Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon? (1 Viewer)

[Shortround6]

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.

Even more simplistic than my comparison and it may be in error. Look again at the pictures. The Italian 12.7mm machine gun use 35.4 Gram AP projectiles vs the American 46 gram projectiles so armor penetration is already at about 77% even if the velocities were the same, which they are not. The Italian round had MV of 760 mps vs the American 870mps and since penetration is proportional to the square of the speed the Italian round is in big trouble. Throw in the fact that the Italian, Japanese and German 13mm projectiles had a rather poor shape compared to the American (or Russian) projectiles and so impact velocities are even poorer than the Muzzle velocity suggests.
Muzzle energy per round is 9,800 to 10,600 Joules for the Italian/Japanese round vs 16,600-17,400 joules for the American round depending on ammo. Russian ammo can peak at 19,200 joules for their 52 gram AP projectile.

German 13mm is just under the Italian/Japanese round.

yes the light cannon are better at blowing stuff up but the Hispano also had a MV of about 850-880 meters per second out of the long barreled guns and had a similar time of flight to any reasonable air to air distance. A 20mm Hispano ball round (HE shell with no filling and sold nose replacing fuse) could penetrate most aircraft armor and structure and was quite good abraking things. Muzzle energy was 46,900 to 50,300 joules. But the Hispano was sort of in a class of it's own.
The MG 151/20 had muzzle energies of just about 29,000 joules and rather depended on it's special mine shell to blow things up, which with it's 18-20 grams of HE it did rather well.
However the thin walled shell didn't penetrate very well and didn't carry any tracer which called for mixed belts of ammo with more conventional projectiles for AP and tracer. These were heavier and slower but match pretty well to 300 meters or so.

The ShVak cannon had high velocity but it's light (96-99 gram) projectiles were poorly shaped and lost velocity quicker than the 20mm Hispano or indeed their own 12.7mm machine gun. The HE capacity was 4-7 to 6.1 grams of HE depending on exact shell (AP wouldn't have any)

Part of the problem with the american .50 and the Russian 12.7 was the weight of the ammo. While the projectiles were much lighter than the 20mm cannon the weight of the cartridge case and powder charge was disproportionately heavy. An American .50 cal round could weigh about 112 grams while 20mm Hispano round weighed 257 grams, the 20mm Shvak round weighed about 183 grams compared to the 125 grams of the 12.7x108 machine gun round (note that the russian round is about 12-13 grams heavier than the American but only 6 or less of that is the projectile.)
The Italian and Japanese Machine gun ammo was much lighter, about 82 grams, as befits it's lower power. again note the difference in weights of the complete round vs the difference is projectile weight. The case and powder of the American round was 20 grams heavier, mostly the brass case.
But then the Italian and Japanese heavy machine gun round don't have an advantage in range or trajectory over the light cannon.

I would note that in most cases any advantage in range or trajectory is mostly in the minds of post war commentators/writers. The difference of 6-9 inches in trajectory when you are shooting at a fuselage 4-5 feet high is minor at best. Only a small fraction of 1% of the pilots in WW II had any business shooting at planes more than 400 meters away so the whole range/trajectory argument is bogus. Doesn't mean that tons of ink and paper and the internet equivalent hasn't been wasted on it though.

What was important was time of flight as that dictated the amount of lead needed for deflection shooting. A short time of flight could mean only aiming several plane lengths ahead of the target instead of 5 or 6 plane lengths.

It is this time of flight thing that makes something of joke of the planes that used the mixed batteries of guns and claims of long range shooting by fuselage mounted guns.
The time of flight for a German 7.9mm round to 600 meters was 1.159 seconds, while the time of flight for the 15mm HE round was 0.816 seconds for .343 second difference. a 300mph airplane is going to cover 150ft in that amount of time making total nonsense of trajectory problems, you are either hitting with one type of gun or the other, not both and much more likely hitting with neither. since the target plane is moving over 350 ft from when the bullet left the muzzle of the 15mm gun and it arrived in the target "area"

Granted that is an extreme example and worst case at sea level but illustrates the problem.

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.

The extra guns (and the extra bullets per second) increased the hit chances for less than expert pilots. Some pilots started shooting behind the target plane and swung through the target plane ending up shooting in front of it. They may have only been "on target" for a fraction of second. The guns were not synchronized with each other to fire in salvos. At 90 degrees (worst case) a 300mph airplane is traveling 44 ft for every round fired by a 600rpm gun and 22 ft for 1200rpm gun. You might have to be very close to get a high percertage of hits.

 

[GrauGeist]

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.

Just for the record, no V-2 rocket was able to be intercepted during the war.
The V-2 would be supersonic on it's dive and the only advanced warning that was given, were the sonic booms just before impact.

 

[Shortround6]

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.

from about the time of the report (fall of 1944) the US Navy stopped fitting .50 cal machine guns on any fighter planes (with a few minor exceptions) ordered after that report.
Please note I said ordered and not built, Many contracts had months to run and those contracts were completed with the .50 cal guns including the first F8F Bearcats but the later ones got 20mm guns, the post war F4U-5s got 20mm guns and all the Navy's early jets except the FH-1 Phantom got 20mm guns.

The Air force, far from being fat dumb and happy with the .50 cal in WW II had developed a 1200rpm version and had developed (but had much trouble with) a light weight , high velocity, high capacity incendiary round for the .50 cal and this combination was the intended armament for the post war fighters/early jets. It did turn out to be not good enough but Korea was not fought with WW II guns and WW II ammo in the air.

Mixed batteries introduces different ballistics and times of flight. They were used but were not ideal, By Korea the F-86 had a radar range finder built into the upper lip of the intake that tied into the gunsight for much more accurate range information than the mk I eyeball and thus a better computed lead solution from the gyro gunsight.

 

[Milosh]

Even before WW2 started the Brits were looking at heavier guns for their a/c. They went with 20mm as the 0.50" didn't do enough damage to the e/a.

 

[pbehn]

Even before WW2 started the Brits were looking at heavier guns for their a/c. They went with 20mm as the 0.50" didn't do enough damage to the e/a.

There is also the boring mundane techy stuff like how do you put them in a single engine fighter, until variable pitch props were adopted it was an idea not worth much thought, and when you start thinking about it it gets to be a problem fitting one that keeps firing. The RAF had been calling for cannon armed fighters from the Westland Whirlwind wiki page The first British specification for a high-performance machine-gun monoplane was F.5/34 but the aircraft produced were overtaken by the development of the new Hawker and Supermarine fighters.[5] The RAF Air Staff thought that an experimental aircraft armed with the 20 mm cannon was needed urgently and Air Ministry specification F.37/35 was issued in 1935. The specification called for a single-seat day and night fighter armed with four cannon. The top speed had to be at least 40 mph (64 km/h) greater than that of contemporary bombers – at least 330 mph (530 km/h) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m).[6][7]

 

[Milosh]

UGH?

 

[DarrenW]

Even more simplistic than my comparison and it may be in error. Look again at the pictures. The Italian 12.7mm machine gun use 35.4 Gram AP projectiles vs the American 46 gram projectiles so armor penetration is already at about 77% even if the velocities were the same, which they are not. The Italian round had MV of 760 mps vs the American 870mps and since penetration is proportional to the square of the speed the Italian round is in big trouble. Throw in the fact that the Italian, Japanese and German 13mm projectiles had a rather poor shape compared to the American (or Russian) projectiles and so impact velocities are even poorer than the Muzzle velocity suggests.
Muzzle energy per round is 9,800 to 10,600 Joules for the Italian/Japanese round vs 16,600-17,400 joules for the American round depending on ammo. Russian ammo can peak at 19,200 joules for their 52 gram AP projectile.

German 13mm is just under the Italian/Japanese round.

yes the light cannon are better at blowing stuff up but the Hispano also had a MV of about 850-880 meters per second out of the long barreled guns and had a similar time of flight to any reasonable air to air distance. A 20mm Hispano ball round (HE shell with no filling and sold nose replacing fuse) could penetrate most aircraft armor and structure and was quite good abraking things. Muzzle energy was 46,900 to 50,300 joules. But the Hispano was sort of in a class of it's own.
The MG 151/20 had muzzle energies of just about 29,000 joules and rather depended on it's special mine shell to blow things up, which with it's 18-20 grams of HE it did rather well.
However the thin walled shell didn't penetrate very well and didn't carry any tracer which called for mixed belts of ammo with more conventional projectiles for AP and tracer. These were heavier and slower but match pretty well to 300 meters or so.

The ShVak cannon had high velocity but it's light (96-99 gram) projectiles were poorly shaped and lost velocity quicker than the 20mm Hispano or indeed their own 12.7mm machine gun. The HE capacity was 4-7 to 6.1 grams of HE depending on exact shell (AP wouldn't have any)

Part of the problem with the american .50 and the Russian 12.7 was the weight of the ammo. While the projectiles were much lighter than the 20mm cannon the weight of the cartridge case and powder charge was disproportionately heavy. An American .50 cal round could weigh about 112 grams while 20mm Hispano round weighed 257 grams, the 20mm Shvak round weighed about 183 grams compared to the 125 grams of the 12.7x108 machine gun round (note that the russian round is about 12-13 grams heavier than the American but only 6 or less of that is the projectile.)
The Italian and Japanese Machine gun ammo was much lighter, about 82 grams, as befits it's lower power. again note the difference in weights of the complete round vs the difference is projectile weight. The case and powder of the American round was 20 grams heavier, mostly the brass case.
But then the Italian and Japanese heavy machine gun round don't have an advantage in range or trajectory over the light cannon.

I would note that in most cases any advantage in range or trajectory is mostly in the minds of post war commentators/writers. The difference of 6-9 inches in trajectory when you are shooting at a fuselage 4-5 feet high is minor at best. Only a small fraction of 1% of the pilots in WW II had any business shooting at planes more than 400 meters away so the whole range/trajectory argument is bogus. Doesn't mean that tons of ink and paper and the internet equivalent hasn't been wasted on it though.

What was important was time of flight as that dictated the amount of lead needed for deflection shooting. A short time of flight could mean only aiming several plane lengths ahead of the target instead of 5 or 6 plane lengths.

It is this time of flight thing that makes something of joke of the planes that used the mixed batteries of guns and claims of long range shooting by fuselage mounted guns.
The time of flight for a German 7.9mm round to 600 meters was 1.159 seconds, while the time of flight for the 15mm HE round was 0.816 seconds for .343 second difference. a 300mph airplane is going to cover 150ft in that amount of time making total nonsense of trajectory problems, you are either hitting with one type of gun or the other, not both and much more likely hitting with neither. since the target plane is moving over 350 ft from when the bullet left the muzzle of the 15mm gun and it arrived in the target "area"

Granted that is an extreme example and worst case at sea level but illustrates the problem.




The extra guns (and the extra bullets per second) increased the hit chances for less than expert pilots. Some pilots started shooting behind the target plane and swung through the target plane ending up shooting in front of it. They may have only been "on target" for a fraction of second. The guns were not synchronized with each other to fire in salvos. At 90 degrees (worst case) a 300mph airplane is traveling 44 ft for every round fired by a 600rpm gun and 22 ft for 1200rpm gun. You might have to be very close to get a high percertage of hits.

Hmmm I noticed that the muzzle energy of the Hispano was about three times that of the Browning. This could be one reason for the belief that it was worth three M2s....

 

[Shortround6]

Even before WW2 started the Brits were looking at heavier guns for their a/c. They went with 20mm as the 0.50" didn't do enough damage to the e/a.

I am repeating what I have written in other places, the British were certainly looking for heavier than.303 caliber guns, it just took a bit longer than expected.

The Partnership papers for the British Manufacturing and Research Company (British makers of the Hispano cannon) were signed Jan 11th, 1938. However it was company only on paper. Land had to be acquired, building built, machinery purchased and installed. Workers hired and trained and perhaps most important, get the gun sorted out. it was hardly a finished product at this time and all drawings were in the metric system. However the Duke of Gloucester fired the first gun built attehoffical opening in Jan 1939.

Now please note that at this time the American.50 cal gun was still an under 600rpm gun firing ammo at 2500fps instead of the 2880fps velocity it would have in 1941 and later.
THrow in the fact that the ammo selection was limited (no approved incendiary ammunition) and the reasons for NOT adopting the US .50 cal are many.

 

[pbehn]

UGH?

The cannons weighed a lot more, as did the munitions. Until the introduction of variable pitch props the Spitfire and Hurricane with a wooden twin blade had an effective circa 600BHP on take off. As they were, the Spitfire had had its MGs doubled from the original design. Discussion of cannon on RAF S/E fighters wasn't realistic until 1940, when it actually was done.

 

[DarrenW]

Sorry guys, I didn't mean to turn this thread into minutiae concerning the various weaponry of WWII fighters. Although enlightening for sure, I hope that it gets back on topic as soon as possible.

 

[Shortround6]

Hmmm I noticed that the muzzle energy of the Hispano was about three times that of the Browning. This could be one reason for the belief that it was worth three M2s....

Well, that and the fact that the projectiles were about 3 times heavier and while the Americans and British didn't always use the same projectiles (which interesting enough were also used in the 20mm Oerlikon gun even though the cartridge cases were different) an HE 20mm shell carried just over 10 grams of explosive. The British used a semi AP incendiary which was the HE shell filled with incedary material and a plain steel nose cap fitted instead of a fuse. It carried 10 times the incendiary material that the M8 .50 cal AP incendiary projectile did.
Solid shot hits much harder and when it comes to chemicals (HE and incendiary) it is no contest. down side is the 20mm Hispano weighs roughly double what a .50 cal weighs.
Don't be fooled, the quoted weights for Hispano often do not include the belt feed mechanism, which was detachable and most models could then be feed with the drum (although you never get the access panels closed. )

 

[pbehn]

Sorry guys, I didn't mean to turn this thread into minutiae concerning the various weaponry of WWII fighters. Although enlightening for sure, I hope that it gets back on topic as soon as possible.

I think it is a case of flag waving meeting facts.

 

[Schweik]

I think it is a case of flag waving meeting facts.

Uh, no. No bruh, that is not what it is. Here is what happened, I went out and had a couple of beers, and a couple of y'all wen't nuts writing encyclopedias.

Listen, I'm perfectly happy to read a long dissertation about the ballistic properties of different aircraft ordinance, it's exactly the kind of thing I come to this board for. And I know one or two of you guys are real anxious to see me get "schooled" because you are annoyed that I'm taking an outlier position on a subject you feel you already own.

But please, lets be real - I never argued that Italian 12.7mm was better than an MG 151, let alone that it was better than a Hispano, nor that it was better than a US .50 or a Soviet 12.7mm. I'm happy to read all those details (even though I don't even buy all the arguments being made in that three part dissertation). However, I don't have a dog in that particular hunt so I'll refrain from opining there. You are arguing with yourself.

Try to remember, this ALL started when I poked a hole in the excuse that was given as to why P-40Fs had more victory claims in a few months to two years than Typhoons had in 4 years. Namely that excuse was that supposedly they were shooting down obsolete Japanese bombers and other fillage. When I pointed out that they were not stationed in the Pacific, but were in fact shooting down Bf 109s and MC 202s, it was suggested, falsely, that the latter were inferior fighters (per the above incorrect assertion i.e. 'fillage'). When I pointed out that almost all of the Allied pilots in the region, and most aviation writers etc. classified the Bf 109F and MC. 202 as 'equivalent' - I was told "No way! the MC 202 has inferior guns!"

Then I pointed out that while both aircraft were somewhat lightly armed compared to say, a Fw-190, the Bf 109F - considered the best Axis fighter at that time, wasn't particularly heavily armed either. The F2 (1,230 built) had a single 15mm cannon and two rifle caliber machine guns. The F4 (1,841 built) had a single 20mm cannon (granted a very good one) and two rifle caliber machine guns. Maybe that's slightly better than an MC. 202, but we are not talking P-47 vs. Mc 200 armament here. It's an incremental difference a best, and not one that really means a lot in fighter vs. fighter combat - two nose mounted 12.7mm machine guns can take out any WW2 fighter in less than 10 seconds if they can hit the target.

And we all know that.

So lighten up Francis. I know it's a little bit provocative to take an outlier position on something - and I certainly acknowledge that comparing the P-40F to the Typhoon is a bit cheeky. I have tried to provide useful facts the make the thread both enlightening and entertaining. Honestly I had no idea how they would match up. Having read the thread so far though and seen all the evidence on both sides of the argument, it is starting to look to me like the P-40F was better. More dangerous to the enemy and a better friend to it's own pilots. But I'm ready to learn more. If you want to school me, find something relevant to the actual debate and show me something inspiring about Typhoon air combat. I'll be grateful!

S

 

[Schweik]

Just for the record, no V-2 rocket was able to be intercepted during the war.
The V-2 would be supersonic on it's dive and the only advanced warning that was given, were the sonic booms just before impact.

Just to be clear, I don't know if you are suggesting I was claiming that they had shot any V-2s down, but just I gave that impression, I was not. Quite to the contrary, no WW2 fighter was that fast. No fighter today is fast enough to shoot down a ballistic missile with guns, not that it would even be safe to try. They still have trouble doing that with Patriot missile systems etc.

 

[Schweik]

You, happily have the knowledge of hindsight, the Germans never signed any undertaking to stop bombing raids.

Right. That is just the way the war panned out. And it's why a lot of Allied fighters remained fairly lightly armed. If the Germans had by some bizarre History Channel dark miracle managed to suddenly field hundreds of functional, bug free He 177s and Ju 390s and Me 264s from their secret base in Antarctica, no doubt you would have seen some very heavily armed Allied fighters. Probably some Mosquitoes with 57mm guns on them and that sort of thing.

But they didn't, so none of that was developed. Most of the fighting was to shoot down German bombers so as to defend Allied bombers. So that is why you had four .5 gun P-51Bs doing so well.

The British were facing bombing raids in Malta and elsewhere after 1940 and the Germans used bombers in anti shipping attacks.

Not just the Germans, but the Italians too! And they Italians probably sunk more ships... they had very good torpedoes.

But what kind of aircraft were they both using? Swift, heavily armored superweapons? Ju 388s? Arado jet bombers? No. They were using the same Ju 87s and Ju 88s and He 111s that were getting waxed by Hurricane Mk 1s and Spitfire Mk 1s in the Battle of Britain. Not that they weren't effective and dangerous warplanes, they certainly were, but they didn't requrie 4 cannons to shoot them down. And Me 110s and SM. 79s and CANT 1007s too... none of which were difficult to shoot down with a pair of Hispanos or four .50s, or even with 8 .303s. In fact P-40F and L caught flights of bombers and Jabos and wiped them out a couple of times. As did Spitfires and P-38s and even Martlets and Hurricanes. Gloster Gladiators were shooting them down.

Heavy cannon armament (or eight .50 cal armament) was always nice to have, but it wasn't necessary if you weren't trying to shoot down B-17s or B-24s or B-29s or say, Il2 Sturmoviks.

And that, sir, is the point I was actually making.

S

 

[GrauGeist]

To be honest, comparing the Tiffy to the P-40 is a little unbalanced.

When the war started for Britain, they had the Hurricane to hold the line which would be more comparable to the P-40's position with the U.S.

Through a set of circumstances, the Typhoon became one of the premier Allied ground attack aircraft - which wasn't intended at the onset, but it performed in that role far better than as a dedicated fighter.

 

[Schweik]

To be honest, comparing the Tiffy to the P-40 is a little unbalanced.

Just because it seems a bit odd to you doesn't make it somehow blasphemy

To be clear yet again, I was comparing the P-40F (and L) to the Tiffy, and I think it's quite clear they are comparable. Both came out around the same time, both were in combat during the same time period. 3,000 Typhoons were developed compared to 2000 P-40F/L. Both started out as fighters but gradually became important ground attack aircraft. Where is the imbalance?

When the war started for Britain, they had the Hurricane to hold the line which would be more comparable to the P-40's position with the U.S.

But Britains war started a year and a half earlier, and the Hurricane was a much older design (unlike the Typhoon). The Hurricane is really more contemporaneous with the P-36.

Hurricanes did fight with P-40s in 1941 and 1942, but it was the P-40s escorting the bomb-laden Hurricanes because the latter were no longer considered capable of facing Axis fighters alone. By the time the P-40F/L was heavily engaged in 1943 and 1944, Hurricanes were all but phased out of combat in the Theater. They weren't even considered able to survive that battlefield when escorted by other fighters.

Through a set of circumstances, the Typhoon became one of the premier Allied ground attack aircraft - which wasn't intended at the onset, but it performed in that role far better than as a dedicated fighter.

Nothing all that strange about it, a lot of fighters ended up in the ground attack role, P-47s did quite a bit, RAF Kittyhawks were still bombing targets in Italy and the Balkans in 1945.

 

[GrauGeist]

Did I say blasphemy? No, I did not.

I said that comparing the P-40 (pick any mark) to the Typhoon is a lopsided adventure.

The Typhoon operated in competition to the Hurricane and Spitfire and in an area where it wasn't able to get into a target rich environment like the MTO or PTO/CBI and show it's worth.

This would be like trying to compare the Whirlwind against the P-38 (pick a variant) and then trying to explain why the P-38 had a much different outcome versus the Whirlwind - which by the way, was produced in much lower numbers (like the Tiffy) and became stellar at ground attack (like the Tiffy).

I'm just being realistic here...

 

[Glider]

I can only repeat what is blindingly obvious. The P40 was slower, had less firepower, less payload, was no better at altitude, had less protection and couldn't dive as fast.
There is no contest.

Why didn't they shoot down swarms of enemy aircraft? Because there were precious few German aircraft in the air over Europe and those that were had to contend with the fighter cover which in itself was overwhelming. The P40 operated in an area where axis forces were more active in daylight.

 

[Kevin J]

I can only repeat what is blindingly obvious. The P40 was slower, had less firepower, less payload, was no better at altitude, had less protection and couldn't dive as fast.
There is no contest.

Why didn't they shoot down swarms of enemy aircraft? Because there were precious few German aircraft in the air over Europe and those that were had to contend with the fighter cover which in itself was overwhelming. The P40 operated in an area where axis forces were more active in daylight.

You forgot something. Us limeys let you yanks do the fighting and winning the war once you'd decided that you wanted a piece of the action.