A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Guns on a WWII fighter...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 11th 03, 02:54 AM
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cotton tail 215 wrote:
why fire a cannon at a figther ,you needed power to kill a big
bomber..a .50mm would shredd a zero so why would a P-38 jockey waste
20mm on one



I don't know this for a fact, but I would assume the outcome wasn't guaranteed
and the pilot would want to do anything he could to splash the other guy.
Plenty of P-38s got knocked down.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com


  #12  
Old December 11th 03, 08:58 AM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Cotton tail 215" wrote in message
...
why fire a cannon at a figther ,you needed power to kill a big bomber..a

..50mm
would shredd a zero so why would a P-38 jockey waste 20mm on one


Because he could

a) Shred it faster
b) Also take on a tougher opponent like a Bomber or FW-190
in the ETO
c) Do more damage when strafing ground targets

Keith


  #13  
Old December 11th 03, 11:55 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


why fire a cannon at a figther ,you needed power to kill a big bomber..a .50mm
would shredd a zero so why would a P-38 jockey waste 20mm on one


It seems to me that four or six fifty-caliber guns was the perfect
armament for American fighters in the Pacific. Not only was the Zero
lightly timbered; so were Japanese bombers. The engines weren't all
that different (the Ki-44 Shoki/Tojo was basically a Ki-43 with a
bomber engine), and the gas tanks if anything were more vulnerable.

Most hits on a bomber just went right through--a Japanese "heavy" was
little more than a DC-3 with gun positions and bomb-bay doors.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at
www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
  #14  
Old December 12th 03, 01:38 AM
ian maclure
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:43:02 +0000, Cotton tail 215 wrote:

why fire a cannon at a figther ,you needed power to kill a big bomber..a .50mm
would shredd a zero so why would a P-38 jockey waste 20mm on one


Well, they were operational in other theatres.
May have had something to do with space available though.
1x20mm + 4x.50 is a pretty good throw weight for general
purposes.
Would it have been possible to add blister packs a la B25?
1 x20mm + 8x.50 would have been awesome.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

  #15  
Old December 12th 03, 09:24 PM
Felger Carbon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"ian maclure" wrote in message
news

1x20mm + 4x.50 is a pretty good throw weight for general
purposes.
Would it have been possible to add blister packs a la B25?
1 x20mm + 8x.50 would have been awesome.


If only the additional 4 machine guns and their ammo didn't add more
weight, thus reducing range, speed, and maneuvrability - things that
are kinda important for a fighter aircraft.




  #16  
Old December 15th 03, 12:48 AM
Dave Eadsforth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Emmanuel Gustin
writes
"Felger Carbon" wrote in message
nk.net...

SNIP

A more efficient and logical way to increase firepower was
a proposal for a P-38 with four 20 mm nose cannon. But this
was not accepted either, apparently because the ammunition
capacity was considered too small; maybe also because the
American version of the Hispano was too unreliable. But this
would have offered approximately the same firepower as
1 x 20 mm + 8 x .50" or twelve .50", at acceptable weight --
the Whirlwind carried four 20mm, and it was smaller and
lower-powered than a P-38.

Lamentably, the Whirlwind had only 60 rounds per gun - the drum feed
also used by the Spitfire. A proposal to fit belt feed and give it 120
RPG was not actioned.

A nose with two 20 mm and four .50" was also rejected
because it was too heavy -- something like this was intended
to be installed in the P-49.

And finally, there were also designs with the .60" T17 gun,
essentially an "Americanised" Mauser MG 151 -- the German
design was highly regarded by both the British and the
Americans -- of which the P-38 would carry three. This was
probably a backward step in firepower, and the T17 never
entered service anway.

More of the same can be found in "Flying Guns: WWII", see
my website...

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Veteran fighter pilots try to help close training gap Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 December 2nd 03 11:09 PM
Kadena honors legendary WWII fighter ace Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 November 23rd 03 03:58 AM
A-4 / A-7 Question Tank Fixer Military Aviation 135 October 25th 03 03:59 AM
"Target for Today" & "Thunderbolt" WWII Double Feature at Zeno'sDrive-In Zeno Aerobatics 0 August 2nd 03 07:31 PM
Joint Russian-French 5th generation fighter? lihakirves Military Aviation 1 July 5th 03 01:36 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.