Aircraft Spead and the interecept...

[Mr.Frag]

I remember reading that Germans proffered centrally mounted weapons (like those on Me-109 where there would be 2x machine gun over engine + 1 gun that shoots through shaft) to wing mounted weapons.

The thinking was that the centerline weapons are much more accurate and effective than wing mounted one that have trouble with convergence...

Yep, the Allies went the opposite way and taught their pilots how to shoot properly. It also resulted in Allied aircraft having structurally much stronger wings as they had to support the weapons and be able to deal with the recoil effects, which paid off in the end as what amounted to aircraft that could generally make it home after taking hits that would have ripped the wings off of their counterparts.

It seems that we had two completely different schools of thought in design:

The Allies built the plane then tried to get a big enough engine to make it perform, sometimes they never did. The Axis came up with the engine then wrapped an aircraft around it that fit within what the engine could deliver, great performer from day one, but no growth path as engines became more powerful.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I remember reading that Germans proffered centrally mounted weapons (like those on Me-109 where there would be 2x machine gun over engine + 1 gun that shoots through shaft) to wing mounted weapons.

The thinking was that the centerline weapons are much more accurate and effective than wing mounted one that have trouble with convergence...

Leo "Apollo11"

Actually had much more to do with the wing design on the Bf-109. The only way to put
a weapon on it's wings was to hang it below. The Fw-190 mounted it's armament in the
wings with no ill effects.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Actually had much more to do with the wing design on the Bf-109. The only way to put
a weapon on it's wings was to hang it below. The Fw-190 mounted it's armament in the
wings with no ill effects.

Not even that.

I remember reading memoires of some Me-109 ace(s) that never got used to wing weapons on FW-190 - they always prefered spartan 2x machine guns + cannon of Me-109...


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S. [Edit]
Will try to found that quote in my aviation books.

[pasternakski]

The Bf.109 "shoot through the prop" design was a leftover from obsolete WWI technology that had been abandoned by just about everyone else. The cam linkage necessary to make it work introduced just another maintenance headache and caused severe engine and prop bearing wear and damage when the guns were fired. Also, the difficulties and performance limitations presented by mounting a weapon inside the prop cowling extending back into the engine machinery were never completely overcome, either. Remember that this aircraft was "state of the art" for 1926, when its primary predecessor was introduced. By the time of the Battle of Britain, even the odd English Spitfire designs were superior - as fragile and flawed as those aircraft were.

Small wonder that the Fw.190 adopted the approach to weaponry configuration favored by Allied designers.

[MikeH1952]

First time I have ever heard of the fragility and oddity of of the Spitfire design.
Surely the most succesfull fighter operational throughout WWII. The P51 & Tempest might have had the edge by wars end but where much newer designs.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Mike Hayday

First time I have ever heard of the fragility and oddity of of the Spitfire design.
Surely the most succesfull fighter operational throughout WWII. The P51 & Tempest might have had the edge by wars end but where much newer designs.

Don't get me wrong, the Spitfires were great aircraft. Still, the "butterfly" wings and lack of attention to structural strength and interior protection rendered the Spitfire an air superiority fighter with only a short period of ascendancy - and then only against enemy aircraft of contemporary or earlier design. Late versions tried to address these shortcomings, but technology quickly passed on to new designs.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

The Bf.109 "shoot through the prop" design was a leftover from obsolete WWI technology that had been abandoned by just about everyone else. The cam linkage necessary to make it work introduced just another maintenance headache and caused severe engine and prop bearing wear and damage when the guns were fired. Also, the difficulties and performance limitations presented by mounting a weapon inside the prop cowling extending back into the engine machinery were never completely overcome, either. Remember that this aircraft was "state of the art" for 1926, when its primary predecessor was introduced. By the time of the Battle of Britain, even the odd English Spitfire designs were superior - as fragile and flawed as those aircraft were.

Small wonder that the Fw.190 adopted the approach to weaponry configuration favored by Allied designers.

Hmmm...

Both Me-109 and Spitfire were truly the most modern and advanced aircraft of their time (with Hurricane still being mix of old and new design).

Apart from those two and Zero in Japan there was nothing as advanced in the world.


Regarding machine guns placed over engine (and firing trough prop blades via simple mechanism) - that's, IMHO, very ingenious thing (done by Fokker in WWI - he was making German planes although he was not German) and not, by any standard, obsolete in WWII.

Also in any aircraft it is best to have all weapons central mounted - there is no problem with convergence and precision of weapon is unparalleled (i.e. weapon is shooting where pilot points and places his airframe - which is not the case with wing mounted weapons where convergence issues arise)...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Brady]

Late War Japanese Fighters were certainly Not at a firepower disagantage when compaerd with the standard, 6 or 8 pack of US 50Cal weapons, the 4 Type 99 MK II's in the Georges, and the Standard Army Fighter package containing Two 20mm Ho-5's and Two 12.7 MM Ho-103, were very competative weapons packages, and very leathel ones at that, realy the 50 cal was a very inefecent aircraft weapon. Comon comparasions with most 20mm canaon rounds equate their effictivenss two to-three 50 cal rounds for each 20mm round. Japanese and other countrys like Italy and Germany to an extent focused on HEI type of aircraft weapons technoligy, as aposed to the US aproach which was largely to punch holes in the plane and defeat the piolet, or the power plant, the Japanese aproach was centered on the Defeat of the aircraft's abaity to sustain flight, bu destroying the controle surfaces and the planes abaility to generate lift, hince the reliance on primarly HEI type ammo, Japanese Ammo chanies were 4 HEI to one APT round. Planes like the Ki 84 also heald well in the later war years aganst most all of the Allied types, even P51's in China for example, acheaving local airsuperority apon their intruduction in theater their. Georges also had very good K/D ratios over Okinawa and in other areas aganst allied Fighters. many late war Japnese Aircraft designs also incourperated aircraft armor that was suficient to defeat the 50CAl round as well. If late war Japnese fighters with competent crews, in planes like the George and the Ki 84 are being slaugterd whole sale than somthing is wrong with how WiTP is handeleing their representation.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Brady

Late War Japanese Fighters were certainly Not at a firepower disagantage when compaerd with the standard, 6 or 8 pack of US 50Cal weapons, the 4 Type 99 MK II's in the Georges, and the Standard Army Fighter package containing Two 20mm Ho-5's and Two 12.7 MM Ho-103, were very competative weapons packages, and very leathel ones at that, realy the 50 cal was a very inefecent aircraft weapon. Comon comparasions with most 20mm canaon rounds equate their effictivenss two to-three 50 cal rounds for each 20mm round. Japanese and other countrys like Italy and Germany to an extent focused on HEI type of aircraft weapons technoligy, as aposed to the US aproach which was largely to punch holes in the plane and defeat the piolet, or the power plant, the Japanese aproach was centered on the Defeat of the aircraft's abaity to sustain flight, bu destroying the controle surfaces and the planes abaility to generate lift, hince the reliance on primarly HEI type ammo, Japanese Ammo chanies were 4 HEI to one APT round. Planes like the Ki 84 also heald well in the later war years aganst most all of the Allied types, even P51's in China for example, acheaving local airsuperority apon their intruduction in theater their. Georges also had very good K/D ratios over Okinawa and in other areas aganst allied Fighters. many late war Japnese Aircraft designs also incourperated aircraft armor that was suficient to defeat the 50CAl round as well. If late war Japnese fighters with competent crews, in planes like the George and the Ki 84 are being slaugterd whole sale than somthing is wrong with how WiTP is handeleing their representation.

Thanks for the info. I was woundering how the Japanese won the war.

[Howard Mitchell]

I think the Japanese preference for 20mm cannon in late war aircraft was mostly due to the need to defeat strongly constructed Allied aircraft, especially bombers. With no equivalent aircraft facing them the Americans stuck with tried and tested technology and used the 0.5" very effectively. Cannon armed aircraft variants of the F6F and F4U were produced but especially against lightly constructed Japanese aircraft they seem to have offered little advantage.

Late war Japanese aircraft were much better than their predecessors, but the key point here is that to do well they would have had to have 'competent crews'. Japan had few such aviators left by 1944.

All the modern Russian fighters such as the La-5, La-7, MiG 3, and the multiple Yak series, also concentrated all their firepower in the nose. For a lightweight fighter such a design makes sense and only becomes a liability if you are attacking aircraft such as heavy bombers, when it is difficult to mount enough firepower there to be effective.

The Spitfire was progressively modified during the war, resulting in the final Griffin engined monsters. Rather than having a 'brief ascendancy' the only time it was technologically beaten was with the introduction of the Fw 190 (countered by the introduction of the Mk IX). At all other times it was in the top rank of fighter aircraft. I have never read anywhere that it lacked either structural strength or internal protection.

[MikeH1952]

The Spitfire was progressively modified during the war, resulting in the final Griffin engined monsters. Rather than having a 'brief ascendancy' the only time it was technologically beaten was with the introduction of the Fw 190 (countered by the introduction of the Mk IX). At all other times it was in the top rank of fighter aircraft. I have never read anywhere that it lacked either structural strength or internal protection.

I agree, of course.
I trust that your comments are not to biased by a familial realtionship with the Spitfires designer!


Nice to see another Wiltshire resident on the forum also.

On the firepower issue, both Japanese and German fighter designers were dealing with a different problem than US designers, namely large 4 engine bombers. You needed cannons to deal effectively with large bombers with good defensive armament. This was not a problem for the USN and USAAF. The 6 or 8 .50 cal MG package, whilst inferior to the contemporary RAF 20mm Hispano Cannon packages in weight of fire, were quite sufficient to meet combat requirements, they also IIRC, allowed more ammunition to be carried hence more combat time.

[Brady]

"I think the Japanese preference for 20mm cannon in late war aircraft was mostly due to the need to defeat strongly constructed Allied aircraft, especially bombers. With no equivalent aircraft facing them the Americans stuck with tried and tested technology and used the 0.5" very effectively. Cannon armed aircraft variants of the F6F and F4U were produced but especially against lightly constructed Japanese aircraft they seem to have offered little advantage. "


The Japanese Navy had 20mm Cannon armed planes from the get go of the war in the Pacific, Zero's and Nelss and Bettys amongts other types sported Type 99 20 mm cannons, the Army had 20mm Cannons on some bomber types but did not realy field any consistantly unitll the Ki 61's started to apear, and their after we see what was prety much the standard package imearge for the Japnese Army Fighters. The 20 mm cannon was simply a very effective way of acheaving meaningfull firepower and it was a more efficient aproach to doing so, espichaly when compared to the 50Cal Browning in US planes.
The 50cal Browning was reliable and effective up to a point, it was howeaver not an efficient aircraft weapon, it was very heavy, its ammo was very heavy, and several were required to acheave the same effective leval of firepower that a couple 20mm cannons would acheave, it was keept in production mostly because it their was no reasionable replacement for it and it did work, and as has been mentioned above the Allies were primarly concerned with destroying enemy fighters. The 20mm US armed planes like the F4U-1C (200 built), only saw limited action at the very end of the war, they also suffered from serious reliabality issues with their Hispanos, US built Hispanos fielded in US fighters were notiours for not working well, guns froze, and stopages were common, the later do to a manufacturing issue.

[madflava13]

"The 50cal Browning was reliable and effective up to a point, it was howeaver not an efficient aircraft weapon"

Brady,
This is absolutely not true. The .50s mounted in US aircraft were extraordinarly effective air-to-air weapons. There's a reason every fighter of the war was armed with them. Even post-WW2 we continued arming aircraft with the .50 - Jets that fought in Korea, for example... It had a high velocity round which maintained its energy for quite a long time. Coupled with Armor-Piercing, Incendiary rounds, the .50 cal Browning was perhaps the MOST effective air-to-air gun. If there was a problem with it, why did US designers not create something better? There were 4 war years, then several years post-war, then the Korean war years, yet still the gun remained the primary instrument for air-to-air combat. It wasn't until the Vietnam war, when missiles came into vogue, that another weapon system was developed for US fighter aircraft.

The .50 caliber machine gun was probably the single most effective weapon system ever created, IMHO - it's still used virtually unchanged from the original design. Just look on top of every Abrams tank in Iraq right now, and you'll see one.

[Howard Mitchell]

ORIGINAL: Mike Hayday

The Spitfire was progressively modified during the war, resulting in the final Griffin engined monsters. Rather than having a 'brief ascendancy' the only time it was technologically beaten was with the introduction of the Fw 190 (countered by the introduction of the Mk IX). At all other times it was in the top rank of fighter aircraft. I have never read anywhere that it lacked either structural strength or internal protection.

I agree, of course.
I trust that your comments are not to biased by a familial realtionship with the Spitfires designer!


Nice to see another Wiltshire resident on the forum also.

On the firepower issue, both Japanese and German fighter designers were dealing with a different problem than US designers, namely large 4 engine bombers. You needed cannons to deal effectively with large bombers with good defensive armament. This was not a problem for the USN and USAAF. The 6 or 8 .50 cal MG package, whilst inferior to the contemporary RAF 20mm Hispano Cannon packages in weight of fire, were quite sufficient to meet combat requirements, they also IIRC, allowed more ammunition to be carried hence more combat time.

You're in Salisbury Mike? I'm about an hour away up the A36, just squeaking into Wiltshire rather than Bath & NE Somerset.

And of course I have absolutely no bias in any way shape or form towards the Spitfire, simply because its British and I share a name with the designer [;)]

The best book I have seen about aircraft armament is:

"Flying Guns: World War II" by Anthony G Williams & Emmanuel Gustin, ISBN 1-84037-227-3

You can get it from Amazon. Also worth looking at is this site, which goes in to great detail on aircraft armament:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... un-in.html

[Brady]

Some Quotes from Tony Williams excelent book, Flying Guns WW II, ISBN 1 84037 227 3:


p.149:

"Overall the USN and the USAAF stand out for their adhearance to the .50 cal, even when the airforces of all other nations adopted 20mm or even 30mm cannon as aramament, at least for fighter aircraft. This has led some to conclude that if the USAAF and the USN prefered the .50 browning, this must of been the best weapon available, better than the 20mm cannon. This view has resulted in claims of extreamly high preformance for this weapon, somtimes far beyond the reasionable. It was also common to underestimate the preformance of other nations weapons."

"(ref 50 cal), it's high MV and gave it a long effective range, good armor penatration, and excelent accuracery, but a penatility was paid in the form of relaively high weight and barrel wear and a modest rate of fire. In 1940 modifications were made to increase the RoF from 400-600 rpm to 750-800, but this remained run of the mill by wartime standards: rates of fire for HMGs varied between 700 and 1,050 rpm"

"Even at 800 rpm barrel wear was a sevear problem, piolets and gunners were instructed to fire short bursts...a gun could fire a burst of 75 rounds without damage, but after that a gun was restricted to 25 round bursts....this problem was not solved untill January 44"

"The US Navy concluded that a single 20mm Hispano was the equilvent to three .50 guns, the 20mm also had better Armor penatration and did not suffer so much from over heating"

"At the end of the war some German and Japanese aircraft carried armor that was fairely effective aganst the 12.7mm projectiles. In some aircraft the USN and the USAAF did use the 20mm Hispano AN-M2, but although crews appricated the greater destructive power of the larger gun, they complained about it's reliabality."



So as we can see from above when considering the the 50 call Browing as a n aircraft weapon when compared to it's contempoarys, it is very heavy by comparasion, a very undersiable carasteric in a aircraft gun, it has what at the time would be considered a lower RoF for when compared to it's contempoarys, and it was operating under sever firing restrictions for a big part of the war, and then later in the war had it's effectiveness decreased by the aplication of better armor on enemy planes designed to defeat it. The single bigest reasion it was used to the extent it was had more to do with this:


"The real advatages of the .50 were in it's great reliabality and it's standaradisation....the use of a single type of gun greatly eased suply and traing problems..."

Than it realy being a great aircraft weapon, their are many other WW2 aircraft weapons that would be considered "better" over all.

After WW2 in Korea for example, US planes9with 50 call guns) were commonly considered underguned when compared to Soviet fighters.

"When the USA entered the war it had fallen behind in the development of arament for combat aircraft, because very limited resources had been available between the wars, it already had howeaver a very good heavy machine gun in the Browing .50 cal M2,....The intruduction of more powerfull or more modern weapons remained limited to a relatively small number of aircraft..."

[madflava13]

Brady,
Without seeing the quotes in context, I can only assume the author was comparing the Browning .50 to other .50s - there's no way a 20mm cannon weighed less than a .50 cal machine gun. 100 rounds of 20mm ammo also weighs more than 100 rounds of .50 cal ammo, regarldess of type or nationality. So while the .50 Browning may be a heavy .50, it was (and is) still lighter than any 20mm cannon.

Regardless of the weight issue, you cannot simply say one gun was "better" than another. You have to look at the total picture, including the rest of the plane. The .50 was the perfect weapon for the US aircraft. They were designed (most of them at least) with it in mind. Putting 20mm cannons on a P-51 might not be "better" overall. You can't swap the weapon systems out without completely altering the effects on the aerodynamics, performace, etc.

So while you may be correct in stating a certain 20mm cannon had more damaging effects on its target, you cannot categorically claim it was better than the Browning without looking at the total picture - which you have not done here.

[Brady]

"Without seeing the quotes in context, I can only assume the author was comparing the Browning .50 to other .50s - there's no way a 20mm cannon weighed less than a .50 cal machine gun. 100 rounds of 20mm ammo also weighs more than 100 rounds of .50 cal ammo, regarldess of type or nationality. So while the .50 Browning may be a heavy .50, it was (and is) still lighter than any 20mm cannon. "

He was comparing it to other weapons in the same class, the HMG class(and whear noted 20mm). Their are actualy several 20mm Cannons that weighed less than a .50 call Browining. While 20mm Ammo does weigh more it is considerably more effective than a .50 cal round, so you get more bang for your buck, each 20mm round is on average (depending on type) 2 to 3 times more effective than a single 50 cal round, over all the efficienty of the 20mm guns in terms of weight savings, production costs, maitance neads, total weapons system weight. and lethality make the 50. cal Browning by comparasion a very poor choce. Even amongst the contempory HMG clases it is a haevy weapon, and an inefeicent one for various reasions, look at the MG 131 for example bellow on the link I provided, or the Soviet UBK or UBS, far better weapons, in the same class.

"Regardless of the weight issue, you cannot simply say one gun was "better" than another. You have to look at the total picture, including the rest of the plane. The .50 was the perfect weapon for the US aircraft. They were designed (most of them at least) with it in mind. Putting 20mm cannons on a P-51 might not be "better" overall. You can't swap the weapon systems out without completely altering the effects on the aerodynamics, performace, etc. "

Shure I can say one gun was better than another, I would certainly not say the 50 call was the best weapon for US planes, since their are many that would of been better, Howeaver it was a reliable and effective gun, though at a cost, Weapon systems were often swaped, and yes their were negative results, 20mm were fited to P51's but I cant recall off hand why they were not adopted. The US planes were as you mention designed to operate the .50 call as it was the only weapon the US realy had to use for the reasions mentioned above.


"So while you may be correct in stating a certain 20mm cannon had more damaging effects on its target, you cannot categorically claim it was better than the Browning without looking at the total picture - which you have not done here"

Ya I have, I may not of painted it well enough though, see below...






See this page:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... un-pe.html

[2ndACR]

Quit picking on Ma Deuce (.50). The weapon was designed in WW1 and serves to this day, because there is nothing better. Given enough time and ammo, the M2 .50 cal will eat thru anything. Heavy to carry at 84lbs without tripod, but nothing is better. I cannot see any Japenese fighters carrying any armor that would be effective against the .50 cal.

the 84lbs is for the current M2 hvy barrel. I think the aircraft .50 cal was lighter and had a shorter barrel, less range, same killing power. Max effective range over 1500 meters, long time since I fired one.

[Brady]

"Quit picking on Ma Deuce (.50). The weapon was designed in WW1 and serves to this day, because there is nothing better. "

lol, well I was not realy picking on the 50cal, just pointing out that some their are some preconcieved misconceptions regarding it, and I was pointing out that as an aircraft weapon it was clealy not the Best, one could even argue aganst it's Bestness(is that a word) for a Ground mounted HMG, the real reasion it is still in service is that their were freaking tons of them made, they were reliable and effective,and were modified and their ammo was to get the most out of then since WW2, it did not nore has it made since ecenomicaly to change the US HMG to a different designe, or purchase ones from anoter country, it is good enough, I would certainly not say it is the best. A little reserch on the subject of Aircraft weapons and HMG's in general will show this quiet readly.

"Given enough time and ammo, the M2 .50 cal will eat thru anything. "

So will my 223:)

"Heavy to carry at 84lbs without tripod, but nothing is better. I cannot see any Japenese fighters carrying any armor that would be effective against the .50 cal. "

The weapon today is a bit different from the ones used during the war which as you can see from above did differ considerably from pre war designes as well, ammo today is more efficent as well, even a relatively thin plate of armor would be suficient to acheave a degree of protection, given range,angle, and the adation of other material between it and the gun, only optimal range and angle would alow for penatration under these circumstances, as noted above by more learned fellows then myself this was in fact the case.



"the 84lbs is for the current M2 hvy barrel. I think the aircraft .50 cal was lighter and had a shorter barrel, less range, same killing power. Max effective range over 1500 meters, long time since I fired one"

The weights for the Aircraft weapons can be found above in the link I posted, again todays weapopn is not entirely the same beast as yesterdays, and max range is realy not germain to the AtA issue, since realy effective combat ranges for prety much all AtA was around 400 yards or less, the added range of the 50 cal was to a degree a waste, this is why many of the other weapons in this catagory were designed for use out to that range, this in part contributed to their lightenss and in turn to thier generaly better rating in terms of being a better aircraft gun.

[pertsajakilu]

ORIGINAL: Brady
the 4 Type 99 MK II's in the Georges, and the Standard Army Fighter package containing Two 20mm Ho-5's and Two 12.7 MM Ho-103, were very competative weapons packages,

Was that 20mm cannon same what was used in Japanese planes when war started? One of the pilots who didn't like Zero's cannon was Saburo Sakai who complained that Zero's 20mm was big, heavy and slow firing. And extra "goodie" was Zeros's "gunshight" which was primitive. These matters required a pilot with very good shooting skills. Sakai said about 20mm cannon. "it was like shooting dragonflies with rifle."