Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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
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!
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.
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 ot the turning inside the Ki43 I don't know but doubt it.
So a G4M with a nominal crew of 9 would often fly missions with only 4-5 or so crew.
Anecdotal, but this is what was reported (by 115 Squadron pilots at least).As ot the turning inside the Ki43 I don't know but doubt it.
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.
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.Was this gun removal authorized by some higher authority or was it just at the pilot's request?
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 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.