Choices

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

brain fart....meant to say P 38 ( editted the post ), the P 39 already had a 37mm ( hense the reason for vapor lock of the cranium). 39 had other problems besides lack of power..."she tumbles and spins and soon will auger in" was a drinking song about the plane. but the 38 could have really be a good platform for a 37mm...dont know.
 
I would think the Germans were pretty impressed by 8 .50's taking out their trains. The guns basically had a total hitting weight of a 4 inch projectile using ball ammo alone. Locomotive boilers had a pretty respectable wall thickness to contain steam pressure but they buckled under that kind of assault. I doubt your average American bomber of the time could have held up to that sheer weight and rate of delivery in the same manner they did with the slower firing German weapons. Time on target times the rate of fire puts 8 .50's as a definite better bomber killer. Add into the mix API rounds and you have a bit of an airborne buzz saw.
 
bobbysocks said:
...the P-38 could have really been a good platform for a 37mm... don't know.
Click to expand...
The Luftwaffe had no cause for complaint with the MK108 and I would have gone with that over the 37mm too. I'm not sure the P-38's nose had the same room as the Me262's so I'll go for 2 x MK108s and work on more ammunition with the remaining space.
 
I Think that bobbysocks has a good point about the 37mm gun Wouldn't the recoil be terrible? Wouldn't it practically stop a fighter in it's tracks?
 
If you are intercepting heavy bombers then you've got 30,000 feet of altitude to recover from your spin. Assuming you can get a P-39 up that high in the first place.
 
ralphwiggum said:
Wouldn't the recoil be terrible? Wouldn't it practically stop a fighter in it's tracks?
Click to expand...
Well, no
because it didn't, the Soviets operated the P-39 fitted with the 37mm cannon and I've not read of stalled P-39s dropping out of the sky due to excess recoil from the main armament. I understand that rate of fire has more to do with endangering an aircraft's forward motion and the WWII 37mm just didn't crank them out that fast; you would need to step forward to the present day and the GAU-8 of the A-10, which can only fire (I believe) in short bursts for the reasons you suggested.
 
I doubt your average American bomber of the time could have held up to that sheer weight and rate of delivery in the same manner they did with the slower firing German weapons.
Click to expand...

.50cal MG
M2 Browning machine gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MG151/20 Cannon.
MG 151 cannon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rate of fire 750 rpm

So....
The standard German 20mm cannon has a rate of fire similiar to the American .50cal MG.
The German 20mm cannon shell makes a significantly larger hole.
The German 20mm cannon contains a 18.6g HE burster while the U.S. .50cal round contains none.
And we haven't even considered the far more powerful Mk108 30mm cannon.
 
How about the Hawker Tempest. Enough heavy armament to bring down a bomber, great performance enough to handle the interceptors?
 
Well, the Gemans usually didn't try to throw all of their planes against the bombers. Based on the type (Fw190 vs Bf109) the 190 (with its heavier cannon armament) tended to go after the bombers while the 109 provided cover against any escorts.

If I wanted an allied type out-of-the-box simply for bomber-interception (assuming I'd steal a bunch of P-51s for anti-escort cover), I'd have to go with the P-38 with its mix of heavy cannon and .50 cals or any British type with four 20mm cannon. One thing to note is the radial engines could typically take more damage than in-lines, so I might try the P-47 or a cannon-armed Corsair variant. From the gun camera footage I've seen, most bomber kills were made during relatively straight attacks from behind, presumably in the face of determined tail gunners with lots of machine guns. This would require planes with extra protection from the front (for both engine and pilot). Did US and British fighters have the same degree of front protection? If not, would adding this affect their performance?
 
Oh, against the bombers.....

I guess my brain shut down when reading that part. I just read it as which plane would the Germans want against the Americans. Sorry..........

Yeah, perhaps the P-47 or as Wantanbe said, the Tempest. Lots of fire power in both of these very powerful planes. The F4U-C would have been a great choice also.
 
Mid War: P-38; With guns in the nose, I would switch out the 20mm for a 30mm, but leave the .50's as they were.

Late War: I am willing to go out on a limb here and say the P-61 Black Widow. 4 20mm and 4 .50's is a pretty heavy punch to contend with. Plus being close to centerline, no real convergence issue to deal with, so basically just pick a spot on the bomber and pull the trigger. With the P-61 Radar, it would be a good around the clock intercepter.
 
davebender said:
A fine aircraft but it enters service too late. Unless you want to give U.S. 8th Air Force a free ride during 1943 and the spring of 1944
Click to expand...
I'd go with the Centaurus-engined versions, just can't see that big chin radiator on the Sabre-engined versions taking much .50 coming back the other way...
 
Last edited:
How would it fare against daylight escorts?
 
Probably not too well to be honest with ya, But she has about as much of a chance as other German fighters, especially the 110 and Ju-88.

The radar probably wouldnt be much help in the daylight, but better at night time. I know this isnt the best canidate compaired to other aircraft available, but this would be one I would choose. I would engage it in a slashing style attack, with head on attacks being prefered, to fill the cockpit with as much 20mm and .50's as I can. Only 1 or 2 attacks and get out, hopefully before the escorts arrive. Im thinking at most 1 or 2 bombers will fall in a attack, with more than that being at night, where she would basically own the sky.
 
Last edited:
took a quick photo of the 37mm beside a 50 cal round. i was joking about the plane falling out of the sky...but it still had to shake the plane a little when fired.
 

Attachments

  • 37mm50cal.jpg
    54.5 KB · Views: 84
Clay_Allison said:
Could a P-47 be armed with 4 Mk 108s?
Click to expand...

Here is picture of various guns, including .50 Browning MK 108. My guess it that 1 cannon could've been fitted in lieu of two .50cals. Picture is from Tony Williams' site:
 

Attachments

  • AMgundrawJ.jpg
    61.1 KB · Views: 75
Yep, to me it looks like 2 Mk108's in each wing. Considering ammo, maybe between 30-60 rounds per gun. I dont know about weight though, but this is what I would probably put for ammo. But then again, with 4 of them mounted, probably wouldnt need much to bring down a bomber, just like the 262's did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

V
Engine choices for P-51 mustang ?
12 13 14
Replies
261
Views
22K
GrauGeist
1943: the best Japanese fighter
2
Replies
37
Views
8K
tomo pauk
Menu
Log in
Register