|
Erkki -> RE: Japanese fighter cap fighter effectiveness against B-17 or B-17 (12/3/2011 11:57:23 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf
quote:
"8 x 20mm?" Yes 2 in the wing root, 2 outboard and 4 in the dual gunpods. It was a pretty common loadout for the
FW-190s on the western front (when they went up against 4E). BF-109s had single 20mm gunpods in each wing.
4x20mm was the basic loadout. Sometimes the 2 outboard 20mm were removed to increase speed and reduce wing loading.
Again I make the point.. our knowledge of history has been confabulated by 65 years of conjecture.
I was taught this history a looong time ago, books written just after the war.
Some things we can agree upon: both Luftwaffe and Japanese bombers had poor defensive firepower EXCEPT
for the ones with 20mm cannon. Look at the first F4Fs attacking the G4M from astern, they were torn apart by the 20mm rear gunner.
By 1942, practically all British, Soviet, German, and American fighters were immune to 7.7mm fire,
that's why they dissapear from fighter armaments
Japan would have been smart to put 20mm turrets in each gun position (something they do, but very slowly)
Japanese designers were ordered to maintain a large fuel capacity for range , (armor and guns were secondary)
(betty could fly really far, but was vulnerable)
quote:
Its funny how a formation of 100+ Japanese bombers(any types) is unlikely to even hit attackers let alone down them
Just think of it this way.. a P-47 is about 5 tonnes of metal, most of it heavy steel deflector plates
how do you expect the axis gunners to take such fighters down?
An A6M is 1.6 tonnes, and it is loaded with about 600L of fuel in unprotected tanks.
Japanese gunners have 1 or maybe 2, 20mm guns to defend the bomber with
Allied gunners have 10+ 12.7mm guns and fly in large formations.
Luftwaffe pilots called attacking these formations "controlled suicide"
Have you ever seen those nice cut-through pictures of various planes? There isnt much room in any plane for a bullet to pass through and do no damage. Let alone for an explosive shell to go off. A single bullet of any caliber fired from ahead against even the mighty P-47's engine hitting can cause immediate engine stop and/or fire. Or penetrate into the cockpit(through armor glass or fuselage and gauge panel) and kill or injure the pilot. Or destroy other on-board systems.
Fighters were far from immune to rifle caliber fire... For example, the Bf 109s of the Battle of Britain didnt have any less armor than the later models(except thicker armor seat in G series and later) but the British Hurricanes and Spitfires had little trouble shooting them down. All warbirds were and are stuffed full in stuff that can break when the plane gets hit from engine and cooling systems to control wires, pilot, hydraulics, electrics, oxygen bottles, piping. Even just a flat tire from a shrapnel surprising the pilot at landing touchdown is more likely than not to results in a kaputt and a writeoff, even KIA pilot if the plane noses over. Of course bigger guns were more effective(and usually also offered better ballistics) and more destructive power per weight of the gun and ammo on board...
But back to the point: why do Japanese bombers with just as many gunner positions(and Netties even with 20mm tail guns) fail to even hit the attacking fighters, no matter how big the bomber formation is, while even a handful of Allied 4Es, or lets face it, even A-20s, can score as well as 1:1 against Japanese fighters with crack pilots? I dont expect the gunners to always hit or to down the fighter most of the time and I do acknowledge that a 50 caliber is better than rifle cal and is more likely to do more damage on the fighter, but why dont they even hit?
I have never seen a Japanese bomber or strike aircraft shoot down an Allied fighterin WitpAE after some 400 turns. I've seen a G3M and a G4M damage P-40s, once each. Neither even disengaged. When Zeros attack 4Es the 4Es hit the Zeros more than the other way round... Maybe I'll have more luck with the Ki-49-IIb or Ki-67s, who knows? [&:]
A different question is why isnt, or wasnt, this considered a seriously enough issue to fix to a certain mod I happen to play... [;)]When the same mod fixed Japanese ASW, AASW, submarine torpedo launching, AAA(again acknowledging that these were wrong, or are at least more accurately/historically modeled in the mod, and of course I want them fixed) and many other things...[:D][:@][:'(]
[:-]
|
|
|
|
