Author Topic: Ideal WW2 fighter armament (Read 967 times)

Tony Williams · « **on:** November 19, 2002, 03:55:42 PM »

I while ago there was a thread running on my discussion forum on the selection of "ideal" cartridges, guns and mountings for WW2 fighter aircraft. It's now disappeared but I have modified and extended the article, and posted it on my website at: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ideal.htm

I have also been playing with image software and "created" the ammo…

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Pongo · « **Reply #1 on:** November 19, 2002, 05:34:51 PM »

Excellent article Tony
Maybe a scalled drawing of the guns done the same way would be cool.

Now that we have the ideal weapons for a WW2 fighter. We need the ideal fighter...

illo · « **Reply #2 on:** November 19, 2002, 06:14:30 PM »

Ideal for me would be one MG 213/30 mounted on centerline.

Innominate · « **Reply #3 on:** November 19, 2002, 06:16:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
Now that we have the ideal weapons for a WW2 fighter. We need the ideal fighter...

Thats easy, P-38's with better engines, and a cluster of those ideal guns in the nose.

whgates3 · « **Reply #4 on:** November 19, 2002, 06:55:13 PM »

Lightning can't land on a carrier, there for it is not ideal.
what you want is a faster bird w/ better engines that can go from land or sea and, coming into service when it did, it probably had M3 cannon (F4U-4b carried 20mm M3 cannon and came into service just about at the came time and was with the same branch of the military)

Tony Williams · « **Reply #5 on:** November 20, 2002, 01:30:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by illo
Ideal for me would be one MG 213/30 mounted on centerline.

Not allowed; revolvers weren't in service by the end of the war!

The ideal Bf 109 armament would of course be a single GSh-301 (the 30mm Russian gun currently in the MiG-29 and Su-27). This is a slim, recoil-operated weapon which weighs only slightly more than the MG 151, but the power of the ammunition is greater than the MK 103, and it fires four times as fast at 1,500-1,800 rpm. Hot stuff....

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

IP: Logged

gripen · « **Reply #6 on:** November 20, 2002, 04:53:03 PM »

Tony,
Do you know something about a light weight version of the (under 30kg) 20mm Hispano, model number was IIRC HS 405 or 406 or something like that. Such weapon is claimed in a French book called "D.520" by J. Cuny and R. Danel.

gripen

Tony Williams · « **Reply #7 on:** November 20, 2002, 06:37:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by gripen
Tony,
Do you know something about a light weight version of the (under 30kg) 20mm Hispano, model number was IIRC HS 405 or 406 or something like that. Such weapon is claimed in a French book called "D.520" by J. Cuny and R. Danel.
gripen

Yes, the HS.405 fired a 20x71 cartridge and was, I believe, planned as a turret gun.

The HS.406 and 407 were bigger and more powerful, firing a 23x122 cartridge which matched the ballistics of the VYa. I think that an HS.407 was tried in a D.520, but the plane was shot down on its first mission.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Shiva · « **Reply #8 on:** November 21, 2002, 12:45:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by whgates3
Lightning can't land on a carrier, there for it is not ideal.

Lockheed proposed a carrier-based "Model 822" version of the Lightning for the US Navy. The Model 822 would have featured folding wings, an arresting hook, and stronger undercarriage for carrier operations. The Navy wasn't interested, as they regarded the Lightning as too big for carrier operations and didn't like liquid-cooled engines anyway, and the Model 822 never went beyond the paper stage. However, the Navy did operate four land-based F-5Bs in North Africa, with these aircraft inherited from the USAAF and redesignated "FO-1".

gripen · « **Reply #9 on:** November 21, 2002, 01:57:22 AM »

Thanks Tony, there was that 23mm version listed too in that French book too, can't remember if there was something about the experiments.

gripen

Tony Williams · « **Reply #10 on:** November 21, 2002, 02:15:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by gripen
Thanks Tony, there was that 23mm version listed too in that French book too, can't remember if there was something about the experiments.gripen

If you can dig out any details I'd be grateful. I have been told that one D.520 (No.49) was fitted with a 23mm cannon and sent out to try its luck against AFVs, but was shot down on 11 June 1940 (I have details somewhere of the unit, the pilot and the location). The story went that the gun was a 23mm Madsen, but I think that is very unlikely. This was medium power, shell-firing gun which would have been inferior to the HS.404 against tanks. It therefore seems much more likely that the weapon was the HS.407, but I have no evidence for that.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

gripen · « **Reply #11 on:** November 21, 2002, 05:06:55 AM »

Tony,
Well, I don't have that book but I know a copy, I can check it out next time I'm there. I can't so much french but with a dictionary I can understand most of the text. I was just wondering how could they make so light version of the Hispano, lighter cartridge explains it pretty well and I quess that the barrel was shorter. Seems that the HS 405 was quite close to the MG FF.

gripen

NOD2000 · « **Reply #12 on:** November 21, 2002, 12:42:11 PM »

Well, i like the russian idea of armerment. I remember a quote from a russian ace (i have no idea who it was) but here is the quote "It seems Brittan, the US, and France all see our planes armerment as primitive, but what use is any armerment if you can not bring it to bear on your enemy".

ra · « **Reply #13 on:** November 21, 2002, 12:50:38 PM »

From Nod's sig:

<<<"NO bomber ever whent down in one pass NEVER did it do that no matter what plane attacked...unless it killed both pilot and the copilot" so y does that happen in AH...........>>>

Lots of bombers went down in one pass in RL. In AH they go down in one pass more often because of the 'Hollywood ending' damage model, which lets the attacker know he's got a kill right away, and lets the victim fly another mission right away.

ra

NOD2000 · « **Reply #14 on:** November 21, 2002, 01:02:55 PM »

The quote is from a book. This is what the Author belived to be true it is his opinion, an a opinion can not be wrong

its is Martin Candian Flying forts about 3/4 of the way through the book