WW II aircraft performance

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
6 November 2010
Messages
4,201
Reaction score
3,091
This site has a collection of pilot's reports, combat and test, of various WW2 aircraft.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

Additionally, some technical and historical articles.

Includes information about the usual suspects - Fw 190, Zero, Spitfire, P-51, but also about slightly more exotic aircraft like P-43, Fury I, J2M, Ar 234.

As an example, Memorandum Report on P-40Q Airplane
 
Tony Williams said:
This one might be of interest, too - an analysis of WW2 fighter gun and ammunition performance, plus how different weapon combinations worked: http://quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Was this intended for game designers/modders to help them fill out their damage tables? The many unsourced anecdotes might convince them but probably no one else.
 
marauder2048 said:
Was this intended for game designers/modders to help them fill out their damage tables?

I've had no direct involvement with games - either as a user or a designer - but I did keep being asked questions about armament effectiveness by people using WW2 combat sims, who showed more interest in this subject than any other group. That matched my own interests in armament and helped to get me started with looking into this.

The many unsourced anecdotes might convince them but probably no one else.

The basis of my comparison is hard fact: projectile weight, HE/incendiary content, muzzle velocity, rate of fire, weight of armament.

To this is added contemporary input from British, German and American sources about the superiority of 20+mm cannon over machine guns, supported by the obvious fact of what air forces actually did: those which had a choice between good heavy machine guns and good cannon end up using the cannon as much as they could. And not just those faced with heavy bombers, either - the Soviets showed exactly the same shift. There's more on the subject of cannon vs HMGs here: http://quarryhs.co.uk/CannonMGs.htm
 
Tony Williams said:
marauder2048 said:
Was this intended for game designers/modders to help them fill out their damage tables?

I've had no direct involvement with games - either as a user or a designer - but I did keep being asked questions about armament effectiveness by people using WW2 combat sims, who showed more interest in this subject than any other group. That matched my own interests in armament and helped to get me started with looking into this.

The many unsourced anecdotes might convince them but probably no one else.

The basis of my comparison is hard fact: projectile weight, HE/incendiary content, muzzle velocity, rate of fire, weight of armament.
http://quarryhs.co.uk/CannonMGs.htm

I hate to be blunt but it's pretty feeble analysis which falls far below the standards of the detailed Ballistic Research Laboratories reports of the mid-to-late 1940's! They actually looked at things like drag co-efficients, retained energy, fragmentation, yaw, HEI composition and its effects on fuel tanks and aircraft structure. And they had the huge advantage of performing their analyses with live rounds.


Tony Williams said:
And not just those faced with heavy bombers, either - the Soviets showed exactly the same shift.

The Soviets weren't faced with the He-177 heavy bomber and heavily protected aircraft like the Hs-129?!
And in fact the Soviets actually shifted from 37mm armed P-39s and 23mm armed Yaks to 20mm armed Lavochkins.

And if you look you'll find cannon on US aircraft in theatres (the Pacific) and operating environments (e.g. a night-fighter like the P-61) precisely where there was a heavy aircraft threat.
 
Soviet, Japanese, British, Italian, French and German fighters all shifted from machine guns to cannon armament just before and during WW2. Mixed MG/cannon armament initially, shifting to cannon-only at war's end. US fighters less so, showing more of a preference for heavy machine guns - very much the odd man out.

It wasn't until after the Korean war that the US ditched machine guns entirely as fighter armament. Time for a separate thread, gentlemen?
 
marauder2048 said:
I hate to be blunt but it's pretty feeble analysis which falls far below the standards of the detailed Ballistic Research Laboratories reports of the mid-to-late 1940's! They actually looked at things like drag co-efficients, retained energy, fragmentation, yaw, HEI composition and its effects on fuel tanks and aircraft structure. And they had the huge advantage of performing their analyses with live rounds.

My analysis might not meet your high technical standards, but it does have the benefit of producing realistic results consistent with combat experience.

And in fact the Soviets actually shifted from 37mm armed P-39s and 23mm armed Yaks to 20mm armed Lavochkins.

Which probably tells you a lot more about the characteristics of the aircraft than it does the armament. And they still stayed with cannon, they didn't move back to HMGs.

And if you look you'll find cannon on US aircraft in theatres (the Pacific) and operating environments (e.g. a night-fighter like the P-61) precisely where there was a heavy aircraft threat.

Depends on how you define "heavy" - and "well-protected" comes into it as well, something which Japanese planes were not noted for until late in the conflict.

To sum up, a quote from the second article I linked to:

To return to the original question, were the Americans right to rely so heavily on the .50 M2 when all other combatant nations had a clear preference for cannon of at least 20 mm calibre? The answer has to be yes. It was adequate for its purpose, and was the only satisfactory aircraft gun in production in the USA. It was very reliable (except where the installations created problems), was made in huge quantities, and the simplification of supply by comparison with the diversity of weapons used by the Axis powers gave a major logistical advantage. However, the Americans could get away with using a weapon so deficient in destructive power not only because of the nature of their opposition, but also because the size and engine power of their fighters enabled them to carry a battery of at least six guns, thus making up in quantity what they lacked in destructive quality.
 
Tony Williams said:
marauder2048 said:
I hate to be blunt but it's pretty feeble analysis which falls far below the standards of the detailed Ballistic Research Laboratories reports of the mid-to-late 1940's! They actually looked at things like drag co-efficients, retained energy, fragmentation, yaw, HEI composition and its effects on fuel tanks and aircraft structure. And they had the huge advantage of performing their analyses with live rounds.

My analysis might not meet your high technical standards, but it does have the benefit of producing realistic results consistent with combat experience.

And in fact the Soviets actually shifted from 37mm armed P-39s and 23mm armed Yaks to 20mm armed Lavochkins.

Which probably tells you a lot more about the characteristics of the aircraft than it does the armament. And they still stayed with cannon, they didn't move back to HMGs.

And if you look you'll find cannon on US aircraft in theatres (the Pacific) and operating environments (e.g. a night-fighter like the P-61) precisely where there was a heavy aircraft threat.

Depends on how you define "heavy" - and "well-protected" comes into it as well, something which Japanese planes were not noted for until late in the conflict.

To sum up, a quote from the second article I linked to:

To return to the original question, were the Americans right to rely so heavily on the .50 M2 when all other combatant nations had a clear preference for cannon of at least 20 mm calibre? The answer has to be yes. It was adequate for its purpose, and was the only satisfactory aircraft gun in production in the USA. It was very reliable (except where the installations created problems), was made in huge quantities, and the simplification of supply by comparison with the diversity of weapons used by the Axis powers gave a major logistical advantage. However, the Americans could get away with using a weapon so deficient in destructive power not only because of the nature of their opposition, but also because the size and engine power of their fighters enabled them to carry a battery of at least six guns, thus making up in quantity what they lacked in destructive quality.

It meets no technical standards whatsoever and there is no combat data presented to back it up unless the plural of "anecdote" is "data".

There are *long* reports on battle damage assessment conducted by all powers during the war and plenty in the English language.
They were produced for a reason and corroborated by detailed analytical models and actual live firings.

"Heavy and well-protected:" defensive armament and/or armor. The cannon is a much needed asset in rear-quarter attacks on heavy aircraft
with defensive MG since the MG will tend to have a range boost in that engagement geometry. The RAF spent its early years facing that threat, the Germans spent the middle and late years and the Russians had to deal with that threat for the entire war. The US encountered that that in specific environments and specific theatres and employed cannon in those situations.

Most of the Russian aircraft MG production had been diverted to IL-2 and the Russian medium bombers which with the diversion of Luftwaffe
fighters to the west could and did operate more extensively as the war progressed.

The .50 M2 quote is silly since its masks the big improvements in ROF, accuracy and destructive power in ammo types that were introduced during the war.
 
You have been very critical of my methods, but have not produced any evidence to demonstrate that my conclusions are wrong.

Nor have you answered the obvious point that all air forces except the USAAF increasingly used cannon as a result of their combat experience, which supports the results of my analysis.

Finally, I don't know why you are arguing, since we seem to agree that the .50 armament of USAAF fighters was adequate for the targets they normally faced, but cannon were more appropriate for anything tougher.
 
Tony Williams said:
You have been very critical of my methods, but have not produced any evidence to demonstrate that my conclusions are wrong.

Nor have you answered the obvious point that all air forces except the USAAF increasingly used cannon as a result of their combat experience, which supports the results of my analysis.

Finally, I don't know why you are arguing, since we seem to agree that the .50 armament of USAAF fighters was adequate for the targets they normally faced, but cannon were more appropriate for anything tougher.

Leaving aside the fact that deeply unscientific methodology can't really produce conclusions worthy of consideration lets just look at one:

The .50 cal M2 (which one you don't say) "was only satisfactory aircraft gun in production in the USA".

This is a bizarre conclusion given the tens of thousands of cannon equipped P-38s, P-61s, P-39s, F-4Us etc and their success in-theatre.

In contrast, the "Optimum Caliber Project" conducted by the BRL in the 1940's tested domestic and foreign aircraft armament against 1,200
WWII aircraft. Based on the models derived from these experiments, the BRL was able to accurately project the F-86 <-> MiG-15
exchange ratios seen over Korea. Furthermore, that modeling enabled the future (and pretty much still standard) US air armament round
which is really just an necked-out .60 Cal MG round developed during WWII.

Your model can't and doesn't add to that.
 
marauder2048 said:
Leaving aside the fact that deeply unscientific methodology can't really produce conclusions worthy of consideration lets just look at one:

The .50 cal M2 (which one you don't say) "was only satisfactory aircraft gun in production in the USA".

This is a bizarre conclusion given the tens of thousands of cannon equipped P-38s, P-61s, P-39s, F-4Us etc and their success in-theatre.

Try reading this: http://quarryhs.co.uk/US404.htm from an authoritative US source.

In contrast, the "Optimum Caliber Project" conducted by the BRL in the 1940's tested domestic and foreign aircraft armament against 1,200
WWII aircraft. Based on the models derived from these experiments, the BRL was able to accurately project the F-86 <-> MiG-15
exchange ratios seen over Korea. Furthermore, that modeling enabled the future (and pretty much still standard) US air armament round
which is really just an necked-out .60 Cal MG round developed during WWII.

USAF experience in Korea led to a rapid re-evaluation of their former preference for .50 cal and Project GunVal saw 20mm guns rushed into use to test how they worked in combat. After which, the USAF switched over the 20mm for all new gun-armed fighter jets.

Your model can't and doesn't add to that.

My model provides a simple and understandable way of comparing any gun and ammunition combinations for which basic data are available. It produces results which are consistent with WW2 experience and are reflected in the choices made by all air forces with combat experience, except for the USAAF (a special case, for reasons which we agree on).

You can moan about the process as much as you like, but you have repeatedly failed to produce any evidence that the results are unrealistic or are not a reflection of combat experience. So there's no point in discussing this any further.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom