WWII Tactical AAA

[larrikin]

 

Armed with 6 .50s a number of US pilots were able to down 7 Japanese planes in a single flight. McCampbell? claimed 9 in one flight. I'd be curious what the single sortie record is for a German fighter. I don't know what it is.

 

/quote]

 

Knocking down Japanese fighters wasn't much of a feat, if you could hit them. Fere crissake, a WIrraway got one, and it had a single forward firing .303. The reason Zeros had such a huge range was that they were built as light ly as possible, with absolutely NO armour.

[CaptLuke]

But.  I don't seem to recall the German Flak Vierling being very effective against P-47s either.  Again, rate of fire?  Rotate speed?  Numbers?  Aircraft speed?

 

207948[/snapback]

 

German purpose built AA was moving over to 37mm, including an enormous twin 37mm, late war and, end of war, seemed to be moving to mix of 30mm and 55mm. 20mm seemed too small to them, as it seemed to most.

 

Having said that, I wonder if the figures for US .50 AA effectiveness are skewed by single mount .50s and the naval .50, which used single water cooled mountings that were heavy and had a comparatively low rate of fire.

 

Given that the .50 had ballistics comparable to most 20mm rounds and that the quad .50 combined a powered mounting and decent sights, I have some trouble thinking that the quad .50, with it's belt feeds, is much inferior to Flak Vierling, with, IIRC, magazine feeds.

[FormerBlue]

[snip]

 

(edited to tidy it up a bit)

208242[/snapback]

Naw, was going all over the place as the thread was drifting all over. The theme was AAA and it moved to B-17s and their ability to withstand various cannon rounds. Thought I'd point out that none of them cannon were particularly effective in the AAA role against B-17s so it's not real applicable. The P-47s lossed to 20mm were a better reference to small cannon. And I still don't see large losses to Vierlings.

 

The point remains that at Remagen the .50s seemed to work. The 40mms weren't more destructive as, apparently, they weren't hitting. Which has been my common thread. A set of .50s hitting is better than cannon that aren't.

 

It's news to me that the XM-214 was available during Korea.

 

The F-22 is due to get the M61, not a 25mm or 30mm. As is the F-35. Seems it's big enough.

 

Point stands, F-86s did just fine with the .50s. A preference for cannon doesn't change that.

[FormerBlue]

Thought I'd add.

 

Tactical AAA was something of a waste of effort for the US. A better strategy is to maintain air superiority. Tactical AAA didn't seem to work on the German side of that front either. The fighter-bombers seemed to get through at will. When the sky cleared during the Bulge the German tanks were doomed.

[Paul Lakowski]

Naw, was going all over the place as the thread was drifting all over.  The theme was AAA and it moved to B-17s and their ability to withstand various cannon rounds.  Thought I'd point out that none of them cannon were particularly effective in the AAA role against B-17s so it's not real applicable.  The P-47s lossed to 20mm were a better reference to small cannon.  And I still don't see large losses to Vierlings.

 

The point remains that at Remagen the .50s seemed to work.  The 40mms weren't more destructive as, apparently, they weren't hitting.  Which has been my common thread.  A set of .50s hitting is better than cannon that aren't.

 

It's news to me that the XM-214 was available during Korea. 

 

The F-22 is due to get the M61, not a 25mm or 30mm.  As is the F-35.  Seems it's big enough. 

 

Point stands, F-86s did just fine with the .50s.  A preference for cannon doesn't change that.

208339[/snapback]

 

Ehhh I think you need to learn some respect. This thread is old and we were discussing the relative effectiveness of WW-II AAA not plane guns, that was your doing. What stealth fighters have to do with WW-II AAA is beyond me. BTW according to some german reports , in some cases single hit from a 30mm HEI was able to down a B-17 if it hit the correct sparr.

[Lev]

[..]

The point remains that at Remagen the .50s seemed to work.  The 40mms weren't more destructive as, apparently, they weren't hitting.  Which has been my common thread.  A set of .50s hitting is better than cannon that aren't.

[..]

Point stands, F-86s did just fine with the .50s.  A preference for cannon doesn't change that.

 

Well the MiG-15 also did 'just fine' with it's slow 37mm gun, but that doesn't mean that low-velocity slow-firing cannon were a great weapon against anything other than slow-firing bombers

As I've posted before, even if the MIG-package was twice as innaccurate it would still put as much weight on target as the Sabre's 50s. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that if a bad cannon setup is still better than the best .50 setup, than heavy machineguns had reached the end of their potential in air to air fighting by Korea (and perhaps earlier).

 

Somebody listed weights for the F-86 and Mig-15 rounds. I think you might have used M2s. The numbers I see don't agree with yours.

 

I didn't know the M3 used a wildly different round

Edited August 17, 2005 by Lev

[Lev]

Thought I'd add.

 

Tactical AAA was something of a waste of effort for the US.  A better strategy is to maintain air superiority.  Tactical AAA didn't seem to work on the German side of that front either.  The fighter-bombers seemed to get through at will.  When the sky cleared during the Bulge the German tanks were doomed.

208342[/snapback]

 

Indeed, as Sun Tzu says, beating your opponent without a fight is the best possible victory. But that is simply not always possible, and I would think that a lot of US sailors did appreciate the effort that went into AAA defence.

[JOE BRENNAN]

Well the MiG-15 also did 'just fine' with it's slow 37mm gun, but that doesn't mean that low-velocity slow-firing cannon were a great weapon against anything other than slow-firing bombers

As I've posted before, even if the MIG-package was twice as innaccurate it would still put as much weight on target as the Sabre's 50s. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that if a bad cannon setup is still better than the best .50 setup, than heavy machineguns had reached the end of their potential in air to air fighting by Korea (and perhaps earlier).

208349[/snapback]

But as I posted above, the actual results from Korea don't support this view, although they don't disprove it because of the many variables besides armament. The MiG really didn't do 'just fine' in fighter combat v. the F-86 in Korea, the losses recorded by each side in its then secret now generally declassified records show around a 6:1 ratio in favor of the F-86; MiG's generally outnumbered F-86's, and MiG's probably fired as often as F-86's, since they *claimed* to have downed more F-86's than MiG's lost (but their ratio of kills to claims was low); whereas F-86's only put out around 3 or 4 times as many rounds per second of firing. Therefore the MiG's in all likelihood fired more 23/37 shells than the F-86's did .50 bullets to get a kill against the other, despite the much greater weight of a given number of cannon rounds in proper 23/37 ratio, v. an equal number of bullets.

 

Now obviously, again, armament was far from the only variable in that outcome, perhaps a minor one, perhaps something against the F-86's that even greater superiority in other areas counterbalanced. Still, there is no proof from the Korea outcome that 2*23mm/1*37mm was superior, rather than perhaps definitely inferior, to 6*.50 M3 for fighter combat. Note already a few times in this discussion people have said "well that's because of other factors" to counter actual success of .50 armed a/c; but it's just an assertion that the "other factors" were outweighing an inferiority in armament. In fact I don't see how to filter out the armament effect from everything else that caused the F-86 fighter force in Korea to be demonstrably more effective than the MiG force, based on any info I know or that's been presented here.

 

Joe

Edited August 17, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[Lev]

But as I posted above, the actual results from Korea don't support this view, although they don't disprove it because of the many variables besides armament. The MiG really didn't do 'just fine' in fighter combat v. the F-86 in Korea,

 

I wasn't claiming that, but US pilots complained that they had a hard time getting MiG's to actually go down when hitting them. My 'just fine' was in marks because it was workable, but not ideal. Just as the 6x50 that was proclaimed 'just fine'

 

Now obviously, again, armament was far from the only variable in that outcome, perhaps a minor one, perhaps something against the F-86's that even greater superiority in other areas counterbalanced. Still, there is no proof from the Korea outcome that 2*23mm/1*37mm was superior, rather than perhaps definitely inferior, to 6*.50 M3 for fighter combat. Note already a few times in this discussion people have said "well that's because of other factors" to counter actual success of .50 armed a/c; but it's just an assertion that the "other factors" were outweighing an inferiority in armament. In fact I don't see how to filter out the armament effect from everything else that caused the F-86 fighter force in Korea to be demonstrably more effective than the MiG force, based on any info I know or that's been presented here.

 

Compared to the MiG-15 the Sabre's armament package (incl ballistic computer) was probably as effective, or even more effective than the MiG armament. But given that the MiG armament was flawed and the Sabres had a more advanced aiming system, that should be expected. The fact that an essentialy flawed example of one system (particularly the 37mm was not much of a dogfighting weapon) could be competetive with the best example of another system shows that HMGs were not the way to go. And I don't see any reason for disputing that, after all was that not the implicit conclusion of the USAAF?

[JOE BRENNAN]

1. ...US pilots complained that they had a hard time getting MiG's to actually go down when hitting them. My 'just fine' was in marks because it was workable, but not ideal. Just as the 6x50 that was proclaimed 'just fine'

 

Compared to the MiG-15 the Sabre's armament package (incl ballistic computer) was probably as effective, or even more effective than the MiG armament. But given that the MiG armament was flawed and the Sabres had a more advanced aiming system, that should be expected. The fact that an essentialy flawed example of one system (particularly the 37mm was not much of a dogfighting weapon) could be competetive with the best example of another system shows that HMGs were not the way to go. And I don't see any reason for disputing that, after all was that not the implicit conclusion of the USAAF?

208398[/snapback]

1. I'm arguing specifically about the MiG v. the F-86 actual armament, see my earlier post on GUNVAL (advanced high velocity high rof 20mm), USAF assessments of existing weapons ca. 1951, etc. US pilots complained, MiG ones didn't (just claimed a large ratio of downings to what they actually achieved), US pilots were grateful for the "roman candle" effect of MiG rounds curving off disparately (23 v. 37) and missing them; but the statistical bottomline is as I said, actually less ammo per kill by the F-86's in all probability.

 

2. Again you're just asserting/assuming the quantitative weightings among factors like guns v. gunsights; I don't know those, how could we prove those? Again I'm piping back in MiG-15 v. F-86 armament in head to head combat, not whether USAF chose to further advance armament and not stick with .50 forever.

 

The first order task about the lopsided outcome of MiG/F-86 seems to me would be to look for major flaws in elements of the MiG "system" (basic graphed aerodynamics, aerodynamic intangibles like handling, gunsight, armament, other equipment [eg. lack of g-suits], and of course and probably dominant, human factors) not start somehow assuming the armament was equal or close to or superior or any particular level v. the F-86. There just isn't real proof of that. US complaints about MiG's getting away damaged (or Soviets accounts of same) is not that kind of comparative proof. Of course the faster firing smaller MG will "wing" more planes, that's built in, proves nothing about its comparative effectiveness to the MiG's particular armament. And it's all anecdotal, I can say approximately how many F-86's survived cannon hits, I haven't been able to find out how many MiG's survived MG hits; actually the most true to the records Russian accounts I know mention those cases in a seemingly smaller ratio than the case of F-86's, but maybe incomplete. Again anecdotally modern Russian accounts often compare their experience w/ damage to the assumption that almost all F-86's hit by them went down or were written off on return, based on some statements like that in US books and probably often desire to put their claims in a favorable light; but it's not actually true at all. Anyway even the assertion MiG's survived hits much more often than F-86's is not proven AFAIK, I don't know the degree.

 

Joe

Edited August 17, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[Tony Williams]

The first order task about the lopsided outcome of MiG/F-86 seems to me would be to look for major flaws in elements of the MiG "system" (basic graphed aerodynamics, aerodynamic intangibles like handling, gunsight, armament, other equipment [eg. lack of g-suits], and of course and probably dominant, human factors) not start somehow assuming the armament was equal or close to or superior or any particular level v. the F-86.

 

I agree. The aircraft were quite closely matched - initially, the MiG was better at higher altitudes, the F-86 at lower ones (although the later versions of the F-86 which came along during the war established a clear advantage overall). The armament of both types was sub-optimal - the .50s didn't hit hard enough, the big cannon didn't hit often enough - but the F-86s had better gunsights. Most of all, the US pilots gained experience as the war went on whereas the Russians (IIRC) tended to rotate squadrons through Korea for experience, which meant that just when they were getting the hang of things they were moved back to Mother Russia and replaced by another batch of tyros. So I reckon that the human factor was the most important reason for the kill ratio.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Tony Williams]

The theme was AAA and it moved to B-17s and their ability to withstand various cannon rounds.  Thought I'd point out that none of them cannon were particularly effective in the AAA role against B-17s so it's not real applicable. 

You haven't answered my question: when did B-17s operate within range of light AA cannon? 20mm Flak was effective up to perhaps 3,000 feet altitude, 30mm to perhaps 4,000-5,000 feet. B-17's flew at and bombed from altitudes in excess of 20,000 feet. So if any had been shot down by light AAA it would frankly be a cause of wonder and amazement.

 

The point remains that at Remagen the .50s seemed to work.  The 40mms weren't more destructive as, apparently, they weren't hitting.  Which has been my common thread.  A set of .50s hitting is better than cannon that aren't.

You keep plugging one incident, I'm quoting from accumulated wartime experience which showed that .50s were distinctly inferior to 20mm in the AAA role, and 20mm were inferior to 40mm. Some quotes from 'Rapid Fire':

 

"The USN rated the Oerlikon as between eight and ten times more effective in the AA role than the .5", and estimated that it accounted for 32% of Japanese aircraft destroyed by naval AA fire between Pearl Harbour and 1944, after which the figure dropped to 25%."

 

and:

 

"the Bofors was credited with 50% of Japanese aircraft shot down by USN AA fire between October 1944 and March 1945"

 

and:

 

"Curiously, the British Army showed little interest in light cannon, rapidly abandoning the various 20mm guns for improved models of 40mm Bofors. This view was probably influenced by operational research into the relative effectiveness of the 20mm Oerlikon and 40mm Bofors in dealing with low-flying coastal raiders. It was noted that these were not usually spotted until 1,500 yards (1,370m) away, so the Bofors could not use its range advantage. Engagement times were only about 13 seconds (from first sighting the target to the last shot) and the Bofors only had time to fire seven or eight rounds to the Oerlikon's 50. Even so, in most circumstances the Bofors was more effective.

 

Calculations were made about the probability of success (immediate break-off, or eventual crash) against a Junkers 88. Using simple sights only, the Oerlikon's chances were estimated at 3% against a crossing target, 12% against one approaching head-on; the Bofors' 18% and 20% respectively. With more advanced sights, performance was much better. Using predictor control, the Bofors' success rate rose to 35% and 39%. The addition of a Triple Gyro sight had an even more dramatic effect on the Oerlikon's performance – to 17% and an astonishing 76% respectively."

 

The F-22 is due to get the M61, not a 25mm or 30mm.  As is the F-35.  Seems it's big enough. 

The F-35 is getting the 25mm GAU-12. The F-22 will have the M61, because the quality of the gun is no longer as important as it was. Re-read my comments about the USAF's attempts to introduce the GAU-7 - they evidently didn't think that the M61 was adequate even in the 1960s, but it doesn't really matter now.

 

Point stands, F-86s did just fine with the .50s.  A preference for cannon doesn't change that.

They did well despite their armament, mainly due to human factors (see other posts).

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Gabe]

Most of all, the US pilots gained experience as the war went on whereas the Russians (IIRC) tended to rotate squadrons through Korea for experience, which meant that just when they were getting the hang of things they were moved back to Mother Russia and replaced by another batch of tyros. So I reckon that the human factor was the most important reason for the kill ratio.

208719[/snapback]

 

What is the kill ratio between American and Soviet pilots anyways?

[Chris Werb]

You haven't answered my question: when did B-17s operate within range of light AA cannon?

 

Here:

 

 

http://www.uboat.net/allies/aircraft/b17.htm

[Tony Williams]

Here:

For anti-sub patrols? Well, apart from a brief period when the U-boats were kitted out with extra AA guns to fight back (which soon proved to be a Bad Idea) - and I'm not sure if B-17s were involved in that anyway - the U-boats were usually too busy trying to submerge to worry about tackling an incoming bomber...

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Chris Werb]

Tony, you're getting lazy in your old age. If you look at the (very well researched) site I linked, it gives a list of (IIRC) nine u-boats sunk by B-17s (one of which was shared).

 

Approx 125 aircraft were shot down by u-boats including at least four B-17s. They are listed here:

 

http://www.uboat.net/history/aircraft_losses.htm

[Tony Williams]

Tony, you're getting lazy in your old age.  If you look at the (very well researched) site I linked, it gives a list of (IIRC) nine u-boats sunk by B-17s (one of which was shared).

 

Not so much lazy as permanently short of time! And old, of course...

 

I knew that the B-17 was used for anti-sub, just wasn't sure whether they had been involved with the Biscay Flak U-boats.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Tomi Sarvanko]

From Tony:

 

"Similar discussion going on on the AH-BBS, with this interesting quote from Tony Williams

(http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50270)

 

"The 30 mm HEI M-Geschoss, fired from an MK 108, was also tested. Unsurprisingly, ten rounds fired at a Spitfire fuselage resulted in a score of three immediately lethal, seven probably lethal. Eleven rounds fired at a Blenheim achieved the same results, plus one doubtful. It was noted that the ammunition did not have much effect on heavy bomber fuselages (presumably because of the large volume for the explosion to dissipate into), but inflicted serious aerodynamic damage to the wings by blowing off the surfaces, and that the incendiary content was very effective in starting fires. German tests reflected these results, and also revealed significant differences in the effectiveness of the mine shells depending on the construction of the aircraft. Stressed-skin alloy monococque structures were most vulnerable to being blown apart. Steel structures clad with thin aluminium were less affected as the cladding quickly split, releasing the pressure before it had much time to damage the structure, and fabric-covered structures were damaged least of all. It was not only the blast which inflicted damage; after the war, the Americans test-fired an MK 108 HEI shell into the tail of a B-24 at a typical angle, characteristic of a tail interception by an Me 262. The "spray" pattern of very high velocity, very small fragments cut most if not all of the control cables and many of the longerons. It was assessed that the tail would have separated if the plane had been in flight; a performance which made a great impression on the observers." "

 

This is interesting subject, because a lot of energy is spent discussing 20mm effectiness in ww2ol forum.

 

30mm vs Blen:

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/dam...08-blenheim.jpg

 

After seeing this picture, the story about the Jug surviving multiple 30mm hits is pure fantasy.

Edited August 18, 2005 by Tomi Sarvanko

[Yama]

30mm vs Blen:

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/dam...08-blenheim.jpg

 

After seeing this picture, the story about the Jug surviving multiple 30mm hits is pure fantasy.

208806[/snapback]

 

Well, I've seen several stories by Finnish fighter pilots who supposedly survived hit by P-39's 37mm gun...

[Tomi Sarvanko]

The famous (now restored in USA, and maybe will find way back to finland) Brewster which was thought to be brought down by a "37mm" had .50 holes..

 

So its very difficult to confirm those survival stories.

 

And P-39s 37mm shell structure is very different from 30mm "mine" structure.

If somebody knows can tell how it is and which one was more destructive.

Edited August 18, 2005 by Tomi Sarvanko

[GregShaw]

30mm vs Blen:

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/files/dam...08-blenheim.jpg

 

After seeing this picture, the story about the Jug surviving multiple 30mm hits is pure fantasy.

208806[/snapback]

 

There is a big difference in the effectiveness of blast at SL vice 25,000+ ft bomber altitudes. Density at 25,000 ft is 44.8% that of SL. Blast effectiveness should scale approximately with density. So SL tests aren't necessarily indicative of performance at typical 8th AF fighting altitudes.

 

Greg Shaw

[Tony Williams]

And P-39s 37mm shell structure is very different from 30mm "mine" structure.

If somebody knows can tell how it is and which one was more destructive.

208819[/snapback]

The 37mm M54 HE shell weighed 608g and contained 45g of HE (Tetryl)

 

The 30mm M-Geschoss weighed 330g and contained between 72 and 85g HE (various fillings) depending on the type.

 

in other words, despite its much lighter weight the 30mm had between 60% and 90% more blast effect than the US 37mm

 

TW

[Paul Lakowski]

There is a big difference in the effectiveness of blast at SL vice 25,000+ ft bomber altitudes. Density at 25,000 ft is 44.8% that of SL. Blast effectiveness should scale approximately with density. So SL tests aren't necessarily indicative of performance at typical 8th AF fighting altitudes.

 

Greg Shaw

208887[/snapback]

 

 

Do you mean the fragment velocity or the number of fragments per sq foot?

[GregShaw]

Do you mean the fragment velocity or the number of fragments per sq foot?

208913[/snapback]

 

Just blast, nothing to do with fragments. Mine shells were primarily blast, with relatively little fragmentation compared to conventional HE. If anything fragments are more effective at high altitudes since they don't slow down as quickly. Fragment density won't change with altitude either, but mine shells won't have as much fragmentation as conventional HE will.

 

Greg Shaw

[JOE BRENNAN]

What is the kill ratio between American and Soviet pilots anyways?

208732[/snapback]

You have to make some assumptions and some of the components vary among sources, but roughly:

 

The Soviets, Chinese and NK's claimed around 900 F-86's; the Soviets at least 642 (per German and Seidov, higher numbers can be found), common Chinese number is 211 and a seeminly serious non fantasy NK article said 44.

 

Per the same source they lost 319 MiG's in combat (again, higher figures can be found, 335 is more common, OTOH one article seemed to try to parse it down to around 270 IIRC lost in 'actual combat', I find it doubtful since book in question details almost 300 combat losses, and classes as non-combat some that other sources indicate were).

 

The USAF Statistical Digest for 1953 gave monthly air combat losses for F-86's adding to 78, the standard quoted figure. Monthly numbers v each incident the score keeping was uneven; I get high 80's, say 90 including writeoffs on return and doubtful cases at the time that more or less match MiG claims in time and place not only date, not including pure fuel exhaustion (a few of which are in the 78).

 

Assuming all MiG claims equally accurate then the Soviets downed around 65 F-86's, so 306*/65=~4.8:1, v. 10+:1 for the other two AF's and 6+ overall**; perhaps 4 assuming higher claim accuracy for the Soviets, but the Chinese clearly downed a number of F-86's, it's not clear their claims were much less accurate than the Soviets.

 

As indirectly referred to that ratio varied substantially in sub periods, and more so still combat to combat; there were several combats in the fall of 1951 with F-86's on short end though still not sustained ; that period featured best Soviet units with some months against the F-86's (303/324 divs which did about 1:2.5-3 for their whole tour), as well as peak MiG numerical advantage after large scale Chinese entry, before the second F-86 group was deployed.

 

*~96% of fighter MiG claims were by F-86's assumed equally accurate, real B-29 kills were within the margin of error, small handful.

**224 official Chinese losses, and assuming NK losses also happen to come out close to their claims (there's some indirect corroboration of that).

 

Joe

Edited August 18, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN