WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/1/2010 10:57:47 PM

retired08

Posts: 8
Joined: 7/1/2010
Status: offline

Hello all,

I might be a new poster but have followed the EDtBR forums for months. I just wanted to share this great read about AC weapons in WWII. I'm sure it will raise some questions as to the game stats for AC weapons.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Post #: 1

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/2/2010 4:32:09 PM

Rob Brennan UK

Posts: 3685
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline

Interesting read and i fall into the cannons are better than Mg camp but there are numerous examples and comparisons that show .50's more efficient than cannons. So take your pick.

this debate is a bit of a dead horse flog fest as its been had in pretty much every forum that has air to air combat

.

That said for a 1st post its a good start ,, welcome to the forums !

_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to retired08)

Post #: 2

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/2/2010 5:54:51 PM

retired08

Posts: 8
Joined: 7/1/2010
Status: offline

Thank you for the welcome Rob. Yes it is a very interesting read. I'm a cannon fan. You are very right that this debate has been around for many years. I walked away in late 90's from the study of WWII air combat as it was consuming to much of my free time. I have been following EDtBR since I first found out about it. Tony Williams has some very good articles about WWII AC weapons and I enjoy reading them. Here is another great read by Tony Williams:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/CannonMGs.htm

(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)

Post #: 3

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/2/2010 7:57:23 PM

Rob Brennan UK

Posts: 3685
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline

Interesting read there, some of the early information was new to me ( i am no great expert on WW2 weapons).

Any interest in the pacific theatre ? Ok this will look like i'm plugging another matrix product (which in truth i am

) .. War In The Pacific Admirals Edition is a great game but the scope and detail can be off putting to be honest. Read a few AAR's if your curious. There are some really good reads there depending on your style preferances.

Enjoy 1943 .. after that I'll remain silent and not ruin any suprises.

Have fun

_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to retired08)

Post #: 4

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/3/2010 6:28:12 AM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

yes, as a old time flight simmer, those are old arguements

and yes, the Cannon boys get a lot of there ideas across, my hassle, is, the 30 cal, is worthless, in all of the data sheets, details, what not, but the 30 cal, shot down a lot of planes, that all of the Cannon experts try to prove they couldn't do

to me, it is as the Old Red Baron used to say, it is the driver, not the crate that counts

it is pilot skill, more then weapon load out that did the damage

so, yea in a way, put a great pilot in a crate with 4 30mm cannons and he going to do massive damage to anything he fires at, but put a ave pilot in the same crate, and he is going to miss more often then he hits, put the same two pilots in a crate with 8 50 Cals, and both of them will have a chance to hit what they aim at

the big MG crates, will do better with the ave, lower skilled pilot then the big Cannon crates, and in the long run, more of your pilots will fall into the ave or below status

(I forget the stat, but it was something like 10% of the pilots got 90% of the air to air kills, the rest were just there of support, or to be a target)

so.....

in the long run, I think most of these kinds of reports, are more, trying to make a stat data to prove a point, that is not really a point

Gunter Rall, Jonny Johnston made kills with all MG armed crates, they also made kills with Cannon Armed crates,neither of them, sudden got good, once the weapons on there plane changed

_____________________________

(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)

Post #: 5

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/3/2010 12:46:29 PM

Erkki

Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

I think G�nther Rall achieved only his very first victory (out of 275) with all-MG plane (Bf 109 E-1).

Yeah, of A-A losses, direct, ditched and writeoffs due to damage but after landing, it was estimated that 5% of pilots shot down 40% of all losses. This, I think, is something the EDBTR gets right.

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 6

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/3/2010 1:12:41 PM

otisabuser2

Posts: 1097
Joined: 8/13/2004
Status: offline

HS, perhaps you could expand on the Johnnie Johnson statement also. IIRC most of his kills were with mixed cannon/mg setup. How many were all mg or all cannon ?

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 7

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/3/2010 3:01:27 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

well, he states "fireing 8 Mg into the belly of a 109" and then having to break off, with a 109 on his tail, so, he may not of gotten a claim on that one, then he went into the Hosp for his shoulder

if you wish, we can change the names to Sailor or Tuck, or Lacy, and the main idea remains the same (not sure how Lacy did later on, but beginning of the war he was pretty good)

_____________________________

(in reply to otisabuser2)

Post #: 8

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/4/2010 2:53:53 PM

retired08

Posts: 8
Joined: 7/1/2010
Status: offline

quote:

in the long run, I think most of these kinds of reports, are more, trying to make a stat data to prove a point, that is not really a point

Gunter Rall, Jonny Johnston made kills with all MG armed crates, they also made kills with Cannon Armed crates,neither of them, sudden got good, once the weapons on there plane changed

@Hard Sarge,

The point of the report was to show the effectiveness of cannon rounds over bullets. I'm sure you know the work of "Anthony Williams" as his work is well respected in the Aviation world when it comes to AC weapons.

As for Rall, Johnston, yeah they killed AC in both MG and cannon armed AC but which did they prefer? I'm sure there are researchers that can give the numbers of AC shot down via MG or Cannon birds for these 2 pilots.

A cannon only needs to hit the AC and the shrapnel from the round spread over a 1-2m diameter does the damage where a non HE round needs to strike an AC part to become a lethal hit.

I have spent 24+ years in the Artillery and a 155mm arty shell has a kill radius of 50m from shrapnel. When this round does not go off it leaves a hole about 1m across. Which is more effective a dude or exploding 155mm arty shell? The same can be said about a 20mm cannon shell, is the shrapnel from the explosion more effective than a single bullet? Was it not that 80% of all casualties in WWII were from artillery/Mortars?

Yeah this debate is like flogging a dead horse but it is an interesting subject. Kinda like FW190D vs P51D or early spits vs 109E's.

< Message edited by retired08 -- 7/4/2010 3:03:09 PM >

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 9

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/4/2010 3:16:02 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

and a lot of planes got away, because a 20 mm blew up on the tail and toar a little fabric off of it

and a lot of pilots died because a 50 cal hit the tail and passed though the pilot on the way towards the engine

and we can always say it the other way around also

too many people fall in love with the word Kannon, the JP 20 mm was bad, a lot of the 20 mm's were bad, deadly if they hit, but very HARD to hit with

to go after B-29's, the JP added 2 47 mm guns to the Tojo, great if it hit, but it only had a range of 150 yards, and at that, good luck on hitting something with it, even more luck, getting it with in range !

this is a arguement just like what kind of pistol do you want, or would you want the other guy to have

a 22 is a toy, a 25 is worthless, a 32 as bad as a 25, a 38 is better, a 357 even more so, a 9 is nice (but tends to punch though with out doing damage) a 45 is great, if you can hit something

all of them will kill you with one shot, if it hits and hit the right place, but some are known to bounce off a jacket (just hope your one of the lucky ones)

and it is the same with a cannon or MG round, if it hits, great, if it misses oh well, but most MG, have a lot more of them rounds coming, while most Cannons only have a few

_____________________________

(in reply to retired08)

Post #: 10

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/4/2010 3:56:44 PM

retired08

Posts: 8
Joined: 7/1/2010
Status: offline

I gather the USAF took the wrong approach by arming their modern day fighters with a 20mm Gatling gun firing HE shells? As to falling in love with the "Kannon" no I just know the destructiveness of a HE shell compared to a bullet. Shrapnel is deadly, you have a greater chance to strike a lethal hit over a single shot. The .50cal indeed when its hits something or someone will cause massive damage and dead if it hits a body.

More MG means more rounds down range, Yes some cannons where crap others better, I'm trying to find this Japanese 47mm Cannon they used vs the B-29 which is just a beast. I hope there is a PC game coming with the bombing of Japan.

Shotgun or pistol?

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 11

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/4/2010 5:09:56 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

ahhhh

the modern 20mm is not any where close to what the 20mm was during the WWII, so not a fair point

and the aiming systems were not close either, which makes the modern 20mm so deadly

there is also the question of targets, Jets were seen to be much weaker then prop planes, but HARDer to hit (but a odd fact, it was figured that it took 6 hits to knock out a Jet during Korea, so if the gun film, would show 6 strikes on the target, it was granted as a kill, since everybody knew the plane would not be able to return to base to land, of course, they were proven to be wrong, but the idea is still there)

(IIRC, it was Murhuin who wrote about that, and also seen a Russian Pilot who laffed about how many times he must of been claimed as a kill)

and as point, I am sure your Arty, was much better then what I worked with, and what I worked with was much, much better then what they had during WW II, so, again, not really a fair point, really, you can't compare 1940 weapons with what we got now, or even in fact, what they had in 45, things change, improve

heck, at one time, it was taught that you have to be level to even fire your guns in a plane, if you were in a sharp turn, or in a roll, you didn't fire (until somebody with some skill, tied it, and found out it worked)

(now those guys were good, that was firing with out aiming systems to help them)

still say, you can throw the biggest rock you can find, and it won't hurt unless it hits what you are throwing at

_____________________________

(in reply to retired08)

Post #: 12

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/4/2010 5:33:21 PM

otisabuser2

Posts: 1097
Joined: 8/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

well, he states "fireing 8 Mg into the belly of a 109" and then having to break off, with a 109 on his tail, so, he may not of gotten a claim on that one, then he went into the Hosp for his shoulder

This is useful info for my research project HS, as something I was not aware of. Where did you read this please ?

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 13

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/4/2010 6:28:38 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Wingleader, it was from his book

he had a bad shoulder from a rugby injury, and had to have it fixed, which took him out of action

so, he is a BoB pilot, but didn't get any kills (according to Men of the battle of Britain)

it is sort of a odd story, so may be more of just a story to show a point, he is talking more about how odd combat can be in the air, planes all over the place and then nothing in the area, it is not where he is talking about this mission or that mission, more about how combat works

he is telling it right before he is forced to go into the Hosp to be "fixed"

_____________________________

(in reply to otisabuser2)

Post #: 14

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/6/2010 12:01:57 PM

otisabuser2

Posts: 1097
Joined: 8/13/2004
Status: offline

OK, that's from the chapter Hun in the Sun. That passage starts "On 15th September, Fighter Command's greatest day, I flew several times, but my efforts, like those of the remainder of 616 were confined to practice battle climbs to high altitude and firing my eight brownings at a drogue towed behind other aircraft. Late that night we heard the tremendous news that our fighter pilots had shot down 185 German aircraft."

He then goes on to explain how that figure got to be exaggerated by giving an example of the general confusion in combat. Part of which includes the passage you quote. This is clearly not him in combat that day.

Then he describes his shoulder injury. His first combat claim is in the next chapter after his return to flying.

As I understand it J.E.J. was not on the Battle of Britain lists because he was not flying in combat at that time. If events had been as you portrayed, he would clearly have been participating. Which was why I got so interested.

regards Otis

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 15

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/6/2010 1:37:47 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

I don't know all of the details, but he was awarded the Battle of Britain Clasp, so he had to fly some kind of combat mission/s during the battle, practice or just being in a squadron was not enough to get the award ?

(maybe some of his practice missions were seen/reported as patrolling)

_____________________________

(in reply to otisabuser2)

Post #: 16

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/7/2010 2:26:12 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

yes, as a old time flight simmer, those are old arguements

and yes, the Cannon boys get a lot of there ideas across, my hassle, is, the 30 cal, is worthless, in all of the data sheets, details, what not, but the 30 cal, shot down a lot of planes, that all of the Cannon experts try to prove they couldn't do

to me, it is as the Old Red Baron used to say, it is the driver, not the crate that counts

MG fanboi.

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 17

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/7/2010 3:04:01 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

and the horse you rode in on

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 18

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/7/2010 3:11:46 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

she's a fierce little Quarterhorse mare too. Breathes fire.

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 19

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/7/2010 3:58:40 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Now now....don't talk about your Mrs like that

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 20

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/7/2010 4:03:09 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

your GF needs inflating.

_____________________________

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 21

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/7/2010 4:05:04 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

So does your libido

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 22

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/7/2010 5:17:41 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

hardly. I'm already considered a national treasure.

_____________________________

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 23

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/7/2010 5:34:26 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Treasure ? I thought you were a Parrot ?

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 24

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/7/2010 5:56:19 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

see post#23

_____________________________

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 25

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/8/2010 1:12:28 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

See post 20

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 26

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/8/2010 2:12:00 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Please refer to the owner's manual for your inflatable pet and confidant.

_____________________________

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 27

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/8/2010 5:02:57 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Please refer to the dumbass manual page 1.....you're a dumbass:

First God made heaven & earth The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Speedy, and the darkness he called Nik the Dumbass.

Rest my case. If God said so it must be so

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 28

RE: WWII FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS - 7/9/2010 8:02:18 AM

harley