Me262 vs. P-80

[GermansRGeniuses]

True, but as I said, the resulting damage is less.

Originally Posted by GermansRGeniuses

True, but as I said, the resulting damage is less.

Well of course it is. The issue is can you score a hit with the thing, and the answer is "only if you are both very skilled AND very lucky".

Mounting a 75mm semi-auto cannon on your fighter would give even more hitting power... but the odds you could land a shot would be practically nil, so what does it matter? The same is true of the MK108 armament on the 262 vs the .50's on the P-80, the MK108 is almost that bad.

=S=

Lunatic

[GermansRGeniuses]

We're both forgetting something that partially ends this argument...


The K-14 lead computing gunsight!

[DaveB.inVa]

Dogfighting with a big heavy cannon is akin to going bird hunting with a deer rifle! You might get a hit in somewhere, and when you do you can be pretty sure its a kill, but the chances of that happening are low. Using a shotgun you put a good spread out there. Sure a lot of the pellets are going to miss, but youve got a lot more in the air so youve got more chances for a hit. Thats why you go bird hunting with a shotgun.

If both pilots are average then Id put my money on the guy with the highest rate of fire. You might have one guy whos God's gift to cockpit and can throw 30mm all day with excellent accuracy, but thats just one guy. There are a lot more average joes out there, and for the average joe Id go with the .50.

Originally Posted by GermansRGeniuses

We're both forgetting something that partially ends this argument...


The K-14 lead computing gunsight!

I factored that in as typically doubling the chances of scoring on a given shot.

Also, it should be noted that while the K-14 was a huge leap forward in gunsights, it also had some issues. Most significantly, it could not be used while engaging in harsh aerobatics, in particular hard rolls. In fact, right on the base of the gunsight in large print is "CAGE ALL GYROS BEFORE ENGAGING IN AEROBATICS". Before executing such a manuver, the pilot had to "cage" the gyros. If he did this, the sight became a fixed reflector sight, if he failed to so, it would proably blow a circuit and he'd have no gunsight at all! The K-14 was excellent for longer shots, but if it got into a turn-n-burn duel, then it had to be flipped to the caged mode before every hard roll, and probably the pilot would not flip it back on unless there was a period of seperation. If it weren't for this requirement, I'd probably have given the K-14 a 4x factor rather than a 2x factor.

The K-14 really came into its own in the A-4 version during the Korean war, which used a radar ranger instead of the pilot twisting a ranging handle to bracket the target. This probably increased the odds of scoring hits by another order of magnitude. However it still had to be caged in hard rolls.

=S=

Lunatic

Originally Posted by DaveB.inVa

Dogfighting with a big heavy cannon is akin to going bird hunting with a deer rifle! You might get a hit in somewhere, and when you do you can be pretty sure its a kill, but the chances of that happening are low. Using a shotgun you put a good spread out there. Sure a lot of the pellets are going to miss, but youve got a lot more in the air so youve got more chances for a hit. Thats why you go bird hunting with a shotgun.

Your analogy misses the velocity difference. The deer rifle at least has good velocity. I think the better comparison would be a colt .45 vs. an semi-auto 20 gauge shotgun firing birdshot. If you're shooting at Ostridges (bombers), the .45 might actually be better than the shotgun, but if your shooting at flying ducks (fighters), the shotgun is clearly much better.

Originally Posted by DaveB.inVa

If both pilots are average then Id put my money on the guy with the highest rate of fire. You might have one guy whos God's gift to cockpit and can throw 30mm all day with excellent accuracy, but thats just one guy. There are a lot more average joes out there, and for the average joe Id go with the .50.

Greater RoF is nice, or more appropriately "volume of fire" (which accounts for all guns), but velocity is also important. The .50's on the P-80 had the significant advantage in both these aspects, while the Mk108 certainly had the advantage in hitting power (but also remember 1 in 4 rounds were duds).

Even the great shot is not going to hit many ducks with that .45, and he's certainly going to hit a lot more with the 20 gauge in any event right?

=S=

Lunatic

[kiwimac]

There can be no doubt that IF a pilot can hit an enemy aircraft with his guns, a higher calibre weapon will do more damage BUT there is a lot of pilot skill there too.

Erich Hartmann managed to shoot down a Sturmovik on ONE occasion with a single well placed shot, Von Richthofen in WW1 managed the same feat ONCE.

No matter the size of the weapon skill plays an emormous part.

Kiwimac

Originally Posted by kiwimac

There can be no doubt that IF a pilot can hit an enemy aircraft with his guns, a higher calibre weapon will do more damage BUT there is a lot of pilot skill there too.

Erich Hartmann managed to shoot down a Sturmovik on ONE occasion with a single well placed shot, Von Richthofen in WW1 managed the same feat ONCE.

No matter the size of the weapon skill plays an emormous part.

Kiwimac

But that is really not the kind of combat we are talking about. Remember, something like 90% of actual kills, especially early in the war, were scored against an enemy who never saw the attacker. This is espeically true of the high German kill tallies early in the war and even moreso on the E. Front. I believe somewhere Hartmann (or one of the other very high scoring German aces on the E. Front) is even quoted as saying something to the effect "if they saw me, I'd just fly away and seek another target". In these instances, the attacker usually attacks from above and behind, sweeps down to the low six position of his target, from which he cannot be seen, closes in to a range of less than 100 meters, and opens up with a carefully placed shot.

By 1945 this type of kill was not very common. Most of the pilots were well trained (at least on the Allied side) and also the US (and some British) planes had tail warning radars to prevent such attacks. Also, early war planes tended to have poor visability to start with, by the end of the war, especially for most allied fighters, this was no longer the case.

The surprise bounce attack really has to be discounted from this type of discussion. Any plane that is fast enough to catch its target at its cruise speed can achieve such a kill with almost any armament. It is the mutually aware engagement that we are discussing right?

=S=

Luntatic

[delcyros]

Great site! This is my first post, so lets go!
1.) Armament of Me-262 A1(b) also include some 12-24 R4M unguided air-to-air missiles (they are missing). But of course they do not contribute much to an arial jet dogfight.
The general weapon layout of the P-80 with .50 M3 is well suited for high speed dogfights, even the .50 M2 would have done very well. (I didn´t noticed that .50 M3 have been fielded in P-80A prior to early 1947, so I would really like to read some references about that)
2.) Me-262 has a higher critical mach speed (0.86 after calculations of Messerschmidt) thanks to its swept back wings with high aspect ratio.
Some pilots praise its exceptionally good high speed handlings (E. Rudorffer to name one) compared to Bf-109 and Fw-190. It could outdive the P-80 anytime. (but a terminal Dive remains a problem for the Me-262 because the P-80 has some nice air-brakes..)
3.) Acceleration and wingload makes me think the P-80 is probably the better dogfighter.
4.) Fall 1945? Well, there are some Me-262 developments to take notice of: HG I (V 09 prototype) was flown (35 degrees wing inlay, flat canopy, new tail design) and HG II (yeah, new 35 degrees swept back wing!) completed in february ´45 (it was never flown, thanks to an ground accident). And I´m not talking about HG III...
Conclusion: I have not voted for now, but I think that the P-80 is a better dogfighter than the Me-262 A1, so more and more jet vs. jet dogfights would probably result in american victories. Just for fun.

[KraziKanuK]

Actually the P-80 and 262 did have a fly off. This was post war out of Wright Field. Al Boyd was the pilot in charge. The results (speed, RoC at different altitudes, turn radius) were so in favour of the 262 that the report was suppressed.

The M3 did not do that well in Korea vs the MiG15.

[Nonskimmer]

Well then, I guess my thoughts were totally out to lunch!
Nothing new about that, I suppose.

[cheddar cheese]

Lunch eh? Sounds good. What did they order?

[Nonskimmer]

A nice heaping plate of neurons. They need it.

[cheddar cheese]

Errm, I think I get it

[Nonskimmer]

Just smile and nod, that's all I ever do when I don't really get someone!