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

[fastmongrel]

I remember a section from an RAF Typhoon pilots memoir. Before his squadron was sent to France in July 44 he bought a small pot of Woolworths white enamel paint to paint his victory marks. he flew pretty much non stop till Feb 45 before being withdrawn to be an instructor. In Aug 45 he threw the pot of paint in the bin unopened he never got the chance to fire his guns against another plane.

 

[Schweik]

There were some P-51As used in the CBI theater but the quantities were low. Probably no more than 1-3 squadrons at any one time. On dec 31st 1943 it was listed that 60 P-51As total were serving in the CBI and North African Theaters.
Likewise there were two P-38 squadrons (one in India and ome in Burma?) and we can argue all week about survival rates and such but it just may be that the P-38 and Allison P-51s were being used in such small numbers as to make drawing valid conclusions from statistics rather difficult.
I mean if you only have 12 planes operational for a mission and you lose 2 you have lost 16.6%.
If you have 36 planes on a mission and lose 4 you have 11% losses.
Nobody can say if you had more of the rarer planes if they would have lost more on the same mission.

You seem to one again imply that I'm somehow playing with the numbers here, but I'm not. I think in fact you don't understand the period or the actual combat record that well.

When I talk about losses I'm talking about on a "per sortie" basis. You can look at (Allison) Mustang and P-40 squadron missions in Burma or China, as they often went out at the same time, and see how many claims and losses were made from each squadron. P-40 units suffered about half the losses in the same exact missions and made substantially more claims. Of course there are other intangibles besides aircraft design that come into play, P-40 units were often in Theater longer and had more institutional knowledge of enemy tactics and capabilities. They had also figured out the flight envelope of their own aircraft and learned to maximize advantages and minimize the effects of flaws. But the real deciding factor with the P-51A (etc.) was apparently due to Ailerons being too small. This was subsequently corrected in the P-51B and later models.

Raw numbers of aircraft committed to a given Theater can be a bit misleading, what actually made the difference in the day to day was how many went out on sorties. So for example you might have a total of 2000 of one aircraft built and only 500 of another, but the same number of squadrons actually deployed to the battle area during the same period. Many if not most aircraft did not get sent to new squadrons but were used as replacements.

You seem to repeatedly diminish the role of the A-36 for example in the Med but they did play an important role there, they were sent on a lot of missions and apparently destroyed a lot of ground targets including in the critical moments like at Anzio. Their advantages were two-fold - speed in getting to and (especially) escaping the target area, and accuracy due to being dive bombers. The A-24 for example (Army version of the Dauntless) could hit targets accurately but would be dead meat trying to fly out of that combat zone in 1943 and 1944. The fighter bombers like P-40s and Hurricanes could drop bombs but were not very accurate, neither were the medium or heavy bombers. Perhaps this is worth getting into as the A-36 was a competitor of sorts with the Typhoon for the fighter-bomber role.

To help convey an idea of the scale of A-36 activity in the Med, here are some examples of activity over a period of ~two months involving that aircraft. Keep in mind these are days where there were usually just a handful of claims or losses on either side except where indicated:

Dec 27, 1943 ---------- A-36 unknown enemy fighter claimed
Dec 30, 1943 ---------- two A-36s on a bombing mission claimed 2 Bf 109 and a "Bf 209" damaged
Jan 14, 1944 ----------- two A-36s lost on bombing run, (one to a strange accident ** and one to unknown reasons)
Jan 16, 1944 ----------- A-36 shot down by Flak
Jan 19, 1944 ----------- A-36 claimed one Fw 190
Jan 22, 1944 ----------- 3 x A-36 on recon flights shot down by flak
Jan 28, 1944 ----------- A-36 'probably shot down by flak' (this was a a busy day )
Jan 29, 1944 ----------- A-36 claimed a Fi 156 destroyed
Jan 31, 1944 ----------- A-36 hit by flak pilot PoW but escaped / evaded
Feb 2, 1944 ------------ 2 x A-36 shot down, one by two Bf 109s pilot PoW the other by ground fire
Feb 3, 1944 ------------ 2 x A-36 shot down one by flak one 'disappeared while dive bombing'
Feb 6, 1944 ------------ A-36 claimed Fi 156 destroyed, 5 x A-36 shot down
Feb 15, 1944 ---------- 5 x A-36 shot down
Feb 16, 1944 ---------- A-36 shot down
Feb 18, 1944 ---------- A-36 hit by flak, crash landed
Feb 21, 1944 ---------- 2 x A-36 made claims for a Bf 109 each, two others together claimed another Bf 109 probable (this was a busy day)

That is enough transcribing for now but suffice to say this continued, for example two A-36 were lost March 10, five were lost on March 13 etc.

I think this gives you an idea of the fairly high level of involvement the A-36 had at this time period, without getting into details of ground targets destroyed etc. this was at the time of Anzio (started Jan 22) and A-36 pilots hit a lot of important targets a critcial time in the fight when the Allies were at risk of being pushed back into the sea. So I would argue they were actually important and did play a significant role, if only for a while. A series of mysterious accidents while pulling out of dives ares what actually ended their role as a dive bombers.

Interesting to note that at this point the Americans were still making fairly heavy use of the A-20B

**A-36 42-84067 of the 527th fighter bomber squadron / 86th Fighter Bomber group, "exploded at 3,000 ft after pulling out of a dive-bombing attack on gun positions over San Angelo in Theodice at 1535; Capt. Robert M. Dungan KIA*



* Source Mediterranean Air War Volume IV P. 495

 

[Schweik]

the MG 151/20 was a fearsome weapon, and certainly superior to 2 synchronized Breda-SAFAT machine guns

I'm not sure that I buy a single 20mm cannon, no matter how fearsome, is superior to two 12.7mm machine guns - but if it is I would assume it's pretty close. All the Allied pilots in the Med rated the MC 202 as equivalent to the Bf 109F. The MC 205 which started getting put into MC 202 units in 1942 added two MG 151/20 in the wings so that helped keep up parity.

...and that is what most people Americans concentrate on...

You would think. But I am often lectured by people on here who do seem to be Australians, Brits, FInns etc. about the need for high altitude performance vis a vis heavy bomber combat in 1944-45 whenever I discuss the merits such aircraft as the P-40, Yak-1, La-5 A6M, Ki-43, MC 202, etc.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

I'm not sure that I buy a single 20mm cannon, no matter how fearsome, is superior to two 12.7mm machine guns

The US Navy concluded a single 20mm Hispano was equivalent to 3 M2 Brownings. The Breda-SAFAT was less effective than the M2, but the MG 151 was approximately equivalent to the Hispano. The Mauser had lower muzzle velocity, but more effective ammunition.

 

[DarrenW]

The US Navy concluded a single 20mm Hispano was equivalent to 3 M2 Brownings.

Do you have any other details, like in what ways were they equivalent? I would think that three .50s would spray more lead in a much larger pattern and give the pilot a far better chance of hitting his intended target.

 

[pbehn]

Do you have any other details, like in what ways were they equivalent? I would think that three .50s would spray more lead in a much larger pattern and give the pilot a far better chance of hitting his intended target.

Its been discussed on the forum a few times. Not so much in terms of 1 cannon = 3 MGs but in terms of general armament, try a search.

 

[DarrenW]

Its been discussed on the forum a few times. Not so much in terms of 1 cannon = 3 MGs but in terms of general armament, try a search.

Of course cannon armament would be preferred overall (bigger shells=bigger holes). I'm more interested in the findings of the specific US Navy report, rather than the various opinions and theories discussed here and elsewhere. I'm sure that there are a lot of reasons why the US stuck with arming most of their
fighters with heavy machine guns, rather than exclusively with cannon or a mixed battery.

 

[GrauGeist]

Of course cannon armament would be preferred overall (bigger shells=bigger holes). I'm more interested in the findings of the specific US Navy report, rather than the various opinions and theories discussed here and elsewhere. I'm sure that there are a lot of reasons why the US stuck with arming most of their
fighters with heavy machine guns, rather than exclusively with cannon or a mixed battery.

There's been several discussions here in the forums that covered that subject in detail, complete with opinions, theories and hard data provided by the USN and USAAF on their comparisons and test data and ultimately, why they chose to remain with the .50 MG as a primary weapon.

 

[pbehn]

Of course cannon armament would be preferred overall (bigger shells=bigger holes). I'm more interested in the findings of the specific US Navy report, rather than the various opinions and theories discussed here and elsewhere. I'm sure that there are a lot of reasons why the US stuck with arming most of their
fighters with heavy machine guns, rather than exclusively with cannon or a mixed battery.

The discussions frequently quote reports whether from the US navy I don't know, mostly it was a question of logistics and potential targets. The UK from early days wanted cannon armed fighters and pretty much had them, the fly in the ointment is the Spitfire which usually just had one in each wing due to problems heating the outer gun. Whirlwind, Hurricane , Mustang, Beaufighter Mosquito Typhoon and Tempest all had 4 cannon. The discussion is not just one of the hitting power of a bullet shell, it is also one of rate of fire, the 0.5in MG increased in reliability and rate of fire considerably. When the RAF were experimenting with cannon in Spitfires in 1940 the 0.5 MG was not really an option.

 

[Shortround6]

I'm not sure that I buy a single 20mm cannon, no matter how fearsome, is superior to two 12.7mm machine guns - but if it is I would assume it's pretty close .

You would be in the minority.
Granted there are different 12.7-13mm machine guns and there are different 20mm cannon.
US Navy figured one 20 Hispano gun was worth three .50 cal Brownings in 1944.

For the Italians and Germans we have

photo from BOOKS BY ANTHONY G WILLIAMS

American .50 on the left, Italian and Japanese 12.7mm 3rd from left, Japanese navy 13mm 4th from left, Russian 12.7mm 6th. German MG 151/15 round 8th, German 13mm round is 9th.

A plane mounting a pair of guns using the 12.7x81SR is at something of disadvantage against planes with more or heavier guns (and they needed be 20mm cannon. Both the Italians and Japanese did use HE ammunition but the amount of HE was about 8% of the HE in a 20mm Hispano shell.

photo from BOOKS BY ANTHONY G WILLIAMS

Not quite the full range from 7.7mm (used by the British, Italians and Japanese) to the 20mm round used in the Japanese type 99-II. The Type 99-I used the 20x72RB next to the German 15x96. The 20mm Hispano round was slightly bigger than the 20x101RB.

Russians used the 20x99R round 2nd from right. , note short stumpy projectile. See Russian 12.7mm 6th from left. Some Russian pilots who thought the 12.7mm was almost equal to the 20mm might not have been that far off.

The MG 151/20 cannon (firing the 20x82 round) has a somewhat overblown reputation due to the infamous mine shell.

In any case we can see this is a rather complicated subject. You have very different power cartridges, you have different basic rates of fire for the guns and you have some guns synchronized (slowing down the rate of fire) and some free firing and you have belts with mixed types of ammunition. sometimes 40% AP 40% HE 20% tracer or other mixtures.

Italians put tracer compound in the back of the HE projectile which cut into the HE payload. They also had plain AP incendiary (small blob of incendiary in front of the AP core) and AP incendiary tracer which used a shorter/lighter penetrating core to make room for the tracer. There was also a "ball" round which used a lead an aluminum filling.

The 12.7mm Breda-Safat machine gun fired about 700rpm unsynchronized but could fall to 400rpm when synchronized according to one Author (Anthony WIlliams who's website was the source of the above photos.)

so you have about 800rpm from a pair of guns (lets be generous and 900 because it makes the math easy) firing 33-35.4 gram projectiles for 531 grams per second (using the heaviest bullets).

A P-40 Tomahawk with the cowl mounted .50s firing at the same rate is throwing about 645 grams and the 4 wing .30 guns add another 800 or so grams.
A P-40E with just 4 .50 cal guns in the wings is throwing 2150 grams per second (at 750rpm per gun, adjust as you see fit) and a 6 gun airplane is 50% greater than that.

The 109F-2 with the MG 151/15 is firing the full 700rpm (11.66 per second?) and projectiles are 57 grams for HE and 72 grams for AP, I will assume a 50/50 mix for simplicity.
753 grams per second with the pair of cowl mounted 7.9mm machine guns (1000rpm each synchronized) adding another 360 grams.

The 109F-4 with the MG 151/20 is still firing at 700rpm (or more?) but the projectiles weigh 90-115grams, so the average is 1189 grams per second plus the cowl guns.

Italian planes with a single 7.7mm in each wing pick up around 300-340 grams per second depending on actual rate of fire and type of ammo. The Breda-Safat 7.7 doesn't fire as fast as the small Browning or the German MG 17.

This rather simplistic comparison takes into account neither kinetic energy or the power of any explosive in the projectiles or any incendiary material .

it also ignores the likelihood of getting hits.
But the Italian planes are using low powered/low velocity ammunition with poor (compared to the american .50 cal) energy an longer times of flight making deflection shooting a bit more difficult.

All the Allied pilots in the Med rated the MC 202 as equivalent to the Bf 109F. The MC 205 which started getting put into MC 202 units in 1942 added two MG 151/20 in the wings so that helped keep up parity.

it may have been an easy rating system, the MB 202 was certainly better than any of the radial engine Italian fighters., but hundreds did not have the wing 7.7mm guns.
Some sources say that out of the 262 MC 205 up to the first 100 built kept the 7.7mm wing guns and then changed to the 20mm. However there may have been a batch (or 2?) of the MC202s that MG151s under the wing

 

[pbehn]

Wot he said ^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Schweik]

To try to summarize it -

Heavy machine guns like the M2 have the advantage of a little bit higher velocity (890 m/s vs 700-800) and therefore longer range, flatter trajectory and better armor penetration*. Shells are also a bit lighter and smaller I think so you can pack more rounds in the plane (and in train cars, cargo ships etc.)
Light cannon like the MG 151/20, the ShVAK and the Hispano have the advantage of shooting exploding shells which are better at destroying aircraft structures, tearing off wings and so on.

Both did have their advantages but the general consensus is that cannons were better. Some weapons were also particularly well suited to certain airplanes.

The US military authorities stuck with the M2 because they had plenty of them and they performed pretty well, they liked the new API ammunition, and they had trouble developing a reliable 20mm aircraft cannon (reliable enough to shoot from inside wings without stoppages) until the end of the war.


However dipping back into the lots of guns vs. fewer guns debate, some of the best fighters had relatively few guns.

The F4F-3 Wildcat only had four .50 cal machine guns and was preferred by piots over the F4F-4 which had six.
The P-51B and C had, I believe, usually just 4 x .50 cals as well and was one of the most successful fighters on the Allied side.
The P-40L** had only four .50 cals which seemed to be plenty to shoot down any Axis fighter they encountered. It was the most successful P-40 in the Med.
The P-38 had four .50 cals and 1 x 20mm which was considered devastating firepower.
The Bf 109F2 which had an excellent record only had 1 x 15mm cannon and 2 x 7.92 machine guns
The Bf 109F4 had 1 x 20mm cannon and 2 x 7.92 machine guns. Most German pilots who flew it said it was the best German dogfighter of the war.
The Yak 1/7/9 often had just 1 x 20mm cannon and 1 x 12.7mm or 7.62 mm machine guns. Sometimes two machine guns.
The La 5FN had 2 x 20mm cannon
The Ki-43 had 1 x 12.7mm machine gun and 1 x 7.7mm machine gun. Highest scoring Japanese fighter of the war.

More guns is an advantage, but only if you can bring them to bear. HItting the target is what matters. There wasn't a single fighter in the war that could wishtand sustained 20mm cannon fire OR 12.7mm heavy machine gun fire. The extra guns were mainly needed to counter heavier or better armored bombers (B-29, B-17, B-24, B-25, B-26, Il2 Sturmovik, Hs 123) or for strafing. The FW 190 was excellent, as was the P-47, and the Tempest but that was only one variation out of many to solve the problem of fighter design.

*barring special AP ammo etc.
** and during times of heavy air to air combat, most of the P-40Fs

 

[pbehn]

One area where cannon were shown to be better than MGs was in taking down V1s they were very hard to shoot down without cannon.

 

[Schweik]

You would be in the minority.
Granted there are different 12.7-13mm machine guns and there are different 20mm cannon.
US Navy figured one 20 Hispano gun was worth three .50 cal Brownings in 1944.

The 12.7mm Breda-Safat machine gun fired about 700rpm unsynchronized but could fall to 400rpm when synchronized according to one Author (Anthony WIlliams who's website was the source of the above photos.)

so you have about 800rpm from a pair of guns (lets be generous and 900 because it makes the math easy) firing 33-35.4 gram projectiles for 531 grams per second (using the heaviest bullets).

A P-40 Tomahawk with the cowl mounted .50s firing at the same rate is throwing about 645 grams and the 4 wing .30 guns add another 800 or so grams.
A P-40E with just 4 .50 cal guns in the wings is throwing 2150 grams per second (at 750rpm per gun, adjust as you see fit) and a 6 gun airplane is 50% greater than that.

The 109F-2 with the MG 151/15 is firing the full 700rpm (11.66 per second?) and projectiles are 57 grams for HE and 72 grams for AP, I will assume a 50/50 mix for simplicity.
753 grams per second with the pair of cowl mounted 7.9mm machine guns (1000rpm each synchronized) adding another 360 grams.

The 109F-4 with the MG 151/20 is still firing at 700rpm (or more?) but the projectiles weigh 90-115grams, so the average is 1189 grams per second plus the cowl guns.

All very interesting, but the real question is how many rounds of either gun did it take to disable an enemy fighter. Maybe 1 or 2 well aimed cannon shells could do it, on average more like 6 or more hits. This 79th Fighter Group pilot for example found 7 x 20mm cannon shell holes in his P-40F after combat with a Bf 109. At 0:38 you can see him remove the plug from a 20mm shell from his wing, he kept that as a souvenir and wore it around his neck for the rest of the war.



The hole you see in the beginning of the clip hit right behind the armor plate - a better penetrating round may have punched through.

But with 12.7mm guns, it also only took one or two rounds to disable a fighter. One HMG round in the engine will easily end the flight of a Spitfire, a P-40 or a Bf 109. Obviously one round through the pilot and he's toast. I'm guessing some of you have seen the damage that a .50 caliber machine gun does to any target? I was in the military and I've seen it- it's pretty impressive.

A couple of heavy guns (and like 'em or not, Italian Breda 12.7mm are heavy guns) particularly in the nose were a winning combination for many WW2 fighters.

Maybe the MC 202 was slightly less well armed than a Bf 109F4 (probably not than an F-2 right?) but it was also supposedly a bit more agile so it probably equaled out.

 

[Schweik]

One area where cannon were shown to be better than MGs was in taking down V1s they were very hard to shoot down without cannon.

I think generally also for destroying tough bombers, cannons are better. With the US M2 guns, when going after bombers they targeted the engine or the cockpit, or sometimes the rear gunner. The other reason I forgot to mention why the US stuck with the M2 is that they weren't up against that many really beastly bombers. Biggest bomber threat to US forces were really mostly Stukas and Japanese dive & torpedo bombers and later kamikazes, but all pretty easy to blow up if you could hit them. Later Fw 190s were a bit harder to damage but early Mustangs and four gun P-40s were able to take them out.

 

[Milosh]

Watched a video of the post war 3" automatic AA gun. The reason the USN wanted the heavier calibre was because the 40mm didn't disable the kamikazes enough.

 

[pbehn]

Actually no it doesn't, it really doesn't at all. Fighter versus fighter conflicts are completely academic. For the RAF it was the ability to take down a bomber that was important and even in the quite short lived Battle of Britain this became harder and harder with rifle calibre munitions. It is immaterial what any German pilot considered the best armament for dog fighting was, the LW was tasked with taking down USA and RAF bombers. Some Spitfires had 4 cannon and 4 0.303MGs which is great firepower, but don't ask about roll rate, rate of climb etc.

 

[Schweik]

Actually no it doesn't, it really doesn't at all. Fighter versus fighter conflicts are completely academic. For the RAF it was the ability to take down a bomber that was important and even in the quite short lived Battle of Britain this became harder and harder with rifle calibre munitions. It is immaterial what any German pilot considered the best armament for dog fighting was, the LW was tasked with taking down USA and RAF bombers. Some Spitfires had 4 cannon and 4 0.303MGs which is great firepower, but don't ask about roll rate, rate of climb etc.

But after the BoB, the British weren't facing a lot of heavy daylight bomber formations. The main threat was from night bombers, marauding Jabos and later, V-1s and V-2s. The only large aircraft they were regularly facing were twin engine fighters or bombers made into bomber zerstrorers, or night fighters.

The main job of Anglo-American fighters was to destroy German fighters and protect their own bombers and fighter bombers so the latter could destroy Strategic and Tactical targets respectively. The main job of the Russian air force was to destroy German fighters and Stukas, and protect the Sturmovik and Pe 2 formations so they could destroy German tanks.

Rifle caliber bullets were inadequate, at least on their own, and the British were a little late to that conclusion, though once they switched to cannon they had excellent ones.

But HMG's would do in a pinch as US fighter didn't have trouble shooting down German, Italian or Japanese bombers that I know of. The most popular of the very many Spitfire weapon loadouts from what I gather ended being 2 x Hispano 20mm and 2 x Browning M2 12.7mm

 

[pbehn]

But after the BoB, the British weren't facing a lot of heavy daylight bomber formations. The main threat was from night bombers, marauding Jabos and later, V-1s and V-2s. The only large aircraft they were regularly facing were twin engine fighters or bombers made into bomber zerstrorers, or night fighters.

The main job of Anglo-American fighters was to destroy German fighters and protect their own bombers and fighter bombers so the latter could destroy Strategic and Tactical targets respectively. The main job of the Russian air force was to destroy German fighters and Stukas, and protect the Sturmovik and Pe 2 formations so they could destroy German tanks.

Rifle caliber bullets were inadequate, at least on their own, and the British were a little late to that conclusion, though once they switched to cannon they had excellent ones.

But HMG's would do in a pinch as US fighter didn't have trouble shooting down German, Italian or Japanese bombers that I know of. The most popular of the very many Spitfire weapon loadouts from what I gather ended being 2 x Hispano 20mm and 2 x Browning M2 12.7mm

You, happily have the knowledge of hindsight, the Germans never signed any undertaking to stop bombing raids. The British were facing bombing raids in Malta and elsewhere after 1940 and the Germans used bombers in anti shipping attacks. The British were not late in the conclusion that rifle calibre was inadequate that is why they wanted cannon armed fighters, the issue is what you replace the 0.303 with on a single engine fighter in 1939/40. The RAF were tasked with protecting the UK mainland which by 1944 had huge USA resources on it too, they had to be prepared for any eventuality, because no one actually knew what their strength was, with 100% certainty. The effect of a few unopposed raids on East Anglia could have been devastating.

 

[Greyman]

In actual practice the 20-mm Hispano had much better penetration and damaging properties than the .5-inch Browning.

While on the range, attacking armour plate directly, the .5-inch AP penetration was superior to 20-mm Ball and similar to 20-mm SAP/I ammunition.

However, when actually attacking aircraft -- the .5-inch round loses much of its effectiveness due to deflections, yawing, breaking up when it strikes duralumium/aircraft structure. When actually tested on Fw 190 and Do 217 targets, the simple 20-mm ball ammunition was far more effective than .5-inch AP in penetrating aircraft structure, armour, and damaging components when struck.

To say nothing of 20-mm SAP/I rounds, AP rounds, and evil little rounds that tend to do this inside aircraft:

(German 20mm HE/I)