"Stretch or not strech" of aircraft designs

[Shortround6]

American fighters used SCR-274 or SCR-522 radios, often one transmitter / receiver in the HF band, and a second receiver only on the VF band, and sometimes also navigation and IFF sets. The American radios were preferred over the British ones in North Africa because they had four preset (programmable) channels that you could change with a button like in the old AM radios in cars back in the day, vs. a knob that you had to tune in

Actually the SCR-274 was a collection of radios, literally, usually 3 receivers and 2 transmitters although other combinations could be used. All the radios were sometimes left on at the same time and the pilot changed which radio he was using. If a transmitter or receiver was turned off it could take wellover a minute to warm up and become useable from cold. This design gave a bit of redundancy at the cost of weight and size (actual money aside). each individual radio was tunable with a dial.

The SCR-522 was a single radio set (transmitter and receiver) that could operate on four preset frequencies due to crystal control and did use a push button selector.

However the SCR-522 was pretty much a copy of a British radio (at least in regards to circuits and function) as the British wanted the US to be a second source of production.

In the UK in early 1943 P-47s had their american built radios taken out and British radios fitted in order to go on the first P-47 operations due to the many failures of the US radios.

In NA which Aircraft got which radios is certainly subject to question as the US was fitting the SCR-274s for quite sometime. Although it appears that the P-39K & L got the SCR-522 radio was the SCR-522. P-40Fs got both (not at the same time) but the manual just says that "some aircraft are equipped....." without going into any further details.

It does give range limits for the SCR-522 when talking to ground stations.

At 35-50 miles from the ground station it must be above 1000ft.
At 80-100 miles from the ground station it must be above 5000ft.
At 120-1600 miles from the ground station it must be above 10,000ft.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

An interesting/ funny note on the B26, apaerantly one of its nicknames owing to its speed and small wing area was " the hooker" as it was so fast and had no visable means of support.

From what I remember, they called it the "Baltimore Whore"....

"The Widowmaker"
"One a day in Tampa Bay"

....Lots of wonderful things said about the Marauder.

 

[Shortround6]

Well you are concentrating on the success stories (for the most part). There were quite a few cancellations and long struggles with designs. P-38 is one of those due in part to the various problems with the engines and turbos. But there are others! Many others in fact, which went nowhere.

What part of

"There is a difference (a large one in my opinion) in that while the Russians fitted a lower powered substitute engine into production/service fighters than they were designed for, the US and the British never did. Both countries had fighter prototypes powered by engines that either outright failed or had development problems but none of these fighters went into production with lower powered engines. "

Didn't you understand? Your whole post is covered by the bolded part.

As for

How about the Hawker Tornado, cancelled due to the failure of the Rolls Royce Vulture
Or the very promising Westland Whirlwind, delayed by problems with the Rolls Royce Peregrine and finally cancelled when they stopped making the RR Kestrel / Peregrine.

The Rolls Royce Vulture comes closest to the subject, not because of the Hawker Tornado but because the Avro Manchester had to use derated (lower power) Vultures in service.
This is one reason I specified fighters in my post.

There were actually very few problems with the Peregrine engine itself. Most of the troubles came from a lousy throttle control system (hydraulic which leaked/bled down) supplied by a different company, and cooling problems on the ground (solved with different operating procedure).
BTW the Peregrine was uprated in service, boost limit raised from 6lbs to 9lbs, not derated.

Your post, while informative on it's own, has very little to do with the subject.

 

[Shortround6]

On the M 202 in NA subject.

Is it possible there is some confusion between "in service" numbers and "on hand" numbers?

As in XXX number of aircraft on hand or in inventory but only XXX times 60% (or pick number) available for flight (in service) on a given day?

Just a thought.

 

[Schweik]

Hello Schweik,

First of all, this isn't MY theory. It was something I lifted from an Italian book about the Macchi C.202.
You REALLY should read what you posted. Your data is actually in pretty good agreement.

My (actually from the book) comment was that in NORTH AFRICA, the monthly average was about 30-70 Folgore for 1942. Your November 1942 statistic fits that just fine because of the units you listed only 66 aircraft by my count (really YOUR count) were actually in North Africa at the time.

As for June, 1943, I have some numbers for that also and they are actually a bit higher than yours though I don't remember ever putting those into the discussion.
As I said before, the main overlap from different sources that I was reading was 1942 so that is all I was trying to list.

- Ivan.

Let me remind you of the twists and turns of this conversation:
I commented off hand as part of a discussion about the P39 that P-40s had a good record in the MTO, PTO etc.
You remarked (incorrectly) that those were against inferior opposition.
I pointed out that the Japanese fighters were hardly inferior, neither were the Germans on the Russian front, and neither were the German or Italian in the MTO
You claimed (incorrectly) that P-40s were mostly facing inferior Italian planes in the MTO
I pointed out the Luftwaffe was there in strength with their most modern fighters and the main Italian fighter, the MC.202 was equivalent to the Bf 109
You made claims of inferior performance (debunked) guns (debunked) and finally insisted there were only 30 MC 202 at any one time in the Theater
I pointed out by the second through fourth quarter of 1942 there were usually at least 150 MC 202 + 100 Bf 109, peaking at 200 - which compares pretty well to Allied front-line fighter strength
And now you are claiming that it's only 66 because only the ones based in North Africa counted.

This is actually immaterial to the original claim that P-40s faced marginal opposition since 80% of the fighters based in Theater and 99% of the fighters they claimed as victories were Bf 109 or MC 202. However there is a further fallacy in that MC 202s operating out of Pantelleria and Lampedusa, and also Sicily and Sardinia, fought US and DAF fighters in North Africa routinely in 1942 and 1943 - and more and more from those bases as Operation Husky approached, this is why they were taken out .

I found an even more detailed breakdown of Italian airpower.

Regia Aeronautica in WWII Units, Bases, and Assigned Aircraft 1940-1943

Source is listed as: Dunning, C., Combat Units of the Regia Aeronatuica, Italian Air Force, 1940-1943, 1988, England, Air Research Publications Copyright GFN 1993

Fighter units conversion dates to modern types are as follows (it also shows where they were stationed each month):

These units switched to the MC.202 in 1941
6 Gruppo CT Switch from MC.200 to MC.202 in 06/21/41. Switch to MC 205 in 03/43
9 Gruppo switch from MC 200 to MC 202 in 07/41
10 Gruppo switch from MC 200 to MC 202 on 12/41. Switch to MC 205V starting on 05/54 completed by 07/43
17 Gruppo switch from MC.200 to MC.202 on 06/41
20 Gruppo switch from G.50 to MC. 202 on 12/41

These air wings switched to MC.202 or Re.2001 in 1942
2 Gruppo - Switch from G.50 to Re 2001 03/42
7 Gruppo switch from MC.200 to MC.202 in 09/42
22 Gruppo switched from MC 200 to Re.2001 on 7/42
23 Gruppo switched from Cr 42 & MC 200 to Mc 202 on 07/42
13 Gruppo switch from MC 200 to MC.202 on 11/42

So five air groups flying MC.202 by the end of 1941, and ten air groups flying MC.202 or Re.2001 by the end of 1942.

The following units switched in 1943
16 Gruppo Assalto switch from MC 200 to MC 202 on 2/43
18 Gruppo CT switch from MC 200 to MC.202 on 4/43
24 Gruppo CT switched from G.50 to Mc 202 and MC 205 on 05/43

The following units kept older types
8 Gruppo still on MC 200 by 09/43
12 Gruppo Still on MC 200
21 Gruppo CT still on MC 200

 

[Schweik]

On the M 202 in NA subject.

Is it possible there is some confusion between "in service" numbers and "on hand" numbers?

As in XXX number of aircraft on hand or in inventory but only XXX times 60% (or pick number) available for flight (in service) on a given day?

Just a thought.

The numbers I've been posting are 'available for combat'. Physically on the airfield (but non servicable) are much higher.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

On the M 202 in NA subject.

Is it possible there is some confusion between "in service" numbers and "on hand" numbers?

As in XXX number of aircraft on hand or in inventory but only XXX times 60% (or pick number) available for flight (in service) on a given day?

Just a thought.

Hello Shortround6,

I don't claim to know that much about the operational service of the Macchi C.202.
I am just quoting from various books just like others. The low numbers surprised me also when I first saw them.
When a source lists the total fighter sorties flown and states that only about 30% were by the Macchi C.202, then one has to wonder what the REST were flown by.

As for the dispute in numbers between Schweik and myself, I think it is really a matter of breaking down the numbers. I stated in North Africa. He is stating in the entire inventory.

Nov 1942 eve of Torch landings (from MAW Vol III pp. 41-45)

.....

Italian
In Sicily and Southern Mediterranean Islands:
51° Stormo CT - MC 202 (23)
377° Squadriglia Autonoma Int -mixed Cr 42 (8) / MC 200 (2) / MC 202 (1)
22° Gruppo Aut CT - Re - 2001 (21)
17° Gruppo Aut CT - MC. 202 (33)
153° Gruppo CT - MC 202 (21)
20° Gruppo CT - MC 202 (11)
24° Gruppo Autonomo CT - mixed G.50bis (26) / Cr 42 (25) / MC 202 (2)

In North Africa specifically:
4° Stormo CT MC.202 (28)
3° Stormo CT MC.202 (20)
2° Stormo CT MC.200 / 202 (18)
15° Stormo Assalto - Cr.42 (17)
50° Stormo Assalto - CR.42 (11)
5° Stormo Truffatori - CR 42 (11)

So that is:
Med Islands: 91 MC. 202, 21 Re 2001, 2 MC.200, 26 G.50bis, and 33 CR.42, for a total of 112 modern, 28 second string, and 33 biplanes.
North Africa: ~ 55 MC.202, ~ 10 MC.200, 39 CR.42

Total in the operational area is: 146 MC.202, 21 Re 2001, 12 MC.200, 26 G.50bis, and 72 CR.42 which again were used for bombers.

Note there is one squadron split between Saetta and Folgore. Since the numbers in the total didn't really add up 65 versus 66, I just used the MAXIMUM number possible assuming there were no Macchi 200 present at all.
Either way, low of 55 to high of 66 both fit the pattern described.

- Ivan.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Let me remind you of the twists and turns of this conversation:
I commented off hand as part of a discussion about the P39 that P-40s had a good record in the MTO, PTO etc.
You remarked (incorrectly) that those were against inferior opposition.
I pointed out that the Japanese fighters were hardly inferior, neither were the Germans on the Russian front, and neither were the German or Italian in the MTO
You claimed (incorrectly) that P-40s were mostly facing inferior Italian planes in the MTO
I pointed out the Luftwaffe was there in strength with their most modern fighters and the main Italian fighter, the MC.202 was equivalent to the Bf 109
You made claims of inferior performance (debunked) guns (debunked) and finally insisted there were only 30 MC 202 at any one time in the Theater

Hello Schweik,

We do end up in lots of different little corners that are pretty far off topic, don't we?
The P-40 WAS facing less than first rate opposition in the MTO and PTO. There were plenty of the older types being flown by the Italians or do you have a better breakdown of the fighter sorties flown by Italians? I don't have but one number there and it is pretty clear or are you disputing its accuracy because you have a better one?
How many of the Messerschmitts were still the older E models?
Early in the Pacific war, the Japanese army would have been flying mostly Ki-43. This was a beautiful and agile aeroplane, but without speed, firepower or protection. That would hardly be first rate opposition.

As for "debunking" performance and firepower claims: First of all, you are comparing a Me 109F-2 with the lower powered engine and less firepower against the C.202. Performance SHOULD be similar because they have nearly identical engine power. As for firepower, you obviously were not paying attention. Typically, the C.202 only had 2 x 12.7 mm Breda MG with relatively poor ballistics for a HMG. Even the 109F-2 had better hitting power with just one MG 151/15 motor cannon and had an additional pair of MG 17 LMGs. That was on the LOW side. With the Me 109F-4, there was additional engine power for better performance AND increased firepower with the MG 151/20 cannon.
This level of firepower was the same as a typical Japanese fighter and basically inadequate by the evaluation of the Italians.

6 Gruppo CT Switch from MC.200 to MC.202 in 06/21/41. Switch to MC 205 in 03/43

What do you have for the first production series for the Macchi Veltro? My understanding was that it was about a month later than the date you are listing here.

- Ivan.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Regarding adequacy of engine power in the Yak fighters, here is a comment by Major A. Nikashin of 812 IAP who was a participant in service trials of the Yak-9K. Now keep in mind that the Yak-9K is the NS-45 armed variant which made it one of the most heavily armed.
Note also that the "all-up" weight of this model at 3028 KG or 6677 pounds was not particularly heavy in comparison to other fighters and yet this was the evaluation:

"Yak-9 fighters should be used in cooperation with Yak-3 lightweight fighters making up a cover group. Tangling with fighters is undesirable for the Yak-9Ks because they are heavy and, owing to the insufficient engine power, have poor vertical component. When bombers are encountered, the Yak-9K fighters should make a surprise attack from behind th clouds or out of the sun, trying to disrupt their formation. It is expedient to make the first attack from above at a distance of 400 to 600 m. If any part of the bomber is hit by one or two shells, this is enough for the bomber to be destroyed."

- Ivan.

 

[Dan Fahey]

Hello Schweik,

My comment was not to suggest that the Allison or Merlin was superior. It was just an observation that under VERY high power, high RPM use (well beyond the levels used in WW2 aircraft) the Allison seems to hold up much better.



When your customer is not willing to fund development of a better supercharger and already had a "solution" for high altitude operation, then does it make sense to spend corporate funds for no contract?



We are actually both arguing for the requirement for a good radio installation in fighters.



Actually I don't believe I overstated anything here. All changes had to be approved by Rolls Royce and shared with them. Some of the better ideas were adopted for RR production as well. Some such as Indium coatings were just differences that were accepted. I am sure that if one looks at details of the engines side by side, there will be other differences such as seals. Some people working on these engines have commented that the Packards and Rolls Royce engines are about equal in performance where there are equivalent versions but Packards tend to keep more of their oil on the inside.
Many sources have commented that when working on drawings, the dimensions and tolerances had to be tightened up by Packard so that they could guarantee parts interchangeability.



Actually there was no need to comment because the numbers you were listing were not really in disagreement with the numbers I had already seen. Average monthly availability in North Africa for 1942 was about 30-70 Folgores.
The only number that seems to be in dispute is the percentage of sorties flown by Folgore.



Hello Dan Fahey,

I had not missed your mention of the Bubble Canopy.
Just remember that although this was a "better" P-40, everyone else already had the Bubble Canopy for better SA.
Even WITH the improved Allison engine, the XP-40Q-2 was still only making 422 MPH which is 25 MPH below what a P-51D could do.
The client wanted SPEED and even this P-40 wasn't achieving it.



The US built a bunch of P-63. They just exported them all. Compared to what was already in the inventory, they were a bit short-ranged and slow for the time.
Considering that the French lost their colonies in both places you mentioned, that is hardly a recommendation for the quality of their equipment. Neither is using left over Ki-43 fighters.

- Ivan.

Yes you did miss what I said ....
Curtis could have added the P40Q which would have been a better production fighter than the less performing earlier versions.
The P40Q and P63 would have been a far better performer under 20k.
The P39 and P40 were equal or better than all Axis fighters under 15k.
Especially CAS and Ground attack. The P51A was a better fighter under 20k.
I know this from Planes of Fame comments when they get a mixed bag of fighters up to altitude of a phot shot.
The P51A climbed a good bit quicker than the D/K Mustangs.
It was lighter and more nimble.
The P63 had considerable more range over the P39 and had the better guns and cannon.
It was a much more capable fighter.
Far better down low but had competitive height altitude performance.

It was very strange why the US did not use the P63 or the upgraded P40.

 

[Dan Fahey]

Hello Schweik,

We do end up in lots of different little corners that are pretty far off topic, don't we?
The P-40 WAS facing less than first rate opposition in the MTO and PTO. There were plenty of the older types being flown by the Italians or do you have a better breakdown of the fighter sorties flown by Italians? I don't have but one number there and it is pretty clear or are you disputing its accuracy because you have a better one?
How many of the Messerschmitts were still the older E models?
Early in the Pacific war, the Japanese army would have been flying mostly Ki-43. This was a beautiful and agile aeroplane, but without speed, firepower or protection. That would hardly be first rate opposition.

As for "debunking" performance and firepower claims: First of all, you are comparing a Me 109F-2 with the lower powered engine and less firepower against the C.202. Performance SHOULD be similar because they have nearly identical engine power. As for firepower, you obviously were not paying attention. Typically, the C.202 only had 2 x 12.7 mm Breda MG with relatively poor ballistics for a HMG. Even the 109F-2 had better hitting power with just one MG 151/15 motor cannon and had an additional pair of MG 17 LMGs. That was on the LOW side. With the Me 109F-4, there was additional engine power for better performance AND increased firepower with the MG 151/20 cannon.
This level of firepower was the same as a typical Japanese fighter and basically inadequate by the evaluation of the Italians.



What do you have for the first production series for the Macchi Veltro? My understanding was that it was about a month later than the date you are listing here.

- Ivan.

Totally disagree the P40 was up against lesser opposition.
There was always a migration to newer types entering combat every month on all sides.
If not field modifications that helped them stay competitive.
One of the striking facts when two opposing fighter groups got together...there were few one sided battles.
Majority of kills on both sides was everything that was not a fighter.
Meaning bomber, transport, recon..

 

[Schweik]

Regarding adequacy of engine power in the Yak fighters, here is a comment by Major A. Nikashin of 812 IAP who was a participant in service trials of the Yak-9K. Now keep in mind that the Yak-9K is the NS-45 armed variant which made it one of the most heavily armed.
Note also that the "all-up" weight of this model at 3028 KG or 6677 pounds was not particularly heavy in comparison to other fighters and yet this was the evaluation:

"Yak-9 fighters should be used in cooperation with Yak-3 lightweight fighters making up a cover group. Tangling with fighters is undesirable for the Yak-9Ks because they are heavy and, owing to the insufficient engine power, have poor vertical component. When bombers are encountered, the Yak-9K fighters should make a surprise attack from behind th clouds or out of the sun, trying to disrupt their formation. It is expedient to make the first attack from above at a distance of 400 to 600 m. If any part of the bomber is hit by one or two shells, this is enough for the bomber to be destroyed."

- Ivan.

This is (hopefully) an honest mistake on your part. He's talking about a Yak-9K with the 45mm gun, which was clearly too big for the airframe. That is by no means the normal assessment of the typical Yak-9. The Yak-9K was a failure and was barely used.

"Yak-9T modified with a 45 mm NS-45 cannon with 29 rounds and a distinctive muzzle brake to deal with the massive recoil. Firing the cannon at speeds below 350 km/h (220 mph) caused dramatic loss of control and tossed the pilot back and forth in the cockpit; however, accurate shooting was possible at higher speeds and in 2–3 round bursts. The recoil also caused numerous oil and coolant leaks. The heavy cannon installation degraded performance, even more so at high altitudes, sufficiently to relegating the Yak-9K to be used as a heavy fighter and resulting in the need for a fighter escort of Yak-3s. The Yak-9K saw only limited use due to unreliability of the NS-45, airframe performance issues caused by both the NS-45 and larger fuel tanks used on the Yak-9K, as well as a reduction of bombers used by the Germans. "

According to this site, only 50 were made:

"One of the consequences of this reconsideration was development of the "Yak-9K", which had a dedicated fit of the NS-45 cannon with a long and distinctive muzzle brake. A batch of about 50 of these fighters was built in the first half of 1944, and were put through tests and operational evaluation. The cannon was devastating in combat, but it proved unreliable; its recoil shock was also too much for the airframe, cracking fuel and coolant lines. The Yak-9K was not put into production. "

I would say to look instead at a Yak-1B, Yak-7B, Yak-9T, Yak-9U or Yak-3

 

[Shortround6]

Hmmm, Yak-9T is the greatest thing since borscht using a 170kg gun that is 341cm long with 30-32 rounds of cannon ammo and a single 12.7mm machine gun (200 rounds) while the Yak-9K using a 170kg gun that is 341cm long with 29 rounds of ammo and a single 12.7mm machine gun (200 rounds) needs escorts?

I am confused

from Anthony Williams website. BOOKS BY ANTHONY G WILLIAMS
The weights and lengths are from one of his books and may not agree with online sources

4th round from the left is the US 37mm.
6th round from the left is the Russian 37mm used in the Yak 9T
8th round from the left is the Russian 45mm used in the Yak 9K

The 45 mm round was the 37mm cartridge case necked up. It was the same diameter at the back, there was little difference between the two guns.

Most accounts blame the poor performance of the 9K on the large fuel tanks and greater fuel load.
However most accounts say the 9K was powered by the M-105PF engine that was rated at 1180hp at altitude (?).
As was the 9T.
Weight of the guns and ammo for either the 9T or the 9K might have gone 250-270Kg not including mounts, ammo boxes/chutes, gun heaters and charging system/s.

 

[Schweik]

Hello Schweik,

We do end up in lots of different little corners that are pretty far off topic, don't we?

It seems inevitable, and as these discussions never progress in breezy disregard of the evidence, the same exact points are debated over and over. Kind of like politics these days I guess.

The P-40 WAS facing less than first rate opposition in the MTO and PTO. There were plenty of the older types being flown by the Italians or do you have a better breakdown of the fighter sorties flown by Italians? I don't have but one number there and it is pretty clear or are you disputing its accuracy because you have a better one?

Well, I've already shown (several times, going back to many months ago) that the vast majority of Axis fighters in the MTO in 1942 through mid 1943 (when P-40s were most active in the MTO) were late model Bf 109s and Macchi 202s, and in 1943 you can add Macchi 205s and Re 2001s to the mix. If they were so easy to shoot down I'd like to know why they posed equally difficult challenges for contemporaneous Sptifires and P-38s which were the best fighters in the Allied arsenal at the time.

As for which types flew sorties, well you already stated your preference to ignore operational history, and you have made it clear you don't find my assessments of operational history reliable. Still, you and I aren't the only people reading through this debate so for the benefit of others I went through about 40 pages in the middle of MAW III and took pics with my phone. I'll go through these in a followup post. I believe it shows that nearly all claims and losses, at any rate, were of MC 202 during this time period (the 40 pages covered late 1942 into early 1943).

To Mods - can I post images of a few pages from this book?

How many of the Messerschmitts were still the older E models?

!!!!Did you read anything I posted on this? It's a little disheartening to answer a question and then have it asked again!?

The Germans used the latest and best fighters they had in the MTO. By the end of 1942 99% of the fighters were Bf 109G (specifically G-2 and G-4), with a few F-4. The 12 Bf 109E Jabos I counted separately since they weren't flying fighter sorties (and often weren't intercepted, since their escorts took on the Allied fighters). Same for the Fw 190 Jabos and attack ('schlacht') units which I counted separately from the fighter 190s of J.G.2

This is a repeat of something I posted 2 or 3 pages ago. Please notice the aircraft types:

German
Again no numbers here but the following units / types are listed:

II./JG 51 - Bf 109G-2
Stab JG 53 - Bf 109G-2
II./JG 53 - Bf 109G-4
II./ZG 1 - Me 210A1-
II./JG 2 - Fw 190A-3
I./JG 53 -Bf 109G-2
III./ZG 2 -Fw 190A-5
II./JG 27 - BF 109F-4/G-2
Stab JG 77 - Bf 109G-2
I./JG 77 - Bf 109G-2
III./ZG 26 - Bf 110F-2/Ju 88C-6
I./SchG 2 - Bf 109F-4
4.(H)/12 - Bf 109F-4

This is seven squadrons so roughly 80-100 fighters not counting command units, consisting of half of two Jagdeschwader (roughly, fighter wings) of front line Bf 109 fighters: JG. 77 which was moving into the region, and JG 53 (two squadrons), plus squadrons from three more wings: JG. 27 (elite but being phased out due to casualties / battle weariness), JG 2 (elite Fw 190 wing), and JG 51 (elite Bf 109), plus heavy fighters, Fw 190 Jabos (ZG II) some other miscellaneous Bf 109 units (I'm not sure what 4.(H)/12 means).

Early in the Pacific war, the Japanese army would have been flying mostly Ki-43. This was a beautiful and agile aeroplane, but without speed, firepower or protection. That would hardly be first rate opposition.

Part of the opposition was the Ki-43, which I agree was excellent but no I certainly wouldn't call second rate (it was apparently the highest scoring fighter in the Japanese arsenal), but much of the opposition was also from A6M2s and later marks of the A6M, both over Darwin and Port Morseby / Milne Bay (and later other Islands), and soon after that Ki-61s and Ki-44s entered the fray as well. In fact the Tinian Air group, one of the top outfits in the IJN, was one of the main opponents of the 49th FG (P-40s) at Port Morseby.

Regardless of what was being flown, they were able to cause the Spitfires (again, top Allied fighter at the time) sent to the region trouble so I don't think it's plausible to call them second rate in 1942 or say up to mid-1943. They did not hold up well to the Hellcat or Corsair and a few P-38 pilots did well against them, but some P-38 pilots did well against Bf 109s too..

As for "debunking" performance and firepower claims: First of all, you are comparing a Me 109F-2 with the lower powered engine and less firepower against the C.202. Performance SHOULD be similar because they have nearly identical engine power. As for firepower, you obviously were not paying attention. Typically, the C.202 only had 2 x 12.7 mm Breda MG with relatively poor ballistics for a HMG. Even the 109F-2 had better hitting power with just one MG 151/15 motor cannon and had an additional pair of MG 17 LMGs. That was on the LOW side. With the Me 109F-4, there was additional engine power for better performance AND increased firepower with the MG 151/20 cannon.
This level of firepower was the same as a typical Japanese fighter and basically inadequate by the evaluation of the Italians.

The Bf 109F-2 was the contemporary of the original MC.202, that is why I made the comparison. Their firepower was equivalent, for the simple reason that the MC.202 was putting out more bullets, and each bullet could knock down an enemy aircraft or kill a pilot. For all this talk about 'throw weight' and muzzle velocity and so forth, have any of you ever seen a 12.7mm machine gun fire? (of any brand). Try to understand this - an aircraft is not a chunk of reinforced concrete which must be chipped away by a kind of long range jackhammer to destroy it. It is a mostly hollow shell made of light aluminum alloy (or light plywood, or cloth, or all three) with a few small pieces of relatively thin armor plate inside, and a lot of vulnerable control wires, hydraulic lines, oil tanks, squishy fuel tanks (which yes, have a sealer but aren't immune to blowing up), fragile high performance engines and very squishy pilots. Any one of which can be messed up by a single shell let alone two or three. Even a 'bad' Heavy Machine Gun like the Breda is still a heavy machine gun. Shooting 11 HMG shells per second from two HMG is enough to do serious damage and certainly as lethal as another plane shooting 7 or 8 rounds per second with a slightly better gun. Bf 109F-4 was better than the F-2 (though apparently hampered by the Trop filter) but subsequent 202s were also improved. Which is what led to the 205 and 205V, N/1 and N/2 (started with MC. 202bis which had the DB 605).

What do you have for the first production series for the Macchi Veltro? My understanding was that it was about a month later than the date you are listing here.

- Ivan.

That operational history was from Globalsecurity.org and they listed their source which I also listed. Wikipedia says the combat introduction of the MC 205 was in February 1943 which seems to match. From the wiki:

"The C.205 entered production only five months after its maiden flight and began reaching front line units in February 1943. At the end of April, the 1° Stormo, based in Pantelleria, is the first unit to enter action with the C.205, on Mediterranean, escorting maritime and aerial convoys to and from Tunisia. "

This also helpfully reinforces my point that units in Pantelleria and other islands were routinely engaging Allied fighters operating out of Tunisia.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

This is (hopefully) an honest mistake on your part. He's talking about a Yak-9K with the 45mm gun, which was clearly too big for the airframe. That is by no means the normal assessment of the typical Yak-9. The Yak-9K was a failure and was barely used.

"Yak-9T modified with a 45 mm NS-45 cannon with 29 rounds and a distinctive muzzle brake to deal with the massive recoil. Firing the cannon at speeds below 350 km/h (220 mph) caused dramatic loss of control and tossed the pilot back and forth in the cockpit; however, accurate shooting was possible at higher speeds and in 2–3 round bursts. The recoil also caused numerous oil and coolant leaks. The heavy cannon installation degraded performance, even more so at high altitudes, sufficiently to relegating the Yak-9K to be used as a heavy fighter and resulting in the need for a fighter escort of Yak-3s. The Yak-9K saw only limited use due to unreliability of the NS-45, airframe performance issues caused by both the NS-45 and larger fuel tanks used on the Yak-9K, as well as a reduction of bombers used by the Germans. "

According to this site, only 50 were made:

"One of the consequences of this reconsideration was development of the "Yak-9K", which had a dedicated fit of the NS-45 cannon with a long and distinctive muzzle brake. A batch of about 50 of these fighters was built in the first half of 1944, and were put through tests and operational evaluation. The cannon was devastating in combat, but it proved unreliable; its recoil shock was also too much for the airframe, cracking fuel and coolant lines. The Yak-9K was not put into production. "

I would say to look instead at a Yak-1B, Yak-7B, Yak-9T, Yak-9U or Yak-3

Hello Schweik,

You have GOT to be kidding.
Here are some specifications for you to consider:
Yak-9K - 1180 HP, Loaded Weight 3028 KG (6675 pounds)
Yak-9T - 1180 HP, Loaded Weight 3025 KG (6668 pounds)

So you are trying to convince us that 7 pounds in aircraft weight makes such a difference? Really???
For what it's worth, this is very nearly the same weight and horsepower as a Macchi C.202 with 7.7 mm LMG in the wings which is probably why those pilots mostly chose to remove the guns as well.

- Ivan.

 

[Schweik]

Hmmm, Yak-9T is the greatest thing since borscht using a 170kg gun
I am confused

I really don't doubt that you are confused, but the biggest point of confusion on your part is that you seem to think I'm making up the assessment of the Yak-9T (2,700 built) vs. the Yak-9K (50 built, apparently). I'm not an expert on Yaks, I have two or three books and the internet, probably the same as you. I actually in fact, originally believed your claims about some of these things such as that very few large caliber guns were carried on Soviet fighters (from several previous debates about the use of Soviet fighters for CAS. I assumed you were telling the truth and didn't feel invested in it to look further.

But out of routine curiosity and interest in WW2 planes, I read a book about Yak fighter operations in WW2 and it mentioned that the Yak-9T was successful, well liked and 2700 were made. So I double checked with other sources, sure enough this was a fact. So I pointed it out. Why the Yak-9K was not a success and only 50 were made, I really don't know - Wikipedia says the recoil from the 45mm gun was a factor, they did also mention the fuel tanks. What do I care?

I didn't write any of that, I didn't make it up. I don't work for the Yakovlev design bureau, I didn't fly a Yak. I'm just telling you guys what the history says. That seems to be a deep point of confusion for the two of you.

 

[Schweik]

Hello Schweik,

You have GOT to be kidding.

Nope. And I must say, I have often wondered if you were kidding particularly in the last 5 pages or so.

Here are some specifications for you to consider:
Yak-9K - 1180 HP, Loaded Weight 3028 KG (6675 pounds)
Yak-9T - 1180 HP, Loaded Weight 3025 KG (6668 pounds)

So you are trying to convince us that 7 pounds in aircraft weight makes such a difference? Really???

By no means ! I am not trying to convince you of any such thing. I am trying to explain to you what the various history books and online sources say - which is for example that Soviet evaluation of the Yak-9T was positive, and more than 2,700 were made. Soviet evaluation of the Yak-9K, which you definitely cherry picked, was negative, and only 50 were made.


You keep making repeated assertions which simply aren't true and don't line up with the historical record and then you just move on to another:

MC.202 was inferior - false
MC.202 was not available in any numbers- false
most Axis sorties in North Africa were old MC 200 and G.50 - false
Most German fighters in MTO were obsolescent Bf-109E - false
US forces only fought Ki-43 in PTO - false
Ki-43 was inferior - false (though I will say MC.202 was more dangerous)
Yak -9 was inferior too - false
Yak -9K is indicative of Yak-9 performance overall - false

 

[Shortround6]

The P63 had considerable more range over the P39 and had the better guns and cannon.
It was a much more capable fighter.

Really?
A fighter with 4 ft more wingspan (and 16% more wing area) and 2 1/2 ft more fuselage length and weighing 4-600lbs has considerably more range with just 16 gallons more internal fuel had considerably more range???

The M2 Browning machine guns in the P-63 were better than the M2 Browning machine guns in the P-39Q?

 

[Shortround6]

I really don't doubt that you are confused, but the biggest point of confusion on your part is that you seem to think I'm making up the assessment of the Yak-9T (2,700 built) vs. the Yak-9K (50 built, apparently). I'm not an expert on Yaks, I have two or three books and the internet, probably the same as you. I actually in fact, originally believed your claims about some of these things such as that very few large caliber guns were carried on Soviet fighters (from several previous debates about the use of Soviet fighters for CAS. I assumed you were telling the truth and didn't feel invested in it to look further.

But out of routine curiosity and interest in WW2 planes, I read a book about Yak fighter operations in WW2 and it mentioned that the Yak-9T was successful, well liked and 2700 were made. So I double checked with other sources, sure enough this was a fact. So I pointed it out. Why the Yak-9K was not a success and only 50 were made, I really don't know - Wikipedia says the recoil from the 45mm gun was a factor, they did also mention the fuel tanks. What do I care?

I didn't write any of that, I didn't make it up. I don't work for the Yakovlev design bureau, I didn't fly a Yak. I'm just telling you guys what the history says. That seems to be a deep point of confusion for the two of you.

Apparently I was in error about the extent of use of large caliber guns in soviet fighters counting Yak 1s, 7s and 9s (but not 3s) and Lagg 3s and LA 5s (but not LA-7s) and Mig 3 but not any other kinds of of Soviet fighters the 37mm gun versions made up about 5% of the total, adjust as you see fit for numbers of other aircraft.

Comments about the 45mm gun version have to taken carefully, I am not saying that such comments were not made or that they are untrue. But if they don't specifically call out the differences between the 45mm gun planes and the 37mm gun planes do not assume that the 37mm gun planes were free of similar defects/problems.

Some accounts say that the 37mm gun caused cracks and the destruction of whole pipeline units.

The 37mm gun fired a lighter shell at slightly higher velocity using a similar amount of powder, recoil forces of the 45mm gun went up around 27%. the recoil of the 37mm gun was far from light.

several accounts claim (probably based on the same source) that the 37mm gun planes could destroy one enemy plane per 31 rounds fired while the ShVAK needed 147 rounds (45mm gun needed just 10 rounds per plane destroyed).

Now fighters certainly need less rounds to shoot down than bombers but the Luftwaffe figured they needed to fire about 1000 rounds of MG 151 ammunition ( with 30-40 % mine shells) to shoot down a B-17. Luftwaffe figured about 2% hits for rounds fired, ShVAK was killing German planes with about 3 hits each??

Also please note that the 20mm ShVAK shells (not cartridge) weighed less than 1/7th what a 37mm shell weighed. and the gun weighed about 1/4 as much.

I am not sure how efficient the 37mm armed Yak 9T was in actuality. Giving specialized aircraft to the best pilots and best shots is likely to skew the results.

 

[Schweik]

Apparently I was in error about the extent of use of large caliber guns in soviet fighters counting Yak 1s, 7s and 9s (but not 3s) and Lagg 3s and LA 5s (but not LA-7s) and Mig 3 but not any other kinds of of Soviet fighters the 37mm gun versions made up about 5% of the total, adjust as you see fit for numbers of other aircraft.

Comments about the 45mm gun version have to taken carefully, I am not saying that such comments were not made or that they are untrue. But if they don't specifically call out the differences between the 45mm gun planes and the 37mm gun planes do not assume that the 37mm gun planes were free of similar defects/problems.

Some accounts say that the 37mm gun caused cracks and the destruction of whole pipeline units.

The 37mm gun fired a lighter shell at slightly higher velocity using a similar amount of powder, recoil forces of the 45mm gun went up around 27%. the recoil of the 37mm gun was far from light.

several accounts claim (probably based on the same source) that the 37mm gun planes could destroy one enemy plane per 31 rounds fired while the ShVAK needed 147 rounds (45mm gun needed just 10 rounds per plane destroyed).

Now fighters certainly need less rounds to shoot down than bombers but the Luftwaffe figured they needed to fire about 1000 rounds of MG 151 ammunition ( with 30-40 % mine shells) to shoot down a B-17. Luftwaffe figured about 2% hits for rounds fired, ShVAK was killing German planes with about 3 hits each??

Also please note that the 20mm ShVAK shells (not cartridge) weighed less than 1/7th what a 37mm shell weighed. and the gun weighed about 1/4 as much.

I am not sure how efficient the 37mm armed Yak 9T was in actuality. Giving specialized aircraft to the best pilots and best shots is likely to skew the results.

I honestly don't know enough details about it, I have the Osprey book on Yaks which seems to praise it (the 9T) highly but they seem to be fairly pro-Soviet. The truth is most of the Soviet experiments with 37mm or 45mm guns, including on Sturmovik, seem to have been failures. I gather the 9T was reinforced somewhat but could handle the weapon, it sounds to me like the 27% of increased firepower of the 45mm was too much as the gun is mentioned as a cause. Extra fuel tanks no doubt had ill effects too.

Later the Soviets seemed to settle on the 23mm gun for the heavier armed Yak fighters, though the 37mm also remained in use. And I do suspect the P-39 may have influenced the adoption of that caliber, if not it's another coincidence as to why they liked it. Yes the guns were different but two large caliber guns like that are a lot more alike than any smaller caliber (LMG or HMG) gun.

I'll grant you this though, the Soviet planes didn't have a lot of margin. The Yak-9 and -3 were all metal I think which made them a little more versatile.

Two or three well placed 20mm shells could knock down just about any single-engined WW2 fighter - one shell in the engine or cockpit can do it. And if you are shooting from 50-100 meters per Soviet doctrine maybe your accuracy is a little better. 5 or 10 shells might be better but 20mm cannon make a pretty big hole.

The ShVak also looks like a bit better cannon (800 rpm at 770 mps) than an MG 151 (700 rpm at 700 mps)