Author Topic: US 20mm Problems and the P-38  (Read 2030 times)

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
US 20mm Problems and the P-38
« on: September 24, 2008, 10:39:45 AM »
If the early American attempts at designing a 20mm cannon proved so difficult, how was the weapon successfully used on the P-38?  Different weapon?  I've always thought that was strange.
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline Murdr

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5608
      • http://479th.jasminemaire.com
Re: US 20mm Problems and the P-38
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2008, 11:08:54 AM »
Reliabilty in a wing mounting config was one factor.

Offline Hooligan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 889
Re: US 20mm Problems and the P-38
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2008, 12:24:13 PM »
They lubricated the ammo belts in the US 20mm.  It was an inelegant solution but it worked.  A detailed description is provided in:  The Machine, by George Chinn, published by US Bureau of Ordnance.

Hooligan

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15781
Re: US 20mm Problems and the P-38
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2008, 12:27:38 PM »
They never found out there were any problems because the 38 was always the one being fired at.

:devil

« Last Edit: September 24, 2008, 12:48:07 PM by Furball »
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline Cthulhu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2463
Re: US 20mm Problems and the P-38
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2008, 02:20:04 PM »
Reliabilty in a wing mounting config was one factor.
Murdr, can you elaborate? Was it a vibration issue? Feed issue?
"Think of Tetris as a metaphor for life:  You spend all your time trying to find a place for your long thin piece, then when you finally do, everything you've built disappears"

Offline Enker

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
Re: US 20mm Problems and the P-38
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2008, 02:37:10 PM »
Im guessing it was a issue that it would tear off the wings because of the kick back.
InGame ID: Cairn
Quote from: BillyD topic=283300.msg3581799#msg3581799
... FOR TEH MUPPET$ TO PAD OUR SCO?E N to WIN TEH EPIC WAR OF TEH UNIVERSE We MUST VULTCHE DA RUNWAYZ N DROP UR GUYZ FIGHTERZ Bunkarz Then OUR SKWAD will Finarry Get TACTICAL NOOK for 25 KILL SCORE  STREAK>X

Offline AquaShrimp

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1706
Re: US 20mm Problems and the P-38
« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2008, 02:43:44 PM »
US 20mm cannon was actually regulated by the artillery department, due to antiquated regulations.  Years ago, someone posted a big article on the differences between the US and British version of the Hispano 20mm cannon. 

Offline Cthulhu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2463
Re: US 20mm Problems and the P-38
« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2008, 03:14:53 PM »
Im guessing it was a issue that it would tear off the wings because of the kick back.
You have any idea how strong/stiff the wings are when loaded in that axis? Run a strong enough pair of intercostals between wing ribs... extremely stiff & plenty strong. Recoil loads could potentially twist the wing, spraying rds all over the place (especially if it excites a fundamental frequency), but that's just a matter of gun placement (aligning the recoil forces with the shear center of the wing).
"Think of Tetris as a metaphor for life:  You spend all your time trying to find a place for your long thin piece, then when you finally do, everything you've built disappears"

Offline Hooligan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 889
Re: US 20mm Problems and the P-38
« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2008, 03:20:20 PM »
Sorry for the somewhat ambiguous reply but as I recall it was a headspacing/feed issue.  UK and USA both made different modifications to the original design to fix it but the UK modifications were superior and USA hispanos suffered somewhat because they were manufactured to looser tolerances.  Anything 20mm and above in the US inventory was classified as a cannon and manufacturing tolerances for cannon were not as strict as those for machineguns.

If you get a copy of the book I referenced it will describe the problems and solutions in great detail.

Hooligan

Offline Murdr

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5608
      • http://479th.jasminemaire.com
Re: US 20mm Problems and the P-38
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2008, 03:58:33 PM »
Murdr, can you elaborate? Was it a vibration issue? Feed issue?
This is just from memory by the way.  IIRC there was a feed/jambing issue from it being mounted on its side to fit inside a wing.  That was not an issue with the nose mounted configuration.

Offline Cthulhu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2463
Re: US 20mm Problems and the P-38
« Reply #10 on: September 24, 2008, 04:09:26 PM »
This is just from memory by the way.  IIRC there was a feed/jambing issue from it being mounted on its side to fit inside a wing.  That was not an issue with the nose mounted configuration.

Thanks Murdr. That makes sense, especially given what Hooligan said about looser tolerances. :salute
"Think of Tetris as a metaphor for life:  You spend all your time trying to find a place for your long thin piece, then when you finally do, everything you've built disappears"

Offline Spikes

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15837
    • Twitch: Twitch Feed
Re: US 20mm Problems and the P-38
« Reply #11 on: September 24, 2008, 04:15:24 PM »
From my thread in the super secret SAPP forum...
Basically saying that under high G's the 20mms were jammed for odd reasons. The side mounted 20mms to fit in the wing caused problems as well, as the feed was different then intended. Having the 20mm in the nose allowed for more space, meaning the 20mm would be upright and it would feed in better...
i7-12700k | Gigabyte Z690 GAMING X | 64GB G.Skill DDR4 | EVGA 1080ti FTW3 | H150i Capellix

FlyKommando.com

Offline Anaxogoras

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7072
Re: US 20mm Problems and the P-38
« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2008, 04:55:07 PM »
What about temperature?  I read that early version of the HS cannon had jamming problems in cold weather, and since the P-38 saw a lot of action in the pacific was that a reason to arm it with the M2?
gavagai
334th FS


RPS for Aces High!

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: US 20mm Problems and the P-38
« Reply #13 on: September 24, 2008, 05:52:15 PM »
This is just from memory by the way.  IIRC there was a feed/jambing issue from it being mounted on its side to fit inside a wing.  That was not an issue with the nose mounted configuration.

Mounting it on its side only applied to Spitfire MK Ib and Mk IIb aircraft.  From the Mk Vb on they were mounted upright and that cause of jamming was eliminated.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Murdr

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5608
      • http://479th.jasminemaire.com
Re: US 20mm Problems and the P-38
« Reply #14 on: September 24, 2008, 06:25:00 PM »
What about temperature?  I read that early version of the HS cannon had jamming problems in cold weather, and since the P-38 saw a lot of action in the pacific was that a reason to arm it with the M2?
It's cold at 22,000 feet where ever you are.  The P-38 had a heat system for the nose compartment.  It was always slated to carry a cannon, but the Oldsmobile M9 37mm was dumped in favor of the 20mm M2 for availiblity, and because the 37mm had problems of its own.