PDA

View Full Version : An interesting document - Analysis of WW2 Air Combat Gunnery



Kurfurst__
01-05-2011, 10:38 AM
You can find it here. Its appears to be a very professional - read: math heavy, though readable - US analysis of typical WW2 aerial combat engagement ranges, hit/kill etc. probability, that seems to be based on German analysis of their fighter attacks and gun camara footage.

WARNING!

60 Megabyte PDF!

http://cockpitinstrumente.de/a...ecords%20WW%20II.pdf (http://cockpitinstrumente.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/a/Alliierte/US%20Air%20Combat%20Records%20WW%20II.pdf)

Kurfurst__
01-05-2011, 10:38 AM
You can find it here. Its appears to be a very professional - read: math heavy, though readable - US analysis of typical WW2 aerial combat engagement ranges, hit/kill etc. probability, that seems to be based on German analysis of their fighter attacks and gun camara footage.

WARNING!

60 Megabyte PDF!

http://cockpitinstrumente.de/a...ecords%20WW%20II.pdf (http://cockpitinstrumente.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/a/Alliierte/US%20Air%20Combat%20Records%20WW%20II.pdf)

Jaws2002
01-05-2011, 08:52 PM
Very interesting. Thank you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The FW190 was a mean mofo against bombers. Gunter Ral also said that the majority of kills in a day were done by the 190. Fast, rugged and strong well placed armament.

Friendly_flyer
01-06-2011, 04:19 AM
Oh, neat!

There are several interesting results in this paper. Stoppage of guns in Mustangs and Thunderbolts is extremely interesting. In the 4-gun Mustang B, on average only 2,44 of the guns would fire. The most reliable US fighter guns appear not surprisingly to have been the .50's in the P-38, the least reliable the same guns in the Mustang B.

JG53Frankyboy
01-06-2011, 06:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
Oh, neat!

There are several interesting results in this paper. Stoppage of guns in Mustangs and Thunderbolts is extremely interesting. In the 4-gun Mustang B, on average only 2,44 of the guns would fire. The most reliable US fighter guns appear not surprisingly to have been the .50's in the P-38, the least reliable the same guns in the Mustang B. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, there is more G-stress for the fed system in the wings than in the nose.....

JG53Frankyboy
01-06-2011, 07:10 AM
all these pages to get the summary:
a heavy armed and good protectet (at least from the front..) fighter manned by brave pilots is the best plane to shoot down heavy bombers.

what a surprise.....................

horseback
01-06-2011, 01:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
Oh, neat!

There are several interesting results in this paper. Stoppage of guns in Mustangs and Thunderbolts is extremely interesting. In the 4-gun Mustang B, on average only 2,44 of the guns would fire. The most reliable US fighter guns appear not surprisingly to have been the .50's in the P-38, the least reliable the same guns in the Mustang B. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, there is more G-stress for the fed system in the wings than in the nose..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The real showstopper in the razorback Mustang was the angled mounting of the guns--it pinched the ammo feed when the wings flexed even slightly, and once jammed, there was no means of resetting the feed in-flight until they installed small motors to assist the ammo feed (and that was a partial fix).

The P-38's guns were all mounted upright with the ammo feeds in the 'ideal' position. The greatest advantage its gun installation had was all the space they had to work with. It was initially designed as an interceptor for bombers, so the gun installation was paid a LOT of attention compared to more conventional 'pursuit' aircraft.

cheers

horseback

Falcke
01-06-2011, 02:50 PM
Just out of curiosity, how is there less G stress in the nose then in the wings?

Woke_Up_Dead
01-06-2011, 02:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Falcke:
Just out of curiosity, how is there less G stress in the nose then in the wings? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think wings get G-stresses when the airplane rolls, the further out on the wing the more stress.

WTE_Galway
01-06-2011, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:

The P-38's guns were all mounted upright with the ammo feeds in the 'ideal' position. The greatest advantage its gun installation had was all the space they had to work with. It was initially designed as an interceptor for bombers, so the gun installation was paid a LOT of attention compared to more conventional 'pursuit' aircraft.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, according to Kelly Johnson even the unusual prop rotation (reverse direction of normal twins) was done to enhance its stability as a gun platform.

Dance
01-06-2011, 03:33 PM
Good stuff, still getting my head around some of it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JuHa-
01-07-2011, 09:32 AM
Thank you.

Gaston444
01-08-2011, 01:52 AM
Thank you Kurfust: Very interesting!

Note that this confirms what I had been saying all along about the inferior reliability of the P-51's guns, and this all the way into the P-51D's time of widespread availability (introduced in April, and pretty widely there by June), which also includes the period in which the P-51B's gun issues were supposedly solved...

Figure 38:

P-47 average rounds fired before stoppagè:

April 1944 (before the P-47D was massively switched to low altitude ground attack):

1800 rounds between stoppages.

June 1944 (just after the switch to low altitude occurred):

3100 rounds between stoppages.

P-51B February 1944:

500 rounds between stoppages.

All P-51s June 1944 (P-51D included in large numbers in June 1944):

1200 rounds between stoppages...

The P-38 hovers from 4400 to 3400 rounds between stoppages, but the big 20 mm is around 600 rounds well until June, then sees a big spike, plus another spike to 2000 rounds in July, maybe because coinciding in part with the increasingly low altitude role, and much more pre-eminent role in and around D-Day, to avoid confusion for the Allied's invasion force AAA...

The potential significance of altitude is of course that the cold promoted stoppages...

The P-38 was not as important in Europe as the P-47D and the P-51, not by a wide margin, so the fact remains that with the very same guns the P-47D fired roughly THREE times as much ammo before stoppages than the P-51 guns did, and this held mostly true even when the later P-51D was widely present, and while the B model gun issues were supposedly solved by field expedients (B-26 belt motors etc)...

This correlates quite well with what was very evident in the 600 P-47 and 700 P-51 combat reports I have read on Mike William's "WWII Aircraft Performance" site...

[This reliability disparity could be in part due to a sharper initial turn response of the P-51, which would cause more stress on the ammo belts, but the fact remains that these same combat reports make it very obvious that the P-47D easily out-turned the Me-109G in prolonged left turns at ALL altitudes and at ALL speeds, in less than one minute usually (but not the FW-190A), while the P-51 did not, and in fact the Mustang was more like an even match turning with the Me-109G for two to up to 15 minutes (about 40-45 consecutive 360s)... I mention this just to clarify my statement about sharper P-51 initial turns...]

Gaston

K_Freddie
01-08-2011, 05:06 AM
...munch .... munch... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

tomtheyak
01-08-2011, 05:35 AM
Isn't it great when people manipulate a thread to run with their pet whine?

Nice find anyway Kurfy.

Bremspropeller
01-08-2011, 06:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just out of curiosity, how is there less G stress in the nose then in the wings? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There isn't per se, but wings do flex and twist a lot more than the fuselage.

Kurfurst__
01-08-2011, 08:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
Thank you Kurfust: Very interesting!

Gaston </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would have sufficed... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jaws2002
01-08-2011, 10:46 AM
Interesting is also the corelation between the rank and the chances to be alowed to validate a kill. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif


Ah BTW. The P-51 had very narow wings and the guns were quite cramped inside. that's a major reason for more stopages compared to other planes.

Kurfurst__
01-08-2011, 11:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
Interesting is also the corelation between the rank and the chances to be alowed to validate a kill. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Frankly, it seems only common sense to me... whose assessment of combat would you trust more: that of a seasoned veteran on his 100th mission or that of a nervious rookie on his first or second mission...

I'd say the corelation is between the kills and the rank, not vica versa. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

berg417448
01-08-2011, 12:08 PM
I'd say just as likely "Rank has its privileges". A common fact everywhere.

Gaston444
01-10-2011, 07:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gaston444:
Thank you Kurfust: Very interesting!

Gaston </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would have sufficed... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

-Still sore about how your beloved Me-109G or K would not have a real-life chance in hell in prolonged sustained left turns against P-47Ds?

That's not how the Me-109G was supposed to fight against most opponents you know... A "Floret" remember? Unfortunately, Rall found out the usual Me-109G bread and butter of diving and then climbing didn't work against the P-47 either, and that was the very FIRST thing he tried...

I'd say high speed right hand spiral climbs, if it can raise your mood http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif...

Gaston

PhantomKira
01-10-2011, 08:14 PM
Nice! and bookmarked! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Almost finished reading Wing Leader by John E. Johnson. He specifically comments on his lack of opportunities to score kills while operating as a wingman, and how the opportunities abounded (relatively speaking) once he became a leader, even at the element level.

M_Gunz
01-10-2011, 11:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

I'd say the corelation is between the kills and the rank, not vica versa. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the less but still highly significant: Missions survived.

LOL! Was the ever an air war where if you survived two weeks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif then you'd probably be around for a while?

M_Gunz
01-11-2011, 12:03 AM
BTW, P-38 IRL had all the ammo up in the nose. IL2 does not distribute plane mass so it won't show in IL2 but IRL how much pitch trim difference was needed in a P-38 with full ammo and empty?

IRL expending nose gun ammo lightens the nose no matter what plane. Nose ammo is well front of the CoG, it counts extra for the lever arm.

Bearcat99
01-11-2011, 05:59 AM
Interesting..

... and welcome back Kurfurst.. You Avatar looks like the same Kurfurst yes?

Kurfurst__
01-17-2011, 03:16 PM
Yup, same old bad! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hope to see you guys in the Revi when SoW (CoD, whatever..) comes out! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S!

horseback
01-17-2011, 05:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

I'd say the corelation is between the kills and the rank, not vica versa. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the less but still highly significant: Missions survived.

LOL! Was the ever an air war where if you survived two weeks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif then you'd probably be around for a while? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>RHIP would still be a factor with USAAF units, a great many of which entered combat without a leavening of combat veterans; the more effective units would then shake out on the basis of who was an effective combat leader and or shooter, while the less effective outfits would stay with the established power structure.

At least until Darwin had his say.

cheers

horseback

ploughman
01-17-2011, 06:29 PM
Thanks for the schtuff. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

*****, cannot download it. C'est la guerre.

leitmotiv
01-18-2011, 01:50 AM
Great stuff, many thanks.