Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[Schweik]

The point about the navy fighters were that they were designed to be used aboard carriers. A specialist role that land based fighters could not, generally, succeed at. Yes, navy fighters were used from the land, but the fact that they were designed for carrier use explains their existence.

Navy fighter is just another specialization (the Russians had a naval air force too though no aircraft carriers).

Not nearly to the same extent.

Soviet fighters were heavily engaged in ground attack. They almost all had cannon by 1942 and were carrying rockets from the beginning of the war (unlike Anglo-American types).

Meteors shot down V-1s, but not much else. They really didn't go into battle.

They were used for defense only, much like the Spit IX's in Soviet service.

I didn't say it was unique.

You suggested that the Allies were filling gaps with the multiplicity of types. I disagree with that.

Nope. Shortround dismissed the Yak 3 as being an overspecialized soviet type and claimed the Soviets had to fill all sorts of gaps with a wide variety of types. I pointed out, correctly, that the Americans and English both fielded more types of fighter aircraft than the Soviets (I didn't even include the English naval fighters but I should - Gladiator, Fulmar and Firefly that's 3 more). So the argument is invalid and in fact, ridiculous.

Not that I'm saying having specialized fighters is bad. Yak 3 was an effective low altitude fighter among the broader Yak family, so was the clipped winged Spit VIII LF, Spit IX LF, LF MK XVI, and earlier Merlin 45, 50, and 55 variants like the Spit LF Mk V. etc.

And the Allison engined P-51 too.

Nor by the way do I think it was a mistake of the Soviets to build a dedicated ground attack aircraft in the Sturmovik as Shortround implied. That is ridiculous. The Sturmovik was extremely effective in the long run and destroyed a whole lot of German tanks.

I do think they should have put defensive guns on it earlier, but I think it was a sound design.

Hurricane IID, HS 129, Stuka Ju-87G etc. also played a useful role.

What does the number of types and sub-types of Spitfires have to do with anything?

Same as the number and types of Yaks. See above and re-read the thread if necessary.

S

 

[Milosh]

They were used for defense only, much like the Spit IX's in Soviet service.

Meteors did offensive patrols when based in Belgium, tho A2G not A2A.

 

[pbehn]

To be honest I think we should. To me the Luftwaffe was never stronger than the start of the Battle of Britain and then the start of Operation Barbarossa. Once 1942 came along the Luftwaffe were always in a slow decline to the point where by mid 1944 the odds of a Western Allies fighter craft being shot down by German fighter craft was quite low, at least compared to a few years earlier. It is very easy to make the late WW2 fighter aircraft look really strong simply because they had almost no opposition.

In terms of bomber strength it was strongest at the start of the Battle of France.

 

[pbehn]

Meteors did offensive patrols when based in Belgium, tho A2G not A2A.

I think meteors were used with US forces "clobber colleges" to practice/train in ways of dealing with the 262 over Germany.

 

[Shortround6]

Oh, boy.........

Navy fighter is just another specialization (the Russians had a naval air force too though no aircraft carriers).

Yeah, it is a specialization that calls for different landing speeds and different low speed handling characteristics and different landing gear strengths (greater vertical impacts) than you can get away with in land based aircraft. Most of the time this has to be designed in from the start. British got away with the Hurricane and Spitfire conversions because both had been designed for use from small airfields using relatively low take-off thrust power plants. This called for low stalling speeds at least so they were partway there. For the US a P-39 needed 3 times the take-off distance as an F4F. A Land based "naval air force" is just a force of land planes that co-operates with naval forces and/or operates over water.

Soviet fighters were heavily engaged in ground attack. They almost all had cannon by 1942 and were carrying rockets from the beginning of the war (unlike Anglo-American types).

Heavily engaged refers to rate of use or number of missions flow. It says nothing about the effectiveness of the attacks, like how many sorties were needed to get a given effect. The Russian 20mm cannon was not particularly good at armor penetration. Not as bad as some but not as good as others. A single 20mm cannon firing under 100 gram shells and backed up by two 7.62/12.7mm machine guns is better than nothing for ground attack but hardly leading the way. The rockets were more of a moral weapon (so were the British 3in rockets to some extent) as they were good only for area targets (hitting a single tank was like hitting 21 in blackjack on the first draw) and the target effect was poor. Using an expensive aircraft to deliver the equivalent of 6-8 81mm mortar bombs is not a good return on investment. Better than not supporting the ground troops at all but hardly ideal. Few countries were doing much better in 1941 but the Russians didn't progress much during the war. Other Countries did increase the ground attack capabilities of their fighters and the need for light bombers/ground attack planes of the single engine variety faded away. The ones they had (contracted for) were shuffled off to secondary theaters.

Nope. Shortround dismissed the Yak 3 as being an overspecialized soviet type and claimed the Soviets had to fill all sorts of gaps with a wide variety of types. I pointed out, correctly, that the Americans and English both fielded more types of fighter aircraft than the Soviets (I didn't even include the English naval fighters but I should - Gladiator, Fulmar and Firefly that's 3 more). So the argument is invalid and in fact, ridiculous.

I dismissed the Yak-3 from consideration as one of the greatest fighters of the war due to it's specialization, By 1944 most countries expected fighters to be more all round air planes. There is also a difference between fielding a bunch of different aircraft of a "type" like fighter bombers (you can have multiple models of fighter bombers) and fielding different "types" (perhaps a better word is categories?) of aircraft. The Yak-3 may have been a very good low altitude, short range air superiority fighter but the Russians needed to Field other types for other missions. For the US late model P-38s, P-47s and P-51s were somewhat interchangeable as to the missions they flew. They all could fly bomber escort, they all could fly fighter fighter sweeps, they all could perform intercepts of enemy recon or bomber aircraft, they all could perform ground attack missions (with substantial war loads). One or another was better at a given task but should the need arise they all could substitute for each other.
The same cannot be said for some of the Russian fighters. You want to escort bombers more than few hundred kilometers? You better have Yak-9Ds or 9DDs, La-5/7s won't do it and neither will Yak-3s. You want to really blow stuff up? Better get the IL-2s or PE-2s because the Russian single engine fighters carry crap bomb loads.

Nor by the way do I think it was a mistake of the Soviets to build a dedicated ground attack aircraft in the Sturmovik as Shortround implied. That is ridiculous. The Sturmovik was extremely effective in the long run and destroyed a whole lot of German tanks.

You might do better if you don't use your imagination to interpret what I write. The Russians were forced by circumstances to build the IL-2 in large numbers.
It wasn't a "mistake" given the situation they were in. Their single engine fighters didn't carry much of a war load for ground attack. An IL-2 using a single pilot and a single engine (although larger) and airframe(also larger) could carry the war load of 2-3 single engine Russian fighters and was a different type target to shoot down. Slower but with the armor presented different problems.
Of note here is that the Russians quickly realized that the 20mm ShVak cannon in the early IL-2s weren't really that good against armored vehicles and they quickly changed to the 23mm gun which was over twice as powerful per shot. Claiming a single 20mm ShVak cannon with 120-150 rounds made a good ground attack plane in company with a pair of machine guns seems a bit of a stretch for the V-12 powered planes.
The IL-2 was effective way to deliver ground support from both a manufacturing point of view and from a pilot/crew training point of view. Using the same resources (and the same number of pilots) would not have given anywhere near the same target effect if used by typical Russian single engine fighters.
This does not mean the Western allies missed the boat in not adopting an IL-2 type aircraft. With the greater engine power used in Western fighters (from about 1942 on) they carried heavier gun armament and heavier bomb loads than Russian fighters and with the much greater time spent on training they were more likely to land the ordnance closer to the target (although accuracy was still pretty dismal at times) with green or inexperienced pilots. IL-2s slower speed may have helped with accuracy?
The US cancelled thousands of dive bombers for Army use once they started using fighter bombers in numbers.

 

[Schweik]

Oh, boy.........

Shortround, I'll give you credit for this post because at least you clearly articulated your arguments and we can actually resolve the disagreement to some extent rather than going round and round with flip comments. I still disagree however, I am comfortable with multiple ways of looking at the same problem ala Roshemon, I think in many respects with History you have to settle for that in many cases because no one 'model', theory or system can fully encompass the reality.

Yeah, it is a specialization that calls for different landing speeds and different low speed handling characteristics

What defined a Carrier aircraft varied quite a bit nation by nation and was not a hard science. The very general rule was that Carrier planes carried more stuff they were supposed to be at least a little inferior to land based planes. This potentially means stuff like arrestor hooks, folding wings (sometimes with corresponding mechanical or hydraulic systems), more navigational gear including all weather instruments, radio direction finders and extra radios, and sometimes even a second or third crewman to help with navigation or spotting etc. (see Fairey Fulmar and Firefly), also extra fuel as longer range is usually required, and extra maritime survival gear for the crew like inflatable rafts, potable water and so on. Sometimes also stuff like anti-submarine detection capabilities and ASW weapons capacity.

Naval planes more generally (beyond just carrier planes) do also often have to take on more kit of this type so it's incorrect to suggest that (non carrier) naval aircraft are identical to land based planes. It may be relatively easy to adjust them from one mission to the other (say PB4Y to B-24, its not that wide of a leap .. or just de-navalizing an F4U) but there is still a difference.

But in practice the actual aircraft that came out of the factories overlapped enough that it really didn't make that much difference. A Fairy Fulmar may not have been a good enough fighter to take on land based fighters, but the A6M, F4F, F6F and Corsair most certainly were. As was the Seafire if you could get the carrier close enough


Some of the characteristics you listed like stronger landing gear and suitability for shorter landings and takeoffs is applicable to carrier planes, but not necessarily. The Corsair for example defies the definition in many respects. The Corsair also turned out to be in no way inferior to land based fighters, in fact quite to the contrary.

But the larger point is simply this as I already stated - Naval planes in general are just another specialization. Specialization, in turn, is not grounds for dismissal. The F4U - arguably only marginally suitable for Carrier operations**, together with the F6F and the F4F were all among the Great fighters of WW2. Some of these were more generalist than the others. The F4F in particular was not particularly good at ground attack (nor was the Spitfire) but it performed an extremely important mission in breaking the back of the IJN Carrier forces at Coral Sea, Midway and Guadalcanal.

The Yak 3 was a specialized (smaller and faster) variant of the Yak 1, while the Yak 9 was another specialized variant of the (slightly larger and higher flying) Yak 7 (itself originally a simplified trainer variant of the Yak 1). The Yak 9 was very successful, and also one of the great fighters of WW2 without a doubt, while the Yak 3 was 'extra' successful and accelerated the demise of the Luftwaffe while enabling the VVS to destroy the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS forces which had invaded their homeland. Together though the Yak 1, Yak 3 and 9 are at least as closely linked as say, a Spit I is to a Spit XIV. And as I already pointed out several times, the Spitfire was also made quite consciously with low altitude variants.

Heavily engaged refers to rate of use or number of missions flow. It says nothing about the effectiveness of the attacks, like how many sorties were needed to get a given effect. The Russian 20mm cannon was not particularly good at armor penetration.

You have described your theory before that Russian planes weren't any good at destroying German military vehicles because they didn't carry heavy enough ordinance. And you think Russian Rockets weren't effective either.... 60 & 80mm mortars aren't good at destroying tanks etc. All of these are nice theories but they are no more than that - as you know, back of the envelope calculations do not trump historical evidence for me, in fact to the contrary. So post some historical evidence* to support your outlier theory here - until then don't expect anyone else to operate as if your theories are facts.

Specifically to do with rockets and cannon - as you are probably aware, heavy tanks remained rare in the German army. Not every German tank was a Tiger. Rocket and cannon attacks may or may not be good at knocking out or disabling Tigers, but they are more than capable of destroying all the other vehicles and ordinance that made up the German armed forces. Everything from horse drawn carts, to trucks and prime movers, to halftracks, open topped Marders and Wespes and all sorts of artillery and AT guns, are extremely vulnerable to 20mm cannons and the equivalent of 80mm mortars. In fact, actual light and medium caliber mortars probably destroyed more German troops and kit than almost any other weapon.

A Tiger or Panther tank with no fuel and ammo, and no support from infantry, AT guns or artillery, will in most cases quickly be abandoned. See the Falaise pocket as a good example. Typhoons and Thunderbolts may not have blown the turrets off of that many Panthers, but they wrecked enough of the other stuff that the German tank units were brought to a halt. And the tank crew is going to slink out of the battle area on foot.

We also do have evidence that large numbers of German medium tanks and assault guns (Pz III, Pz IV, StuGG III etc.) were destroyed by Russian fighters, dive bombers, and Sturmoviks especially in 1943 - 1945. I'm not sure about the heavy tanks and Jagdpanzer type vehicles as I haven't dived that deep into it. But if necessary I can provide sources for the above.

Ground attack and close air support, precision vs tonnage
You and I (and some other people in this forum) have a long running debate about the value of a bomber. This came up repeatedly in discussions in other threads about the Pe-2, the Mosquito and many other fighter related arguments including earlier in this one I think. You, and some others here, attribute effectiveness for ground attack to heaviness of ordinance. The notion of the bomber as "bomb truck" - perhaps best summed up as whether a Lancaster is ultimately a better bomber than a Mosquito.

But when we zoom in from bombers in general to the more narrow field of close air support, I think it is obvious and very well established that the role of accuracy is key. For one thing, it's very important not to hit your own troops. This is one of the reasons why their was, and still is a subtype of CAS aircraft that is relatively light, slow and highly maneuverable. For the Russians in WW2, the I-15 / 153 series of biplane fighters were very helpful for CAS for this exact reason. The Germans also used biplanes (see He 51), and today this particular niche is partly taken up by attack helicopters, but also by light aircraft like the Super Tucano, Bae Hawk, Aero L-159A etc..

Ultimately in WW2 the Luftwaffe got the most mileage out of the Ju 87 Stuka. Slow and ungainly like a giant vulture, this single engined bomber carried a fairly light bomb load. On paper it looked like a loser. But in the field, it was the Germans best tank destroyer, even before they specialized it by adding 37mm guns. The reason in a nutshell was not weight of ordinance but precision. As a dive bomber it could hit it's targets vastly, vastly more often than a medium altitude level bomber, while suffering fewer losses. The Sturmovik was the same in terms of accuracy- although it relied more on rockets and cannon.

Today the equivalent of the Sturmovik in Russia is the Su-25, and in the West is the A-10. It continues to be a big debate in the US military, but even though a modern fighter-bomber can do almost everything, for CAS they still specialize.

Conversely, while a B-26 can carry vastly more bombs than a Ju 87 or a Sturmovik, it was far less effective historically in destroying enemy tanks. The Anglo Americans did try to use medium and even heavy bombers numerous times for Tactical strikes, but quite often it was a failure, sometimes a truly grotesque failure when they accidentally bombed their own forces. Such as when the USAAF killed 1,000 of their own men in an attempted breakout during Operation COBRA in 1944.

You can move a lot of earth and not actually effect the enemy. I have brought this up before many times. During Vietnam, the B-52 carried far more ordinance than an A-1 / AD Skyraider, but the latter was more effective certainly for CAS.

For the US late model P-38s, P-47s and P-51s were somewhat interchangeable as to the missions they flew. They all could fly bomber escort, they all could fly fighter fighter

But actually they really weren't. P-51s pretty quickly became the main, then the only escort fighter. P-47s were increasingly relegated to ground attack and frontal defense - and late in the war they made the specialized super fast sprinter P-47M specialized specifically for dogfighting the new German jets. P-38s meanwhile were basically phased out of use in Europe when P-51s became available. Spitfires remained the main interceptor for the Anglo-American forces through the end of the war. So they did specialize. Everyone did.

This does not mean the Western allies missed the boat in not adopting an IL-2 type aircraft.

Ah but you are wrong, they did adopt Il2- type aircraft, or more precisely, they specialized existing aircraft to be more like an Il2. They put two 40mm bofors cannons on the Hurricane IID, as you may recall, they put a 75mm cannon and 10-14 machine guns in the nose of B-25s (the main production run of them for a couple of years in fact), made similar (multi gun) modifications to the A-20 and produced dedicated ground attack aircraft like the Douglas A-26.

The US cancelled thousands of dive bombers for Army use once they started using fighter bombers in numbers.

You are making an assumption as to why though. They apparently started using fighters as bombers, specifically P-40s and Hurricanes in lieux of Blehnheims, at the suggestion of pilots fighting in the Western Desert. Possibly instigated by Australian Ace Clive Caldwell (this claim is made in one of his biographies). Caldwell pointed out that the Blenheims were so slow it forced escorting P-40s to fly along at near stall speed (~100 mph) to keep near them, making them extremely vulnerable. P-40s and Hurricanes turned out to make fairly precise bombers, by one estimate 4 times as effective as Blenheims, and since Axis air power was often not to be found over many battlefields of the Western Desert on a given day, it made sense to make use of otherwise under-utilized fighters to destroy enemy troops and materiel so the change in Tactics was made. Whether this actually saved any fighter pilots though is another question as many fighters were caught low down on strafing and bombing missions by Luftwaffe fighters.

US and British dive bombers didn't come to the fore, because the newer designs were largely a failure. Vultee Vengeance and so forth just didn't work out. The Helldiver was purchased but probably due to corruption and in spite of serious design flaws, certainly for the first year or so of it's deployment it was a dangerous and disliked beast by it's crews. The best Anglo-American dive bomber was the old Douglas Dauntless, a good aircraft and one of the wars greats certainly thanks to it's destruction of so many Japanese ships, but also a fairly slow early war design which was vulnerable to German fighters. Nevertheless the Army did use it however as the A-24, a bit more than most people realize since it doesn't get that much press. The Free French also used it in the Med for CAS. It was surprisingly effective but took heavy losses.

Because by 1943 it was too slow. So the USAAF also, let us not forget, made the Allison engined P-51 into a Dive Bomber. This tends to get papered over but that was the job of that plane in the USAAF. One wonders why they didn't make it into a fighter but that's what they did - put dive brakes on it and everything. It had the speed to escape Luftwaffe fighters so it did have good characteristics for that niche..

The Brits also had the formidable Beaufighter, a fighter but really most suited for ground (and naval) attack roles, and adapted the Typhoon and Tempests largely to ground attack too. The Americans designed the excellent*** Douglas A-26 Invader as a dedicated ground attack aircraft though it came too late to see very wide scale use, it was deployed and did well particularly in Italy.

The USAAF used fighters as fighter-bombers more generally because they weren't able to make dedicated bombers that were fast and / or survivable enough (with the exception of some late arriving types like the A-26). The extra guns on the B-25 were as close as they came. The Germans of course had the He 51, Ju 87G, Hs 129 and Fw 190F series.

So the bottom line is, in my opinion, specialization for ground attack or dogfighting wasn't so rare nor was it some kind of sign of flawed policy. It was in fact fairly universal. What's more, necessary and effective. Therefore it's not a valid argument to dismiss the Yak 3 as a great plane "because it's too much of a specialist", it was one of the best of the war. As was the Yak 9 and the La 5FN / La 7. I think these are all pretty mainstream positions among aviation writers.

S

* I don't mean cite references like in an academic article but just cite some general examples .... if you can.

** worked better when further specialized by the British

*** Although disliked by General Kenney in the Pacific, the 9th Air Force operating in Italy specifically asked to replace all of their A-20s and Martin B-26s with Dogulas A-26s ASAP after flying successful 8 test missions with them in 1944. They were also used by the 12th Air Force against targets in Germany.

 

[wuzak]

But in practice the actual aircraft that came out of the factories overlapped enough that it really didn't make that much difference. A Fairy Fulmar may not have been a good enough fighter to take on land based fighters, but the A6M, F4F, F6F and Corsair most certainly were. As was the Seafire if you could get the carrier close enough

I don't think the F4F was good enough to take on contemporary land based fighters such as the Fw 190A or Bf 109F.

The F6F is surely marginal against land based contemporaries too, having Spitfire V performance in mid 1943.

A6M? Had some success against land based fighters, but I don't think it was good enough for very long.

Seafire was definitely inferior to the Spitfire, but IIRC its range without drop tank(s) was simialr to the F6F's.

 

[wuzak]

Because by 1943 it was too slow. So the USAAF also, let us not forget, made the Allison engined P-51 into a Dive Bomber. This tends to get papered over but that was the job of that plane in the USAAF. One wonders why they didn't make it into a fighter but that's what they did - put dive brakes on it and everything. It had the speed to escape Luftwaffe fighters so it did have good characteristics for that niche.

The story is that the USAAF did not have funds to put towards fighters, so could not procure the P-51. But they did have funds for attack aircraft, so the A-36 was born.

 

[Shortround6]

What defined a Carrier aircraft varied quite a bit nation by nation and was not a hard science............Some of the characteristics you listed like stronger landing gear and suitability for shorter landings and takeoffs is applicable to carrier planes, but not necessarily. The Corsair for example defies the definition in many respects. The Corsair also turned out to be in no way inferior to land based fighters, in fact quite to the contrary.
But the larger point is simply this as I already stated - Naval planes in general are just another specialization.

But a necessary one. The worst (longest distance for take-off) American carrier fighter out of 9 models/variations required 88% of the distance of the Best (shortest distance) Army fighter. An F4U-1 (early) could take off in about 1/3 the distance of a P-47C if both were clean. One reason they never tried using P-47s from carriers. Perhaps also a reason they used Navy fighters from Island airstrips? Not the only one, but needed shorter air strips might be an advantage. This despite being 'burdened' with all the stuff of a naval fighter. Yes, Chance-Vought mucked up a few things with the Corsair but for the most part, you don't take land planes and turn them into carrier planes and just accept a slight performance penalty. At least not after monoplanes came into vogue.

You have described your theory before that Russian planes weren't any good at destroying German military vehicles because they didn't carry heavy enough ordinance. And you think Russian Rockets weren't effective either.... 60 & 80mm mortars aren't good at destroying tanks etc. All of these are nice theories but they are no more than that - as you know, back of the envelope calculations do not trump historical evidence for me, in fact to the contrary. So post some historical evidence* to support your outlier theory here - until then don't expect anyone else to operate as if your theories are facts.

Again, please don't use your superior imagination to change my positions from what I have written. Somehow, due to somebody's "imagination" not as good has turned into weren't any good. They are not the same thing and there is a lot of grey in effectiveness instead of black and white.

Specifically to do with rockets and cannon - as you are probably aware, heavy tanks remained rare in the German army. Not every German tank was a Tiger. Rocket and cannon attacks may or may not be good at knocking out or disabling Tigers, but they are more than capable of destroying all the other vehicles and ordinance that made up the German armed forces. Everything from horse drawn carts, to trucks and prime movers, to halftracks, open topped Marders and Wespes and all sorts of artillery and AT guns, are extremely vulnerable to 20mm cannons and the equivalent of 80mm mortars. In fact, actual light and medium caliber mortars probably destroyed more German troops and kit than almost any other weapon.

The 20mm ShVAK would not kill MK III and MK IV tanks. It would be lucky to kill the Czech tanks and as for the Lowly MK II

The ShVak was rated at penetrating 24mm of armor at 100m distance with a 90 degree impact angle according to one source. Now let's use those despised back of the envelope calculations to check a few things. The thin armor on top is rarely going to be hit at 90 degree angle (needs a near 90 degree dive), so going to more reasonable impact angles Like an included angle of 30 degrees, (plane is diving at 30 degrees from horizontal) geometry tells us that the projectile will have to travel a path through 20mm of armor in the 10mm armor areas. However at these extreme impact angle there is a tendency for the projectile to skid or ricochet to a greater or lesser extent depending on projectile so the protection is even more effective than plain geometry tells us. The shallower the dive the worse it gets. Using a steeper dive angle means firing from further away in order to leave room to pull out.
Some of the 15mm side armor is a better target. But here geometry tells us that a 45 degree impact means a path of 21mm, any less angle and things get tough real quick. Please note that 20mm projectiles fall off in armor penetration with range pretty quick and the 20mm ShVak was among the worst. This of course assumes the gun is loaded with predominantly AP ammunition. HE and HE-frag ammo is going to have about 0mm penetration on armor.

I would also note that in one test the hit rate for the ShVak cannon against a column of tanks was 9.4%. Even at 800rpm (13.3rps) that is about 4 hits for 3 second burst (and not necessarily on the same tank). I am sure that some German light tanks were knocked out by Russian 20mm aircraft guns and the guns would do a good job against unarmoured or open top vehicles (maybe, one or two hits inside a half track are certainly going to cause casualties, destroy the vehicle is another story).

Now compare the Dreaded Lagg-3 or Yak-1 strafing a German column compared to the near useless Lend lease Hurricane with four 20mm guns.
The Lagg-3 or Yak is firing, at best, 13.3 rounds per second of 20mm ammo. Depending on exact Lagg-3 or Yak-1 you have two 7.62s firing around 50 shots per second or a single 12.7 firing 13.3 or a pair firing 27 rps (rounded up) The Hurricane is firing 40 20mm shots per second. Each projectile weighs about 30% more than the Russian 20mm projectiles for either armor penetration or almost double the HE content with more metal for fragments. The MV of the Hispanos ws 11-17% higher than the ShVak. The standard Lagg-3 fighter is carrying 120 rounds of 20mm ammo plus 650 rounds of 7.62 machine gun ammo. The Yak-1 carries 120-140 rounds of 20mm ? plus 760 rounds or 7.62 or 240-480 rounds of 12.7 depending on one or two guns fitted? The Hurricane is carrying 360 rounds of 20mm ammo.
Or lets compare a Long nose P-40, 780 rounds of 12.7mm ammo (a ridiculous amount given the rate of fire of the cowl guns ) plus 1960 round of .30 cal ammo, not much good against armor but then the Russian 7.62 guns in the I-15, I-15bis, I-153 and the majority of the I-16s aren't very good against armor either.
However neither round bounces off of trucks, wagons, horses or men.
P-40E and later hold over 1400 rounds of 12.7mm ammo and fire over 75 rounds per second.
I am using up a lot of envelopes here but you get the idea (I hope) If we assume a somewhat equal hit rate and that the Russian pilots are not possessed of superhuman sight and reflexes then the Western fighters are carrying more ammo and firing more ammo per firing pass or unit of time. Which should cause more destruction.

we haven't even gotten to rockets, small and large bombs.

Ground attack and close air support, precision vs tonnage

You and I (and some other people in this forum) have a long running debate about the value of a bomber. This came up repeatedly in discussions in other threads about the Pe-2, the Mosquito and many other fighter related arguments including earlier in this one I think. You, and some others here, attribute effectiveness for ground attack to heaviness of ordinance. The notion of the bomber as "bomb truck" - perhaps best summed up as whether a Lancaster is ultimately a better bomber than a Mosquito.

But when we zoom in from bombers in general to the more narrow field of close air support, I think it is obvious and very well established that the role of accuracy is key. For one thing, it's very important not to hit your own troops. This is one of the reasons why their was, and still is a subtype of CAS aircraft that is relatively light, slow and highly maneuverable. For the Russians in WW2, the I-15 / 153 series of biplane fighters were very helpful for CAS for this exact reason. The Germans also used biplanes (see He 51), and today this particular niche is partly taken up by attack helicopters, but also by light aircraft like the Super Tucano, Bae Hawk, Aero L-159A etc..

A lot of this so called accuracy of the biplane went out the proverbial window when a lot of them were used for night harassment missions.
Low and slow for ground attack also tends to work best the the guys on the ground have 2nd (or 3rd) rate AA systems. Check out the scale of issue of AA guns in the BEF in France in 1940 to the scale of issue of AA guns in the British army in Europe in 1944.
Most of the modern "light aircraft" are planed to be used for counterinsurgency warfare, not full intensity conflicts. I would also note that the Bae Hawk at Max gross weight is heavier than a P-47N with a pair of 165 gallon drop tanks. Light is relative.

But actually they really weren't. P-51s pretty quickly became the main, then the only escort fighter. P-47s were increasingly relegated to ground attack and frontal defense - and late in the war they made the specialized super fast sprinter P-47M specialized specifically for dogfighting the new German jets. P-38s meanwhile were basically phased out of use in Europe when P-51s became available. Spitfires remained the main interceptor for the Anglo-American forces through the end of the war. So they did specialize. Everyone did.

I am not saying that they were the equal of each other, I am saying that should the need arise, squadrons or groups could be transferred or given new tasks using the planes they already had. P-38s were not as good an escort as the P-51 and I would be foolish to try to say so but they had the range, the speed and and altitude capability to escort B-17s well into Germany even if their kill to loss ratio wasn't as good as the P-51. They could at least keep the Bomber losses within bounds even if not as low as the P-51s
For the Russians it was the Yak-9D &DD or nothing, there was NO second best. They didn't have another fighter that had the range regardless of well or poorly it might fight when got there. If you aren't there to fight your success rate is zero.
But then the Yak 9DD wasn't a good air superiority fighter. Or perhaps I should say it less than the best. It was heavier and slower climbing than the Regular Yak-9s.

 

[Schweik]

I don't think the F4F was good enough to take on contemporary land based fighters such as the Fw 190A or Bf 109F.

Maybe you should think harder. They definitely tangled with Me 109Fs in the Med in 1942 and 1943 and they didn't exactly get slaughtered either. They started out fighting mostly Vichy French fighters which they finished off during Operation Torch. Up in Norway too with the FAA as the Martlet. From the wiki:

"In March 1945, Wildcats shot down four Messerschmitt Bf 109s over Norway, the FAA's last victory with a Wildcat."

Source is listed as Thetford, Owen. British Naval Aircraft Since 1912, Fourth Edition. London: Putnam, 1978. ISBN 0-85177-861-5.

So it appears Wildcats were still shooting down Bf 109s (presumably those were Gs or later model) all the way until 1945. In case this gets challenged! I found this thread on our favorite forum with a little more data on that incident:

"On 26 March 1945, in a last action, FM-2's from 882 Squadron
Lieut Comdr. GAM Flood, RNVR) off Searcher, escorting a flight of
Avengers along the coast of Norway, was attacked by a flight of
eight III Gruppe JG 5 Me-109Gs. The Wildcats (now called
"Wildcat" instead of "Martlet" as the FAA adopts the USN names
for carrier aircraft) shot down four of the Me-109Gs at a cost of
one Wildcat damaged. A fifth 109 was claimed as damaged."

German records show there were three 109's lost werk# 412398 (Fw. Hermannn Jaeger), #782139 (Uffz. Gottfried Rösch), and #782270 (Fw. Heinrich Dreisbach) & one other 109 crashed, (pilot not listed) on landing,

The F6F is surely marginal against land based contemporaries too, having Spitfire V performance in mid 1943.

Ah, no wrong again. F6F annihilated IJA fighters in the Pacific. Didn't have too many encounters in the Atlantic but did have some and again, didn't get slaughtered. According to the Wiki 52 German aircraft were shot down by FAA Hellcats in 18 engagements.

Once incident:

May 1944. On 8 May, F6F's from the Fleet Air Arm's No. 800 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. SJ Hall, DSC, RN), off HMS Emperor, while escorting a flight of Barracudas were jumped a mixed group of Me-109's and FW-190's. Two F6F's were lost, one, probably, to anti-aircraft fire (one source indicates that both F6Fs were lost in a mid-air collision, not to any German fire of any kind); the RN pilots were creditied with 2 Me-109's and one FW-190. Available Luftwaffe loss listings show three Me-109Gs lost in this action, werk# 14697 (Ofw. Kurt), 10347 (Uffz. Brettin), and unknown # (Fw. Horst). On the Luftwaffe side, Uffz. Hallstick claimed two F6Fs and Lieut. Prenzler claimed one.

A6M? Had some success against land based fighters, but I don't think it was good enough for very long.

That is laughable. A6M was still shooting down plenty of Allied aircraft, including Spitfires and Corsairs, at a fairly high rate in 1943. Started tapering off in 1944 but that is largely due to pilot quality (and the Germans were having the same problem weren't they)

S

 

[Schweik]

Again, please don't use your superior imagination to change my positions from what I have written. Somehow, due to somebody's "imagination" not as good has turned into weren't any good. They are not the same thing and there is a lot of grey in effectiveness instead of black and white.

And yet you make sweeping statements to dismiss a whole class of fighters based on spurious logic. I'm supposed to take that seriously?

The 20mm ShVAK would not kill MK III and MK IV tanks. It would be lucky to kill the Czech tanks and as for the Lowly MK II

Practice what you preach- I never said specifically that 20mm cannon killed the tanks, (I am not ruling it out, but I don't know it for a fact) I said Russian fighters and Il2s killed plenty of Mk III and Mk IV tanks and many other armored vehicles on the Russian Front in several battles.

The ShVak was rated at penetrating 24mm of armor at 100m distance with a 90 degree impact angle according to one source. Now let's use those despised back of the envelope calculations to check a few things.

We had this same debate in another thread. You'll have to forgive me if i don't buy your assumptions or your math. I suspect your thumb is on the scale with regard to the specific ammunition used or the subtype, but I don't care enough about the issue to wade deep into it yet again. Suffice to say that I believe (like many WW2 pilots and engineers) that nose mounted guns were more accurate than wing mounted, that 20mm cannon, with AP or API ammunition, hit harder than 12.7mm, and I know for a fact that most vehicles and ordinance in the German army could not withstand automatic 20mm cannon-fire.

You have been arguing, in this and other threads, that Soviet fighters were all but useless at ground attack - or at least greatly inferior to Anglo-American fighters in this regard. I pointed out the Russians were using rockets since 1940 and had cannon on almost all their fighters, and you try to claim their cannon and rockets were no good. It's a bogus argument, spurious logic, though there is some imagination involved...

we haven't even gotten to rockets, small and large bombs.

Don't waste your time unless you are going to post actual historical accounts or data.

A lot of this so called accuracy of the biplane went out the proverbial window when a lot of them were used for night harassment missions.

You are thinking of U2 and Po 2 types. I-153s were still being mostly largely in daylight until at least 1943. I think they were still being used as fighters in addition to CAS.

I am not saying that they were the equal of each other, I am saying that should the need arise, squadrons or groups could be transferred or given new

And I'm calling BS on that. If the P-51s went away they would have had to stop flying heavy bomber missions into Berlin that same day. P-47s and P-38s were not going to cut it.

For the Russians it was the Yak-9D &DD or nothing, there was NO second best. They didn't have another fighter that had the range regardless of

But why would they? The Russians didn't have nearly as much of a need for a long range fighter. That wasn't their mission. They were concentrated on the Tactical war. If they had decided to get into Strategic Bombing they would have developed more long range fighters (or gotten some via Lend Lease) but they did not need to do that to win the war. By 1944 the Soviet War Machine was unstoppable by the Germans. Patton thought he could take it on but that is highly dubious.

Sorry man you haven't come close to convincing me.

S

 

[pbehn]

And I'm calling BS on that. If the P-51s went away they would have had to stop flying heavy bomber missions into Berlin that same day. P-47s and P-38s were not going to cut it.

How does an aircraft type "go away" some mystery virus or new found metal eating bacteria? I used to enjoy this forum but there are now too many smart alec posters with fantasy opinions calling "BS" on any sensible discussion with fantasy scenarios.

 

[Schweik]

How does an aircraft type "go away" some mystery virus or new found metal eating bacteria? I used to enjoy this forum but there are now too many smart alec posters with fantasy opinions calling "BS" on any sensible discussion with fantasy scenarios.

I'm sorry you couldn't follow the Thread. I'm just answering Shortround who claimed that all late war USAAF Fighters were fully interchangable, in direct contrast to the Soviet fighters which he claimed were overly specialized, and therefore "not Great".

I was pointing out that they were not, in fact interchangeable and that deep raids into places like Berlin were only possible because of the P-51.

How would an aircraft type "go away"? Well it's pointless to speculate since it didn't happen to the P-51 - i was only making a point, a point so obvious I shouldn't have had to make it. I certainly can't think of any way that P-51 production could have stopped. Some promising aircraft types however did not get made, or weren't made in sufficient numbers, because the factories were bombed or certain strategic metals were not available in sufficient supply and so on.

Personally, I prefer to ground my observations on WW2 on data from WW2. You want to know which fighter design worked best? Study how many of them were shot down vs how many they shot down. Want to know which bomber design worked best? Research which one destroyed their targets best for the fewest losses. I'm a history researcher in some other time periods, I have learned to have faith in the sources - and I feel strongly that it is contingent on us, people with interest in the past, to make our theories fit the data and not the other way around.

For example, when somebody tells me that a Wildcat couldn't shoot down a Bf 109 because it's too slow or has 145 gallons of fuel in the tank or only 400 rounds of ammunition for it's guns, or an 11.7 m/s climb rate, I'd rather check and see what the historical record says about actual encounters between Wildcats and Bf 109s. And low and behold! It turns out they were not so inferior after all.

S

 

[Schweik]

By the way, I like this forum too. I have learned a lot here both lurking and as an active participant. i respect Shotround for his knowledge on superchargers and other matters from which I learned a great deal in other threads. I just don't accept all of his theories as gospel.

I do also notice sometimes more generally in here you can get shouted down in here for daring to voice fairly mainstream opinions like that the Yak-3 or the Zero were great fighters. I guess that is just the nature of forum discussions. But to be honest this place is better than most.

Maybe I should just stick to praising the Spitfire or the Fw 190...

 

[DarrenW]

The F6F is surely marginal against land based contemporaries too, having Spitfire V performance in mid 1943.

Are you sure because the record certainly doesn't reflect this. Which "land-based" fighters ever gave the Hellcat any trouble?

And if the Spitfire V was the equal of the F6F then I suppose it would have "broke the back" of the IJN and IJA before the Hellcat even arrived, but it didn't. That didn't happen until after the Hellcat's arrival.

Seafire was definitely inferior to the Spitfire, but IIRC its range without drop tank(s) was simialr to the F6F's.

You forgot to mention that it was also definitely inferior to the Hellcat. That's why the FAA purchased 1263 copies of the American fighter instead of being content with their own indigenous carrier-born design. And I'd recheck your figures concerning the Seafire's range. It was most assuredly less than that of the Hellcat, both with and without external tanks.

 

[Shortround6]

We had this same debate in another thread. You'll have to forgive me if i don't buy your assumptions or your math. I suspect your thumb is on the scale with regard to the specific ammunition used or the subtype, but I don't care enough about the issue to wade deep into it yet again. Suffice to say that I believe (like many WW2 pilots and engineers) that nose mounted guns were more accurate than wing mounted, that 20mm cannon, with AP or API ammunition, hit harder than 12.7mm, and I know for a fact that most vehicles and ordinance in the German army could not withstand automatic 20mm cannon-fire.



Don't waste your time unless you are going to post actual historical accounts or data.

Have it your way, at 96 gram projectile of 20mm diameter with a muzzle velocity of 750 meters a second is fully the equal of a 128 gram projectile of 20mm diameter with a muzzle velocity of 880 meters a second when it comes to armor penetration and'or destructive power.
And 140 rounds of such ammo is equal to 360 rounds (or more)

And, oh yes, the earth is flat.

 

[Schweik]

Have it your way, at 96 gram projectile of 20mm diameter with a muzzle velocity of 750 meters a second is fully the equal of a 128 gram projectile of 20mm diameter with a muzzle velocity of 880 meters a second when it comes to armor penetration and'or destructive power.
And 140 rounds of such ammo is equal to 360 rounds (or more)

And, oh yes, the earth is flat.

That would be a devastating comeback if I ever claimed that a Russian 20mm cannon shell is equal or superior to a Hispano, or Mauser. Fortunately for me I didn't. Please make careful note of that fact.

The various traits of each cannon are interesting, and perhaps worthy of a thread of their own (I googled penetration values for various cannons but found little, I may try later on JSTOR). But I never made the claim that Russian 20mm cannon were better than Hispano-Suiza or even that they hit as hard.

I am not, by the way, conceding that they were necessarily worse either. There are other factors besides velocity and weight of the shell - for example types of ammunition available, weight of the gun itself (important in an airplane), reliability (how often did they have jams or stoppages) and rate of fire.

What I actually said was that Russian fighters were at least as good, generally speaking, at ground attack as Anglo-American fighters, which is a very different statement, and I pointed out that Russian fighters mostly had 20mm cannon - but that is only one factor. I do say that a 20mm cannon is superior to a machine guns in terms of impact against armored or unarmored vehicles.

I'll break down why I think Russian fighters were just as good at CAS:

Russian fighters
Were using small rockets since the Winter War in 1939-1940.
Were using larger and / or more effective rockets from 1942.
Were carrying bombs since the Winter War,
Were agile and maneuverable.
Had armor and self-sealing fuel tanks* and were strongly built..
Had mostly nose-mounted guns (which I believe were more accurate).
Had (with the Exception of the MiG 3 and I-153) 20mm cannon since 1941.
Were also sometimes fitted with heavier cannon (23mm, 37mm, and 45mm) from fairly early on.
Have a well documented history of destroying German tanks, ships, vehicles and materiel from 1941 - 1945.

Anglo-American fighters
Had wing mounted guns (with the exception of the Tomahawk) which I think are somewhat less accurate than nose mounted.
Started being used as fighter bombers comparatively late (I think 1942).
Started using rockets much later still (I think 1943).
Were agile and maneuverable.
Had armor and self-sealing fuel tanks and were strongly built.
Either had machine guns (P-40s, Hurri I, Hurri IIB) or cannon with very limited ammo (Hurri IIC and Spit VB had 60 rpg for cannons, not sure about the early P-38).
Generally had more guns and ammunition.
May have had more powerful cannon and larger rockets.
Were sometimes fitted with heavier cannon (40mm bofors on Hurri IID, plus 37mm on P-39 though they were pretty limited in use in the med)
Have a well documented history of destroying German tanks, ships, vehicles and materiel from 1941 - 1945.

From this I conclude that Soviet fighters were not inferior to Anglo-American fighters in ground attack. Notice I didn't say they were necessarily better. That could be an interesting discussion if you want to dive deeper into it. But in the context of our earlier discussion (the merits of the yak 3) i think it's basically a diversion and a deflection.

I also never claimed the earth is flat, I contend that it is square**.

I hope this helps further clarify what we were actually arguing about.

S

* as distinct from say, Japanese fighters which I think you could make a case, were not so great for ground attack though they too were used this way with some success particularly in the early war.

** just kidding.

 

[pbehn]

I'm sorry you couldn't follow the Thread. I'm just answering Shortround who claimed that all late war USAAF Fighters were fully interchangable, in direct contrast to the Soviet fighters which he claimed were overly specialized, and therefore "not Great".

I was pointing out that they were not, in fact interchangeable and that deep raids into places like Berlin were only possible because of the P-51.

How would an aircraft type "go away"? Well it's pointless to speculate since it didn't happen to the P-51 - i was only making a point, a point so obvious I shouldn't have had to make it. I certainly can't think of any way that P-51 production could have stopped. Some promising aircraft types however did not get made, or weren't made in sufficient numbers, because the factories were bombed or certain strategic metals were not available in sufficient supply and so on.

If the P-51 didn't exist, then the US would know it didn't exist, the P-47N was in almost all respects the equal of the P-51 including range. It is therefore an issue of how quickly a P-47N version or similar could be brought into service and what offensive operations would be done in the meantime.

 

[Shortround6]

On July 7th '44 P-38s flew escort for B-24s to Halle and Bernberg Germany (about 60-70 miles southwest of Berlin?) claiming 18 German aircraft for no losses.
Operational planning charts show a radius of 650 miles for P-38 J&L when carrying 165 gallon drop tanks.
Operational planning charts show a radius of 425 miles for P-47D (with 305 gallons internal) when carrying 150 gallon drop tanks.
Operational planning charts show a radius of 600 miles for P-47D (with 370 gallons internal) when carrying 150 gallon drop tanks.
Operational planning charts show a radius of 450 miles for P-51 (with 184 gallons internal) when carrying 75 gallon drop tanks.
Operational planning charts show a radius of 700 miles for P-51 (with 269 gallons internal) when carrying 75 gallon drop tanks.

The P-51 was certainly the best choice. It was not the only choice.

 

[Schweik]

On July 7th '44 P-38s flew escort for B-24s to Halle and Bernberg Germany (about 60-70 miles southwest of Berlin?) claiming 18 German aircraft for no losses.
Operational planning charts show a radius of 650 miles for P-38 J&L when carrying 165 gallon drop tanks.
Operational planning charts show a radius of 425 miles for P-47D (with 305 gallons internal) when carrying 150 gallon drop tanks.
Operational planning charts show a radius of 600 miles for P-47D (with 370 gallons internal) when carrying 150 gallon drop tanks.
Operational planning charts show a radius of 450 miles for P-51 (with 184 gallons internal) when carrying 75 gallon drop tanks.
Operational planning charts show a radius of 700 miles for P-51 (with 269 gallons internal) when carrying 75 gallon drop tanks.

The P-51 was certainly the best choice. It was not the only choice.

yes but it's funny how you put 165 gallon tanks on the P-38 and 75 gallon tanks on the P-51, as if that is the only type they carried. This is what I mean when I refer to a 'thumb on the scale.' And how would the plane perform with 165 gallon external tanks?

Actually 108 gallon seems to be more typical for both P-38 and P-51 types when operating in Europe. The memo I link below indicates a maximum range ("radius of action") for the P-38 of 585 miles. If we assume 165 gal tanks that is still only 650 miles. Per the memo you will note below, the P-51 had an escort range of 850 miles as of March 1944. here I'll add it to your list:

Operational planning charts show a radius of 850 miles for P-51 (with 269 gallons internal) when carrying two 108 gallon drop tanks.

The more important point in the memo notes that "With such equipment, the P-51 permitted the exploitation of the full range capabilities of the heavy bomber force.". For a more readable view of the memo click here.

I will concede that eventually they had P-38s able to make it to Berlin (barely), and kudos for providing an example where they successfully escorted bombers with P-38s deep into Germany, but I don't think I would be going out on a limb if I pointed out that range was considered very limited in comparison to the P-51 (see the charts below) and combat performance against German fighters doubly so. I think these maps have been posted here before of course.

P-47 could certainly acquit itself better than a P-38 at high altitude but lacked the range for escort (in a free ranging fighter sweep they could go a bit further apparnertly). P-47M came a bit later of course to be relevant.

So I stick to my assertion they could not have conducted the deep raids into Berlin etc. without the P-51.