Me262 vs. P-80 (2 Viewers)

[Lightning Guy]

I've never been a fan of the WWII 30mm weapons in a dogfight for all of the reasons that have been mentioned.

One thing that worked against the P-80 is the realtively low ammo load. At 1200rpm, 200 rounds of ammo will only last 10secs. That being said, the combat endurance of the P-80 would be relatively low and the pilot would need to be an accurate shooter to get the most out of his ammo.

 

[Anonymous]

Ur not taking into account the accuracy of the certain pilot.. U know as well as I do that some pilots had a much higher accuracy rating than some others....

I have seen, as Im sure u have seen, movie clips of guys placing a 30mm shell right into the sweet spot at 300 meters.....

Those stats u put up are nice for a generic look, but to get into a detailed conversation, those #'s dont help much.... We all know that a .50 cal fired faster and had a higher probability of hitting..... Anything else is pumping sunshine up our asses, cause individual accuracy and combat experience change those #'s dramatically in certain circumstances....

BUT....... Ur point is well-recieved... Ud be better off by far with the .50's over the cannons, in a dogfight...

Actually, I am taking into consideration pilot skill. To be specific, US fighter gunnery school instructors asserted that increasing the velocity (through its entire path of flight) of a weapon by 25% would increase the number of hits scored by 50%. This was in fact verfied by using different ammo propellant loadings in tests using both instructors and gunnery school graduates (i.e. rookies) making attack passes at towed banner targets (which dodge some by virtue of pull cables from the towing plane). The German's and the British both conducted similar tests and came up with the figure of a 1/3rd increase doubling the number of expected hits. Use either figure you like, the differential is huge when we are talking about one gun firing with more than double the velocity (through the flight of the round) than the other. The whole "skill" of the pilot issue is mute, the analysis says that any given pilot will score thus many more hits given greater weapon velocity. If he's a bad shot, he will do a little better but still be bad relative to other pilots. If he's a good shot, he will score even better.

As far as individual pilots landing a 30mm in the sweet spot from 300 meters... first off can you reference this? A single shot, not after a lot of misses please. Secondly, guncam film of this nature is not really meaningful even if it does exist, as you don't see anything but guncam footage showing successes.

I'll also point out that this all considers the unusual case of "mutually aware" combat. It must be remembered that something around 90% of fighter pilots who survived being shot down reported they never saw the plane that shot them down or never saw it until they'd already taken hits. On the otherhand, by 1945 US fighters had warning radars, and I would assume German planes would have had these too. So the sneak attack so favored by Galland and most other top aces of the earlier years of the war were not so easily accomplished in 1945.

Another factor I left out was the difference in gunsights. The US (and British) fighters had the lead computing gunsights, the German's were working on one but had not accomplished a successful design by the end of the war. Assuming they had not, you can double the difference again, in which case the P-80 would enjoy at least another 2:1 better chance of scoring hits.

After thinking about it I need to revise my statement. The difference in volume of fire accounts for about a doubling of the number of expected hits when the pilot's aim is on target. The rest of the factors tend more to influence weather hits will be scored at all. So revising my analysis, all other things being equal (which they're not because the P-80 is more manuverable and a more stable gun platform) you'd expect the P-80 pilots to score at least twice as many hits when they do score (probably more because of the "fly between the shots" factor), and to score hits between 7-10 times more often than the 262 pilot assuming the 262 has a lead computing sight. If the 262 only has a reflector sight then the P-80 is again around 14-20 times more likely to score hits.

Finally, none of this applies for a point-blank shot. If you can get a shot within 100 feet or so of the target, you are extremely likely to hit it regaurdless of gun type. But, in high speed mutually aware combat, espeically at jet speeds, such shots are extremely rare.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DaveB.inVa]

Heres an excellent page for this discussion of firepower. Since the P-80 isnt listed on this page refer to the P-51 as both have 6 .50 caliber Brownings.
Note however that this list only incorporates kenetic energy (1/2mv^2) not whether the rounds are explosive, incendiary etc. The 6 .50s can be seen to almost equal the kenetic energy provided by the 4 30mms in the 262. The 6 .50s spread this level of KE over more rounds though! More rounds flying faster means a greater chance of a hit. This is inherently why the .50 Browning is a better choice for a dogfighting gun than the MK108.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-fi.html

 

[Anonymous]

Here is my gun page... well sorta. It was up for a long time and then I moved and my webspace got cleared out. Somewhere in there I lost the source directory and had to recreate the page to re-post it. I only did this for the tables, so much of the text is missing. I'll have to fix it soon, after I'm done reading "Flying Guns of WWII" I think.

http://members.cox.net/rg_lunatic/gunpage/

Note I've since come up with more info, such as that the Hispano HE/I carried 11.5 grams of chemical payload, and that the muzzel velocity figures for the BMG are at 78 feet and the Hispano are at 90 feet (where Germans are calculated at the actual muzzel). But even so, look at the Estimated Ballistics Data table and consider the range at which the round goes below 1.5 mach and where it goes sub-sonic. These are good indicators of the relative effective range of each gun.

My new page will contain a lot more info.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[lesofprimus]

All your typing and info and stats are all great, but my grandfather flew in WWII and was a pretty good shot... He knew some guys who couldnt shoot a Betty outta the sky, let alone a Zero.... If one pilot can fire 50 rounds of .50 cal and get 10 hits, and another pilot can blow off 500 rounds of .50 and get 10 hits, i think that difference is HUGE.....

The whole "skill" of the pilot issue is mute.

Thats a load of crap....

As far as individual pilots landing a 30mm in the sweet spot from 300 meters... first off can you reference this? A single shot, not after a lot of misses please.

Reference??? No..... But i do specifically recall seeing a certain video clip where an Fw-190A-8 comes up, u see the bracketing of the smaller MG's, then 3-4 cannon rounds that strike the fuselage, no misses.... The bomber rolls off to the left and starts breaking up....

 

[GermansRGeniuses]

I've never been a fan of the WWII 30mm weapons in a dogfight for all of the reasons that have been mentioned.

One thing that worked against the P-80 is the realtively low ammo load. At 1200rpm, 200 rounds of ammo will only last 10secs. That being said, the combat endurance of the P-80 would be relatively low and the pilot would need to be an accurate shooter to get the most out of his ammo.

But then again...



Say it gets ten hits on a fighter's wing, those ten hits (ten rounds) will do much more damage than ten round from the Mustang's guns, in the same place, on the same wing, even though they had the same guns...


Why?


Concentration of the six guns is a lot better for stopping power than the spread out layout on the P-51...



That being said, there is a bit of a counterbalance for the low ammo count...

 

[Anonymous]

Look, the skill issue is mute because no matter the pilot, he will do better with the higher velocity guns (all other factors being equal). If he's a crappy shot, he's a crappy shot, but he will still do better.

Or are you arguing that Axis pilots were just better shots than allied pilots? If so that is pure crap.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Anonymous]

I've never been a fan of the WWII 30mm weapons in a dogfight for all of the reasons that have been mentioned.

One thing that worked against the P-80 is the realtively low ammo load. At 1200rpm, 200 rounds of ammo will only last 10secs. That being said, the combat endurance of the P-80 would be relatively low and the pilot would need to be an accurate shooter to get the most out of his ammo.

You are right. 200 rpg in the M3 provide a mere ten seconds of fire. On the other hand, 100 rpg in the MK108 provide.... TEN SECONDS OF FIRE! I didn't mention ammo loads because in this respect, the two planes are equal, both have identical fire times (actually the 262 a little less since 2 of its guns only have 8 seconds of fire).

=S=

Lunatic

 

[GermansRGeniuses]

Look, the skill issue is mute because no matter the pilot, he will do better with the higher velocity guns (all other factors being equal). If he's a crappy shot, he's a crappy shot, but he will still do better.

Or are you arguing that Axis pilots were just better shots than allied pilots? If so that is pure crap.

=S=

Lunatic

Actually, the thing about the pilots isn't entirely true...


I happen to be quite the pilot in flight sims, but my aim is ATROCIOUS!

 

[Anonymous]

Look, the skill issue is mute because no matter the pilot, he will do better with the higher velocity guns (all other factors being equal). If he's a crappy shot, he's a crappy shot, but he will still do better.

Or are you arguing that Axis pilots were just better shots than allied pilots? If so that is pure crap.

=S=

Lunatic

Actually, the thing about the pilots isn't entirely true...


I happen to be quite the pilot in flight sims, but my aim is ATROCIOUS!

You should come fly with me in FighterAce sometime. There is a free 2 week trial, let me know if you're interested.

In FA we have "padlock view", which basically lockes your eyes onto the target from the cockpit view. In the upper level rooms, cockpit views are the only flyng views you get. It is very interesting to see just how much harder it is to score hits from the cockpit view than from the bogus "front view" most sims provide.

This is one reason why I think the "nose guns are better" argument is bunk for single engin props. In a single engine prop, espeically one with the gun mounted to fire through the spinner, it is impossible to cant the guns upwards very much. In wing gun armed planes, like the P-51, this was easily done. So in a nose gun armed plane, you must pull more effective lead to hit your target, and when you do, espeically when up close, you cannot see the target under the nose (and a good foe knows this and will barrel roll onto your six right at the instant you loose sight of him). With wing guns, you don't have to pull quite so much lead.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[GermansRGeniuses]

True, but as I said, the resulting damage is less.

 

[Anonymous]

True, but as I said, the resulting damage is less.

Well of course it is. The issue is can you score a hit with the thing, and the answer is "only if you are both very skilled AND very lucky".

Mounting a 75mm semi-auto cannon on your fighter would give even more hitting power... but the odds you could land a shot would be practically nil, so what does it matter? The same is true of the MK108 armament on the 262 vs the .50's on the P-80, the MK108 is almost that bad.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[GermansRGeniuses]

We're both forgetting something that partially ends this argument...


The K-14 lead computing gunsight!

 

[DaveB.inVa]

Dogfighting with a big heavy cannon is akin to going bird hunting with a deer rifle! You might get a hit in somewhere, and when you do you can be pretty sure its a kill, but the chances of that happening are low. Using a shotgun you put a good spread out there. Sure a lot of the pellets are going to miss, but youve got a lot more in the air so youve got more chances for a hit. Thats why you go bird hunting with a shotgun.

If both pilots are average then Id put my money on the guy with the highest rate of fire. You might have one guy whos God's gift to cockpit and can throw 30mm all day with excellent accuracy, but thats just one guy. There are a lot more average joes out there, and for the average joe Id go with the .50.

 

[Anonymous]

We're both forgetting something that partially ends this argument...


The K-14 lead computing gunsight!

I factored that in as typically doubling the chances of scoring on a given shot.

Also, it should be noted that while the K-14 was a huge leap forward in gunsights, it also had some issues. Most significantly, it could not be used while engaging in harsh aerobatics, in particular hard rolls. In fact, right on the base of the gunsight in large print is "CAGE ALL GYROS BEFORE ENGAGING IN AEROBATICS". Before executing such a manuver, the pilot had to "cage" the gyros. If he did this, the sight became a fixed reflector sight, if he failed to so, it would proably blow a circuit and he'd have no gunsight at all! The K-14 was excellent for longer shots, but if it got into a turn-n-burn duel, then it had to be flipped to the caged mode before every hard roll, and probably the pilot would not flip it back on unless there was a period of seperation. If it weren't for this requirement, I'd probably have given the K-14 a 4x factor rather than a 2x factor.

The K-14 really came into its own in the A-4 version during the Korean war, which used a radar ranger instead of the pilot twisting a ranging handle to bracket the target. This probably increased the odds of scoring hits by another order of magnitude. However it still had to be caged in hard rolls.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Anonymous]

Dogfighting with a big heavy cannon is akin to going bird hunting with a deer rifle! You might get a hit in somewhere, and when you do you can be pretty sure its a kill, but the chances of that happening are low. Using a shotgun you put a good spread out there. Sure a lot of the pellets are going to miss, but youve got a lot more in the air so youve got more chances for a hit. Thats why you go bird hunting with a shotgun.

Your analogy misses the velocity difference. The deer rifle at least has good velocity. I think the better comparison would be a colt .45 vs. an semi-auto 20 gauge shotgun firing birdshot. If you're shooting at Ostridges (bombers), the .45 might actually be better than the shotgun, but if your shooting at flying ducks (fighters), the shotgun is clearly much better.

If both pilots are average then Id put my money on the guy with the highest rate of fire. You might have one guy whos God's gift to cockpit and can throw 30mm all day with excellent accuracy, but thats just one guy. There are a lot more average joes out there, and for the average joe Id go with the .50.

Greater RoF is nice, or more appropriately "volume of fire" (which accounts for all guns), but velocity is also important. The .50's on the P-80 had the significant advantage in both these aspects, while the Mk108 certainly had the advantage in hitting power (but also remember 1 in 4 rounds were duds).

Even the great shot is not going to hit many ducks with that .45, and he's certainly going to hit a lot more with the 20 gauge in any event right?

=S=

Lunatic

 

[kiwimac]

There can be no doubt that IF a pilot can hit an enemy aircraft with his guns, a higher calibre weapon will do more damage BUT there is a lot of pilot skill there too.

Erich Hartmann managed to shoot down a Sturmovik on ONE occasion with a single well placed shot, Von Richthofen in WW1 managed the same feat ONCE.

No matter the size of the weapon skill plays an emormous part.

Kiwimac

 

[Anonymous]

There can be no doubt that IF a pilot can hit an enemy aircraft with his guns, a higher calibre weapon will do more damage BUT there is a lot of pilot skill there too.

Erich Hartmann managed to shoot down a Sturmovik on ONE occasion with a single well placed shot, Von Richthofen in WW1 managed the same feat ONCE.

No matter the size of the weapon skill plays an emormous part.

Kiwimac

But that is really not the kind of combat we are talking about. Remember, something like 90% of actual kills, especially early in the war, were scored against an enemy who never saw the attacker. This is espeically true of the high German kill tallies early in the war and even moreso on the E. Front. I believe somewhere Hartmann (or one of the other very high scoring German aces on the E. Front) is even quoted as saying something to the effect "if they saw me, I'd just fly away and seek another target". In these instances, the attacker usually attacks from above and behind, sweeps down to the low six position of his target, from which he cannot be seen, closes in to a range of less than 100 meters, and opens up with a carefully placed shot.

By 1945 this type of kill was not very common. Most of the pilots were well trained (at least on the Allied side) and also the US (and some British) planes had tail warning radars to prevent such attacks. Also, early war planes tended to have poor visability to start with, by the end of the war, especially for most allied fighters, this was no longer the case.

The surprise bounce attack really has to be discounted from this type of discussion. Any plane that is fast enough to catch its target at its cruise speed can achieve such a kill with almost any armament. It is the mutually aware engagement that we are discussing right?

=S=

Luntatic

 

[delcyros]

Great site! This is my first post, so lets go!
1.) Armament of Me-262 A1(b) also include some 12-24 R4M unguided air-to-air missiles (they are missing). But of course they do not contribute much to an arial jet dogfight.
The general weapon layout of the P-80 with .50 M3 is well suited for high speed dogfights, even the .50 M2 would have done very well. (I didn´t noticed that .50 M3 have been fielded in P-80A prior to early 1947, so I would really like to read some references about that)
2.) Me-262 has a higher critical mach speed (0.86 after calculations of Messerschmidt) thanks to its swept back wings with high aspect ratio.
Some pilots praise its exceptionally good high speed handlings (E. Rudorffer to name one) compared to Bf-109 and Fw-190. It could outdive the P-80 anytime. (but a terminal Dive remains a problem for the Me-262 because the P-80 has some nice air-brakes..)
3.) Acceleration and wingload makes me think the P-80 is probably the better dogfighter.
4.) Fall 1945? Well, there are some Me-262 developments to take notice of: HG I (V 09 prototype) was flown (35 degrees wing inlay, flat canopy, new tail design) and HG II (yeah, new 35 degrees swept back wing!) completed in february ´45 (it was never flown, thanks to an ground accident). And I´m not talking about HG III...
Conclusion: I have not voted for now, but I think that the P-80 is a better dogfighter than the Me-262 A1, so more and more jet vs. jet dogfights would probably result in american victories. Just for fun.

 

[KraziKanuK]

Actually the P-80 and 262 did have a fly off. This was post war out of Wright Field. Al Boyd was the pilot in charge. The results (speed, RoC at different altitudes, turn radius) were so in favour of the 262 that the report was suppressed.

The M3 did not do that well in Korea vs the MiG15.