Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
the bigger issue in that instance would have been type of armament rather than type of a/c
Which Fighter was least successful?
- Thread starter bigZ
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
drgondog
Major
not a good assumption in context of interceptors - the MiG 15 comes to mind immediately as well as all the USSR interceptor follow ons through the MiG 21.
The 30mm equipped Me 109 had devastating firepower for a '3 gun standard'.. ditto the Fw 190.
drgondog
Major
Here are the numbers - air credits ----> USAF Victory Credits current through 1/2009, ground credits -----> 8th AF VCB. Losses --->MACR's
The latter is and always will be open to question as MACR's report conditions regarding 'last sighting' nearly as often as a definitive cause for loss. I have spen a lot of years poring over the encounters and MACR's. In my judgement the numbers below are conservative wrt to actual cause of loss. In my judgment a fighter that 'disappeared' when enemy a/c were reported in area I assigned 'unk-probably air' and stuck it in air loss column..
The Strafing/flak losses include loss of control at low altitude and crashing as well as 'flak' as it is impossible to know whether a golden BB was the cause... so I lumped those figures into the pot for 'strafing losses' whether it was shooting up airfields or trains or cows.. so the actual loss count for airfield strafing is OVERSTATED.. and the Mustang had nearly 2x ground scores as the P-47 and P-38s Combined..
I have an outdated list published on Mike Williams' site but here is the synopsis
P-47 1562/214 credit to loss - air to air and 740/200 air to ground credit to loss
P-38 281/101 credit to loss - air to air and 161/109 air to ground credit to loss
P-51 3325/322 credit to loss - air to air and 3204/568 air to ground credit to loss
Be glad to debate the numbers.
Shortround6
Major General
True but you can't put big armament in a small, cheap fighter.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Not even a 30mm in a Bf109?
Shortround6
Major General
Please try to compare apples to apples. The post war Russian Mig 15 used much faster firing guns than most WW II aircraft cannon and a pair of 23mm guns and a 37mm are hardly the usual three guns of either Luftwaffe or the WW II soviet V-12 fighters are they? by the time you get to the Mig 21 they are NR-30s which fire 400gram projectiles at 900rpm, again hardly comparable to WW II guns.
And do try to study aircraft a bit more.
THe Mustang was not Designed for four 20mm cannon. Some early versions were fitted with Four 20mms but that was after how many had been built with four .50s and four .30s? since it was never repeated after that one batch (of 150) I think we can assume that the installation was not a rousing success. The RAF never ordered more after the 97 they got and the US converted the 53 they kept to photo recon planes.
Now maybe the US built crappy 20mm cannon but the weight of a four 20mm installation is going to affect performance.
The 109 had crap for firepower at the end of the war and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that fact.
A single 20mm and a pair of weak 13mms are hardly First class armamant, Swaping in the MK 108 means a lower rate of fire, shorter range, more difficulty in deflection shooting and less combat duration. Once a hit is obtained it is much more devastating. It is getting that devestating hit that is the problem. Having to use multipule planes to get more than one such gun into the air with sufficent performance to get a good firing solution revels that the "cheap" 109 wasn't really so cheap.
Shortround6
Major General
See above.
Using just under 3 tons of empty, equiped aircraft with a 1500-1800hp engine (depending on model and additives) to get a single, low velocity 30mm cannon with just 6 seconds of ammunition into combat doesn't seem to be that cost effective. THe pair of 13mm MGs, while a nice addition, give the german plane slightly better firepower than Fiat C.R. 42 biplane once the 30mm runs dry.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
No need for this, fella...
We are still going after bombers here, aren't we? The deflection issue isn't so much of a crisis then...
I don't think there were any issues putting a 30mm round onto a heavy bomber bar really lousy shooting.
The Spitfire wasn't originally designed for cannons either, I would describe it as a 'small fighter' comparable with the Bf109, it also had a thinner wing than the Mustang. 4 x 20mm would be pretty good at ripping up a 4-engined heavy whilst retaining sufficient muzzle velocity to deal with any interfering escorts (your deflection issue).
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
Your point is not well made.
A single Mg151/20 with two aligned 13mm firing with no convergence issues is highly effective and the replacement of the Mg151/20 with the Mk 108 was devastating for the skilled pilot that would close to less than 300 yards to fire. You did not kill B-17s very well trying to stooge way out and lob trash into a formation.
If you wish to base your sole argument of 'light/cheap' can't deal firepower with performance - please pontificate on thelack of firepower for the Fw 190 or the N1K-J or the Ki 100 - I am all ears and would love for you to 'educate' me.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
That remains to be seen. Just because they changed armament doesn't mean it was faulty. Probably the MGs suited their needs better. For instance because it was sufficient in fighter vs fighter which was going to be the main job during the war. That's why all of the (single engined) fighters got these all-MG armaments. Before the war there was still the idea that the USAAF needed interceptors.
Also, if needed the US could have come up with a whole range of decent interceptors. Most fighters flew long distance but their performance would have been even better if flown with little fuel.
I beg to differ. It was more than sufficient. Both the 20mm as the 13mm are good enough guns.
I also find the claim of the MK 108 being an inferior gun to be one of the overrated stories about WW2 equipment. Some even call it a grenade launcher. Yet it was an excellent gun. Good RoF and good enough MV. The MV was sufficient for close-combat fighting. We have calculated the time needed for the shell to hit a target at usual range and someone provided data for the projectile drop. Both indicate that the MK 108 was good enough, even for fighter vs fighter encounters.
And most importantly, the gun was very light for its calibre.
Kris
Shortround6
Major General
Then he should not try to feed me moo-poo.
True but the 4 cannon installation didn't become really standard until the the MK 21 did it?
Plenty of Spitifres could have been fited with Four 20mm guns in the Universal wing, thousands of them right?
How many actually were ?
Shortage of cannon or performance penelty?
If they had faced mass big bombers maybe they would gone to the all cannon installation and take the performance hit.
As for the size of a Spitfire, it might have been slender but in length (once it got the two stage engine) wing span and wing area it much closer in size to a Mustang than to a 109.
drgondog
Major
feed you 'moo=poo' ? what a novel concept. Explain please?
As to diverting the conversation let us establish that at least one early, light, cheap fighter had better firepower than the P-38 and P-47 - that would be the production run of 150 P-51's in 1942.
Let us establish that the light, cheap MiG 15 had 2x 23 plus 1x 37mm cannon vs the F-86 awesome battery of 6x50's and ask if you want the Fj4 with 4x20mm more in high altiude air combat against the MiG 15?
Let us further establish that the small, cheap F-16 had 1x 20mm M-61 as did the much larger F-105, the much larger F-15 and the much larger (and ALL more expensive) F-14.
Let us throw more cheap, light 'moo-poo' on the flame (substitute for buffalo chips) with the light, cheap He 162 and Fw 190A8 and N1K-J batteries to compare to the big, huge, expensive P-47 battery of 8x.50's. Which one of those four do you prefer against the B-17 or B-29?
Your turn to dispense 'moo=poo"??
drgondog
Major
But none of those compare in weight or size or cost to the P-47 or P-38. What in the world are you trying to argue?
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Considering the line the thread was taking, I don't think 'when' is so much the issue as 'could they' and the advent of the universal wing proved that they could at the time the Mk V was prevalent. How many were or weren't was largely defined by the perceived threat and the perceived threat by 1942 was not aerial armadas of Luftwaffe heavy bombers streaming towards London.
There was no shortage of cannon other than in places like Malta but I'm not sure off the top of my head what the performance penalty would be in replacing 4 x .303 with 2 x 20mm, though I doubt it would be sufficient to seriously handicap the fighter if it finds itself having to deal with the escorts.
We'll stick with the wing, shall we? The thin wing of the Spitfire didn't seem to have a great deal of trouble accepting a 4 x 20mm arrangement, I doubt the Mustang would either. US reliability issues with cannon production would also be unlikely to pose any major problems, if Packard could license-build an engine, then for Oldsmobile (for example) to license-build a cannon would have been small beer by comparison.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Really?
From your post #142"b.) the Mustang was originally designed for 4x20mm so re gunning it would not have been a problem. So, restated the Mustang with 4x20mm would have been the superior interceptor."
Now perhaps I am mistaken but North American doesn't obtain a contract for the cannon armed P-51s until July 7,41 about 14 months after the British approve the prelimnary design of the NA-73X, and by Sept 40 they have 620 planes on order.
You want to beat me up for making generalities?
I had assumed we were talking about WW II aircraft here, so a 3 gun fighter would include French, Russain and German aircraft using V-12 engines. ALL of these fighter used 2 MGs and ONE cannon unless underwing weapons were used. You want to say my generality is invalid because a JET aircraft that first flies in Dec of 1948 and that weighs more empty than a 109 did with drop tank is a light weight fighter? and of course the much different power to weight ratios of the jet engine to piston engine means nothing in this comparison either, right?
And a pair of 23mm cannon and a 37mm being adiquate armament means that a 20mm and 2 13mms are adequate too?
As for your examples.
He 162, a pair of MG 151s in 20mm Better than a single 20mm and a pair of 13mms but hardly heavy armament 1944-45.
THe KI-84 was a cheap, light fighter? Maybe compared to a P-47 but compared to a 109? While the two 12.7 and the two 20mm were an adaquate armament it wasn't exactly earth shattering. Both guns were light in weight to begin with and quality control problems led to a down grading of the performance of their ammuntion.
KI-100, Cheaper and lighter than what? the KI-84? less ammo for the same guns and both of these fighters have less fire power per second than a FW 190A-4 ( at least until the MG/FF cannon run dry)
The N1K2-J? At 4000kg normal take off another cheap, light weight?
THe Light weight cheap Mig 15? you might want to compare it to Meteor I and then compare the engines.
AS for "Yes massah.. i will do my best to not irritate you. "
Don't feed me moo-poo and I won't call you on it.
We all make mistakes, I hope than when I make them I try to admit that I did.
Your history of the P-51 seems to go along with the sources I have but nothing in there says the Mustang was designed for four 20mm cannon to begin with does it?
British had quite a bit of trouble with wing mounted Hispanos for a while. Since the gun was designed to be bolted to an engine block mounting them in wings that flexed presented problems. They were solved of course but this mounting problem had little to do with the American chamber and or American tolerances. Most sources I have seen give the weight of the Hispano as some where between 116-129lbs. This varies with charging mechansim and feed mechanism.
Total armament installation weight can be 30-60% more than the bare weight of guns and ammo. The Hispanos may require heavier mounts/cradles than a strict increase in gun weight might indicate.
And "A single Mg151/20 with two aligned 13mm firing with no convergence issues is highly effective and the replacement of the Mg151/20 with the Mk 108 was devastating for the skilled pilot that would close to less than 300 yards to fire. You did not kill B-17s very well trying to stooge way out and lob trash into a formation."
The last part is true enough but the first part is still in contention. The "A single Mg151/20 with two aligned 13mm firing with no convergence issues is highly effective " part is true enough against fighters but not so true against bombers which is why the Luftwaffe went to both the underwing 20mm gondolas and the switch to the MK 108 isn't it? If the original armament was highly effective why did they come up with at least two alternatives?
And if the MK 108 was so hot against fighters why didn't they switch over to it entirely? production shortages?
Further more we have the "skilled pilot" qualifier. Building thousands of light weight fighters with an armament set up suited to skilled pilots when you are running low on skilled pilots doesn't seem like the brightest idea.
I will admit that I don't know a lot about the German pilots so if some one could give some idea of how many "Instant aces" the Germans had it might help shed some light on things (or maybe not) .
Many of these larger, heavier, more costly American planes had rather large ammo supplies. Firing times of around 20 seconds were fairly common with some planes haveing firing times close to 30 seconds.
Now some pilots never fire their guns in combat and while others do they never hit anything. there do seem to be some US pilots who shot down multipule planes in their first combat. I am sure there were some German pilots who did the same thing but for the American pilots the fact that they could do a lot more shooting per flight/combat certainly increase their chances of getting hits/ shooting down planes in one flight.
"If you wish to base your sole argument of 'light/cheap' can't deal firepower with performance - please pontificate on thelack of firepower for the Fw 190 or the N1K-J or the Ki 100 - I am all ears and would love for you to 'educate' me. "
If you can point to where I said the Fw was light/cheap and lacked fire power i would appreciate it.
Of course if you can give sources for for all these 400-425mph N1K-J and Ki 100 fighters I would appreciate that too so that I can see how wrong I was about light weight fighters equeling heavier more powerful fighters in both armament and performance.
Shortround6
Major General
Better fire power yes, better performance?
OH, Please, the moo-poo is getting deep here. I think I would prefer the FJ-4 vrs the Mig 15. of course the facts that A. the FJ-4 doesn't fly until the end of Nov 1954 might have limited it's availability in Korea. B. The Mig-15s British derived engine put out similar thrust to the J-47 in the Korean vintage F-86s but weighed about 1/2 ton less. Gee whiz, see what you can do with engines of rather different power to weight ratios. Most Highpower pison engines in WW II had much closer power to weight ratios.
AS for the US jets you list, lets be somewhat honest here, the F-16's 20mm M61 gun represented a much larger percentage of it's air to air armanent weight than the F-14 and the F-15.
THe F-105 was actually a bomber. "For its primary mission, the aircraft would be expected to carry a nuclear store in an internal bomb bay. Because of the large size of the nuclear weapons of the day, the bomb bay had to be 15 feet 10 inches long, 32 inches wide, and 32 inches deep. "
The Primary armament of the F-14 were the 4-6 Phoenix missles at around 985lbs each in conjuction with the AWG-9 radar suite.
Gee compare a light weight fighter to 3 airplanes that actually have totally different missions and weapons capabilities, just what are you trying to prove?
Gee, this is soooo tough. the He 162 is a non starter. the Fw 190A8 gets the nod against the B-17 but I think the P-47 might be the ticket against the B-29. It depends on the altitude the B-29 was flying at, the best gun battery in the world doesn't do any good if you can't reach the target.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
I believe the Bf 109 has been credited with more aerial kills then any airplane. Something obviously worked.
Shortround6
Major General
It keeps being repeated how wonderful the 109 was because it was so cheap.
See post #s 122,125,132 and 135.
THe Spitfire had it's problems too, lack of range was one of them.
Until the very last versions it may have lacked a little in the bomb toting catagory too.
Some big expensive fighters had capabilites that many other planes didn't have.
The Mustang was in a class by itself when it came to range but it's abilities were unkown when some of these bigger heavier fighters were oredered.
It is also interesting to see which way the British went at the end of the war. Spitfires with well over 2000hp, De havallind Hornets and Hawker Tempests and Furys with big expensive Centaurus engines. Not including jets
THe Americans also had a problem, the Browning .50 while a good reliable gun, was a long way from being the most weight effiecent gun ever put in an aircraft. If you were going to stick with the .50 (even speeding the rate of fire up to almost double by the Korean war) you were going to need a lot of them and need a lot of ammo to equel the effectiveness of some peaples cannon. This ment weight which ment a bigger plane and which needed big engines.
Going back to the orginal position cheap planes that can't really do the job aren't really cheap.
Shortround6
Major General
It was also made in much larger numbers than any other fighter aircraft. sheer numbers might have a bit to do with it.
The 109 was very good plane in in Spain in 1937-38.
It was great plane in Poland in 1939.
It was great plane ( one of the two best in the world) in France and Western Europe in 1940.
The F version was a very good improvement in performance and helped mantain it's place in 1941-42 and the early Gs held on.
Believing it was still in the first rank in 1945 is stretching things. the rest of the world has had only eight years to catch up. Not being in the First rank does't mean totally obsolete (nobody was really trying to use p-40s for air supeiority in 1945) . It doesn't even mean it couldn't perform a useful role or be dangerous. But it's role was limited.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
? So you're saying it's a contender for least successful fighter of WW2 because it was not the best in 45?
