I really hate arguing for the side I'm against but here goes.
Santa, your already repeating the "Luftbabble" that the others have started without doing any research.
The F6F-XN (X= 3's & 5's) aircraft were not "abberations".
Of the total of 12,200 F6F's produce, almost 1,700 were F6F-XN's (about 1,400 -5N's and the rest -3N's) . There was also according to the information on the Navy site, that states that some of the straight F6F-5's (non night fighters) built from late 1944 onwards were also armed with the x2 20mm + x4 .50's, but it doesn't state a number. So I will use the number >1,700.
Now, How many Fw190A8's were built with x2 30mm Mk108's, x2 20mm MG151's, and carried Wgr21's ? Or how many Me109F4's were built with 20mm gondola's? Or G10's armed with the 30mm Mk108
and the x2 20mm gondola's? I may be wrong, but I don't think there were even a total of 1,700 G10's produce at all (I do know there were only about 700 K4's produced).
So how is the F6F-5N's with 20mm's any more of an "aberration" than the Luftwaffe aircraft I just mentioned?
Now, I agree that the version with x6 .50's is the representative model. However as I have pointed out, we have many Luftwaffe aircraft that have most if not all possible armament options, even the "non-representative" ones.
I'm just saying that you have to judge on the same basis. If one type gets all "the goodies", so should the others.
Like with the F4U-C, which was a ground pounder
Ah... now I'm starting to see that your just repeating what you see on this board about American aircraft, without doing your own research
Nothing wrong with that but be careful, because alot of it is bias'd and not true (ie. alot of the stuff from your historical squadron compatriots
).
The F4U-1C was not designed as a "ground pounder". It may have served in that role somewhat, and it certainly excels in that role in AH, but it was not designed to be that way.
The F4U-1C was merely the first fighter (and one of the actual few designs that reached the combat zone before the end of the war) designed to a new Navy philosophy on armament.
While the US Army was a proponent of the .50 heavy machine gun, The US Navy had decided by early to mid 1944 that the 20mm hispano armed aircraft were far superior to the .50's armed aircraft, and that future designs and production of aircraft would be armed exclusively with the 20mm's.
Might I suggest the book:
"Report of Joint Fighter Conference, NAS Patuxent River, MD 16-23 Oct. 1944"
Edited by Francis Dean (also the author of "America's Hundred Thousand")
ISBN #: 0-7643-0404-6
There is a chapter in it that talks about the Navy's decision in detail, and how they planned to implement it. In fact the Army representatives argued in great detail with the Navy personnel at this conference on the issue.
The only reason that more x4 20mm armed Navy fighters didnt' see combat was merely a problem of availability and a change over in production.
But the 20mm Hellcats were there, and in appreciable numbers.
Personally, I don't care what the Hellcats will be armed with, I won't be flying any of them since they do not fit my flying style tastes.
I just see them all targets.
However I think we do need to use the same standards for possible armament options across the board, whether its American, Japanese, Russian, Bristish, or Luftwaffe.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
