Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190 (1 Viewer)

[PAT303]

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!

It doesn't destroy the myth at all, those penetration values are from M2 brownings and ammunition not M1's that were available in 1939-40 as used in the RAF tests, those results are also when the guns are fired directly against plate, that's totally different to the same bullet that has to pass through an aircraft structure before reaching the armour.

 

[PAT303]

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.

In 1939-40 a large proportion of aircraft ammunition was cup and core just like the ammunition in the video, the same ammunition used in the RAF tests. One thing that is very noticeable in these types of discussions is people talk about guns and ammunition that wasn't in service at the time, the M2 Browning with it's higher rate of fire, higher velocity and improved ammunition didn't become standard until 1941, there wasn't a standard .50 AP incendiary round until late 1943. In 1940 the difference in performance between four unreliable slow firing .50 with non specific ammunition compared to eight reliable fast firing .303's with developed and reliable tracer AP and incendiary ammunition was a no brainer, remember also that engines at the time only had just over 1000 HP to play with.

 

[PAT303]

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").

LMG's were good enough for Spitfire and Hurricane pilots to shoot down over 1000 Luftwaffe planes during the BoB.

 

[PAT303]

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

The Australian Army is having major issue's with it's new G wagons, engine life is seriously low because of dusting, likewise Toyota is instructing all their dealers to seal air box's with bearing grease for the same reason.

 

[Schweik]

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

Malta was around 1,800 miles from England, 945 miles from Alexandria, maybe a little more to Gibraltar.
Darwin was 8,000+ miles from England, 2,000 miles from Sydney. It was much more remote. It took a lot longer to get there or to get things there.

In both cases resupply was fraught, but communication and coordination was extra difficult with the added distance.



Anyway there seem to have been mistakes made with the Spitfires shipped over from the UK. The glycol wasn't drained from the coolants system and no stabilizer was added for the long ship journey, resulting in serious corrosion. Gun heaters were either disconnected or not installed. Both of these issues were discovered after they caused serious problems in combat. There was some other issue with the propeller pitch control or something but I forgot the details. Suffice to say they were plagued with issues - which isn't unusual for combat aircraft staring up operations in a new Theater, but they didn't really have enough time to shake them out before they were thrown into the mix with the Japanese raids.

So personally, between the serious maintenance problems, the bad 20mm ammunition and the incorrect Tactics (despite having very understandable reasons for them) were all against the RAAF. I do think Darwin was an outlier.

However the Spitfire more generally didn't do spectacularly well in the Pacific and CBI, and I think it is because it just wasn't ideal for the Theater. It was designed for the defense of England and in general, for Northern Europe, where it excelled. With some tweaking in terms of kit and tactics it did well in Southern Europe as well. Further afield, it was perhaps too specialized. Not enough range / endurance and didn't like operating in filthy miserable conditions like you would have in Darwin or say, New Guinea.

 

[Schweik]

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.

Perhaps, but lets not forget, quite a few Wildcats (and various other American planes) were shot down by Zeros (and Ki-43s). So maybe not the wisest tactic...

 

[Schweik]

In 1939-40 a large proportion of aircraft ammunition was cup and core just like the ammunition in the video, the same ammunition used in the RAF tests. One thing that is very noticeable in these types of discussions is people talk about guns and ammunition that wasn't in service at the time, the M2 Browning with it's higher rate of fire, higher velocity and improved ammunition didn't become standard until 1941, there wasn't a standard .50 AP incendiary round until late 1943. In 1940 the difference in performance between four unreliable slow firing .50 with non specific ammunition compared to eight reliable fast firing .303's with developed and reliable tracer AP and incendiary ammunition was a no brainer, remember also that engines at the time only had just over 1000 HP to play with.

The test may have made sense in 1939 or 40 but by the time aircraft were going into combat with the .50 cals - in 1941 for example in the Western Desert, it rapidly became clear that those guns were much more effective against enemy aircraft than .303s were. On the other hand, the 20mm was better still.

 

[fubar57]

From "Spitfire VC vs A6M2/3 Zero-sen: Darwin 1943" - Published 2019

 

[Ivan1GFP]

In 1939-40 a large proportion of aircraft ammunition was cup and core just like the ammunition in the video, the same ammunition used in the RAF tests.

Hello Pat303,

The ammunition in the video actually was Armor Piercing Incendiary, not Ball or "Cup and Core".

One thing that is very noticeable in these types of discussions is people talk about guns and ammunition that wasn't in service at the time, the M2 Browning with it's higher rate of fire, higher velocity and improved ammunition didn't become standard until 1941, there wasn't a standard .50 AP incendiary round until late 1943.

Higher rate of fire? Certainly.
Higher velocity? Doubtful, especially at typical aerial engagement distances.
The video was a good demonstration that everything yaws, but with that in mind, a .303 also yaws and doesn't have nearly the same momentum to tear through as much structure.

I do believe that under some very specific circumstances, it can be shown that a larger faster bullet doesn't penetrate any better, but those circumstances would be so unfavorable as to be comparing useless to more useless.

In 1940 the difference in performance between four unreliable slow firing .50 with non specific ammunition compared to eight reliable fast firing .303's with developed and reliable tracer AP and incendiary ammunition was a no brainer, remember also that engines at the time only had just over 1000 HP to play with.

So what you are telling us is that the armament package of 8 x .303 on a Hurricane / Spitfire in 1940 was superior to 4 x .50 cal in a F4F-3 Wildcat? I can't say I agree with this.
I see this more as a matter of the philosophy and preferences of each air service, but that would get into a much longer discussion.

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

Hello RCAFson,

Probably the "worse off" was due to being on the tail end of the supply chain. The Japanese Naval air group flying against them had even less support which is why they were still flying A6M2 against Darwin Spitfires.

- Ivan.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Perhaps, but lets not forget, quite a few Wildcats (and various other American planes) were shot down by Zeros (and Ki-43s). So maybe not the wisest tactic...

I believe it took a while before USN figured this out.... probably because other ideas were not working.
I don't believe it would have worked quite as well with the Ki-43-II or later versions of A6M with more cannon ammunition.
Without good radios on the A6M, warnings and coordination with even one wingman would be difficult and the Japanese typically flew with two. Sounds like a bad combination of equipment and tactics.

- Ivan.

 

[PAT303]

So what you are telling us is that the armament package of 8 x .303 on a Hurricane / Spitfire in 1940 was superior to 4 x .50 cal in a F4F-3 Wildcat? I can't say I agree with this.
I see this more as a matter of the philosophy and preferences of each air service, but that would get into a much longer discussion.

The BoB was over before the first Wildcat ever flew. To have .50 cal guns fitted to Spits and Hurricanes in time for the BoB meant they would have had to be M1 Brownings which are a totally different animal to the M2, both the gun itself but especially the ammunition. In 1940 you had mark 1 of everything, tracer AP and incendiary, it wasn't until '41 but mostly '42 that specialist ammunition really started to prove itself. The .50 matured into an effective weapon but that was years after the BoB.

 

[Shortround6]

Higher rate of fire? Certainly.
Higher velocity? Doubtful, especially at typical aerial engagement distances.
The video was a good demonstration that everything yaws, but with that in mind, a .303 also yaws and doesn't have nearly the same momentum to tear through as much structure.

Actually the higher velocity is without doubt. The M1 ball and M1 AP had muzzle velocities of 2500fps or just over. The M1 incendiary wasn't adopted until after the M2 ball and M2 AP were adopted. All three had a muzzle velocity of over 2800fps and closer to 2880fps. The M8 API which is what was shown in the video, has the higher velocity and came into use in 1943 for the most part.
Unfortunately the"test" in the video doesn't really address the question. It uses the wrong materials (sheet steel) at the wrong angles and uses closely spaced sheet steel as "witness" plates. A round entering the rear of a fighter fuselage, even if it hits nothing else besides the fuselage skin/structure may not hit the seat back armor until it has traveled 5-10 feet, giving plenty of opportunity to yaw.
The British conducted tests using real fuselages and firing on the ground in controlled circumstances. I beleive (but am welcome to correction) that the guns were fired at 5 degrees of axis to the fuselage? which is a considerable angle of impact. (close to 10 degrees or 80 degrees from perpendicular?) and it doesn't take much (material) to really screw things up.
Please note in the tests listed that the while the .50 had a lot more penetration at 0 degrees impact (perpendicular) than at 40 degrees)

The BoB was over before the first Wildcat ever flew.

True in a practical sense but definitely untrue in a bar bet sense, it also depends on what you mean by a WIldcat
81 ex French Martlets had been built by Oct 31st 1940 and while that is after the BoB the first deliveries were defiantly in the summer as were the first few F4F-3 deliveries.

 

[Schweik]

From "Spitfire VC vs A6M2/3 Zero-sen: Darwin 1943" - Published 2019

View attachment 563071
View attachment 563073
View attachment 563074​

Like I said... and also notice the last two paragraphs which mentioned the issue with the propellers getting stuck in 'fine pitch' and over-revving the engines. I don't know why it doesn't mention the glycol problem but I can find and transcribe something about that if needed.

I also just found an excerpt from another book which mentioned the lengths the 49th Fighter group went to assure their guns didn't jam:

"Another reason for this victory was the careful maintenance of aircraft and armament by the ground crews. Every third night the .50-inch machine guns were taken out of the aircraft wings and completely stripped, oiled and polished so that gun failure in combat was reduced to a minimum. Ammuniton in the gun belts was also taken out, each round oiled and cleaned before being re-belted. Gun ports were sealed against the dusty conditions on the strip, the seals blown off in the first firing."

- transcribed from The Pacific Hawak, - John Vader, MacDonald & Co, London 1970, page 33.

They also show crewmembers examining a shot down but mostly intact zero at Port Moresby.

Aside from any extra problems caused by cold or dust, both the P-40 and the Spit at this time had issues with gun stoppages, the latter mainly with their 20mm cannon. Issues with the P-40 were largely resolved by early 1943. I think late model VC also had improvements which helped address the stoppages.

 

[pinsog]

1 round, 50 bmg into a 55 gallon barrel of water. Imagine if that is a fuel tank on an airplane. Just punching through armor doesn't tell the whole story of the superiority of the 50 bmg over any 30 caliber bullet.


30 caliber bullets just poke a small hole.

 

[Glider]

1 round, 50 bmg into a 55 gallon barrel of water. Imagine if that is a fuel tank on an airplane. Just punching through armor doesn't tell the whole story of the superiority of the 50 bmg over any 30 caliber bullet.


30 caliber bullets just poke a small hole.

Unless they hit something important, all a 50 M2 will do, is punch a small hole in one side of an aircraft as it goes in and another on the way out. That is the difference with the 20mm, it explodes which generates shrapnel and lot of damage inside the aircraft. You would have to be very lucky to be hit by a 20mm and suffer no damage.

There is a reason that all airforces switched to 20mm guns (as a minimum) when they could once they started fighting well protected bombers.

A lot of people talk down the Japanese 20mm and the early German 20mm FF cannon but I would much rather have them than an early 0.50.

 

[pinsog]

Unless they hit something important, all a 50 M2 will do, is punch a small hole in one side of an aircraft as it goes in and another on the way out. That is the difference with the 20mm, it explodes which generates shrapnel and lot of damage inside the aircraft. You would have to be very lucky to be hit by a 20mm and suffer no damage.

There is a reason that all airforces switched to 20mm guns (as a minimum) when they could once they started fighting well protected bombers.

A lot of people talk down the Japanese 20mm and the early German 20mm FF cannon but I would much rather have them than an early 0.50.

But look at a diagram of most any aircraft, especially single engine fighters and notice how difficult it is to NOT hit something unless you are shooting at the wingtip or tail. Also, a 50 may only make a .50 inch hole going in, but as it tumbles it will tear a much larger hole going out. A 50 also is much more likely to damage or destroy heavy internal structure such as wing spars etc. than a 30. 20 mm are great if you have enough power to carry them and their ammo. Early Zeros and 109's had 60 round drums, enough for a few seconds of firing. What about the Whirlwind also had 60 round drums. It would have been better off with either 4 50's and 400 rounds per gun or 8 30's and 500-600 rounds per gun. Every fight I ever read about the Whirlwind said "I opened fire, got hits, ran out of bullets"

 

[Glider]

But look at a diagram of most any aircraft, especially single engine fighters and notice how difficult it is to NOT hit something unless you are shooting at the wingtip or tail. Also, a 50 may only make a .50 inch hole going in, but as it tumbles it will tear a much larger hole going out. A 50 also is much more likely to damage or destroy heavy internal structure such as wing spars etc. than a 30. 20 mm are great if you have enough power to carry them and their ammo. Early Zeros and 109's had 60 round drums, enough for a few seconds of firing. What about the Whirlwind also had 60 round drums. It would have been better off with either 4 50's and 400 rounds per gun or 8 30's and 500-600 rounds per gun. Every fight I ever read about the Whirlwind said "I opened fire, got hits, ran out of bullets"

True to a point but a 1940 0.50 isn't a patch on the M2 version so ensure you compare like for like. I believe nearly all early 20mm had 60 round drums the exception being the Russians who often don't get the credit for some very formidable weapons.

109E, Spitfires, Hurricanes, Whirlwinds, P38's, Zero's all of them initially had 60 round magazines and they were far more formidable for it.

If you want to compare the M2 version of the 0.50 then either magazines had increased in size or belt fed weapons had been introduced, so that argument goes out of the window. If you want to compare real life reports. How many times have you read The instrument panel was wrecked, I will bet a penny to a pound it wasn't because of a 20mm, as that would have almost certainly killed the pilot.

 

[Shortround6]

In the 1930s or even 1940 the question isn't if a single .50 bullet is more powerful but if it is four times more powerful.
.50 cal ammo is about 5 times heavier than rcmg ammo.
The gun was about 3 times heavier.
The .50 fired about 1/2 as fast.
The four .50s in an early Wildcat/Martlet fired, at best, 40 rounds a Second.
The eight .303s in the British planes fired 150-160 rounds per second and the installation weighed less.
Four .303 rounds hitting in fraction of a second won't burst a drum but the amount of damage they can do compared to single .50 hit isn't a little thing.

 

[pinsog]

In the 1930s or even 1940 the question isn't if a single .50 bullet is more powerful but if it is four times more powerful.
.50 cal ammo is about 5 times heavier than rcmg ammo.
The gun was about 3 times heavier.
The .50 fired about 1/2 as fast.
The four .50s in an early Wildcat/Martlet fired, at best, 40 rounds a Second.
The eight .303s in the British planes fired 150-160 rounds per second and the installation weighed less.
Four .303 rounds hitting in fraction of a second won't burst a drum but the amount of damage they can do compared to single .50 hit isn't a little thing.

I agree with what your saying. I've said in other threads that the Whirlwind should have had 8 30's in the nose with 30 seconds of ammo instead of the 4 20mm. 8 30's that concentrated would be like a mini gun.

 

[pinsog]

True to a point but a 1940 0.50 isn't a patch on the M2 version so ensure you compare like for like. I believe nearly all early 20mm had 60 round drums the exception being the Russians who often don't get the credit for some very formidable weapons.

109E, Spitfires, Hurricanes, Whirlwinds, P38's, Zero's all of them initially had 60 round magazines and they were far more formidable for it.

If you want to compare the M2 version of the 0.50 then either magazines had increased in size or belt fed weapons had been introduced, so that argument goes out of the window. If you want to compare real life reports. How many times have you read The instrument panel was wrecked, I will bet a penny to a pound it wasn't because of a 20mm, as that would have almost certainly killed the pilot.

I agree with parts of this as well. But if I'm repelling an attack on my carrier, I would much prefer and F4F-3 with 4 50's and 400 rounds per gun than 2 20mm with 60 rounds per gun. (I know 20mm were never put on the Wildcat)

Luck and or good shooting makes a difference as well. I have also read several stories of 20mm bursting inside the cockpit and not killing the pilot. (Certainly didn't do him any good either) which 20mm with which bullet makes a big difference, the fuses may not always work causing the shell to burst on the skin of the aircraft or over penetrate and burst after exiting.

As with everything we discuss on here there are infinite variables for infinite outcomes