|
Post by corsair on Jan 12, 2019 2:12:52 GMT -6
However, logistical planning needs current information. So, the supply officer would have to have complete count of available ammunition boxes when replenishment begins. Trust me, the supply officer will lie, cheat and steal to get more ammunition. Does this seem simple, well it ain't, trust me. Oh, I'm sure it's not. But as you said, it's an interesting topic to which to put specific numbers. Particularly since number of bombs carried or .50 cal bullets carried isn't typically something to be first mentioned when discussing carrier battles. I was just throwing out a few ideas. Do any sources list the number of anti-aircraft rounds carried? By the way, if I may ask, do you have any information on the combat radius for U.S. aircraft used in WW2? I've found a bit of this information online, but as you seem to have a lot of references sources I don't have access to, I'd thought I'd inquire.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 12, 2019 10:16:50 GMT -6
However, logistical planning needs current information. So, the supply officer would have to have complete count of available ammunition boxes when replenishment begins. Trust me, the supply officer will lie, cheat and steal to get more ammunition. Does this seem simple, well it ain't, trust me. Oh, I'm sure it's not. But as you said, it's an interesting topic to which to put specific numbers. Particularly since number of bombs carried or .50 cal bullets carried isn't typically something to be first mentioned when discussing carrier battles. I was just throwing out a few ideas. Do any sources list the number of anti-aircraft rounds carried? By the way, if I may ask, do you have any information on the combat radius for U.S. aircraft used in WW2? I've found a bit of this information online, but as you seem to have a lot of references sources I don't have access to, I'd thought I'd inquire. Ask and yea shall receive - wwiiaircraftperformance.org/The CV6 site does, these are for the Battle of Santa Cruz. They have others - www.cv6.org/ship/logs/default.htmBy Anti-aircraft batteries: .50 caliber 400 rds 20MM 46,000 rds 1.1 500 rds 40MM 3,200 rds 5"/38 400 rds
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 12, 2019 16:21:33 GMT -6
Here is some more ordnance expended documentations -
USS Yorktown - Battle of the Coral Sea
Ammunition Expended:
VS-5 dropped 7 - 1000 lb. bombs, Mk. 13; fuses Mk. 21 and 23. VB-5 dropped 15 - 1000 lb. bombs, Mk. 13; fuses Mk. 21 and 23. VT-5 dropped 9 torpedoes, Mark 13, Mod. 1, set to run at 10 feet.
Expended 32,610 rounds of .50 caliber ammunition. Expended 4,660 rounds of .30 caliber ammunition.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 12, 2019 22:16:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 13, 2019 9:42:29 GMT -6
I am offering another official AAR source for Essex class carrier operation in the Korean War. Each ship has a series of AAR with ordnance expenditures. I know this is a little after the period of time of the game, but it is data that can be used for estimates. I have not been able to locate British or Japanese AAR. The IJN AAR might have gone down with the ships, or destroyed in Tokyo in the fire bombings in 1945. Help with the British sources would be nice. www.history.navy.mil/research/archives/digitized-collections/action-reports/korean-war-carrier-combat.html
|
|
tuna
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by tuna on Feb 1, 2019 10:59:54 GMT -6
In all the ordnance load lists for the carriers that I've seen, I haven't seen any....I mean none.... information concerning machine gun and cannon ammunition. 100 rounds of .50 cal. machine gun ammunition weighs 35 lbs. Each F4f carried 4 x 400 rounds or 560 lbs. Now, if I have 36 fighters, that's 13,440 lbs. for one launch. So, let's say I have 10 reloads of ammunition per launch then I have 134,000 lbs. of .50 caliber ammunition on board or 67 tons of .50 caliber ammunition. Not that this matters for the game, but during the war F4Fs rarely took off with full ammunition (or fuel) load. The pilots felt that you didn't need that much to fight Zeroes, and greatly preferred the improved climb rate they got from flying lighter planes over having more stores. (I don't know if this ever happened in US service, but Finnish F2A pilots went as far as spending their downtime on the base on filing off material they felt to be "in excess" from the airframes to lighten them and improve handling.)
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Feb 1, 2019 11:30:39 GMT -6
By the way, if I may ask, do you have any information on the combat radius for U.S. aircraft used in WW2? I've found a bit of this information online, but as you seem to have a lot of references sources I don't have access to, I'd thought I'd inquire. As a ballpark figure, combat radius is about a third of the aircraft's maximum range.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 1, 2019 12:31:48 GMT -6
My first comment about combat radius is that there is not accurate combat radius. Combat radius is different from combat range in that combat radius includes loiter time. For the F6F-5 its combat range at 15,000 feet was 950 Nautical Miles. It's combat radius at the same altitude was 340 Nautical miles. As you might know, loadout is important. This includes ammunition for the guns, external and internal fuel and any ordnance the bird might carry. Aircraft that fly from carriers will carry a life raft, 2 smoke grenades and 1 emergency kit.
Just for reference, an F6F-3 will have a maximum range at 12,000 feet of 1100 miles, at 200 MPH. The range will increase in the overload condition with 400 gals. of external fuel. If my math holds up that is about 950 Nautical miles versus 1100 miles with tanks.
To figure this all out, the pilot will chart his flight path to the target, which gives him the range. He will choose the cruising altitude and speed depending on whether he is alone or with a carrier aircraft, in that case the slowest planes will provide the cruising speed. His mission will determine his combat load. Fighter escort generally means full tanks internally with possibly one external tank along with a full load of ammunition. All this will be added to the dry weight and this will allow him based on take off and climb speed and time, cruising speed and distance along with return speed and landing speed and time. Now he will calculate a reserve amount for circling the carriers for landing instructions.
This is about how it was done.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 1, 2019 13:02:25 GMT -6
In all the ordnance load lists for the carriers that I've seen, I haven't seen any....I mean none.... information concerning machine gun and cannon ammunition. 100 rounds of .50 cal. machine gun ammunition weighs 35 lbs. Each F4f carried 4 x 400 rounds or 560 lbs. Now, if I have 36 fighters, that's 13,440 lbs. for one launch. So, let's say I have 10 reloads of ammunition per launch then I have 134,000 lbs. of .50 caliber ammunition on board or 67 tons of .50 caliber ammunition. Not that this matters for the game, but during the war F4Fs rarely took off with full ammunition (or fuel) load. The pilots felt that you didn't need that much to fight Zeroes, and greatly preferred the improved climb rate they got from flying lighter planes over having more stores. (I don't know if this ever happened in US service, but Finnish F2A pilots went as far as spending their downtime on the base on filing off material they felt to be "in excess" from the airframes to lighten them and improve handling.) You are referring to the difference between the -3 and -4 F4F. The -3 carried four .50 caliber guns with the 450 rounds for each gun. The -4 carried the same quantity of ammunition but spread over the 6 .50 guns. The pilots did not like this because it reduced their firing time. They generally removed two of the guns and this cured the problems. James Thach famous for the Thach Weave commented that a pilot that can't hit with four guns, will miss with eight. He had a point.
|
|
|
Post by cwemyss on Feb 1, 2019 13:02:50 GMT -6
(I don't know if this ever happened in US service, but Finnish F2A pilots went as far as spending their downtime on the base on filing off material they felt to be "in excess" from the airframes to lighten them and improve handling.) As a former airframe designer, this horrifies me. Maintainers I'd trust... pilots, not a chance!
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Feb 1, 2019 13:25:53 GMT -6
As a former airframe designer, this horrifies me. Maintainers I'd trust... pilots, not a chance! Oh, what'd'you know - it's not like you need that wing strut anyways... He's arguably also missing the point of having more guns - the additional guns aren't there to increase the probability of scoring a hit, they're there to increase the probability of downing the target when you hit it. Didn't really matter against the Zero or most of the other Japanese naval aircraft, which tended to be lightly-built and lightly-protected, but could matter against the typically better-protected aircraft in the European theater.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 1, 2019 13:51:08 GMT -6
He's arguably also missing the point of having more guns - the additional guns aren't there to increase the probability of scoring a hit, they're there to increase the probability of downing the target when you hit it. Didn't really matter against the Zero or most of the other Japanese naval aircraft, which tended to be lightly-built and lightly-protected, but could matter against the typically better-protected aircraft in the European theater.
The issue is really how you harmonize your guns. It is very hard to get all the guns to fire at the exact same time. I am currently looking at the official Gun harmonizing manual and a lot of the effort is centered around gunsight and the aiming point of the guns. You have to figure in the aircraft's attitude in roll, pitch and yaw. Many ace pilots had their guns harmonized to hit a point about 150 yards or less out in front, so they would close in and shoot quickly. Many would harmonize two guns to 250 yards, two guns at 200 yards and two guns at 150 yards. This gives them a better chance of hitting the target and in the case of the Zero, it probably couldn't survive any hits by .50 caliber machine guns. It's all in the ability of the pilot. Thach was very good shot and excellent pilot besides a good leader. I believe, with his experience he realized that the extra guns, no matter how you harmonized them, would be of no use to a poor pilot that could not aim. I think he was correct. Many pilots never should have been fighter pilots, but bomber or transport pilots.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 1, 2019 15:19:52 GMT -6
(I don't know if this ever happened in US service, but Finnish F2A pilots went as far as spending their downtime on the base on filing off material they felt to be "in excess" from the airframes to lighten them and improve handling.) As a former airframe designer, this horrifies me. Maintainers I'd trust... pilots, not a chance! If we examine their reasoning from their viewpoint, it makes sense. The aircraft was designed principally as a carrier based fighter and therefore, as you would know, would have a very substantial wing and fuselage structure for carrier landing. The maximum takeoff weight was 7189 lbs. with a 1200 hp. Wright Cyclone engine with 9 cylinders. Maximum speed was 321 MPH. This aircraft also served in the Far East and the Marine Corps. It was also used in Australia by the Fifth AF. Because of the substantial structure, she could also be used as a dive bomber. For Finland, it was a sudden request to Roosevelt for a modern combat aircraft as quickly as possible. The plane had to use 87 octane fuel and already be operational. The planes had their tailhook and liferafts removed along with armor which improved the power to weight ration and gave it better performance. So, if you are the Finns why not go farther, and reduce the structure weight in areas that will not be overstressed by landing on landing strips. All in all, the plane was loved by the Finns and they used it to great effectiveness. I suspect the area where the structure was lightened did not have much effect the behavior of the aircraft structure during maneuvering but did give it better performance. Just my thoughts as a maintainer and an amateur historian.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Feb 1, 2019 16:50:37 GMT -6
The issue is really how you harmonize your guns. It is very hard to get all the guns to fire at the exact same time. I am currently looking at the official Gun harmonizing manual and a lot of the effort is centered around gunsight and the aiming point of the guns. You have to figure in the aircraft's attitude in roll, pitch and yaw. Many ace pilots had their guns harmonized to hit a point about 150 yards or less out in front, so they would close in and shoot quickly. Many would harmonize two guns to 250 yards, two guns at 200 yards and two guns at 150 yards. This gives them a better chance of hitting the target and in the case of the Zero, it probably couldn't survive any hits by .50 caliber machine guns. It's all in the ability of the pilot. Thach was very good shot and excellent pilot besides a good leader. I believe, with his experience he realized that the extra guns, no matter how you harmonized them, would be of no use to a poor pilot that could not aim. I think he was correct. Many pilots never should have been fighter pilots, but bomber or transport pilots. If you have six guns, of which two are harmonized for 150 yards, two are harmonized for 200 yards, and two are harmonized for 250 yards, probably all of the trajectories will be separated by no greater a distance than the wingspan of your aircraft out until about 500 or 600 yards. Especially if you aren't shooting at a target end-on, that means that bullets from all six of your guns have a reasonable chance of hitting the target when you've aimed for the centroid of the target, assuming you lead it correctly.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 1, 2019 17:11:49 GMT -6
The issue is really how you harmonize your guns. It is very hard to get all the guns to fire at the exact same time. I am currently looking at the official Gun harmonizing manual and a lot of the effort is centered around gunsight and the aiming point of the guns. You have to figure in the aircraft's attitude in roll, pitch and yaw. Many ace pilots had their guns harmonized to hit a point about 150 yards or less out in front, so they would close in and shoot quickly. Many would harmonize two guns to 250 yards, two guns at 200 yards and two guns at 150 yards. This gives them a better chance of hitting the target and in the case of the Zero, it probably couldn't survive any hits by .50 caliber machine guns. It's all in the ability of the pilot. Thach was very good shot and excellent pilot besides a good leader. I believe, with his experience he realized that the extra guns, no matter how you harmonized them, would be of no use to a poor pilot that could not aim. I think he was correct. Many pilots never should have been fighter pilots, but bomber or transport pilots. If you have six guns, of which two are harmonized for 150 yards, two are harmonized for 200 yards, and two are harmonized for 250 yards, probably all of the trajectories will be separated by no greater a distance than the wingspan of your aircraft out until about 500 or 600 yards. Especially if you aren't shooting at a target end-on, that means that bullets from all six of your guns have a reasonable chance of hitting the target when you've aimed for the centroid of the target, assuming you lead it correctly. One of the most important concepts in air to air gunnery is “lethal bullet density” which can be improved by “harmonization”. You can either “point harmonize” which simply means the outboard guns are aligned to the aircraft centerline so that the bullets meet a point of optimum combat firing range typically 700-800 feet. This leads to a wider dispersion at the much longer ranges, or you can use pattern harmonization. Pattern harmonization was always better for the pilots with average ability to lead the target and hit it. This pattern simply means that each gun individually was adjusted in different directions so as to produce a uniform pattern of a certain diameter. You don’t get the maximum density, but you did get a better chance of a hit. It would be like using a shotgun, instead of a rifle. Harmonizing is the alignment of the gun in relation to the sight in order to cause the line of sight and the trajectories of the projectiles to intersect at the desired range. This is why the guns are elevated and lowered to enable convergence of the gun muzzle in relation to the line of sight. "Harmonization of aircraft guns and sights" official manual.
|
|