the firepower of a P51B (by the reckoning of the the United States Navy) did not have enough punch to reliably down a B-17 how can anyone seriously suggest four .50s is a realistic armamentent choice for the task? Unless of course the P51 is being flown by some hypothetical super-pilot who can somehow hold position right behind the Bomber formation and rip their wings off with perfectly converged and aimed two second bursts - all the while dodging the fire of dozens of machine guns coming back at him. Who is this masked man - Captain America?
Saying that "four .50s would be adequate for shooting down a heavy bomber because a pilot with exceptional luck or skill could do it" is exactly the same as saying "a pilot who shoots down a heavy bomber with four .50s is exceptionally lucky or skillfull". But the average pilot is not exceptionally lucky or skillfull, therefore by any reasonable meaning of the word, four .50 are inadequate for the job.

FLYBOYJ · Oct 18, 2012

CobberKane said:
Saying that "four .50s would be adequate for shooting down a heavy bomber because a pilot with exceptional luck or skill could do it" is exactly the same as saying "a pilot who shoots down a heavy bomber with four .50s is exceptionally lucky or skillfull". But the average pilot is not exceptionally lucky or skillfull, therefore by any reasonable meaning of the word, four .50 are inadequate for the job.

Your opinion....

Define average pilot....

CobberKane · Oct 18, 2012

FLYBOYJ said:
Your opinion....

Define average pilot....

No, I was actually paraphrasing Glider's comments, with wich i agree.
Define Average? I'm sure you know what the word means, but applied to this discussion; the Luftwaffe drew their figure of a 2% hit rate for cannon shells fired from reviewing gun camera footage. These guys weren't stupid - they would not have cherry-picked footage from aces or rookies to skew the results, they would have used either all the footage they had or a large, randomly drawn sample. Hence the results they got were indicative of a pilot with the average flying and gunnery skils. Likewise, when they wanted to know how many 20mm hits it took to knock down a B-17 they wouldn't have simply counted up the holes in the first wreck they came upon and gone with that, they would have examined hits in as many wrecks as they could and divided by the total of the sample,. That's how statistics work. Thats 'average' .

VBF-13 · Oct 19, 2012

CobberKane said:
Pretty much spot on, i think.

My assertion that four .50s would be inadequate for knocking down heavy bombers is based on the experience and investigations of the luftwaffe, who had far more experience in this area than any other airforce. The Allies had none. If the Luftwaffe collected data and concluded that a fighter like the Fw190 with at least three times the firepower of a P51B (by the reckoning of the the United States Navy) did not have enough punch to reliably down a B-17 how can anyone seriously suggest four .50s is a realistic armamentent choice for the task? Unless of course the P51 is being flown by some hypothetical super-pilot who can somehow hold position right behind the Bomber formation and rip their wings off with perfectly converged and aimed two second bursts - all the while dodging the fire of dozens of machine guns coming back at him. Who is this masked man - Captain America?
Saying that "four .50s would be adequate for shooting down a heavy bomber because a pilot with exceptional luck or skill could do it" is exactly the same as saying "a pilot who shoots down a heavy bomber with four .50s is exceptionally lucky or skillfull". But the average pilot is not exceptionally lucky or skillfull, therefore by any reasonable meaning of the word, four .50 are inadequate for the job.

CobberKane, had you ever seen gun film of a Wildcat catching a Zero in its sweet spot? There's nothing left of that Zero. Just pieces flying everywhere. That quick.

Now, I understand where you're coming from. For one, you're relying on a presumption. Let me just address that, here. That is, because the Luftwaffe fighters charged with intercepting those Allied bombers was more heavily armed than quad 50s, that's evidence the latter was inadequate armament as against those Allied bombers. Do you know what you're not thinking of? You're not thinking of the fact that the Luftwaffe fighters had other roles than scattering when Allied bombers were overhead. One such role, their original and indeed their most familiar role, was blitzkrieg. Those aircraft were designed as land fighters just as the Zeros were designed as land fighters. And, look at the armament on the Zeroes, a 20mm cannon on the nose. A 20mm cannon could take down a building.

If the Japanese didn't see a necessity to "down-arm" the Zeroes for carrier duty, why would one expect the Germans to see a necessity to "down-arm" their fighters for bomber duty? It could very well be, in other words, those fighters just so happened to be so equipped by the time they were put to that bomber duty. When they were off that duty, they hardly sat around in the hangars. They were deployed otherwise, over land.

There's no question the Luftwaffe fighters were more heavily armed. Maybe they had too much? That could be, too. Regardless, that's hardly evidence the 50s were inadequate for the job, I'm saying.

tomo pauk · Oct 19, 2012

If I may cut in:

VBF-13 said:
CobberKane, had you ever seen gun film of a Wildcat catching a Zero in its sweet spot? There's nothing left of that Zero. Just pieces flying everywhere. That quick.

Great. The paper mache plane gets caught in a burst of HMG bulets and his fuel tank explodes. Hence that's the proof that BMG can destroy B-17 class of target?

Now, I understand where you're coming from. For one, you're relying on a presumption. Let me just address that, here. That is, because the Luftwaffe fighters charged with intercepting those Allied bombers was more heavily armed than quad 50s, that's evidence the latter was inadequate armament as against those Allied bombers. Do you know what you're not thinking of? You're not thinking of the fact that the Luftwaffe fighters had other roles than scattering when Allied bombers were overhead. One such role, their original and indeed their most familiar role, was blitzkrieg. Those aircraft were designed as land fighters just as the Zeros were designed as land fighters.

Now what is a 'land fighter'? MAybe a fighter that is to destroy tanks, trucks, artillery pieces? If that's the definition, and Bf-109 and Zero fit there - I happen to sell the Brooklyn bridge for the fair price, care to buy?

And, look at the armament on the Zeroes, a 20mm cannon on the nose. A 20mm cannon could take down a building.

Both sentences are flaty wrong. Zero's cannons were in the wings, while the building the 20mm can take down, in any practical terms, need to be constructed of wood or canvas, not from a proper material.

If the Japanese didn't see a necessity to "down-arm" the Zeroes for carrier duty, why would one expect the Germans to see a necessity to "down-arm" their fighters for bomber duty? It could very well be, in other words, those fighters just so happened to be so equipped by the time they were put to that bomber duty. When they were off that duty, they hardly sat around in the hangars. They were deployed otherwise, over land.

Axis fighers were rarely, if ever, off duty. They were, for the most of WW2, contested with superior number of Allied planes, and their job was to kill those.

There's no question the Luftwaffe fighters were more heavily armed. Maybe they had too much? That could be, too. Regardless, that's hardly evidence the 50s were inadequate for the job, I'm saying.

And there is evidence that 50s were adequate for heavy bomber busting? Plenty of opinions here, let alone the ones easily proved wrong.

buffnut453 · Oct 19, 2012

The Zero was always designed as a carrier fighter, not as a "land fighter". Agree with Tomo Pauk, the performance of 50cal weapons against a lightly-built Japanese fighter says nothing about the performance of that armament against heavy bombers. Also, look at the experience of the Japanese against Allied heavy bombers - even the much-vaunted Zero had a hard time bringing them down. I think it's pretty safe to say that 50 cal armament "could" bring down a heavy bomber but that, all things being equal - same pilot, same airframe etc - heavier armament of 4xcannon would do the job better because every single hit would blow somewhat larger holes in the bomber's structure.

glennasher · Oct 19, 2012

How did the .50s do against Emilys and other Japanese flying boats? The larger ones, of course. That ought to answer any questions as to the usefulness of the .50s.

CobberKane · Oct 19, 2012

VBF-13 said:
CobberKane, had you ever seen gun film of a Wildcat catching a Zero in its sweet spot? There's nothing left of that Zero. Just pieces flying everywhere. That quick.

Now, I understand where you're coming from. For one, you're relying on a presumption. Let me just address that, here. That is, because the Luftwaffe fighters charged with intercepting those Allied bombers was more heavily armed than quad 50s, that's evidence the latter was inadequate armament as against those Allied bombers. Do you know what you're not thinking of? You're not thinking of the fact that the Luftwaffe fighters had other roles than scattering when Allied bombers were overhead. One such role, their original and indeed their most familiar role, was blitzkrieg. Those aircraft were designed as land fighters just as the Zeros were designed as land fighters. And, look at the armament on the Zeroes, a 20mm cannon on the nose. A 20mm cannon could take down a building.

If the Japanese didn't see a necessity to "down-arm" the Zeroes for carrier duty, why would one expect the Germans to see a necessity to "down-arm" their fighters for bomber duty? It could very well be, in other words, those fighters just so happened to be so equipped by the time they were put to that bomber duty. When they were off that duty, they hardly sat around in the hangars. They were deployed otherwise, over land.

There's no question the Luftwaffe fighters were more heavily armed. Maybe they had too much? That could be, too. Regardless, that's hardly evidence the 50s were inadequate for the job, I'm saying.

Good grief. I suppose I could try to decipher this but thankfully Tommo has already done the impossible. This is probably the most incoherent post I have ever seen, including my own - and that's really saying something!
Glenassher, good thought - Emily and Mavis flying boats were big aircraft and the the Emily in particular was well armed. But I have no idea as to their structural stength compared to a B-17 or whether they hd self sealing tanks, crew armour, extinguishers etc. They certainly wouldn't have been encountered in massed formations like B-17 were either.
At the end of the day the LW had the experience, did the study (as previously detailed) and concluded that heavy cannon were the way to go against heavy bombers. If anyone - VBF13, Flyboy, whoever - can produce any evidence (that means data!)that the LW were wrong, and their efforts to progressively up-gun their fighters to deal with the B 17 were just a waste of time because four machine guns would have been fine for the job, I'm waiting. And waiting...

Shortround6 · Oct 19, 2012

The F4F had little trouble against the Mavis but then that was little more than a 4 engine gas tank.

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. On AVERAGE you need a lot of fire power to BRING DOWN a B-17. You need a lot less to screw one up and send it home with 3 or even 2 engines running and dead or wounded crew members.

We have had a lot of discussions about the usefulness (or uselessness) of defensive guns on bombers. While they do not even come close to giving immunity they do give the attacking aircraft a number of problems. They will, in general, cause attacking fighters to fire from further away, to fire for shorter periods of time, and to fire with, shall we say, less steadiness of aim. All contribute to more rounds fired per hit on the bomber. The American bombers had a much more effective defensive armament than the Japanese bombers and the larger formations just added to the intercept problem. Didn't the Germans resort to those 21cm rockets to try to break up the bomber formations BEFORE the american escort fighters showed up in use?
Against the Japanese bombers the American fighters were able to pick an attack position/angle a little better, close a little slower, fire a little longer ( in some cases the Mavis took more than one firing pass even with no armor and no self sealing tanks).

There are more differences than just the armament of the attacking fighters.

Four .50s are certainly less than ideal against a bomber (and formation) like the B-17. Less than ideal does not mean useless. And for a better comparison, How well did the early B-17s (before the "E") fair against the Japanese? Flying in small groups with no power operated guns and single ones at that?

oldcrowcv63 · Oct 19, 2012

Well it was a great thread... I blame Flyboy J... (Gotta blame someone... that's the way the world turns these days... Besides, those doggone mods mess everything up especially every time we get a rollicking political discussion going they descend on us like vultures.

In VBF's defense for espousing what can only be described as heresy or worse in this forum. We find Lundstrom quoting VF pilots flying the 4 HMG equipped F4F-3 at the start of WW2 as saying, when confronted with exchanging their mounts for the undesired 6-gun F4F-4, "Their 4 HMGs could sink a destroyer. Why add two more guns?" (my paraphrase) Now, first point: I am not sure, but I think a destroyer is a bit more challenging than a bomber. second point: I am not sure I believe the hyperbole of those "First Team pilots." Personally, If I was in the ETO doing bomber interception ops, I'd want 4 x 20 mm. (Or maybe even a Ju-88 throwing 75 mm rounds into the Bomber stream?) JMO

Yes, I know for you purists out there, I should have said, "...more challenging to destroy if a bit less to hit..."

Vincenzo · Oct 19, 2012

and where the 4 HMG had sink a destroyer? (or destroyer is just a motorboat?)

FLYBOYJ · Oct 19, 2012

CobberKane said:
Good grief. I suppose I could try to decipher this but thankfully Tommo has already done the impossible. This is probably the most incoherent post I have ever seen, including my own - and that's really saying something!
Glenassher, good thought - Emily and Mavis flying boats were big aircraft and the the Emily in particular was well armed. But I have no idea as to their structural stength compared to a B-17 or whether they hd self sealing tanks, crew armour, extinguishers etc. They certainly wouldn't have been encountered in massed formations like B-17 were either.
At the end of the day the LW had the experience, did the study (as previously detailed) and concluded that heavy cannon were the way to go against heavy bombers. If anyone - VBF13, Flyboy, whoever - can produce any evidence (that means data!)that the LW were wrong, and their efforts to progressively up-gun their fighters to deal with the B 17 were just a waste of time because four machine guns would have been fine for the job, I'm waiting. And waiting...

There's nothing to wait about here and I'm not challenging the LW study on what it would take to bring down an allied bomber. My point is 4 .50 cal are deadly if placed in the right spot regardless of the aircraft.

As far as an average pilot - I guess we're just talking gunnery skills.....

oldcrowcv63 said:
Well it was a great thread... I blame Flyboy J... (Gotta blame someone... that's the way the world turns these days... Besides, those doggone mods mess everything up especially every time we get a rollicking political discussion going they descend on us like vultures.

Yup - that's the way the world turns these days....

Glider · Oct 19, 2012

VBF-13 said:
Interesting detail and pretty much conceded, Glider. But bombers are basically shells. Four 50s are going to tear a doorway into the fuselage of any of those, I don't care how big they are. The bigger the more firepower they're likely throwing out. One has to get around that and duck any fighter cover, as well. But four 50s on sight are sufficient to bring any bomber down, I'll still maintain.

Bombers are more like cigar tubes. Most of the time the 0.50 is going to cause a little hole going in and another going out, its down to luck as to what bullet hits or doesn't in between. The other advantage of the 20mm is of course the explosive content which is going to a lot more damage than any 0.50 bullet. The 20mm will cause a hole going in (a lot bigger than the 0.50) and a lot of smaller holes all over the place when the shell explodes.

If the Germans believed that 4 x 20mm and 2 x HMG wasn't sufficient, why should 4 x 0.50 be sufficient, at the end of the day that is the question that needs to be considered

oldcrowcv63 · Oct 19, 2012

Vincenzo said:
and where the 4 HMG had sink a destroyer? (or destroyer is just a motorboat?)

Vinny! Don't shoot the messenger, Please

Evidently some VF-42 pilots attacked a destroyer during a raid on Tulagi during the Coral Sea prelims and they came away with the impression they had actually sunk it. At least that's what I recall. Somebody with a First Team copy on hand can verify.

from wikipedia.

Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The four U.S. fighters then strafed Yūzuki, killing her captain and nine others of her crew, and causing moderate damage to the ship. Two or three other Japanese floatplanes were damaged in Tulagi harbor and their crews were killed.[32][34][35][36]

Of course that's a full division of F4F-3s so we are really talking about 16 HMGs not 4.... but who's counting?

Juha · Oct 19, 2012

Vincenzo said:
and where the 4 HMG had sink a destroyer? (or destroyer is just a motorboat?)

At Wake in Dec 41

Juha

Shortround6 · Oct 19, 2012

According to Wiki, take as you will.

"Kisaragi was sailing away from the engagement when it came under air attack by four F4F Wildcat fighter planes from Wake armed with 100-pound bombs. One Wildcat, piloted by Henry "Baron" Elrod, dropped his bombs on Kisaragi's stern, which was packed with depth charges.[7]"

While .50 cal MGs can certainly poke a lot of holes in a destroyer, the destroyer does have damage control pumps and damage control equipment to control leaks and flooding. It would take and very badly trained crew and a set of extraordinary circumstances for .50 gunfire alone to sink a destroyer. Setting off secondary explosions from ready use ammunition or torpedo/depth charges is going to be much more likely and much more damaging to the ship.

How did the Martlets rate against the European aircraft?

Captain

Tech Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Banned

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Banned

Staff Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Captain

Senior Airman

Banned

Major General

Tech Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Captain

Tech Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Major General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads