oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
I believe that was due to a lucky hit with a small bomb amidst the destroyer's depth charges. I don't think the HMGs played a role, but perhaps they did.
How did the Martlets rate against the European aircraft?
- Thread starter VBF-13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I believe that was due to a lucky hit with a small bomb amidst the destroyer's depth charges. I don't think the HMGs played a role, but perhaps they did.
CobberKane
Banned
- 706
- Apr 4, 2012
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The LW was looking for more effective ways to bring down as many bombers as possible. I think that was pretty obvious with some of the weapons they came up with outside conventional armament
You're making reference to a pilot's ability with regards to gunnery - there's a lot more to flying than gunnery. I'll be more than happy to explain some of those aspects....
Your original post that started all this...
If that isn't speculation, I don't know what is (especially if you're basing this on the FW 200)
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
I would like to ask what was the record of the early B-17s (pre "E" model) against the Japanese in 1941/early 1942?
It may be too small an example to draw a valid conclusion from but I think there was more going on in shooting down B-17s than just the size/number of the attackers guns.
It may be too small an example to draw a valid conclusion from but I think there was more going on in shooting down B-17s than just the size/number of the attackers guns.
- Thread starter
- #86
Go ahead. Make my day.
Aw, now, it very well can destroy a B-17. Disable or disrupt would be more likely, though, I'm sure.
Concentrate. A "land fighter" is a fighter that's deployed to targets on land. Yeah, like a bridge. Good example.
OK, so I'm not accustomed to fact-checking in Wikipedia, and I got the Claudes in China mixed up with the Zeroes. Big deal. We were discussing the Luftwaffe fighters and the point I was trying to make was that those were deployed in Poland on land targets well before they were put to the task of taking on those Allied bombers. You'll excuse my lapse of memory on the caliber of those nose guns, too, I'm sure.
Oh, one more thing. On that wood or canvas construction. Masonry and stone are held together with mortar, and mortar is porous and brittle. That's the reason you rarely see brick homes in Los Angeles or San Francisco; rather, that cheap stucco. Go ahead, fact-check it in Wikipedia.
I never said they were "off duty." I said, rather, "off that duty," referencing the bomber duty. Again, it pays to concentrate.
Sure there is. Common sense. Four .50s on sight will tear a big hole in any bomber. But there are other ways short of that they could take those down, as well.
Last edited:
CobberKane
Banned
- 706
- Apr 4, 2012
Flyboy, I made a statement that 4x.50 were ineffective against heavy bombers. You asked for evidence and I gave it, drawing on the conclusions (not opinions) of the Luftwaffe. and the USN. You called that evidence "loose statistics", but when I asked if you rejected the findings of the Luftwaffe you said no. When I asked if you actually did believe that 4x .50's werre sufficient for tackling heavy bombers you said yes, if the pilot could shoot, thereby apparently excluding the luftwaffe from that catagory. You gave no evidence to support your opinions and agreed that you had none. Now, you refer back to my original statement that four .50s are inadequate for tackling heavy bombers and say "If that isn't speculation, I don't know what is". Ergo, the Luftwaffes studies are once more back in the trash can. No evidence to support your views, no evidence to contradict mine, no consistency.
It's been fun, but honestly - don't take up debating.
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
Been reading a lot of books on the early history of WWII in the PTO and I am coming away with the impression that the few employed were fairly ineffective. Either the B-17C/Ds or the LB-30s that were sent over appear to have been committed piecemeal, never more than a few (<10) on a raid. Maintenance appears to have been an issue, especially in cases of repairing battle damage. With respect to fighter defense, I don't get the impression they were all that difficult to shoot up (as opposed to shoot down). If they were grounded for battle damage that just provided an opportunity for a raid to take them out permanently. Few airfields were safe harborage for allied aircraft from the wide ranging IJN in the early months. Not that this is relevant to the point at issue, but this was during a period when the USAAC had the perception that B-17s LB-30s were an effective anti-shipping weapon. Seems to me the most effective USAAC/F tactical bomber in the early PTO was the P-40E.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And who's heavy bombers? US? German? Who would be firing .50 calbers at what aircraft?
You're assuming that..
You made a statement about the amount of effectiveness .50 calibers would be against a -109. I'm saying even based on the information you cited, that would be impossible...
It has been fun, but at this point please don't piss me off...
CobberKane
Banned
- 706
- Apr 4, 2012
Oh Yeah? I'll get my big brother onto you!!
Seriously though, I think we've both gone about as far as we can with this, given we're both coming from different directions. Thanks for the to an fro, and let's do it again sometime - and not take ourselves too seriously in the process - OK?
Seriously though, I think we've both gone about as far as we can with this, given we're both coming from different directions. Thanks for the to an fro, and let's do it again sometime - and not take ourselves too seriously in the process - OK?
F/Lt Stanley Huppert and P/O John Christie,flying a Mosquito N.F. XIII,MM456,coded RA-D,of 410 Squadron shot down a Heinkel 177 A-3 (6N+AK of 2./KG 100) in the early hours of Wednesday19th April 1944.
To do this they used their four 20mm cannon.
They expended 110 rounds of A.P.I. and 111 rounds of H.E. ammunition. "Many" strikes were seen,initially on the port wing and engine,then tearing away sections of the airframe.
We'll never know how many of the 221 rounds fired hit the big Heinkel but I very much doubt that the same result would have been achieved with a similar burst from four 0.5" machine guns.
Steve
To do this they used their four 20mm cannon.
They expended 110 rounds of A.P.I. and 111 rounds of H.E. ammunition. "Many" strikes were seen,initially on the port wing and engine,then tearing away sections of the airframe.
We'll never know how many of the 221 rounds fired hit the big Heinkel but I very much doubt that the same result would have been achieved with a similar burst from four 0.5" machine guns.
Steve
stug3
Staff Sergeant
Yes, because certainly no Axis twin or 4 engined AC were EVER shot down ANYWHERE by American planes with those puny .50s.
Thank god the RAF was everywhere with its awesome 20mm to save us.
- Thread starter
- #93
I didn't see that Luftwaffe study but if it concluded 20s were more effective firepower than .50s I'll bet I could pick anybody off the street who could add two and two together and they could have told them that. That's not evidence .50s are ineffective against bombers, however. It's simply evidence 20s are more effective.
At least he didn't call you "incoherent." If I might observe, some debating-style that is...
The RAF (actually, maybe the Air Ministry) formulated their requirements for 8 x .303MGs based upon how many firing passes that an average pilot might make per sortie.
It seems patently obvious that 4 x 20mm guns will cause far more damage per firing pass than 4 x .5in. This was also the rational for the FAA specifying 6 x .5in rather than 4 x .5in in the Martlet.
OTOH, a lighteraircraft, due to a lighter armament, might make more firing passes at an enemy fighter, when equipped with lighter guns, but this seems a much less likely scenario when engaging a loaded multi-engine bomber.
It seems patently obvious that 4 x 20mm guns will cause far more damage per firing pass than 4 x .5in. This was also the rational for the FAA specifying 6 x .5in rather than 4 x .5in in the Martlet.
OTOH, a lighteraircraft, due to a lighter armament, might make more firing passes at an enemy fighter, when equipped with lighter guns, but this seems a much less likely scenario when engaging a loaded multi-engine bomber.
CobberKane
Banned
- 706
- Apr 4, 2012
Sorry, VFM, I meant to take a light-hearted swipe at both of us, not cause offense.
Re the Luftwaffe study, I've never found the full text but it gets quoted pretty widely so it may be out there somewhere. So far as I know the study did not compare HMGs to cannon, Why would it? Like you say, its a matter of common sense that cannon represent a highter level of firepower - about three times as high according to the USN. What the study did conclude is that on average it took more than the entire ammo load of their most heavily armed single seat fighter to bring down a B-17. No doubt they also considered that this would involve mutliple passes thought the bombers defensive fire and, from 1944 onwards, increased exposure to escort fighters. Time to bring in the 30mm. This is the basis of my contention that 4xHMGs would be inadequate against heavy bombers - if the LW indicated that an aramament of 4x20mm was wanting, decreasing the firepower by a factor of three would be unlikely to improve things.
Re the suggestion that four HMGs at convergence for a two send burst would tear a heavy bomber apart - even assuming this is so such an attack would require the fighter to approach the bomber box from behind at a convergence speed low enough to throttle back at exactly the right distance and hold a perfectly static position relative to the bombers while you fired. Possibly there may have been some workplace health and safety issues with this.
One other thing in passing, FlyBoy pulled me up one my description of 4xHMGs as 'average' when used on a 109. Here I used the term in the common usage that the HMGs represented a middle order of the firepower typically directed against single engined axis fighters - better than 8x.303s but not so good as, say 2x20m+4x.303s. I certainly didn't mean to infer that I had totaled up every fighter that ever fired at a 109, analysed their firepower, divided by the total, etc
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #96
CobberKane, I think I just picked a bad day to stop sniffing model glue. At any rate, thanks. And I can see the Luftwaffe wanting to go with everything they got in terms of their fighters to protect their cities--definitely. FWIW, you never had a debate from me on whether 20s were more effective than .50s, only on whether .50s had the capacity to take down bombers, as well. Perhaps I should have said that from the outset, but I just didn't think of it at the time.
Hey, you know how it is.
Hey, you know how it is.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
CobberKane
Banned
- 706
- Apr 4, 2012
CobberKane, I think I just picked a bad day to stop sniffing model glue. At any rate, thanks. And I can see the Luftwaffe wanting to go with everything they got in terms of their fighters to protect their cities--definitely. FWIW, you never had a debate from me on whether 20s were more effective than .50s, only on whether .50s had the capacity to take down bombers, as well. Perhaps I should have said that from the outset, but I just didn't think of it at the time.
Hey, you know how it is.
No worries. But don't call me Shirley...
- Thread starter
- #99
Surely...
...and after a considerable amount of thread drift, I thought I'd offer a few thoughts on the Martlet/Wildcat in Europe. I don't know if this information in any way helps the original thread title, but In a book I have on testing aircraft with the Aircraft and Armaments Experimental Establishment(A&AEE) the Martlet is covered in detail. Here's a snippet from the passage on the Martlet I:
"At 6,810 lb the aircraft was pleasant to fly with straightfoward stalls at 83 mph (clean) and 70 mph (flaps and undercarriage down). Take off run was 280 yd (160 yd into a 230 kt wind) but the narrow undercarriage was described as 'twitchy' and took 30 seconds to retract manually. Other comments included the lack of a direct vision panel and the placing together of the similar flap and fuel levers. A creditable maximum range of 930 miles was calculated on 136 gallons of fuel. Contamination by carbon monoxide was bad, but improved by sealing the cowling and cockpit."
Unfortunately the author then writes that reports on the effectiveness of its .50 cal machine guns have not been found (!). For the Martlet Mark II, the author wrote that its performance was, "... not outstanding for 1942, resulted from the weight used representing full catapult equipment and a 25 gallon external tank."
Performance as follows for the Martlet II: Take off weight 7,790 lbs, take off run 320 yds, max rate climb 12.5 mins at 1,940 ft per min. Max altitude 31,000 ft, max speed 293 at 13,800 ft.
For the Wildcat V the author had this to say: "Stick forces became dangerously light at aft CG and a limit (based on a pull of 2 lb per G) further forward than earlier marks was determined; the ailerons were assessed as heavy as a fighter." Performance for the Wildcat VI was recorded as max speed 322 mph at 16,800 ft.
Just a description of the RN's naming of the Grumman fighter. Both names (Martlet and Wildcat) were officially used. Martlet to describe aircraft that were ordered by the FAA, which included the French and Greek aircraft, which were included in the British contracts. Aircraft ordered by the British govt were Martlet Is, IIs and IIIs, but when lend lease aircraft from the USA arrived, these were officially named Wildcats, although there was a bit of crossover as the Mark IV and Vs were referred to as Martlets until 1944, when, to conform with the US Navy the name Wildcat became official. Wildcat mark numbers were continued from where Martlet ones left off, Mark IV, V and VI.
Wildcat IVs were equivalent to the F4F-4 and were generally similar to the F4F-3, but with two additional wing guns. The Wildcat V was the equivalent of the FM1 and the Mark VI being equivalent to the FM2. Martlet equivalents have been covered elsewhere.
Clear as mud!
"At 6,810 lb the aircraft was pleasant to fly with straightfoward stalls at 83 mph (clean) and 70 mph (flaps and undercarriage down). Take off run was 280 yd (160 yd into a 230 kt wind) but the narrow undercarriage was described as 'twitchy' and took 30 seconds to retract manually. Other comments included the lack of a direct vision panel and the placing together of the similar flap and fuel levers. A creditable maximum range of 930 miles was calculated on 136 gallons of fuel. Contamination by carbon monoxide was bad, but improved by sealing the cowling and cockpit."
Unfortunately the author then writes that reports on the effectiveness of its .50 cal machine guns have not been found (!). For the Martlet Mark II, the author wrote that its performance was, "... not outstanding for 1942, resulted from the weight used representing full catapult equipment and a 25 gallon external tank."
Performance as follows for the Martlet II: Take off weight 7,790 lbs, take off run 320 yds, max rate climb 12.5 mins at 1,940 ft per min. Max altitude 31,000 ft, max speed 293 at 13,800 ft.
For the Wildcat V the author had this to say: "Stick forces became dangerously light at aft CG and a limit (based on a pull of 2 lb per G) further forward than earlier marks was determined; the ailerons were assessed as heavy as a fighter." Performance for the Wildcat VI was recorded as max speed 322 mph at 16,800 ft.
Just a description of the RN's naming of the Grumman fighter. Both names (Martlet and Wildcat) were officially used. Martlet to describe aircraft that were ordered by the FAA, which included the French and Greek aircraft, which were included in the British contracts. Aircraft ordered by the British govt were Martlet Is, IIs and IIIs, but when lend lease aircraft from the USA arrived, these were officially named Wildcats, although there was a bit of crossover as the Mark IV and Vs were referred to as Martlets until 1944, when, to conform with the US Navy the name Wildcat became official. Wildcat mark numbers were continued from where Martlet ones left off, Mark IV, V and VI.
Wildcat IVs were equivalent to the F4F-4 and were generally similar to the F4F-3, but with two additional wing guns. The Wildcat V was the equivalent of the FM1 and the Mark VI being equivalent to the FM2. Martlet equivalents have been covered elsewhere.
Clear as mud!
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
