Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

The most over-rated aircraft of WW2

  • Total voters
    409

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

GrauGeist said:
I'm not sure why there is such a push to downplay the fifty's contribution to the war effort and I certainly don't see how supporting the .50's historical performance is "flag waving" when other nations used that caliber as well.
Click to expand...
Claiming that an all .50 armament is superior to all else, with the dubious claim that a post war evaluation proved it, seems like "flag waving" to me. We have all seen the American gun camera footage, of the A6M bursting into flames or the 190 shedding a wing, but I assume those are specifically hand picked shots, for the western post war public. I may be wrong, as it happens more than I would like. But I also assume that footage of a P-51 folding up under fire from a 190 would be less palatable to the same public, and less readily shown.
 
Tieleader said:
I don't get all hate for the .50 cal. If it was such a piece of crap it still wouldn't be in use by the US military today. Just sayin'...
Click to expand...
Post war, the F-86D used 20 mm cannons as it was a bomber interceptor. The .5 in was more than adequate against single and twin engine Luftwaffe fighters and Jap planes but you needed something bigger for intercepting bombers which is why the RAF used 20 mm cannon in WW2.
 
There's a great deal of unedited, original guncam footage from both Allied and Axis sources that are readily available.
Plenty of Allied footage showing the devestating effects the fifties had on all types of Luftwaffe aircraft: Bf109, Fw190, Me262, various transports, bombers and even a Me163.
 
Unfortunately the reference to this "study" is so vague as to be almost worthless.

While the "study" is supposed to be done post war are they evaluating actual WW II performance of guns and Ammo ( four 800rpm guns with M8 API ammo?) and please note that the US four .50 cal gun fighters were pretty much the FM-2 Wildcat, the P-51B & C (some Ds) a few hundred stripper P-40s and the P-38 if the 20mm gun jammed.
Since something like 8000 fast firing .50s (1200rpm) had been delivered before the war ended ( but combat use was ????) the reference to fast firing .50 to slow firing 20mm cannon might make sense, even if not quite correct/fair.
For war time guns see the Glacier girl gun video. You can get roughly two .50s for one 20mm cannon ( for about the same weight) and get 26 rounds per second vers 10 of those exploding shells per second. As far as ammo goes, without links you get about 230 rounds of .50 cal ammo for every 100 rounds of 20mm ammo.
Now split the 230 rounds between two guns and surprise! the actual amount of trigger time isn't that different (10 seconds per hundred for the 20mm and 8.8 seconds for the pair of 50 cal guns.
SO are 26 .50 cal round per second equal to 10 of those 20mm rounds?

Post war and Korea get real messy as the Navy was using faster firing 20mm cannon. The Air Force was using the fast .50s and different ammo.

I would also note that bringing in the F-86D is a complete off the track distraction. US F-86Ds carried no guns instead they used a retractable rocket pack of 24 mighty mouse rockets. Some were later rebuilt using a quartet of M24 cannon (750rpm and lighter projectiles/higher mV but that wasn't until the mid 50s or after. )

The American .50 cal got the job done, it would be foolish to say it didn't. But it was heavy for the amount of power it had and the long trigger times only came at the cost of a lot of weight tied up in ammunition. For instance the guns and ammo in a MK IX Spit (four .303s) went just about 650lbs. The guns and ammo in a P-40N stripped went just about 550lbs and the firing times were 12 seconds for the SPit's cannon and and about 15.5 seconds for the P-40.
you want the high trigger time of a four gun FM-2? With full ammo boxes the guns and ammo went about 800lbs. Yes you had just over 30 seconds of firing time but????
 
Resp:
I am not sure where you are getting the designation: P-51A-3. Normally, the first production model aircraft for the USAAF would be given the letter 'A.' As in P-51A, but the USAAF dubbed the British Mustang MkIA held back after Pearl Harbor for their own use as P-51-1 (later blocks of this same aircraft were given the designation of -2, [or P-51-2] & possibly -3, although I have never seen it in print or stenciled on Mustangs). When the USAAF failed to follow established procedure, we got/get a confused sequence of the models built with the Allison engine. You are correct in that the first Mustang accepted for service was the MkIA, redesignated as P-51-1. Note that when they converted most of these P-51s to the Photo Recon mission, the USAAF designated them correctly as F-6A (the A meaning the 1st model of the photo version). To add to the confusion, the stenciling of these camera equipped F-6As were left as P-51-1 (-2, possibly -3 and so forth; wiring, or some change maintenance would be 'flagged' by the different tacked number).
However, the 1st USAAF's 'order' for a fighter version . . . was the P-51A; the last Allison Mustang variant, which was produced side-by-side the A-36A (however, actual production of the P-51A did not begin until well after the dive bomber A-36A was underway). I hope this helps with solving some of the confusion.
What most followers of this Allison engined Mustang (aka: Invader/Apache) fail to realize is that the P-51A (last of the variants) was given significantly improved performance over the earlier variants.
Navalwarrior
 
Somewhere I mentioned the 67th Recon as having P-51A/F-6B plus P-51B/C/F-6C having Malcolm Hoods in ETO. Ditto 10th PRG but IIRC the 10th had only a few F-6B before F-6C from start of combat ops in Feb 1944. I believe you are correct that no F-6A made it to ETO. All the operational ones I recall were in MTO, which deployed with 68th TRG as first Mustangs deployed to US combat ops in Africa. No Malcolm Hoods installed in MTO or CBI or SWP.

I have seen pics of Mustang I with field installed single Spitfire mirror. Larry Davis - North American P-51 Mustang -A photo Chronicle pg 17 for example of mirror on Mustang I and pg 27 for F-6B w/Malcolm Hood (10th PRG)
 
Tieleader said:
I don't get all hate for the .50 cal. If it was such a piece of crap it still wouldn't be in use by the US military today. Just sayin'...
Click to expand...

Like many pieces of equipment, there are some niches that are hard to to fill, or hard to improve on. The .50 in the ground role falls into a niche. It is about as big as can be manhandled (although well over 90% of all moves are by motor vehicle), it is substantially more powerful/longer ranged than rifle caliber machine guns, it is reliable and rugged, many have been rebuilt numerous times. However that means it is heavy for an aircraft gun. The ground guns also fire slower, around 450rpm and most of the ones in service (unless some remote 3rd world country) have either chrome lined or stellite lined barrels to help with barrel life.

trying to use jeep mounted (or tank turret roof) 20mm cannon means a weapon that is even bigger and heavier with harder to store ammo than the .50 (if it needs more than a burst from the .50 cal just use a tank shell).

The .50 is still a useful weapon, just not in air to air combat.
 
Resp:
Thanks drgondog
Another feature separating the A-36A and P-51A/F-6B from the earlier Allison engined Mustang variants, is the wing hard points for bombs/drop tanks under each wing, which are located just outside the landing gear. These hard points form a significant protrusion, so can be easily seen from the side, front or bottom. All other Allison Mustangs variants, whether RAF or USAAF, do not have these distinct protrusions on the underwing. This information should help determine which variant one is looking at.
 
Last edited:

No one has said it wasn't adequate, only that it wasn't optimal.
 
Navalwarrior said:
Resp:
I am not sure where you are getting the designation: P-51A-3.
Click to expand...

Might be a production block. Joe Baugher has:

Three production blocks were built with the following serials:

43-6003/6102 P-51A-1-NA
43-6103/6157 P-51A-5-NA
43-6158/6312 P-51A-10-NA
Click to expand...

North American P-51A Mustang

As to the first production versions of fighters having the A designation, the P-35, P-38, P-40 and P-43 went into initial production without the A suffix and were delivered to the USAAC/F.
 
Resp:
Thanks. You just answered the 'tack' designation for the P-51A; P-51A-1 NA, P-51A-5 NA and P-51A-10 NA. Again, the USAAF departed from the norm by using P-51-1 and P-51-2 for the acquired Mustang MkIAs. Note that these same aircraft became F-6A (the USAAF got it right by using 'A' for the first photographic variant Mustang). The A-36A, the first (and only) dive bomber variant, again the USAAF the 'A' designation.
For the P-35, P-38, etc., they did use a 'letter' on the first accepted aircraft, as in P-47B. The reason Republic had
Resp:
In the case of P-51-1, P-51-2, etc? Yes, they were likely denoting production blocks. But he was associating
P-51-3 with the last variant, the P-51A. If so, it was a completely different variant, rather than a 'block' separation.
Also, in the case of say, a P-47B as the first accepted production variant, the USAAF likely decided on a major change, which necessitated moving to another letter. In this case, the P-47A became a P-47B as the first produced in volume that was delivered to the USAAF. So, if done according to practice, the first Allison engined Mustang accepted by the USAAF, should have been designated as P-51A, rather than P-51, or P-51-1. Again, when the USAAF redesignated them for the Photo-Recon role, they were designated as F-6A. Yea, they got it right!
 
The XP-47/XP-47A was a completely different aircraft to the P-47B. The XP-47 and XP-47A were Allison V-1710 powered, the latter an unarmed version of the former.

The XP-47B was a completely different design.

The first production P-39 was the P-39C.
 
wuzak said:
The XP-47/XP-47A was a completely different aircraft to the P-47B. The XP-47 and XP-47A were Allison V-1710 powered, the latter an unarmed version of the former.

The XP-47B was a completely different design.

The first production P-39 was the P-39C.
Click to expand...
Resp:
Yes. Exactly. Either was preceded by a letter (X before a P) or followed by a letter (A, B, C, etc). P-51-1, etc has neither!
 
Navalwarrior said:
Resp:
Yes. Exactly. Either was preceded by a letter (X before a P) or followed by a letter (A, B, C, etc). P-51-1, etc has neither!
Click to expand...

There was XP-40 and a P-40, but no YP-40.

There was an XP-38, several YP-38s and production P-38s.

The P-51 was different in that the prototype (NA-73X) was built for the British, and was not procured by the Air Force other than 2 production aircraft were set aside for testing.
 
Resp:
But the first two were designated what? XP-51. You have answered your own question. So the first accepted model for service should have been with a LETTER, and not as P-51 or P-51-1.
 
The Mustang Mk.IA was an NA-91, same as the P-51.
The P-51A-1NA, P-51A-5NA and P-51A-10NA were NA-99 types.

Here is a link to a solid P-51 resource that will help with the types, production blocks and NAA model codes:
P-51 Mustang Production - MustangsMustangs.com

Joe Bauer's site is also pure gold for details, too.
 
Navalwarrior said:
Resp:
But the first two were designated what? XP-51. You have answered your own question. So the first accepted model for service should have been with a LETTER, and not as P-51 or P-51-1.
Click to expand...
Typically, when the USAAC/USAAF accepted a type on a limited basis, it was delivered as a "YP-XX", like a YP-61", etc. Then when the type's full production version was approved, it was designated as such with an "A" suffix (P-61A).

In the case of the P-51, it was a foreign ordered type that was adopted without a trial purchase. So there was no "Y" prefix applied.

The "Y" stands for "Service test pending production orders" and the Mustang was an unusual exception to the standard process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
31
Views
928
SaparotRob
T
Early records of UK preparation for WWII
Replies
3
Views
756
yulzari
M
USAAF aircraft lost through transport sinkings during Battle of the Atlantic?
Replies
2
Views
432
fubar57
Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
637
CHen10
WWI Aces Flying WWII Planes
Replies
17
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
Menu
Log in
Register