Best armed fighter

[renrich]

My source gives the TA152H-1 as one engine mounted 30 MM with 90 rds. and two 20 mm with 150 to 175 rds. These are firing through the propellor arc and will be synchronised. This armament is clearly designed to bring down bombers. An interesting parallel between a comparison of TA 152 and the P51D in ACM,(I don't know that they ever met), and the Mig 15 and F86. The TA152 had a 30 and two 20 mm cannon. The P51D had those six,(and sometime only four), 50 BMGs. The TA could outclimb the 51, had better high altitude performance and a higher service ceiling, ( some of these characteristics would apply to the FW190D9 also, climb and armament.) The Mig had the 30 mm and the 2- 20 mms and the advantage in climb and service ceiling over the F86 and the F86 had 6-nose mounted 50 BMGs, allegedly outmoded. From what I have read the P51D was at least equal to the FW190D9 and we will never know about the Ta. The F86 was clearly superior to the Mig as far as results. I have read that the 30 mm in the Mig was not at all effective against the Sabre, the 20s more so. The six fifties in the F86 seemed to get the job done. On the other hand, in the few encounters the straight wing F9F, with four 20 mms, had with Migs the F9F had the edge. Obviously a lot depended on pilot skills and other factors such as perhaps gunsights, although one Sabre driver is said to have said "stick a piece of gum on the windshield, stick the gum up his tailpipe, and let him have it ." What it all boils down to is that if you can't hit your target with your gun, it doesn't matter how big your gun is, which is the reason you hunt doves with seven and one halves or eights not fours.

 

[Glider]

Thanks for the Information. I hadn't thought about it, but it is an interesting comparison with the F86/Mig 15.
Its only fair to admit that I belng to the F86 being underguned camp. It was OK against the Mig 15, but believe that it would have struggled against a B29 type of target.
The 4 x Mk V 20mm I see as being a good middle ground.
Thanks again

 

[HoHun]

Hi Glider,

>I don't disagree with this either, what I like about the G55 was how long it could continue firing. Its a personal preference.

That's just the muzzle loader effect - ammunition lasts long if firepower is low.

>Chauvanistic nothing

Well ... of course none of the countless replies I got over the years which chose to ignore superior Luftwaffe technology at the respective most convenient moment have been motivated by anything but impartial and unbiased interest. Still, after a couple of thousand repetitions I seem to discern a certain pattern ...

>I always liked the 4 x 20 Hispano V grouped in the nose. Maximum firepower, very good long range shooting, good rate of fire.

Not "maximum" in the context of WW2's best armed fighters, as there are quite a few that surpass it.

Me 262: 20,1 MW
Fw 190A-8/R2: 13 MW
Ta 152H: 7,6 MW
Fw 190A-8: 5,5 MW
Me 109K-4: 5,5 MW
Beaufighter Mk 21: 5,3 MW
Tempest: 4,9 MW
Fw 190A-4: 4,3 MW
Meteor: 4,2 MW
Typhoon: 4,2 MW
Fiat G.55: 4,1 MW

Long range shooting according to the RAF combat experience was a fringe phenomenon - 86% of the kills were achieved at ranges of 400 yards and less, and within those 400 yards again far more kills were achived at the shorter ranges than the longer ones.

That's the reason it pays off in air combat to increase firepower at the cost of long-range capability ... as the Ta 152H armament does, which yields almost twice the firepower of the Meteor's.

>However I didn't count it as it was in small numbers.

"Zero" air-to-air kills?

>The Mk103 is a fearsome weapon, but it does have a very slow ROF and its very heavy.

The MK 103 is in fact lighter than the Hispano II if you consider comparable batteries:

1x MK 103 - 138 rpg, 20 s duration - 268 kg - 4,1 MW firepower - firepower per weight: 15,2 kW/kg
4x Hispano II - 204 rpg, 20 s duration - 401 kg - 4,2 MW firepower - firepower per weight: 10,6 kW/kg

So a single MK 103 equates the firepower of four Hispano II cannon, and for equal duration of fire comes out at just 67% of the total weight.

>If I was up against a B29 then its my weapon of choice, against a fighter thats trying to evade then the 4 x 20 Mk V would get my vote.

I think you are confusing the MK 108 and the MK 103. Are you aware that the Ta 152H used the fast firing, light MK 108 and the MK 103 is the larger high-velocity weapon with a greater muzzle velocity than the Hispano V?

>As an aside, I don't know how much ammo the Ta152 carried do you know?

The Ta 152H as the most lightly armed variant of the series carried 85 x 30 mm and 2 x 175 x 20 mm.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Glider]

HoHun
Turn it down a bit, all I was doing was pointing out that I chose the G55 over the Meteor because of the small numbers involved, nothing more and nothing less. If that applied to all then the Ta152 would also fit that catergory.

If you want to compare the guns carried on the Ta152 with those on the Meteor then thats fine by me. Its my personal view that the 4 x 20mm Mk V in the nose of the Meteor, is a better all round system than that carried on the Ta 152.

I have said that the Mk103 is a fearsome weapon but it is heavy and does have a slow ROF for taking on agile fighters. No one is doubting the additional throw weight of the Ta152 but personally I don't think that is everything. The 2 x 20mm 151s are good but not exceptional for fighter work.

The 4 x 20mm Mk V in the nose has all the advantages of concentrated fire, longer range which can be very helpful when attacking bomber formations, a high rate of fire which would make it deadly against fighters, just a better all round set of weapons.

The comparison with the Mig 15 vs the F86 made by Rerich is a valid example of a twin weapon system which was lethal against bombers but not as good against fighters.

 

[Juha]

Hello Glider
have been busy but on Tempest
IMHO (almost all of my limited shooting experience is from my 11 months compulsory military service, so I'm an amateur) the problems in long range shooting were not so significant. IIRC British pilots, who were not as indoctrinated to close range combat as Finns, usually harmonized their guns to 250-300yards, so the spread was broad as at 0y at 500-600y. IMHO ability to hit a fighter from 500-600y using WWII reflector sight was more in question of luck and "touch "/"instinct" than science. As res. vänr. (P/O) Puhakka, a future top ace of FAF, showed in 29 Jan 40 when he shot down a Soviet DB-3M bomber from 600-750m distance using one Oerlikon FF wing cannon (the one in other wing was jammed).

On the other hand, good fighter pilots could be very effective even with rather lightly armed fighters, as luutnantti (F/O) Sarvanto showed on 6 Jan 40. Armed with four .303 Brownings it was possible to shoot down 6 DB-3Ms in one engagement, even if DB-3M had protected fuel tanks and some armour protection for the dorsal gunner and for the pilot. And those were not claims but were verified by wreckages and in late 80s also by Soviet documents.

HoHun
we have argued on this earlier, so I have no need to repeat my points. Only one fact from our earlier discussion, the gravity drop for MG 151/20 was 1m at 280m from the muzzle of the barrel. Was that significant or not is a matter of opinion.

And there was at least one LW ace who told Finns that the layout of armament in Hurricane had its merits, he had personal experience on that, not a nice one.

Juha

 

[HoHun]

Hi Glider,

>Turn it down a bit, all I was doing was pointing out that I chose the G55 over the Meteor because of the small numbers involved, nothing more and nothing less.

Your words, direct quote:

"Also the Ta152 I would ignore as being irrelevent. Only a handful (more a pinch) went into action and a Meteor would be a better aircraft."

Do you seriously mean to suggest that the second sentence does not refer to the Ta 152 but to the G.55? No way I'm going to believe you ...

>I have said that the Mk103 is a fearsome weapon but it is heavy and does have a slow ROF for taking on agile fighters. No one is doubting the additional throw weight of the Ta152 but personally I don't think that is everything. The 2 x 20mm 151s are good but not exceptional for fighter work.

The Ta 152H does not have a MK 103.

The MG 151/20 may be "good but not exceptional for fighter work" - hardly better than the Hispano V -, but the MK 108 is "exceptional for fighter work". It has single-hit kill potential, and "fighter work" is short-range combat. Look at the RAF war experience ... 86 % of all kills at 370 m and less.

>The 4 x 20mm Mk V in the nose has all the advantages of concentrated fire

The 2 x 20 mm and 1 x 30 mm in the nose of the Ta 152H has all the advantages of concentrated fire, too.

>longer range which can be very helpful when attacking bomber formations,

This is an unproven claim. The Luftwaffe considered the hit rate to drop with the square of the firing range, and measured the danger to their fighters in exposure time, ranking their anti-bomber weapons by the time required to destroy an enemy bomber - not by the maximum distance at which it might be attacked. The MK 108 came out as second-best anti-bomber weapon, with the best being the MK 213C.

>a high rate of fire which would make it deadly against fighters,

"Rate of fire" is not deadliness. Deadliness is the product of rate of fire and kill probability of the projectile. Thus, the firepower values I posted are direct indicators of the deadliness of the guns, regardless of the rate of fire. (Basic stochastics, really ...)

>The comparison with the Mig 15 vs the F86 made by Rerich is a valid example of a twin weapon system which was lethal against bombers but not as good against fighters.

One can't look at the strategical results of a confrontation between two air forces and then blame their guns for their results. The question is, "What did the Air Forces learn from the combat experience?" ... and this yields the exact opposite answer.

What really happened is that the F-86's armament was considered so seriously inadequate that a crash program was initiated to replace its weaponry with cannon (Project GUNVAL) even before the end of the war, practically ending the era of 12.7 mm machine guns as USAF fighter guns, while the Soviets considered the MiG-15's armament superior to that of the F-86 and continued to use the same battery in the MiG-17, with cannon of 23 mm calibre actually becoming the smallest calibre guns used in Soviet fighters after the Korean War.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[HoHun]

Hi Juha,

>we have argued on this earlier, so I have no need to repeat my points.

Hm, that was a thread on snap shots vs. tracking shots. This one is slightly different, so don't hesitate to add stuff if you think it's of relevance

>And there was at least one LW ace who told Finns that the layout of armament in Hurricane had its merits, he had personal experience on that, not a nice one.

I'd imagine being hit by gunfire was not a nice experience regardless of the exact type and setup of the guns

(On a more serious note, the pilot hit by the Hurricane would not really have a way to compare his experience to what it would have been had he been hit by something else ...)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Juha]

Hello HuHun
The German ace's opinion was that if the enemy had flown by 109F, the ace's plane had not taken any hits. Ie in some cases one was hit because of the spread of wing mounted armament sometimes one wasn't hit because of that

Juha

 

[KrazyKraut]

The Mig had the 30 mm and the 2- 20 mms and the advantage in climb and service ceiling over the F86 and the F86 had 6-nose mounted 50 BMGs, allegedly outmoded. From what I have read the P51D was at least equal to the FW190D9 and we will never know about the Ta. The F86 was clearly superior to the Mig as far as results. I have read that the 30 mm in the Mig was not at all effective against the Sabre, the 20s more so. The six fifties in the F86 seemed to get the job done.

There are a million factors involved so a valid conclusion on a single factor is impossible. Tactics, training, radar and of course gunsights. And we all know that the USAF was not at all pleased with the armament of the F86. Not to even mention we are talking about 1,75 times the combat speeds here, the whole scenario is pretty different.

The Ta 152 was not optimized for taking down bombers. Not more so than any other German fighter of that time. Its armament was supposed to give it a good all around performance against various types of planes, including bombers.

 

[Glider]

Hi Glider,

Your words, direct quote:

"Also the Ta152 I would ignore as being irrelevent. Only a handful (more a pinch) went into action and a Meteor would be a better aircraft."

Do you seriously mean to suggest that the second sentence does not refer to the Ta 152 but to the G.55? No way I'm going to believe you ...

Henning, this started because I first nominated the Tempest then changed to the G55. I mentioned that I would have preferred the Meteor but left it out because of the small numbers and if that applied to them all then the Ta152 would not be in the list.
I made an error in the above posting and meant that the Meteor would in my view would be better armed. Apologies for the error

>I have said that the Mk103 is a fearsome weapon but it is heavy and does have a slow ROF for taking on agile fighters. No one is doubting the additional throw weight of the Ta152 but personally I don't think that is everything. The 2 x 20mm 151s are good but not exceptional for fighter work.

The Ta 152H does not have a MK 103.

I thought it did, simple mistake.

The MG 151/20 may be "good but not exceptional for fighter work" - hardly better than the Hispano V -, but the MK 108 is "exceptional for fighter work". It has single-hit kill potential, and "fighter work" is short-range combat. Look at the RAF war experience ... 86 % of all kills at 370 m and less.

True but they never went up aganist massed bombers

>The 4 x 20mm Mk V in the nose has all the advantages of concentrated fire

The 2 x 20 mm and 1 x 30 mm in the nose of the Ta 152H has all the advantages of concentrated fire, too.

True

>longer range which can be very helpful when attacking bomber formations,

This is an unproven claim. The Luftwaffe considered the hit rate to drop with the square of the firing range, and measured the danger to their fighters in exposure time, ranking their anti-bomber weapons by the time required to destroy an enemy bomber - not by the maximum distance at which it might be attacked. The MK 108 came out as second-best anti-bomber weapon, with the best being the MK 213C.

No doubt true, but the Mk108 being the most effective bomber destroyer has a very low MV making it unsuitable for long range fire. By getting close they were exposed to the bombers fire.
Also is it possible that the high success rate against bombers was helpd by the guns use in nightfighters?

>a high rate of fire which would make it deadly against fighters,

"Rate of fire" is not deadliness. Deadliness is the product of rate of fire and kill probability of the projectile. Thus, the firepower values I posted are direct indicators of the deadliness of the guns, regardless of the rate of fire. (Basic stochastics, really ...)

Rate of fire has a direct relationship on the ability to hit the target. The shell can be as deadly as it want if it cannot hit the target its pretty useless.
Can I nominate the Mollins 6pd on the Mossie as the best armed fighter? They did shoot down a Ju88 with it in the one attack it was used in, giving it a 100% hit rate.

>The comparison with the Mig 15 vs the F86 made by Rerich is a valid example of a twin weapon system which was lethal against bombers but not as good against fighters.

One can't look at the strategical results of a confrontation between two air forces and then blame their guns for their results. The question is, "What did the Air Forces learn from the combat experience?" ... and this yields the exact opposite answer.

What really happened is that the F-86's armament was considered so seriously inadequate that a crash program was initiated to replace its weaponry with cannon (Project GUNVAL) even before the end of the war, practically ending the era of 12.7 mm machine guns as USAF fighter guns, while the Soviets considered the MiG-15's armament superior to that of the F-86 and continued to use the same battery in the MiG-17, with cannon of 23 mm calibre actually becoming the smallest calibre guns used in Soviet fighters after the Korean War.

As it happens I agree that the important thing is what did each air force learn from the battles.
The USAF
They learnt that the 0.5 wasn't sufficient and went to The 20mm, please note my reply to Renrich.
The Soviet Airforce
The first fighter designed after Korea was the Mig 19 which went to 3 x 30mm.. The Mig 17 was designed before Korea.



Regards,

 

[Glider]

HoHun
Can I ask how you calculate your numbers for effectiveness. Antony Williams site which I am sure you know, gives differing numbers.

His numbers would give the Ta152 and Tempest very similar stats.

 

[KrazyKraut]

The MiG-19 started with the same NR-23 that was used in Korea.

 

[Glider]

I wasn't aware of that but the important thing for the exchange is that they didn't carry the 37mm.
Thanks for the info

 

[HoHun]

Hi Glider,

>I made an error in the above posting and meant that the Meteor would in my view would be better armed. Apologies for the error

Aw, OK - let's forget it.

>No doubt true, but the Mk108 being the most effective bomber destroyer has a very low MV making it unsuitable for long range fire.

Not really, it just required the pilot to apply extra elevation for long range fire. That would have decreased accuracy with a fixed sight, but you might have seen the comparison between MK 108 and high-velocity MK 103 which I posted recently in another thread on this board that shows that with the EZ 42 calculating sight, the MK 108 looked pretty good even at long ranges.

>By getting close they were exposed to the bombers fire.

The situation is symmetrical - fighters and bombers hit each other better at closer range, regardless of the actual distance. Only a very long-ranged weapon such as the 50 mm cannon tried on the Me 410 could hope to outrange the bomber weapons, and that approach had problems of its own.

>Also is it possible that the high success rate against bombers was helpd by the guns use in nightfighters?

The Luftwaffe ranking I mentioned was based on the weapons' performance parameters, so statistical fluctuations did not affect it. The two most highly prioritized parameters were duration of the burst necessary to kill a four-engined bomber, and the weight of the battery.

>Rate of fire has a direct relationship on the ability to hit the target. The shell can be as deadly as it want if it cannot hit the target its pretty useless.

If you have a 10% hit chance, 10% of the projectile will hit the target no matter what the rate of fire is. It doesn't matter if you fire 1000, hit with 100 or fire 10 and hit with 1 - what matters is the probability of kill per projectile.

If the 1000 you fired in the first case have a Pk of 0.2% each, and the 10 you fired in the second case have a Pk of 50% each, your chances for a kill are 20% in the first case and 50% in the second case.

Rate of fire only determines how long all of that takes, not how likely a kill is.

>The Mig 17 was designed before Korea.

Its armament was not changed after Korea though - just as I said, the Soviets continued to use the MiG-15's battery in the MiG-17.

>The first fighter designed after Korea was the Mig 19 which went to 3 x 30mm.

Soviet fighters employed a greater variety of fighter guns than the US fighters, but 23 mm remained a common Soviet fighter gun calibre long after the Korean war, being used for example by the MiG-21 and MiG-23.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[HoHun]

Hi Glider,

>Can I ask how you calculate your numbers for effectiveness. Antony Williams site which I am sure you know, gives differing numbers.

I have pointed out my method above, and you'll even find it on Tony's site as well as he added it to his effectiveness page after we discussed the disadvantages of his "rule of thumb" approach on another forum.

>His numbers would give the Ta152 and Tempest very similar stats.

The disadvantage of his rule of thumb approach is that it underestimates low-velocity, high-explosive shells like the MK 108's, so this fits into the picture.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Gnomey]

......

 

[renrich]

Glider, If you recall I did bring up the experience( very limited) of the Navy jets with 4-20 mms against Migs and I believe that all the USN fighters except a few manufactured during WW2, in Korea, had gone to the 20 mms. I will repeat that I have read that the Mig's 30 mm was not thought to be very effective against fighters because of low ROF and low velocity. The factor which played a big role in forcing the retirement of the 50 BMG as a primary weapon in ACM was that jet aircraft did not have as many vulnerable parts and areas as piston AC have, so hits by a kinetic energy projectile like the 50 BMG were not nearly as likely to be productive. The 50 BMG in WW2 was a decidedly effective weapon although certainly not as effective as the various cannon rds on a rd for rd basis. Because of it's long range, flat trajectory and high velocity and high rate of fire if it were well aimed a lot of hits could be obtained and the bullets could pierce light armor plate, engine blocks and almost all of the structure of an AC. I have fired a 50 BMG at trucks and personnel carriers on the range and it is amazing what those bullets will do. Having said that the US 20 mms were also effective once teething problems were solved. Compare the following: 50 BMG weight-70 pounds, ROF-800 to 900 RPM, muzzle velocity- 2550 to 2840 fps, max. effective range-900 yards. 20 mm weight- 129 pounds, ROF-600 RPM, muzzle velocity-2920 FPS, max effective range-2400 yards. The factors I am unaware of are the ballistic coefficient of the 20 mm projectile which have a big effect on trajectory and flight time, the recoil effect and of course the amount of ammo carried. The fact that the A6M early on only carried 60 rounds per gun of cannon ammo had a very deletorius impact on the Zero effectiveness because of it's puny nose mounted armament. The low number of cannon rounds may have played a major role in the Midway debacle causing the IJN flight decks to be tied up by Zeros landing and rearming so that the second strike could not be launched before the US dive bombers got their licks in. As you can see the US 20 mm weighed considerably more than the 50 BMG and if four were carried in the wings, there would be a considerable wight gain over six fifties and the ammo weighed more also. Recoil forces must have been considerably more for the 20s. All these factors would have more effect on the lighter fighters versus the heavy and robust ones. Taking all this into account and discounting AC performance it seems likely the best armed fighter against another fighter would be the P38 with 150 rounds of 20mm cannon ammo and 500 rounds per gun for the fifties, all mounted in the nose with no synchronisation issues and with no convergence issues. On the other hand, against bombers, the P61 with four 20mms and four 50 BMGs would seem to be the winner, for many of the same reasons as the P38.

 

[kool kitty89]

HoHun, while I completely agree on the "muzzel loader effect" (the only advantage would be with pilots, mainly rookies, that tend to fire long burst and run their ammo out too quickly on low probability shots) you must agree that total ammo power is a seperate issue.

You said:

The total energy of the cannon rounds you describe comes down to 82.4 MJ. The Ta 152H had 67.2 MJ worth of cannon ammunition

Which clearly shows that the G.55 had a higher total ammo power, granted at a lower fire power.

Also note the Re.2005 has a similar armament. (though different ammo load, with 350 rph for the 12.7mm's, 200 rpg for the wing cannon, and 150 rpg for the engine cannon) And according to wikipedia's figures, the G.55 had 300 rph 12.7mm, 200 rpg for the wing 20mm's, and 250 rpg for the nose cannon.


The ammo load for the Ta 152's wing root 20mm's seems unnecessarily low given that the Fw 190 had 250 rpg for these guns.

I also beleive the Ta 152H was intended (high altitude optimized) for fighter vs fighter combat, not specifically for bomber interception. If the latter had meen the case, a heavier armament would be likely be fitted. (like outer wing MK 108's)

 

[Glider]

Hi Glider,

>No doubt true, but the Mk108 being the most effective bomber destroyer has a very low MV making it unsuitable for long range fire.

Not really, it just required the pilot to apply extra elevation for long range fire. That would have decreased accuracy with a fixed sight, but you might have seen the comparison between MK 108 and high-velocity MK 103 which I posted recently in another thread on this board that shows that with the EZ 42 calculating sight, the MK 108 looked pretty good even at long ranges.

Again I don't disagree but your getting close to the core of my point. If you allow for the ballistic drop of the Mk108, then the 20mm are going to miss. RAF aircraft also had sophisticated sights and they would be hitting with all their 20mm.

>By getting close they were exposed to the bombers fire.

The situation is symmetrical - fighters and bombers hit each other better at closer range, regardless of the actual distance. Only a very long-ranged weapon such as the 50 mm cannon tried on the Me 410 could hope to outrange the bomber weapons, and that approach had problems of its own.

Again true but to a degree, the fixed gun is more accurate than the turret and the HMG loses more of its effectiveness at longer ranges. So by getting close you lose a lot of the advantages of the fixed wing fighter.

If you have a 10% hit chance, 10% of the projectile will hit the target no matter what the rate of fire is. It doesn't matter if you fire 1000, hit with 100 or fire 10 and hit with 1 - what matters is the probability of kill per projectile.

If the 1000 you fired in the first case have a Pk of 0.2% each, and the 10 you fired in the second case have a Pk of 50% each, your chances for a kill are 20% in the first case and 50% in the second case.

Rate of fire only determines how long all of that takes, not how likely a kill is.

Again I agree to a degree. The holy Grail is a gun with a high ROF and good ballistics, combined with a shell that give a good PK.
The Mk108 has a high ROF, Poor Ballistics and a High PK which means getting close.
The 20mm MkV has a High ROF, good ballistics and for a 20mm a good PK, which is assisted by having four of them. As mentioned a number of times I believe this is a more flexible arrangement.

>The Mig 17 was designed before Korea.

Its armament was not changed after Korea though - just as I said, the Soviets continued to use the MiG-15's battery in the MiG-17.

Neither were the weapons carried in the USAF F86. However the one that was designed post Korea for Australia had 2 x 30mm Aden.

>The first fighter designed after Korea was the Mig 19 which went to 3 x 30mm.

Soviet fighters employed a greater variety of fighter guns than the US fighters, but 23 mm remained a common Soviet fighter gun calibre long after the Korean war, being used for example by the MiG-21 and MiG-23.

Again true but the point was that the first Soviet fighter produced after Korea went to a single weapon, away from a split 37mm/23mm payload. They had learnt the lesson.
I think I am correct in saying that no other fighter post war had a mixed payload be it 37mm/23mm or 30mm/20mm.

 

[kool kitty89]

Renrich, note the MiG-15 carried the 37mm N-37 and 2x 23mm NS-23's (later replace with higher RoF NR-23's).

The 37 mm weapon was heavy and fairly slow firing in fact the standard 37mm HE shell only carried ~60% the explosive content of the much smaller 30 mm Mine shells of WWII. (granted there would be more shrapnel) The 23 mm's were medium velocity with decent rates of fire.


On the F-86, there were some variants fitted with 4x 20mm M39 revolver cannon. (including some F-86E's in trials in Korea) The F-86H had this as the Main armament. (as did the F-86K, though that was not a "normal" Sabre, but an all weather interceptor like the F-86D)

IMO the USAF should have followed the USN/USMC with the use of the M3 Hispano (in batteries of 4 in the nose of their F2H and F9F), and later the electric primed M24 with the USAF and then the M39. (though the Navy chose the somewhat problematic Colt Mk.12 cannon)