Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190

[Schweik]

I know. That was a success because they chased away attacking Jabo's.

plenty of other aircraft were shooting down Fw 190s at Salerno

It rather depends on the specific timeframe within the war that we're talking about. In the summer of 1940, the .303 was absolutely a better weapon than the 50cal because the latter simply wasn't a workable weapon solution in wing-mounted installations. The significant issues with the 50cal continued until at least the middle of 1942 and, in some cases, through Q3 of that year. I absolutely agree that the 50cal offered considerable advantages during the period late-1942 thru the end of 1943 but after that point I think cannon armament was absolutely ascendant

I'd also take into considering much of 1941 when alot of fighting was going on in the MTO and the various convoys.. The M2 had problems then still, but so did the Hispano without any doubt (I don't know about the .303s or .30s) the M2 was working well enough to shoot down a lot of Axis aircraft in that period, mostly while being aimed by British and Commonwealth pilots.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Personally I would not say that 12.7mm machine guns are better or even close to equal to 20mm cannon. Cannon are just better at tearing apart aircraft because they can rip away the skin and structure. Cannon AP rounds also penetrate better.

However, are two 20mm with 60 rounds each better than 6 x .50s? I'm not convinced. It's a tradeoff, like everything in aircraft design. I think maybe the HMGs are better for carrier aircraft four a couple of different reasons. But it's also true that the only reason the US didn't switch over the cannon wholesale was that they couldn't figure out how to make the Hispanos work, didn't have a viable alternative design either, and ultimately figured the HMGs were "good enough."

If you think 20mm are better at destroying aircraft, and the only reason the USN didn't switch is because of the failed attempts to domestically produce the Hispano, then why would HMG's be better for carrier aircraft?

That does not compute for me. But, that is also not unusual for me

 

[Greyman]

Ok some followup.

A) I don't think this is correct because apparently a lot of Spit VB in the MTO were still using 60 round drums through the second half of 1942 and well into 1943, so I'm a little bit confused here. Can you clarify?
B) Again, a little confused because I'm showing 600 rpm, which translates to 10 rounds per seconds, so that would be 45 seconds would it not?
C) Also in the med, and in Darwin, stoppages seemed to continue to be a major problem with the Hispano 20mm.

On the Bonus question - I would agree, it seems to be that the hub mounted guns were more reliable, if not perfect.

a) No figures to show for it right now but I'd agree that Spitfire Vc numbers didn't overtake Vb numbers until well into 1942.​

b) Air service .50-cal Browning had a rate of fire of 700-850 rnds/min, depending on the source.​

c) Stoppages rates for a particular weapon are dependent on many factors. Depending on the when, where, who and what mounting -- numbers are all over the place. eg:​

VIII Fighter Command Mustang .50-cals -- 550 rounds per stoppage (February 1944)​

VIII Fighter Command Lightning .50-cals -- 5750 rounds per stoppage (June 1944)​

​

I cherry-picked the best and worst figures in the time frame available (Jan-July 1944) to illustrate the point, and I imagine things get more varied when you go to different locales, use different units/armament crews, different ammunition lots, etc.​

​

Things moved very fast in those days and a lot could depend on having the latest minor modification or servicing technique.​

 

[Schweik]

If you think 20mm are better at destroying aircraft, and the only reason the USN didn't switch is because of the failed attempts to domestically produce the Hispano, then why would HMG's be better for carrier aircraft?

That does not compute for me. But, that is also not unusual for me

Well one thing I've learned about WW2 aircraft, and history in general, is that a lot of times what seem like easy and obvious answers aren't actually correct, because the Devil is in the Details as I said before.

For 20mm cannon, yes better for tearing apart enemy aircraft, shell for shell. But there are other factors - which boil down to how many shells hit the enemy aircraft when you need them to. In more granular detail - how many guns does your aircraft carry, how much ammunition does it carry. How accurate are they (some disagree but I think all other things being equal nose mounted guns were more accurate) and how often do they jam. Could jams be cleared by the pilot (some guns had methods to do this that worked, particularly those nose that could be cocked from inside the cockpit. Others did not).

So we know as has been pointed out a few times in this thread that the 60 round drum magazine limitation on the A6M was a problem for the Japanese Navy in some battles. In circumstances where there are multiple attacks coming in all day, more ammunition capacity may be better than heavier guns. The .50 cal was also pretty good at killing enemy aircraft - punching through engines and armor, putting big holes in fuel tanks and so forth. So if it's a choice between 10 seconds worth of heavy (20mm) shells vs. 40 or 50 seconds worth of HMG (12.7mm) I think the latter might be better. This is I believe why the original F4F-3 had four guns instead of six.


One other more 'meta' thought - I while I know it cane be annoying any time a Yank criticizes any kind of British hardware and vice versa, keep in mind, what seems like bias is in some case just greater familiarity. Americans are familiar with the .50 cal and all the American fighter aircraft, because we had uncles and fathers and grandfathers who flew them. Because the US army still uses the M2 HMG and many of us fired them in the service. Because we saw these fighters at airshows and in museums. In the UK or Australia or Canada you are more likely to have uncles and fathers and grandfathers who flew Spitfires and you'll have grown up with more familiarity with, and affection for, the British kit of all kinds.

So try to give the other side the benefit of the doubt. Most of us want to transcend the cliches and learn as close as we can, what the reality was. We all grew up bathed in the propaganda of our own State and our own culture with it's biases. But we all respect the great fighters and warplanes in general for the most part. Right?

 

[Schweik]

a) No figures to show for it right now but I'd agree that Spitfire Vc numbers didn't overtake Vb numbers until well into 1942.​

​

​

Agreed​

​

b) Air service .50-cal Browning had a rate of fire of 700-850 rnds/min, depending on the source.

​

Maybe Shortround6 can correct us, but I seem to remember the early war .50s had a slower rate of fire, then they got the M3 which went up to 1,200 rounds per minute. My understanding was that 600 rounds per minute was the norm for the early .50s, and lower than that for the ones that shot through the propeller arc like on the Tomahawk.​

​

​

c) Stoppages rates for a particular weapon are dependent on many factors. Depending on the when, where, who and what mounting -- numbers are all over the place. eg:​

VIII Fighter Command Mustang .50-cals -- 550 rounds per stoppage (February 1944)​

VIII Fighter Command Lightning .50-cals -- 5750 rounds per stoppage (June 1944)​

​

​

For a large part that is nose gun mounting vs. wing gun mounting.​

​

​

I cherry-picked the best and worst figures in the time frame available (Jan-July 1944) to illustrate the point, and I imagine things get more varied when you go to different locales, use different units/armament crews, different ammunition lots, etc.​

​

Things moved very fast in those days and a lot could depend on having the latest minor modification or servicing technique.​

That is very clearly the case, notably from the history at Darwin of the 49th FG and 1st Fighter Wing.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Americans are familiar with the .50 cal and all the American fighter aircraft, because we had uncles and fathers and grandfathers who flew them. Because the US army still uses the M2 HMG and many of us fired them in the service. Because we saw these fighters at airshows and in museums.

I think you summed up the love affair with the .50 cal right there.
I do not deny there was probably an over-lap period when the belt fed cannons were still somewhat unreliable, and the wing mounted M2 was MOSTLY reliable, perhaps in the 1941-42 period, that an all HMG armament could arguably be called superior. But I don't think that period lasted very long, if it existed at all

 

[MiTasol]

So try to give the other side the benefit of the doubt. Most of us want to transcend the cliches and learn as close as we can, what the reality was. We all grew up bathed in the propaganda of our own State and our own culture with it's biases. But we all respect the great fighters and warplanes in general for the most part. Right?

Well said

 

[Schweik]

I think you summed up the love affair with the .50 cal right there.
I do not deny there was probably an over-lap period when the belt fed cannons were still somewhat unreliable, and the wing mounted M2 was MOSTLY reliable, perhaps in the 1941-42 period, that an all HMG armament could arguably be called superior. But I don't think that period lasted very long, if it existed at all

It sounds like you only understood half of my point but to each his own!

 

[MiTasol]

Guns are not my thing but my two cents worth is that the engine mounted cannons are reportedly more reliable than the wing mounted ones. My two bobs worth on that is that the wing mounted ones were fitted to a more flexible structure that twisted slightly during heavy maneuvering and that may be a factor.
Engine mounted cannon would be living in a warmer environment therefore they would have had less problems with ice formation and viscous lubricants and that would likely be another factor.

 

[PAT303]

The debate here though which was started, kind of as a derail, sprang from the claim that .303 machine guns were better / more useful than the 0.5 inch. Which is just not reality during the actual war.

You need to understand the conversation, the British tested the .303, Vickers .5 and Browning .50 in the late 1930's, in that era, neither of the .50 Cal guns with the ammunition in service at the time gave a worthwhile advantage over the .303 to offset their increased weight, slower cyclic rate and unreliability. The British decided that instead of adopting the Browning .50 that weigh around 38kg it would be better to use the Hispano 404 at 43kgs, the USN tested both and concluded that the effect on target of the 20mm was three times that of the .50 so two Hispano's at 86kgs gave the performance of six .50's that weighed 228kgs, those weights don't include mountings heaters etc. Guns cannons and more importantly ammunition changed dramatically through out the war, the guns and ammunition in service in 1945 were very different to what was available in 1940.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

These "Cannon vs. Machine Gun" arguments have been done to death, and always seem to be divided on National lines. The Americans praise the M2 Browning, while everyone else prefers 20mm. I think history is quite clear as to what is the more effective air-to-air armament.
Once aircraft had the lifting capability to effectively wield auto-cannons, they generally did, and still do.

Hello Clayton Magnet,

The discussion didn't really involve .50 cal BMG versus 20 mm in whatever flavor, at least not to start.
My involvement in this discussion has been to question the testing by the British that showed that a .50 cal had no more AP capability than the .303.
While I can see how this can be true in very specific circumstances, I am arguing that the .50 cal has better effectiveness at typical aerial engagement distances.
It is really a preference for rate of fire as compared to effect of each round on the target and in the end I believe it has more to do with each air service's philosophy than anything else.

I believe it also has something to do with the mission of the fighter aircraft.
When you have a point defense interceptor like the Me 109 or Spitfire, 7 or 12 seconds of ammunition may not be so bad because you aren't likely to be that far from your base.
If you have a long range fighter like the A6M2, it might get pretty uncomfortable when you use up those 7 seconds of ammunition and are 5-6 hours from home.

Here is an interesting research question for the British members here:
Of the British fighters shot down during the Battle of Britain, how many were downed by Cannon and how many were downed by MG file alone? The Me 109E also had the problem of very limited cannon ammunition.

In the end, I would prefer the biggest A$$ gun that could comfortably be carried that offered sufficient duration of fire and did not compromise performance.

- Ivan.

 

[Schweik]

You need to understand the conversation, the British tested the .303, Vickers .5 and Browning .50 in the late 1930's, in that era, neither of the .50 Cal guns with the ammunition in service at the time gave a worthwhile advantage over the .303 to offset their increased weight, slower cyclic rate and unreliability. The British decided that instead of adopting the Browning .50 that weigh around 38kg it would be better to use the Hispano 404 at 43kgs, the USN tested both and concluded that the effect on target of the 20mm was three times that of the .50 so two Hispano's at 86kgs gave the performance of six .50's that weighed 228kgs, those weights don't include mountings heaters etc. Guns cannons and more importantly ammunition changed dramatically through out the war, the guns and ammunition in service in 1945 were very different to what was available in 1940.

I am well aware, I followed the argument, and do understand quite well - but there is a bit of funneling going on here. That is what I meant by a "derail". Some counterpoints:

• What was (maybe, arguably) true in 1939 doesn't necessarily hold for 1940, 41, 42, 43 or 44
• The context of the conversation was not limited to the pre-war
• Two Hispanos with 60 rounds are just definitely not automatically better than 6 .50s with 250-300 rounds or more (or even than four .50s with 450 rounds)
• The .50 cal ammunition in use by 1941 was vastly more lethal and effective for destroying aircraft than any .30 cal ammunition

 

[PAT303]

Well, in theory. Have you read about the Seafire in Italy? They lost 70 Seafires from landing accidents alone at Salerno. Not so great.

I don't know why people constantly bring up the Seafires issue's, the Spitfire was never designed to be used off a carrier, given time that the FAA didn't have it's issue's could have been sorted out but there was a war to be won, what I find more interesting is no one says anything about the Corsair, it was designed as a carrier aircraft but could only land by hitting the water after crashing onto the deck and was mostly used off paved strips instead.

 

[Schweik]

I think the context was discussion of carrier aircraft as a spin-off from Darwin and the notion that Spitfires didn't do so well in the PTO, being more specialized for the defense of Britain and in the ETO.

How well Corsairs could have done in the ETO or MTO is an interesting question.

But I agree until the Royal Navy showed the yanks how to do it, the Americans couldn't land Corsairs on carriers and they had a lot of teething problems with them in general - quite serious ones that tend to get glossed over, especially early on. But in spite of those issues, and the fact that the F6F was really the star carrier fighter of the war, the F4U turned out to be a very useful land based fighter during the crucial mid-war period and did contribute significantly to victory.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

I don't know why people constantly bring up the Seafires issue's, the Spitfire was never designed to be used off a carrier, given time that the FAA didn't have it's issue's could have been sorted out but there was a war to be won, what I find more interesting is no one says anything about the Corsair, it was designed as a carrier aircraft but could only land by hitting the water after crashing onto the deck and was mostly used off paved strips instead.

Hello Pat303,

Don't you find it somewhat ironic then that the British were the first to use the Corsair aboard carriers when the USN had banished them to Marines and land bases?
Sounds like the RN was desperate for a good naval fighter at the time and didn't mind dealing with the Corsair's bad manners on landing.
It didn't even fit below decks on British carriers because the folded wings were too high and the first idea was to deflate tires to stow the aircraft and yet they needed it so badly they had to find a means to use this awful carrier fighter.

- Ivan.

 

[PAT303]

I am well aware, I followed the argument, and do understand quite well - but there is a bit of funneling going on here. That is what I meant by a "derail". Some counterpoints:

• What was (maybe, arguably) true in 1939 doesn't necessarily hold for 1940, 41, 42, 43 or 44
• The context of the conversation was not limited to the pre-war
• Two Hispanos with 60 rounds are just definitely not automatically better than 6 .50s with 250-300 rounds or more (or even than four .50s with 450 rounds)
• The .50 cal ammunition in use by 1941 was vastly more lethal and effective for destroying aircraft than any .30 cal ammunition

Point one, that has been explained aleready
Point two, the conversation is pre war because what guns you are going to use have to be fitted to aircraft before the war starts, not after.
Point three, In 1940 two 20mm's give you the performance of six .50's with less weight, that's a very important point considering the engine power available at the time.
Point four, more effective .50 cal ammunition was being developed in 1941 and 42 and again in 43 and finally in 44 everyone was happy with the M8 API.

 

[Schweik]

Point one, that has been explained aleready
Point two, the conversation is pre war because what guns you are going to use have to be fitted to aircraft before the war starts, not after.

And yet armament changed routinely all through the war, in 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944

Point three, In 1940 two 20mm's give you the performance of six .50's with less weight, that's a very important point considering the engine power available at the time.

Only if you still had rounds to fire mate

Point four, more effective .50 cal ammunition was being developed in 1941 and 42 and again in 43 and finally in 44 everyone was happy with the M8 API.

So switching the .50 in 1941 or 42 wasn't such a bad move...

 

[RCAFson]

Wildcats / Martlets seemed to operate just fine on CVEs, including very marginal ones and in awful conditions. I never heard of a Naval fighter with that much of a problem as 70 aircraft lost in two days (even if they eventually repaired almost half of them). I understand why they wanted to make a naval fighter out of the Spitfire, it was the best allied fighter in air to air combat for most of the war. But I don't think it was actually suitable for Naval use. Plenty of Brits and Commonwealth pilots seem to agree.

FAA Pilot Hugh Popham's view:
From "Sea Flight: The Wartime Memoirs of a Fleet Air Arm Pilot"
The Hurricane was a good aeroplane, on land, on a deck or in the air. The Spit was adequate on a runway, bad, as it turned out, on a deck, but in the air one of the most exquisite machines ever made by man. It was beautiful to look at with that knife-fine wing-section and the two sheer ellipses of its leading and trailing edges, and with that flowing line from spinner to fin. And it was beautiful to fly, light and quick on the controls, without vices. It was always said that Mitchell's wife designed the lay-out of the cockpit; whether it was true or not, it was a pretty compliment, for it was as neat as a new kitchen. Against its incomparable virtues could be set its silly little undercarriage, which was quite inadequate against the rough and tumble of deck-landing, and the long, long nose which stretched away in front of the pilot ad made him practically blind in the traditional, nose-up, deck-landing attitude. In so far as it had never been designed for a deck, it was unfair to charge the designer with these disadvantages: they were the outcome of a makeshift policy towards Fleet Air Arm aircraft which threw us on to the doubtful mercies of obsolescent R.A.F. machines, hastily modified, or on to the Americans.

FAA pilot Henry "Hank" Adlam's view:
From "On and Off the Flight Deck: Reflections of a Naval Fighter Pilot in World War II"
The Seafire, which was a normal Spitfire with the attachment of a hook for deck-landing, was in reality entirely unsuitable for Carrier operations. The narrow track of the undercarriage, its fragility and that of the whole fuselage made the Seafire unable to cope with the constant stresses of Carrier landings. The big wooden propeller constantly shattered because it had too little deck clearance. The aircraft had a very limited range, no bomb load and, with the extra weigh of the hook, was not all that much faster than the Wildcat and with lesser fire-power. The in-line engine, with the scoop-type coolers under the wings, made a successful 'ditching' in the sea difficult. But also, although a beautiful machine just to fly, it was very difficult to deck-land because of its tendency to 'float' over the wires when the engine was cut. Over the years, in the process of operating from Carriers, the Seafire seriously hurt or killed many pilots. Yet there were a few pilots of above average ability who loved the thing, despite its many faults as a Carrier aircraft.

That's just nonsense. All naval aircraft need minimum wind over the deck to reduce the landing speed to something manageable by both the aircraft's hook and the carrier's arrestor gear. In FAA service the Sea Hurricane seems to have had the lowest accident rate and the highest serviceability rate.

"The fighter force had flown 713 sorties resulting in 32 deck-landing crashes which wrote-off the machine. Undercarriage failure claimed 17 aircraft while a further 24 were found to have sustained distortion of the rear fuselage. Four Seafires were lost to engine failure.
Many Seafires needed repairs after the propeller clipped the fight deck after catching an arrester wire. Spares were soon depleted. A quick "field modification" was applied through the trimming of the propeller by 2in which drastically reduced landing damage without any noticeable loss in performance."

The windless conditions and the slow CVE's with their short flight decks caused havoc amongst the Seafire squadrons:

"FAA Pilot Hugh Popham's view:
From "Sea Flight: The Wartime Memoirs of a Fleet Air Arm Pilot"
I, with the remainder of the squadron (of Seafires from HMS Illustrious), was dispatched to Unicorn to augment her depleted fighter-strength.
Depleted it certainly was. The twenty aircraft the Woolworths (escort carriers) had sent ashore represented all that remained serviceable, out of a hundred or more, after the first three days of the operation. This was in part due to the complete lack of wind. The small carriers were only capable of a maximum of seventeen or eighteen knots, and this with no natural wind to supplement it, was on the low side for deck landing. In conjunction with a lack of experience on the part of many of the pilots, it resulted in accidents of truly astonishing number and complexity. They had come roaring in, shedding their hooks, thumping into the barrier, dropping into the park, going over the side, until the hangars were choked with wrecks.
We, with our bigger decks and higher speed, had no such troubles: in fact the squadron got through the operation without a prang at all, which somewhat mitigated the unfortunate impression which Commander Flying had formed of us. "

"The Seafires also performed above expectation: The highest daily sortie rate was a maximum of 4.1 per Seafire. They had been expected to only go up twice each on the first day.
HMS Hunter suffered the least accidents of the whole Seafire force. The pilots of 834 Flight had received intensive instruction in the art of deck landing by their RNZVR CO, resulting in the whole flight remaining operational.
Pilots from HMS Indomitable operating from the escort carriers after their own ship had been damaged by torpedo were among the worst crash offenders, blaming difficulty in adapting to the 30 per cent smaller flight decks and 10knot slower base wind-over-deck speeds."

"The ghosts of Salerno were partially exorcised when the Seafire and escort carriers were paired to cover another amphibious landing, this time along the shores of Southern France on August 15, 1944, in Operation Dragoon. HMS Hunter carried 807 Squadron, HMS Attacker had 879 Squadron, HMS Stalker 809 Squadron and HMS Khedive carried 899 Squadron.
The extra time available for working-up pilots - along with more favourable winds - resulted in the Seafire's crash rate falling to one in more than 50 landings. HMS Stalker's Seafires conducted 337 sorties in the 10 days of the escort carrier's deployment.
Seafire LFIIIs used in Dragoon were used as fighter-bombers, carrying 500lb bombs in support of ground troops. It was one of only very few occasions this occurred."

Armoured Aircraft Carriers

 

[Schweik]

I guess you can spin things a lot of different ways. I call that a catastrophe, and it was hardly the only debacle with the Seafire. The FAA pilots commentary was quite eloquent on several of the issues. But it's always possible to see the same data two different ways.

 

[RCAFson]

Hello Pat303,

Don't you find it somewhat ironic then that the British were the first to use the Corsair aboard carriers when the USN had banished them to Marines and land bases?
Sounds like the RN was desperate for a good naval fighter at the time and didn't mind dealing with the Corsair's bad manners on landing.
It didn't even fit below decks on British carriers because the folded wings were too high and the first idea was to deflate tires to stow the aircraft and yet they needed it so badly they had to find a means to use this awful carrier fighter.

- Ivan.

By 1945 the Corsair was favoured by the USN over the F6F. It was a combination of improved landing technique and better LG that made the Corsair a successful carrier aircraft.