improving the 109??
- Thread starter bobbysocks
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
When the RAF introduced gun cameras the analysts were appalled to discover that pilots were often opening fire at 1500 yards or more (they might as well have opened the cockpit and thrown rocks) and consistently under estimated angle off by at least 50%. Basically they couldn't shoot.
It is no accident that the few who could actually shoot scored heavily. Between 10th July and 15th September 1940 just 17 pilots accounted for 221 Luftwaffe aircraft shot down! If we ignore the halves (whereby more than two pilots could engage an aircraft shot down and be credited with a half) only 15% of pilots who flew in the battle were credited with a 'whole' aircraft.
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Now imagine the effect of training program that improves things by 50%, 22.5% of pilots who flew are credited 1 or more aircraft?
Might change the perception of how useful the 8 gun armament was
Might change the perception of how useful the 8 gun armament was
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
SR6,
Good stuff in your post #168, I don't think many people appreciate how hard it really was to actually hit something when you're flying around. I haven't flown since the early 1980's but I know one thing, while I probably could fly fighter planes of the 1940's, I doubt very much if I could fight with a fighter plane. Perhaps with proper training I could at least not look like a total nimrod, but I was told at an early age, there's flying fighters and then there's fighting fighters.
Good stuff in your post #168, I don't think many people appreciate how hard it really was to actually hit something when you're flying around. I haven't flown since the early 1980's but I know one thing, while I probably could fly fighter planes of the 1940's, I doubt very much if I could fight with a fighter plane. Perhaps with proper training I could at least not look like a total nimrod, but I was told at an early age, there's flying fighters and then there's fighting fighters.
Now imagine the effect of training program that improves things by 50%, 22.5% of pilots who flew are credited 1 or more aircraft?
Might change the perception of how useful the 8 gun armament was
Training did improve, but it took a surprisingly long time. In late 1941 Sholto-Douglas was facing almost exactly the same problems that Dowding had faced eighteen months earlier.
The quantum leap in accuracy didn't come until near the end of the war with the introduction of gyro gun sights, which essentially did the calculations for the pilots and took out the guess work....errr...I mean estimations.
Cheers
Steve
I agree, but as Stona commented the solution lay in better equipment and better training, during the BoB they hardly had time to learn to fly let alone fight and shoot. However to me the game changed with the fall of France, the RAF had no trouble inflicting crippling losses on raids across the North Sea. 8 x .303 MGs were quite capable of making sure no one was able to fly or defend the aircraft even if it didnt immediately go down. Most figures for the BoB quote planes shot down, there were also large numbers of German A/C that returned to base and never flew again. The RAF were fully aware of the problem and did start installing cannon in Spitfires during the BoB (June according to wiki).Now imagine the effect of training program that improves things by 50%, 22.5% of pilots who flew are credited 1 or more aircraft?
Might change the perception of how useful the 8 gun armament was
The kill rates for the RAF would have been much improved if Dowding could get Leigh Mallory/Bader to stop performing air displays with 50 experienced pilots in tight formation and actually go straight at the enemy to shoot them down, that however is another topic.
- Thread starter
- #147
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
how did the P40 fare against the 109 in north Africa? from what I remember it didn't clean the skies of LW planes....it was a stop gap ac that was used until something better could replace it. then it took on a different role...not so much and interceptor but CAS and bombing.
Ascent
Senior Airman
And yet again you totally missed all the arguments.
The round could be effective at 1200 yds but that is totally irrelevant because the weapon system as a whole I.e the aircraft and gun combination, was incapable of hitting the target. The only way you would hit by having the target dead in the cross hairs is either being right on top of it or being dead astern at the same heading and altitude, slightly off and you have to start calculating lead which is beyond just about everyone in those conditions. And good luck getting dead astern straight and level while there are fighters about and with a manoeuvring target.
And I personally can't recall any complaints about lack of range on any British fighters during the battle of Britain, others will probably have read more widely on this so they may know better.
The round could be effective at 1200 yds but that is totally irrelevant because the weapon system as a whole I.e the aircraft and gun combination, was incapable of hitting the target. The only way you would hit by having the target dead in the cross hairs is either being right on top of it or being dead astern at the same heading and altitude, slightly off and you have to start calculating lead which is beyond just about everyone in those conditions. And good luck getting dead astern straight and level while there are fighters about and with a manoeuvring target.
And I personally can't recall any complaints about lack of range on any British fighters during the battle of Britain, others will probably have read more widely on this so they may know better.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Where are you getting all your information from, CFS3 or IL-2: Sturmovik?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
You simply don't get it...
And I will put words where they are the most appropriate.
The P-40 was not a climber, it was a diver. The Japanese pilots even remarked at it's ability to dive away to safety when things were too hot.
During the BoB time period, it was not better armed than the Hurricane, it was not a high-altitude interceptor. It's strengths were at lower altitudes.
This has nothing to do with the Spitfire, or the Hurricane or anything of the sort. In 1940, it simply was not a high altitude fighter, it was not a fast climber, it was not a gunslinger.
Period.
And I will put words where they are the most appropriate.
The P-40 was not a climber, it was a diver. The Japanese pilots even remarked at it's ability to dive away to safety when things were too hot.
During the BoB time period, it was not better armed than the Hurricane, it was not a high-altitude interceptor. It's strengths were at lower altitudes.
This has nothing to do with the Spitfire, or the Hurricane or anything of the sort. In 1940, it simply was not a high altitude fighter, it was not a fast climber, it was not a gunslinger.
Period.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
And I'd like to point out that several pages have been wasted arguing this bullsh!t when the thread is about the Bf109...not the P-40.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Tracers also had a much different trajectory than the ball round...
And once again, STOP HIJACKING THIS Bf109 THREAD
wuzak
Captain
We will try again....
The Spitfire I was tested before the war at over 360mph.
With the bullet proof windscreen, etc, added, it came back to around 350mph.
The P-40 was faster at lower altitudes but slower at higher altitudes. It was to do with how the engines were set up, and teh Merlin was set up for a higher critical altitude.
The first deliveries of the P-40 to the USAAF was in June 1940. The French had ordered the P-40 in May 1940, but none had been delivered before France fell. USAAC deliveries were deferred in September 1940 in order that the French order could be expidited to teh British.
So, at the height of the Battle of Britain - August-September 1940 - there were precisely ZERO P-40s available to the RAF. Not a whole lot more were in US service.
The P-40 had no or very little armour, no self sealing tanks, two 0.50" hmgs firing through the propeller arc and two 0.30" mgs in the wings. The USAAC didn't consider them fit for combat, let alone the RAF at war.
Not sure that two 0.50" hmgs and two 0.30" mgs counts as a "superior weapon installation" over 8 x 0.303" mgs.
The P-40B replaced the P-40. It had an additional two 0.30" mgs in the wings. It lost performance because it weighed more, presumably because it carried some armour.
The P-40B first flew in March 1941. So not very helpful for the Battle of Britain.
By that time RAF squadrons were starting to re-equip with Spitfire Vs (or many had already done so), which had heavier armament than the P-40B (2 x 20mm + 4 x 0.303"), was faster and climbed better.
Saying that the P-40 would have been a better plane for the Battle of Britain is a stretch based on performance and combat suitability, let alone timing.
Claiming the later, better performing P-40s, such as the P-40E, as better than BoB Spitfires and Hurricanes is like saying that the RAF would have been better equipping with Spitfire XIIs or XIVs instead of Is and IIs.
The Spitfire I was tested before the war at over 360mph.
With the bullet proof windscreen, etc, added, it came back to around 350mph.
The P-40 was faster at lower altitudes but slower at higher altitudes. It was to do with how the engines were set up, and teh Merlin was set up for a higher critical altitude.
The first deliveries of the P-40 to the USAAF was in June 1940. The French had ordered the P-40 in May 1940, but none had been delivered before France fell. USAAC deliveries were deferred in September 1940 in order that the French order could be expidited to teh British.
So, at the height of the Battle of Britain - August-September 1940 - there were precisely ZERO P-40s available to the RAF. Not a whole lot more were in US service.
The P-40 had no or very little armour, no self sealing tanks, two 0.50" hmgs firing through the propeller arc and two 0.30" mgs in the wings. The USAAC didn't consider them fit for combat, let alone the RAF at war.
Not sure that two 0.50" hmgs and two 0.30" mgs counts as a "superior weapon installation" over 8 x 0.303" mgs.
The P-40B replaced the P-40. It had an additional two 0.30" mgs in the wings. It lost performance because it weighed more, presumably because it carried some armour.
The P-40B first flew in March 1941. So not very helpful for the Battle of Britain.
By that time RAF squadrons were starting to re-equip with Spitfire Vs (or many had already done so), which had heavier armament than the P-40B (2 x 20mm + 4 x 0.303"), was faster and climbed better.
Saying that the P-40 would have been a better plane for the Battle of Britain is a stretch based on performance and combat suitability, let alone timing.
Claiming the later, better performing P-40s, such as the P-40E, as better than BoB Spitfires and Hurricanes is like saying that the RAF would have been better equipping with Spitfire XIIs or XIVs instead of Is and IIs.
wuzak
Captain
You do realise that the Spitfire IX was the Spitfire V with 2 stage engine?
That the definitive version of the 2 stage Merlin engine Spitfire was the VIII. And that the VIII wasn't used in the ETO.
The Fw 190D-9 became operational in late 1944. The first Fw 190D flew in 1942. Not sure how the D-1 and D-2, the initial production variants fared, as I can't find any info on the web.
That would be about 2 years from prototype to operational service (for the D-9), twice as long as the Spitfire XIV according to you.
The P-51B prototype flew in November 1942, combat introduction was in late 1943.
So the time between the XIV's first flight and operational introduction was not unusual. The fact that it took longer to claim its first kill was also not unusual since it was a defensive fighter and when it started operations the Luftwaffe was largely occupied on the Eastern Front or defending their homeland.
Last edited:
I will make one more final effort to educate your total lack of understanding of how an air defense system like that of the British in 1940 worked.
Let's go back to the 'zone' and 'interceptor' fighters of ADGB and see what characteristics for climb were required.
An 'interceptor' fighter needed optimising to maximise the important attributes for this role, namely speed and distance covered in a pursuit climb. The objective was to attain the quickest interception of an enemy at a given height and speed. Unfortunately exercises in 1931 showed that the interceptor fighter concept was unworkable, principally due to the increasing speed and altitude of the attacking bombers, and the interceptor fighters were withdrawn from their advance bases back to the Aircraft Fighting Zone to operate as 'zone' fighters.
'Zone' fighters needed different climbing qualities. For them the speed at which they climbed was less relevant, they required a high rate of climb to reach their patrol altitudes as quickly as possible.
The later fighters were technically neither of these types but an amalgamation of the two, nonetheless, the way the system worked meant that it was the climbing attributes of the earlier zone fighter that were required. The most important climbing attribute was simply rate of climb, the fighters had to attain the height of the incoming raids as quickly as possible. Given that even the Spitfires failed to do so on many occasions I doubt that your imaginary P-40 would ever have done it. Their pilots could have looked up to see the Luftwaffe formations passing overhead on the way back to France!
I don't blame you for being confused. When requirements for a new day fighter were proposed in 1933 "rate of climb" was in fact the first priority for the new aircraft, but it was also specified that this be based on the same principles as the Fury, an interceptor fighter.
This contradiction was noticed by the Director of Technical Development (Cave) who sought clarification, asking if the climb required was to be at best climbing speed and not, as with the Fury, that to give the quickest interception of an enemy at a certain height and speed.
He was told that the climb was to be "the best to 20,000 feet". This apparently innocent technical question and its reply actually signaled a significant change in policy and later led directly to the very high (for the time) rate of climb of the Spitfire. It was an absolutely vital attribute for the fighters in Dowding's system, and the P-40 didn't have it.
Cheers
Steve
wuzak
Captain
There was an earlier thread about improving the Bf 109.
Messerschmitt 109 Improvements
A large part of that discussion is about the merits of an improved canopy/cut down fuselage and whether it was practical to put such a change into production.
Messerschmitt 109 Improvements
A large part of that discussion is about the merits of an improved canopy/cut down fuselage and whether it was practical to put such a change into production.
I should have qualified this by noting that some of these high scorers could not estimate angle off any better than the average pilot. What they could do was fly well enough to manoeuvre their aircraft into a position behind the target at which the angle off was zero or close to it. In this way they negated the need for any deflection and minimised the guess work. They also flew smoothly and in a controlled manner, without for example skidding all over the sky, enabling them to hit the target once in position.
I have mentioned elsewhere that the majority of downed Luftwaffe aircraft examined were struck by bullets fired from a very low angle off.
These pilots were few and the ones who could actually master the art of deflection shooting even fewer.
Cheers
Steve
What Lala land is neocon from?
"The P-40 was a larger and heavier plane,"
P-40E
"The P-40 was a larger and heavier plane,"
P-40E
- Length: 31.67 ft (9.66 m)
- Wingspan: 37.33 ft (11.38 m)
- Height: 12.33 ft (3.76 m)
- Wing area: 235.94 ft² (21.92 m²)
- Airfoil: NACA2215 / NACA2209
- Empty weight: 6,070 lb (2,753 kg)
- Loaded weight: 8,280 lb (3,760 kg)
- Max. takeoff weight: 8,810 lb (4,000 kg)
- Length: 32 ft 3 in (9.84 m)
- Wingspan: 40 ft 0 in (12.19 m)
- Height: 13 ft 1½ in (4.0 m)
- Wing area: 257.5 ft² (23.92 m²)
- Empty weight: 5,745 lb (2,605 kg)
- Loaded weight: 7,670 lb (3,480 kg)
- Max. takeoff weight: 8,710 lb (3,950 kg)
Shortround6
Major General
Sorry guys, I can't seem to get t new thread to start on a hypothetical use of the P-40.
I can enter a title but then get an error message.
I can enter a title but then get an error message.
