Maneuverability vs Speed (1 Viewer)

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

You allude to the P-400, but there were also similar P-39D-1s. Pilots tended to prefer the 20mm over the 37mm, especially for air combat. It was more reliable, and the trajectory was closer to the .50 cals.

I forgot about that. Was the D-1 used by US pilots? Why did they discontinue that?

I gather the Soviet pilots were somewhat split. IIRC I think some of their P-39s had 20mm, some had 37mm. But some of their pilots actually liked the 37mm and said it was good if you used it right.

 

[GregP]

How many 20mm rounds do you figure it takes to blow the wing off of an airplane? one of the tailplanes? The verticle stabilizer and rudder?

This is from (I believe) a P-38 so it is a mix of 20mm and .50 cal hits, but look at the number of hits he is getting. More than 2-3 I would say, and the rounds are clearly not 44 ft apart. In fact i think there are about 20 hits from the flashes.


View: https://youtu.be/S3cpkQT4Njw?t=141

How many hits (again this is probably 'just' .50 cal) did it take to blow the wings off of these (presumably strongly built, armored) German planes


View: https://youtu.be/2pGz0FGLMCc?t=594

Like this one

View: https://youtu.be/2pGz0FGLMCc?t=613

The number of rounds to knock off a wing depends on how the wings are attached. On most fighters, the wings were attacked at 4 points, upper and lower front and aft mounting lugs. And it doesn't necessarily take a 20 mm cannon. A 30-cal won't likely do it, but a 50-cal can.

The Bf 109 was different. each wing is attached at 3 points: an upper and lower front mount and one rear mount.

If you hit the aft single mount, you can lose a wing and most likely will, especially since you are probably going 250 mph or more and it will very likely start to flutter. If you hit the upper mount, you won't necessarily lose the wing until you out some negative loading on it, but you can ... sort of depends. If you hit the lower front mount, you lose the wing due to positive loading, which is most of the time.

I'd say you don't often hit the wing mount points, but it happens, as you can see in some combat gun camera films. You can also lose a wing if you punch enough 50-cal holes in the main spar relatively near the fuselage or if you hit the spar with a 20 mm cannon shell, also relatively near the fuselage. Otherise, a hit is likely to be local damage.

 

[pbehn]

You bring up a good point of why didn't we, in this case, utilize 20mm. I would personally rather have more rounds/ longer trigger time than much less rounds of higher efficacy. Also, it seems to me we had more fighter on fighter combat than fighter on bomber leading me to think that the old .50 was more than enough.

During the BoB the British were only aware of planes shot down over land or close to the coast. With increased armour German bombers seemed to fly though a hail of rifle calibre ammunition apparently unscathed. However post war records showed that many didnt make it home, or did and crash landed or landed with so much damage they never flew again. The Germans had this experience too, a substantial number of planes on the Schweinfurt Regensburg raid landed in Africa and never took off again.

Another factor was RAF fighter pilots were getting hit by cannon fire and that made them want cannon too.

 

[GregP]

And I am pretty sure you are pouncing on clumsy grammar and pretending it's a claim I didn't make.

I'm referring to the difference between lost aircraft and lost pilots

You pounce on everyone for anything and nothing and offer us your "position." Turnabout is fair play, don't you think?

And it was obvious what you meant. I was pointing out you didn't say it very well, which I'm pretty sure you knew, but you had to make an acidic reply anyway. Can't stop yourself, huh? If you write something, no one has to claim you said it ... it's right there in print for all to see.

Sic, transit, gloria / macht nichts.

Carry on.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

During the BoB the British were only aware of planes shot down over land or close to the coast. With increased armour German bombers seemed to fly though a hail of rifle calibre ammunition apparently unscathed. However post war records showed that many didnt make it home, or did and crash landed or landed with so much damage they never flew again. The Germans had this experience too, a substantial number of planes on the Schweinfurt Regensburg raid landed in Africa and never took off again.

Wow that seems like a long detour!

Another factor was RAF fighter pilots were getting hit by cannon fire and that made them want cannon too.

That's what I think as well

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

You pounce on everyone for anything and nothing. Turnabout is fair play, don't you think?

And it was obvious what you meant. I was pointing out you didn't say it very well, which I'm pretty sure you knew, but you had to make an acidic reply anyway. Can't stop yourself, huh? If you write something, no one has to claim you said it ... it's right there in print for all to see.

Sic, transit, gloria / macht nichts.

Carry on.

Just keep in mind, when taking a slightly outlier position (like 'Japanese were not inferior') you get comments coming at you from multiple directions at once. Not all on the level. Sometimes it's hard to determine tone in a comment. So I tend to just spell it out. Sarcasm is just in there, like hydraulic fluid. I'm an old punk rocker it's in my veins. Not necessarily acidic or full of malice.

 

[GregP]

Wow that seems like a long detour!

It does, doesn't it?

I'm trying to think of any mission that started elsewhere and wound up in Africa, and can't seem to think of any logical way for that to happen unless someone gets lost, like the B-24D "Lady Be Good" did.

 

[pbehn]

Wow that seems like a long detour!



That's what I think as well

That was the plan the first wave crossed the Alps to N Africa, the second wave returned to UK.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Ah, maybe as a way to distract / misdirect the German fighters?

 

[pbehn]

Ah, maybe as a way to distract / misdirect the German fighters?

The plan was that the first wave fought its way in and the second wave fought its way out, but the whole thing went FUBAR with timing.

 

[GregP]

Just keep in mind, when taking a slightly outlier position (like 'Japanese were not inferior') you get comments coming at you from multiple directions at once. Not all on the level. Sometimes it's hard to determine tone in a comment. So I tend to just spell it out. Sarcasm is just in there, like hydraulic fluid. I'm an old punk rocker it's in my veins. Not necessarily acidic or full of malice.

It IS hard to determine the tone of a reply.

Apologies if I "pounced" a little too fast. You're not the only one who hits "post reply" and sometimes wishes he didn't.

I didn't post that. Nobody saw me post it. You can't prove anything.


View: https://youtu.be/WTbgsoHDc24

 

[pbehn]

It does, doesn't it?

I'm trying to think of any mission that started elsewhere and wound up in Africa, and can't seem to think of any logical way for that to happen unless someone gets lost, like the B-24D "Lady Be Good" did.

I dont know of any others landing in Africa (Tunisia) but thre were 7 "Frantic" missions starting in UK or Italy and landing in Sovit Union. Operation Frantic - Wikipedia

 

[drgondog]

I think the point about fighter vs fighter is valid, certainly. If we had faced more problems from German bombers especially I think maybe we would have pushed harder to adapt the 20mm. But I do think a Wildcat with 20mm cannon with say, 120 rounds, might have been helpful in some of those 1942 naval battles.



Didn't the British put 20mm cannon in their Mustangs?

yes, the P-51-NA/F-6/Mustang IA

 

[Reluctant Poster]

There is much ballyhoo about the Japanese aircrew losses at Santa Cruz "proving" that American aircraft were far superior to Japanese. The following table is from Lundstrom "Guadalcanal and the First Team"

The first thing to note is the trivial difference between the losses of Zero pilots vs F4F pilots. It is a minuscule 2, which in the overall scheme of things is totally irrelevant

Ah but the TBF suffered far less than the Kates which proves the Japanese were idiots. The answer lies in what the TBFs actually accomplished. I.e. the Kates sank the Hornet while the TBFs accomplished SFA. A quick question: How many torpedoes did the TBFs launch against the Japanese carriers? The answer is 0! The truth is that they didn't even see a Japanese carrier. Instead they attacked the heavy cruisers of the Vanguard Group. The losses were low because they weren't facing CAP and the AA was less intense. 5 Zeros eventually turned up and engaged some of the retreating SBDs and F4Fs. Of the 3 TBFs lost 2 were shot down on the way to the attack and the third was lost at back at TF 17 when the pilot foolishly decided to play fighter pilot and paid the price. The 21 TBFs that attacked the Vanguard Group placed one 500 lb bomb on the Chikuma. All the torpedo carrying TBFs missed their targets

The SBDs performed much better with 15 of them attacking the Shokaku. Two were shot down by the CAP and 2 more badly damaged but the remaining 11 successfully planted at least 3 bombs on the Shokaku. The other 12 SBDs also attacked the Chikuma and planted 3 bombs on her.

Note that the majority of American losses occurred over their own task force giving them the opportunity to bale out or ditch near friendly ships whereas for the Japanese it was the opposite.
While case can be made that the Kate and Val were somewhat inferior to the SBD and TBF (Certainly not the TBD) that is definitely not the case for the Zero vs F4F. Quoting Lundstrom:
"Between 7August and 15 November 1942, while operating from the carriers or land based at Guadalcanal, VF-5, VF-6, VF-71, VF-72 and VF-10 claimed 193 aircraft destroyed in aerial combat."
In the next table he reduces the 193 to 102 estimated actual score. He also reduces the claims for Zeros from 54 to 25.
"In strictly fighter- verses-fighter combat, the ratio of loss was approximately thirty-one Navy F4Fs (twenty-three pilots killed) to twenty-five Zeros."

In a previous post I noted that in the first half of 1942 the number of Zero pilots KIA was slightly greater than the F4F pilots KIA. Also note that 75% of F4F pilots shot down died.

 

[Shortround6]

My (I think obvious?) point is that the 20mm was quickly adopted by the British in spite of many problems and challenges, I'm sure in part influenced by their experiences in the BoB. And was at least part of standard fighter armament for every other nation in WW2 except maybe the Italians who came a little later to it.

That would be wrong.

It often took a number of years (sometimes 6) to get a new gun and ammo into production and into service.
The British adopted the Browning gun in .303 in the early 30s, because they knew the Vickers gun wouldn't work. However the Browning gun was already 13 years old didn't need a lot of modification, it needed some.
The British entered into negotiations for the Hispano gun in 1936 or 1937. By 1938 the British factory was under construction and the first prototype guns were built in Jan of 1939. No influence from the BoB what so ever. Delays came from the general delays in all sorts of things with British procurement, made worse by Dunkirk, after which they were building whatever was already in production rather than stopping one type of gun at one factory and retooling for a different gun/ammo. Just about anything the British were planning in 1939 were planned with 20mm Hispano guns including 4 gun turrets on bombers. Planned and actually working out were different things.

Italians where about the lowest level of industrialized nation to take part in the war. OK, they beat Hungary and Romania. Italy had other problems aside from aircraft guns.
Like Aircraft engines, or tanks, or anti tank guns or................beating this one to death.

Germans had started work on the MG 151/15, MG 151/20 and MG 131 in the late 30s, several years before the BoB.
The MK 101 started design work in 1935.

The US went through at least 5-6 different 20mm cannon from 1940/41 through the 1960s. Using a variety of different cartridges. and for different applications so to say it took until the 1960s for the US to ''the US couldn't figure out how to make 20mm cannon work reliably, well into the 60s it seems" seems more than bit disingenuous.
M2 cannon, 20 X 110 600rpm.............WWII gun
M3 cannon, 20 x 110 700-750rpm......Post war gun
M24 cannon 20 x 110(e) 700-750rpm......Post war gun
M39 cannon 20 X 102(e)1500-1700rpm.......revolver cannon, 1 barrel/5 chambers.
M61 (Vulcan) 20 X 102(e) 4-6600rpm............rotary (Gatling )
MK12 Navy 20 X 110(e) 1000-1200 rpm.....used a lengthened 2102 case, not the old Hispano case.
MK 11 Navy 20 X 110(e) 700/4200 rpm......double barrel with two belts, Used the big navy case.

Some worked better than others but the M3 and M24s were rebuilt into the MK 16 gun for the Navy in 1960s.
The Navy MK 12 had trouble but then they had changed the goal post. They stuffed a bigger cartridge into the old Hispano and fired it at higher velocity, (19%) more energy at a almost double the rate of fire for the same weight of gun.

 

[GregP]

There were no bad fighter pilots who were alive after the 10th or so mission on which action occurred. Anyone who survived that far had the flying skill and situational awareness to stay alive that far. The nationality makes little difference. Surviving aerial combat means you did enough right to still be around.

Even late in the war, any Japanese "veterans" were not bad pilots and weren't flying a crate that couldn't shoot you down if you weren't paying attention and doing things right.

Before Ploesti, I'm sure there were those who felt as if there were no good Rumanian fighter pilots and the IAR 80s were obsolete and could be ignored. I bet there weren't many AFTER the Ploesti raids who still felt that way.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

It IS hard to determine the tone of a reply.

Apologies if I "pounced" a little too fast. You're not the only one who hits "post reply" and sometimes wishes he didn't.

I didn't post that. Nobody saw me post it. You can't prove anything.


View: https://youtu.be/WTbgsoHDc24

Honestly, I know i come across a little harsh sometimes, and maybe it's not very diplomatic to say this, but I don't care and don't have any regrets for anything I have posted on here that i can think of. I think in forum (and equivalent) discussions where you see the same people's posts you get a sense of them over time, which becomes increasingly nuanced - if you are looking for the nuance. Not everybody is.

 

[RCAFson]

There is much ballyhoo about the Japanese aircrew losses at Santa Cruz "proving" that American aircraft were far superior to Japanese. The following table is from Lundstrom "Guadalcanal and the First Team"
View attachment 727557
The first thing to note is the trivial difference between the losses of Zero pilots vs F4F pilots. It is a minuscule 2, which in the overall scheme of things is totally irrelevant

Ah but the TBF suffered far less than the Kates which proves the Japanese were idiots. The answer lies in what the TBFs actually accomplished. I.e. the Kates sank the Hornet while the TBFs accomplished SFA. A quick question: How many torpedoes did the TBFs launch against the Japanese carriers? The answer is 0! The truth is that they didn't even see a Japanese carrier. Instead they attacked the heavy cruisers of the Vanguard Group. The losses were low because they weren't facing CAP and the AA was less intense. 5 Zeros eventually turned up and engaged some of the retreating SBDs and F4Fs. Of the 3 TBFs lost 2 were shot down on the way to the attack and the third was lost at back at TF 17 when the pilot foolishly decided to play fighter pilot and paid the price. The 21 TBFs that attacked the Vanguard Group placed one 500 lb bomb on the Chikuma. All the torpedo carrying TBFs missed their targets

The SBDs performed much better with 15 of them attacking the Shokaku. Two were shot down by the CAP and 2 more badly damaged but the remaining 11 successfully planted at least 3 bombs on the Shokaku. The other 12 SBDs also attacked the Chikuma and planted 3 bombs on her.

Note that the majority of American losses occurred over their own task force giving them the opportunity to bale out or ditch near friendly ships whereas for the Japanese it was the opposite.
While case can be made that the Kate and Val were somewhat inferior to the SBD and TBF (Certainly not the TBD) that is definitely not the case for the Zero vs F4F. Quoting Lundstrom:
"Between 7August and 15 November 1942, while operating from the carriers or land based at Guadalcanal, VF-5, VF-6, VF-71, VF-72 and VF-10 claimed 193 aircraft destroyed in aerial combat."
In the next table he reduces the 193 to 102 estimated actual score. He also reduces the claims for Zeros from 54 to 25.
"In strictly fighter- verses-fighter combat, the ratio of loss was approximately thirty-one Navy F4Fs (twenty-three pilots killed) to twenty-five Zeros."

In a previous post I noted that in the first half of 1942 the number of Zero pilots KIA was slightly greater than the F4F pilots KIA. Also note that 75% of F4F pilots shot down died.

Two of the F4F pilots survived as PoWs (at least for a time) so the number killed is 16 to 12. 27 Zeros were lost from all causes vs 31 F4Fs.

Lundstrom notes that 24 Zeros ended up in the water and 16 pilots died. He notes that 23 F4Fs ended up in the water and 12 pilots died.

He notes that 15 Zeros were shot down (included in the above) and 13 F4Fs were shot down (included in the above).

I'm not sure what conclusions we can make from this. I suppose we could examine the fate of each pilot that was shot down and decide if armour and/or SS tanks were a factor.

 

[Shortround6]

As far as the US .50 goes,,,,, we have been over it a number of times.
And not only did the rate of fire change and it was made more reliable but the ammunition changed.
The British had the old slow stuff in 1941/42 and the US had the higher velocity stuff. The Incendiary ammo changed and wasn't that good.
The M8 API (Armor Piercing Incendiary ) showed up in 1943, I don't know long they were working on it but by the end of 1943 the fighters were carrying nearly 100% with whatever the took out for tracers. Total amount of tracer material fired may have been close to mixed belts of AP-Incendiary-tracer.

As far as fitting 20mm cannon into Wildcats goes, they had kind of screwed up with the six 50 cal armament. It was too heavy. And we have to realize that often the gun allocations were made months if not a year before the planes were built.
So what guns (and ammo) were they planning on for planes built in early 1943? Also please remember that the US had ordered development of the 1200rpm .50 cal in 1941 or early 1942.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

There is much ballyhoo about the Japanese aircrew losses at Santa Cruz "proving" that American aircraft were far superior to Japanese. The following table is from Lundstrom "Guadalcanal and the First Team"
View attachment 727557
The first thing to note is the trivial difference between the losses of Zero pilots vs F4F pilots. It is a minuscule 2, which in the overall scheme of things is totally irrelevant

Ah but the TBF suffered far less than the Kates which proves the Japanese were idiots. The answer lies in what the TBFs actually accomplished. I.e. the Kates sank the Hornet while the TBFs accomplished SFA. A quick question: How many torpedoes did the TBFs launch against the Japanese carriers? The answer is 0! The truth is that they didn't even see a Japanese carrier. Instead they attacked the heavy cruisers of the Vanguard Group. The losses were low because they weren't facing CAP and the AA was less intense. 5 Zeros eventually turned up and engaged some of the retreating SBDs and F4Fs. Of the 3 TBFs lost 2 were shot down on the way to the attack and the third was lost at back at TF 17 when the pilot foolishly decided to play fighter pilot and paid the price. The 21 TBFs that attacked the Vanguard Group placed one 500 lb bomb on the Chikuma. All the torpedo carrying TBFs missed their targets

Great post. This is the kind of operational detail I've been talking about but apparently not too convincingly.

The SBDs performed much better with 15 of them attacking the Shokaku. Two were shot down by the CAP and 2 more badly damaged but the remaining 11 successfully planted at least 3 bombs on the Shokaku. The other 12 SBDs also attacked the Chikuma and planted 3 bombs on her.

"Slow But Deadly"

Note that the majority of American losses occurred over their own task force giving them the opportunity to bale out or ditch near friendly ships whereas for the Japanese it was the opposite.
While case can be made that the Kate and Val were somewhat inferior to the SBD and TBF (Certainly not the TBD) that is definitely not the case for the Zero vs F4F. Quoting Lundstrom:
"Between 7August and 15 November 1942, while operating from the carriers or land based at Guadalcanal, VF-5, VF-6, VF-71, VF-72 and VF-10 claimed 193 aircraft destroyed in aerial combat."
In the next table he reduces the 193 to 102 estimated actual score. He also reduces the claims for Zeros from 54 to 25.
"In strictly fighter- verses-fighter combat, the ratio of loss was approximately thirty-one Navy F4Fs (twenty-three pilots killed) to twenty-five Zeros."

In a previous post I noted that in the first half of 1942 the number of Zero pilots KIA was slightly greater than the F4F pilots KIA. Also note that 75% of F4F pilots shot down died.

Notice the relatively high rate of KiA for the Wildcat pilots in spite of their armor and ss tanks.