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

"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

In message , Kevin
Brooks writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
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.

However, to maintain lethality it had a higher rate of fire, so it ate
that ammo faster.

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.

Miss someone by a foot with a .50" bullet and you've got a crater. Miss
by a foot with a 20mm HE and you've got a good chance of a casualty.

The P-51 wasn't much used for ground attack because of its vulnerable
cooling system ("stick a pin in a Mustang and it would boil to death in
five minutes"). The UK had mostly skipped over the .50" (other than
Lend-Lease, Rose rear turrets for Lancs and the E-wing Spitfires) in
favour of the Hispano in favour of 20mm despite having both the US .50
and UK offerings too.

Say not "the .50 was the best", say rather "the .50 was a solid
performer and good enough that the improvement from a change was
outweighed by the cost and hassle involved".

Remember, the
question regards strafing, not the downing of large, reasonably
armored bombers.

Cannon blow up more targets than ball ammo.

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?

The USN put 20mm rather than .50 in the Helldiver, and in later marks of
Corsair, and in the Bearcat and Tigercat. By Korea the Navy jets were
standardised on quadruple 20mm guns (F9F is the main example)

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).

The Navy switched wholesale to the 20mm late in WW2, though delivery and
service lagged the decision. The USAF stuck with the .50 well into
Korea, and then lurched towards the Mighty Mouse rocket rather than guns
for a while before switching back to the 4x20mm battery with the F-100.

I'm willing to be corrected, but I recall that the most-produced Sabre
was the D-model, gunless and armed with 24 x 2.75" rockets, and the
cannon-armed Sabres were mostly if not all foreign.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Paul J. Adam wrote:

-snips-

I'm willing to be corrected, but I recall that the most-produced Sabre
was the D-model, gunless and armed with 24 x 2.75" rockets, and the
cannon-armed Sabres were mostly if not all foreign.

The F-86K model was intended for NATO; however, some considerable
numbers of cannon-armed F-86Hs were procured for the USAF -
'bout 400 if memory serves although the first batch of F-86Hs
were still armed with the .50 caliber MGs.

Dunno if any of the first batch were later retrofitted with
the 20mm cannons.

Cheers and all,

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
In message , Kevin
Brooks writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
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.

However, to maintain lethality it had a higher rate of fire, so it ate
that ammo faster.

I believe you'd go Winchester with the old 20mm in WWII era aircraft a
bit faster than the .50 cals did. Wasn't that one of the reasons the
USAAF and USN stuck to the MG's during WWII?


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.

Miss someone by a foot with a .50" bullet and you've got a crater. Miss
by a foot with a 20mm HE and you've got a good chance of a casualty.

Fact is that most gun runs were directed at equipment, and not
specific crunchies. Another unassailable fact is that aircraft like
the P-47 were extremely effective strafers during WWII.


The P-51 wasn't much used for ground attack because of its vulnerable
cooling system ("stick a pin in a Mustang and it would boil to death in
five minutes").

I'd say it was not as prevalent in that role as the P-47, but it was
indeed used quite a bit in the air-to-ground role. As the Luftwaffe
became less of a factor over Germany, the Mustangs were often allowed
to go low and stike targets of opportunity on their return, according
to my reading. And while your point about the P-51's radiator is
valid, it did not stop the USAAF from using the Mustang in the
air-to-ground role; the A-36 ring a bell? Not to mention the
air-to-ground use of the Mustang in Korea by the USAAF, RAAF, ROKAF,
etc.

The UK had mostly skipped over the .50" (other than
Lend-Lease, Rose rear turrets for Lancs and the E-wing Spitfires) in
favour of the Hispano in favour of 20mm despite having both the US .50
and UK offerings too.

Say not "the .50 was the best", say rather "the .50 was a solid
performer and good enough that the improvement from a change was
outweighed by the cost and hassle involved".

Which was sort of my point--the 20mm was not a hands-down better
weapon than the .50 cal.


Remember, the
question regards strafing, not the downing of large, reasonably
armored bombers.

Cannon blow up more targets than ball ammo.

Come on, now. The amount of HE in the 20mm round of the day was not
that large, and there are plenty of gun camera images of trucks,
trains, planes, etc., being blown to smithereens by .50 cal fires to
put that claim of yours to rest. Or can you show where the RAF
strafers were somehow more effective with their 20mm's than the USAAF
folks were?


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?

The USN put 20mm rather than .50 in the Helldiver, and in later marks of
Corsair, and in the Bearcat and Tigercat. By Korea the Navy jets were
standardised on quadruple 20mm guns (F9F is the main example)

The Corsair of Korea fame was still toting the .50 cals, IIRC. As were
the F6F's throughout WWII. I'll give you the Bearcat and Panther--but
the Corsair with MG's was probably conducting as many ground attack
runs in Korea as were those F9F's. And how about the USAAF during
WWII, with 20mm in the P-38 and some P-39's, and 37mm in other P-39's?


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).

The Navy switched wholesale to the 20mm late in WW2,

No, it did not. The F6F was their primary fighter through the end of
the war, and it retained its MG armament AFAIK. There sure as heck was
no "wholesale" switch by the USN to the 20mm during the war.

though delivery and
service lagged the decision. The USAF stuck with the .50 well into
Korea, and then lurched towards the Mighty Mouse rocket rather than guns
for a while before switching back to the 4x20mm battery with the F-100.

Nope. The F-86 (E or F, can't recall which) was used in Korea with a
20mm armament, but did not pan out well (caused some compressor
stalls).


I'm willing to be corrected, but I recall that the most-produced Sabre
was the D-model, gunless and armed with 24 x 2.75" rockets, and the
cannon-armed Sabres were mostly if not all foreign.

I don't think so, at least as far as the bit about cannon armed Sabres
in USAF service goes. The F-86 introduced the original 20mm fit in
Korea (a whopping SIX cannons), but it was less than successful. But
later the USAF did introduce a cannon armed version, the H model (or
at least nearly 400 of them were armed with a more modest four cannon
fit), which had a long service record (the last ones being retired
from the ANG in the seventies, IIRC). The K model, which was sort of a
Dog with cannon, was indeed primarily a foreign-destined run. Not sure
on all the numbers, but my resource tells me that production of the
Sabre in all its guises totaled some 8500, and of that only about 2500
D's were built (and the later L's were all rebuilt D's, so take that
mod out of the running). I'd wager that the F model may have had a
larger run, being as it was the definitive Korean War model.

Brooks

"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

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message ...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...

When did the USN switch to the 20mm during WWII, or for that matter
during the Korean War?

Right after WWII, when the M3 version of the Hispano became
available. Delivery of the F8F-1B was to begin in April '46,
simultaneous with that of the F4U-5. The F2H and F9F also
had four M3 cannon. (The F2H-3 had Mk.12 guns). Of the less
successful (to use a heavy understatement) types the FJ-1 had
.50 guns, but the F6U-1 had 20 mm cannon.

The USAF did use M24 cannon (a modified M3) in B-36
bombers and in early F-89 nightfighters, but USAF day fighters
did not switch to cannon until the Pontiac M39 became available,
i.e. in the 'Century Series' fighters. Yes, the F-86H-5 and later
models also had four M39 cannon, but the first of these was
delivered in early 1955; it was contemporary with the F-100A.

The USAAF had cannon armed fighters, or partially armed, fighters well
before that--see the P-38 and P-39.

Actually, a small number of cannon armed Sabres (12, IIRC) were combat
tested in Korea, but problems (induced compressor stalls) were found
with that early arrangement and the program was shelved.


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 AD-1 entered service in December 1946, slightly later
than the cannon-armed USN fighters.

The USN, or at least the USMC, was still using its MG armed Corsairs
into the Korean conflict (yes, some F4U-4 series had 20mm, but they
were a minority, as was the AU-1).

Brooks

(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

In message , Kevin
Brooks writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
How come the F8F Bearcat was designed and built with four 20mm guns,
then?

Paul, the F6F was MG armed.

First flight in August 1942.
The Bearcat did not enter operational
service during the war

First flight August 1944.

Can you name any successful 20mm air-to-air engagements by
USN fighters during WWII?

The F4U-1C served in WW2 and the F4U-5 in Korea with a 20mm armament.

And yet you remain convinced that they went into "wholesale" use in
the USN during WWII?!

Remind me where I said their _use_ was wholesale?

I said that the USN switched its preferred armament from .50 to 20mm in
1944 or thereabouts, which is clearly reflected in subsequent design and
procurement decisions. The war ended before that decision filtered
through to the front line.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Paul J. Adam wrote:

-snips-

The 20mm was a good piece of kit, and seems to have succeeded well
enough to be retained on the P-38 (weren't early versions armed with
37mm?). Similarly, later Cobras went to 20mm rather than 37mm.

The Aircobra I and some P-39Ds (intended primarily for lend-lease)
were equipped with the 20mm cannon. Some of the Aircobra Is ended
up in USAAF service (as the P-400) as did a modest number of the
20mm equipped P-39Ds

All the rest, right up to the final P-39Q model used the 37mm.

Cheers,