Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Possibly even toggle-switch them
use up the two outboards, then toggle the inboards in
Choices
- Thread starter ralphwiggum
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
use up the two outboards, then toggle the inboards in
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
The P47 with paddle blade prop would have been ideal because of it's high altitude performance and firepower. To my mind the 8-50 cals with 425 rounds each would have been adequate. That firepower could disable a small destroyer or freighter. However, it would be no problem installing four 20 mms in the wings with lots of ammo.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
I'd still go for 30mm for sheer, knock-out hitting power
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
I don't know how many .50 rounds a B-17 could take, but from the battle damage pictures I've seen, it would be a LOT.
Anybody has pic of .50 and 30mmx90RB together, so we could compare?
davebender
1st Lieutenant
I agree.
If bombers are the main targets then nothing beats 4 nose mounted 30mm cannon like the Me-262 had. Putting them in the wings makes aiming more difficult but otherwise provides similiar knock-down power.
If bombers are the main targets then nothing beats 4 nose mounted 30mm cannon like the Me-262 had. Putting them in the wings makes aiming more difficult but otherwise provides similiar knock-down power.
- Thread starter
- #47
ralphwiggum
Airman
- 76
- Mar 15, 2008
Wantabe made a good point about the Hawker Tempest Now, IF I got my history right, Wasn't The Tempest Used to Destroy German Tanks? If It's true Couldn't They Clobber B-17's and Liberators?
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
The Typhoon was
though it's arguable how effective it really was against anything other than massed targets. In my opinion, the chin radiator would be vulnerable to .50 counter-fire from the bomber as it bored in but that may be a moot point, I can't see the Tempest reaching the altitude that the bombers operated at.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
The service ceiling of the P-40E was 29,000ft but would you want to bump into a P-47 in one at that altitude?
Sabre IIA offered 432mph @ 18,500ft
Sabre IIB offered 435mph @ 500ft higher
It's reminiscent of the almost-but-not-quite Fw190D vs the P-51D at the P-51's best altitude. The Sabre V came along mid-1944 and was still only offering single-stage supercharging.
Last edited:
billswagger
Airman 1st Class
- 256
- Mar 12, 2009
I'm still thinking P-47 would be the plane they'd want just because it had the turbo performance at higher altitudes that many of their fighters hadn't come close to until the war was over. Putting cannons in the wings would've been simple, but i'm not sure it would've been lighter for the same reasons the Hispano configurations were heavier. Cannons tend to have more recoil, and required heavier mounts. I know the Germans were better at making recoiless weapons so maybe it wouldnt make much difference with only a pair of 103s or 108s. (course these had some of the strongest recoil of the WW2 air war.)
I heard the Germans actually captured several (60) B-17 bombers and used them in several different ways including infiltrating Allied formations to give away coordinates.
I also know of one incident where they flew the bomber over the allied bombers for the sole purpose of dropping bombs on them.
I heard the Germans actually captured several (60) B-17 bombers and used them in several different ways including infiltrating Allied formations to give away coordinates.
I also know of one incident where they flew the bomber over the allied bombers for the sole purpose of dropping bombs on them.
