P-47????

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by RTHolmes


If the production had been there I'm guessing pretty much all of the US .50 cal birds would have had a C-Hog loadout.

With the problems the Hispano cannon armed USN planes that had difficulties, I don't think so.  Until gun lubricant from the ETO was made available for the cannon equipped USN planes,  they were pretty much kept below 12,000ft or risk the gun lubricant freezing up and preventing the cannons from firing.  I know the cannon equipped Corsairs experienced this problem for a time.


ack-ack

[Wmaker]

Originally posted by Bodhi
The Kill to Death Ratio for the Buffalo is less than the Hellcat.  Even though the Finns did wonders with it, you have to take into account the amount of Buffalo's lost cumulatively by all forces.  Most of our Buffalo's were lost without shots or gang banged like in the MA.

There is no such aircraft as Brewster B-239 Buffalo. There is however a fighter aircraft called Brewster Model 239 which the finns operated which has the highest exchange ratio of any fighter aircraft on this planet as far as I know. I've heard some claims being made about Grumman's FM-2 (a single sub variant like the Brewster Model 239)...figures like 38:1. Haven't really seen any sources to back up those claims and I haven't really looked into any sources yet myself. I don't think you can find a single Hellcat variant that had an exchange ratio of 26:1. IIRC Hellcat's (all subtypes counted) exchange ratio was 11:1. I consider Brewster Buffaloes with its sub variants to be quite different airplanes compared to the Model 239. But it is true that it's just a matter of how one likes to count it.

EDIT/Sorry, didn't read all the posts...WW is correct, 19:1 for Hellcats, 11:1 was for Corsairs. Finnish Squadron 24 had an exchange ratio of 32:1. From there it dropped rapidly in the end of the Continuation War...the war weary Brewsters weren't much of a match for La-5s and Yaks. Gladly, the men flying them were though or the results could have been a lot worse./EDIT

[RTHolmes]

ack-ack thats what I mean, if a reliable cannon installation had been available in numbers, 50cals would probably have just been used for buff turrets. 50cal wasn't used because it was superior - it was the only option available at the time.

dont get me wrong, the M2 is a remarkable weapon - still the mg of choice after nearly 80 years of service. still looks like a newcomer next to the 1911 ACP though

[hubsonfire]

From this post, it doesn't seem that the USAAF was desparate to move to 20mm cannons. The USN certainly seems enthusiastic, but I wouldn't say that either was desparate.

Originally posted by Pyro
At the Joint Fighter Conference in October 1944, Commander Monroe of the USN Ordnance branch reported the following:

[huge chunk cut out, 15,000+ character post won't fit, read the original post]

Later in the discussion, Commander Munroe said the following:

"I wonderif somebody in the Army could explain why the Army is not interested in the 20mm gun.  They developed it but apparently have no requirements for it while the Navy feels quite differently about the gun.  We are going to it in a large way, I trust, in that we are putting it in the Fleet to let them try it out.  I personally have a tremendous amount of confidence in the gun and believe the requirements will be very great.  Anybody in the Army who can speak on that?"

Colonel Coats from Eglin Field responded:

"I'll try to answer that in this way.  I believe the feeling in the Army generally is that we would like to have a lethal density pattern.  The most bullets going across one place at a given instance.  We would like to have the smallest caliber gun that can do the job.  If it takes a 22mm to tear a Messerschmitt or a Mitsubishi apart, we want 20's, but as long as a 50 will do the job we feel that if we can carry a greater number of guns and a greater amount of ammunition with the same weight, with an equal or greater firepower, that is the gun we want.  If you are strafing an airdrome you can put out more bullets.  A Jap doesn't care whether he gets killed by 20 mm's or a 50 caliber.  We can put out more bullets and we have more weight covering the same area.  Another thing that comes into this matter of sighting is the training of the personnel.  When wew get sights to the point where we can pull the trigger just once and hit a fellow, then we can go to the bigger calibers.  It is a matter of training of pilots.  The Mark 14, the gyro sight, we found didn't increse our accuracy for our control gunner to any great extent.  However, it did bring the people in the middle and lower brackets up as much as 5 or 6 times better than they had shot before.  I think we in the aircraft game should be worrying about the people in the middle third or the bottom half, that we have to make better sights, better cockpit arrangements, easier planes to fly for those people.  We don't need to worry about our top shot or our best pilot.  he can get along in any kind of a rig.  That is the reason- we feel we can get a bigger density pattern.

"I would also like to point out, I won't go into an argument with 20's versus 50's, but I thik a lot of it has to do with the arrangements in the plane.  For instance, in a P-47 or F4U, you have all the guns in the wings.  Of necessity you must cross the fire pattern at some fixed distance from the plane.  With all your guns over one fixed point at a given number of yards, you have a great X forming out there.  At 600 you are wasting a great amount of your bullets.  If you close up on a fellow to 200 yards, you are also wasting bullets.  In the F7F or the P-38 you can put all your guns in the nose; firing parallel streams of lead, your bullets all going out forming a lethal density pattern as far as the bullets go.  In an installation like that you could possibly be better off firing four 20's than you would be firing six 50's.  In the P-47 with four guns in each wing, we recommend that they cross the first two guns at 250 yards, the next at 350, at 450 and 550.  That gives you a density pattern in depth as well as width for about 200 yards, which in turn gives the mediocre pilot a better opportunity to hit an airplane in flight."

 

[RTHolmes]

interesting quotes  I assumed the army would have been the ones pushing for cannon to deal with "harder" ground targets, seems pilot training was a bigger factor. I like the jug convergernce pattern - i'll be trying that

[Krusty]

You mostly find 4x20mm on attack craft in the US inventory. CHogs, early mustangs, SB2Cs (is that the one I'm thinking of? 2x20mm dive bomber?), etc.

The US wasn't desperate to reequip with 20mms becase ever after the guns were reliable you didn't see them much. Even after the war you still didn't see them much (aside from ground attack). Even early jets still had 50cal installations, and it got the job done most of the time.

Were they desperate, they'd have had 20mms on [non-nightfighter] f6fs, but there's no photo evidence of this. They'd have had 20mms in the P-39 or P-63. They'd have put 20mms back into the mustang wing (they did it once, you know they could do it again!).

Aside from the P-38, the US seemed to avoid 20mms, even AFTER they were reliable.

I think it's not an issue, personally. They had what they had, and it worked. They used it.

[angelsandair]

Originally posted by Krusty
You mostly find 4x20mm on attack craft in the US inventory. CHogs, early mustangs, SB2Cs (is that the one I'm thinking of? 2x20mm dive bomber?), etc.

The US wasn't desperate to reequip with 20mms becase ever after the guns were reliable you didn't see them much. Even after the war you still didn't see them much (aside from ground attack). Even early jets still had 50cal installations, and it got the job done most of the time.

Were they desperate, they'd have had 20mms on [non-nightfighter] f6fs, but there's no photo evidence of this. They'd have had 20mms in the P-39 or P-63. They'd have put 20mms back into the mustang wing (they did it once, you know they could do it again!).

Aside from the P-38, the US seemed to avoid 20mms, even AFTER they were reliable.

I think it's not an issue, personally. They had what they had, and it worked. They used it.

Just imagine 4 or 6 of those on a P-47d-40.....

[hubsonfire]

Hurricane IIC, Typhoon, Tempest, Mosquito, F4U-1C.

[Stoney]

Originally posted by hubsonfire
From this post, it doesn't seem that the USAAF was desparate to move to 20mm cannons. The USN certainly seems enthusiastic, but I wouldn't say that either was desparate.

Nice quote Hubs.  Need to keep that close for the 20mm/.50 cal argument threads.

Another issue is one of space.  The P-47 had an extremely stout wing construction, with multiple spars.  4X20mm may have been a possibility, but it may have had many drawbacks, at least with the intent to save enough room for an equivalent amount of ammunition.



Cutaway

[angelsandair]

Originally posted by Stoney
Nice quote Hubs.  Need to keep that close for the 20mm/.50 cal argument threads.

Another issue is one of space.  The P-47 had an extremely stout wing construction, with multiple spars.  4X20mm may have been a possibility, but it may have had many drawbacks, at least with the intent to save enough room for an equivalent amount of ammunition.



Cutaway

Well of course we wouldnt have had as much ammo (it prolly would have been halved)