P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,reality

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message ,
writes
What would be more effective for strafing -- An F-51 with it's six
50-calibers or an A-1 with its four 20 mm cannon?

20mm, definitely.

The .50 was a fine anti-fighter weapon for most of the war, blessed with
a good rate of fire, excellent ballistics, and reasonable lethality.
Against bombers it would have struggled, but the US rarely faced large,
armoured bombers. The RAF started with .303, rapidly found it wanting
and moved to the Hispano; the USAF had the .50 which was a good
all-rounder, even if with hindsight a change to 20mm for many roles
would have been better.

Not necessarily. The .50 cal was generally more reliable than most of
the 20mm cannon then available, and carried more ammo per weapon.
Unless you can show that 20mm armed fighters were demonstrably
superior strafers (and given the records attained by the P-47 and P-51
in both the European and Pacific theaters that is going to be hard to
do), it is kind of hard to say "20mm definitely", IMO. Remember, the
question regards strafing, not the downing of large, reasonably
armored bombers.


And the Hawker Typhoon and Hurricane armed with cannon did a lot
of strafing, the comparison could have been and was done.


The USN switched to 20mm. the USAF didn't. Difference between Pacific
and Europe, perhaps?

When did the USN switch to the 20mm during WWII, or for that matter
during the Korean War? AFAIK, the standard remained the .50 cal in
both services until after the Korean conflict, when both began
shifting to the 20mm at roughly the same time (in the same general
timeframe that the A-1 was coming into major service with its 20mm,
the later F-86 variants were also gaining the heavier weapons, IIRC,
as was the new F-100).

Brooks

The USN jets produced in the immediate post war period
were cannon armed. The Grumman F9F for example reached
the fleet in 1949 and had 4 20mm cannon as did the F2H
Banshee

Later variants of the last generation of piston engined fighters
were also fitted with cannon including the F8F Bearcat
in the 1B variant.

The F7F Tigercat had 4 20 mm cannon in the wing roots and
4x0.50 MG in the nose.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message ,
writes
What would be more effective for strafing -- An F-51 with it's six
50-calibers or an A-1 with its four 20 mm cannon?

20mm, definitely.

The .50 was a fine anti-fighter weapon for most of the war, blessed with
a good rate of fire, excellent ballistics, and reasonable lethality.
Against bombers it would have struggled, but the US rarely faced large,
armoured bombers. The RAF started with .303, rapidly found it wanting
and moved to the Hispano; the USAF had the .50 which was a good
all-rounder, even if with hindsight a change to 20mm for many roles
would have been better.

Not necessarily. The .50 cal was generally more reliable than most of
the 20mm cannon then available, and carried more ammo per weapon.
Unless you can show that 20mm armed fighters were demonstrably
superior strafers (and given the records attained by the P-47 and P-51
in both the European and Pacific theaters that is going to be hard to
do), it is kind of hard to say "20mm definitely", IMO. Remember, the
question regards strafing, not the downing of large, reasonably
armored bombers.


And the Hawker Typhoon and Hurricane armed with cannon did a lot
of strafing, the comparison could have been and was done.

Show me where the P-47 was deficient as a strafer. It has been
acknowledged to have been among the best, if not the best, of the
CAS/interdiction platforms used during WWII in Europe--so why was its
..50 cal armament lacking? The USAAF thought that the higher rate of
fire, generally more reliable guns, and greater ammo loads, along with
a flatter trajectory, made the .50 cal a better choice at that time
than the 20mm (and the USN agreed, as we saw with the armament that
was affiixed to the Hellcats and Corsairs through the end of the war,
and in the case of the Corsair through the Korean experience).



The USN switched to 20mm. the USAF didn't. Difference between Pacific
and Europe, perhaps?

When did the USN switch to the 20mm during WWII, or for that matter
during the Korean War? AFAIK, the standard remained the .50 cal in
both services until after the Korean conflict, when both began
shifting to the 20mm at roughly the same time (in the same general
timeframe that the A-1 was coming into major service with its 20mm,
the later F-86 variants were also gaining the heavier weapons, IIRC,
as was the new F-100).

Brooks

The USN jets produced in the immediate post war period
were cannon armed. The Grumman F9F for example reached
the fleet in 1949 and had 4 20mm cannon as did the F2H
Banshee

The F9F-5 was indeed cannon armed. But, the USAF also had early
experience in cannon armament for fighters, roughly in the same
timeframe as what you describe. The P-38 offered a combined MG and
20mm cannon armament during WWII; the P-39 also sported cannon in both
the 20mm and 37mm guises. Likewise, the F-86 first sported 20mm during
the Korean conflict (though the initial experience was less than
satisfactory--it was not until the H model came along that the 20mm
appeared as the standard armament). The fact is that the USN did not
switch to 20mm during WWII, ahead of the USAAF, as Paul stated with
his "difference between the Pacific and Euro theaters" comment.

Brooks


Later variants of the last generation of piston engined fighters
were also fitted with cannon including the F8F Bearcat
in the 1B variant.

The F7F Tigercat had 4 20 mm cannon in the wing roots and
4x0.50 MG in the nose.

Keith

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
m...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message ,
writes
What would be more effective for strafing -- An F-51 with it's six
50-calibers or an A-1 with its four 20 mm cannon?

20mm, definitely.

The .50 was a fine anti-fighter weapon for most of the war, blessed
with
a good rate of fire, excellent ballistics, and reasonable lethality.
Against bombers it would have struggled, but the US rarely faced
large,
armoured bombers. The RAF started with .303, rapidly found it
wanting
and moved to the Hispano; the USAF had the .50 which was a good
all-rounder, even if with hindsight a change to 20mm for many roles
would have been better.

Not necessarily. The .50 cal was generally more reliable than most of
the 20mm cannon then available, and carried more ammo per weapon.
Unless you can show that 20mm armed fighters were demonstrably
superior strafers (and given the records attained by the P-47 and P-51
in both the European and Pacific theaters that is going to be hard to
do), it is kind of hard to say "20mm definitely", IMO. Remember, the
question regards strafing, not the downing of large, reasonably
armored bombers.


And the Hawker Typhoon and Hurricane armed with cannon did a lot
of strafing, the comparison could have been and was done.

Show me where the P-47 was deficient as a strafer. It has been
acknowledged to have been among the best, if not the best, of the
CAS/interdiction platforms used during WWII in Europe--so why was its
.50 cal armament lacking? The USAAF thought that the higher rate of
fire, generally more reliable guns, and greater ammo loads, along with
a flatter trajectory, made the .50 cal a better choice at that time

From a purely pragmatic point of view sticking with an established
gun design and logistics chain probably made sense but the reality
is that the 20mm cannon has superior penetration as it simply
has more KE and a larger explosive filling.

than the 20mm (and the USN agreed, as we saw with the armament that
was affiixed to the Hellcats and Corsairs through the end of the war,
and in the case of the Corsair through the Korean experience).


In point of fact the Corsair switched to cannon armament in
the F4U-4B and F4U-4C.

The AU-1 produced specifically for the marines during the Korean war
also had an all cannon armament



The USN switched to 20mm. the USAF didn't. Difference between
Pacific
and Europe, perhaps?

When did the USN switch to the 20mm during WWII, or for that matter
during the Korean War? AFAIK, the standard remained the .50 cal in
both services until after the Korean conflict, when both began
shifting to the 20mm at roughly the same time (in the same general
timeframe that the A-1 was coming into major service with its 20mm,
the later F-86 variants were also gaining the heavier weapons, IIRC,
as was the new F-100).

Brooks

The USN jets produced in the immediate post war period
were cannon armed. The Grumman F9F for example reached
the fleet in 1949 and had 4 20mm cannon as did the F2H
Banshee

The F9F-5 was indeed cannon armed. But, the USAF also had early
experience in cannon armament for fighters, roughly in the same
timeframe as what you describe. The P-38 offered a combined MG and
20mm cannon armament during WWII; the P-39 also sported cannon in both
the 20mm and 37mm guises. Likewise, the F-86 first sported 20mm during
the Korean conflict (though the initial experience was less than
satisfactory--it was not until the H model came along that the 20mm
appeared as the standard armament). The fact is that the USN did not
switch to 20mm during WWII, ahead of the USAAF, as Paul stated with
his "difference between the Pacific and Euro theaters" comment.

Brooks


Clearly it did since every fighter built after 1946 for the
USN was cannon armed.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
m...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message ,
writes
What would be more effective for strafing -- An F-51 with it's six
50-calibers or an A-1 with its four 20 mm cannon?

20mm, definitely.

The .50 was a fine anti-fighter weapon for most of the war, blessed
with
a good rate of fire, excellent ballistics, and reasonable lethality.
Against bombers it would have struggled, but the US rarely faced
large,
armoured bombers. The RAF started with .303, rapidly found it
wanting
and moved to the Hispano; the USAF had the .50 which was a good
all-rounder, even if with hindsight a change to 20mm for many roles
would have been better.

Not necessarily. The .50 cal was generally more reliable than most of
the 20mm cannon then available, and carried more ammo per weapon.
Unless you can show that 20mm armed fighters were demonstrably
superior strafers (and given the records attained by the P-47 and P-51
in both the European and Pacific theaters that is going to be hard to
do), it is kind of hard to say "20mm definitely", IMO. Remember, the
question regards strafing, not the downing of large, reasonably
armored bombers.


And the Hawker Typhoon and Hurricane armed with cannon did a lot
of strafing, the comparison could have been and was done.

Show me where the P-47 was deficient as a strafer. It has been
acknowledged to have been among the best, if not the best, of the
CAS/interdiction platforms used during WWII in Europe--so why was its
.50 cal armament lacking? The USAAF thought that the higher rate of
fire, generally more reliable guns, and greater ammo loads, along with
a flatter trajectory, made the .50 cal a better choice at that time

From a purely pragmatic point of view sticking with an established
gun design and logistics chain probably made sense but the reality
is that the 20mm cannon has superior penetration as it simply
has more KE and a larger explosive filling.

I say again, show me where the P-47 was ineffective with its .50 cals.
Or show me where the Typhoon was decidedly better (in which case I
wonder why the RAF was a P-47 user...).


than the 20mm (and the USN agreed, as we saw with the armament that
was affiixed to the Hellcats and Corsairs through the end of the war,
and in the case of the Corsair through the Korean experience).


In point of fact the Corsair switched to cannon armament in
the F4U-4B and F4U-4C.

"Production included 2050 F4U-4s with six .50 guns, 297 F4U-4Bs or
F4U-4Cs with four 20mm cannon"

Source: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevo...other/f4u.html

Come on, 15% of the aircraft manufactured were all that got the 20mm's
out of the -4 series.


The AU-1 produced specifically for the marines during the Korean war
also had an all cannon armament

An even poorer example; only about 100 were produced during the war.
How many hundreds of older Corsairs were still flying with the .50 cal
during Korea? A photo from Vought's archive shows one with its six
MG's (see http://www.voughtaircraft.com/photos/data/planes8.htm).




The USN switched to 20mm. the USAF didn't. Difference between
Pacific
and Europe, perhaps?

When did the USN switch to the 20mm during WWII, or for that matter
during the Korean War? AFAIK, the standard remained the .50 cal in
both services until after the Korean conflict, when both began
shifting to the 20mm at roughly the same time (in the same general
timeframe that the A-1 was coming into major service with its 20mm,
the later F-86 variants were also gaining the heavier weapons, IIRC,
as was the new F-100).

Brooks

The USN jets produced in the immediate post war period
were cannon armed. The Grumman F9F for example reached
the fleet in 1949 and had 4 20mm cannon as did the F2H
Banshee

The F9F-5 was indeed cannon armed. But, the USAF also had early
experience in cannon armament for fighters, roughly in the same
timeframe as what you describe. The P-38 offered a combined MG and
20mm cannon armament during WWII; the P-39 also sported cannon in both
the 20mm and 37mm guises. Likewise, the F-86 first sported 20mm during
the Korean conflict (though the initial experience was less than
satisfactory--it was not until the H model came along that the 20mm
appeared as the standard armament). The fact is that the USN did not
switch to 20mm during WWII, ahead of the USAAF, as Paul stated with
his "difference between the Pacific and Euro theaters" comment.

Brooks


Clearly it did since every fighter built after 1946 for the
USN was cannon armed.

Since when was 1946 "during WWII"??? Of the F4U-4 series. 85% were
produced with MG's; 100% of the F6F series was also MG armed. Vought
has a photo of a MG armed Corsair readying for takeoff in Korea. So
where in heck do you come up with the USN switching to the 20mm during
WWII?

Brooks


Keith

(Kevin Brooks) wrote:
In point of fact the Corsair switched to cannon armament in
the F4U-4B and F4U-4C.

"Production included 2050 F4U-4s with six .50 guns, 297 F4U-4Bs or
F4U-4Cs with four 20mm cannon"

Source: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevo...other/f4u.html

Come on, 15% of the aircraft manufactured were all that got the 20mm's
out of the -4 series.


The AU-1 produced specifically for the marines during the Korean war
also had an all cannon armament

An even poorer example; only about 100 were produced during the war.
How many hundreds of older Corsairs were still flying with the .50 cal
during Korea? A photo from Vought's archive shows one with its six
MG's (see http://www.voughtaircraft.com/photos/data/planes8.htm).


Might I suggest http://www.aerofiles.com/_vot.html

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...


From a purely pragmatic point of view sticking with an established
gun design and logistics chain probably made sense but the reality
is that the 20mm cannon has superior penetration as it simply
has more KE and a larger explosive filling.

I say again, show me where the P-47 was ineffective with its .50 cals.
Or show me where the Typhoon was decidedly better (in which case I
wonder why the RAF was a P-47 user...).


Show me where I claimed it was ineffective ?

The point is that the 20mm was MORE effective not that the .50
was useless , it clearly wasnt


than the 20mm (and the USN agreed, as we saw with the armament that
was affiixed to the Hellcats and Corsairs through the end of the war,
and in the case of the Corsair through the Korean experience).


In point of fact the Corsair switched to cannon armament in
the F4U-4B and F4U-4C.

"Production included 2050 F4U-4s with six .50 guns, 297 F4U-4Bs or
F4U-4Cs with four 20mm cannon"


As I said

Source: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevo...other/f4u.html

Come on, 15% of the aircraft manufactured were all that got the 20mm's
out of the -4 series.


The last 15%


The AU-1 produced specifically for the marines during the Korean war
also had an all cannon armament

An even poorer example; only about 100 were produced during the war.
How many hundreds of older Corsairs were still flying with the .50 cal
during Korea? A photo from Vought's archive shows one with its six
MG's (see http://www.voughtaircraft.com/photos/data/planes8.htm).


The last Corsairs produced




The USN switched to 20mm. the USAF didn't. Difference between
Pacific
and Europe, perhaps?

When did the USN switch to the 20mm during WWII, or for that
matter
during the Korean War? AFAIK, the standard remained the .50 cal in
both services until after the Korean conflict, when both began
shifting to the 20mm at roughly the same time (in the same general
timeframe that the A-1 was coming into major service with its
20mm,
the later F-86 variants were also gaining the heavier weapons,
IIRC,
as was the new F-100).

Brooks

The USN jets produced in the immediate post war period
were cannon armed. The Grumman F9F for example reached
the fleet in 1949 and had 4 20mm cannon as did the F2H
Banshee

The F9F-5 was indeed cannon armed. But, the USAF also had early
experience in cannon armament for fighters, roughly in the same
timeframe as what you describe. The P-38 offered a combined MG and
20mm cannon armament during WWII; the P-39 also sported cannon in both
the 20mm and 37mm guises. Likewise, the F-86 first sported 20mm during
the Korean conflict (though the initial experience was less than
satisfactory--it was not until the H model came along that the 20mm
appeared as the standard armament). The fact is that the USN did not
switch to 20mm during WWII, ahead of the USAAF, as Paul stated with
his "difference between the Pacific and Euro theaters" comment.

Brooks


Clearly it did since every fighter built after 1946 for the
USN was cannon armed.

Since when was 1946 "during WWII"??? Of the F4U-4 series. 85% were
produced with MG's; 100% of the F6F series was also MG armed. Vought
has a photo of a MG armed Corsair readying for takeoff in Korea. So
where in heck do you come up with the USN switching to the 20mm during
WWII?


Where did I claim this happened during WW2 ?

My words were 'after 1946' I believe

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...


From a purely pragmatic point of view sticking with an established
gun design and logistics chain probably made sense but the reality
is that the 20mm cannon has superior penetration as it simply
has more KE and a larger explosive filling.

I say again, show me where the P-47 was ineffective with its .50 cals.
Or show me where the Typhoon was decidedly better (in which case I
wonder why the RAF was a P-47 user...).


Show me where I claimed it was ineffective ?

Are you defending Paul's assertion that the 20mm was a hands-down
better weapon in the strafe roll or not? I am just claiming rough
parity between the two weapons; if you are gonna claim one was
demonstrably better than the other, bring out the evidence.


The point is that the 20mm was MORE effective not that the .50
was useless , it clearly wasnt

Can you prove it was MORE effective? How so? You discount reliability,
rate of fire, ammo load, and velocity and reach that conclusion...how?



than the 20mm (and the USN agreed, as we saw with the armament that
was affiixed to the Hellcats and Corsairs through the end of the war,
and in the case of the Corsair through the Korean experience).


In point of fact the Corsair switched to cannon armament in
the F4U-4B and F4U-4C.

"Production included 2050 F4U-4s with six .50 guns, 297 F4U-4Bs or
F4U-4Cs with four 20mm cannon"


As I said

But I believe the .50 cals were still being produced upo to the very
end of the war?


Source: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevo...other/f4u.html

Come on, 15% of the aircraft manufactured were all that got the 20mm's
out of the -4 series.


The last 15%

Sure of that?



The AU-1 produced specifically for the marines during the Korean war
also had an all cannon armament

An even poorer example; only about 100 were produced during the war.
How many hundreds of older Corsairs were still flying with the .50 cal
during Korea? A photo from Vought's archive shows one with its six
MG's (see http://www.voughtaircraft.com/photos/data/planes8.htm).


The last Corsairs produced

And those poor deficiently armed older Corsairs were still slogging
along as well.





The USN switched to 20mm. the USAF didn't. Difference between
Pacific
and Europe, perhaps?

When did the USN switch to the 20mm during WWII, or for that
matter
during the Korean War? AFAIK, the standard remained the .50 cal in
both services until after the Korean conflict, when both began
shifting to the 20mm at roughly the same time (in the same general
timeframe that the A-1 was coming into major service with its
20mm,
the later F-86 variants were also gaining the heavier weapons,
IIRC,
as was the new F-100).

Brooks

The USN jets produced in the immediate post war period
were cannon armed. The Grumman F9F for example reached
the fleet in 1949 and had 4 20mm cannon as did the F2H
Banshee

The F9F-5 was indeed cannon armed. But, the USAF also had early
experience in cannon armament for fighters, roughly in the same
timeframe as what you describe. The P-38 offered a combined MG and
20mm cannon armament during WWII; the P-39 also sported cannon in both
the 20mm and 37mm guises. Likewise, the F-86 first sported 20mm during
the Korean conflict (though the initial experience was less than
satisfactory--it was not until the H model came along that the 20mm
appeared as the standard armament). The fact is that the USN did not
switch to 20mm during WWII, ahead of the USAAF, as Paul stated with
his "difference between the Pacific and Euro theaters" comment.

Brooks


Clearly it did since every fighter built after 1946 for the
USN was cannon armed.

Since when was 1946 "during WWII"??? Of the F4U-4 series. 85% were
produced with MG's; 100% of the F6F series was also MG armed. Vought
has a photo of a MG armed Corsair readying for takeoff in Korea. So
where in heck do you come up with the USN switching to the 20mm during
WWII?


Where did I claim this happened during WW2 ?

My words: "The fact is that the USN did not switch to 20mm during
WWII, ahead of the USAAF, as Paul stated with his "difference between
the Pacific and Euro theaters" comment."

Your response:

"Clearly it did since every fighter built after 1946 for the
USN was cannon armed."

That "clearly it did" refers to the "the USN did not switch to 20mm
during WWII...", right?


My words were 'after 1946' I believe

Show me where the 20mm strafer of WWII was more effective than the .50
cal strafer.

Brooks


Keith