Originally posted by skaltura
Bodie also claims how "the eight heavy machine guns of the P-47 put in a target more weight than the 4 cannons of the Tempest per second" which is an outright lie. When confonted with the facts, he became abusive.
I was thinking about this, and in retrospect think that referring to Bodie as lying was a bit strong. Mistaking, yes, but I doubt he would deliberately lie. He is, if nothing else, stubborn.
A little research (thanks to Tony Williams) shows that the Tempest could shoot a total weight of 6.5 kilograms per second. The P-47 could put out 4.85 kilograms of lead every second.
However, the P-47 fired 100 rounds to the Tempest's 50 (per second). Therein is found the argument that the USAAF/USAF used to justify MG only armament. They would argue that by firing twice as many rounds, they are twice as likely to score hits. Inasmuch as fighters were not especially resistant to .50 cal API, they thought this to be adequate. Conversely, the US Navy countered this argument by showing that since a 20mm round did at least 4 times as much damage, 50% less hits would still result in twice as much damage to the enemy aircraft. Thus, by late 1944, the Navy wanted cannons on all new fighter designs.
Meanwhile, the USAAF/USAF maintained the 6 gun .50 cal armament on their fighters until mid way through the Korean war, when their thinking began to change. When it proved difficult for the F-86 to knock down the simple, but tough little MiG-15s, pilots began seriously questioning the Browning .50 cal MG as a viable air to air weapon. Their uproar was substantial. Eventually, the F-86 was armed with 20mm cannons (F-86H). Before the first F-86H ever flew, the Navy already had its navalized version, the FJ-2 (very similar to the F-86E) in limited squadron service, armed with four 20mm cannon (the F-86 was given production priority by the Pentagon, so Navy needs took a back seat). At the time, North American asked the USAF to consider the 20mm cannon to standardize production with Navy contracts, reducing costs for both services. North American stated that the production line could be tooled for cannon installation without interrupting F-86 deliveries. Air Force Brass refused, claiming that they would have to spend too much effort in setting up the required logistics. Oh, and the .50 cal was still good enough (paraphrased).
Personally, I think the overwhelming reason that the USAF didn't switch to 20mm cannons at that time had less to do with logistics than with good old inter-service rivalry. If the Navy said black, the Air Force, in a Pavlov's dog reaction, would say white. That "conditional reflex" continues to this day, albeit that budget limitations have fostered greater inter-service cooperation these days out of necessity.
History is often stranger than fiction..
A friend once suggested a novel way to reduce defense spending. His theory was that the budget should be proportional to the number of functioning brain cells within the Pentagon. However, this idea was flawed in that it would leave only enough money to arm the Boy Scouts with wrist-rocket sling shots.. Insufficient to defend the free world.
My regards,
Widewing
