Ok /k/. Would Mig 15 or F-86 Sabre win in a dogfight? How or why?
>k /k/. Would Mig 15 or F-86 Sabre win in a dogfight? How or why?
They literally both shot each other down, in real life... How about just opening up a history book?
>The Late F-86s with 20mms any time
>my retard logic tells me cannons win everytime
>ergo, MiG wins everytime
>my retard logic tells me cannons win everytime
Where did I imply that?
The late F-86s had much better high speed control and the 20mms are a big step up over the fiddies which pilots complained about.
Besides being all around better, except for pure climb rate.
I'm absolutely none of the "Hurr American stuff is better" guys, but that is a different case.
The early Sabres had the M3 .50cals, which proved rather ineffective in jet combat due to their low punch. MiG pilots on the other hand experienced difficulties with the velocity.
The M39 however is based on the concept of the German MG213. Forget the Maus, the V2, the Horten, THIS was Germany's real wunderwaffe. It had everything, EVERYTHING! Good shell weight, muzzle velocity, amazing rate of fire....
It gives the Sabre a tremendous advantage in combat. Then again, by the time the M39 armed ones roll around there's the MiG-17 already.
86 pilots were at no disadgvanatge flying any model with .50s, and no 20mm variant would have had an advantage purely because of the armament. You do not understand air combat or acm in the least, and certainly not what .50's do to the fuselage of a small jet engine
>M3 .50cals, which proved rather ineffective in jet combat due to their low punch.
Besides that the incendiary had trouble igniting at high alt.
And the MG213 had extreme muzzle velocity, the 20mm at least.
It's like the US T17 .60 velocity + Hispano shell size
Depends entirely on the situation.
The MiG had generally superior performance
>better climb rate
>better turn rate
>better thrust/weight ratio
But the Sabre had better range, ergonomics, and armament better suited to fighter combat (aided by a radar gunsight).
Really it all depends on the quality of pilots.
In a 1v1 dogfight it wouldn't matter, but for a war it's nice if claimed air2air kills were actually kills the majority of the time.
>better turn rate
Not at high speed
>armament better suited to fighter combat
The fiddies were heavily complained about.
Radar gunsight was great ofcourse
>The fiddies were heavily complained about.
I do believe the anon referred to the ease of getting a hit compared to the rather slow-firing 23 and 37mms on the MiG.
But still, part of the overblown kill claims US pilots made is due to them saying "I dumped so many fiddies into him, he's got to be dead!"
These stills are taken a merely seconds apart in the slowed down guncam reel. Which means in reality, they're about one second, a good single pull of the trigger.
Now, what happens to the MiG-15 here?
USA should have just put 4 ADEN in their F-86 like goodboy Britain did in their Hunter.
But yea, the Mig-15 didn't have great armament either.
I don't know why they didn't just put 4-6 Berezin B-20 cannons in their Mig.
Very small and light great cannon.
Maybe they were just scared of bombers
>what happens here
Majority of the time the Mig survived it.
>44% of claimed air 2 air kills were assessed as destroyed
Not being able to finish of enemy pilots is a nice way to grant your enemy more experienced pilots instead of them having to replace them with rookies.
Fiddies were universally complained about
That is ONE kill. Of course there always is the possibility of that single round burning everything.
Do you not think the US had a reason to make a switch to cannons after Korea?
F22 will always lose to Rafale
A gentle press of the trigger, and hits ignite the tail...
as you can imagine, the jet engine does not like being hit by any bullets, let alone incendiary, the tail ignites in flames
.50's were really only fully replaced when an entirely new rotary 20mm gun system was introduced
>why a rotary gun though?
For the same reason .50's had been the mainstay, high RoF, with smaller cal. bullets (Russians still went for 30mm) because the US faced fighters, first and foremost,
(plus missiles were coming of age, which would obviously be used on bombers, instead of heavy cannons)
And those same .50s proved to be underpowered in the jet age.
And those few pictures don't disprove the countless pilots who complained about the fiddies.
Also if they had developed the M39 much sooner, the Mig-15 would have never been known as a durable aircraft.
And again, a few exceptions don't mean nothing when a majority of the migs survived getting shot at.
See link in >>27786008
>I don't read actual source material.
You can read right?
What do you want to prove with these exceptions?
The US marine corps was a few years ahead and was already using 20mms during ww2.
Can you read?
Most migs survived being shot at.
This giant flame coming from the MiG's engine, (caused by a burst of .50 cal) is not a good thing, just in case you didn't figure it out
Reminder that warthunder isn't a reliable source of information about the effectiveness of MGs vs cannons, and it of course ignores doctrine-wide decisions.
>Sabres slaughtered MiGs 10 to 1.
Probably not, both sides did some serious overclaiming of kills, IRL it was closer to 3:1, or maybe 2:1, depending on who you ask.
>oh he's using a source
>Ok lets try to refute it
>LOL WARTHUNDER FOLDED JAPANESE WINGS LOLOLOLOL
Are you American that reading is such a difficult thing to do?
No insult is going to erase this source.
What did pilots want? Cannons
Did they go back to fiddies/HMGs after cannons? No
What would have happened if the claps had stuck 30 mm ADENs on the F-86?
>even in WW2 the US determined that .50 wasn't getting the job done.
Contrary to popular belief .50 is fine.
>Contrary to popular belief .50 is fine.
Anyone who understands aircraft design and engineering, physics, has read a pilot memoir or biography, or at the very least has a minimum of one working eyeball and the ability to watch images moving in motion, such as actual gun camera footage, should know.
Unfortunately, this board is plagued with warthunderers and slavs
Best sabre right here. And it didnt kill its engine like the quad 20mm on the amerikan wahres did.
But if we want to stay in a korean timeframe, i would pick the mig over early sabres.
Btw. Does anyone have any information on the changes to the 6-3 wing? Stallspeed, reason for the change overall?
Of the 10 F-86F-2s that were ever made, 2 of them crashed because they sucked propellant gases from the guns into the engine. They were shit.
That said, anyone know how the FJ-2 and FJ-3 compared to the USAF F-86s?
You mean in that study the .50 got totally good boyd by the .60 and the Hispano 20mm.
inb4 you're blind and think the .60 and the .50 are the same round.
>has read a pilot memoir
The same pilots who wanted cannons right?
You can stop posting. It doesn't prove anything besides your ability to upload images.
I could claim that the most effective anti-tank weapon in World War Two was a ditch, then post a dozen pictures of tanks in ditches.
Doesn't make me right though does it.
>.50 is fine
That's true. People are saying that the 20mm was better. Which is still true.
Unless you honestly think that fighter aircraft should continue to have attributes that are just 'fine'.
Radars on fighters had been a thing since WW2, but were primarily larger pieces for navigation and finding targets used on night fighters.
The radar gunsight on the Sabre was something completely different - it was far smaller, and, unlike the search radars used on night fighters, the radar on the Sabre was more of a simple rangefinder that plugged into a computer to give the pilot a more accurate picture of where to aim.
> People are saying that the 20mm was better. Which is still true.
Read the book.
>.60 is the same as .50 the post
Time required for 90% probability kill is much better for the .60 and the 20mm Hispano than the .50.
.60 has a higher probability to killdirectly from the rear than the .50 api-t
Same goes for the 20MM m3 (which is an US Hispano iirc)
30 degrees of the tail the .60 and 20mm also outperform the .50.
The time required for a 90% kill probability is lower for both the .60 and 20mm than the .50 api-t
You do know that the .50 and .60 are completely different rounds right?
Your source confirms that the much bigger .60 and 20mm outperform the .50
Also USA had no good cannon designers and had to copy the British after they developed the Hispano into the MkV for the M3 cannon, but it still sucked.
M39 is totally different from the M3
He probably couldn't see that .60 and .50 are different calibres.
Right is .60
Vs fighter it is 19% for 0.50 vs 23% and 25%. It is better but not much.
Vs bomber things become funny. It's 2.2 sec for .50 and 1.5 sec of 20mm INC. Too bad no one used all incendiary belts because this is counterintuitive (you know explosive rounds do more damage hurr durr.) And HE 20mm had worse time of 3.3 sec.
There was only one caliber that had distinctive advantages in the order of hundreds percent. Based 30×90RB mm.
Shame they didn't test others.
But this test does confirm than the German Mk108 with minengeschoss was the best answer for bombers, despite its velocity.
Would have liked to see the Japanese Ho-5 cannon, which is actually the same gun as the Browning M2, just modified to shoot a shortened Hispano cartridge.
The MG 151 and the MG151/20 with minengeschoss would be interesting too.
Berezin B-20 too, very light cannon (only 25kg) but the same velocity and fire rate as the German Mg151/20. Shame Russian ammunition wasn't too good.
Or how their improved M3 would have compared with the Hispano Mk V
>literally reels of guncamera footage showing .50's shredding MiG's
>You can stop posting. It doesn't prove anything
>Time required for 90% probability kill is much better for the .60 and the 20mm Hispano
And in the real world, where planes move about, and at best, pilots having glancing shots, or high speed passes, weapons with high RoF will always be the better option, because they'll always have a higher % of hitting, And if you knew anything about the internal workings of a single engine jet fighter (you don't), you'd know six .50's are more than enough to disable hydraulics, damage control surfaces, cause oil/glycol leaks, and, quite simply, put the fighter out of the fight. Whether the pilot has a chance to bail out, or crash land, becomes irrelevant at that point. The plane is unable to function.
Wanting to see plane go 'boom', is a side effect of movies and video games, and people like you not understanding that a plane can still be downed, regardless of whether it literally disintegrated into thin air or not.
Even planes armed with 20mm would still only fire enough to damage a plane, then immediately pull of to attack another in a real furball. Because:
A: You always have to worry about the fact that another enemy fighter could be on your ass, while you're busy trying to kil the guy in front of you
B: While you're busy with the fighter you're tangling with, your wingmen could be in trouble and need help, not to mention the bombers, which you're supposed to be protecting.
But of course, we all know .50's did just fine.