This post is only meant to pass along a real life experience. I did not get involved in the gunnery debates because I had never fired a .50 while flying a WWII fighter. Same reason I do not get involved with FM debates. Those are my own self imposed restrictions on a couple of topics. Anyway....
I did email a friend who had started off flying P-39's in the Med and when they were already fighting in Italy they converted to P-47's - once the Navy released them back to the USAAF for duty with them. (note:flying P-39's against 109's and 190's quite effectively I might add when those aircraft had been pulled from Euro/Med combat)
BTW. I have met this mans wingman and he is not a kid in Ohio posing as a real WWII vet.
I asked him his impression:
"The debate is about gunnery and there are some folks who feel that long range shooting (600 yrd or greater)
was impossible in WWII fighters, "that a moving aircraft is not a stable platform". My question is, how steady of a platform was the aircraft you flew? When you began firing your guns did the recoil shake the aircraft enough to cause a problem in trying to hit a target (such as another fighter> aircraft) beyond say 700 yards? I'm not involved in the debate but it sure made me curious as to what it was like. -Westy
and his answer was:
" Measurements had no impact on me. I would set my gunsight for a certain wingspan and then hope I could entice an enemy aircraft to fill it. All fighters I flew were stable gun platforms. 700 yards seems a long way for shooting. I remember hearing of a P-39 pilot chasing a JU 88 recce, but couldn't close at the high altitude the JU88 flew. So he raised his sight quite a bit above and fired a parting burst with no result, of course, but I would have done the same - there is always a chance, even in state-run lotteries.
I don't recall that the guns recoil shook the airplane. One becomes accustomed to shooting as the size and numbers of guns are increased, from the 30 cal in the T-6 to the eight 50s in the P-47. I recall that I was quite impressed at the concentrated damage a burst of those 50s in a P-47 did the first time I fired.
A person firing at a target (a locomotive or a tank, for instance)isn't thinking about how much the guns will shake the aircraft. Maybe it's like feeling the recoil of the shotgun when firing at a grouse flushing at your feet compared to firing at a stationary paper target.
Furthermore, I always fired a very short burst at each target, which may have made a difference. Gun camera film suggests that there is very little effect from recoil if all wing-mounted guns are firing properly.
The effect of gun recoil was really brought out to me once when only the 50s in the left wing of the P-47 I was flying were charged. I most always looked for targets of opportunity after bombing the assigned
target. One time I came across a locomotive sitting on a track in front of a large red brick building. It could be approached from only one direction, away from the building. At my first burst, my P-47 veered sharply to the left, completely missing the locomotive. During successive passes, I tried everything, trimming, stomping on right rudder, trying to anticipate the yawing, aiming to the right - all unsuccessful. When I finally gave up, smoke was billowing out of the windows in the building, but the locomotive looked intact."
[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 02-09-2000).]
