Best Dive Bomber of WWII?

The 20mm Type 99-1 was a direct copy of the Swiss Oerlikon FF (the Japanese took out a production licence), and used the same 20x72RB ammo (128g at 600 m/s).

The German MG-FF was a modified version of the Oerlikon FF and fired slightly different ammo (20x80RB) with much the same performance (134g at 600 m/s). In 1940 (in the Bf 109E-4), it was replaced by the MG-FF/M which was modified to fire the new Minengeschoss thin-walled shells (92g at 700 m/s) but also fired derated HE-T and (later) API/APHE shells of around 115-117g at 585 m/s.

All of these guns fired at a bit over 500 rpm.

The 20mm Type 99-2 was a copy of the Oerlikon FFL, firing 20x101RB ammo. This article might be of interest: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/OeFFL.htm

You can find lots of other items on aircraft gun armament on my website, including comparisons of WW2 fighter guns.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

True, but there were very few MkIBs (Only about 120 I think, going from memory) and most if not all of the initial 60 MkIBs were converted back to MkIA standard because of reliability problems with the cannon, the A armament remained the standard until after the introduction of the MkV.

I generally do not like comparisons based on "Weight per second" because this fails to take into consideration too many factors, but in any case I go back to what I said in my second post, there was not a huge disparity between the firepower being aimed at the Stuka and that being aimed at the Dauntless.

However for sake of argument...

Spitfire MkI/II/V A / Hurricane MkI/IIA Wing 1717.6g/sec
Spitfire MkI/IIB 3458.8g/sec
Hurricane MkIIB 2576.4g/sec
Hurricane MkIIC 5200g/sec
A6M2 2695.9g/sec

Now the weaknesses with arguments based on these lines are that they completely fail to take into account weapon reliability (The MkIB would frequently be down to just 4 .303s), ammunition capacity (The MkIB suffered from the same problems as the A6M2 in this respect having only 6 seconds worth of fire for it's cannons, for that matter the same goes for the Bf109E), weapons placement (Again, the Zero's MGs were in the nose, to take Galland's comment literally the Zero has firepower that is "worth" 3072.5g/sec! (Yeah, yeah I know, I'll go find me an ant!)), explosive content for shells, or relative ease with which the weapons can be aimed and fired.

As far as I've read the MG-FF of the Bf109E was not an easy weapon to use (Heavy shells and low MV meaning they arched in flight), exactly how this kind of thing could be factored I don't know, there's certainly no magical formula to decide this that I've come across...

In any case with the exception of the Hurricane MkIIC the Zero's firepower at least in terms of weight of gunfire compares not unfavourably with most of it's British counterparts, there is certainly not a huge gulf between the firepower from the Zero and even the "B" wing Spitfires, especially when you consider that most if not all of the Stuka's opponents over France and Britain were "A" wing Hurricanes and Spitfires.

 

Just to clarify, my last post was a reply to Ome-Joop not Tony, whose reply was probably posted as I typed mine!

 

OK i understand....but you do agree that the 8 .303 achieved better/faster succes against smaller targets as it could simple spray more bullits against it target....make it easier to hit something?!

I always tought/had the impression that the Type 99-1 was worse than the MG-ff?!

 

Can't edit my posts anymore....but what i'm trying to say is 8 .303's would do damage faster that 2 7.7's and 2 20mm...right!?
On the other hand a good shot with 2 7.7's and 2 20mm could be devastating!

 

Only 30!

 

Try this, which takes in as many factors as Emmanuel and I reckoned were useful!

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

As you will see, the BoB Hurri and Spit had firepower scores of 160, the 1941 Zero scored 238 and the Bf 109E-4 scored 286.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

Yes and no. The logic that the 8 .303s would be able to rake a target hitting mutliple points of vulnerability was part of the reason that armament was chosen in the first place, and part of the reason that it remained in production up to the MkV (Bader supposedly prefered the "A" fit to the "B", although this could have owed more to the initial reliability issues with the cannon than any other consideration!)

The practicality of it was that the .303 was incapable of penetrating all but the lightest armour protection and against self sealing fuel tanks apparently did not cause a large enough hole to cause any leakage.

In reality the difference between the armament of the Bf109E and the Spitfire can be considered a trade-off of sorts. The Spitfire and Hurricane's eight gun combination is more likely to hit a critical area, but less likely to damage it, the Bf109 or Zero's 2x20mm/2x7.92mm combination is less likely to hit a critical area (Fewer rounds actually stiking the target) but more likely to damage what it hit.

As an aside I can recall reading in one book (Can't remember the name so don't ask me! ) that Zero pilots typically used their MGs to aim (As they had something like about 30 seconds worth of ammuntion for them)and would fire their cannon once they saw the strikes of the MGs, conserving their precious cannon ammunition. Has anyone heard whether Luftwaffe pilots used similar tactics?

Only 30! (MkIBs)

I've actually been unable to find on the net or in my books the number of MkIBs for myself, so I'll trust you on that! I may have been thinking about the MkIIB (170 produced), that at least is closer to the figure I originally gave! (And that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it!)

As you will see, the BoB Hurri and Spit had firepower scores of 160, the 1941 Zero scored 238 and the Bf 109E-4 scored 286.

Yep, go with Tony's figures for effectiveness (As I said I don't generally like using g/sec anyway), afterall he's the expert!

 

I think we have moved from ants to fleas...

My nomination for best aircraft of WW2 - the P-38.

The final models were good fighters, with long range. They also made very effective ground-attack planes, long-range bombers, nightfighters (though they did not get into service in time) pathfinders, etc etc.

 

Lightning would be proud of you! :lol:

 

Just don't tell him - he'd never let me forget it!

 

I'll see your P-38 and raise you a Mosquito - they were capable of all of that, plus they were actually used as Nightfighters.

Actually my personal nomination would probably be the Havoc, if in 1939 I was purchasing any aircraft (And admitting the advantages of hindsight!) I'd probably pick the Douglas A-20 Boston/Havoc. Bomber, respectable range, radar equipped nightfighter, ground attack, plus I'd like to bring it up because it is one of my favourites and tends to get overlooked. :lol: The only thing I'd leave out would be the Turbinlites!

 

But the Mossie was not as capable as a fighter... or shall we go into it all again? :lol:

 

...and the Lightning was not as capable as a bomber (And in any case was only a really capable ETO fighter once that cockpit heater was sorted out!), but no, let's leave it there, at least until we can get Lightning himself over here! :lol:

 

Thos e late P-38's could carry a pretty good bombload of 2 x 2000lb bombs and there are reports of PTO P-38's carying 5200lb bombloads!
The P-38 Droopsnoot had a Norden bombsight and a bomp operator and those were quite succesful!


http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/

 

P-38

the P-38 has about as good a claim as any aircraft i suspect.

a note about the stuka- from jan 42 to oct 42 stukas took 102% losses. many other months the loss rate was 30% or 40% per month. no comment intended.

 

Re: P-38

Care to explain? How did the lose more Stukas than there were? :-?

 

During W.W.II, several Ju 87s fell into allied hands, but not until at the end of the war the famous British test pilot Eric Brown had the opportunity to fly an Ju 87D-3. He had flown numerous allied dive bombers, such as the Blackburn Skua, the Vultee A-35 Vengeance, the Vought SB2U, the Douglas SBD Dauntless and the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver. Therefore he was in an excellent position to compare these aircraft.
To him the Ju 87D-3 - then completely obsolete - imparted an "almost oppressive" sense of vulnerability. The pilot sat high a the greenhouse company, with an excellent view all around, but also terribly exposed. The Ju 87D-3 accelerated well on take-off, but climbed slowly, and was both too slow to escape from fighter attack and too stable to evade it. Briefly, the Ju 87 was an "ideal target", even for the most inexperienced fighter pilot.

On the other hand Brown confirmed that the Ju 87 was ideal for dive bombing, "a genuine 90 deg screamer", in which it felt quite natural to be in a vertical dive. Dive bombing practice in the Ju 87 he found "more enjoyable... than I had ever experienced with any other aircraft of this specialist type."

Before the dive, the aircraft had to be trimmed for cruise conditions, the bomb release altitude was be set, and the cooler flaps closed. Deploying the dive brakes automatically put the Ju 87 into a dive, and engaged a security device which limited the control column movement to 5 degrees from neutral -- enough to give effective control for bomb-aiming, but preventing manoeuvres which could overstress the aircraft. After bomb release the Ju 87 pulled itself out of the dive. The pilot then closed the dive brakes, and climbed away.

Compared with other dive bombers, the Ju 87 left a favourable impression. If it was vulnerable, it was not more so than the Douglas SBD Dauntless, the Aichi D3A Val, or the Blackburn Skua. And it was more accurate than any of those.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/b ... /ju87.html

 

loss rate

the 102% losses reflect replacement aircraft as well as those in service in jan. for example if a unit had 25 planes in service and had replacement of those lost as they were lost by the end of the period measured they would have lost 26 with at least 1 being a replacement.

with all due respect to mr brown the loss rates do not support his statement that the stuka was no more vulnerable than any other divebomber. his own statements show fatal defects in handling and performance that are not mentioned for the others. of the planes listed perhaps only the Val, the SBD, and the Helldiver were widely used and all needed a well trained pilot with enough stick time in type to be used to full effectivness. the A-35 was a loser so its not a fair addition to compare to. how many of those listed did he fight in?
to give too much importance to accuracy is a false premise. if the plane cannot survive to drop the bomb accuracy is meaningless. in any case the stuka was a one trick pony, it was designed for one task and while it did a few others they were all related to its main purpose and thus give much away to other aircraft that excelled in many missions.

 

Re: loss rate

How do you relate an aircraft wich was used for tank busting, low level ground attacks, torpedo bomber and it was even used as tug-plane to dive bombing :-?