FW-190 vs. F-6F Hellcat

[Sebago Son]

I would think that an early FW190 A "Butcher Bird" would have trouble with an F6F, but not a "Dora" or D Model. Especially at Altitude.

The cannons on the FW would also give it better range than the .50's in the Hellcat.

 

[YogiBear]

The deinitive answer to the question on firepower could have been easily be answered in the website,"The (Great) Fighter Gun Debate".

However for what ever reason, it has been removed or taken off.

One important thing it mentioned was the the 6 fifty caliber MG on any one US fighter had the capacity of dumping 17 pounds of bullets into the enemy aircraft Per Sec, If I remember correctly.

US fighters with 6 fifty caliber guns simply threw More Weight of bullets at the enemy aircraft than the enemy could return. Even with the use of 20/30 mm cannon the amount of lead impacting a Allied aircraft, it was still waaay more than enemy planes could trow bact to the Allied fighter.

 

[flop-shank]

One important thing it mentioned was the the 6 fifty caliber MG on any one US fighter had the capacity of dumping 17 pounds of bullets into the enemy aircraft Per Sec, If I remember correctly.

....and eight fifties in the case of the T-bolt. Fifties would have done better at longer ranges and dealing with wind because of their heavier bullets, I would think.

This is a great thread. I'm a minor fan and know far less about WW-II aviation than many of you.

There is one interesting dogfight I read about some time ago. Reknowned soviet ace Ivan Kozhedub got bounced by two Mustang pilots over Czechoslovakia while flying an LA-7. They must have mistakem his plane for an FW-190 (big oops!! ). As I recall, he shot down both U.S. planes. In that case two great allied planes were pitted against each other. At the same time, although I'm sure the american pilots were good, I'm thinking the fight was pretty much a mismatch as Kozhedub was the top russian ace of the war.

 

[Sebago Son]

.50 BMG vs. 30mm Cannon.

One important thing it mentioned was the the 6 fifty caliber MG on any one US fighter had the capacity of dumping 17 pounds of bullets into the enemy aircraft Per Sec, If I remember correctly.

'Couple of problems with this.... first, not all of the .50's are going to be hits..... and secondly Cannon Shells explode at or inside their target, .50's don't.

 

[rocketdog]

Looked for info on Kozhedub.....

Ivan Nikitovich Kozhedub - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aviation History: Interview with World War II Soviet Ace Ivan Kozhedub HistoryNet

 

[walnutred]

'Couple of problems with this.... first, not all of the .50's are going to be hits..... and secondly Cannon Shells explode at or inside their target, .50's don't.

Some .50 projectiles exploded and some burned. The US had some serious QC problems early in the war and Japan had some latter. Unless you hit a frame member all you were guaranteed of with the cannon shells was a hole a little larger than the projectile. Of course once you started poking holes in the skin of the aircraft wind speed could help things start to unravel.

 

[GatorFarmer]

You are certainly correct about pilot skills. A Royal Navy Wildcat shot down a FW -190 off Norway very late in the war. But the German pilot may not have seen him in time.
The account didn't say. It was a Wildcat, not a Hellcat. Probably flew off of a small carrier.

Gator, where have you been? I've missed your posts.

T-Star

There used to be a series of books by Ballantine or someone. They came out monthly or so and were the size of today's trade paperbacks and were well illustrated with line drawings, photos, etc. Anyway, my now deceased great uncle Ed (who was wounded at St. Lo and remained interested in the Army) had what must have been close to the whole set. He had shelves full of them and used to give them to me. I think they came out in the '60s. Anyway, one of them was about the Me/bf109s exclusively. It had details of even some obscure users and variants, including those used postwar by the Izzies (Czech made ones with Ju87 engines if I recall) and the E models sold to the Swiss (which shot down both American and German planes, including later model 109s), along with a great deal of information on the Spanish variants which were - at the time the book was written - still used as trainers and possibly ground attack planes.

Anyway, that book spent some time comparing the 109 to other planes, and the author seemed quite enamored of the F6 Hellcat as a dogfighter. This was the book that claimed that F6s in Royal Navy hands shot it out with 109s and 190s near Norway on several occaisions. The details of numbers are obscured in my memory since I read the book more than 20 years ago, but distinctly recall the mention of the F6s.

There was also the assertion, later backed up by some articles in specialist aviation mags, that only the later P51s (post D model) were really the ones with the bugs ironed out, hence the concentration on the F6 as the exemplar dogfighter designed and built during the war in time to see large scale service.

I was sick for a while some months ago, then had some marital problems and such. That fun was followed by a PCS move taking me from Quantico to Parris Island, though I do now have internet again as well as a laptop that doesn't randomly shut off...

Regarding guns, the most common German use of 30mm guns on the 190s were probably the add on pods that were used when attacking bombers, though certain 109s of course had a 30mm firing through the propellor shaft. There were two common 30mm models, the MK108 which had a shorter barrel and a faster rate of fire. This was used in the Me262. The trajectory wasn't the best since the velocity wasn't high, and the bugs were never worked out thus they'd sometimes jam. The longer tubed Mk103 had a higher velocity and while there was a plan to mount them in Go229s, they mostly saw use in pods. These were reliable, and had a longer range, but rate of fire was slower.

20mm cannons were more common on German fighters, starting with the E model 109s. The US seemingly felt this was the way to go, since later F4Us, the F8, Skyraiders, etc mounted 20mm cannons.

The Germans actually had Mg151s in 15mm and a variant in 20mm. Some were shipped to Japan via Uboat and armed an initial production run of their fighters.

 

[cmort666]

There used to be a series of books by Ballantine or someone. They came out monthly or so and were the size of today's trade paperbacks and were well illustrated with line drawings, photos, etc.

Those are long out of print, although widely available in used bookstores. Some well known authors contributed volumes, including Ian Hogg, who wrote the volumes on Grenades and Mortars and Smallarms, I believe.

Today, the best [reasonably priced] WWII (and other) aviation books are the Squadron-Signal "In Action" and "Walkaround" series. In terms of format, they kind of look like the kind of literature they used to put out at the Chicago auto show. They're landscape format with lots of black and white pictures, excellent text, and line drawings, both of whole aircraft and of specific features, especially modifications. I have a ton of them, but there are some REALLY puzzling omissions, such as the FW-190D (they have the radial versions) and the Japanese Ki-43 Hayabusa and Ki-61 Hien.

 

[GatorFarmer]

Osprey also has a series of books that includes volumes on various aircraft, subs, tanks, etc. They can be a bit pricey, but can sometimes be found at discounted rates in the bargain bin or at bargain booksellers.

 

[semperfi71]

Great thread here. Lots of interesting WWII stuff, a favorite of mine.

From Ballantine's Illustrated History of World War II, weapons book No.4, "Me-109" by Martin Caidan.

I quote from page 146,

"Those of us who have followed the career of the Me-109 have always wondered just how this fighter would have held up in fighter-vs-fighter combats with the Grumman F6F Hellcat. The latter machine had a much faster rate of climb and was far more manoeuverable. Indeed, the F6F was the only fighter in the Allied camp that, according to the testimony of the Japanese pilots themselves, could turn inside the agile Zero. With its speed, climb, heavy firepower, and manoeuverability, the Hellcat might have proven a lethal opponent for the Me-109. Unfortunately for enthusiasts, the meeting of Hellcat and Me-109 was known to have taken place only once during World War II, and this was on 8th May 1944, when Hellcats of the carrier H.M.S. Emperor flying off Norway encountered a mixed bag of Me-109s and FW-190s. Two Me-109s and one FW-190 were shot down without loss to the attacking Grummans."

Martin Caidan, in his day was considered one of the most knowledgeable writers of World War II aviation lore.

 

[cmort666]

Indeed, the F6F was the only fighter in the Allied camp that, according to the testimony of the Japanese pilots themselves, could turn inside the agile Zero.

Actually, a P-38 could turn inside of a Zero using differential throttle, throttling back the engine on the inside of the turn. P-38s were highly effective against Japanese aircraft of all types. The Osprey book on P-38 aces in the PTO is one of their better volumes.

I also highly recommend the two large volumes on Japanese Navy and Army aces. I THINK it's been reissued as one volume. There's also a book on Ki-43 Hayabusa aces, that I've never seen in a store.

 

[semperfi71]

cmort666,

I think I have the two books on the Japanese aces. As to the P-38 I have read little about it although I think I have Martin Caidin's book about it. I think it was: "Fork-Tailed Lightning"?

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

My understanding is that in 1941 the Japanese Naval pilots were the best in the world but because-like the Germans, to some extent-they disparaged training, by 1944 you had the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot. Also read that much of the Zero's maneuverability and greater range was because it had no pilot armor. Likewise the high scoring German aces achieved their scores on the Eastern Front. I recall reading how one German ace said he dogfighted a Russian for 40 minutes, finally broke it off because his fuel was running low, and the Soviet Guards Aviation Regiments were not to be trifled with, otherwise the Germans said fighting the Soviets pilots often offered little challenge.
I read (forget where of course) that initially the RAF aligned a fighter's guns to cover as much of the sky as possible, they soon learned their lesson.
I also think USAAC and RAF maintenace and logistical support were vastly superior to anything the Axis fielded.

 

[wbraswell]

F6Fs with superior quality flown by American pilots with superior training against the Nazi fighters would be no different than the results the P-47s and P-51s had. We could equal the Axis with planes like the Wildcat and P-40, because of our tactics. When the Hellcats, Jugs and Mustangs started pouring off the assembly lines, the die was cast.

 

[cmort666]

cmort666,

I think I have the two books on the Japanese aces. As to the P-38 I have read little about it although I think I have Martin Caidin's book about it. I think it was: "Fork-Tailed Lightning"?

"Fork Tailed Devil" ("Gabelschwanz Teuffel").

 

[semperfi71]

Thanks cmort666, I was too lazy to get up and go look for it.

BLACKHAWKNJ, the Japanese Navy in 1941 probably had the most skilled physically and best trained piolts in the world. In Saburo Sakai's book "Zero" he states that the washout rate was high because they Navy wanted only the best.

This came to haunt them because at Midway they lost 4 carriers and all of the well trained 1941 pilots. Henceforth they were never able to replace the loss, even with an elevated, less demanding training program. I have read that by 1944 American pilots reported a definite perceptable drop in Japanese fighter pilot skill.

On the other hand the United States flooded their Navy, Marine, and Air Corps with thousands of pilots who went through a lesser demanding training program. The United States military figured to win via greater numbers and on the job training. That, plus superior tactics made the day.

 

[Tom C]

Thanks cmort666, I was too lazy to get up and go look for it.

BLACKHAWKNJ, the Japanese Navy in 1941 probably had the most skilled physically and best trained piolts in the world. In Saburo Sakai's book "Zero" he states that the washout rate was high because they Navy wanted only the best.

This came to haunt them because at Midway they lost 4 carriers and all of the well trained 1941 pilots. Henceforth they were never able to replace the loss, even with an elevated, less demanding training program. I have read that by 1944 American pilots reported a definite perceptable drop in Japanese fighter pilot skill.

On the other hand the United States flooded their Navy, Marine, and Air Corps with thousands of pilots who went through a lesser demanding training program. The United States military figured to win via greater numbers and on the job training. That, plus superior tactics made the day.

The United States did something the Japanese and Germans apparently didn’t: we rotated back our experienced combat pilots to train the upcoming group of new pilots. It worked very well.

 

[cmort666]

The United States did something the Japanese and Germans apparently didn’t: we rotated back our experienced combat pilots to train the upcoming group of new pilots. It worked very well.

What the Japanese did was essentially to beat a fine samurai sword onto a solid hunk of iron until they destroyed it. But that was just the way they did things. Their armor doctrine at the time of the Battle of Nomonhan dictated that all tank crews stay with their vehicles to the death, even when unable to maneuver or direct fire at the enemy. What that meant was that unlike virtually every other nation with an armored force, EVERY loss of a vehicle also guaranteed the loss of the crew. Even the Japanese could turn out a tank in a week or less. A trained tank CREW takes MONTHS to create.

What this meant was that since they lost most of their tanks at Nomonhan, they also lost their ONLY tank crews with ANY experience of modern tank warfare against a reasonably well equipped opponent, something which no doubt bit them when they came up against US Army, USMC, British and Indian tanks. Had their later Chi Ha medium tanks come up against US and British tanks on the Kanto plain during an invasion of mainland Japan, they undoubtedly would have been slaughtered by the experienced Allied crews in their Shermans, Pershings and Centurians.

 

[doc540]

My dad (still living and giving orders) flew a B-17 in the 8th, so I learned to read using his B-17 and primary training manuals.

I lived and breathed airplanes from as early as I can remember.

When I was about 12 or 13 I read Caiden's "Black Thursday", his account of the catastrophic raid on Schweinfurt.

To this day I'm deeply affected by the gun camera footage of German fighters just pouring cannonfire into a limping, smoking Fortress, guns hanging lifeless, boys inside dead, dying, or huddled praying.

God bless them all.

 

[walnutred]

To this day I'm deeply affected by the gun camera footage of German fighters just pouring cannonfire into a limping, smoking Fortress, guns hanging lifeless, boys inside dead, dying, or huddled praying.

God bless them all.

There is a piece of nose camera footage which has shown up in many movies and TV shows about the Pacific theater. It depicts traces being poured into a Japanese aircraft and about halfway through the sequence another aircraft cuts through the camera shot from left to right. In unedited clips one wing falls off the intruding aircraft as it exits to the right of the picture just about the time the Japanese plane burst into flame.

When this film clip would come on my Dad would become visibly upset. I never understood why until one time I saw this clip and it dawned on me that the intruding aircraft was a US aircraft. The pilot of the plane with the nose camera had accidentally shot down one of his own squadron members.