ADS NOT DISPLAYED TO REGISTERED USERS.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 161

20/20 Hindsight - different armament?

Aviation Discuss 20/20 Hindsight - different armament? in the World War II - Aviation forums; This is mone of those hindsight questions that don't take into account the realities of why fighters ended up with ...

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12
    Country
    United States

    20/20 Hindsight - different armament?

    This is mone of those hindsight questions that don't take into account the realities of why fighters ended up with the armaments they did.

    Do you think the Americans would have been better off with 20mm's on their planes? Could the P-51 have handled four 20mm's? Could the P-47 have handled six 20mm's? Would the P-38 have been better with three 20mm's in the nose?


  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    479
    Answers in order;

    Yes

    Not without changing the wing, 2x20mm and 2x0.5" easier

    No, but could carry 4x20mm

    Probably not as the 20mm they were armed with wasn't that good and only had a 120round drum. It was often removed.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Redwood City
    Posts
    223
    P-51A's did in fact have 4 x 20mm cannons.

    One look at the wings of the P-51 and Hurricane (both of which had models sporting 4 x 20mm cannons) leads me to believe that the P-47 would have done just fine with 6 x 20mm cannons. It would have been pretty devastating too. As it was though, eight .50's did just fine.

    The USAAF toyed with the idea of less cannons vs more .50's when outfitting the ground attack versions of the A-26 and settled on a nose package of 8 x .50's.

    The .50 is a fine weapon. Very flat trajectory and decent AP capability.

    3 x 20mm cannons in the nose of the P-38 is an interesting idea.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Berlin (Kreuzberg)
    Posts
    1,955
    I am confident that such an improvement wasnīt really necessary for the USAAF in ww2 over europe. If the GAF would have deployed far more bombers than they historically did against the western allies, this would make more sense. With the historcial thread scenario in mind there is no justification for this step. Fighter and fighterbomber would be the prime enemy and these can be dealed with by 0.50.
    Beside of this, a 20 mm armament would reduce the performance of the Mustang, P-38 and P-47 considerably by pure weight of gun & ammo, not to speak of the structural reinforcements necessary in order to deal with the heavier recoil forces of mid wing / outer wing placed 20 mm guns.
    This would make more sense to me for the P-38 anyway.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    5,497
    The American, British and German forces generally had well armed planes and probably wouldn't have bothered making any changes. The Russians had excellent weapons and took a deliberate decision to limit (in most cases) the number carried.

    Now if you were to ask the Italians and JAAF the same question, I am sure they would have made some changes. The Machi 202 was crying out for a couple of 20mm, it ruined what was a perfectly good fighter.

    As for the JAAF you have to almost feel sorry for those pilots going up against B25/B26/B17/B24's with only a couple of HMG's and pretty poor HMG's at that.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Redwood City
    Posts
    223
    On the Mc-202 -- Two .50 Bredas and two 7.7mm's is pretty pathetic.

    The Mc-205, too late to see really widespread service replaced the 7.7's with 20mm's. That and the improved engine made it a truly top notch fighter.

    The final evolution of Italian aeronautics, the G.55, had three 20mm's, two .50's and an even more powerful powerplant. Very few saw combat though.

    I'm not sure that structural reinforcement would have been necessary on the P-47 for six 20's. She might have just limited her bomb load to 500 pounders under each wing instead of 1,000 pounders. There would, of course, have been some trade off in performance due to the additional weight of the guns and ammo.

    As has been indicated already. Eight .50's were more than ample for dealing with axis fighters. I suspect that the air to ground role wopuld have been enhanced with a complement of six 20's though.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Berlin (Kreuzberg)
    Posts
    1,955
    For 6 20mm guns? Absolutely sure. Take the off center recoil forces into account, thatīs pretty much a doubling of recoilforces in case of the P47. No good news for a mid wing configuration. The airframe as a whole would hardly be able to susatin more than 0.1 recoil/weight ratio (above that margin the gunplatform isnīt stable enough for prolonged shootings). And there would arise a need in wing modification to carry the guns, the ammo and more important: To distribute the recoil forces. 234% the recoilforces of a "normal" P47 would make structural reinforcements necessary.

    P-47D: recoil force each wing: 167.04 Kp per salvo
    gas effects: 8.352 Kp
    Total energy: 350.7 Kp

    P47-Hispano MK II mod (3 guns each wing, mid wing configuration):
    recoil force each wing: 343.2 Kp per salvo
    gas effects: 68.64 Kp
    total energy: 823.68 Kp

    The heavier wings would probably reduce the performance somehow (higher wingload), a significant reduced rate of roll is obvious.

    [quote]:
    "As has been indicated already. Eight .50's were more than ample for dealing with axis fighters. I suspect that the air to ground role wopuld have been enhanced with a complement of six 20's though."

    Agreed upon that.
    Last edited by delcyros; 06-07-2006 at 06:12 PM.
    ---delcyros---

  8. #8
    Senior Member Jank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    679
    All that math and those numbers make me dizzy.

    All I know is that if a Hawker Hurricane Mk IIC weighing in at 8,000lbs combat loaded can do just fine with 4 twenty milimeter guns, a 14,500lb combat loaded P-47 would handle 6 twenty milimeter guns no problem.

    The P-47's wings and other structure is a hell of a lot more robust that a Hawker Hurricane.

    The Republic XP-72 had the same wings and tail as the P-47D. It was ordered to be produced having four 37mm guns! The XP-72 had a loaded weight that was 70lbs less than the P-47D.
    Last edited by Jank; 06-07-2006 at 09:55 PM.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Redwood City
    Posts
    223
    delcyros said, "The airframe as a whole would hardly be able to susatin more than 0.1 recoil/weight ratio (above that margin the gunplatform isnīt stable enough for prolonged shootings)."

    What does this theory tell you about the Hawker Hurricane's ability to handle 4 x 20mm's? How about the P-51A?

  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12
    Country
    United States
    Did the Hurricane have recoil problems when it fired its guns?

  11. #11
    Senior Member plan_D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    11,984
    Country
    United Kingdom
    Nope. The Hurricane was a stable gun-platform and the recoil off four Hispano II 20-mm cannon caused little, if any trouble to the plane. The Hurricane IIC was the most widely deployed Hurricane and this would not be the case if the plane had problems with the cannon armament.
    "When you go home tomorrow, don't expect anyone to know what you have been through. Even if they did know, most people probably wouldn't care anyway. Some of you may get the medals you deserve, many more of you will not. But remember this, all of you are now members of the front-line club, and that is the most exclusive club in the world." - Lt. Col. Matthew Maer CO 1st Battalion, the Princess of Wale's Royal Regiment. Camp Abu Naji, Oct. 2004

    To those in that club.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Grampa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    542

    Cool

    For me about the P-38 L.
    3 cannon in the nose and 2 placed in the wingroots. total 5 cannons. hows that?

  13. #13
    Senior Member Jank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    679
    I wonder if the two in the wing roots would be too close to the pilot for comfort's sake. The gun barrels would literally be within arm's reach!


  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Berlin (Kreuzberg)
    Posts
    1,955
    All I did is a lot of research regarding the recoil-weight ratios of different fighter airplanes. From what I can summarize, the ratio over 0.1 was never exceeded (including Me-262 and Fw190-those variants to exceed that ratio had a worrisome performance, the MK 103 equipped Fw190 was dropped because it reached horrible recoil forces), except for specialized ground attack planes (e.g.Hurricane, Hs-129, Il-2), which may exceed this. However, all these designs had structural reinforcements to carry the additional loads and recoil forces. The Huricane is no example for a fighter. So if You want to stay with a fighter is primary role, You should care about a decent recoil-weight ratio. I do suspect that the 0.5īs improved the steadiness of the gunplatform for US fighters in comparison with german ones, since US fighters barely exceeded a ratio of 0.05. The gunlayout in midwing position is also worrisome, they have more impact on the steadiness (in direct relation to the off centre rule).
    The XP-72 is a good example that You simply cannot put as many weapons on a n airplane as You want. This may also be a reason to drop the project.

  15. #15
    Pacific Historian syscom3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    12,123
    Quote Originally Posted by Grampa
    For me about the P-38 L.
    3 cannon in the nose and 2 placed in the wingroots. total 5 cannons. hows that?
    Not Good. That would take away some of the fuel cells and decrease range considerably.
    "Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?"

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast

LinkBacks (?)


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 137
    Last Post: 01-09-2009, 05:26 AM
  2. WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS
    By syscom3 in forum Aviation
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-13-2006, 03:55 PM
  3. Your armament?
    By schwarzpanzer in forum Aviation
    Replies: 165
    Last Post: 12-09-2005, 07:25 PM
  4. Late Bf 109 armament
    By Chocks away! in forum IL-2 Sturmovik Pilot's Lounge
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-05-2005, 01:02 PM
  5. F8F Bearcat Armament
    By Lightning Guy in forum Aircraft Requests
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 05-01-2005, 03:27 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86