Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Buzzbait on December 10, 2001, 01:58:00 PM
-
S!
Got this story from the link in the post below (Excellent P-47 Stories)
>>>>>>>>>
"As we were turning to the left, preparing to let down, Capt. S…. and I were attacked from the right by two ME 109s and one FW 190. The FW 190 attacked me starting at 90 degrees in his first burst and forced me to break down. The 20 mm exploded in the engine, causing it to cut out. Fired from about 15 degrees to dead astern, at least one 20 mm entered the fuselage immediately below the right elevator stabilizer and exploded. Many fragments damaged the bulkheads and other internal parts, and one piece came out the other side in the vicinity of the tail-wheel door.
Two blades of the propeller were hit by 20 mm cannon shells. One pierced a blade about eight inches from the tip and made a clean hole 1 1/4 inches in diameter.
The other blade was damaged for a length of about 10 inches, with the entire edge of the blade for four inches in width and 10 inches long either torn off or the remaining edges bent and twisted.
When first hit, the airplane jumped and bucked and the engine stopped. As I was in a vertical dive, the engine started again, but was coughing and spitting and running very rough.
I pulled out at about 17,000 feet, but ran into four FW 190s who turned into me, and I was forced to hit the deck slightly southeast of Enschede, and flew from there to about 10 miles out into the Channel on the deck drawing 54.5 inches HG and 2,720 rpm.
I could find nothing of importance to shoot at, so strafed a rock crusher, canal powerhouse, and a large tug. The engine was very rough, coughed a lot and cut out an estimate of 40 times, but always momentarily. As I reached mid-Channel I had cut it back to 30 inches HG and 2,000 rpm. The engine was much rougher and the vibration intense. Finally I had to cut it back to 23 inches HG and 1,400 rpm.
At this speed the vibration was so intense and the pitot tube was vibrating an arc of approximately one foot and the instrument panel four inches. It was impossible to read any of the instruments, and I expected the engine to disengage itself from the aircraft at any time.
About 10 mils from the coast the engine stopped completely and I finally got it started by priming, turning the emergency fuel pressure clear on and engaging the starter. I had glided down to 2,00 feet and was starting to bail out when it caught again.
I reached my home base and landed just before the gas supply was exhausted."
<<<<<<<
The hilarious thing about this story for me is that the guy has his engine shot to hell, yet he still makes a point of strafing some targets on the way home...
And even though he has taken multiple 20mm, the Jug still gets him to his field. :)
-
Hehe, tough bird.
And from another story:
...I would again like to stress the fact that, even though 50% of the squadron was having supercharger regulator trouble, we were still able to out-perform all the enemy aircraft which we encountered.
(109's 190's)
AH jug is porked!
:)
EDIT: jeez, I just got this terrible thought; if AH jug is ok, but I'm porked! Dang!
--------------------
vector
XO 348th FG "Kearby's Thunderbolts"
[ 12-10-2001: Message edited by: vector ]
-
I liked these tid bits:
I fired a five second burst at 800 yards at the No. 2 man, hoping to make him turn so I could close more readily...
I picked another e/a and started in on him. I was firing at long range, 800 yards, because if I closed to 300 yards it would put the other 109s behind me again. I fired several bursts and observed hits on the left wing, fuselage and right wing root. Again I hit the glycol lines and white smoke poured out. The 109s on my right chopped throttle and attempted to get behind me. I was forced to break off and turn into them. This time they scattered and I resumed my attack. closing to 250 yards and observed more hits when I ran out of ammunition.
I guess you could hit targets with the frickin' turbo lasers at such ranges, just not with any expectation of great results -- just like in AH. He even used such a shot to try and force a turn on a non-manuvering, extending enemy which is how the tactic is used in AH.
I was highly pleaded with the performance of my plane. When I broke off and zoomed up into a climb, I indicated from 3500-4000 feet per minute at 230 miles per hour. I was drawing 57 inches, 2700 rpm with water injection and paddle prop.
More evidence, ancedotal though, to support the climb rate claims with the paddle blade prop. Really more of an issue with that now-deceased sim that seemed to go out of the way to model the Jug like a transport aircraft. HTCs jug does seem to have more on the ball.
Charon
-
<<<More evidence, ancedotal though, to support the climb rate claims with the paddle blade prop. >>>
You'll note that he is referring to a zoom climb. And the Jug in WB was great.
ra
-
You'll note that he is referring to a zoom climb. And the Jug in WB was great.
Ra
Well, he uses the word "zoomed" but the context (230 indicated) suggests it's not a zoom climb as we would normally associate the term. It would seem he was using it as a verb and not an adj./noun. As for WB, I was referring to the AW Jug (since AW just died) which was always porked (climb and roll) and which had been squeaked about, as far as I can tell, for many, many years.
Charon
[ 12-10-2001: Message edited by: Charon ]
-
I would like to add a few points.
I fired a five second burst at 800 yards at the No. 2 man, hoping to make him turn so I could close more readily...
I picked another e/a and started in on him. I was firing at long range, 800 yards, because if I closed to 300 yards it would put the other 109s behind me again. I fired several bursts and observed hits on the left wing, fuselage and right wing root. Again I hit the glycol lines and white smoke poured out. The 109s on my right chopped throttle and attempted to get behind me. I was forced to break off and turn into them. This time they scattered and I resumed my attack. closing to 250 yards and observed more hits when I ran out of ammunition.
In "JG26 Topguns of the LW", a wingman of A. Galland is mentioned. He killed 5 or 7 enemies while flying as Gallands wingman, all kills were high deflection shoots up to 1000 meters (~1100yrd)! And this with MG17 and MG FF, anyway to do that in AH?? NO!
Same goes for a one-handed 109 Pilot, who had to use longrange defletion shots to kill, cause he couldnt fly so well with one arm in Aircombat, he also regulary score beyond 500 meters (~560yrd).
...I would again like to stress the fact that, even though 50% of the squadron was having supercharger regulator trouble, we were still able to out-perform all the enemy aircraft which we encountered
To which alt does he refer?? 2k, 12k, 20k or 30k?
When he flew mainly escort, it would be 25-30K, there his jug is for sure better, but so is in AH.
If to lower alt, he must be flying late in 1944, and there most GE pilots couldnt even show an hour in advanced ACM training.
That would be like a newbie FW190 pilot in AH meeting Sancho or another 56th in their P47.
To this point i also got statements of GE pilots that even the hvy A8 (the one with 2x30mm MK108), outperformed a JUG once they were below 3000m.
Also i haev multiple stories of FW190 returning with incredible dmg. Or staying airborne even after hitting a tree.
You should always take into account, these are very subjective statments. And for each lucky P47 driver, bringing home a P47 heavily damaged there are a couple more that cant tell their story, cause their JUGs crashed after getting hit and the pilots now rest in peace.
ALways remember only a survivor can report, a dead man's story will not be told.
-
can I have a link ,,,,,,Please ;)
-
The differnce, Naudet, is that my subjective stories seem to be supported by ballistic science (which have been discussed here many times) while your subjective stories seem to be the exception to the rule. No one is arguing that the Luftwaffe weapons failed to reach 800 yards. Hell, Tacs film shows you can even hit targets at around this range with the AH 30mm 108.
Even In the P-47 incident cited above, the pilot was not confident of getting a kill at 800 yards, just enough hits to force a change in the fight. With a P-47 (or any american aircraft for that matter) there was also extra ammo to burn and a flat enough tajectory to make it a reasonable proposition, The pilot in this engagement did run out of ammo before the end as well.
BTW, I seem to remember a German acknowledgement of this issue as part of an outside link on this board within the last month or two. Something about a tactics change or armamament adjustment because of the poor ballistics. I should have bookmarked it. Does anyone recall reading the same and remember the link?
Speaking about subjective, I'm also sure that there were Spitfire's and Zeroes that returned to base with heavy damage during the war. But to imply that the 7,715 lb Fw-190 was as durable as the 20,000 lb P-47 also falls into the exception to the rule category. Was the Fw-190 more durable than the Spitfire or P-51 (or Me-109 for that matter), sure. Harder to hit than most planes, sure. But consistantly able to absorbe as much battle damage than the p-47 -- well, both subjective ancedotal history and engineering suggest not.
These pilots seem pretty pleased with their aircraft, and were not afraid to fly it against odds and fight it even when heavily damamged. It says a lot about the pilots as well.
Charon
-
Sry Charon if i did miss the right tone in my reply. Maybe it sounded a bit to harsh.
I justed wanted to point out that these are really subjective points. ALso my points are subjetive.
Both sides were confident in their weapons, especially the pilots that survived the war.
I accepted that the 0.5 has better ballistics than a MG151 or MG131, but on the other side i doubt that it had the destructive power it has in AH.
Also i wont say that the AH P47 is to tough, thats not my point. My point would rather be that AHs Spit is way tougher than it was in world war two. In AH i actually find it easier to cripple a P47 than a spit. And there i'd say something is wron. IMHO its not the jug, but the spit.
I just wanted to avoid (hope that is the right verb here :)) that now everyone cries out and wants a better turning P47. I flew the D30 for most of my jabo runs, and i must say, i felt very comfortable, i could turn with planes, my D9 would long have been augered and the guns were impressingly effective.
I dont say there is anything wrong with AH P47, i just dont want lots of people crying for improvements on it that are not necessary.
-
Also i wont say that the AH P47 is to tough, thats not my point. My point would rather be that AHs Spit is way tougher than it was in world war two. In AH i actually find it easier to cripple a P47 than a spit. And there i'd say something is wron. IMHO its not the jug, but the spit.
Naudet
I'm not sure I would agree about the spit, it doesn't seem to be that durable when I'm flying it :) However, I think the Zero and N1K2 are overly tough. They seem to fall apart piece by piece and the zero can fly around all day blazing like a blowtorch. We're getting a bit off topic I suppose, but those two really stick out when I'm flying them or fighting them.
Charon
-
I haven't seen the Zero enough in the MA to know the answer, but for those who fly it--does it recieve the amount of pilot kills you'd expect a non-armored plane to get?
J_A_B
-
It is an armoured plane. The Japanese beefed t up (the A6M-5 was a late war Zeke) with armour, more HP, self sealing tanks etc etc. In AH I feel it when I've flown it in comparison to the AW Zekes. But it is still far less armoured in comparison to any other aircraft and it shows. It takes damage but still less than any other plane in the AH set, imo.
Westy
-
Hi Charon,
>Was the Fw-190 more durable than the Spitfire or P-51 (or Me-109 for that matter), sure. Harder to hit than most planes, sure. But consistantly able to absorbe as much battle damage than the p-47 -- well, both subjective ancedotal history and engineering suggest not.
If you'd be ready to do so, I'd love to see you argue the engineering part. I recognize that this wouldn't be easy for the average player like me, but I'm really asking out of genuine interest and not to embarrass you.
To be fair, I should point out that I don't think you're right with regard to the Focke-Wulf, but I'm open for new facts :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
One sure I know about battle damage in AH is that there is nothing logical to it.
Sometimes in a P47 I had to shoot 4 - 5 times a 109 to bring it down from 300y ... but other times, I do a 700y snapshot and I'm surprised to see the 109 spining wingless when I reacquire visual contact.
Conclusion? heuuu ... looks like real life to me :)
-
If you'd be ready to do so, I'd love to see you argue the engineering part. I recognize that this wouldn't be easy for the average player like me, but I'm really asking out of genuine interest and not to embarrass you.
To be fair, I should point out that I don't think you're right with regard to the Focke-Wulf, but I'm open for new facts :-)
Henning (HoHun)
HoHun. I’m well aware of your expertise in such matters (from AW and now here in AH) and would welcome your input. You are hardly an “average” player :) I’m hardly an engineer and fully accept the depth of my own ignorance (which helps me as an editor and writer in some fairly complex areas). I would look on your input without embarrassment and as an educational opportunity.
For my position, starting from the always-questionable anecdotal standpoint, the durability of the P-47 is certainly an established perception for the aircraft, with many stories in support. The same is not generally held for the Fw-190, though such factors as roll rate and lethal armament are commonly cited. Even going from an Ameri-centric historical viewpoint, there seems to be a lack of. “… of all the German planes, the FW was the hardest to shoot down.” Certainly nothing I have read in the past 20+ years sticks out, beyond the technical publications that state “FW-190 was more durable than the Bf-109” which is, of course true
From an Armor standpoint, the two aircraft compare fairly well. The “average” FW A series had slightly heavier armor on the pilot seatback, with varying degrees of angle protection depending upon the model. While straight statistical data would suggest the 9mm to 12mm armor plate used in either would be easily vulnerable to the M2 .50 API round or even the AP Mg-131 at standard combat ranges, the fact that most ballistics test data is based on unobstructed, homogenous armor and not face hardened armor surrounded by structural members and ancillary equipment makes this misleading. In RL, both should (and seemed to) stop a good percentage of AP rounds and most HE rounds, which of course produced additional damage to the airframe and shrapnel damage that often wounded the pilot to some degree. Both aircraft would also be fairly immune to rifle-caliber rounds (the Johnson story hinges on this I believe) and have the significant advantage over inline aircraft in this regard with their vulnerable cooling systems.
Now, if you consider the Fw 190 A-8/R8 with all that bolt-on added armor, or perhaps the early F-8 series with the added low-quarter armor (before the design reverted to the standard A-8 airframe) then perhaps you're right from an armor perspective. However, these additions were not without penalty, so that you could seemingly only have two of the three weight contributors in the F-8/G series -- heavy armor, heavy gun armament or extra fuel /external stores before performance degraded beyond acceptable levels, even for special purpose aircraft. Thus, the decision to revert to the A-8 armor package on the later F series and drop some armament on both the F and G series.
From an engine standpoint, the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 has an exceptional record of flying while missing cylinders and while having virtually no oil pressure. It was a hell of a powerplant with a lot of reserve capacity. The BMW-801 should have many of the same characteristics. One criticism that is pointed out is the location of the oil cooling in front of the cylinders. I have read some allied pilots state that made the HO attack an easy way to get a kill. I have also read a reference to the turbosupercharger creating a similar vulnerability on the P-47. Both claims seem to be somewhat isolated as far as I can tell.
From a structural sense, as far as I can tell, both were fairly conventional with the P-47 being semi-monocoque and the Fw-190 being fully monocoque. As an assumption, and at the risk of making as bellybutton out of myself in the process :), I would imagine that the P-47 would be more resistant to cannon fire and that the FW would be more resistant to MG fire, which would seem to cancel out the advantages of the opposing armament packages to some extent. Beyond that, the size of the P-47 suggests to me that there would be considerably greater redundancy and surplus strength in the wings and fuselage.
In the end, the FW was a hell of a design and a masterpiece of packing as much as possible into as small an airframe as possible, with a big engine out front. This was only surpassed by the F8F Bearcat, which used the FW as a starting point.
Charon
[ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: Charon ]
-
On the matter of the FW's oil cooler vulnerability:
Yes, it's in a poor position if you're considering oil loss.
However, if you're judging toughness by running with missing cylinders (as in the Jug anecdotes), then you've lost all your oil anyway.
What might be more significant was bearing material/toughness/metallagy.
Few big end bearings like to run dry. However, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the German access to specialist steels and steel ingredients such as chrome, vanadium and molybdenum was serverly limited, affecting their bearing quality. As a matter of interest, what type of big end bearings do both engines have? If I remember my old car engines, America seemed to use white metal bearings longer than euro designs, by and large. Is it the same with aero engines? White metal bearings would resist oil starvation longer than a ball race (but they'd be much more demanding to repair).
That, after all, is what strategic world war is all about, no?
And....some times engineering perfection can be a flaw. Should the BMW piston be a tighter (more efficently sealing) fit in the cylinder, it may have been more prone to piston siezure when hot/under lubricated.
I'd be interested in knowing what brake mean effective pressure both engines generated. (That's a measure of pressure acting directly on the piston crown, a sign of how well the fuel's burnt, and a good measure of head design).
Comments?
[ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: Seeker ]
-
Hi Charon,
good post on the vulnerability of both types! :-)
I've to say that after having spent quite some time comparing cutaway drawings of both types, I'm really suprised how similar they were in their general layout. (For example, both avoid the use of wing tanks which would increase the vulnerable area markedly.)
The differences I see are:
- stronger front spar in Fw 190
- full monocoque construction of Fw 190 centre section
- oil cooler ahead of engine in Fw 190, on both sides below engine in P-47
- armoured cowl ring to protect oil cooler in Fw 190
- large oil tank aft of engine in P-47
- exhaust ducts running from engine to rear fuselage in P-47
- intake ducts running between front and radar fuselage in P-47
- turbo supercharger in rear fuselage in P-47
- push-rod control system in Fw 190, control cable system in P-47
The advantages of the Fw 190 are:
- stronger wing centre section
- no turbo supercharger system to be hit
- push-rods are reportely less vulnerable to damage than control cables
The advantages of the P-47D are:
- lateral protection of fuel tanks due to metal sheet air ducts.
- engine probably more survivable due to larger oil reserves and superior materials (I agree with Seeker here :-)
Points with a neutral balance are:
- P-47 supercharging system: The turbo itself probably is hard to destroy. Hits elsewhere might affect ducting and reduce available power, but the engine will survive. The ducts additionally provide some kind of double skin that can protect the fuel tanks.
- Oil system: The Fw 190 oil reservoir isn't positioned well, but it's small and armoured. The P-47 oil system is larger and unarmoured, but positioned better.
My conclusion is that both aircraft were probably fairly equal in their ability to survive damage - and certainly better than most of their contemporaries :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I could agree with that HoHun :) , and frankly, I've always thought that the PW-2800 was perhaps the biggest factor in durability reputation of all the major US radial fighters. Seeker, it is hard to belive that an engine can just run on and on with virtually no oil, except thare are more than a few accounts along those lines. Perhaps sloppy American engineering did have something to do with it :)
I'm not so sure that structural strength is even one of the more significant values in aircraft survival. Looking back at all the accounts and guncamera film I've come across, the usual "kill" was, from my impession, an engine kill (big jump from inline to radial), fire or likely dead/wounded pilot. Even looking at the lightly built Zero, the self-sealing fuel tanks and lack of pilot armor were the critical factors.
Look at the B-17 as an extreme example. With the exception of direct flack hits and heavy bursts of 30mm they tended to burn their way out of the air, lose too many engines to keep flying or suffer pilot/copilot deaths.
Getting off topic, again :) I think AH is perhaps a bit too skewed towards the structural failure aspect, though it looks cool and feels generally accurate to me in terms of the end result. I would like to see fire have more of an immediate impact in AH, like an eventual 5-20 second expolsion or pilot death.
Charon
[ 12-16-2001: Message edited by: Charon ]
-
Hi Charon,
>Seeker, it is hard to belive that an engine can just run on and on with virtually no oil, except thare are more than a few accounts along those lines.
I guess the large oil reservoir of the P-47 could have been responsible for this reputation - the engine kept running while losing oil all the time. A complete failure of lubrication would probably kill the R-2800 just as quick as any engine of the period, but with an oil cooler pierced, the engine might have lived long enough for a retreat to friendly lines and a landing with a smoking engine, and founded the P-47's reputation.
>Looking back at all the accounts and guncamera film I've come across, the usual "kill" was, from my impession, an engine kill (big jump from inline to radial), fire or likely dead/wounded pilot.
Let me guess - these were American gun camera films? ;-)
The main kill mechanism of 12.7 mm fire was damage to critical components of the aircraft. Since the projectiles would mostly hole the skin, structural failure could only be achieved by a comparably large number of hits. German cannon on the other hands were designed to destroy the enemy aircraft by achieving extensive structural damage. Their kill main mechanism was the destruction of the load-bearing skin, which resulted in the remaining structural members to be overstressed and fail. While the critical components of an aircraft usually were concentrated in a small fraction of the target area, mine-shell type cannon projectiles could attack most parts of the aircraft with good chances of achieving the desired destruction.
Monocoque structures like most modern aircraft employed were most vulnerable to the German cannon. Steel-tube framing like that of the Hurricane withstood cannon fire much better - the light (fabric!) skin would tear away harmlessly, and the naked steel tubing would carry the entire load just like it did when they were still covered in fabric. For once, myth matches reality :-)
To support your assumption that engine kills (or, as I'd add, critical component kills) were a major factor for killing Luftwaffe planes, I could rely on Albert Speer, who mentioned that at least 50% of the Luftwaffe pilots downed above the Reich survived unhurt (from memory, I don't have the book ready to look up the exact quote).
Since parachuting was a contributor to pilot injuries as well, I'd say that pilot kills and structural failures (which made bail-outs much more difficult) were indeed only responsible for a minority of the kills.
The value of stronger structure might have been that it kept the number of structural failures down, increasing pilot suvivability. I guess that would also apply if the attack's wouldn't have been predominantly 12.7 mm attacks, but 20 mm cannon attacks, though very likely not to the same degree.
(By the way, we should not forget both sides used Flak guns that were more potent than aircraft guns, but could only fire short bursts at passing aircraft. When hit by these guns, structural strength might make a big difference.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun:
Hi Charon,
>Seeker, it is hard to belive
Seeker, Charon and HoHun all in the same place. Most excellent diggit.
Do you mean to say that AH people complain that the AH 47 is porked? Hard to comprehend, in light of collective AW experience.
- Oldman
-
"Do you mean to say that AH people complain that the AH 47 is porked?"
Dam thing's uber! Perk it! Perk it I say!!
-
One issue to not forget.
Due to the way the fuel injection was designed on the BMW801, the fuel lines were quite vulnerable to damage, making it historically prone to engine fires.
-
Hi Vermillion,
>Due to the way the fuel injection was designed on the BMW801, the fuel lines were quite vulnerable to damage, making it historically prone to engine fires.
Interesting point. Do you have any more details on that?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy:
One sure I know about battle damage in AH is that there is nothing logical to it.
Sometimes in a P47 I had to shoot 4 - 5 times a 109 to bring it down from 300y ... but other times, I do a 700y snapshot and I'm surprised to see the 109 spining wingless when I reacquire visual contact.
Conclusion? heuuu ... looks like real life to me :)
Ditto...couldn't agree more. :)
I'd like to add on the subjectiveness of these real life accounts...In John Weal's Focke-Wulf Fw-190 aces of the Eastern Front there's photo of a Fw-190 which had been hit by soviet triple-A...two cylinders had blown off and the aircraft returned safely back to base. So P&W R-2800 wasn't the only engine which could keep running while missing cylinders.
However I'd like to emphasize what Naudet mentioned...dead men don't talk. And man is usually dead when rifle-calibre bullet enters into one's head...and that can happen in air combat no matter how much armor the plane has *behind* you. Only thing that is needed is a lucky 90-degree deflection shot. Of course this kind of thing wouldn't happen very often but I'm pretty sure it did considering the amount of operational sorties flown in WW2...but you never hear about them when the supposed story teller is dead. Life is funny at times...sometimes you have all the luck in the world and many times the attacker in WW2 had also all the luck of his victim...
-------------------
1Wmaker1
(http://koti.mbnet.fi/~paulusk/Lelv34.jpg)
-
Steel-tube framing like that of the Hurricane withstood cannon fire much better - the light (fabric!) skin would tear away harmlessly, and the naked steel tubing would carry the entire load just like it did when they were still covered in fabric. For once, myth matches reality :-)
Actually WW2 period FAF training books claim that the skin is the most vulnerable part of the hurricane.
It worked as a lift surface, so once penetrated the airflow ripped the fabric and also accelerated burning if shot with incendiary. It resulted with most hurricanes catching fire immediately from first hit and eventually burning to death, especially with the main petrol tank placed behind the pilot making the hurri infamous for burning the few pilots that made it back.
So in theory the hurri should be able to withstand a huge amount of shots while in practise even small damage resulted in severe secondary damage that lead to a critical failure of a lift surface or the pilot burning to death.
-
Hi Mr Ripley,
>Actually WW2 period FAF training books claim that the skin is the most vulnerable part of the hurricane.
The ability of steel-tube structures to withstand cannon fire was verified in German trials.
However, the damage you describe sounds more like that of multiple machine gun projectile hits, which have a different damaging mechanism, so that I think our perspectives don't necessarily contradict each other.
Does the Finnish training manual mention which weapon (or weapon combination) gave the described results?
(Is that manual perhaps available online? Sounds like highly interesting reading!)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Don't forget how hard it is to judge distance while flying, even though you may be experienced you can misstake. During pilot trainings one exercise is to judge your alt without alt meter, you go up say alt, go up, say alt etc. The higher you get the harder it gets and you usually think the distance is far greater then it actually is. I wouldn't be surprised if it is so in an air combat aswell.
-
Hohun: The main armament of finnish WW2 aircraft were light caliber MG:s.
We had brewsters, fiat's, morane saulniers, 109-g series late at war.
Most notable is that the pilots mostly decided to remove cannons (hispano from the morane) in favour of the salvaged russian 12,7mm MGs which were considered superior in reliability and adequate in hitting power.
I still remember one scene from a book written by a finnish ace that I read 20 years ago: The pilot tested the new 109 G-6 and landed, the judgement was tough; nose cannons would have to go. The plane was too nose heavy.
The quotation is taken from a part of the book which is available online in camo's website but I really don't have the address available at the moment.
-
Just to add a few things :
heres a short excert from 'warbirdtech series volume 23: P-47 Thunderbolt' by Frederick A. Johnsen ISBN 1-58007-018-3
concerning zoom/sustained climb:
'The recommended tactics to adopt when attacking an enemy airplane are to deliver an attack at high speed and then break away downwards or in the opersite direction of the enemy line of flight as quickly as posible."while zoom-climbing back to altitude gave the P47 a boost, as the momentum of the zoom wore off, the P47C's acknowledged poor rate of climb returned".
as you can see again good zoom poor sustained climb cited.
if you want to take a look at this book you will certainly form the opinion the p47 is like a virtual tank.Well worth a purchase this book.
-
To put things in perspective.
The in the story Buzzbait posted it seems like the Jug survived some serious damage, however if you study it the Jug was only hit by TWO 20mm shells (that he was sure of), discounting the two propeller hits. One in the engine and one (he said "at least one", could be a couple then) in the fuselage. In AH you could multiply that by 10 from a 190.
-
The main kill mechanism of 12.7 mm fire was damage to critical components of the aircraft.
Just wanted to add a note: Study after the war showed the armor piercing incendiary ammo was the most effective 50cal ammo as it could explode the ammo and fuel stores in the enemy aircraft.
-
GScholz is correct
It comes down to your deffinition of tough. Surviving 2 - 4 20mm hits may seem tough but in AH unless those 2 or 4 hits are concentrated on a wing tip, cockpit (pk), eng, or control surface I doudt they would cause any noticable damage. If we were knocking jugs down in ah with 2 20mm you bet you would hear on the bbs.
Also you cant make a determination of toughness jus tby examining the aircraft that made it back. It would entail examining all the aircraft (those lost and those that made it back).
A few miracle examples prove nothing. Who is to say that some (a few or many) were lost to fewer hits? It would entail recovering the wreckage and examining it in detail.
No study like that has been done or could of been. Atleast to the point where one could say absolutely that aircraft A is a tank. No plane was ever a "tank". All of could be shot down and were.
The recommended tactics to adopt when attacking an enemy airplane are to deliver an attack at high speed and then break away downwards or in the opersite direction of the enemy line of flight as quickly as posible."while zoom-climbing back to altitude gave the P47 a boost, as the momentum of the zoom wore off, the P47C's acknowledged poor rate of climb returned".
Nothing remarkable here. Most planes flew at a cruise setting. Coming in high and fast then blowing through keeping your energy up would be enough to out zoom almost any plane. Some one posted a comparison report on the p47c vrs the 190a3 or 4 (dont remeber). If you read that you wouldnt wanna fly the p47c any other way.