Dog fights on the History channel

[kool kitty89]

Guys stop!!!

The snide comments don't help anyone on this thread, they're best left to PM's or not at all. (Soren you should probably edit out that last one before it causes more trouble)

It doesn't matter who started it, it's escalating so drop it and debate and present your argument in a civil manner. I you'd stop talking past eachother (or not reading the wole reply) you'd realize that you are agreing on many points.

I know I'm not a mod, and I don't have any authority, but please don't mess this up. (and I'd immagine the mods and amdmin are getting kind of fed up)



Bill never said the P-51 could take a direct hit from an 88. He compared a B-17 taking an 88 to a P-51 taking a 30 mm.

And look Bill's pretty much agreeing, a different times you guys keep focusing on separate arguments and missing stuff:

Don't misunderstand this perspective I have.

1.) any 30mm was a devastaing air to air weapon
2.) Highly stressed fighter a/c inherently are tough, big bombers usually tougher
3.) one of anything below 30mm has a lower probability of a one hit kill unless it hits engine, pilot, fuel tank or main spar.
4.) a 30mm has a higher probability but not a 100% sure thing

[kool kitty89]

Also I'd immagine the N type shell's ballistics would be more important for the high velocity MK 103 as at those speeds the efficience difference between the rounds woud be more extreme, and generally a/c using the 103 needed the greater accuracy to get the long range advantage of that gun. In addition to the other advantages of the round. (Nightfighters carring the MK 103 apparantly exclusively used the type N shell with night tracer)


And thanks for the penetration properties of the round. (I think it was the 20mm mine round that was found to lack the desired penetration, though the HE(XM) probably improved that over the lighter HE(M) which also had 7g less HE)

[kool kitty89]

Originally Posted by Njaco

But these Dogfight shows aren't really about the individual planes but a situation in which someone overcame odds or such. I think a show on some of the actions of Buffalo pilots getting kills and how they did it in a supposedly inferior craft would be interesting.

I was inclined to agree with this and that was what I'd meant by overview.

And there are several episodes dedicated to the actions a single airfraft.

-Thunderbolt
-Mustang
-Hellcat (Zero Killer)

[drgondog]

education, experience..

even with those we make mistakes.

without these - mistakes are frequent and obvious.

education, experience - please?

[kool kitty89]

Bill why don't you just PM Soren about it?


Let's get back on topic.

[Soren]

Because Bill likes pissing matches KK.

However like I've said before, I don't enter into pissing matches as its downright childish & ridiculous and most importantly proves nothing.


Moving on before this thread gets sidetracked anymore...

Now regarding HE(M) projectiles KK,

The energy retention wether it was fired from the 103 or 108 was still not an issue as the projectile was heavy enough to offset the less efficient form factor of the regular projectile at most combat ranges. However accuracy with the type N projectile would be better by virtue of its more efficient form factor.

As for the effective range of the bombers defensive armament, well it was a good deal shorter than that of a fighters armament as not only did you have to hit a much smaller target, you also had to hit a fast and moving target (Bombers normally fly relatively straight in their formations).

[kool kitty89]

And they had fairly limited ammo.

I understand the issue with the weight and sectional density Soren, I just meant it kind of wastes the use of a heavy high velocity MK 103 with the poorer shaped round. Not so much the effective range (which would be farther than one could accurately aim in many cases). The more important ting is the better shape, and thys energy retention, would keep a flatter trajectory which therfore allows simpler and more accurate aiming. It also means the rounds get to there targets faster.


And some rounds in the .50 cal range have excellent sectional density, the Russian 12.7 mm round weighing 52 grams. Which is still not very close to the 330 g 30mm mine shell, but is roughly equal to the standard British and German 20mm rounds (~130 g) and better than the 20mm mine shell or the Russian (and some of the Japanese) 20mm rounds and the German 15 mm round.

[parsifal]

Guys, this might be an intersting academic argument, but the chances of a direct hit by ground fire of a B-17 was extremely low. We have all seen the mugshots of huge chunks of B-17s missing, and B-17s being cut in half, but the truth is this was an extremely rare event. thats why people took pictures of them, because they seldom saw such things. In 1944, the average ammunition expenditure to bring down any aircarft using HAA for the germans was a whopping 16000 shels per kill. The majority of those hits were not direct hits, but hits at a distance from the plane. They didnt call them flying fortresses for nothing. It could take a lot of punishment.

I just dont see the point in arguing to the death (of this thread most likley) over an issue that is essentially peripheral anyway

[kool kitty89]

That's not what they were arguing about. They were arguing about the effects of the 30mm mine shell (HE(M)) on the P-51, then they went off on a tangent comparing the ruggednes of fighters vs bombers.

Now we seem to be getting somewhat on track again.

[drgondog]

Oh, did I hurt your feelings Soren?

That wasn' my intention.

Having said that, every time you try to pass youself as an knowledgeable practioner of either Aerodynamics or airframe structures I will thump your beak and remind you to stay away from 'absolutes'.

You are free to describe me as a 'prick' - i expect that from you.

Stick to facts. or express opinions without contempt for opposing views of your 'infinite' wisdom. You know a lot about some subjects, but aero and structures are not part of your core competency?

Have a good day.

Experience, Education?

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by parsifal

Guys, this might be an intersting academic argument, but the chances of a direct hit by ground fire of a B-17 was extremely low. We have all seen the mugshots of huge chunks of B-17s missing, and B-17s being cut in half, but the truth is this was an extremely rare event. thats why people took pictures of them, because they seldom saw such things.

Hello parsifal,

Maybe or certainly my English is not as good as yours, but there seems to be some irrationality in your forwarded statement.
I would state that “if” an 88 shell really managed to land a “direct” hit in its best velocity and angle (no deflection, delayed detonation or off angle) the respective target was a goner, no matter if, B-17 or P-51.

Therefore there would have been no chance to photograph a B-17 that received a so called direct hit, unless pictured in hundreds of parts somewhere on the ground. Means I would doubt that those “chunk sized –missing parts photos” were really direct hits. (Maybe just damn close or ripping through the target without actually detonating).

So what does the term "direct hit" in English language actually define or describe, that is maybe the question to me.

Using German language I would call a 100% direct hit = Volltreffer = implements target destroyed, or direkter Treffer = direct hit – but does not automatically implement the total destruction of the target.
Sometimes it is just words; sometimes they can have very exact meanings

Regards
Kruska

[kool kitty89]

A hole roughly the diameter of the fusalage seems pretty close to a direct hit.

[Kruska]

Yes, kool kitty89

It certainly is a direkter Treffer, so again it comes to the question, what word or expression defines the German word Volltreffer in English? or how do you distinguish in English between a direct hit and a hit that causes total destruction?

Sorry I really don’t want to make a language discussion out of this, but since different nationalities are presenting their posts on this forum, sometimes the “wrong” word or term can lead to misinterpretation and as such to heated discussions.

Regards
Kruska

[Njaco]

That's not what they were arguing about. They were arguing about the effects of the 30mm mine shell (HE(M)) on the P-51, then they went off on a tangent comparing the ruggednes of fighters vs bombers.

Its actually a thread about a TV show.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Kruska

Yes, kool kitty89

It certainly is a direkter Treffer, so again it comes to the question, what word or expression defines the German word Volltreffer in English? or how do you distinguish in English between a direct hit and a hit that causes total destruction?

Sorry I really don’t want to make a language discussion out of this, but since different nationalities are presenting their posts on this forum, sometimes the “wrong” word or term can lead to misinterpretation and as such to heated discussions.

Regards
Kruska

For this particular 'heated debate' you would have to go back to Rochie's question "Could a Mustang survive a 30mm hit" (as shown in an episode of Dogfight - and theoretically true)

I simply said - "it depends, but possible" and then went on to explain my logic.

As to the B-17 (and other pics of both B-17 and B-24s hit in same general area by 88mm (or bigger - but not smaller at 22-26,000 feet?) I have a theory

Unlike many smaller aircraft designed today, there were more than 4 longerons that could serve as beam caps to take the bending (and torsion)loads created by that big ass tail of a B-17 (or B-24).. but the key ones for level flight conditions would be two remaining, intact, at approximately 4 and 6 o'clock plus the 10 and 2 o'clock longerons/caps plus enough skin attached to those longerons to maintain a shear panel/beam stiffener capability to prevent buckling.. otherwise you can't take out the torsion or compression loads... or be essentially intact from say 12 o'clock to 5 o'clock for the same reasons - and be lucky

It is obvious that both the B-17 and B-24 would be designed with a lot of structure capability at those locations given the cut outs for the Ball Turret and Waist guns.

Aircraft inherently designed for high G's (like a Mustang) usually have two (each) main beams top and bottom plus thicker skins - particularly if flush rivets are used

Some of the surviving ships have a locally buckled condition after landing when the final vertical loads (presumably) from the landing was just too much at the end.