Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I had to like this posting. Anything that makes me laugh must be a like.Thats another way of saying what I have been. It worked therefore not a major concern to switch so they did not.
For the USAAF I agree!! But the USN wanted something more
So it was solved for one plane. Apparently that did not translate to we have a solution for all aircraft.After the SB2C all USN aircraft that entered service had 20mm. The F6F5 entered service before the SB2C-4. The last corsairs entered service after the SB-2C-4 and had 4 x 20mm.
So what you point? You act like 1 Spit with 20mm =death ye a book with more than 1 plane damaged with more than 1 20mm hit coming home US valueless info. Pick your argument basis an I will live with it, if you do.Yeah, right so the fact that Bob Johnson got home with pieces from his air cooled radial shot off proves what, exactly? I'm still waiting for your evidence that your initial claims are accurate
Do you go around your some fixing something that is not broken?I had to like this posting. Anything that makes me laugh must be a like.
Thats another way of saying what I have been. It worked therefore not a major concern to switch so they did not.
Also the F86 had fuselage mounted guns so effective range went out much farther. Another reason for then the .50 setup was acceptable.
Wow cant search or read The Supermarine Spitfire MkIX
F IX Merlin 61; 63 or 63A; two 20-mm. and four .303-in. guns.
LF IX Merlin 66; two 20-mm. and four .303-in. guns.
LF IX (e) Merlin 66; two 20-mm. and two .5-in. guns.
HF IX Merlin 70; two 20-mm. and four .303-in. guns.
HF IX (e) Merlin 70; two 20-mm. and two .5-in. guns.
PR XI Merlin 61; 63, 63A or 70.
F XVI Merlin 266; two 20-mm. and two .5-in. guns.
Appears about half were .50 options the other half everything else .
AN/M3 in aircraft .50 cal was 61 lbs vs 58 lbs for the MGFF so 2 lbs... wow
you also lose 290 M/S velocity (890 vs 600) which does (did) make a different in battle.
well, lets see,......Someone please cite number of fighter brought down with 20mm vs ...50cal otherwise you are living in a textbook world which rarely equal combat.
1937.When was the MGFF being installed in aircraft? 1940?
But the USN did go the extra mile and did all they could to install the 20mm. The first Helldivers had 4 x 0.5 but despite all the difficulties went with the 2 x 20mm until it was fixed on the -4 version. Clearly they thought the cost was worth the effort. If we believe you they wouldn't have bothered. Its a problem for you to explainBut wanting in the time of war has to be prioritized with resources other needs and expected results etc.
I will expand on my original statement. The .50 was sufficient for WWII. That is not saying the .50 setup was better but good enough. Good enough implies the powers that be at the time viewed a change would cost more than the benefit.
And the USAAF with the P61. Why would they do that if the 0.5 was good enough?Yes The US navy wanted a near one shot kill.
And all of them moved to 20mm where possible. Interesting why would they do that if the 0.5 was good enough?Meanwhile every major player in WWI had used .50s as some or all of their armament on their planes.
The Germans replaced the LMG with a HMG, The British replaced the LMG with an HMG. No one replaced a 20mm with an HMGNone of this 20mm hype makes sense for these countries to added weight for something that is such alleged limited value. They were not that dumb.
Apparently it did. No USN aircraft that entered service after the (4) version of the Helldiver had 0.5in, they all had 20mm.So it was solved for one plane. Apparently that did not translate to we have a solution for all aircraft.
What you have is one person who constantly made claims which are so wrong its untrue. Examples:-I am trying to generalize the .50 cal vs 20mm debate and the only data to date is a few websites with textbook data, 1 pic of a spit with 20mm damage, volumes of type of 20mm and gun data, the WISH the USN wanted to change but never put on high enough priority to get in quantity production in WWII, and no 3 or 4 planes with short runs and some mixed armament are not quantity in WWII. Say 10,000 planes with 20mm and that is different, the US built ~99,000 planes in 1944 alone.
But wanting in the time of war has to be prioritized with resources other needs and expected results etc.
I will expand on my original statement. The .50 was sufficient for WWII. That is not saying the .50 setup was better but good enough. Good enough implies the powers that be at the time viewed a change would cost more than the benefit.
None of this 20mm hype makes sense for these countries to added weight for something that is such alleged limited value. They were not that dumb.
So what you point? You act like 1 Spit with 20mm =death ye a book with more than 1 plane damaged with more than 1 20mm hit coming home US valueless info. Pick your argument basis an I will live with it, if you do.
.After pulling out of an uncontrolled spin and with the fire amazingly going out on its own, Johnson headed for the English Channel, but was intercepted by a single Fw 190. Unable to fight back, he maneuvered while under a series of attacks, and although sustaining further heavy damage from both 7.92mm and 20mm rounds, managed to survive until the German ran out of ammunition, who, after saluting him by rocking his wings, turned back. His opponent has never been identified, but Johnson could have been one of three victories claimed that day by the commander of III/JG 2, Oberst Egon Mayer.[2] [N 1]After landing, Johnson tried to count the bullet holes in his airplane, but when he passed 200, including 21, 20 mm cannon shell impacts, without even moving around the aircraft, he gave up
While your posting, would you like to support this statement of yours with some evidence?
I already said half go read.WoW. Different versions but no comparison of actual numbers produced of each variation.
First MK IX Spitfire built in June of 1942, 5656 built, how many with .50 cal guns?
First MK XVI built in Oct 1944. 1054 built.
Now can you tell us WHEN the .50 cal guns began to be installed?
And of course the MK IX and MK XVI made up what percentage of the Spitfires built?
Same to you... where is you proof they ordered only 20mm versions of all aircraft ?After the Fall of 1944 the NAVY did NOT ORDER an new fighter with .50 cal guns. All fighters armed with .50 cal guns delivered in 1945/46 had been ordered prior to the end of 1944.
So a statement and no proof.
Prove itHow about just about every Axis plane shot down by a British fighter after the Spring of 1941?
You mean like the many dozens I have read long before the internet.You might also want to try reading a few books rather than depend on the web.
But the did NOT in WWII. Production delivered .5.0 cal vastly outnumber 20mm equipped aircraft. You are argue ordered with no proof vs actual delivered which anyone can confirm.The Navy WAS switching, so I guess it must have been a concern.
This is more evidence of the effectiveness of the 20mm than you have ever shown: in the meantime please show us your evidence for the definitive statements you have made which have ignited this whole "debate".
Apparently every other country, apart from the U.S was dumb enough to accept the added weight and effectiveness of 20mm over .50 cal so , unlike you, they recognized that "good enough" was not "good enough" and that .50 cal was not "sufficient" for their purposes.
prove it.Blending in other countries 20mm guns, I would venture to say that a large number of the planes shot down by Luftwaffe fighters were brought down by the 20mm cannon, unless you think that the pair of 7.9mm machine guns were doing the majority of the damage. Same goes for the Japanese Zero. How many planes shot down the the Russian LA-5 in 3 years?