ChezDaJez
Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
|
quote:
Also i would like to add, that the 12.7mm Weapon System used in defence by the B17, and B24 -- had very poor effect aiganst some Japanese planes like the Zero, due to the Zeros thin Beam Construction. and due to the lack of armor, the rounds tended to go throu the aircraft instead of having the effect the weapon system was designed for.
That 12.7mm (0.50cal) MG was deadly against nearly all opponents. It could, and did, inflict severe damage to any target it hit. Passing through a thin beam is more catastrophic than passing through a thick beam. I understand why you think 0.50cals slugs would just pass through the structure. They often did and it was a lucky Zero pilot who lived to tell about it. But those bullets more often flamed the Zero than destroyed it outright.
But you must also remember that the Zero had two siginificant structural design compromises, none of which is directly related to the airframe. These were a lack of fuel tank protection and a lack of pilot protection. Most Zeros lost were due to fire and subsequent explosion or disintegration or from killing the pilot.
Some people think of the Zero as being weak because it was lightweight but it wasn't. It was flammable but not necessarily fragile. It was very strong and capable of handling a high-G load. The skin provided a significant degree of structural strength to make up for the light-weight frame. The problem with this was that its strength depended upon the entire structure, skin included, staying intact. Damage the skin and the Zero became weaker with every bullet. The airframe was the major strength point in most allied fighters but the Zero's major strength was derived from its skin and frame. One way to look at the Zero's construction is to compare it to an automotive unibody. The allied fighters were built with a true frame by comparison.
As far as bombers losses vs fighter losses in the game, there are so many variables that it defies historical comparison, especially when using ahistorical mixes of aircraft.
Chez
_____________________________
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
|
Printable Version
RE: AIRCRAFT !! - 
) 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread