Japanese Zero vs Spitfire vs FW 190

RCAFson said:

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.

Click to expand...

I remember reading somewhere that the RN cut the wings down to give a better sink rate when landing which also helped, the Seafire got the same treatment I believe because they tended to float over the deck.

RCAFson said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hello RCAFson,

Agreed, but the remedy for the uneven stall and landing gear bounce had NOT been addressed when the Royal Navy began operating the Corsair from carriers even though the US Navy had chosen not to.
THAT was my point.

- Ivan.

PAT303 said:

I remember reading somewhere that the RN cut the wings down to give a better sink rate when landing which also helped, the Seafire got the same treatment I believe because they tended to float over the deck.

Click to expand...

Yes, the FAA clipped the wings and the prop, IIRC.

Ivan1GFP said:

Hello RCAFson,

Agreed, but the remedy for the uneven stall and landing gear bounce had NOT been addressed when the Royal Navy began operating the Corsair from carriers even though the US Navy had chosen not to.
THAT was my point.

- Ivan.

Click to expand...

The problem was that the USN favoured a hard stalled landing where the FAA was used to using gentler landing techniques.

Schweik said:

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.

Click to expand...

Pilots crashed while operating in still wind conditions and in some cases landing on decks 30% smaller than what they were used too, I'd suggest you look at the Corsairs loss rate here Corsair loses explained if you want to talk about debacle's.

PAT303 said:

I remember reading somewhere that the RN cut the wings down to give a better sink rate when landing which also helped, the Seafire got the same treatment I believe because they tended to float over the deck.

Click to expand...

I believe it was to be able to fit below decks for both aircraft.
As I mentioned before, the initial idea for the Corsair was to deflate the tires and re-inflate them before flight.
The actual working solution was to clip the wings.
Regarding Seafire clipped wings: Have you seen what a unclipped wing on a Seafire looks like when folded? It needs a second bend at the wing tip. Seems a whole lot simpler just to remove it.

Problem with clipping wings to increase sink rate is it also increase stall speed and that isn't something you want on a shipboard aircraft.

Has anyone else found it odd that of the carrier fighters mentioned, the Seafire probably has the lowest stall speed of any of the others, assuming it wasn't significantly different from a land based Spitfire, but the slow escort carriers and lack of wind made it necessary for them to come in so hot that they were breaking and having many accidents?

- Ivan.

RCAFson said:

The problem was that the USN favoured a hard stalled landing where the FAA was used to using gentler landing techniques.

Click to expand...

Hello RCAFson,

You need to see what the post I was responding to:

PAT303 said:

.....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.

Click to expand...

- Ivan.

Ivan1GFP said:

Hello RCAFson,
You need to see what the post I was responding to:
- Ivan.

Click to expand...

My two bobs worth is that is a good reason to always include at least a clipped version of the post you are replying to or to say re post #807.

I find it saves a lot of confusion for me so I would expect it to assist others as well. Maybe I am just getting old though and need more help than the younger members.

Mi

PAT303 said:

I remember reading somewhere that the RN cut the wings down to give a better sink rate when landing which also helped, the Seafire got the same treatment I believe because they tended to float over the deck.

Click to expand...

I believe the wings were clipped to fit the hangers and this gave a higher sink rate which some preferred, also less "float" over the deck.

I will try to sum up (brief history) the US .50 cal gun, and it's ammo.
For the gun pretty much unchanged from the early 20s to the late 30s/1940. Some details but function and rate of fire didn't change much.
These guns fired at 600rpm at BEST. They were often tested with short belts and longer belts or high lifts of the belt from the ammo storage to the gun feed way slowed them down.
These 1920s and 30s guns were known as the M1921 although a few other years might be thrown in. By 1837 or so the gun had been redesigned to allow different versions to be built off the same receiver (aircraft gun, ground (surface) gun with air cooled barrel or water cooled and feed could be switched from left side to right side. This was called the M2 but the rate of fire stayed the same as the older guns. Please note that the "ground" gun with air cooled barrel fired at a lower rate.
By 1940 they had figured out how to increase the rate of fire and older guns could be converted to new standards with a parts kit. the firing rate is given variously as 750-850rpm but this covers not only the variation from gun to gun but different installations. Either as part of the M2 or separately ( I am going by memory here and not looking things up) the roughly doubled the belt pull (force the gun exerted on the belt to move it or lift it) by changing the cam tracks. How quickly the M2 was gotten into service by the US is subject to question but since the US was not in a shooting war for 1940 and most of 1941 it really doesn't have a lot of bearing. The British got some of the M2s during this period.
The M2 carried on through the war essentially unchanged (as far as rate of fire goes) until the end of the war. Around 8,000 (?) of the faster firing (1200rpm) gun (later called the M3) wer built in very late 1944 and 1945 under a "T" number but actual details of where they went seem a bit sketchy. The M3 had to be built as such and while many parts were interchangeable an M2 could not be modified into an M3. Now please note there were a number of projects starting in 1942 to build this 1200rpm gun (at least three companies and some companies had more than one project going at the same time) so the planners might have expected the fast firing guns to show up before they did. Some of the projects were pretty much failures from the start and others just missed the reliability goal (number of broken parts per 5000 rounds) and the programs dragged out over two years.
Please note the increased belt pull helped sort out some of the early feed problems (but not all).
Please also note that the US ordnance dept had some rather strict requirements for the number of jams or broken parts allowed per 1000 rounds (or 5000 rounds) fired and, barrels aside which were considered expendable, a rather high expectation of gun life, like tens of thousands of rounds given replacement parts.

Ammo, as has been mentioned, went through a lot changes. While during the 20s and 30s you had the Ball and AP rounds, and tracer. There was no HE ammo or incendiary ammo in service. The Ball and AP rounds had a velocity of about 2500fps. This rating was for all guns at least until the M2 HB ground gun came along with it's 45 in barrel.
In the late 30s the improved smokeless powder/s that had been developed in the 1920s and 30s allowed for higher velocities. There is some confusion here as some books from the 30s or early WW II list MV of 2400fps for the old ammo in range tables (to account for a worn gun instead of factory fresh) and the new ammo is listed as 2700fps but with a lighter bullet this soon went to the more well known 2880fps. I don't know how much was due to the ighter bullet, how much was due to a different powder and how much was due to accepting higher pressure or different barrel life, the new powders may have been a bit "cooler" and allowed things to be pushed a bit more. However the .50 was always a barrel burner and needed short bursts and cool down periods if there was not to be a huge consumption of spare barrels.

the M1 incendiary was not adopted (or at least issued) until after the M2 AP and M2 ball ammo was issued and these are the rounds that have 2880 fps muzzle velocity. The AP and ball ammo are issued in 1940. It is not until very late 1941 or 1942 that the M1 incendiary is issued in numbers (basicly and enlarged British Dixon bullet.) and it may have taken a while before it's use was wide spread. This was followed by the M8API which carried roughly the same amount of incendiary material as the .303 incendiary bullet of about 1/4 it's weight.

So we have 2 if not 3 different capability guns (not counting the M3) different installations (and the synchronized guns could be cycling at 400-500rpm)over the years and several different sets of ammo. the low velocity no incendiary ammunition group. the high velocity but still no incendiary ammunition group, the high velocity with incendiary ammunition group and the M8API ammo years, this leaves out Korea.

Trying to assess or evaluate the Buffalo, F4F, P-36, P-38,P-39s and early P-40s (though the E) needs to take into account the rapidly changing guns and ammo and what was known or planned for the future near future.

There is a lot going on in this thread. I have never come across any evidence that proves that 4 x.50 are >8 x .303 or visa versa as well. The wing mounted .50s had serious jamming issues , in the P 40 for sure, until well into late 42. Stocky Edwards in his book, "Kittyhawk Pilot" complains about the jamming a lot, saying that after any high G manuevres in a dogfight, they would all pack it up after a few bursts. The 8 x .303s were extremely reliable in 1940, and were very effective with the dixon/dewilde ammo. The .50 had better armour penetration , but the increased number of guns , plus the higher firing rate, the .303 had a better probability of getting a critical hit. RAF testing had shown that most aircraft were shot down by hits to the relatively vunerable engine. I feel that the greater reliability of the 8 x.303s gives the nod to them.

There is a reason why basically every country in WW2 (including the British) quickly abandoned the .30 cal (.303, 8mm, 7.62mm, 7.7mm, 7.9mm etc.) as a main fighter armament or even (a little later) as a primary defensive gun for bombers. It just lacked the effective range of the heavier guns. 12.7mm wasn't as good as a 20mm (round for round) but it was much better than any .30 cal weapon.

The problems with stoppages while shooting in high G turns was an issue with all wing mounted guns as far as I know, certainly the 20mm Hispanos had the same issue.

Concerning the initial topic of this thread , one needs to remember that the tropicalized Spit V was probably the low point of the Spit during the war. In tropicalizing the Spit V the whole nose of the Spit was enlarged for additional oil/glycol , plus the volkes air filter adding considerable increased drag. These issues were resolved with the Spit Mk 8 with its, integral tropical filter and far better performance.

I agree, in fact my analysis per the three fighters in the OP is as follows:

• Early War - A6M2 and Spitfire, tied*. Both played a huge rule in the military successes of their respective Island nations, both defied the expectations of their enemies, the A6M in a stunning series of offensive victories, the Spitfire in the big defensive victory of the BoB.
• Mid War - Fw 190 - it came out with a bang, wrecked a lot of Allied kit (and shot down many Spitfire V series), wrought carnage in the Channel, in the Med and on the Russian Front. But it was then overwhelmed as more maneuverable fighters, including the Spitfire, caught up in performance. A pilot in a Spit IX had little to fear from a Fw 190 unless it got bounced unawares. P-51s owned them too.
• Late War - Spitfire again**. The Spits from late 1943 onward were too much for any Axis fighter except the Jet. And the Jet was in a league of it's own.

* Along with the Bf 109 I'd say, but it's not in the OP
** Other fighters were contending with the Spitfire in the late war for that "best of" category, but the Spitfire was better than the other two in the OP by that period.

Shortround6 said:

How quickly the M2 was gotten into service by the US is subject to question but since the US was not in a shooting war for 1940 and most of 1941 it really doesn't have a lot of bearing. The British got some of the M2s during this period.

Click to expand...

That is why it did matter - the British bought quite a few US made fighters and bombers (and took over more from the French) during 1941 and got some into action before 1942 notably in the Med. And of course even more in 1942, not all of which were necessarily armed the same way.

Schweik said:

12.7mm wasn't as good as a 20mm (round for round) but it was much better than any .30 cal weapon.

Click to expand...

Show me your proof, ie combat results, that 4 x .50 is > than 8 x.303 . I am going to check out operation Pedestal results comparing Sea Hurricanes and Fulmars to Martlets.

The advantage of longer range is spurious at best, as almost all WW 2 aces will stress the need to get close.

slaterat said:

Show me your proof, ie combat results, that 4 x .50 is > than 8 x.303 . I am going to check out operation Pedestal results comparing Sea Hurricanes and Fulmars to Martlets.

The advantage of longer range is spurious at best, as almost all WW 2 aces will stress the need to get close.

Click to expand...

There is no way to prove any of it. But the people at the time, War planners, pilots, commanders of air units, knew it was an issue - specifically for the reasons I mentioned. I could pull these kinds of comments up easily enough - as I did in the debate about the Seafire. But as in the debate about the Seafire, there are people who can 'see no evil' and cheerfully ignore that kind of evidence. There is always enough wiggle room to believe whatever you want to believe if you try hard enough

If you are flying an aircraft with nothing but .303 machine guns and are attacking a bomber formation with aircraft armed with 20mm cannon or 12.7mm machine guns, you are taking a much bigger risk than if the roles are reversed. You better figure out where the big guns are and attack from the other direction (which may mean fewer attacking passes in a given battle) or you better come swiftly and aim true. And hope you have a bullet proof windscreen.

Fighter to fighter it doesn't matter as much, except in terms of armor penetration. And that depends on how much armor the other fighter has.

I think there is also a reason why the FAA acquired so many Martlets and Hellcats, and Corsairs, and for that matter Avengers. They were better suited to naval combat operations than what they had.

Helldivers on the other hand they were wise to reject...

Schweik said:

There is a reason why basically every country in WW2 (including the British) quickly abandoned the .30 cal (.303, 8mm, 7.62mm, 7.7mm, 7.9mm etc.) as a main fighter armament or even (a little later) as a primary defensive gun for bombers. It just lacked the effective range of the heavier guns. 12.7mm wasn't as good as a 20mm (round for round) but it was much better than any .30 cal weapon.

Click to expand...

Sorry but that is wrong, the British stayed with the .303 in their bombers because at night the ranges were very short and the opportunity to shoot happened very quickly, because of this the decision was made to stay with the faster firing .303's to increase the chances of hitting.