Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon?

Navalwarrior said:

I have read that Douglas Bader preferred .303 wing mounted guns over cannons. Likely due to preferring shorter range contact. My guess only.

Click to expand...

If Bader in fact said that, I would assume he would be referring to the woeful reliability of the early war drum fed Hispano's. 2 functional 20mm cannons would have been exponentially more effective against ALL targets

wuzak said:

How many Tomahawks were available in Britain in the summer of 1941?

I'd have thought that deliveries were only just getting going by then.

Click to expand...

Navalwarrior said:

Resp:
I could have said that better. Energy was certainly greater. Agree with the 400 yrds as a practical limit. I have read that Douglas Bader preferred .303 wing mounted guns over cannons. Likely due to preferring shorter range contact. My guess only.

Click to expand...

Most had a harmonisation of approx. 200 - 250 yards. Re Bader, he had the clout to have a Spit Va with 8 x LMG if he wanted, but he didn't and soon switched to a Vb

Did Bader not fly a Va until the end? (9 August '41, Spitfire W3185)

I have looked further and stand corrected, apologies for the error

The trajectories weren't that different out to 400-500 meters. after that the US. 50 has an increasing advantage.
However the time of flight comes into play, how far will the target move before the bullet gets there?
I have some old tables published during the war and I am not sure they are 100% accurate.
But they show the US .30 cal M1 ball ammo getting to 600yds in 0.86 seconds while the .50 cal (type not given) takes 0.72 seconds.
Remaining velocity at 600yds is 1634fps for the .30 and 1950fps for the .50 and the angle of departure is 19 minutes for the .30 and 14 minutes for the .50
The advantage for the .50 at 1000yds is tremendous. time of flight is 1.32 seconds for the .50 compared to 1.75 seconds for the .30 and other measures are in proportion.
however look at the numbers again. A 300mph airplane will move 580 ft in the time it takes the .50 cal bullet to cover 1000yds (at sea level) at 600yds the target plane will move 317ft. Most pilots have no business trying to fire at those ranges with the sights they had for most (all?) of WW II.
At 300 yds the difference in time of flight is a few hundredths of a second and the trajectory is within inches, not feet. Yes the .50 cal bullet hits much harder.

The idea that you could stay out of effective .30 cal range while actually hitting with a .50 might work pretty good on the ground (within reason) working at sea gets a lot iffier and working in the air?????

For what it is worth,

In pre-war air exercises (e.g. war-games) the RAF/Air Ministry rated the .50 cal Browning twice as effective as the .30 cal Browning, and rated the 20mm HS404 twice as effective as the .50 cal Browning. The exercises were intended to help figure out what the best armament was for the coming war. It should be noted that most of the aircraft of the time were unarmoured and had no SSFT, so solid rounds would not have been at as much of a disadvantage relative to explosive rounds.

In the early- to mid-war period the USAAC considered the 20mm HS404 three times as effective as the .50 cal Browning.

In the 1930s the British .303 had a relatively ineffective incendiary tracer. The .50 Browning had no incendiary at all, It was a hole puncher or hole puncher with tracer.
We have been over this several times in other threads but the British made the right decision to go with the .303 as the 1930s .50 Browning was not the .50 cal Browning of 1942/43.

Shortround6 said:

In the 1930s the British .303 had a relatively ineffective incendiary tracer. The .50 Browning had no incendiary at all, It was a hole puncher or hole puncher with tracer.
We have been over this several times in other threads but the British made the right decision to go with the .303 as the 1930s .50 Browning was not the .50 cal Browning of 1942/43.

Click to expand...

The UK and USA were moving away from rifle calibre guns at the same time for the same reasons. I think it is the Spitfire continuing with a mix of cannon and 0.303 Mgs gives a different impression.

In response to(?) Shortround6's post#1027,

All true, but I feel it should be noted that the RAF/Air Ministry recognized the(an?) advantage of the .50 Browning even with a lower MV and pre-war ammunition types. And even the USAAF felt that the 20mm HS404 was significantly better than even the wartime M2 Browning with the higher MV and improved ammunition types. (I am separating out the M3 variant due to it not seeing any significant amount of service in WWII??)

If armament is going to be compared between the P-40 and Typhoon as measured by RAF/Air Ministry standards it would be:

.30 cal Browning______1 point
.50 cal Browning______2 points
20mm HS 404________4 points

yielding

P-40E______________12 points
Typhoon 1A_________12 points
Typhoon 1B_________16 points

And for the USAAF it would be:

.30 cal Browning______1 point?
.50 cal Browning______2 points
20mm HS 404________6 points

yielding

P-40E______________12 points
Typhoon 1A_________12 points?
Typhoon 1B_________24 points

I also feel that it should be pointed out that I do not recall any nation's fighter pilots saying things like "You have to watch out for those __________, they'll get you every time, but don't worry about the __________, HA HA, they are worthless". (Feel free to substitute different weapons for either of the blank positions in the preceding sentence.) The only disparaging comments I remember reading about fighter armament involved armament that was kind of 'light' (2x 7.7mm in the Ki-47 for most of the war for example), but if I remember correctly the Ki-47 shot down more enemy aircraft than any other particular fighter in the Japanese inventory?? (I realize I may be wrong about this, if so someone please point it out to me, preferably with some numbers as I have not been able to find any so far.)

[edit] Sorry, I meant Ki-43, not Ki-47.

ThomasP said:

I also feel that it should be pointed out that I do not recall any nation's fighter pilots saying things like "You have to watch out for those __________, they'll get you every time, but don't worry about the __________, HA HA, they are worthless

Click to expand...

Hello ThomasP,
Perhaps what you are describing is exactly what happened in F4F versus A6M battles.
My understanding is that the US figured out pretty early that the F4F-4 (especially) had no hope of matching the A6M2 in dogfights.
in a 1 v 1, it had very little chance.
In a many versus many battle though, it was superior because of exactly the kind of tactic you are describing.
They could ignore the Zero that was on their tail and go after the Zero's that were attacking their squadron mates.
The A6M2 had such a low ammunition load (60 rounds) for its cannon that it would be relying mostly on its 7.7 mm MG.
The Ki 43-II and later at least had a pretty good chance that at least one of the cowl MG would be a 12.7 mm.
Sometimes both guns would be 12.7 mm. Only the Ki 43-I was normally found with just two 7.7 mm guns and that aircraft had other problems.

- Ivan.

ThomasP said:

All true, but I feel it should be noted that the RAF/Air Ministry recognized the(an?) advantage of the .50 Browning even with a lower MV and pre-war ammunition types. And even the USAAF felt that the 20mm HS404 was significantly better than even the wartime M2 Browning with the higher MV and improved ammunition types. (I am separating out the M3 variant due to it not seeing any significant amount of service in WWII??)

Click to expand...

The .50 cal as a gun and ammo system was superior to the .303 at the time (1930s) if you disregard weight and volume, which you could not do given the engines and propellers of the time. The Mid 30s .50 (I wish we had a short nick name for it) was worth two .303 Brownings, the trouble was it weighed 2 1/2 to 3 times as much and the ammo weighed five times as much as .303 (or US .30) ammo.
the US .50 round in the .30s wasn't that much better than the Vickers .5 (Italian and Japanese 12.7mm) heavier, better shaped bullet but nearly identical velocity. Both of those countries set about building explosive ammunition or incendiary ammo increasing (hopefully) the target effect for the size and weight of the guns. The UK developed a much better incendiary round for the .303 (about twice as effective as the old one) just in the nick of time (but well after the decision to keep the .303) which makes trying to use the old test or wargame evaluation difficult to apply to the combat results of the BoB and later.
As has been noted in other places the .303s in the BoB used up to 3 guns firing "ball" ammo which was a copper jacket. a lead core in the back and aluminum (or other filler) in the nose so penetration on anything substantial was doubtful compared to steel cores. Although it would penetrate engine cooling jackets and some other alloy castings. Some fighters in the BoB only had one gun with the good incendiary ammo and one with the old incendiary tracer. Spitfires later in the war had two .303s with AP (hardened steel cores) and two guns with good incendiary, which means they were more effective than four .303 guns in the BoB.

The US was improving the velocity but right around 1940/41, the British were ordering new .50 cal ammo from commercial suppliers in 1940 with the older velocity, they were also getting older "surplus" military ammo. It was in 1940 that the gun's rate of fire was increased. Incendiary ammo was still in development.

The Jump to the 20mm wasn't quite as dramatic. Or should we say traumatic
The 20mm was about twice as heavy, the ammo was just over twice as heavy and the effectiveness was at least double if not triple. Effectiveness for installed weight was at least as good if not better.

If anyone is interested and has not seen it already, the earliest reference I have run across as to the higher velocity ammunition for the .50 cal Browning is the 1940 version of the field manual. It references "current production" ammunition of 2400-2500 fps and "new production" ammunition of 2700-2800 fps. It is the only reference that I have found that mentions both types and indicates a time for the changeover.

I have also read that some of the reliability problems for the .50 cal in the very early-war period, particular in the PTO, was due to use of the wrong velocity ammunition in the wrong mod of the M2. Specifically, some aircraft encountered situations where they would get only 1 round fired and then the gun(s) would fail to function. The actual failures were mentioned in official messages but there was no analysis in the messages as to the cause. There were several missions where multiple aircraft experienced multiple gun failures of this type (possibly implying that the gun was a high velocity mod but the ammunition was the old low velocity??).

In response to Ivan1GFP's post#1030,

I am not sure, but I think you misunderstood what I meant in my post#1029. If I am understanding what you said correctly you are saying almost the exact opposite of what I meant.

What I meant to get across was that regardless of who was firing at who's airplane, no one could afford to ignore or laugh at the enemy's weapons set.

As far as I know the Wildcat pilots turned toward the enemy on their squadron mates tails out of desperation, since there was basically no chance of them doing anything about the enemy on their own tail. If their squadron mates could do the same to help them out, there was at least some chance of shooting down the enemy, or at least helping their squadron mates not get shot down by denying the enemy a free shot. Saburu Sakai scored many of his kills with his 7.7mm MGs only. While he was not an average pilot by any definition, there were many other pilots who did the same (I mentioned the Ki-47 pilots as an example).

In an interview a long time after the war, Gunther Rall commented on the quality of difference nations aircraft. When asked what he thought the best fighter weapon of the war was, his reply (I am paraphrasing here because I do not have a transcript of the interview to hand) went something like this. "If you were to pick only one type of weapon to carry the Americans probably had the best balance in the .50 cal Browning. But people who disparage the British with their .303 cal MGs are incorrect. When there are 8 or 12 of them firing, you would end up with a hole in every part of the airplane...including you."

Hello ThomasP,
I wasn't really describing the Thach Weave / Beam Defense Maneuver.
I believe it really was a belief that the Wildcat was strong enough to take more than a few hits from the 7.7 mm MG on the A6M especially from astern and survive long enough for someone else to come along and scrape the attacker off his tail. As I understand it, this was a tactic used in a many versus many type fight as opposed to just one aircraft clearing the wingman's tail.

- Ivan.

ThomasP said:

As far as I know the Wildcat pilots turned toward the enemy on their squadron mates tails out of desperation, since there was basically no chance of them doing anything about the enemy on their own tail.

Click to expand...

That was the famous "Thach weave"; far from desperation, those turns were according to plan. That plan worked for a Grumman Iron Works product that could withstand a brief spray of 7.7 while it shot the persecutor off its wingman's tail. It wouldn't work so well for a fragile tinderbox like a Zeke or an Oscar. With their limited cannon ammunition, Japanese pilots would often begin firing with their 7.7s, to get on target, then kick in the 20s. Thus a brief "ranging" burst would often not have any 20MM in it.
Cheers,
Wes

For what it's worth:
The A6M2 had 2 x 7.7 mm MG with about 650 rounds per gun (680?) for a total firing time of around 45 seconds.
The 20 mm Type 99-1 cannon had firing rate of about 500 rounds per minute but only 60 rounds were carried for each gun.
Total firing time for the cannon was only about 7 seconds which is rather pitiful.

- Ivan.

Hey guys, in response to Ivan1GFP's post#1034 and XBe02Drvr,

(Please bear in mind that I am not a fighter pilot, and I apologize ahead of time for any mistakes.)

In a mass dogfight any pilot that could get a shot on an enemy aircraft, whether from behind, to the side, or somewhat head-on, would normally do so. If this meant turning into the enemy this was done, even in the earliest days of WWI aerial combat (at least once they were using forward fixed guns). Head-on shots were not uncommon, but most pilots tried to avoid them.

My understanding of the Thatch Weave is that it was intended to be used by a 'loose two' (i.e. 2 aircraft more or less abeam and far enough apart that if they turned toward each other they could hopefully meet head-on approximately in the middle or, even better, a little before the middle) or a 'loose 4' formation (i.e. same as for the 'loose 2' but with two groups of two turning toward each other).

The Thatch Weave came about because once an enemy (who is as skilled as you are or possibly better, often outnumbers you, and in an airplane that outclasses your plane in all areas of maneuver but dive speed and roll at high speed) is in a shooting position or almost in a shooting position, there is almost nothing else that will accomplish anything. The only options you have are to start as tight a turn as you can, roll and start a turn, turn and climb, half-loop, full loop, or half-roll and dive (none of the WW2 aircraft had enough excess energy to use a rolling scissors or climbing roll effectively, and the Ki-47 and A6M were 2 of the very few that could do more than 1 loop consecutively). The Ki-47 and A6M were better at all of the options except maybe the half-roll and dive (but even then the Wildcat had to gain enough speed that the enemy could not follow them in a roll and turn) or turn into the enemy where if the enemy chose, they could usual turn it into a mutual head on pass. When I said desperate I did not mean the pilots were panicking, I meant that the pilots understood that there was very little else that they could do to achieve an acceptable outcome. If an acceptable outcome is to achieve a head-on pass where mutual destruction was a distinct possibility, and where at best the odds were about 50/50 as to who won, I would call that desperate. (I realize that even head-on passes usually did not result in hits.)

As to the effectiveness of the 20mm vs the .50 cal Browning vs the .303/7.7mm cal MGs I refer you back my post#1029 with the addition:

All(?) the major combatants in WWII initially equipped their 20mm armed aircraft with ~60-round drums. As far as I have read, although all combatants attempted to increase the ammo load, none of the combatants thought the short firing time was worthless or pitiful.

Again, if anyone has run across WWII fighter pilots saying something like "You have to watch out for those __________, they'll get you every time, but don't worry about the __________, HA HA, they are worthless". (Feel free to substitute different weapons for either of the blank positions in the preceding sentence.) please let me know (seriously).

[edit] Sorry again, I meant Ki-43, not Ki-47.

Ther

Ivan1GFP said:

For what it's worth:
The A6M2 had 2 x 7.7 mm MG with about 650 rounds per gun (680?) for a total firing time of around 45 seconds.
The 20 mm Type 99-1 cannon had firing rate of about 500 rounds per minute but only 60 rounds were carried for each gun.
Total firing time for the cannon was only about 7 seconds which is rather pitiful.

- Ivan.

Click to expand...

There are a number of negative comments 're the Zero only having 60 rounds. It's worth remembering that the RAF, Luftwaffe, USAAF also started with 60rpg for their 20mm.

ThomasP said:

the Thatch Weave is that it was intended to be used by a 'loose two' (i.e. 2 aircraft more or less abeam and far enough apart that if they turned toward each other they could hopefully meet head-on

Click to expand...

Well, I have a lifetime score of only two conversations with combat experienced F4F pilots, but being a "fighter nerd" in my younger days, I focussed on their comments on the Tach weave. One of them had learned it "straight from the horse's mouth". Apparently in practice, they would fly not quite as loose as you described, and angle in so as to cross at about a 45° angle, giving the shooter a nice lead for a deflection shot at the victim's pursuer, followed by an immediate reversal allowing the former victim a deflection shot at any pursuers his partner may have acquired. Given the nimbleness of Japanese aircraft, this only worked if it was kept close and tight with a high weave rate, thus guaranteeing that any shooting opportunities the enemy got were in a high G turn against a maneuvering target. (Read Sakai's account of "the incredible acrobatic Grumman").
The guy who was in Thach's squadron said that the Old Man was an absolute stickler for gunnery, and would transfer a pilot out of the squadron if he couldn't make a deadly deflection shooter out of him. I believe Thach was quoted as saying "A pilot who can't hit with four guns won't shoot down any planes with eight!
Cheers,
Wes

DISREGARD!
DUMBPHONE ERROR!

ThomasP said:

the Thatch Weave is that it was intended to be used by a 'loose two' (i.e. 2 aircraft more or less abeam and far enough apart that if they turned toward each other they could hopefully meet head-on

Click to expand...

Well, I have a lifetime score of only two conversations with combat experienced F4F pilots, but being a "fighter nerd" in my younger days, I focussed on their comments on the Thach weave. One of them had learned it "straight from the horse's mouth". Apparently in practice, they would fly not quite as loose as you described, and angle in so as to cross at about a 45° angle, giving the shooter a nice lead for a deflection shot at the victim's pursuer, followed by an immediate reversal allowing the former victim a deflection shot at any pursuers his partner may have acquired. Given the nimbleness of Japanese aircraft, this only worked if it was kept close and tight with a high weave rate, thus guaranteeing that any shooting opportunities the enemy got were in a high G turn against a maneuvering target. (Read Sakai's account of "the incredible acrobatic Grumman").
The guy who was in Thach's squadron said that the Old Man was an absolute stickler for gunnery, and would transfer a pilot out of the squadron if he couldn't make a deadly deflection shooter out of him. I believe Thach was quoted as saying "A pilot who can't hit with four guns won't shoot down any planes with eight!
Cheers,
Wes