Any other sources of pilots removing guns?

[buffnut453]

In last Stand Singapore, the author Graeme Clayton, relates that one of 488 sqaudron's
flight leaders (Flt Lt Mackenzie) had the amourers remove one of the fuslage mounted
.5 MG's and both wing mounted .5 MG's.
This was to allow his 339E Buffalo a major weight saving, to hopefully allow him to gain
sufficient altitude to shoot down a pesky Japanese Recon aircraft that flew over almost daily.
The Recon aircraft was so fast and at such altitude, that was able to fly rings around the AA bursts.

The story relates to one 339E Buffalo, with one .5MG, with one determined Kiwi pilot that whilst gaining
altutude, the Japanse Recon pilot sailed off into the never never, leaving a frustrated pilot and a
labouring 339E Buffalo.

As an add on, 488 Squadron retained the Buffalo's 4 .5MG's through out the fight over Malaya/Singapore,
the Kiwi pilots prefered the larger calibre for a kill, even though the guns didn't always work.

Regards

Alan

I'm not excusing the Buffalo's poor performance but we should, equally, be fair in recognizing that it's a tough challenge for any intercepting fighter to keep pace with a fast, high altitude recce aircraft if the fighter is still in a climb. I also wouldn't take Clayton's account as gospel - it includes several inaccuracies (although the specific story you relate may well have happened).

Cheers,
Mark

 

[LDSModeller]

I'm not excusing the Buffalo's poor performance but we should, equally, be fair in recognizing that it's a tough challenge for any intercepting fighter to keep pace with a fast, high altitude recce aircraft if the fighter is still in a climb. I also wouldn't take Clayton's account as gospel - it includes several inaccuracies (although the specific story you relate may well have happened).

Cheers,
Mark

Mark,

I gather you have read the book, and, you understand why Clayton wrote it.

The fact that he took his fathers journal/diary and info from other surviving
488 Squadron members, and put it together so people could know about the part
488 Squadron played should be praised. Unless of course the journals and memories
of veterans can't be gospel (irrespective of any historical failings), then we must view
all books written about Singapore /WWII in general with any veterans input in the same manner.

Claytons book, irrespective of any failings one might attribute, is a good read and helps
ordinary people see the events in Singapore etc through Kiwi eyes, as lariken as it may be.

Regards

Alan

 

[buffnut453]

Don't disagree. It's a great read and, more importantly, covers the oft-forgotten groundcrew perspective. My comments about accuracy are not about the individual perceptions that are recorded but rather with some of the broader statements that seem lifted from other works without checking the facts (eg criticism of the Buffalo because the nose was so wide the pilot had to waddle from side to side when taxying just to see where he was going - that was a common problem for all WWII fighters, and any that had a radial engine). I'd never argue with an individual's memory or perceptions, particularly in high-stress situations like combat - "truth" is such a willo' the wisp concept at the best of times!

 

[LDSModeller]

Don't disagree. It's a great read and, more importantly, covers the oft-forgotten groundcrew perspective. My comments about accuracy are not about the individual perceptions that are recorded but rather with some of the broader statements that seem lifted from other works without checking the facts (eg criticism of the Buffalo because the nose was so wide the pilot had to waddle from side to side when taxying just to see where he was going - that was a common problem for all WWII fighters, and any that had a radial engine). I'd never argue with an individual's memory or perceptions, particularly in high-stress situations like combat - "truth" is such a willo' the wisp concept at the best of times!

AFAIK first time author, yes you are right about some comments, such as you mentioned above.
All designed I'm sure to keep us on our collective toes

Regards

Alan

 

[buffnut453]

Writing a book is hard...and sometimes authors overstep their knowledge or understanding in the desire to make things more interesting. I admire Graham Clayton for getting his Father's recollections published. I accept my comments are probably over-critical, particularly given the paucity of info about 488 Sqn in particular. However, stronger focus on the groundcrew and less hypothesizing on what the pilots were doing would have improved the end result (IMHO). The challenge of trying to make a text sexier is not uncommon - I've given up reading Bergerud's "Fire in the Sky" twice now because I just couldn't get past the errors in his descriptions of basic flight dynamics and combat manoeuvres.

 

[HBPencil]

IIRC Air War for Burma, the third book in Christopher Shores' Bloody Shambles trilogy, states that some RAF Mohawk IVs had their wing guns removed so they only had the two nose guns. Apparently these could turn inside the Ki-43.

 

[Mike Williams]

I was just working with the 610 Operations Record Book for August 1944 and encountered the following passages regarding removal of .303 machine guns from their Spitfire XIV's.

8 Aug. 1944: During the past week intensive efforts have been made to get extra speed out of the aircraft, to give as much advantage as possible when chasing "divers". Filling "gunk" and polish have been used extensively. The 303's are being removed from some aircraft, and a lot of attention given to the fit of cowlings, etc.

13 Aug. 1944: Most of the aircraft now have the machine guns removed. The wings have been fitted with wooden plugs, and a smooth finish obtained with filler. As an additional aid to gaining the extra off m.p.h., the mirrors have been removed. Re-painting and polishing to improve the surface finish is still going on.​

 

[Milosh]

Mike were these modifications authorized by a higher authority?

 

[Glider]

IIRC Air War for Burma, the third book in Christopher Shores' Bloody Shambles trilogy, states that some RAF Mohawk IVs had their wing guns removed so they only had the two nose guns. Apparently these could turn inside the Ki-43.

This was also mentioned in an article in Air International some years ago. However the experiment failed as the aircraft were worn out and the firepower wasn't sufficient. As ot the turning inside the Ki43 I don't know but doubt it.

 

[Johnny .45]

As ot the turning inside the Ki43 I don't know but doubt it.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Doubt any fighter could do that, certainly not a P-40 variant. Maybe a Macchi C.202/205? Always wondered about that.

As for removing guns, I read that pilots of the Ar 196 floatplane would often remove their twin MG FF's to improve range performance. It came with a single MG 17 and twin 20mm's; the 20's were very powerful armament for a recon floatplane and came in handy, but in general they were overkill unless the pilot happened across an enemy Sunderland. A single RCMG is far more typical for such planes, and is only used to keep the gunners heads down during an attack. So often enough, the MG FF's would be disposed of, and the MG 17 kept.
I also seem to recall reading that the 20mm was sometimes removed from P-38's, as many pilots didn't like them and only used the .50cal's anyway, but don't quote me on that.
Same goes for later-model Polikarpov I-16's with the wing-mounted ShVAK cannon; they really hurt climb performance, and wing guns were unpopular with Russian pilots. The 20's were very effective, but a lot heavier than the .30's that the plane was designed with.
I believe someone already mentioned it, but Hurricane IIC pilots in the Mediterranean would often remove a pair of cannons to save weight. Apparently it made a significant difference in performance, and 2 Hispanos is still powerful armament. It also helped a lot when the pilot was carrying bombs, which put a real dent in performance.
And of course, since you didn't specify single engine aircraft, I'd have to add that heavy bombers frequently began disposing of guns and armor once the fighter opposition slacked off. First it was at the field level, they would ditch the radio-room and cheek guns in B-17's. Then they'd do away with the ball turret. By the end of the war, B-17's and -24's were coming from the factory without ball turrets, and some were flying missions with only a tail gunner. Not sure about British bombers.
The same is true with Japanese bombers like the G4M, but for a different reason. They would leave one or both waist gunners home, and rely on the tail and/or dorsal 20mm gun only. They were also designed to be flyable with a single pilot, so by 1944, most missions were single pilot. They would also form a formation in which only every third plane (or whatever) had a radioman, only some had a trained navigator. So a G4M with a nominal crew of 9 would often fly missions with only 4-5 or so crew.

 

[fastmongrel]

So a G4M with a nominal crew of 9 would often fly missions with only 4-5 or so crew.

Was this for performance or crew shortage reasons

 

[Greyman]

As ot the turning inside the Ki43 I don't know but doubt it.

Anecdotal, but this is what was reported (by 115 Squadron pilots at least).

 

[Shortround6]

I believe a flight test of a Hawk in England had it out turning a Spitfire and having better elevator control than the early Spitfires. You also have to consider that test reports are mostly done by experienced test pilots and some service pilots may not push the plane quit as hard or perhaps the pilot does not have the same tolerance for "G" forces. Most fighters would stand more "G"s than the pilot so hard turns were always done with the pilot on verge of blacking out. Having elevator controls that were not too twitchy in response could be an asset in a high "G" condition as a little extra up elevator results in a stall and possible spin.

 

[Maxrobot1]

Looking through an old issue of Air Classics magazine (Aug-Sept. 1965) I read an article by 11 Gp. Spitfire pilot (and later of 4th US Ftr Gp) James S. Macdonald about his time in the RAF:
" To get more speed out of the Mk. 5, I took its 4 machine guns out. For one thing, the .30 caliber guns weren't much good, and by relying on my two inboard 20mm cannon, I saved the weight of both the guns and their ammunition."
" By getting rid of the machine guns I not only increased speed and maneuverability, but could concentrate on the one button; for when firing a Spitfire's guns, there was more to it than just getting into position and firing the trigger."
From the article, it appears he is referring to late 1941.

 

[Milosh]

Looking through an old issue of Air Classics magazine (Aug-Sept. 1965) I read an article by 11 Gp. Spitfire pilot (and later of 4th US Ftr Gp) James S. Macdonald about his time in the RAF:
" To get more speed out of the Mk. 5, I took its 4 machine guns out. For one thing, the .30 caliber guns weren't much good, and by relying on my two inboard 20mm cannon, I saved the weight of both the guns and their ammunition."
" By getting rid of the machine guns I not only increased speed and maneuverability, but could concentrate on the one button; for when firing a Spitfire's guns, there was more to it than just getting into position and firing the trigger."
From the article, it appears he is referring to late 1941.

Was this gun removal authorized by some higher authority or was it just at the pilot's request?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Was this gun removal authorized by some higher authority or was it just at the pilot's request?

It "should have" been from a higher authority (a squadron maintenance officer) but I would bet dollars to donuts that sometimes pilots got their crew chiefs or maintainers to remove guns without authorization, especially earlier in the war (with regards to the USAAF). Additionally there had to be some coordination with the manufacturer as far as which guns can be removed without effecting over all operation. Weight and balance also had to be re-computed, and that effects official aircraft records. If I was a maintainer I wouldn't want to do anything that wasn't authorized, especially if my name could be traced within a document that is supposed to be maintained with the aircraft through out it's operational life. Again I would bet in 99% of the cases of guns being removed to enhance performance, the pilot had little to do with actually removing guns.

 

[Aozora]

I remember reading (somewhere, but where?) that when the modified, lightened P-40N-1 was delivered to frontline units it was fitted with four .50s, yet the wings were still designed to house three each side and the extra weapons were ferried in in the gun bays. (Heads to book shelf to find reference...)

 

[oldcrowcv63]

I remember reading (somewhere, but where?) that when the modified, lightened P-40N-1 was delivered to frontline units it was fitted with four .50s, yet the wings were still designed to house three each side and the extra weapons were ferried in in the gun bays. (Heads to book shelf to find reference...)

McDowell in Curtiss P-40 in Action (series no. 26) makes this statement on page 44 showing the aircraft layout and specs. Dann in P-40 Warhawk in Action (series no, 205) merely states that early production of the P-40N had 4 guns, a complement increased to 6 in later production. AFAICT, AHT seems to provide the same information as Dann.

 

[HBPencil]

I remember reading (somewhere, but where?) that when the modified, lightened P-40N-1 was delivered to frontline units it was fitted with four .50s, yet the wings were still designed to house three each side and the extra weapons were ferried in in the gun bays. (Heads to book shelf to find reference...)

I've read something similar about N-1s as well (can't recall where), except that the extra pair of .50s weren't ferried in the gun bays but were packed up with the aircraft when it was crated for shipping. From what I could tell many (most?) N-1s had the extra pair installed for operations.

 

[Aozora]

I've read something similar about N-1s as well (can't recall where), except that the extra pair of .50s weren't ferried in the gun bays but were packed up with the aircraft when it was crated for shipping. From what I could tell many (most?) N-1s had the extra pair installed for operations.

Doh! It's described in The Whole Nine Yards, page 131. It is also a myth that the N wings were changed structurally cf the earlier models.