Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

[Karl Heidenreich]

Who is Staff Sergeant Lafayette G. Pool?

[Karl Heidenreich]

Sorry that I have off since Sunday and will be for more than a week: on my way to USA for consultations of my company:

Bgile:

I don't see any reason why one of the better US infantry divisions wouldn't compare well with the GD division by the end of 1944, especially if you consider logistics and the organic and other artillery and air it would be able to access during a typical day's combat. I doubt there was much difference in the ability of individual soldiers by that time, either. If you survive six months of combat you are likely to be almost as good at it as someone who has survived several years of combat, and in any case there tend to be fewer and fewer of the latter left on the German side. The quality of US replacements would also be higher

I think the US made a good training prior to June 1944. Many units were able to train avoiding the war itself, which is also the case for the replacements. However I do not believe that by the end of 1944, with less than six months into the war the common US soldier or officer will have the experience of men that were fighting since 1939-1940 with winter campaigns and against numerical superior enemies. Is not the same six months in the desert, than six months in France, or in Iwo Jima or in Russia. Is like to try to compare those in Afganistan to those in Vietman.

By no way this is a disminish of any fighting man.

Best regards,

[Byron Angel]

Milner mentions not a single word about Cranley, nor about his physical presence at Pt 213 at any time.

But he did mention Cranley.
Page 65 Desert Rats At War Europe George Forty 1977, page 65

Milner states:

"The force on point 210 consisted, then, of Colnel Cranley and his TAC HQ, one depleted squadron of Cromwells, a gunner OP Officer. OC 'A' Company (RB) James Wright and all his officers (except one) the mortar section and one section only of Riflemen"

Is that evidence enough?

..... Yes it is as a matter of fact - categorical and undeniable eye witness proof - and I am absolutely red-faced about having missed it. It was staring me right in the face when I re-read the passage. Thank you.

Now all we have to do is sort out the actual time of A Company's surrender.

Take this for what it's worth, mkenny, but if you behaved on this forum with the same moderate tone that you seem to display on TankNet, life would be ever so much more cheerful for all.

[mkenny]

..... Yes it is as a matter of fact - categorical and undeniable eye witness proof

Even better is in the second paragraph of Milners account:

"I was on my way in my half track from the rear to the front of the company....in response to a summons from my Company Commander..........he in turn had been briefed by Arthur Cranley commanding 4 CLY, at Pt 210, the top of the low hill about 1.5 miles to the east of the town and our objective"

Take this for what it's worth, mkenny, but if you behaved on this forum with the same moderate tone that you seem to display on TankNet, life would be ever so much more cheerful for all.

I respond in a manner matching the reaction to my posts.

[Byron Angel]

Take this for what it's worth, mkenny, but if you behaved on this forum with the same moderate tone that you seem to display on TankNet, life would be ever so much more cheerful for all.

I respond in a manner matching the reaction to my posts.

..... As do I - something we should both keep in mind.

[alecsandros]

I believe the premise behind your argument - that internet publishers are more likely to have "distorted" view in order to "present something new" than print publishers for financial reasons - is flawed.

I won't retype my whole argument - you may view it here: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2925&p=29790#p29790 however the Coles Notes version:

Good research is good research no matter where it appears, likewise poorly researched, biased conclusions are not by a long shot the exclusive domain of the internet.

Hello,
I read your post back when you wrote it. I re-read it now to be sure I wouldn't judge it wrong.

I share your point of view in the following aspects:
- some books may be published based solely on the probability of high sales (many of the myth-busting books that now abound for instance; various mediocre literature, etc. What betrays them is their coherence, bibliography and/or the style and tone of the writer(s) just to name some features.)
- the internet is the fastest and cheapest way to distribute information to a wide number of people.

The resemblence stops here. I have worked at several books/articles myself (mostly research for the ManVis project or conclusions derived from it) several years ago, and when it comes to narrow, specialised domains, I find it extremely unlikely that a free-floating internet article be it better than the work of dozens/hundreds of specialists in a given field (in my case, competitive manufacturing strategies for the EU). The "unlikeliness" stems from various factors:
- lack of feedback from authorised institutions/specialists
- very difficult or no access to relevant primary sources of information regarding the given subject
- very difficult or no access to research laboratories/companies that have similar work on the way
- the very low probability of return of investment, through a internet-distributed article. That is, if someone would realy do the same job the 152 experts had done at Manvis, they would have to invest 1.46 mil euros for doing that job (that was the project's overall budget). It would be next to impossible to recuperate that kind of investment from the web, even if the article wasn't free to access.

This situation is the same for every other coplex study, including early jet-fighter aircraft development, battleship design history and development, evolution of weapon systems, just to name a few from the military field.

Regards,
Alex

[alecsandros]

A good starting point is: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/miltech.htm
In particular:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/CannonMGs.htm
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ideal.htm
and for those interested in AT performance:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm

Indeed even the USN had realized that 12.7 was a bit light for figher armament by the end of WWII. However If your opponent is an Me-262 I'm not sure that's the case. If it's a B-17 there's not question about it.

Well, pretty much all I wanted to say and learn is presented there :)
Some remarks though:
A. Armament effectiveness

I Gunpower score
- the gunpower score reflected in Table 3 http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm shows that the Me-262 armament is drastically more powerfull than it's opponent's:
> Me-262 --gun power 2320;
> Meteor Mk3 -- gun power 1000 (similar guns to Tempest)
> P-80A -- gun power 360 (similar to P-51)

II Theoretical test firing

As most dogfights occured <300m, the Mk108 shells low muzzle velocity shouldn't be so much of a problem (though it ain't perfect, that's or sure). Considering firing at 300m, against a stationary target, the time of flight for the 3 shells would be:

- Mk108 - 0,55sec
- Hispano MkV - 0,34sec
- Browning M2 - 0,33sec

Against moving targets, asuming a similar speed for the planes, the time of flight would be the same, because the added speed of the shell by the firing plane would be negated by the equal speed of the chased aircraft.

Considering an engagement between Me262, MeteorMk3 and P80A at around 700km/h (194.4m/s), and taking into consideration the above time-of-flights we would have:

1) Me-262 in the tail of a Meteor, 300m apart. Me-262 fires.
ToF=0.55sec, so asuming the same speed, the Meteor will be 107meters away. So, even a slight change in course would certailnly move the plane out of harms way.
More bad news: the total distance traveled by the 30mm shells would be 300 + 107meters = 407meters, which would certainly badly affect trajectory of such a low-velocity shell.(same for Me-262 vs P-80)

2) Meteor in the tail of a Me-262, 300m. Meteor fires.
The Hispano-V has a muzzle velocity of 880m/s.

By the time the shells arive, the Schwalbe, presuming the same course and speed, can be 102 meters away from the shooting, which wouldn't affect the trajectory very much, but it wouldn't be to good either (402 meters total distance). (same for Meteor vs P-80)

3) P-80 vs Me-262, same data as above. By the time the 12.7mm bullets hit the Me, it would be 99m away from the shooting. So, the shells would travel 399 meters. Again, the trajectory woulnd't be badly altered, but it wouldn't be to good either. (same for P-80 vs Meteor)

III Projectile dispersion
What I mean is the deviation of the shell from the initial (theoreticaly straight) trajectory.
Dispersion is:
- directly proportional to distance
- inversely proportional to muzzle velocity
- inversely proportional to the gun's placement towards the center of the plane.
- directly proportional to the size of the shell (because of the bigger air-drag a greater surface would imply)

That means, of course, that:
1) at long distances, the 30mm shell would behave the worst, because of lowest m-v, biggest shell. The only positive thing being the position of the Mk108 guns, in the nose of the plane, which would slightly compensate for the bad long-range ballistics.
2) at long distances, the 20mm shell would behave good, because of their high m-v. This positive effect would somewhat be altered by the guns placement in the wings.
3) at long distances, the 12.7mm shell would probably behave best, because of highest m-v, lowest air-drag coeficient AND placement of the guns in the nose of the plane.

B. Target size
Me-262: L: 10.6m; H:3.5m; W-span:21.7mp
Meteor: L12.57m; H: 3.96m; W-span:32.5mp
P-80: L:10.49m; H:3.43m;W-span: 22.07mp

So the Meteor was the larger target, with the German and US combatants very close to each other.
That means that a shell would be more likely to hit a Meteor, because of it's larger hull/wings.

C. ManouevrabilityFrom what I've read, the following should be presented:

Horizontal manouvering:
P-80>Me-262>Meteor
Vertical manouvering:
MeteorMk3>Me-262>P-80

And this should be it... I tend to conclude that, at ranges between 200-300meters, with the Meteor/P-80 behind, the Me-262 would probably lose. If the roles are reversed, the Me should be at 160-200m max in order to bring down a jet fighter.
However, the Me would always have the possibility of escape, because of it's faster speed.
So, I think that, as in most cases, the pilot's skills would be the ones that would realy make the difference.

Cheers,
Alex

[Byron Angel]

Alex,

Interesting presentation. I would point out one item, however, regarding your assessment of projectile dispersion characteristics. I think you will find that, other factors being equal, the larger the caliber the less the dispersion. This is certainly true with naval projectiles. The ballistic characteristics of any projectile type improve with an increase in caliber. The ballistic co-efficient C reflects cross-sectional density (and to a certain degree upon projectile shape as well), the basic formula being -

C = W/cd^2

C = Ballistic co-efficient
W = projectile weight
c = form factor reflecting projectile streamlining [1.0 = sphere, with value decreasing with greater streamlining]
d = projectile diameter

Since mass increases as the 3rd power of caliber while cross-sectional area only increases as the second power, the value of C is always greater for the larger caliber of any given projectile type. The larger the value of C the better the velocity retention characteristics of the projectile as it passes through the atmosphere.

Byron

[lwd]

...
I Gunpower score
- the gunpower score reflected in Table 3 http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm shows that the Me-262 armament is drastically more powerfull than it's opponent's:
> Me-262 --gun power 2320;
> Meteor Mk3 -- gun power 1000 (similar guns to Tempest)
> P-80A -- gun power 360 (similar to P-51)

There's no question that the Me-262 has the better armament vs a 4 enigine bomber. The only question is: Is it move effective vs a fighter in particular the Metoer or P-80 than the other way around? Certainly the 30mm is more effective per hit. The question then becomes how does the P(H) effect this. An ancellary question is just how vulnerable the Me-262 is? I have read that it's engines in particular were very subject to battle damage. Since much of it's opposition was in the form of 12.7mm this suggest that they were effective vs it.

II Theoretical test firing

As most dogfights occured <300m, the Mk108 shells low muzzle velocity shouldn't be so much of a problem (though it ain't perfect, that's or sure). Considering firing at 300m, against a stationary target, the time of flight for the 3 shells would be:

- Mk108 - 0,55sec
- Hispano MkV - 0,34sec
- Browning M2 - 0,33sec

Against moving targets, asuming a similar speed for the planes, the time of flight would be the same, because the added speed of the shell by the firing plane would be negated by the equal speed of the chased aircraft.
...
Considering an engagement between Me262, MeteorMk3 and P80A at around 700km/h (194.4m/s), and taking into consideration the above time-of-flights we would have:

One consideration is that the force of friction is porportional to the frontal area of the round but also a function of the velocity of the round. Furthermore the deceleration due to friction is said forrce divided by the mass of the round. I'd have to look up in a talbe to see what the velocity of said rounds are at say 500m to see which were the most effected. The 12.7 does loose KE, it's primary means of effecting its target, when it looses velocity where the two cannon rounds both rely on HE and so are not very dependent on KE for damage.

III Projectile dispersion
What I mean is the deviation of the shell from the initial (theoreticaly straight) trajectory.
Dispersion is:
- directly proportional to distance

It is sometimes measured in angle in which case it is distance independent but agreed.

- inversely proportional to muzzle velocity

I'm not at all sure this is the case. While higher velocity guns often have more dispersion this is in part because they are more sensative to things like variation in projectile weight or propellent. Note that some of the most accurate rounds are also very high velocity rounds. Furthermore when you are firing at a moving target particularly with an mg some dispersion may be desirealbe. Putting 10 rounds in the exact same place may not be that effective particularly if your opponent isn't there. That's why the AA versions of the US gatling guns (at least some of them) had eliptical rather than circular plates holding the barrels.

- inversely proportional to the gun's placement towards the center of the plane.

This is not dispersion. It does effect concentration of fire and aiming to some extent.

- directly proportional to the size of the shell (because of the bigger air-drag a greater surface would imply)

As I mentioned above there is a velocity component so a larger slower round may not be as effected by friction as a faster lighter round. Now at a set distance a slower round will be more effectd by gravity.

...
So the Meteor was the larger target, with the German and US combatants very close to each other.
That means that a shell would be more likely to hit a Meteor, because of it's larger hull/wings.

Another question would be vulnerable area to the particular weapons. I suspect if this is taken into account the results will change quite a bit. Certainly there aren't many places on the P-80 that can take a 30mm round without a significant effect. Note that we also should look at rate of fire as this has considerable impact of the P(H) and especially the P(H) of critical components.

...
And this should be it... I tend to conclude that, at ranges between 200-300meters, with the Meteor/P-80 behind, the Me-262 would probably lose. If the roles are reversed, the Me should be at 160-200m max in order to bring down a jet fighter.
However, the Me would always have the possibility of escape, because of it's faster speed.
So, I think that, as in most cases, the pilot's skills would be the ones that would realy make the difference.
...

Especially sense at least with piston engine aircraft it's been stated that the loosing pilot often never saw the aircraft that shot him down. Escape possibilities often change with damage as well. Certainly if it looses an engine the Me-262 is going to have a hard time escaping. Of course if a P-80 looses an engine escape isn't a consideration. While I have read critisim of the strength of the Me-262 this may be because it actually saw some combat I have no idea how "strong" the other two were in relation to battle damage. One advantage of the P-80 is that since it only had a single engine and engines were a primary cost driver as well as construction constraint all other things being equal one would expect a country to be able to field a significantly larger number of P-80s than either of the other two. Operationally the greater reliability of both the Meteor and the P-80 would mean that if equal numbers were fielded they should have a significant edge in operational aircraft.

[alecsandros]

. I would point out one item, however, regarding your assessment of projectile dispersion characteristics. [...]
C = W/cd^2
Since mass increases as the 3rd power of caliber while cross-sectional area only increases as the second power, the value of C is always greater for the larger caliber of any given projectile type. The larger the value of C the better the velocity retention characteristics of the projectile as it passes through the atmosphere.

Of course you're right My bad; it's the liquor, I'm telling you!

Than, the steep fall of the 30mm round must have been caused only by the low m-v. (It is said that a 30mm shell fired from a Mk108 would fall 41 meters at 1000meters distance)

[lwd]

Who is Staff Sergeant Lafayette G. Pool?

A short bio:
http://www.3ad.org/wwii_heroes/pool_laf ... l_home.htm

[Byron Angel]

Of course you're right My bad; it's the liquor, I'm telling you!

Than, the steep fall of the 30mm round must have been caused only by the low m-v. (It is said that a 30mm shell fired from a Mk108 would fall 41 meters at 1000meters distance)

..... Perfectly understandable, Alecs - it's winter and we all need something to warm the insides from time to time!

I have a wartime graph of ballistics for the German LV (Mk-103?) autocannnon laying around somewhere in the chaos that I call my library. You're right about the large projectile drop at long range, but IIRC inside 300 meters the projectile remained pretty close to the pilot sight line, even with the less than streamlined Minengeschoss round.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that effective air-to-air shooting range was really limited more by the gunsight and pilot skill than by the ballistics of the guns.


Byron

[Bgile]

Who is Staff Sergeant Lafayette G. Pool?

Clearly the Hollywood propaganda machine isn't as good as you claim. :)

[alecsandros]

There's no question that the Me-262 has the better armament vs a 4 enigine bomber. The only question is: Is it move effective vs a fighter in particular the Metoer or P-80 than the other way around? Certainly the 30mm is more effective per hit. The question then becomes how does the P(H) effect this. An ancellary question is just how vulnerable the Me-262 is? I have read that it's engines in particular were very subject to battle damage. Since much of it's opposition was in the form of 12.7mm this suggest that they were effective vs it.

Indeed, the Me-262 was a formidable anti-bomber weapon.
However, it appears this came at a cost:
The Me could fire ~ 44rps@540mps
The Meteor could fire ~ 47rps@880mps
The P-80 could fire ~ 80 rps@887mps

The Me-262 had 196kg of armor, and a 1676kg fuselage weight. From "Me-262 Development, Production, ..." I take:
- "Aircraft in equiped and loaded condition: 4xMk108 with a total of 360 rounds, 2570 liters of fuel, with additional back armor and airframe reinforcements...6977 kg" (pg 110) and "the pilot, ammunition and important equipment are protected by armor plate" (pg 108)

Also, from "Arrow to the future", pg 49:

"The Schwalbe was less successfull in its attempts against Allied fighters, primarily because the pilots would usualy forget to utililse their principal advantage, speed and climb, and attempt to dogfight[...]. The Allied pilots were very aggressive and attempted to suck teh Me262 into turning engagements. Experienced jet pilots would play this game for only about one third of a turn before appying power and climbing away [...] The best hunting the Me-262 enjoyed was against figher-bombers[...]"

One consideration is that the force of friction is porportional to the frontal area of the round but also a function of the velocity of the round. Furthermore the deceleration due to friction is said forrce divided by the mass of the round. I'd have to look up in a talbe to see what the velocity of said rounds are at say 500m to see which were the most effected. The 12.7 does loose KE, it's primary means of effecting its target, when it looses velocity where the two cannon rounds both rely on HE and so are not very dependent on KE for damage.

Yeap, that would be interesting to see. For my small description, I assumed no loss in speed of the shell, for simplicity.

It is sometimes measured in angle in which case it is distance independent but agreed.

- inversely proportional to muzzle velocity

I'm not at all sure this is the case. While higher velocity guns often have more dispersion this is in part because they are more sensative to things like variation in projectile weight or propellent. Note that some of the most accurate rounds are also very high velocity rounds. Furthermore when you are firing at a moving target particularly with an mg some dispersion may be desirealbe. Putting 10 rounds in the exact same place may not be that effective particularly if your opponent isn't there. That's why the AA versions of the US gatling guns (at least some of them) had eliptical rather than circular plates holding the barrels.

Well, that's what I wanted to say. I'm sory if I wasnt' clear enough: dispersion is smaller if muzzle-vel. is higher.

Especially sense at least with piston engine aircraft it's been stated that the loosing pilot often never saw the aircraft that shot him down. Escape possibilities often change with damage as well. Certainly if it looses an engine the Me-262 is going to have a hard time escaping. Of course if a P-80 looses an engine escape isn't a consideration. While I have read critisim of the strength of the Me-262 this may be because it actually saw some combat I have no idea how "strong" the other two were in relation to battle damage.

Clearly agreed; it's the only jet fighter who was actualy at war.

[alecsandros]

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that effective air-to-air shooting range was really limited more by the gunsight and pilot skill than by the ballistics of the guns.


Byron

And maybe the experience the pilot had with a certain weapon? Many of the Me262 pilots were used to the rapid-firing, high m-v 20mm Mausers, and I think they needed some time adjusting to the new cannons.