Me109F vs Spitfire MkV

[Glider]

If it helps the following may be of interest

MG151 20mm 12 RPS, Projectile Weight 92gm, MV 800 m/s, 22% HE Content

Hispano II 10RPS, Projectile Weight 130gm, MV 860 m/s, 8% HE content

.5 M2 13RPS, Projectile weight 43gm, MV 890 ms, 2% HE content

These were two of the most powerful 20mm in the war and I included the 50 M2 as a comparison.
To be honest they balance each other out. One has a faster ROF and a bigger punch when it arrives. The other has a much larger projectile and a higher MV. The difference would be minimal.

Hope this helps

 

[Gemhorse]

''Blacktank'' forgets who finally won the War, and it wasn't Messerschmitts' with a nose full big guns.........

Gemhorse

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That is for sure....

 

[Gemhorse]

The real point I feel, is that to a great degree, it was the pilot's ability that counted....Germany's pilots were taught by more experienced chaps that had already been 'blooded' in Spain and the following European conflicts, and were thus very confident, like Galland, for example....

Erwin Leykauf was a Leutnant with JG.54 in 1940, ending the War an Oberleutnant, credited with 33 victories....His comments of those earlier days leaves one in no doubt that he mastered his Messerschmitt, and was always able to out-turn Spitfires...a controversial point, but he shot-down 6 of them, and as he says, ''One had to enter the turn correctly, then open-up the engine - it was a matter of feel...'' He also comments that REAL manoeuvring only started when the wing-slots banged out in the Messerschmitt...younger pilots didn't always get the hang of those....

He also points out that Spitfires became much harder to tackle low-level when we clipped the wings, as the 109E was...And the 109F had rounded-tips by then, up against the Mk.V's, [not Mk.I's II's], alot with the clipped wings and the other new mods....

Both were fine aircraft, [that's why we're all talking about them 60 years later,] but I feel there were those pilots also, on both sides, that became intuitively-connected to their machines, and were able to get the best from them in combat.....

Gemhorse

 

[Lunatic]

If it helps the following may be of interest

MG151 20mm 12 RPS, Projectile Weight 92gm, MV 800 m/s, 22% HE Content

Hispano II 10RPS, Projectile Weight 130gm, MV 860 m/s, 8% HE content

.5 M2 13RPS, Projectile weight 43gm, MV 890 ms, 2% HE content

These were two of the most powerful 20mm in the war and I included the 50 M2 as a comparison.
To be honest they balance each other out. One has a faster ROF and a bigger punch when it arrives. The other has a much larger projectile and a higher MV. The difference would be minimal.

Hope this helps

That is inaccurate info. The MV of the MG151/20 mine rounds was 750-765 m/s. HE content was 18 grams, 2.5 grams of which were elektron (aluminum/magnesium). 18/92 = 19.6%. (this figure varies a little but not too much).

The Hispano HE/I round had a MV of 867 m/s measured 90 feet from the barrel. This means it was about 890 m/s measured at the muzzle (as the German figure is calculated). It carried between 11 and 13 grams of HE material, or about 10%.

However, the % is meaningless. What is meaningful is how much HE was delivered. The Hispano carried 72% as much HE/I as did the MG151/20.

Another significant factor is the ballistic properties. The Hispano has a better shape, having a much pointier nose (it's flat fuse area is half the diameter of that of the mine round), and its sectional density is up around 4.1 as compared to about 2.6 grams/sq-mm. The SD figure alone means the Hispano round will decelerate less than 2/3rds as quickly as the mine round, and that does not even account for its superior ballistic shape.

As for the .50 round, you've mixed up the figures. The actual weight of the M8 API round (1943-44) was 44.5 grams, ~1.4 grams of which was IM11 incendiary metal composition (Magnesium+Aluminum+Barium Nitrate). Velocity was about 915 m/s at the barrel (official figures are measured at 70 feet). Mid-1944 production was switched to a moly-steel carbide penetrator and the IM11 was reduced to .9 grams but most of what was used during WWII was the tungston carbide penetrator type. The figures you've given seem to be the M8 round at the M2 (
Ball) velocity, corrected to the muzzel (this velocity figure is pretty common).

The .50 also had much superior ballistic shape. Even with its inferor 3.83 SD figure, it still lost 20% less velocity at 2000 feet than did the Hispano 20mm. So it looses its velocity less than half as fast as the MG151/20 mine round! Anyone who has shot skeet will realize that a 1/3rd is extremely significant, and a 50% loss of velocity is HUGE! Factoring in the ~20% inferior initial velocity and the huge loss in velocity w.r.t. range, hitting an evading fighter target with a single MG151/20 vs. 2 x Hispanos or 6 x .50's was several orders of magnitude more difficult.

Overall, I think it is clear that the Hispano was the superior weapon. Certainly it was for fighter vs. fighter combat, and it was probably better for knocking down bombers too.

=S=

Lunatic

PS: I don't have all my data de-archived onto this laptop yet so please excuse the lack of exact figures.

 

[Glider]

Lunatic
My scources have the MV of the mine round as 800 m/sec but the MV of the HET round as being 720M/S which is closer to what you are quoting. Could that be the confusion?

As for the Hispanio the difference between 860 and 867 m/s MV is nothing and could easily be different guns of the same batch. Auto weapons of this type could vary by up to 15% in ROF and mass produced ammo could easily make up the difference in MV.

As for the range issue this is in most cases irrelevent as the chances of an average pilot hitting anything at much over 200 yard was slim and at that range they are all effective.

As for the .50 I accept your more detailed notes but the point is still the same. The 50 M2 was underpowered compared to either of the 20mm.

Had the USA gone against planes such as the B17 with .50 they would have had a very hard time of it.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am sure though that they would have used different weapons if they had had to go up against aircraft like the Fortress.

 

[Glider]

I agree. If we were able to work the bugs out of the 20mm I am sure that the USA could

 

[Lunatic]

Lunatic
My scources have the MV of the mine round as 800 m/sec but the MV of the HET round as being 720M/S which is closer to what you are quoting. Could that be the confusion?

I don't think so. I just got this laptop and internet connection in the last week. I've not had time to unarchive the cd I made from my desktop.

This is a topic I've studied a great deal. I'm pretty sure the best 20mm mine round had a velocity of 765 m/s. Most sources quote 750 m/s. The ShVAK velocity is typically quoted as 800 m/s, though 785 m/s is more accurate. The MG151/20 API round velocity was down around 730 m/s.

As for the Hispano the difference between 860 and 867 m/s MV is nothing and could easily be different guns of the same batch. Auto weapons of this type could vary by up to 15% in ROF and mass produced ammo could easily make up the difference in MV.

Well, the guns tended to loose MV and gain ROF with age as the springs wore, but unit to unit performance variation was small for new guns. In any case, the real point I was making is that the German figures are at the muzzle, where the US/GB figures are at 70/90 feet from the muzzle. Thus to get an accurate comparison you need to index the US/GB figures back to the muzzle (which I've done on my gun page but cannot remember the link )

As for the range issue this is in most cases irrelevent as the chances of an average pilot hitting anything at much over 200 yard was slim and at that range they are all effective.

I disagree. Effective range for a single MG151/20 vs. a fighter target seems to have been less than 150 meters, with point blank being the norm. For a pair of Hispano's (Spitfire) it seems to have been about 200 meters, and for 6 x .50's about 350 meters. The British/US fighters had longer range because their gun ballistics were better and they mounted more guns.

Once the Ferranti sight came into use for the Brits in late 1943 and for the P-51's in late Spring 1944 the effective ranges increased significantly. Even had the German's had such a sight it would likely not have significantly increased their effective range because of the gun performance.

I know of at least one instance where a P-47 with K14 gunsight killed several 109's at ranges exceeding 800 yards. And he knew the range as it is displayed via the ranging knob. The 109's thought he was out of range and the first didn't even try to evade.

As for the .50 I accept your more detailed notes but the point is still the same. The 50 M2 was underpowered compared to either of the 20mm.

Certainly the 20mm pack a lot more punch. But against fighter targets the .50's did fairly well. There is a huge advantage to 4800 rpm (6 x .50) vs. 1200 rpm (2 x Hispano II) or 730 rpm (1 x MG151/20). Even a few .50 hits were likely to seriously hurt a 109. Also there is an advantage in being able to feel your way to the target, firing at longer range and working the guns onto the target. And, the .50's carried a lot more ammo than the 20mm's giving the shooter more trigger time.

Had the USA gone against planes such as the B17 with .50 they would have had a very hard time of it.

Again I'm not so sure of this. Anyone who has any experience with firing a .50 at vehicles can just imagine what 8 x .50's would do to the wing of a B-17. My guess is that a P-47 would take down a B-17 in one or two passes. In a frontal attack it could start firing for effect at 3000 feet and unleash a hell of a lot of API into the target. The odds of starting a fire would also be extremely good.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[lesofprimus]

Anyone who has any experience with firing a .50 at vehicles can just imagine what 8 x .50's would do to the wing of a B-17.

I can vouch for this....

Effective range for a single MG151/20 vs. a fighter target seems to have been less than 150 meters, with point blank being the norm. For a pair of Hispano's (Spitfire) it seems to have been about 200 meters, and for 6 x .50's about 350 meters. The British/US fighters had longer range because their gun ballistics were better and they mounted more guns.

Those distances match mine.... Agreed 100%....

Even had the German's had such a sight it would likely not have significantly increased their effective range because of the gun performance.

This is true....

I think the whole "this armament is better" agrument comes down to personal prefrences... Which would u rather have for fighter vs fighter/fighter vs bomber????

We've gone round and round on this one, as u all know.... They've been arguing about it since the 40's....

"And the winner is..........."

Pfffftttt.....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Anyone who has any experience with firing a .50 at vehicles can just imagine what 8 x .50's would do to the wing of a B-17.

I can vouch for this....

As can I.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

There were still Fs in Service in 1945. Hell there were still E's in Service in 1945 believe it or not.

Were the E's in front-line service?

Ive done some research on this subject and have come up with some squadrons that still used some older versions and when and where they were when still in Luftwaffe Service.

Bf-109D: 3/JG 52 in Roth, Holland 1940
Bf-109D: 10N/JG 77 in Norway 1940
Bf-109D-2: Fighter Trainer School - 1942
Bf-109D: Croatian Fighter Training School - 1942

Bf-109E-4/B Trop - III/SKG 210 Lybia - 1942
Bf-109E-4 - 13 Slovak Squadron - 1944
Bf-109E-7/B II/SG-1 Stalingrad Russia - 1943


Later in 1944 and 1945 Bf-109E's were pretty much removed from most front line units and replaced by Bf-109G's after they had already been replaced by 109F's however there were still some to be found. I am searching for a picture of one that I have of a 109E-7 dated 1944 still in an operational unit on the East Front.

 

[Lunatic]

I agree. If we were able to work the bugs out of the 20mm I am sure that the USA could

Actually the USA was surprisingly inept at bring larger caliber aircraft guns on line. None of the many projects during WWII bore fruit. Even the Hispano variants had many problems mostly because of what can only be considered pure ineptitude at the ordinance department.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Glider]

Lunatic. This may be of interest. Its has a lot of info about aircraft weapons and what little I knew matched it. His assumptions are explained and whilst I don't agree with all of them. At least he isn't afraid to explain them so you can make your own mind up.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

As for the USA with the 20mm, if you asked us nicely I am sure that we would have helped.

Les
As for your last question 'and the winner is?' its the Hispano V. But you wouldn't expect me to say anything else!!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Nice charts there on that site.

 

[lesofprimus]

Les
As for your last question 'and the winner is?' its the Hispano V. But you wouldn't expect me to say anything else!!

I would have NEVER expected anything less from u or the British contingent track.....

As for the USA with the 20mm, if you asked us nicely I am sure that we would have helped.

Just like u helped us when we asked for directions on how to make fish and chips???

 

[Lunatic]

Lunatic. This may be of interest. Its has a lot of info about aircraft weapons and what little I knew matched it. His assumptions are explained and whilst I don't agree with all of them. At least he isn't afraid to explain them so you can make your own mind up.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

LOL - I have two of Tony's books and am a member on his forum. Get his book "Flying Guns of WWII" and you will see that his figures match my figures pretty closely, except where he's generalized too much (he does not go into the different .50 variants very deeply).

I don't know where he comes up with the figures in that chart. The do not match even his own figuers in his book. The following page has very detailed info taken from actual documented gun tests conducted by the Soviets:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Base/1852/

Unfortunately this page is down for bandwidth right now. When it comes up search it very carefully and save each page you visit that has info you want. It may take several visits to find the relevant data. Somewhere on this site is a page showing cutaways of the various mine rounds and giving the actual tested figures. I believe the 765 m/s figure is even the "best of X rounds tested", as many of the figures on this page are. When I get a few hours spare time I'll de-archive the CD I made of my desktop PC onto this laptop and find the sources and post them. I'm pretty sure those links and info are on this site somewhere in a gun related topic.

The problem is that Tony seems to think every plane was a flying tank and that if you didn't kill it in one or two hits your guns were worthless. The reality is that American planes tended to be tougher than their German counter-parts, and German 13mm guns were rather weak so there is no good way to compare things from actual historic data. Tony and Emannual like cannon, and often point to post-war data to justify their WWII assertions. However, jets are a lot tougher targets than props and post-WWII cannon and ammuntition was superior to its WWII counterparts.

Again, there is no doubt that on a hit for hit basis the 20mm are far more powerful than the .50's. But it is questionable whether one Hs.II round is superior to four .50 rounds (based on RoF of 1 x Hs.II vs. 3 x .50's). Assuming from a given firing solution that 33% of the rounds hit, which would you rather have? To me, scoring 1-2 .50 hits is far better than missing with the Hispano 8)

As for the USA with the 20mm, if you asked us nicely I am sure that we would have helped.

The British did help. But British technical drawings were... not very good. The whole British production methodology allowed for a lot of hand craftsmenship. British hispanos did not enjoy good parts enterchangability. The USA took the design given by the British and screwed it up further, following the diagrams exactly which gave too large a chamber clearence resulting in the firing pins not reliably striking the primers on the shells. The british tightened this clearance up but not until after they delivered the drawings. Furthermore, the US considered the 20mm a cannon, and built it according to artillery tolerances rather than rifle tolerances, causing even more slop resulting in an unreliable gun. Eventually these problems were worked out, but not until the war was nearly over.

Even the British Hispano was not very reliable by US standards. Early models were notorious for jamming, and even toward the end of the war the jam rate never got below 1:1500 rounds. At the start of the War the .50 jam rate was 1:4000 rounds. This is why the Spitfires carried a pair of .50's as backups until the last year of the war.

Les
As for your last question 'and the winner is?' its the Hispano V. But you wouldn't expect me to say anything else!!

Well, there is a down side to the Hispano - It was a large and heavy gun requirning a very sturdy mount. The Spitfire had trouble mounting it since it required 3 mounting points and relies on those mounts for structural ridgity. If they flex too much the gun will jam. This required serious redesign of the Spitfire wing. Furthermore the recoil is severe and this tends to reduce gun accuracy.

In my opinion, for a Fightger vs. Fighter gun the clear WWII winner was the Soviet B20. This gun was light, had a high RoF (800 rpm), fair velocity (800-850 m/s), the explosive rounds carried up to about 7 grams of HE, and it had good reliability. A P-51 could easily have mounted six B20's with 300 rpg, and that would have been awsome fire power!

Against bombers... well it's hard to argue against the MK108!

=S=

Lunatic

 

[schwarzpanzer]

''Blacktank'' forgets who finally won the War

No he doesn't Gemhorse! - Who was it again?

I agree. If we were able to work the bugs out of the 20mm I am sure that the USA could

But they couldn't!

They had the .50, we didn't etc.

Also there is an advantage in being able to feel your way to the target, firing at longer range and working the guns onto the target.

The 20mm of the 109 had further range than the M2HB.

A tactic used was to stand-off from the B17's (sans escorts!) lobbing cannon rounds.

The 20mm German round is used in high-end modern sniper rifles, I doubt it was so bad.

Anyone who has any experience with firing a .50 at vehicles can just imagine what 8 x .50's would do to the wing of a B-17.

With API yes, but not without.

As for the USA with the 20mm, if you asked us nicely I am sure that we would have helped.

Just like u helped us when we asked for directions on how to make fish and chips???

Or the Merlin, radar etc

The USA took the design given by the British and screwed it up further, following the diagrams exactly which gave too large a chamber clearence resulting in the firing pins not reliably striking the primers on the shells.

The M3A1 Grease Gun had a great feature in this area, superb design!

Or was it the Sterling SMG?

The point about the armament is, in theory, the nose-mounted cannon was best.

However for an inexperienced or fatigued pilot, wing armament was better.

In fact the whole planes were like that.

The Spit pilot were usually green or knackered, so the Spit was better with its armament and wide-track landing gear.

What I'm unsure about is the 109's suitability, I feel that Brit pilots were just as experienced?

Against bombers... well it's hard to argue against the MK108!

What about the MK103, MK213 and R4M?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

With API yes, but not without.

Why would you need that? The cowlings on the engines were actually pretty thin and regular 50 cal ammo will pierce through eneogh armour to take out a B-17's engines and even its wings.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

I was thinking about the Incendiary part, for the fuel tanks.

I think normal rounds have less range?

IIRC the .50 was developed from a Boys-type anti-tank rifle round?