But not higher, I believe their first kill was at Dieppe.
Me-110 Underrated
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You are good at winning arguments against phantoms, which is important because it must be scary to be plagued by phantoms.
As for the discussion I've been contributing to, please note my post upthread where I grouped the fighters into different categories.
Me-110 Underrated
You'll notice the P-51 isn't in the list of "heavy fighters", I have it under "medium fighters". It just happened to have an extraordinarily long range and high speed, as we know they lucked out with the design in many respects. But the "heavies" on the list could fulfill a similar role, albeit they got up to the same operational range more gradually.
What does any of that have to do with fighters of any kind? Where did I ever give you the impression that I was disparaging "Tall Boys" or RAF aircraft because I gave moderate praise to one German type? Can you please show me where I said RAF aircraft were ineffective against maritime targets? What point are you trying to make?
Are you perhaps confusing this thread with another one?
Interesting idea but we know B-24s, regardless of how they were equipped, could not hold their own against German (or for that matter, Italian) day-fighters. If the Germans had a truly long range fighter, equivalent to a P-51 or a P-38, they probably could have wiped out the B-24s.
For sake of clarity, here is how I would break it down:
Empty weight
Below 4,000 "ultra light"
4,001 - 6,500 "light"
6,501 - 8,000 "medium"
8,001 - 15,000 "heavy"
15,001+ "super heavy"
This would put the Mosquito, Westland Whirlwind, Ki-45 and the Bf 110 within the "heavy" category but the Beaufighter and Me 210 in the "super heavy"
Empty weight
Below 4,000 "ultra light"
4,001 - 6,500 "light"
6,501 - 8,000 "medium"
8,001 - 15,000 "heavy"
15,001+ "super heavy"
This would put the Mosquito, Westland Whirlwind, Ki-45 and the Bf 110 within the "heavy" category but the Beaufighter and Me 210 in the "super heavy"
Your fixation with a P-51 being the solution to all ills knows no bounds, how will it find anything in the dark? It had great range for a high performance fighter not in terms of stooging around in the mid Atlantic.
Twin engined types certainly have had roles to play - bombing the enemy, firing rockets, toting the torpedoes. As day fighters for Axis forces - that's resources not well spent.
Ar-240 was every bit as troublesome machine as the early Me 210.
A good part of Bf 110 being underpowered was that it was big & heavy, with an airfoil thicker than on the P-38 or Mosquito.
P-63A: about 9000 lbs loaded with max ammo, fuel, ADI, but clean.
La-7: between 7150 - 7300 lbs loaded, clean
Spitfire XIV: 8400-8500 lbs
Yak-3U: 6150 lbs
Yak-9U: 7000 lbs
Bf 109K: 7400 lbs
Japanese late war fighters were also light.
F8F-1 might be seen as a lightweight fighter only in the eyes of Americans, and one can have a competitive fighter without resorting to 18 cyl 2800 cu in engine.
My fixation? Lol
I would say if you needed a night fighter, send a night fighter. One with good range preferably. Either day or night though the Germans would know where the Wolf Packs are gathering so they could send out fighter cover to protect them.
Any long range fighter would do in that scenario. The Me 210 if the stability problems were fixed (or an Me 410 just 2 years earlier) would be a good candidate, it had a decent range, and we know it could knock down unescorted B-24s.
Of course at truly extreme range you probably would revert to aircraft which weren't fighters at all. But the British Isles would have been much more vulnerable it the Germans had fighters with a 1,000+ mile range.
"Super heavy" seems like a euphemism for an attack aircraft or light bomber.
Ex: A-20 Havoc, A-26 Invader, Beaufighter, Martin Baltimore, etc., etc.
Another good example of a postwar 'heavy fighter' in the "super heavy" category (definitely too heavy for carrier ops within it's design specs) is the F7F Tigercat. 460 mph and 1,200 mile range, very heavily armed, and a 4,500 fpm climb rate. In production from 1944. Apparently it never went into combat because it failed carrier trials. Seems like it would have been a good fighter for the Marines or something.
EDIT: fixed name after being corrected, I had put in the wrong name as a typo.
EDIT: fixed name after being corrected, I had put in the wrong name as a typo.
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
Nor could the B-17 hold its own against the German fighters.
As for wiping them out, that's a numbers game. If they send 100 it may be possible, but if they send 1,000 it would be unlikely.
And why do you need a long range fighter for defensive purposes in the ETO? So you can fly around for a while having expended all your ammo?
The raids on Schweinfurt had the 8th AF under attack almost constantly from the time the escorts returned to base until meeting up with the escorts on the return trip. The fighters were based in France and Germany, and when they had expended their ammo they could rearm and refuel while the bombers continued on their way into the next wave of defenders.
The Schweinfurt raid had 20% loss of the bombers, though many that returned to base were deemed unserviceable/unsalvageable, so badly were they damaged.
Increasing the range of the escort fighters reduced the window in which the bombers would be undefended. It eventually forced the Luftwaffe to move their defences back to Germany, rather than remaining in occupied Europe. This, I think, played into the 8th AF's hands, as engaging the escorts earlier could have forced them to ditch their drop tanks, making them unable to continue the escort to the target.
Shortround6
Major General
We are getting a bit confused here.
twin engine bombers used as "fighters" rather depends on what you mean by "fighter" or what mission it was trying to do.
Many such planes were used as night intruders or night "fighters" which means they were being used to shoot down (intercept) bombers.
Some were used for over water/maritime patrols where they could be reasonably sure they were out of range of single engine/single seat fighters.
Very few people actually tried to use converted bombers to counter single seat fighters in daylight.
One very basic problem is that bombers are not stressed to pull fighter type maneuvers or even high G turns let alone have the control response or power to permit such maneuvering.
Yes some bombers could actually loop or roll but the diameter of said loop was going to be much larger than a true fighter.
Mosquitos did shoot down a few German fighters but they generally did not go hunting for them.
As far as the F8F-1 goes, Design work started in Aug of 1943 and an order for two prototypes was placed Nov 27th 1943. They may not have gotten it into service/combat in WW II but it was designed with the combat experience of 1942/43 to help guide things.
The Americans may well have screwed up keeping the .50 cal as long as they did. However I was referring to the weight of the armament. If the customer (army or navy) wants 1200-1400lbs worth of guns/ammo and accessories, you are going to wind up with a a heavy fighter, there are not a lot of ways around that. Please note the US got "lucky" as they had no (or darn little) combat experience to guide them when these choices were made. The heavy armament turned out to be rather useful to the Navy later in the war when when CAP aircraft could make multiple intercepts before running low on ammo ( 700lbs of .50 cal ammo is good for something). I am not saying the multiple intercepts were always successful, I am saying the USN was not faced with the same problem as the Japanese were at Midway when the CAP planes had only limited firing time. The F6F prototypes flying within weeks of Midway, the USN design requirements were not shaped (at least very much) by Midway.
As for "Late war" fighters.
P-63A: Design work started before June 27, 1941 when the USAAF placed an order for two prototype XP-6s, this is after placing an order for 3 XP-39Es in Feb 1941 (XP-39E is P-39D fuselage with laminar flow wing)
La-7: Work started in the summer of 1943 but it was more of a product improved LA-5 than a new design and the La-5 dates from late 1941/early 1942 and is a re-engined Lagg-3.
Spitfire XIV: Much as I like the Griffon engined Spitfires it is a bit of stretch to call them "late war" even though that is when they were used. Again, an evolution aircraft rather than a new aircraft.
Yak-3U: Project canceled Oct, 1945. two 20mm cannon.
Yak-9U: Well, sort of, basic airframe and aerodynamics can be traced back to the Yak-1 (I-26) of 1939/40. the VK-107 actually dates from that era, it just took until 1944/45 to get some sort of reliability out of the engine. Russian accounts differ, One page will say problems solved another will say, it was capricious and frequently failed. While production of the engine was started in 1942 but problems were such that not only was production small in numbers during the war but production was stopped from Sept 1945 to Dec 1945 and again from April of 1946 to Oct of 1946. Plane carried one 20mm gun with 120 rounds and two 12,7mm guns with 200rpg. Not exactly first class armament in 1944/45.
Bf 109K: 7400 lbs A late war fighter? used late in the war but hardly a mid to late war design.
twin engine bombers used as "fighters" rather depends on what you mean by "fighter" or what mission it was trying to do.
Many such planes were used as night intruders or night "fighters" which means they were being used to shoot down (intercept) bombers.
Some were used for over water/maritime patrols where they could be reasonably sure they were out of range of single engine/single seat fighters.
Very few people actually tried to use converted bombers to counter single seat fighters in daylight.
One very basic problem is that bombers are not stressed to pull fighter type maneuvers or even high G turns let alone have the control response or power to permit such maneuvering.
Yes some bombers could actually loop or roll but the diameter of said loop was going to be much larger than a true fighter.
Mosquitos did shoot down a few German fighters but they generally did not go hunting for them.
As far as the F8F-1 goes, Design work started in Aug of 1943 and an order for two prototypes was placed Nov 27th 1943. They may not have gotten it into service/combat in WW II but it was designed with the combat experience of 1942/43 to help guide things.
The Americans may well have screwed up keeping the .50 cal as long as they did. However I was referring to the weight of the armament. If the customer (army or navy) wants 1200-1400lbs worth of guns/ammo and accessories, you are going to wind up with a a heavy fighter, there are not a lot of ways around that. Please note the US got "lucky" as they had no (or darn little) combat experience to guide them when these choices were made. The heavy armament turned out to be rather useful to the Navy later in the war when when CAP aircraft could make multiple intercepts before running low on ammo ( 700lbs of .50 cal ammo is good for something). I am not saying the multiple intercepts were always successful, I am saying the USN was not faced with the same problem as the Japanese were at Midway when the CAP planes had only limited firing time. The F6F prototypes flying within weeks of Midway, the USN design requirements were not shaped (at least very much) by Midway.
As for "Late war" fighters.
P-63A: Design work started before June 27, 1941 when the USAAF placed an order for two prototype XP-6s, this is after placing an order for 3 XP-39Es in Feb 1941 (XP-39E is P-39D fuselage with laminar flow wing)
La-7: Work started in the summer of 1943 but it was more of a product improved LA-5 than a new design and the La-5 dates from late 1941/early 1942 and is a re-engined Lagg-3.
Spitfire XIV: Much as I like the Griffon engined Spitfires it is a bit of stretch to call them "late war" even though that is when they were used. Again, an evolution aircraft rather than a new aircraft.
Yak-3U: Project canceled Oct, 1945. two 20mm cannon.
Yak-9U: Well, sort of, basic airframe and aerodynamics can be traced back to the Yak-1 (I-26) of 1939/40. the VK-107 actually dates from that era, it just took until 1944/45 to get some sort of reliability out of the engine. Russian accounts differ, One page will say problems solved another will say, it was capricious and frequently failed. While production of the engine was started in 1942 but problems were such that not only was production small in numbers during the war but production was stopped from Sept 1945 to Dec 1945 and again from April of 1946 to Oct of 1946. Plane carried one 20mm gun with 120 rounds and two 12,7mm guns with 200rpg. Not exactly first class armament in 1944/45.
Bf 109K: 7400 lbs A late war fighter? used late in the war but hardly a mid to late war design.
Shortround6
Major General
Did you mean the Grumman F7F Tigercat?
I never said it could.
My understanding of the Battle of the Atlantic is that it was fought by relatively small numbers of aircraft.
As I stated before, I was thinking more in terms of Operational capabilities, so really more MTO and Russia. The Germans didn't have a really good Strategic bomber nor did it pay to try to attack the integrated air defenses in Britain. I think winning wars (or doing better) in their Southern and Eastern fronts would have helped far more.
wuzak
Captain
The Spitfire 24 was post war - entered service in 1946.
The Spitfire 21 started in service in 1945, and the Spitfire 22 later that year.
In addition to the Mosquito, I was referring to for example, the Beaufighter or Ju 88C, which were used basically as long range fighters over areas beyond the range of the regular day fighters. That said, as I pointed out upthread, the Beaufighter could and did sometimes take on Zeros in the Pacific.
See, I don't really buy that. The P-39, P-40 (E or later), P-51D or later, F4F-4, F6F and F4U all basically had the same armament, six heavy machine guns (four in some variants), and yet there was quite a notable difference in weight. Yes some had more ammunition but that alone isn't enough to change the specs that much. The P-38 had 4 HMGs and 1 cannon, which really isn't that much heavier I don't think. Only the P-47 with it's 8 guns had a notably heavier armament.
P-63 wasn't on my list due to short range.
By the time you get from LaGG-3 to La 7 it's a very different aircraft.
Again, very different beast than a BoB era Spit I. Yes there were incremental changes but there were a lot of them and they certainly added up.
I didn't specify which Yak-3, but the 3U was an experimental version with a radial engine. The main variant had 1 x 20mm cannon (the excellent ShVak) with 150 rounds and 2 x 12.7mm machine guns with 170 rounds each.
It's heavy enough, being all concentrated in the nose. It was sufficient to shoot down plenty of Bf 109s, Fw 190s and a couple of Mustangs if my memory doesn't fail me. But being a light interceptor / frontal aviation type fighter, it's not meant to be carrying boxcars full of ammunition.
Again, 109K is a big difference from the Spanish Civil War era 109D
Shortround6
Major General
You are not counting the weight of the ammunition.
P-40L and early Ns had four guns and often 201rpg (why the odd round I have no idea), but ,50 cal ammo weighs about 30lbs per hundred rounds. P-38s often flew with less than full ammunition bins but they would hold 500rpg and that load was what the plane was designed for. Over 600lbs of of .50 cal ammo compared to the 240lbs of ammo in a stripper P-40.
A P-40E carried 423lbs of ammo for it's six guns.
F4F-3 had 4 guns with 430rpg, f4F-4 had six guns with 240rpg.
P-39s had 200-215rpg for the ,50sin the cowl and up to 1000rpg for the .30s in the wings although 300rpg was a more common load. P-39s with .50 cal guns in the wing pods had 300rpg for each under wing gun.
The FM-2 Wildcat reverted to four guns with 430rpg so the F6F was carrying roughly 50% more weight in guns and ammo. AHT says 433 lbs for the guns in the F6F and 720lbs for the ammo.
P-51Ds had 400rpg for the inboard guns and 270rpg for the outer guns.
just counting gun barrels doesn't tell the whole story.
BTW Japanese/Italian 12.7mm ammo was about 6.5lbs per hundred lighter than American 12.7mm ammo.
20mm ammo varies from a low of 163 grams per loaded round (not shell) to a high of 290 grams per loaded round or 100 rounds of the heaviest is 28bs heavier than 100 rounds of the lightest. Russian 20mm ammo is about 183 grams per round, Hispano ammo is about 257 grams per round. This does not include links.
They changed the airfoil?
They changed the wing area?
They changed the plan form?
They changed the fuselage from the cockpit back?
They made major changes to the landing gear?
Sorry, not buying it.
Japanese shot down planes with a pair of .303/7.7mm. doesn't mean it was world class armament does it?
Russians had problems with engine power. they were forced to use small fighters with light armament to keep performance up and use many of them to get enough guns/ammo into the air. We are also back to the nose mounted armament somehow being a magical scheme that negates poor guns sights, poor training and poor or mismatched ballistics.
Of the WW II fighters only the P-39s with 20mm guns and the P-38 really had ballistically matched nose guns, at least at most realistic air to air ranges.
Yeah but we are talking about a difference of a few hundred pounds here, not 5,000 lbs. And as we know from many previous disscussions, the stripped down P-40s were only a few hundred planes for a few months, once the German - Italian fighter threat subsisded a bit they went back to 6 guns. They could put in more or less guns and more or less ammunition as they needed to. And the difference as you noted is ~200 lbs for ammo, maybe another ~100 or so for the guns.
Well lets see. They made the LaGG-3 mostly out of laminated birchbark plywood to save on duralumin (or whatever the Russians called their alloy). By the time you get to the La 7 they were no longer so short on Strategic metals so the La 7 had wings and fuselage much made more of metal alloy - including metal wing spars.
They cut down the back turtle deck of the fuselage yes, and made the La 7 have a kind of bubble cockpit.
They did a lot of little things like vastly improving the gunsight and cockpit controls, moving control surface balances inside the fuselage etc., which all add up.
Whereas the armament of the LaGG -3 ended up at 1 cannon and 1 HMG, the La 7 had three 20mm cannon, all in the nose.
Aside from the metal spars, the wing was also changed by the addition of intake ducts in the wing roots
The aircraft was better streamlined, the fuselage was thinner, and it has a fully retractable tail wheel.
The engine went from in-line to a fuel injected radial and increased by 700 hp
Empty weight increased by 1,000 lbs and gross weight of the aircraft increased by almost 2,000 lbs.
Maybe you aren't trying hard enough?
Well, we have had this debate before a few times. The idea of 'moving mud', that all you need to win is heavier ordinance, doesn't wash for me. We have discussed this with bombers and with fighters. To me the proof is in the pudding. The Soviet fighters made after 1943 were not suffering appalling losses - the guys flying the Yak 3s and the La 7s weren't being wiped out like those poor guys flying the original LaGG-3s. And we all know that very heavily armed Hawker Hurricanes were no match for nimble, lightly armed Ki-43s. And circling back to the subject of the thread, very heavily armed Bf 110s and Me 210s were basically dead meat up against Spitfires. It's all about striking a balance between accuracy, agility, and firepower.
The engine on the La 5FN and the La 7 was producing between 1,850 and 1960 hp, I would say that is plenty. Everyone had problems with engine development, and I know you want to argue that the Soviets made light aircraft because they sucked at engines, I think they did it at least partly because the light interceptor / frontal aviation type fighter was ideal for their actual needs. As I pointed out before, they were offered P-47s and could have had them, probably without cost, but they rejected them. They weren't suitable for their tactical environment, even though you might think the P-47 was vastly better than a Yak 3 or an La 7, the Soviets definitely didn't.
I think three 20mm guns in the nose of a fighter hits pretty hard, call me crazy.
wuzak
Captain
All firing through the propeller, reducing rate of fire.
Also had less muzzle velocity than the Hispano II (790m/s for HE round vs 860m/s), lower projectile weight (95g vs 130g) and lower HE content (6g vs 8g).
The Russian 20mm cannons had higher rate of fire than the Hispano II (13rps vs 10rps), but this would reduce when firing through the propeller.
The Russian 20mm cannons had about 1/2 the power of the Hispano II.
Data from WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS
