Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: angelsandair on February 14, 2008, 09:05:29 PM
-
This is probably the stupidest question ever but also kind of makes sense about the p-47.
Well here it is....
Did any P-47 model have like 4 20mms?? I mean the thing is a monster, huge wings and was basically like a flying tank. It had the highest survival rate of WW2.
Even though this is stupid, i really want to know.......
:D
-
No
-
ehh thought so........
I had been thinking about it for a while, and i wouldnt have been suprised if they tried to make one. Seems kind of reasonable...
:cry
-
It is an interesting question though. I'm mean they did slap an Allison on a P-47, I wonder if they considered 20mms, or was there just not enough room in the wing for the guns and ammo boxes
-
Republic tought better of adding 20mm's. They decided it just wouldn't be fair to Jerry so they kept the .50's to keep things on a more even level.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Republic tought better of adding 20mm's. They decided it just wouldn't be fair to Jerry so they kept the .50's to keep things on a more even level.
:aok , well now that makes sense, USAAF would have had to perk it if they added 20mms, It would have imbalanced the ETO and definitely the PTO
-
Or maybe 8 50 cals did the work of like 4 20mms unless the p-47s huge wing could fit 6 20mms (wouldnt suprise me)
-
Imagine a jug with 4 hispanos... Goodbye La-7s!!! :noid
-
The Jug had much more hitting power in reality than it does in AH (as do all .50cal planes). It didn't need 20mm guns. 8 .50s have the same or greater killing ability than x3 20mm. Plus the sheer volume of rounds flying at a target in a given ammount time virtually insured damage to any aircraft it hit. I've read accounts of Jug pilots blowing up...
-Trains. Try and think of how much natural armor the boiler on a steam engine has.
-Barges. By punching gaping holes in it below the water line.
-Tanks. Shooting through the engine compartment.
The way I understand the damage model in AH is that you have to do "X" ammount of damage to an object to make a part fail (control surface ect.). This requires that you "stay on target" longer with .50s than was probably needed in reality. There are all sorts of parts to foul up in a wing, tail, fuse, or engine when 8 rounds hit it and bounce all around vs the one 20mm that may hit in the same time frame. This would, at least, IMO make the bird much more difficult to fly if not bring it down just as easily.
-
Originally posted by Serenity
Imagine a jug with 4 hispanos... Goodbye La-7s!!! :noid
Just imagine what it could do to a couple of Pineapples, would be better than a knife.
ack-ack
-
Are you tellin' me that pineapples are migr'tory?
-
Not at all. It could be carried by the tuft.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
I'm mean they did slap an Allison on a P-47,
What model was that?
A Chrysler XIV-2220-1 sixteen-cylinder inverted Vee liquid-cooled engine was put in the XP-47H.
-
Well i think that 6 20mms with idk about half the ammo in the wings could do as much maybe more as one with 8 .50s. But still, i could see it happening. I think it would be pretty cool like an rv-8 kind of deal...
Course it could only be flown in like offline practice if we ever got it (yeah right...)
-
Originally posted by Puck
Not at all. It could be carried by the tuft.
It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound pineapple.
ack-ack
-
but if it was an african swallow
-
I need to rent that movie again so I can memorize the dialogue in its entirety.
-
Who goes there?
It is I, Arthur, son of Uther Pendragon, from the castle of Camelot. King of the Britons, defeater of the Saxons, Sovereign of all England!
Pull the other one!
I am, and this is my trusty servant Patsy. We have ridden the length and breadth of the land in search of knights who will join me in my court at Camelot. I must speak with your lord and master.
What? Ridden on a horse?
Yes!
You're using coconuts!
What?
You've got two empty halves of coconut and you're bangin' 'em together.
So? We have ridden since the snows of winter covered this land, through the kingdom of Mercia, through...
Where'd you get the coconuts?
We found them.
Found them? In Mercia? The coconut's tropical!
What do you mean?
Well, this is a temperate zone
The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land?
Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
Not at all. They could be carried.
What? A swallow carrying a coconut?
King Arthur: It could grip it by the husk!
It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.
Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master that Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here?
Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right?
Please!
Am I right?
-
Originally posted by angelsandair
This is probably the stupidest question ever but also kind of makes sense about the p-47.
....
It had the highest survival rate of WW2.
....
That is false. The F6F had the best survival rate AND the Kill to Death Ratio of any aircraft.
-
Originally posted by LilMak
The Jug had much more hitting power in reality than it does in AH (as do all .50cal planes). It didn't need 20mm guns. 8 .50s have the same or greater killing ability than x3 20mm.
Not according to the US Navy. The US Navy's tests found that one M2 20mm cannon installation provided the same firepower as a three Browning .50 cal installation. By the US Navy's estimate, the Spitfire Mk XIV and XVI have the same firepower as a P-47 with eight .50 cals......which is approximately what they have in AH.
Plus the sheer volume of rounds flying at a target in a given ammount time virtually insured damage to any aircraft it hit. I've read accounts of Jug pilots blowing up...
[/b]
Don't overestimate this. Bullets are small and there is a lot of space out there for them to disperse into. I know a lot of people think of eight gun installations as buzz saws, but they aren't. P-51B fires approximately 48 rounds a second and the Typhoon Mk Ib fires approximately 40 rounds per second.
-Trains. Try and think of how much natural armor the boiler on a steam engine has.
[/b]
Unarmored tubes filled with high preasure steam explode when hit by bullets? Say it ain't so! What do you think a train straffed by a Spitfire or Mosquito did?
-Barges. By punching gaping holes in it below the water line.
[/b]
Yup, they could sink barges. What do you think 20mm armed aircraft did to barges?
-Tanks. Shooting through the engine compartment.
[/b]
This one is false. Same for claims of doing it with 20mm cannons. Battlefield examinations by the British painted a very dismal report on the effectiveness of fighter bombers against tanks, particularly using guns against them. However, the soft skinned supply vehicles were another story entirely...
Hey, at least you didn't try to claim that P-47s took out tanks by bouncing rounds off the ground into their bellies.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
That is false. The F6F had the best survival rate AND the Kill to Death Ratio of any aircraft.
Other than the Brewster B-239 Buffalo.
;)
Sorry, had to do it
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
What model was that?
A Chrysler XIV-2220-1 sixteen-cylinder inverted Vee liquid-cooled engine was put in the XP-47H.
Its been awhile since I read the article, I could have swore it was an Allison.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Other than the Brewster B-239 Buffalo.
;)
Sorry, had to do it
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.
-
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.
I know. I was joking, hence the ;) thingy.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
That is false. The F6F had the best survival rate AND the Kill to Death Ratio of any aircraft.
Rlly?? I guess on the European front then...... (saw a chart and it wuz #1 and P-39 wuz #2, assumed it was pacific and atlantic)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I know. I was joking, hence the ;) thingy.
Sorry, did not catch it. I feel silly now.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
That is false. The F6F had the best survival rate AND the Kill to Death Ratio of any aircraft.
Actually, the lowly SBD had the best loss rate per sortie of any carrier borne aircraft in the US Navy. This includes losses from all causes, including operational losses. SBDs were robust, dead reliable and very easy to land aboard ship. Thus, very few were lost to operational incidents, raising it to the top of the survivability list.
While the F6F had a spectacular kill to loss rate (19:1 against all types), the FM-1 and FM-2 managed a 26:1 ratio against Japanese fighters, and a 97:1 ratio against bombers and various other types. Granted, the FM saw much less combat than the F6F and F4U, which may skew the data somewhat. Nonetheless, they did extremely well. The image below is a composite taken from Naval Aviation Combat Statistics: WWII released in June of 1946.
(http://home.att.net/~c.c.jordan/NACS.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Don't overestimate this. Bullets are small and there is a lot of space out there for them to disperse into. I know a lot of people think of eight gun installations as buzz saws, but they aren't. P-51B fires approximately 48 rounds a second and the Typhoon Mk Ib fires approximately 40 rounds per second.
So a Jug will throw 96 rounds per second and a spit will throw 20. So for every single 20mm that hits, 4.8 .50s will hit. Almost 5 to 1.
Now I ask you. (Be honest now)
You're a Geman in the middle of a dog fight in WWII. At the last second, you see tracers flying across your nose and a fighter is comming broadside for a 90 degree snapshot. You're going to have to fly through 0.20 seconds of a bullet stream. He's gonna pepper you from spinner to rudder.
What would you rather see comming at you...a Spit or a Jug? Who do you think has a better chance to do damage to your plane or, worse, your body?
-
I believe the argument is not that 2 20mm has greater hitting power than 8 .50cal. Rather that the 20mm is more efficient at shooting down than .50cals. I imagine the jug would carry atleast 4 20mm if they were ever considered as an armament.
-
From this thread (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1287&highlight=The+Report+Of+The+Joint+Fighter+Conference) which is really interesting. Anyone have this in its entirety?
On the topic of why the Army wasn't pushing to replace the .50 with the 20mm...
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."
I was actually looking for something else entirely when I stumbled across this thread. Pyro's posted a bit more than this from it; I just found this section a little more relevant. Worth a read, for sure.
-
I upped a p-47 d11 in the LW for the 1st time last nite.
Messed with the convergence 1st.
Shot down 4 planes in about 15 minutes.
It was almost like i couldn't miss.
It was indeed a "wall of lead"
Awesome.
Gonna use it alot more.
Turnin into a Juggie boy,
Boner
-
I CANT FLY JUGGIES ANY GOOD!!!!
-
Originally posted by LilMak
So a Jug will throw 96 rounds per second and a spit will throw 20. So for every single 20mm that hits, 4.8 .50s will hit. Almost 5 to 1.
Now I ask you. (Be honest now)
You're a Geman in the middle of a dog fight in WWII. At the last second, you see tracers flying across your nose and a fighter is comming broadside for a 90 degree snapshot. You're going to have to fly through 0.20 seconds of a bullet stream. He's gonna pepper you from spinner to rudder.
What would you rather see comming at you...a Spit or a Jug? Who do you think has a better chance to do damage to your plane or, worse, your body?
The Spit. The P-47 will not "pepper you from spinner to rudder". You are grossly overestimating fire density again. The P-47 is more likely to get a few hits in, but in a situation were it will pepper you like you describe the Spit's 20mm cannons will disassemble your plane. Both actions take more than .20 seconds of exposure to fire.
The Spit has two 20mm and two .50 cals...., hence the total being roughly equal to eight .50 cals. Three each for the 20mm and one each for the .50s.
But....
By a very large margin most kills were not done from brief crossing shots, and if they were it was far more likely to happen from a 20mm hit than a .50 cal hit or three.
Basically, if you can't hit with two guns you aren't going to hit with eight guns. That is a paraphrase of a comment by an American ace.
I am not saying the .50 cals were incapable, just that they were not as good as 20mm cannons, particularly against larger aircraft. Against light aircraft like A6Ms or Ki-43s even .303s would do fine. .50s and 20mms are overkill.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The Spit. The P-47 will not "pepper you from spinner to rudder". You are grossly overestimating fire density again. The P-47 is more likely to get a few hits in, but in a situation were it will pepper you like you describe the Spit's 20mm cannons will disassemble your plane. Both actions take more than .20 seconds of exposure to fire.
The Spit has two 20mm and two .50 cals...., hence the total being roughly equal to eight .50 cals. Three each for the 20mm and one each for the .50s.
But....
By a very large margin most kills were not done from brief crossing shots, and if they were it was far more likely to happen from a 20mm hit than a .50 cal hit or three.
Basically, if you can't hit with two guns you aren't going to hit with eight guns. That is a paraphrase of a comment by an American ace.
I am not saying the .50 cals were incapable, just that they were not as good as 20mm cannons, particularly against larger aircraft. Against light aircraft like A6Ms or Ki-43s even .303s would do fine. .50s and 20mms are overkill.
Well I want my killz to be dead.....
-
OK. First of all, I don't think I'm overestimating fire density. In my example, you'll get hit with 4.8 .50 rounds from the Jug or 1 20mm from the spit and maybe 1 .50. You said yourself "Bullets are small and there is a lot of space out there for them to disperse into" This is true of .50s and 20mms. So if I'm the German in my example, I'd rather be crossing a Spit's bullet stream than a Jug's. I'f Im going to gamble my life on which plane is more likely to kill me, I'll take the fewer bullets flying my way every time. Especially since I've fired the .50 and know what it's capable of. Please understand that I'm not, under any circumstances, questioning the killing power of the 20mm. All I'm saying is that the Jug didn't need 20mm guns because it punched hard and threw out more lead per second (in weight) than a spit. I think there are two reasons the US didn't change to 20mms. First, they weren't shooting down bombers nearly as often as the other countries in WW2 and the .50s were more than adequate for bringing down fighters and strafing ground equipment. Second, was the logistics. They (.50s) were plenitful, cheap, and dependable. You could (pretty much) load the same .50 round into a jeep, tank, or aircraft. The US didn't really abandon the .50 in aircraft until Korea when thay foud that jets, with more robust construction and fewer moving parts to break, were not as susceptible to the gun.
As far as the punching power of the Jug's .50 I give you this...
"The 332nd Fighter Group also distinguished themselves in June 1944 when two of its pilots flying P-47 Thunderbolt aircraft discovered a German destroyer in the harbor at Trieste, Italy. One of the pilots, Lieutenant Gynne Pierson of the 302nd Fighter Squadron, using only the aircraft's 50-caliber machine guns, strafed the destroyer, causing it to explode and sink."
Ya gotta love the Tuskeegee Airmen!
-
Originally posted by Widewing
While the F6F had a spectacular kill to loss rate (19:1 against all types), the FM-1 and FM-2 managed a 26:1 ratio against Japanese fighters, and a 97:1 ratio against bombers and various other types.
My regards,
Widewing
I'd say add the Wildcats into that, (which the FM-1 and FM-2 basically are) and the KtD ratio drops.
It was interesting to see the SBD mentioned as "the safest" aircraft. Very surprising.
-
Well im not saying put 4 or 6 20mms into the jug, just kind of wondered how it would do.....
-
How's about 8 Hispanos in a Jug since we're dreaming? Talk about a HO'n Machine... everyone would be screaming JUG'HOer!!! Then the Jug would be the new "lets perk this because it kills me everytime" ride.
:cry
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Definately......... But dude i think that would either have a low perk load or have a high perk like the Tempest...........
Still we can all dream....... "the new dweeb ride..." :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Generaly......success was greater in the PAC because Japanese aircraft were lightly armored and lightly gunned for the most part. There are a few exceptions such as the N1K etc. But all in all Japanese aircraft were more fragile and had mininmal armour protection until later in the war. And that includes self sealing fuel tanks.
-
definately hajo
-
Originally posted by LilMak
OK. First of all, I don't think I'm overestimating fire density. In my example, you'll get hit with 4.8 .50 rounds from the Jug or 1 20mm from the spit and maybe 1 .50. You said yourself "Bullets are small and there is a lot of space out there for them to disperse into" This is true of .50s and 20mms. So if I'm the German in my example, I'd rather be crossing a Spit's bullet stream than a Jug's. I'f Im going to gamble my life on which plane is more likely to kill me, I'll take the fewer bullets flying my way every time. Especially since I've fired the .50 and know what it's capable of. Please understand that I'm not, under any circumstances, questioning the killing power of the 20mm. All I'm saying is that the Jug didn't need 20mm guns because it punched hard and threw out more lead per second (in weight) than a spit. I think there are two reasons the US didn't change to 20mms. First, they weren't shooting down bombers nearly as often as the other countries in WW2 and the .50s were more than adequate for bringing down fighters and strafing ground equipment. Second, was the logistics. They (.50s) were plenitful, cheap, and dependable. You could (pretty much) load the same .50 round into a jeep, tank, or aircraft. The US didn't really abandon the .50 in aircraft until Korea when thay foud that jets, with more robust construction and fewer moving parts to break, were not as susceptible to the gun.
As far as the punching power of the Jug's .50 I give you this...
"The 332nd Fighter Group also distinguished themselves in June 1944 when two of its pilots flying P-47 Thunderbolt aircraft discovered a German destroyer in the harbor at Trieste, Italy. One of the pilots, Lieutenant Gynne Pierson of the 302nd Fighter Squadron, using only the aircraft's 50-caliber machine guns, strafed the destroyer, causing it to explode and sink."
Ya gotta love the Tuskeegee Airmen!
Mak,
Just a heads up. The ROF per gun is 13 rounds per second per gun. So the throw weight is actually 104 rounds per second. What makes the difference ultimately in being successful with the P-47 is how you have your guns set at convergence.
My settings are my inside guns set to 475, and out my outside guns at 425. I have no problem landing 8 kills in a single run, and .5 second shot is all I need to do the job.
-
Man I'm really really suprised a thread about a stupid question of mine got so far
:rofl
-
Originally posted by angelsandair
Man I'm really really suprised a thread about a stupid question of mine got so far
:rofl
Yes, well, notice im the first one to actually acknowledge the fact that youre still posting here...:aok
-
as I understand it both the USN and USAAF were desperate to convert from .50s to cannon. the only reason they didnt was that US-produced versions of the Hispano were utterly unreliable.
The RAF wanted more Hispanos too and commissioned extra from the US, however as time went on and production problems in the US were not being sorted, UK production of the Hispanos increased enough to cover the RAF's needs and the orders were cancelled.
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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 ;)
-
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."
-
interesting quotes :aok 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 ;)
-
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.
-
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.....
-
Hurricane IIC, Typhoon, Tempest, Mosquito, F4U-1C.
-
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 (http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/p-47d.htm)
-
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 (http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/p-47d.htm)
Well of course we wouldnt have had as much ammo (it prolly would have been halved)