Groundhog Thread Part Deux - P-39 Fantasy and Fetish - The Never Ending Story (Mods take no responsibility for head against wall injuries sustained) (2 Viewers)

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

MIflyer said:
Pilot reports of .50 cal API were very favorable. There were F6F's that shot down Vals with only one round.

Not a lot of room for radios in a P-39.

View attachment 595130
Click to expand...
Radios were in the tail cone. If you remove the 100lb armor from the nose you only need to remove 100lbs from the tail. Moving the radios up to right behind the pilot/above the engine accomplished that since that was practically on the center of gravity.

This is just what I have come up with, as I said Bell managed to maintain CG when substituting the 20mm (140lbs lighter) for the 37mm cannon. I don't know exactly how they did it, but they did. In his book "Cobra", Birch Matthews mentioned that in the P-39M the nose armor was no longer needed from a balance standpoint. Since all P-39 airframes were essentially the same one would think that getting rid of that nose armor would have been relatively easy.
 
Last edited:
What is your view on the reliability of the American 20mm cannon? Supposedly it was less reliable than the British version, both copies of the same gun.
 
P-39 Expert said:
What is your view on the reliability of the American 20mm cannon? Supposedly it was less reliable than the British version, both copies of the same gun.
Click to expand...
It was less reliable than the British version (Licence built) to start with as the British had modified theirs due to test results. Americans started with looser tolerances in general and a chamber about 1mm longer (?). The longer chamber allowed the cartridge to move forward when hit by the firing pin, this lead to a light primer strike and misfires. The Americans finally did get it straightened out but it took far to long. The Hispano was also sensitive to mounting, after all, it was designed to be bolted to a roughly 1000lb engine. The P-38s seem to have done OK, in part due the gun being mounted in a rather heavy cradle. Many of the wing guns (or even belly pack guns) did not get this heavy cradle.

In the US there was quite a bit of finger pointing as the gun makers blamed the ammunition makers and the ammunition makers blamed the gun makers.

However, as with with any weapon that spanned 6-7 years (first Hispano 404 cannon for the US was shipped in Feb 1938, the Americans did NOT get the Hispano from the British)
one sentence does not cover the whole situation. Four Companies built a total of 134,638 guns during WW II. after gun number 56,410 the American guns were identical to the British guns for all practical purposes. Which does leave a lot of guns in storage or out in service establishing a bad reputation. The final tally was:

The Navy got....................................21,228 guns
the Army got....................................13,272 guns
The British got..................................44,474 guns
stored:
...........Servicable...............................19,092 guns
.........UNservicable...........................35,995 guns
Lost or worn out...................................692 guns. (US service?)

By far the largest producer was Oldsmobile but even they stopped production in Feb 1944.

This is because the Americans had developed their own lightened, faster firing version called the T-31 of which 32,326 were produced by modifying most of the 35,955 AN M-2 guns held in stock as unserviceable. This started in the summer of 1944.
 
P-39 Expert said:
The Germans replaced the .30cal MGs with the 13mm (.50 caliber) MG for their 109G-6 and 190A-6. They apparently thought the .30s were not powerful enough.
Click to expand...

So if the .30's aren't good enough what shot down the 3,000 or so aircraft lost in the BoB, harsh language?.
 

Why would 109's shoot down their own bombers?.
 

What I will say is the Mk7 .303 round is actually a hunting bullet designed by Holland and Holland, it was designed to tumble after impact. If you look at the fin as an example the larger holes could very easily have been made by a Mk7 that tumbled after penetrating from the opposite side, only trouble I have is the alloy should be folded outwards, as the for right horizontal stabiliser, those long gashes are identical to the the ones I got when shooting into the bonnet of an old car wreck we had on the farm, bullets can and do make interesting holes in objects.
 
When F4U's with four 20MM guns were deployed to Okinawa in 1945, they found the guns would jam at high altitudes. The reason given was that the high altitude tests had been skipped, presumably to rush them into combat.. On the other hand, I am not aware of common problems with the P-38 20MM, although the four 20MM nose installation in the A-20 was phased out early due to gun problems.

 
Last edited:
Always wondered why the P-39 stayed with the 37mm cannon, standardization would have indicated use of the 20mm. P-39 only carried 60 rounds which wasn't enough, bigger ammunition tray needed for 120-150 rounds.
 
The Flying Cannon was a big sales point for the P-39. Recall that Bell's first foray into fighters was the YFM-1, which had two 37MM guns. Consider how big a bomber would have to be fly all the way from Europe or Asia and hit the US mainland. How long would you have to shoot at a B-29 with nothing but .50 and .30 cal before it took notice of the insolent fly that was attacking it? Even in WWI there were those that said the rifle caliber machine gun was too small. A model of the SPAD was fitted with a 37MM gun firing through the prop shaft, hand loaded by the pilot; the biggest drawback was that the fumes nearly asphyxiated him.

Being able to carry a 37MM was a major selling point for the P-39 and despite its limited success they put it in the P-63, put it in the P-38D, and had plans to install it in the A-26 and A-41.

None of this AAAAAAAAH stuff! A P-39 would be Deadeye Dick, one shot one kill, no matter how big the enemy bomber was. The Soviets kept up with the idea after the war and put a 37MM in the Mig-15.

Even Curtiss thought it was a good idea.







 
Agree. A 20mm with 120 rounds would have saved about 80lbs of weight and standardized the guns, but there's no arguing with the 37mm's power. The .30cal wing MGs were certainly not needed with a 37mm cannon and twin .50cal MGs all in the nose. The resultant lighter P-39 would have outclimbed the Zero in '42 erasing the only real disadvantage of climb/ceiling.

Trajectory was relatively flat out to 400 yards which was about the outer limit of accuracy with any airborne gun. It was estimated that 60-80% of pilots shot down in WWII were unaware of their assailants so the relatively slow rate of fire would have only mattered in a maneuvering fight. If you were aware of your opponent you could normally escape fighter vs fighter combat unless you had a severe performance disadvantage.

37mm was great for ground attack also. After the jamming problem was solved in mid -'42 it became a great weapon. Russians said it was more reliable than the 20mm.
 
Even if the guy does not know you are there, unless it is a zero deflection up the kazoo shot, judging angles will be a significant challenge. Even at only 300 mph, in one sec you move 440 ft, during which time you have managed to fire a mere two 37MM rounds, only four rounds in 880 ft. It will be all impossible to correct your fire against airborne targets. I suppose that if you charge up to a bomber formation and let fly with everything you've got you might hit something.

It's too bad we did not have fast firing 15MM cannon like the Germans did in the 109F, or that we never finished developing the .60 caliber machine gun.

I have read of but a few cases of a P-39 hitting anything with the 37MM. below is one:
 
Last edited:
 
Russians would disagree with you. They viewed it as an optimal air to air weapon. They deleted the wing guns so they must have liked it. Remember there were also twin .50cal MGs in the nose. Fired 140 rounds/minute, closer to 5 rounds in two seconds. 2.14 seconds exactly. How was it impossible to correct your fire? Each shell was a tracer so you certainly could correct your aim. Also your calculations assume your target is standing still instead of moving in roughly the same direction as you.

Was the ultimate bomber destroyer.
 
Last edited:
tomo pauk said:
3000 shot down in BoB by whom?
Click to expand...

More aircraft were shot down with LMG's in the BoB than anything else, over 40% of 109's were E -1/2's armed with four LMG's and considering that the 20mm ammunition on the E-4's was good for only about 9 sec's they did a lot of work with only two LMG's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Similar threads

Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
706
Ivan1GFP
I
The poor performance of the 343 Kokutai against USAAF fighters
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
6K
GrauGeist
617th squadron and the bunkers in Ijmuiden.
2
Replies
23
Views
642
DerAdlerIstGelandet
M
P-39 Turbo - Here We Go Again
Replies
13
Views
2K
GregP
P-39-style fighter by other people?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register