"How tough were Typhoons?" Topic

Still refining my CAS rules and I wonder how well armoured and 'survivable' the Typhoon Ib was relative to say a FW 190 or P-47 Thunderbolt.

Not having radial engines is I understand a problem since a single bullet into the engine could drain the coolant – or something. I don't pretend to know a lot about aircraft so am asking for help with this.

Typhoon was a big strong aircraft, like the P-47, with good cockpit armour, self -sealing tanks etc. – and much bigger than the Fw190 (although the FW190 was immensely strong and would make a slightly smaller target for gunners). Main problem with the Sabre engine was that it was no much good at altitude and was unreliable early in the war ('42-43), but that had been sorted out by '44. Also early in production there were some problems caused by sympathetic vibration due to overly thick wings for the power, this caused some structural failures in early production runs – but again this was ironed out by '44 with a new tail(although they still had a sympathetic vibration at high speed it did not have any structural impact).

Overall around the same in terms of ability to take punishment, but Jug better air-to-air performance, which is not really an issue with CAS.

The radiator did hang under the chin, and minor damage which induced coolant leakage would cause the engine to overheat eventually – but not bring the plane down immediately – but then again any hit on the nose of a prop-driven plane is going to have consequences (the prop is there too – and damage to that will certainly bring any plane down pretty quickly).

OK – so it seems the radial engine/liquid cooled engine issue is secondary to other factors. Thanks for clearing that up.

So far I've got the best protected A/C (FW190/P-47 and Typhoon) about 60% as likely to be damaged as the next level of A/C (such as P-51s/Spitfire Mk IXCs etc) and about 30% as likely to suffer damage as the unprotected A/C [C-47, L4 etc.) It varies a little with heavier calibre weapons not being so much reduced by the armour/protection of the target.

Thanks for the response Archeopteryx.

I wouldn't discount radial engines vs inline. P-47s came back with cylinders blown off of the engine. Any inline aircraft takes a rifle caliber bullet to the radiator/coolant line and it is done. The engine will be overheat and seize relatively quickly.

In any case you might want to check this out?
PDF link

Firing at the nose of a prop driven aircraft doesn't guarantee a prop hit. Remember you can fire bullets through the prop arc with interrupter gear. A bullet through the rad will start coolant leak. How quickly that brings you down depends on the size of the leak.

Skarper,

Now I think about it, P-47 probably the toughest (up with something like an A-20) – it had a remarkably low combat loss record – and it was ten tons of flying iron. Then Typhoon, P-38 and FW-190, all tough for different reasons. Then the smaller birds – P-51, Spit, Bf 109.. Last of all the little spotters.

Fred,

Not really likely these guys would be hit by small calibre bullets(unless on the eastern front, where sov infantry was trained up open up with small arms fire). By 1944 the Germans were beginning to think that even the 20mm AA was not so effective, and preferring 37mm, which guaranteed a kill. Same went for USN in the Pacific, which preferred 40mm and rapid fire 76mm over 20mm later in the war. So even 20mm is going to struggle to get these guys down with one hit, and fighter-bombers move fast and climb out of range of small arms and light AA pretty quickly after a pass too (an advantage over a dedicated ground attack aircraft like Sturmovik and Ju-87). The disadvantage of fighter-bombers was that they generally were less accurate than the specialist platforms – and as the paper KT posted suggests, were probably better at suppression and nailing big targets like trains and vehicle convoys than accurately taking out weapons or armour in concealed positions.

The big impact of tactical air was probably more about limiting operational movement, reinforcement and resupply by disruption of lines of communication than battlefield effect, although the allies had so much airpower that they could have a very big suppressive effect on the battlefield if needed.

Archeopteryx – also the USN would have been facing IJN aircraft equipped with radial engines. Which is also the reason why USN required radial engine designs for it's own aircraft.

You are right about the Soviets. In the Luftwaffe early war combat and losses book the Luftwaffe lost 10% of its aircraft due to ground small arms fire. Which caused some serious operational problems.

Through the prop hits aren't the only way to hit the low slung radiators ground fire plane passes over head is another.

And for a little bit of thread hijacking this might be of interest:
YouTube link

One old wartime saying was; You take a picture on a Mustang to send home to your girl. You fly a Thunderbolt to get home to your girl.

KT, yes but Japanese aircraft were very lightly built, had no armor or self-sealing tanks and carried masses of fuel – 'ronsons' of the air… Even so, massed 20mm could not guarantee a Kamikaze kill.

PS great YT link!

Kamikaze kill is different from ground attack kill. Kamikaze you have to destroy right now. A hit to the engine that will make it stop flying in three minuts is of no value. Ground attack that goes down in 3 minutes is a good kill.

Owen

The disadvantage of fighter-bombers was that they generally were less accurate than the specialist platforms

Probably at least partially due to their higher speed.

Hitting a single tank or truck would have been hard; hitting a whole column of them would have been pretty easy, I would think.

The Germans seem to have decided rather quickly that a single 20mm flak, such as the flakpanzer 38(t) was not effective enough to make them worth producing, so they went to the Mobelwagen, Ostwind, and Wirblewind, with single 37s or quad 20s. Interestingly, the US produced the M40 (think it was) with twin 40mm Bofors AA on a Chaffee or M18 chassis, but don't think it arrived in time to see action during WW2. But if we could put 2 40mms on a Chaffee, why couldn't the Germans put 2 37s on a Pz IV chassis? or even a Pz III?

The Germans also, very late in the war, produced the sdkfz 251/23 (think it was) with triple, electrically fired (?) 15mm and 20mm machineguns.

Archeopteryx – I don't know we are discussing different topics. A more powerful shell is more likely to destroy a more robust engine.

The increase in caliber on the USN part is to get more kills at range. That would insure the blazing Japanese planes would not crash into USN ships. The Japanese plane was still a massive threat if it hit the ship on fire.

I am sure we have both seen photos and footage of burning Japanese planes closing in their targets. If the motor is out flying the plane is much more difficult at low levels where it can't trade altitude for speed.

There was an interesting story in Stalingrad on the Yangtze aboout a flight of Japanese Bombers being attacked Another pilot observed the same phenomenon, the planes were set alight and the crews would make their way to the cockpit to avoid the heat from the flames. The pilots would open the canopies to bring in cool air. In one case the pilot got up and hugged each one of the crew. The crew succumbing or the controls failing one by one the planes would nose over and crash into the ground. These were unescorted bombers and the Japanese crews wouldn't wear parachutes as a sign of bravery.

My Dad manned AA guns on DDs from 1941 -45 mostly in the Pacific.

DonLowry – A good question the Germans had the late war plan for the Kugelblitz with twin 30mm cannons and the Flak Panther Coelian.

this caused some structural failures in early production runs – but again this was ironed out by '44 with a new tail(although they still had a sympathetic vibration at high speed it did not have any structural impact)

I`ve seen some anecdotal evidence to suggest that they never did manage to eliminate the problem completely and there still were occasional losses due to tail structural failure very late on.
This probably explains the rapid dissappearance of the type from the RAF inventory in the immediate post-war period though the troublesome Sabre engine was no doubt also to blame.
Besides Hawker had the radial engined version of the Tempest in production by then anyway.

Rabbit,

I think you are right about the tail problem – it came back after they had accumulated a lot of flying hours, so they only had short service lives due to fatigue. By the end of the war Typhoon was replaced in production by the Tempest, not just the Centaurus powered Tempest II but also the improved Sabre V powered Tempest VI. The Sabre was a good engine, it was just a brand new design rushed into production in a few months, so all its 'development' work took place on operations. It also needed a better supercharger to work at altitude, which was later developed and fitted to the version on the Tempest. The Tempest had a new laminar flow wing (like the P-51) and did not suffer from the vibration problem. Also the RAF was radically downsized in '46, so most of the types out of production were canned in favour of Meteors, Vampires and late production Spits and Tempests. Even the Tempest were quickly relegated to overseas stations – middle east and India, and then passsed on to the Indian and Pakistani air forces after partition in 1948.

I don't think radials were more robust than inline engines per se. They were simpler and had fewer moving parts, and that's always good, but they were also very thirsty and had a less good power-to-weight ratio, and unless fitted with the US-designed turbo-supercharger less good at altitude, and of course had lesser aerodynamic advantages. The US had developed some very big radials early on in WW2, so shear brute force made good fighters like the Hellcat and Corsair (although without a turbo-supercharger they were not much good at altitude either – but then the pacific war was fought at low altitude so not a problem).

The turbo-supercharger was an enormous thing – so only big planes could have it – P-38 and P-47 were the only fighters big enough. There is no way that a P-51 could have been fitted with a radial and been anywhere near as good a machine, and even the FW190 had to have an Junkers liquid cooled engine fitted to be any good as a high altitude interceptor. So swings and roundabouts.

There is a good image on this link showing what a massive piece of plumbing the P-47 turbo-supercharger was, and the reason why the plane was so huge too.

link

Air-cooled engines are much more tolerant of damage than liquid-cooled ones. Generally speaking, the difference is radial v inline.

A radial engine taking a 20mm round into a couple cylinders can still make it back to base. An inline engine taking a 20mm round into the radiator is not going to make it back to base unless base is a couple miles away at the time.

Archeopteryx, I can tell you for sure that radial engines are more robust than inlines. My father worked on P-38s on both types before, during and after the war and I've heard plenty about the difference. Radials can lose jugs (cylinders) and still fly home. I know that fact for myself because I've seen the results of it happening on the B-17 Sentimental Journey. The y toughness and reliability of radials in one of the main reasons they were used by the navy in WWII.

The Germans went to 37mm AA because of the increased range and larger bursting charge.

All nations trained their infantry to fire at low flying enemy aircraft.

Low level attack was considered the most dangerous job for Allied fighter pilots during WWII with very high casualty rates due to the relatively large numbers of SPAA.

Pretty robust, especially once they reinforced the weak rear fuselage area, just in front of the rudder.

There is no way that a P-51 could have been fitted with a radial and been anywhere near as good a machine …

The Rolls-Royce Merlin (inline) engine is what made the P51 so formidable; with the Allison engine it was just a so-so ground-attack plane.

The P38 made a pretty good ground-attack plane, even though it had inline engines (also Allisons, IIRC, and supercharged), but it had 2 of them, so a bit of extra security there in case one of them got hit. Also, it mounted a 20mm cannon as well as .50" machine guns.