Admiral Beez
Major
Thanks. I thought the earlier A6M variant available by October 1940 carried a smaller amount of cannon and mg ammo. Now I know better.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thanks. I thought the earlier A6M variant available by October 1940 carried a smaller amount of cannon and mg ammo. Now I know better.He's got the same amount of cannon ammo as the 109, and almost as much 7.7mm as the 109 has 7.92mm
Which would be Type 99-1 cannons, with 60 round drums, correct?The Zeros carried the same armament until the A6M3
At the expense of plane and pilot survivability not too mention the range given for the A6M was done at very slow speeds over empty ocean or jungles, no A6M is going to escort anything over Europe at 10,000ft and 200mph.
Yes.Which would be Type 99-1 cannons, with 60 round drums, correct?
I do not have the slightest idea. But when some years ago I came across references to his work, the point seem to have been that the claims to loss ratio of the Bf 110, compared to the Bf 109, was slightly in the favour of the first. Thus, unless 110's were more prone to overclaiming than 109's, the latter seem to, on average, not to have done better. Supposing the tendency to overclaim was comparable, and that he calibrated them in the same manner, they do question the 'fact' that the 110 was simply terrible in the bob, or at least not more terrible than the 109.The claims of the Lw and FC during the BoB are least twice as high as the above in other sources; how does Bergström arrive at his claim totals?
Not available in the time specified.What, no votes for the P-39?
None were operational until '41, so it (fortunately) misses the March - October '40 timeline.What, no votes for the P-39? (Ducks for cover.)
None were operational until '41, so it (fortunately) misses the March - October '40 timeline.
I do not have the slightest idea. But when some years ago I came across references to his work, the point seem to have been that the claims to loss ratio of the Bf 110, compared to the Bf 109, was slightly in the favour of the first. Thus, unless 110's were more prone to overclaiming than 109's, the latter seem to, on average, not to have done better. Supposing the tendency to overclaim was comparable, and that he calibrated them in the same manner, they do question the 'fact' that the 110 was simply terrible in the bob, or at least not more terrible than the 109.
In what I read comparizon of claims to loss rate of British fighters were not considered. To me it seems this would present for more methodological problems.
When finally comparing the scores by Bf 109 and Bf 110 units as mentioned above with the estimated true losses by each side for the period July-October 1940 it turns out that in approximate figures the authentic victories versus actual air battle losses where:
Spitfire 550 victories to 329 losses – a ratio of 1,7:1
Hurricane 750 victories to 603 losses – a ratio of 1,2:1
Bf 109 780 victories to 534 losses – a ratio of 1,5:1
Bf 110 340 victories to 196 losses – a ratio of 1,7:1
The type 5 had two MG (one each wing) and type 10 four (two in the no se and one each wing). IIRC, type 17 change the wing MG for 20mm cannons.The I-16 type 5 and 10 had 4 machine guns, two in the upper cowling and two in the wings. I think the last variants had 2 20MMs in the wings.
I don't think Green was as bad as Caiden, as a matter of fact I don't know if anyone was as bad as Caiden for tall tales and stretching the truth!
The I-16 went through a bunch of armament changes.The I-16 type 5 and 10 had 4 machine guns, two in the upper cowling and two in the wings. I think the last variants had 2 20MMs in the wings.
For some reason they never tried to put a 12.7mm gun in each wing although a few versions had a single 12.7mm machine gun in the lower fuselage while either two 7.62mm guns were in the upper cowl and/or two 7.62mm guns in the wings (one in each) .
They might have even tried a 20mm un each wing, a 12.7mm in the lower cowl and two in 7.62mm guns in the upper cowl
From what I got in recent publications (mainly about the Spanish Civil War) the Type 5 and 6 were the first sent to Spain. The Type 5 and 6 had two 7.62 mm machine guns in the wings, the type 6 added a third under the fuselage according to some sources. The Type 10 had 4 machine guns, again 7.62, 2 in the wings, two in the nose firing through the propeller, this mentioned in the book by Frank Tinker "Some Still Live." I have in my library L'Aviation Republicaine Espagnole by Patrick Laureau, an excellent source of information on the Spanish Republican Air Force (if you can read French) and there many photos showing the Type 5, 6 and 10, all seemed to be armed with the 7.62 machine gun, but from what I could see, there was nothing heavier used during the SCW.The I-16 went through a bunch of armament changes.
Several versions had 20mm cannon setting up a struggle between heavy armament and degraded performance.
Combine that with not enough production capacity to go around there were several cannon armed versions interspersed with machine gun armed versions.
As they increased the engine power they tried to bring the 20mm gun versions back.
For some reason they never tried to put a 12.7mm gun in each wing although a few versions had a single 12.7mm machine gun in the lower fuselage while either two 7.62mm guns were in the upper cowl and/or two 7.62mm guns in the wings (one in each) .
They might have even tried a 20mm un each wing, a 12.7mm in the lower cowl and two in 7.62mm guns in the upper cowl
But that with such a load was not good, even with an 1,100hp engine.
Older books (pre-1990s?) may have different details than 1990-2000 books ?
Indeed, but the poor chap's only got a few seconds of ammunition before he becomes purely a recon bird.
Yeah, I wasn't saying they'd rule the skies.
Two words: Stephen King.
There's no reason, apart from a time machine and a Japanese carrier sailing across the world to join the Axis powers, that this couldn't happen. Pat308 doesn't believe so, but let's remember that the A6M2 was superior to the frontline US fighters between 1940 and 1942 between 15,000 and up to and over 25,000 feet. Testing of the Aleutian Zero proved this in evaluation against the P-40 and P-39.
I also wouldn't get too hung up about the wing issues and dive limitations either, after all under those conditions the Zero was still excellent at low speed manoeuvrability and could out-manoeuvre almost every fighter it came across right until the very end of the war. It's worth noting that an aircraft doesn't earn a myth of invincibility by being slightly average suffering from structural restrictions. Let's remember that the A6M was the best aircraft carrier based fighter between 1940 and 1942 at least.