Jump to content

Messerschmitt Bf 109 Vs North American P-51 Mustang


VikingFjord
 Share

Recommended Posts

that's theoretical maths, to use it effectively is another story..

 

 

The entire point of me typing that is demonstrating what actually happened repeatedly during the war - not math theory.

Not sure how it could have been interpreted otherwise, but that's internet discussion for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sternjaeger

no Gambit, your calculation is not wrong, but I think you fail to understand that it applies only if certain criteria were met, namely the capacity to effectively hit at the point of convergence your target for a second or more, which in aeronautical terms is an eternity (and impossible when shooting a static target on the ground).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no Gambit, your calculation is not wrong, but I think you fail to understand that it applies only if certain criteria were met, namely the capacity to effectively hit at the point of convergence your target for a second or more, which in aeronautical terms is an eternity (and impossible when shooting a static target on the ground).

With respect, what you keep missing for some reason is that this isn't an abstract calculation, but a repeated observation by pilots in the squadron while firing their guns.

You can read the book if you wish - it's a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sternjaeger

With respect, what you keep missing for some reason is that this isn't an abstract calculation, but a repeated observation by pilots in the squadron while firing their guns.

You can read the book if you wish - it's a good one.

 

yeah, don't take everything that you read for granted. We also read of Jug pilots allegedly destroying tanks by shooting under them, with bullets ricocheting on the road and penetrating from the bottom of tanks.. there's a lot of "confused memories" from WW2, it was a common problem.

 

I mentioned before about my day with Bud Anderson, and how he told me that at a 357th FG reunion all the vets were quite surprised to hear the story of Overstreet chasing a 109 under the Eiffel tower, a story that apparently they never heard of before.. 

 

Physics are your friend, and whilst the M2 50cal was a formidable weapon, it didn't move tanks around.. maybe a car, or a truck, but a tank? No way..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, it was trucks. :)

I don't take everything I read for granted. I'm also careful not to automatically trump repeated real world observations by pilots with my own

perceived knowledge of physics, or anything else. I tend to look everywhere and find balance with these things.

Yes physics is my friend - and I've personally interviewed many pilots BTW for a book project.

 

 

Cheers

Edited by Gambit21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take it up with the pilots who flew the missions and tell them you know better - other than that I don't know what to tell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sternjaeger

Take it up with the pilots who flew the missions and tell them you know better - other than that I don't know what to tell you.

 

..you realise that some of us here have actual military experience and have used the M2 and other HMGs yeah?  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't take everything I read for granted. I'm also careful not to automatically trump repeated real world observations by pilots with my own

perceived knowledge of physics, or anything else.

 

This IMHO is a huge mistake. Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence and should be relied on only if no verifiable data is available.

 

The ballistics of specific weaponry and their effect on different targets is an area that has been thoroughly tested the last 100+ years. We know how it works, and what 8 Browning M2s are capable of and not capable of. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..you realise that some of us here have actual military experience and have used the M2 and other HMGs yeah?  ;)

I say this with respect - just having a conversation here...

I do realize that - the pilots also had military experience.

To my knowledge nobody on this forum has ever fired 8 of them at a German truck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This IMHO is a huge mistake. Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence and should be relied on only if no verifiable data is available.

 

The ballistics of specific weaponry and their effect on different targets is an area that has been thoroughly tested the last 100+ years. We know how it works, and what 8 Browning M2s are capable of and not capable of. 

That bit always makes me chuckle.

"eyewitness testimony is the LEAST reliable"  ....and?

That bit while true much of the time is always used to discredit something that someone thinks can't or didn't happen. Yet if that eyewitness testimony aligns with a

person's beliefs...well it works perfectly fine in that case. Least reliable does not equal worthless or never reliable.

Check you confirmation bias at the door.

 

I haven't yet read or heard any pilot accounts of German zombies running from vehicles. or Godzilla...so at this point I'm not going to be

 a kneejerk skeptic and discount what they witnessed with those guns.

 

"The ballistics of specific weaponry and their effect on different targets is an area that has been thoroughly tested the last 100+ years. We know how it works, and what 8 Browning M2s are capable of and not capable of."

 

I'm positive that's the case...and a WWII pilots firing 8 of them from a P47 is part of that 100+ year testing and determination of what they're capable of. That's a bit of unintentional irony there no?

All that said, maybe both of you are correct - I'm not throwing your opinions out the window. However, nobody here including either of you have piloted and fired the weapons of a P47 at a German 6x6...so

the logical thing is to take the MULTIPLE accounts of the actual pilots at face value at this point. I really have no dog in the fight - I don't care one bit of those guns couldn't actually do that.

I think someone watches to many Hollywood war movies.

 

Interesting that it's pilot accounts in a BOOK I'm talking about, yet you come up with that remark.

Whether these testimonies are actually accurate or not, your remark is silly either way - to put it nicely.

You're the reason the internet is a dysfunctional place to have a conversation. You're either not reading the posts, are

are obfuscating.

Edited by Gambit21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at the physics, it's not impossible for a good burst of 8 0.50 cals to move a truck sized target. However, it would most certainly require the projectile to hit thick enough armour to keep it from simply penetrating. It would be better to use impulse instead of kinetic energy for a rough estimate of effect. With 8 guns firing, you'll have about 100 rounds hitting per second, a target roughly 100000 times the weight of the projectile. Each projectile will therefore accelerate the target by 1/100000th the speed of the projectile, let's say to about 0.008 m/s. With a 100 hits per second, the truck would need to decelerate at about 0.8 m/s², which is significant, but easily within the normal friction between rubber/steel and concrete. For rubber - concrete, it is about 10% of a typical limit. On a slippery road, might be muddy or covered in spilled oil or whatever, maybe also banked towards the right side, it could in theory be enough.

 

It's also possible that a moving truck hit by this volume of fire simply goes out of control, and if so, will more likely be pushed off the road than pulled. As a driver, provided you're still alive, you will feel the brute force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pilots firing a2g rockets made substantial claims of tanks destroyed yet when investigated on the ground it was found it was over claiming.

 

So much for pilot observations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pilots firing a2g rockets made substantial claims of tanks destroyed yet when investigated on the ground it was found it was over claiming.

 

So much for pilot observations.

Right - therefore pilot observations are always incorrect!

Pilots on all sides over-claimed every kind of kill - welcome to something everyone has known for decades.

I will point out the (to me obvious) point that we're talking about vehicles being lifted/moved off the road - not just "killed" which is more open to interpretation, especially

at hundreds of miles per hour from the air. Having to point things like that out are of course what makes written conversations like this exhausting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sternjaeger

I say this with respect - just having a conversation here...

I do realize that - the pilots also had military experience.

To my knowledge nobody on this forum has ever fired 8 of them at a German truck.

 

no, but empirical experience can teach you a lot of stuff you don't learn from reading a book or hearing someone telling you a story.

 

For instance, there's a huge difference between shooting a round to a perpendicular target at close range in static conditions and doing it from a fast flying aircraft from a distance and at an angle; or that the convergence point of harmonised machine guns is not a precise one and moves on a wide area. 

 

It's an interesting science, but again it's not all about theory and hearsay.

Edited by Sternjaeger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1:26

 

If the GAU 8 isn't moving a deuce and a half, it is unlikely 8 .50's are.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riqu8hmPHd0

That could be telling, or it could be one of those funny, counter-intuitive ballistics things often causes by slower or faster muzzle velocity or

the composition of the round itself, or both. To the point, what the gun on the A10 is doing is proof either way with regard to the .50's on the Jug.

no, but empirical experience can teach you a lot of stuff you don't learn from reading a book or hearing someone telling you a story.

 

For instance, there's a huge difference between shooting a round to a perpendicular target at close range in static conditions and doing it from a fast flying aircraft from a distance and at an angle; or that the convergence point of harmonised machine guns is not a precise one and moves on a wide area. 

 

It's an interesting science, but again it's not all about theory and hearsay.

I hear ya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During my military service I was firing from even more powerfull HMG - 14.5mm KPWT.I remember setting medow behind shooting range on fire with AP-T ammo.Puting fire out with our IFV (digging mud with our tracks to prevent spreading of fire) was smtg I will never forget :lol:

Under certain circumstances you can turn Tiger around.When you hit him moving and damage lets say left track,it will inevitably turn left around :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sternjaeger

there are a lot of variables involved (distance, charge load, speed, type of round), but the bottom line aircraft bullets will tend to go through a target or bounce off of it if it's heavily armoured. Unless they're driving on an icy road I guess ;-) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Kfz. 305 Blitz weighed 3.2t and could carry 1.5t. definitely could be pushed of the road by .50" bullets.

 

SOP for German vehicles was to pull off to the side of the road if attacked. This left the road open as the wrecks would be off to the side.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A Kfz. 305 Blitz weighed 3.2t and could carry 1.5t. definitely could be pushed of the road by .50" bullets.

 

 

If you don't mind me asking: If what you're saying is true and a 4.5t truck could be pushed off the road by 6 - 8 .50 cal HMGs, how did this thing ever fire without tumbling over? 

 

quad.jpg

 

Sure, it's only 4 M2s, but that mount is nowhere close to weighing 4.5t, the guns are placed high relative to the center of gravity, and it is absorbing the entire recoil force, which is a helluva lot greater than the force of the bullets hitting something at several hundred meters distance. Add to that the fact that only a small amount of the energy from the bullet strike against a soft target is transfered as kinetic energi. Most of it is converted to heat or used to bend or break through the material.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A Kfz. 305 Blitz weighed 3.2t and could carry 1.5t. definitely could be pushed of the road by .50" bullets.

 

SOP for German vehicles was to pull off to the side of the road if attacked. This left the road open as the wrecks would be off to the side.

 

 

 

If you don't mind me asking: If what you're saying is true and a 4.5t truck could be pushed off the road by 6 - 8 .50 cal HMGs, how did this thing ever fire without tumbling over? 

 

quad.jpg

 

Sure, it's only 4 M2s, but that mount is nowhere close to weighing 4.5t, the guns are placed high relative to the center of gravity, and it is absorbing the entire recoil force, which is a helluva lot greater than the force of the bullets hitting something at several hundred meters distance. Add to that the fact that only a small amount of the energy from the bullet strike against a soft target is transfered as kinetic energi. Most of it is converted to heat or used to bend or break through the material.

 

I think he is saying bullets will "require" a truck to leave the road...due to SOP which makes complete sense :)

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I didn't get the sense that those 2 statements were connected at all, but perhaps you're right, in which case: Nevermind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer

Under a practical point of view, for every aircraft you have to apply the law of the "short blanket": you just can't cover it all, some things have to be sacrificed in order to favour others. 

 

 

Very well put!

 

You also see this in what use the different roles the various planes were put to. If you need to fly to Berlin and back escorting bombers, the Mustang would be a natural choice. If you were to do a short interception missions against said bombers, a 109 with wing gondolas would fit the bill. Each would have been next to useless in the other role.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sternjaeger

 

yeah, the XIV perhaps, but surely not the XVI.. neither of them could carry more payload than the P-51, nor fly as far as the P-51. And for the record, the Mustang was still faster than the XVI.. Last but not least, they arrived kinda late in the game, didn't they?  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DD_bongodriver

Inclined to agree with Stern, the Mk16 is a merlin powered Spit so it really will be on a sort of parity bar range, the Mk14 with a griffon is more feasible to outclass bar range and the Mk14 was fashionably late to the party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the book I'm reading now a German pilot refers to his 109G as a "Scheissbock" ;-)

In his opinion it was a crime that it's development went on as long as it did. It was quite outmoded by 1944

It took too long to train pilots in it compared to the Fw 190 and time is something Germany didn't have at that stage.

The 109s canopy left the pilot with a huge blind spot to the rear compared with its opponents and the 190, this plus the heavy canopy frames. I know some were fitted with an improved Erla Haube design but the visibility is still poor.

It's narrow placed landing gear was too unstable especially for inexperienced pilots, Germany could afford to lose them in training, it was very difficult to land. It lacked electrical controls for flaps and trim. The canopy was difficult to eject with both hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sternjaeger

The 109 was a demanding machine, but it was not outdated or worse than its opponents at all.

Sure, the 190 had the technological edge, but it also was a different flying machine..

 

What people fail to understand is that it's not like there were only the latest version of any aircraft in combat duty: in 1944 Spitfire Mk.V were still in use, and so were Hurricanes, early P-40s etc.. So meeting a 109G in these aircraft would have been bad, bad news..

 

For some reason people tend to always raise the issue of how peculiar and dangerous to fly the 109 was, but in reality it's a truly pleasant, stable aircraft with a lot of positive behaviour, which needs a bit extra attention when the wheels are on the ground, but that's it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

VO101Kurfurst

The 109 was a demanding machine, but it was not outdated or worse than its opponents at all.

Sure, the 190 had the technological edge, but it also was a different flying machine..

 

What people fail to understand is that it's not like there were only the latest version of any aircraft in combat duty: in 1944 Spitfire Mk.V were still in use, and so were Hurricanes, early P-40s etc.. So meeting a 109G in these aircraft would have been bad, bad news..

 

For some reason people tend to always raise the issue of how peculiar and dangerous to fly the 109 was, but in reality it's a truly pleasant, stable aircraft with a lot of positive behaviour, which needs a bit extra attention when the wheels are on the ground, but that's it.

 

Very well put, Sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...