That's right and the shortcomings led to belt feed, in 1940 drum fed cannons didn't have the ammunition capacity to loiter over targets or fight deep into enemy territory
March until October of 1940: fighters' ranking
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
We are talking 1940, the chances of your average pilot hitting an enemy plane with a 6-8 round burst is zero, the average hit rate for both sides during the BoB was less than 2%, of the planes hit over 80% where hit from no more than a few degree's off axis, the facts are there, the British stayed with 8 MG's with the Dowding spread simply because the gunnery of that era was very poor at best to usually hitting nothing.
I got the information from this site from tests done on the Atukan A6M flown in 1942, above 200 Knots 230mph the controls were solid.
The 109 used 55 rounds in the drums, if they loaded 60 they jammed.
Greg Boeser
2nd Lieutenant
But we are comparing 1940 era aircraft. Put away the retrospectroscope.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
First of all, the Japanese had been at war since the early 30's (part of that co-prosparity thing) and their pilots had just a little bit of experience at the start of the Allied involvement.
Secondly, it doesn't take many cannon rounds to cripple a target. A rookie might get what the Germans called "jadgfieber" which is fixating on the target with the finger glued to the trigger, but that is not the norm.
So if we "assume" the pilots early in the war were idiots dumping their entire loadout at one target, how on earth did they even accomplish to fight an entire battle?
Greg Boeser
2nd Lieutenant
My understanding of those early cannon armed aircraft is that they fired their mgs as ranging shots, using the cannon only after they had secured a good PK. And the Bf 109, with 1000 rpg for the mgs was clearly expected to fight with them.
IdahoRenegade
Airman 1st Class
How did Spits do against Zeros (or army fighters) when flying in Australia early in the war? As the other poster said though, each was the better tool in their respective locations. Spit was pretty useless in SWPA due to range limitations, Zeros didn't have the speed and high altitude capability for Europe.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
If I am wanting an air defence fighter then why do I want range?
It go up and it go down and it go fast.
Just go 350mph and what more do you want? Aircraft size of a barge?
Big engine and little airframe. That's the ticket. If I want to carry petrol I would build a tanker.
It go up and it go down and it go fast.
Just go 350mph and what more do you want? Aircraft size of a barge?
Big engine and little airframe. That's the ticket. If I want to carry petrol I would build a tanker.
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
Read David Brown's book on Seafires. At lower altitudes, the Seafire LIIC was able to out-climb the Zero, and it was able to out-turn it at 250mph. In a dogfight, the Seafire would execute a series of yoyo turns, placing it on the Zero's tail. The Zero was very nasty below 180mph. Its manoeuvrability declined at higher speeds.
Brown also noted that experienced pilots in Hellcats and Corsairs could out-turn the Seafires.
WWII Seafires were based on Mark_V Spitfires. I doubt that any Spitfire_Vs with souped up low altitude engines reached the Pacific.
Last edited:
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
What sort of tactics were employed by the RAAF? The tests of Seafires that I quote above, were done by the US Navy, in 1943, I think. Hopefully, this was at the request of the Royal Navy.
In the Battle Britain, RAF continued to employ their three plane "vics", in spite of complaints by pilots like Douglas Bader. The finger four was not adopted until after the battle. If the British had faced Zeros over London and they had dogmatically assumed their superior manoeuvrability, they would have got beaten.
Greg Boeser
2nd Lieutenant
I don't know if January 1943 counts as early war. That's when the first Spitfires (Mk. VC Tropicalized) in Australia became operational at Darwin.
IdahoRenegade
Airman 1st Class
I think it was discussed on this board, but not positive where I read it. A major issue was Spit pilots tried to fight Zeros like they did '109s, in tight, maneuvering dogfights. Not a good thing to do against a Zero, especially once you bled speed. Fighting the way your enemy performs best doesn't end well. I'm sure they learned quickly and adopted more of a "boom and zoom" tactic like others did.What sort of tactics were employed by the RAAF? The tests of Seafires that I quote above, were done by the US Navy, in 1943, I think. Hopefully, this was at the request of the Royal Navy.
In the Battle Britain, RAF continued to employ their three plane "vics", in spite of complaints by pilots like Douglas Bader. The finger four was not adopted until after the battle. If the British had faced Zeros over London and they had dogmatically assumed their superior manoeuvrability, they would have got beaten.
IdahoRenegade
Airman 1st Class
Interesting and thanks for the correction-I thought I read of Spits flying out of Australia earlier. Given the level of knowledge on this board, I really have to learn to check and research before posting.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Oooh. A plot twist! I like.What sort of tactics were employed by the RAAF? The tests of Seafires that I quote above, were done by the US Navy, in 1943, I think. Hopefully, this was at the request of the Royal Navy.
In the Battle Britain, RAF continued to employ their three plane "vics", in spite of complaints by pilots like Douglas Bader. The finger four was not adopted until after the battle. If the British had faced Zeros over London and they had dogmatically assumed their superior manoeuvrability, they would have got beaten.
GregP
Major
That's not what the guys who FLY them say.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Yeah, like you know anyone who flies Zeros.
GregP
Major
Somebody's book doesn't trump the pilots who flew and continue to fly them or the combat reports. There are very many accounts of the A6M which state categorically that the A6M will get on the tail of any other monoplane fighter at 180 - 280 mph quite easily, especially in a looping maneuver. They didn't find out about the fact that the Zero had a hard time doing a rapid right run until mid-war. The Koga Zero wasn't found until July 1942 and it didn't fly until around 1943. Up until then, the Zero was considered a lethal opponent.
The link below is a link to an evaluation of the A6M5 Model 52. It notes the controls are very good up to over 300 mph.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Zeke_52_Pilots_Comments.pdf
I very much doubt that a Hellcat could out-turn an A6M since there is no population of reports of same. The F6F could definitely out-climb an A6M and wasn't too far behind in turning circle, but a better turner? No way.
I'm sure the Seafire could outclimb the Zero, but that didn't matter much when they met in combat. Outclimbing another aircraft by a small margin doesn't get you out of range of the armament in time to do much good.
Mike Williams
Senior Airman
- 572
- Oct 19, 2006
The three plane vics were commonplace during the Battle of Britain but not universal. George Barclay of 249 Squadron noted in his diary for 15 Oct. 40 that "In the evening we had a conference with 257 and 46 and decided to work in sections of four and break away in pairs if attacked by 109s."
Barclay also noted using another formation variation in September "One squadron in section vics line astern - the other squadron in two sections of six weaving with the last of each six also weaving".
74 Squadron comes to mind as another unit that employed pairs early on.
Attachments
Last edited:
