Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190 (1 Viewer)

PAT303 · Dec 5, 2019

Ivan1GFP said:
Hello Pat303,

There are a few serious problems with coming to ANY conclusions from this test.
First of all, please note the incendiary burst that was noted on plates 3,4 which also show much larger holes before which there was no noticeable yawing.
Note also that the projectile was never actually stopped by the 18 gauge plates but simply started missing them when it veered off enough.

I won't argue that a .50 cal won't tumble because it obviously will, especially in a shallow angle hit against the aft fuselage of a Spitfire. One has to wonder though, if this is what happens with a 750 grain (? I don't know what the API weighs) bullet, what would happen with a 174 grain bullet moving even slower?
Note that the .50 cal is still ripping through all the 18 gauge steel until it missed the last plates. How much aircraft structure is as strong as 18 gauge steel?
What happens if we back up a couple hundred yards to actual aerial engagement distances? The heavier projectile gets relatively better because it retains velocity better.

- Ivan.

The whole point was to show how bullets react when hitting a target, if you read any discussion on the effectiveness of the .50 BMG you will find people saying it can penetrate 25mm of plate at 500m etc which it will if it hits at 90 degree's, trouble is shooting at a plane the angles are not 90 degree's and the bullets have to go through numerous objects before they reach the rear seat plate, you must also remember the BoB was in 1940, the Browning .50 and it's ammunition of that time was a very different animal to what was used in 1944-5.

Glider · Dec 5, 2019

This might be of interest

Ivan1GFP · Dec 5, 2019

PAT303 said:
The whole point was to show how bullets react when hitting a target, if you read any discussion on the effectiveness of the .50 BMG you will find people saying it can penetrate 25mm of plate at 500m etc which it will if it hits at 90 degree's, trouble is shooting at a plane the angles are not 90 degree's and the bullets have to go through numerous objects before they reach the rear seat plate, you must also remember the BoB was in 1940, the Browning .50 and it's ammunition of that time was a very different animal to what was used in 1944-5.

Hello Pat303,

I was really trying to point out that when your projectile detonates as it clearly did at plate 3 and 4, I would not expect it to penetrate much further and for it to yaw would be pretty reasonable. That is why I commented that this wasn't really a good example of anything.
If you were REALLY trying to see what kind of anti-armor performance this round had, you would be using simple AP rounds instead of API rounds.
The ammunition differences are something I was already aware of. It is one of the things one has to keep track of when calculating disposable loads. The earlier rounds for the .50 cal BMG are a bit heavier than the later rounds.
IIRC, the early war stuff averages about 5.0 ounces while the later ones are about 4.8 ounces.

- Ivan.

XBe02Drvr · Dec 5, 2019

Ivan1GFP said:
Hello Michael Rauls,

The late model P-38 had hydraulic boost on ailerons. From what I have read and watched in descriptions, there was a noticeable lag in response before the aircraft began to roll, but the rate was VERY high once it got moving.

- Ivan.

I believe I read somewhere that the P38's aileron boost was not proportional; it was all or nothing with no halfway measures in its repertoire. I believe there was a pilot account of being unable to make a moderate banked turn in routine maneuvering with the system turned on. With it turned off, the ailerons were apparently very heavy and not at all harmonized with elevator and rudder effort/response. Made for seriously challenging formation flying.
Cheers,
Wes

Shortround6 · Dec 5, 2019

Ivan1GFP said:
Hello Pat303,

I was really trying to point out that when your projectile detonates as it clearly did at plate 3 and 4, I would not expect it to penetrate much further and for it to yaw would be pretty reasonable. That is why I commented that this wasn't really a good example of anything.
If you were REALLY trying to see what kind of anti-armor performance this round had, you would be using simple AP rounds instead of API rounds.
The ammunition differences are something I was already aware of. It is one of the things one has to keep track of when calculating disposable loads. The earlier rounds for the .50 cal BMG are a bit heavier than the later rounds.
IIRC, the early war stuff averages about 5.0 ounces while the later ones are about 4.8 ounces.

- Ivan.

Diagrams of some .50 cal bullets

The M2 ball and M2 AP are the high velocity rounds (compared to the M1) please note the only difference is that the steel core may be different alloy and is hardened in the AP round.

Please note the API, M8 round (most common aircraft ammo after some point in 1943?) replaces the lead-antimony point filler with incendiary material and not a lot of it. This round's color coding seems to match the round used in the video.

Now please note that all three rounds (and the M20) IF penetrating armor (or heavy structure) are going have the jacket at the nose and the nose filler stripped away as the core penetrates the actual armor. Also note that the incendiary material does not "detonate", it ignites and is not going to blow the core backwards (or retard velocity) or cause any more disruption to the path of the core that stripping away the jacket and nose filler would.
The Incendiary M23 is a very late WW II bullet that was undergoing combat trails and was not general issue in WW II although it was a standard bullet in Korea.

Sturzkampfflugzeug · Dec 6, 2019

XBe02Drvr said:
Hey King Tiger, did you read all of this thread before you posted? It seems the "inferior" Zero gave the almighty Spitfire a bloody nose over Darwin, Australia on several occasions. In a flyoff between a captured Hamp and one of their Spit VCs, the Australians established that the Spit was at a distinct disadvantage in actual combat conditions in theater.
Cheers,
Wes

Hm.Mustve missed that

RCAFson · Dec 6, 2019

Ivan1GFP said:
Do you happen to have a link to that report again? I know I have it somewhere but can't seem to find it at the moment. I can find the result of tactical trials and the flight testing of HAP though.

- Ivan.

This is a summary of the report:

http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero

Ivan1GFP · Dec 6, 2019

RCAFson said:
This is a summary of the report:

http://darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=spitfire-vc-versus-the-zero

Thanks RCAFson,

I actually have a scanned copy of the actual tactical trials. I was hoping for a engine boost settings versus altitude of the actual Spitfire used in these tests. In other words, I am curious as to the "speed advantage" that Hap had over the Spitfire at lower altitudes and what might have been expected if this were the A6M2 instead.

EDIT
I just went back to re-read the article at the link you posted. From what I can tell, the author of the article probably never actually read the test report of HAP because many of the details don't match what is in the report and also doesn't seem to know much about the A6M series either from the report or from the manual to give a fair comparison.

- Ivan.

RCAFson · Dec 6, 2019

XBe02Drvr said:
The Spitfire V was deliberately limited to the actual conditions that Spitfires were flying combat under at the time. There would be no value in doing a test that "artificially" elevated the Spit's performance above those actually flying combat. Now if that exercise was an effort to "lobby" for an increase in boost limits, it makes sense, and apparently it worked, as the limit was raised from 9 to 16 pounds.
The "rated" horsepower derived in the UK in ideal conditions has no meaning to tired airplanes operating with tropical filters at tropical temperatures with less than optimum fuel and forced to fight at altitudes not optimum for its supercharger setup.
Cheers,
Wes

The trials were done in Aug 1943. Approval for Merlin46/16lb boost was given by the RAF in Jan 1942. If the RAAF decided not to allow 16lb boost then they deliberately crippled the performance of their Spitfires. Another example of this was Caldwell's decision not to use the supplied 30IG drop tanks in the initial, disastrous engagements. I beg to differ on the UK test data, as most test data is converted to standard conditions, and we have the results of RAAF SpitfireV/Merlin46 tests using 16lb boost (in the fall of 1943) and they are a close match to UK data.

taly01 · Dec 6, 2019

Thanks Glider for the aircraft gun penetration tests, they are dated July 1942 so pretty much destroys the "myth" that the .303" had similar penetration to the 0.50".
The tests actually show the 0.50" has about the same penetration as the 20mm! Which may be how the earlier myth somehow got twisted with the Spitfire .303" -> 0.5" changeover.

Actually one of the faults with the Zero was it had low velocity 20mm (60-100 rounds) and 7.7mm (500-680 rounds) until mid '43. 7.7mm(.303") may work vs Me109's but were quite useless vs P-38 and Corsairs!

Schweik · Dec 6, 2019

While I agree 100% about the HMG vs. LMG issue, I don't think we should push the pendulum too far the other way either. If you were at close enough range LMG's could definitely do serious damage, as in removing wings, tails, killing pilots etc. I can't say for sure about P-38s or Corsairs but plenty of pretty tough P-40s, P-39s and Wildcats, not to mention SBDs and TBFs were shot down with just the light machine guns on Zeros and Ki-43s (and Ki-27s). The main difference in terms of how HMGs were used compared to LMGs was that HMGs could kill with fewer rounds and from farther away (if you could hit the target which was always a big "if").

XBe02Drvr · Dec 6, 2019

RCAFson said:
If the RAAF decided not to allow 16lb boost then they deliberately crippled the performance of their Spitfires.

This makes no sense. If this is in fact what happened, then there's got to be a reason.
I say again:

XBe02Drvr said:
The "rated" horsepower has no meaning to tired airplanes operating with tropical filters at tropical temperatures with less than optimum fuel and forced to fight at altitudes not optimum for its supercharger setup.

The setting of boost limits is always going to be a tug of war between the engineer types who are concerned about overhaul times, and reliability and longevity, and operational types who are concerned about keeping their hides unperforated and their victory tallies growing. I'm speculating that the operating conditions precluded operating at 16 boost with any degree of reliability given the condition of the available aircraft. The only other plausible scenario I see is that they were so cocky that they thought they could "nip the Nips with one hand tied behind, mate!" Despite his questionable wisdom, I don't think even Caldwell could stoop to that level of silliness.
Cheers,
Wes

Schweik · Dec 6, 2019

There is no doubt they were having a host of serious maintenance problems with the Spits at Darwin...

RCAFson · Dec 6, 2019

Schweik said:
There is no doubt they were having a host of serious maintenance problems with the Spits at Darwin...

No doubt, but was Darwin worse than Malta or the forward bases in the Western Desert?

XBe02Drvr · Dec 6, 2019

Schweik said:
There is no doubt they were having a host of serious maintenance problems with the Spits at Darwin...

Even the Mighty Merlin can't withstand detonation indefinitely.
Cheers,
Wes

XBe02Drvr · Dec 6, 2019

RCAFson said:
No doubt, but was Darwin worse than Malta or the forward bases in the Western Desert?

Humider than N Africa and hotter and dirtier than Malta, not to mention the inconsistent fuel quality and the worn condition of most of the aircraft. I know from my experience as an aircraft mechanic that a worn turbo or supercharged engine is more susceptible to detonation, despite its reduced compression due to cylinder wear. They tend to develop hot spots in the cylinders that trigger pre-ignition.
Cheers,
Wes

RCAFson · Dec 6, 2019

XBe02Drvr said:
Humider than N Africa and hotter and dirtier than Malta, not to mention the inconsistent fuel quality and the worn condition of most of the aircraft. I know from my experience as an aircraft mechanic that a worn turbo or supercharged engine is more susceptible to detonation, despite its reduced compression due to cylinder wear. They tend to develop hot spots in the cylinders that trigger pre-ignition.
Cheers,
Wes

The RAAF spitfires were new when they arrived in Australia. Mean summer humidity and temps in Malta differ little from Darwin summer and most of the engagements were during Darwin winter, which is cooler and lower humidity than Malta summer:

The dry season (May – October)

Click to expand...

The dry season, from May until October, is characterised by warm, dry sunny days and cool nights. Temperatures typically range from 21.6– 31.8°C (70.9 - 89.2°F), and humidity levels are much lower: around 60 – 65 per cent.
Relatively cool weather arrives in May, and until July, nights are crisp with temperatures ranging from 17 - 23 °C (62.6 - 73.4°F). It is also the perfect time to explore the more remote areas of the region that can be off-limits during the wet season.
Average monthly humidity in Malta, Malta

Malta weather:
Climate and average monthly weather in Malta, Malta

XBe02Drvr · Dec 6, 2019

RCAFson said:
The RAAF spitfires were new when they arrived in Australia.

Upthread a few pages it was reported they were hand-me-downs from N Africa. What's your documentation?
Cheers,
Wes

Ivan1GFP · Dec 6, 2019

Schweik said:
While I agree 100% about the HMG vs. LMG issue, I don't think we should push the pendulum too far the other way either. If you were at close enough range LMG's could definitely do serious damage, as in removing wings, tails, killing pilots etc. I can't say for sure about P-38s or Corsairs but plenty of pretty tough P-40s, P-39s and Wildcats, not to mention SBDs and TBFs were shot down with just the light machine guns on Zeros and Ki-43s (and Ki-27s). The main difference in terms of how HMGs were used compared to LMGs was that HMGs could kill with fewer rounds and from farther away (if you could hit the target which was always a big "if").

Hello Schweik,

I remember reading that when the Wildcat fought A6M2, they figured that one on one, the Wildcat really had no chance, but in many versus many, it was a reasonably sound tactic for the Wildcats to ignore the Zero that was on their tail and just concentrate on killing the ones chasing their squadron mates.
The principle was that unless the Zero on your tail hit your oil coolers, they really could not do much damage to you.
Of course they could in time, but the point was that they would never live long enough to get that time assuming your squadron mates were doing their part.

- Ivan.

RCAFson · Dec 6, 2019

XBe02Drvr said:
Upthread a few pages it was reported they were hand-me-downs from N Africa. What's your documentation?
Cheers,
Wes

The RAAF Spitfires were delivered direct from the UK:

'The Australian Government made strong representations to the British Government and, the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, agreed that three fully manned and equipped Spitfire squadrons would be sent to Australia. The two Australian squadrons, Nos 452 and 457, would return and would be accompanied by No. 54 Sqn, RAF. It was agreed that each squadron would initially be equipped with 16 Spitfire VC aircraft and would be supplied with attrition replacements of roughly five a month per squadron. These Spitfires would be drawn from the aircraft that were being prepared for overseas service at 47 and 215 Maintenance Units.'
Spitfires over Australia

Most of this initial batch were transferred to the DAF, (indicating that they had no spare aircraft) but replacements from the UK were duly dispatched to replace them.

Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190 (1 Viewer)

Tech Sergeant

Captain

Tech Sergeant

2nd Lieutenant

Major General

Airman

Master Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Senior Airman

Banned

2nd Lieutenant

Banned

Master Sergeant

2nd Lieutenant

2nd Lieutenant

Master Sergeant

2nd Lieutenant

Tech Sergeant

Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads