davebender
1st Lieutenant
I believe some Me-109 pilots achieved more then 9 kills on a single day. Multiple sorties were required but David McCambell also had the option to land for more fuel and ammo.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I believe some Me-109 pilots achieved more then 9 kills on a single day. Multiple sorties were required but David McCambell also had the option to land for more fuel and ammo.David McCambell who left the Essex with 1/2 tank of fuel, shot down 9 Japanese planes
I believe some Me-109 pilots achieved more then 9 kills on a single day. Multiple sorties were required but David McCambell also had the option to land for more fuel and ammo.
Multiple sorties per day is not an option when you fly from England to Germany. When David McCampbell shot down 9 Japanese planes in 1 mission, he broke off contact with targets still available, he shot down no more aircraft that day. If he had more ammo, and a full tank of fuel when he left the ship, how many might he have gotten? Lets put McCampbell in a P38 flying from a nearby island helping defend the fleet, with a full tank of fuel. The P38 already carries 500 rounds per gun, 100 more per gun than the Hellcat. The guns are concentrated in the nose. Could he have knocked down more Japanese dive bombers? Lets make the total 600 rounds per gun, or 700 rounds per gun. What ever the weight of the cannon, its mount and ammo, I would have deleted that stuff and put that much more 50 ammo. That is how I would have armed the P38. IMHO against the aircraft it fought, losing the 20mm would have not been an issue.
Can anyone tell us how much the cannon, its mount, and the 20mm ammo weighed in a P38? That would let us know how much more 50 ammo we could carry with no performance penalty.
By the US 100K book, the cannon installation weights 196lbs, with further 92lbs for 150 pcs of ammo (totaling 288; firing time 15sec), while one gun its ammo weighted 261lbs (500 pcs, firing time 33sec). Replacing a cannon with one HMG ammo yields reduction of firepower by 25% (my estimate) for 1st 15 seconds of firing, but increases it by 25% for 2nd 18 seconds. Perhaps 5 x .50cals, tightly grouped, are at least as good as wing mounted 6 x .50cals?
I think 5 in the nose would be more effective than 6 in the nose
Perhaps 90% of fighter planes deployed in Eastern front have had hull weapons only, yet I've didn't read that those planes were in disadvantage re. hit probability. Another thing that can be considered is that Fw-190D-9 did have wing guns deleted (ditto for P-39 in VVS service), yet I have to read about complain considering reduced hit probability.
6 in the wings
As I recall it was only because of the British that the F4F was "upgraded" to six guns.
I have have heard this repeated many time but never understood it. How can the Royal Navy FAA be blamed for lumbering the F4F-4 with 6 guns. The customer for Grumman was the US government and the RN got what it was given under lend lease. Why would Grumman upset the people who were paying its bills to build an aircraft for a customer who had less than zero say in the design and production. I can imagine the RN asking for 6 guns but why would the US government who controlled the contracts listen to them they never did on any other lend lease weapon. If the British wanted something different they had to pay for it and or do the work themselves. A good example is the fuel stowage on escort carriers which wasnt up to RN standards as built, the RN had to have them modified after delivery from the shipyard.
I have have heard this repeated many time but never understood it. How can the Royal Navy FAA be blamed for lumbering the F4F-4 with 6 guns. The customer for Grumman was the US government and the RN got what it was given under lend lease. Why would Grumman upset the people who were paying its bills to build an aircraft for a customer who had less than zero say in the design and production. I can imagine the RN asking for 6 guns but why would the US government who controlled the contracts listen to them they never did on any other lend lease weapon. If the British wanted something different they had to pay for it and or do the work themselves. A good example is the fuel stowage on escort carriers which wasnt up to RN standards as built, the RN had to have them modified after delivery from the shipyard.
Do we ditch the cannon for more .50cal ammo and/or an extra M2 or two?
I seriously dont think you need a 20mm cannon to shoot down a Zero or a 109 or for that matter even a 190. 4 Bronwing 50,s that close together will annialate anything short of anAmerican medium bomber. Using a 20mm on any of those 3 planes is like using buckshot on a dove
I dont really think you need a 20mm cannon to shoot down a Zero, ME109 or even a FW190. Using a 20mm on anyone of them is like using buckshot on a dove
Ditching the cannon for more ammo seems rather pointless. You are trading 40% of your striking power in the first 15 seconds for extended firing time for the American fighter that carried more rounds per gun for it's .50s than any other. If the P-38 is carrying 500rpg it has another 5 seconds of firing time over a P-47 carrying 425 rpg and 7 seconds more firing time than the Navy fighters. It has 2 1/2 times the firing time of some P-40s.
Swapping the 20mm and it's 150 rounds of ammo for a 5th M2 with 500rounds saves about 64lbs. you are giving up about 28% of your firepower in the first 15 seconds for 25% more firepower in seconds 16-33 compared to a normal P-38.
This makes more sense than the first option.
Trying to add a 6th M2 is self defeating. If you keep all six guns at 500rpg you will have increased the armament weight by about 286lbs. If you have room for the ammo. 1000 rounds of .50 cal ammo takes up how much volume compared to 150 rounds of 20mm?
Less ammo for all six guns or 4 guns keep 500rpg and two guns run out a lot sooner?
That 286lb is over 900 rounds of .50 cal ammo. How do you want to divvy it up?
I believe you have said that already.
Now, could you have GUARANTEED in 1942 or 1943 that those 3 aircraft are the ONLY aircraft the P-38 would have to shoot down?
No Me 110s, no Me 210/410s, no Ju-88s, No Do 217s. No Japanese Sally's, or Betty's. How about an Emily or two
And if I had to do a head on pass at at a Fw 190 that had four 20mm cannon I would want all the firepower I could get in my plane.