Yeah that is a spammer, f*ck off retard.
Most Devastating Attacker
- Thread starter Soundbreaker Welch?
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
I would love to see the backup that shows an FW 190 with a 4000 lb bomb load. Anyway throw weight of 8 50 cal MGs on P47=12.72 lb/sec. Throw weight of 4-20mm cannon on F4U1C= 11.60 lb/sec. Throw weight of F6F5 with mix 2-20mm cannon, 4-50cal mg=12.16lb?sec. Not much to choose from there. There were 200 F4U1Cs made in WW2 and 297 F4U4Bs(also with 4-20mms) My reference shows both Corsair and P47 and Hellcat with a maximum bomb load of 2000 lbs but I am sure that was exceeded at times. I have read that Lindberg took off in a Corsair(probably an F4U1a) with a 1000 lb bomb under each wing and a 2000 lb bomb on the center line and delivered them to the Japanese. Because of much better performance at sea level, firepower, weapons load, maneuverability and dive brakes(if needed) my pick is the F4U4B.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
This is reasonable. With a slightly reduced fuel load, this load could be below Max weight for the F4U-1.
P-47N was pretty equavalent in speed to the F4U-4 at sealevel (about 9 mph slower) but could carry a much greater load (5500 lbs for the P-47N at gross compared to the 3215 for the F4U-4, a whopping 9700 lbs at max for the P-47N compared to the 5465 for the F4U-4. So at similar fuel loaded, the P-47N could carry about 2300 lbs more ordinance than the F4U-4 at gross weight.)
- Thread starter
- #104
Soundbreaker Welch?
Tech Sergeant
Ha ha, that spammer was trying to scare us!
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Dav, my reference shows the P47N could make about 360 mph at sealevel and it had a lousy rate of climb, not much better than 1700 fpm up to 20000 ft. The 4 Corsair could touch 380 mph at sea level and it's rate of climb low was 3900fpm. I don't have all the load figures for the P47N in front of me but I have to believe in order to carry the large ordnance load claimed they had to not be carrying a full wing of fuel. They must have had to have a long runway also as the P47 was noted as a ground lover. I will still take the F4U4B for survivability, fire power, ordnance load, accuracy of bombing, short field capability in overload condition and besides it proved itself in two major wars and a lot of little ones.
Glider
Captain
I would like to put forward the Tempest V as a strike aircraft. It certainly had the speed, performance and practical bombload of the other aircraft as well as a decent range. Plus its 4 x 20mm were far more powerful than fitted to any other single engined fighter of the time.
The Corsair fitted with 4 x 20mm wasn't a success for the simple reason the guns kept jamming which is why the normal load was 6 x HMG. Also I believe the normal payload on a mission was 2 x 1000lb no more than the Tempest. To talk about anything heavier is not really valid as it couldn't carry any more on a real mission.
The Corsair fitted with 4 x 20mm wasn't a success for the simple reason the guns kept jamming which is why the normal load was 6 x HMG. Also I believe the normal payload on a mission was 2 x 1000lb no more than the Tempest. To talk about anything heavier is not really valid as it couldn't carry any more on a real mission.
drgondog
Major
I don't have a problem with any choice you make, but curious where you discovered jamming problems in the F4U's 20mm cannon? Never heard a complaint from the many USMC pilots I know that flew that bird in Korea?
As to the 4x20's being 'far more powerful' - did they start making 4x 20mm more powerful than the armament in the Fw190A8's with either 4 x20's plus 2 x13mm, or 2 x 20s plus 2x30's plus 2 x13mm? or is there a case for saying 4x20's are more effective, much less 'far more powerful' than the 8x 50's in the P-47 - with a lot more ammo?? I would go with the 4 x20's as a bomber destroyer but would rather have the 8x 50's, particularly being able to select four or eight, for strafing.
Having said all the above, the Tempest was a great a/c
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I also read the US produced 20mm of WW2 were prone to perform poorly and am going through my stuff to try and locate a ref to back up my statement
Glider
Captain
The 20mm I am talking about was the type produced for use in WW2. By Korea the US had finally learnt the lessons and applied the fix's required to make the US 20mm reliable.
In WW2 there were two main problems with the US 20mm. The gun itself was horribly unreliable and to make matters worse the ammunition was also very poor.
Before addressing these it should be noted that the US Navy estimated the British Hispano II to be three times more effective than the US .50. It should also be noted that the British Hispano V as fitted in the Tempest had a much greater rate of fire (up from 10rps to 12.5rps) over the MkII and the difference therefore would have been even greater.
Back to the original point, first of all the reliability of the guns.
[In 'Guns of the Royal Air Force 1939-1945' by G.F. Wallace - who was there - there is an account of British tests of the British and US Hispanos which took place early in 1942. The British were unhappy with initial supplies of the American-made guns: "there were frequent misfeeds and lightly struck cap stoppages, and the life of several small components was very short" so a comparative test between one British and three American guns was set up. The intention was to fire 5,000 rounds from each gun without replacing any components. "The British gun fired the full programme but the performance of the American guns was so bad that in each case the trial had to be abandoned before the 5,000 rounds had been fired." The British gun experienced 19 stoppages in firing 5,012 rounds. The American guns experienced 67 stoppages out of 4,092, 97 out of 3,705 and 94 out of 2,610 respectively.
The three different american figures came from three guns, each produced by a different manufacturer.
As to the ammunition, I can only say that on Malta they received a lot of 20mm ammunition made in the USA. This proved to be so unrliable that despite the desperate shortage of ammunition on the Island, all USA produced 20mm ammo was checked and destroyed. One batch was so bad a third of it was found to be faulty. This is a quote from Malta the Spitfire Years.
The following link covers this in a huge amount of detail, I strongly reccomend it
Modifications and Attempts at Standardization
As for comparing it to the FW190. I would say that the Tempest with its 4 x 20mm Hispano V was much better armed than the standard 4 x 20 and 2 x 13mm and whilst not as well armed as the version carrying 2 x 20 and 2 x 30, it would clearly out perform this heavily laden version of the 190 which lost a lot of performance.
Basic figs on the MG151 vs 0.5 M2 and the Hispano V as follows.
Rate of fire: Hispano V = 12.5 rps, 0.5 M2 = 13 rps, Mg151 = 12 rps
MV: Hispano V = 830 m/s, 0.5 M2 = 890 m/s, MG151 = 800m/s (HE/M shell)
Projectile weight: Hispano V = 130g, 0.5 M2 = 43g, MG151 = 92g
drgondog
Major
BTW one did not (more like 'difficult to') attain much more than an average of 500-550 rpm in sustained fire w/ ma duece - and still one helluva weapon.
Begging the question - but Most Devastating Attacker against what?
If you are shooting up thin skin vehicles and troops why do we care about 4 x20's? or if we are attacking B-17's, why wouldn't we want the Me162, if we want to fight fighters and strafe and shoot up heavy bombers the only one that actully did all three was the Fw190 and the Me262 and P-47 and P-38 and F4U and F6F's (in pacific) although Japanes bombers did not compare to US and RAF -
Tempest not in that mix primarily because the LW never gave the Tempest a 'heavy bomber mission' of any distinction to really shoot at, so do we drop into dreaded 'potential' discussion?
I confess to being bored easily when one or another focus an argument on who had the best .30 caliber, or 20mm or whatever so I'm more concerned about the range of missions you think the 'most devastating attacker' should be judged on? Could we agree that the number one and two fighters that carried the most standard firepower clusters were Fw190A8 and Me262A - then decide to disqualify them in favor of Tempest based on ??? I respect your opinion but wonder on the criteria.
So what are the ground rules you propose to define 'most devastating attacker'
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Test data I have on the N was 364 mph at SL. It was a pretty good climber but not in league of the F4U-4. Climb at 20k was 2950. The F4U-4, per Navy test gave 374 mph at SL (10 mph better than the P-47N) and a climb of 4300 ft/min at 20k.
I calculated total lifting capability including pilot, weapons, and fuel, using the following data:
P-47N empty 11,000 lbs, gross 16,300, max 20,700
Delta weight to gross, 5,300 lbs, to max, 9,700 lbs.
F4U-4 empty 9205 lbs, gross 12,420, max 14,670.
Delta weight to gross 3215 lbs, to max 5465 lbs.
So, the P-47N can load a greater combination of fuel/weapons than the F4U-4 by 2085 lbs at gross, and 4235 lbs at max. Assuming the specific fuel consumption for the two aircraft is the same and the fuel load for a specified mission would be the same, the P-47N would be able to carry a significantly greater weapons load.
Of course, it's a Republic aircraft. That's what they do.
Survivability is debatable. Both aircraft has a reputation for great ruggedness.
This is suspect with the load carrying advantage of the P-47N.
I will accept your comment. I have no idea.
Most definitely!
And this is why I selected the F4U-4/5 as the best piston power fighter ever. Although, in defense of the P-47, it never had the chance to continue and evolve since the AF quickly abandoned the prop fighters for jets, whereas, the Navy continued prop development due to the slow development of acceptable carrier based jet fighters. Had the AF selected the P-47 over the P-51 after the war, it would have had much better air-to-ground capability.
The F4U-4 was a bit faster at SL and could climb much better.
The P-47N could carry a significantly larger load and had much better range.
Both were proven ground attack aircraft.
Not much to choose from. You really couldn't go wrong with either.
Glider
Captain
Hang on a minute. Your the one who asked
a) Where did I get the info re the jamming of the UA 20mm
b) did they start making 4x 20mm more powerful than the armament in the Fw190A8's with either 4 x20's plus 2 x13mm, or 2 x 20s plus 2x30's plus 2 x13mm? or is there a case for saying 4x20's are more effective, much less 'far more powerful' than the 8x 50's in the P-47 - with a lot more ammo??
All I did was address those questions. If the awnser bores you, then sorry, but don't ask the question.
As for criteria then I would go for the all round attacker. Both the FW190, P47 and Tempest are excellent against ground targets. Against heavy bombers then its the Fw190 and Tempest as they have the most firepower by a considerable margin. Every coutry that went up against heavy bombers upgraded their guns to 20mm as a minimum and often more. The 0.5 doesn't have the punch needed. Of the two the Tempest has my vote as it has heavy firepower without adding additional weight losing performance.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Dav my reference shows F4U4 vmax at sea level with mil power as 360 mph while with combat power 380 mph. I am not sure but the graph appears to be from NAVAIR, F4U4, 3/1/46. What I was drawing my conclusion about survivability was some statistics that showed Corsair dropping twice the tonnage of bombs during WW2 than the Hellcat, yet only losing a little more than half as many ac to AAA during that war. I am not claiming that Corsair is more rugged than Jug or for that matter Hellcat but might be more survivable in air to ground because of better maneuverabilty, better climb and better acceleration down low.
drgondog
Major
I'm bored because the thesis you use to demonstrate Tempest superiority over F4U-4C or -5 is on basis of 'better 20mm'.. the better 20mm is true but so what? and the original Tempest, Spit and P-38 had the same basic Hispano II did they not? And that Hispano II was the M2 in the F4U-4C.
I'm bored because the thesis of Tempest equality in bomb/rocket carrying capacity 'is essentially the same as F4U or P-47 'because a 'standard load was 'essentially the same'. Well, that is 80% correct as each often carried 2x1000 under each wing and 500 on C/L and always 10 x 5"HVAR vs 8 for Tempest.. and both actually capable of hanging a 2,000 pound bomb on C/L - but range with load was key for both so fuel tank was essential. I honestly don't know what the payload vs Range data looks like but would bet Large that both the 47 and F4U exceed the Tempest easily.
I'm bored because after you state that the Tempest with 4 x20mm was 'most powerful', I demurred by reminding you of 2 x20mm plus 2 x30mm plus 2 13mm in the A8 'might' be more powerful.. you then state ' well yeah but it was more vulnerable'..which it was, but that would put it in category of 'Most Devastating (second to Me262), but also more vulnerable than lesser Devastators' - for which we don't have a category.
I'm bored because the P-47 and F4U actually did encounter and shoot down (easily) He177, Ju 88, He111, Do217s over Germany and Mavis Flying boats, plus Betty's, etc (pacific) with 50 cal but that doesn't meet your standards for bomber destroying? How many bombers did the Tempest destroy?
And did the Tempest also have a Night Fighter version so that it could be 'Most Devastating Attacker at night? I'm not suggesting that the F4U is near as capable at night as the P-61, JU 88 or Mossie - but moreso than Tempest as it was used in that role and scored in both WWII and the Korean War.
So, actually I was intrigued with the use of the statistics you used to make your case.. and having said that, the Tempest was one helluva airplane.
Regards,
Bill
Glider
Captain
I think in this lot you are trying to say
Thanks Glider for replying to the questions that I raised and supplying information to back up your points.
I agree that the Tempest has extra firepower but do not think this is valid as the USA were able to shoot down either Pre war bombers such as the Ju88, He111, Betty or flawed types such as the He177 with ease and don't think that the experience of the nations that fought the B17/B24/B29 is valid.
The US types do have the advantage of beter range payload but the Tempest is a hell of a plane'.
Incidently I also agree about the range payload comment and that the Tempest is a hell of a plane.
Regards
Thanks Glider for replying to the questions that I raised and supplying information to back up your points.
I agree that the Tempest has extra firepower but do not think this is valid as the USA were able to shoot down either Pre war bombers such as the Ju88, He111, Betty or flawed types such as the He177 with ease and don't think that the experience of the nations that fought the B17/B24/B29 is valid.
The US types do have the advantage of beter range payload but the Tempest is a hell of a plane'.
Incidently I also agree about the range payload comment and that the Tempest is a hell of a plane.
Regards
drgondog
Major
Lol - thanks again Glider, That is pretty much what I intended to say with one or two 'minor' tweaks'..
I was pointing out that the Tempest neither shot down the 'pre-war' designs, or the flawed designs, (but the Spit and Hurricane did quite well with 30 cal and 20 mm) or the modern designs.. and I am delighted to point out that the Me109K-4 with both 2x30mm as well as several mods of the Me109G with just single 30mm cannon and Mg151's were very effective against B-17s and B-24's so difficult to dismiss 6x .50 or 8x .50 as lethal anti bomber capability..
The He177 was certainly as modern as the B-17 and B-24 and Lancaster in speed, range and in case of Lancaster - defensive firepower
Having said that I guess if killing modern designs is requisite then only the Me262/He219/Me110 against the Lanc, or the Shiden aginst the B-29 would classify as destructors of 'modern' designs as the rest were pre-WWII designs?
I believe I was quite happy to point out that a.) the Fw190A8 did have heavier firepower than the Tempest, and b.) it DID have a track record of shooting down modern, tough bombers... above paragraph being the exception if modern means say, post 1941 start of design
I failed to pint out that the Me110 with two upward firing 20mm (only two doing the shooting) in the Schrage Musik config did quite well against the Lancaster at night... 4x 20mm great, 2x 20mm just fine.
And yes I did learn something from you Glider (sincerely). I actually did not know of the issues the USN had in developing the 20mm as a reliable weapon until you so informed me - thank you and thanks for the debate.
And, yes the Tempest was a helluva airplane - so was the P-47, the F4U and the Fw190. I actually would be happy to fly any of them in combat (then).
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Further researh supports this claim.
drgondog
Major
Glider Last but not least - I would fear no piston engine a/c in a tempest, a P-47, a F4u or Mustang at any altitude and would choose any of the first three as having the most firepower.. the Fw190D would fit that for me also
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
My reference shows the F series 190 with various combinations of guns, some with 2-7.9s and 2-20mms, some with a 30mm in gondolas under the wing, some with 13 mms instead of 7.9s, typical of German ac in WW2, an endless number of variations. The 3 could even carry a 3086 lb bomben torpedo but the more typical bomb load was a 1100 lb bomb on the centerline or some 550 lb bombs. The G190s were long range fighter bombers.
