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
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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 territoryAnd yet, that's exactly what the Bf 109, Bf 110 and Spitfire Mk. IIB carried, as well as the A6M2
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.The A6M2's Type 99 cannon may have had 60 rounds per gun (120 rounds total), but the Type 99 had a rate of fire of 520 RPM, meaning a two second burst will lob about 6-8 rounds at the target (per cannon), which is more than enough to deliver catastrophic damage.
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.Strongly disagree with this. At 180 - 280 mph, the Zero is VERY maneuverable. The controls start to heavy up at just over 300 mph, and difficult to use at 320 mph and above. But at 250 mph, the Zero will quite handily out-turn a Spitfire of ANY variant. They did exactly that in the PTO, if you recall.
The 109 used 55 rounds in the drums, if they loaded 60 they jammed.Yes, I was just about to correct my post. Everybody was using 60 rd drums. So, except for the Bf 110, in which the Bordfunker could reload the cannon, nobody had nine seconds of cannon ammo in 1940.
But we are comparing 1940 era aircraft. Put away the retrospectroscope.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
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.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.
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.Not a chance, A6M2's flying into English or German controlled airspace in 1940 would be butchered, Spitfires and Me109's are not only significantly faster but armored with good pilot protection, one thing also forgotten is they have working radio's.
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.Strongly disagree with this. At 180 - 280 mph, the Zero is VERY maneuverable. The controls start to heavy up at just over 300 mph, and difficult to use at 320 mph and above. But at 250 mph, the Zero will quite handily out-turn a Spitfire of ANY variant. They did exactly that in the PTO, if you recall.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Yeah, like you know anyone who flies Zeros.That's not what the guys who FLY them say.
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.
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.