Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Best All-Around Fighter of World War II
sentinel28a    10/13/2009 3:38:03 PM
Let's try a non-controversial topic, shall we? (Heh heh.) I'll submit the P-51 for consideration. BW and FS, if you come on here and say that the Rafale was the best fighter of WWII, I am going to fly over to France and personally beat you senseless with Obama's ego. (However, feel free to talk about the D.520.)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
45-Shooter    Really?   5/21/2011 7:10:51 PM

You can clearly see a WW2 20mm x 110RB AP round, with pointy nose, in the third photo down on this link to Anthony G. Williams' site. Don't tell me that it isn't a WW2 round, he is a published source who has put is credibility on the line by putting his name to his work. You are not and neither is the anonymous person who wrote that link you provided.
>
 
You are right it does have a point. But... that is a very big but! I acknowledged  that they had pointed shells and the link I gave was to Tony's web site! The trouble is apperently with your deffinition of pointyness! ( That's a made up word, but describes your dilemma perfectly.
It has a 1.5 caliber radius nose and the best word that can be used to describe it in relation to any projectile with a NINE or TEN CALIBER RADIUS nose is BLUNT!
You see all things are realitive. One mans point is another man's blunt. The only thing that can be said is that the one with the 9-10 caliber radius pointed nose will cary far better than the one with the 1.5 caliber pointed nose! So much better so that by 300 M, the MORE pointed one will have the same, or SLIGHTLY MORE energy dencity than the one with the blunt point!
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/21/2011 7:26:32 PM

You see all things are realitive. One mans point is another man's blunt. The only thing that can be said is that the one with the 9-10 caliber radius pointed nose will cary far better than the one with the 1.5 caliber pointed nose! So much better so that by 300 M, the MORE pointed one will have the same, or SLIGHTLY MORE energy dencity than the one with the blunt point!

????  thats not correct either.  admittedly its now 8 years since I woked on a ballistics prog but the physics still stands

 the shape of the projectile  being "pointier" does not increase its effect, not does its residual energy improve its kinetic ability.
in fact we use subsonics with flatter heads as they transfer far more destructive stopping energy - we use these principles especially in anti-personnel, anti-materiel and air marshal roles.  they're preferred in killing sensitive equipment as its akin to hitting them with a sledgehammer as opposed to a podger spanner 

actual real life tests show that blunt rounds transfer more energy and stopping power than a "pointy"  warhead.  energy transfer at terminal closure with a larger surface area "mashing" the target is far more destructive at entry. the shock waves spread in a braoder pulsing radius

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Shooter   5/21/2011 9:42:31 PM
Mate, if you want to believe that an HS 404 20mm AP round only had the same penetrating ability as a M2 12.7mm round then you go right on doing so. Like I said to Earl, there ain't any sheep stations resting on it.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    GF   5/21/2011 9:53:12 PM
In case you haven't read the thread the brief summary is that Shooter is arguing that:
 
1. AP rounds were more effective against WW2 bombers (except in head on attacks) than HE rounds because they would travel further and have a greater opportunity to hit something important, rather than relying on localised damage; and
 
2. the M-2 12.7mm AP round had the same penetrating ability as a 20mm Hispano Suiza AP round, because it is sharper.
 
On the first count I don't know the answer, though I suspect that throughout 6 years of using the HS 404 as aircraft and anti-aircraft guns that the British had gained plenty of experience and therefore had valid reasons for predominantly using HE rounds against aircraft. On the second count, I don't think it could become any less credible if Shooter claimed that US pilots who used to whistle the "Star Spangled Banner" while shooting made their 12.7mm rounds hit harder than a German 88 ... ;-).
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/21/2011 10:11:41 PM
well, he'd be wrong on 1 and 2 because the significant damage is caused by HE exploding either at termination or at pentration

AP invariably will pass through - and if you look at the state of many allied bombers that were completely shot up but got home then those AP rounds would have to hit vital parts to do something catastrophic. 

the principle effect of AP is that it causes spalling on the other side of what ever it hits. fuselage skin is just way too thin and doesn't fragment or spall like the inside of an amoured vehicle.  AP just punches through fuselage - or even cross members. - even hitting an engine was not necessarily catastrophic.  hit an engine with HE and it will experience multiple concurrent catastrophic effects.

 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    GF   5/22/2011 12:19:08 AM

well, he'd be wrong on 1 and 2 because the significant damage is caused by HE exploding either at termination or at pentration

AP invariably will pass through - and if you look at the state of many allied bombers that were completely shot up but got home then those AP rounds would have to hit vital parts to do something catastrophic. 

the principle effect of AP is that it causes spalling on the other side of what ever it hits. fuselage skin is just way too thin and doesn't fragment or spall like the inside of an amoured vehicle.  AP just punches through fuselage - or even cross members. - even hitting an engine was not necessarily catastrophic.  hit an engine with HE and it will experience multiple concurrent catastrophic effects. 

Sounds sensible to me, especially against fighters. It is hard to imagine what part of a fighter couldn't be hit with a 20mm HE round without causing serious damage, be it to the control system, an aerofoil, the fuel system, the engine or the pilot. As Confucious say's, "big bang in small space wake the neighbours".  
I suspect that the 12.7mm used AP incindary principally because of the limited explosive capacity of such a small bullet. Having a round that could punch through an armoured fuel tank and set it on fire would have been a fair alternative to an explosive cannon shell, especially given the number of rounds fired by 6 to 8 M-2 equipped fighters would have given hitting the fuel system a reasonable prospect.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Shooter   5/22/2011 12:42:01 AM
The second point comes to bear in the alternate history of the BoB. If the Germans continue to bomb the southern England air fields, then the RAF must abandon the close fields and is also required to cover long distances to get to the AO, so that they are no longer advantaged over their Luftwaffe enemies! It is my contention that it was the difference in permissible throttle pos that made the Spit superior to the Me-109 in the BoB! The K/L ratio reverses just as it did in real life over Northern France and the Germans win the war by invading England.
 
You and others have raised this counter factual history a couple of times to try and argue that the P-40 could have been effective in the Battle of Britain. It is seriously flawed for the following reasons:
 
1. The P-40's would have had to have been based at least 150 miles away from Southern England to avoid their bases being hit by fighter escorted German Bombers. That would have precluded their ability to conduct radar guided intercepts against attacks on targets in Southern England, as they wouldn't have been able to get to the AO in time. Therefore, they would have had to have mounted standing patrols like the British had to over the Channel Convoys. This would have reduced the effectiveness of the P-40 force by at least two thirds and resulted in the same thing that happenned to the RAF defending the Channel Conveys, the would have recieived a schlocking by far more numerous Germans forces on the offensive. Despite bombing British airfields for two months prior to the London raids, at no time did the German bombing reduce the effectiveness of the RAF by that amount. The British would have been better off sticking to the Southern English bases.
 
 2. The original P-40 was inadequate for the theatre in a number of ways. It had no self sealing tanks, no pilot armour and no armoured windshield. Therefore it would be expected to take very heavy casualties and more importantly, kill pilots. Remember, one of the principal advantages that the Brits enjoyed was being able to recover pilots who had been shot down, as planes were easier and quicker to replace than men. Put them in a fighter that gets them riddled or burned on a disproportionate basis and that advantage is taken away.
 
The P-40 was also inadequate above 15,000 feet. This may not have been as big a deal in a Southern England campaign as the really high altitude raids (over 20,000 feet) happened over London, but it would have put the P-40's at a disadvantage to German fighters flying high cover.
 
3. The P-40s were only delivered to the UK in September 1940, two months into the conflict. With pilot training they couldn't be expected to have been in service before October. The P-40's might have made a contribution as a low-altitude interceptor, had the Brits been desperate, and would probably have made a reasonable contribution against German bombers and Bf-109E's, like they did in North Africa . However, the Bf-109F was being introduced late in the Battle and had it gone on for longer, would have been encountered in increasing numbers. Without cover from Spitfires above the early P-40's would have recieved a schlocking at the hands of those, again, like they did in North Africa.
 
Had the Brits been forced to use the type in that theatre I reckon the best use of thier range and good low altitude performance would have been in well-timed low altitude runway strafing missions. It would have been costly due to light AA fire against the reletively unprotected type, but at least might have done a fair bit of damage to the Luftwaffe while they were preparing for missions and would have forced the Germans to keep a greater proportion of their fighters back on patrol, in defence of their bomber bases.
 
Lets not pretend that the type could have made a key contribution like the Spit could though, it just wasn't up to it.
 
Quote    Reply

earlm       5/22/2011 12:47:56 AM
Most kills came from hitting something vital, shooting up structure doesn't work if the aircraft is stressed for maneuvers.  Once the pilot is armored and the fuel tanks are self-sealing it's pretty tough to kill a plane.  Think about the angle at which the projectiles strike the aircraft.  The oft-cited test where a .50 cal blew the heck out of a self sealing fuel tank involved striking at the normal IIRC.  The US was lucky that they were shooting up Japanese aircraft and Messerschmitts.  That's why I favor the air cooled engine since the liquid cooled engine gives a relatively easy to kill feature.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       5/22/2011 12:49:41 AM





????  thats not correct either.  admittedly its now 8 years since I woked on a ballistics prog but the physics still stands
 the shape of the projectile  being "pointier" does not increase its effect, not does its residual energy improve its kinetic ability.
in fact we use subsonics with flatter heads as they transfer far more destructive stopping energy - we use these principles especially in anti-personnel, anti-materiel and air marshal roles.  they're preferred in killing sensitive equipment as its akin to hitting them with a sledgehammer as opposed to a podger spanner 
actual real life tests show that blunt rounds transfer more energy and stopping power than a "pointy"  warhead.  energy transfer at terminal closure with a larger surface area "mashing" the target is far more destructive at entry. the shock waves spread in a braoder pulsing radius
Most of that is true, but if you worked in any field related to ballistics, you also must know that all of those points are either unrelated to the argument or issue specific that would contravene your points, if the context was related to our argument!
1. You are right in that the pointedness of a projectile does not increase it's effect on the target, unless the target is a fluid, like air or water. Then it certainly DOES have an immense effect! The more pointed a projectile is when moving threw any fluid at speeds in excess of sound, the less drag it has and the less energy it losses per unit of penetration though that medium. That is why the Sears-Haak shape works so well. Take a sledge hammer and let Randy Johnson throw it at 100 MPH to hit your Interceptor hard plate body armor in the chest. No big deal, even at point blank range! But let that same amount of kinetic energy arrive in the form of a TC APDS Swedish sniper round at HALF the 5,800 J of kinetic energy in part one of this PP? You get the idea, shape and pointedness do have effects.
2. You are wrong about residual energy improving target effect. Let your 20 MM shot hit the armor plate behind the pilot's spine at 300 M/S and it will feel like less than a loaf of bread laid on the back of your hand. Now let a .50 HCAP bullet hit that same point after traveling the exact same distance, how do you think the pilot would feel?
3. The same point also applies to Subsonic impacts, like arrows! To perforate the Knight's Breast Plate, it requires a long hard fine point or it will not even leave a dent. The concentration of all the energy on the tiny point raises the "Energy Density" to the point where even arrow can perforate surprisingly thick plates! See Pain-Galloway's book for pictures of same, since the written word seems to be to much for you.
4. Yes most anti-pers ammo does use blunt ammo, even ammo that disintegrates when it hits soft targets. The idea is to transfer KE into the target with as LITTLE PENETRATION as possible! No use shooting threw the perp to hit a bystander down range, is there. But all those types of ammo are worthless when encountering any type of armor! And we all know it. That is why this argument is intentionally misleading! You should know better than that! Man Up, admit you are wrong and lets get on with it!
5. I've never seen any "Anti-Material" projectile that did not have the longest practical point to aid long range performance!
6. Everything after that point is so much drivel!





 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       5/22/2011 1:02:26 AM

Mate, if you want to believe that an HS 404 20mm AP round only had the same penetrating ability as a M2 12.7mm round then you go right on doing so. Like I said to Earl, there ain't any sheep stations resting on it.

I never said that it did. All I said was that the .50 lost velocity at a rate less than that of the 20 mm projectile and that after some distance, it would be able to perforate more stuff/thicker plate than the blunter bullet! I also stated that the power to perforate things is proportional to velocity squared and 1/2 the mass. The heavier projectile will go through a thicker plate closer to the muzzle where the velocities are nearly the same, but at some point down range the fact that the large shot has to make a larger hole that requires more energy than it has will stop it from perforating said plate and the two rolls will be reversed! Which weapon would you rather be shot at with while riding in an APC; One with the big slow 20 MM shot at that range, or one with the ability to perforate the armor at that same range. Range here specified at which the WW-II 20 MM shot just fails to penetrate the armor and at which the .50 HCAP Shot is still going fast enough to go through the armor? RIGHT!

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics