Japanese aircraft were behind in timing to Allied aircraft.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I didn't make an implied blanket statement. I gave a quote that clearly stated the gun calibre and the trial results by a flotilla of destroyers armed with that gun calibre.

The USN and RN used different gun propellants.

I suspect you're being disingenuous at this point, so I will leave off this conversation.

 

[GrauGeist]

On the other hand, the constant blazing of the guns (even with the new flashless powder) not only presented a continual point of aim for enemy torpedomen, but made it more difficult for...

This appears to contradict your insistence that flashless powder was flashless...

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

"but the U.S. ships exhausted their supplies of flashless powder, forcing them to switch to smokeless powder.
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/r...?accession=ohiou1214239278&disposition=inline (p331-332)

Wait bruh. Hold on a minute. This here seems to imply that the US ships had some 'flashless' powder to begin with.

 

[RCAFson]

This appears to contradict your insistence that flashless powder was flashless...

The USN's preferred formulation was not as effective at reducing flash as the RN's.

 

[RCAFson]

I suspect you're being disingenuous at this point, so I will leave off this conversation.

Really? I was being very specific as was my quote. There was a number of comments to the effect that 'flashless powder or propellant" actually meant 'reduced' flash when, in fact, flash could be completely suppressed in certain gun calibres.

 

[GrauGeist]

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

In the case of 'continuous fire' the claxon probably sounds before the 'open fire' order is given

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Interesting that they had flashless powder for aircraft guns. I bet that helped a lot in night combat between bombers and night fighters, or between night fighters.

This was one of the main reasons (among many) that Bomber Command was hesitant to fit Browning M2's as defensive guns for the bombers.
The big .50 produced a big fireball

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

This was one of the main reasons (among many) that Bomber Command was hesitant to fit Browning M2's as defensive guns for the bombers.
The big .50 produced a big fireball

And 20mm too I'm sure. Especially at night, needless to say.

 

[RCAFson]

"The American gunfire was not much better than the Japanese. Although each of Burke's destroyers fired on a different target, none of its shells scored. Part of the problem was the poor optical situation. Not only was the enemy's gun flashes invisible,but the U.S. ships exhausted their supplies of flashless powder, forcing them to switch to smokeless powder. The blazes associated with this propellant worsened the Americans's night vision. On the other hand, technicians had recently installed salvo buzzers on (96 Ibid., 15) p.331) Burke's destroyers, a recommendation made nearly a year ago by the Pensacola's gunnery officer in his report on the Battle of Tassafaronga. By sounding just prior to the guns going off, the bridge personnel had the opportunity to close their eyes before the gun flash. However, as Burke later admitted, this new procedure helped, but was no substitute for more flashless powder.(97)"
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/r...?accession=ohiou1214239278&disposition=inline (p331-332)

BTW, the above action happened in late November 1943. As per the quoted source the USN fought all of 1942 without flashless propellant but received a form of flashless propellant in early 1943 (actually reduced flash propellant). Again, this information is in the above source, and again, to cut to the chase, just load the above paper into your favourite PDF reader and search for the word 'flash' to quickly come up to speed on this topic.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wait bruh. Hold on a minute. This here seems to imply that the US ships had some 'flashless' powder to begin with.

We did. I linked to a paragraph on it upthread.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Really? I was being very specific as was my quote. There was a number of comments to the effect that 'flashless powder or propellant" actually meant 'reduced' flash when, in fact, flash could be completely suppressed in certain gun calibres.

... and was imperfect in others, which point you took no note of. Hence my unwillingness to engage with you further on this topic.

 

[RCAFson]

... and was imperfect in others, which point you took no note of. Hence my unwillingness to engage with you further on this topic.

Again, I never claimed or stated that flashless propellant was available in all gun calibres. It was available in the RN and IJN in their main destroyer and cruiser/battleship secondary armament calibres with reduced flash in the RN 6in.

Regardless the USN had no flashless or reduced flash propellant available until 1943 whereas its use was widespread in the RN and IJN.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Again, I'm done discussing this with you.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

It really doesn't matter because as I've already pointed out and demonstrated clearly, the vast majority of the significant surface battles in the Pacific war were decided by the larger (8" or bigger) caliber guns and the torpedoes, usually in a matter of seconds or a few minutes at the most.

Speaking of which, BB Washington was using volley fire with their guns at second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal in 1942.

 

[Shortround6]

A lot may depend on when.

Campbell says that US powder was cooler (865 calories and 3015 degrees K compared to British SC at 970 calories and 3090 degrees K) but it was not flashless and there was a requirement by the end of 1942. The US did not like the British propellants' that contained nitroglycerin for safety reasons.
The book says (and is not in agreement with other sources) that the US got a considerable amount of Cordite N in mid 1944 (a typo?) and used as an interim measure. This is supposed to have been Army version of the Navy NF and does differ in composition. I am not going to type out the percentages. with the addition of Potassium sulphate it was consistently flashless in the 6in/47 and 8in/55 and with more Potassium sulphate in the 16in/45. Near the end of the war the navy ordered large quantities of du Pont Albanite propellant with different additives. This required about 10% more propellant than the normal NC charges.
There very well could have been other batches of propellents used earlier or in smaller quantities?
The flashless property had to balanced against the increased smoke. At the end of the war they seem to have been issuing about 50% for 5in guns, 25% for 6in and 15% for heavier guns.

Now general issue guide lines does not that is what the individual ships got. And it trials were being carried out in parts of 1943 it may have varied from ship to ship and by when a ship got replenished after a fight.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

To steer this back to aviation, it can maybe be said that the IJA and IJN were a bit ahead of the Allies (and other Axis powers) in using all around vision canopies on their fighters. However, that's mixed, because some had them (Zero, Ki-43, a good number of Ki-27s) and some didn't (most Ki-61s, production J2Ms, etc). Oddly, USN fighters didn't get bubble canopies until the F8F Bearcat and the Goodyear Super Corsair (though a version of the F6F was designed to use one, but never made it into production).

But the IJA and IJN planes that had the bubble canopies had them as early as 1940, maybe even earlier. The Hawker Typhoon wasn't flown with one until 1942, and wasn't standardized until 1943. A Spitfire VIII flew with one in 1943, but Spitfire FR 14s and F 16s didn't get them until 1944 (and it took until after the war with the F/FR18 and F22 to standardize). Even the iconic P-51D Mustang didn't fly in prototype form until 1943, and enter production in 1944. It also took a while for P-47s to go from razorback to bubble top.

Ironically, the Miles M20 "emergency fighter" had one in 1940, and even the 1937-38 era Gloster F5/34 had a bubble-ish canopy.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I love the Miles M20 ... they really should have made at least some of those and maybe replaced Hurricanes with them eventually. (theoretical retractable gear version)

 

[Shortround6]

I love the Miles M20 ... they really should have made at least some of those and maybe replaced Hurricanes with them eventually. (theoretical retractable gear version)

Why?
Slower,
Slower climb,
higher stalling speed,
longer take off distance,
Lower Ceiling.

Not all of that can be fixed with new landing gear.
Lower drag vs greater weight.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Why?
Slower,

I don't have tons of sources for the M20, but Wiki says 350 mph. That's a good bit faster than any Hurricane, and a lot faster than an early one. And that's with the fixed undercarriage.

William Green says 345 mph at 20,000 ft, 295 mph at sea level. With fixed undercarriage. Also says range 1,200 miles at 210 mph. Twice the range of a Hurricane IIC.

They also developed it (one prototype) as a naval fighter, which could have been relevant in the scenario we are discussing here. It would have been vastly better in a Pacific scenario, though I can't say whether or not it would have been good at carrier landings, stall speed was pretty high.

Slower climb,

Wiki says 3,200 fpm initial climb for M.20, 2,780 for Hurricane IIC

higher stalling speed,
longer take off distance,

Lower Ceiling.

I think that all goes along with having a smaller wing, which also goes along with being faster.

Not all of that can be fixed with new landing gear.
Lower drag vs greater weight.

Wiki shows M.20 as 5,870 lb empty, 7758 lb 'max takeoff weight'. Hurricane IIC as 5,745 lbs empty, 7,670 lbs gross.

So here again, M.20 looks better to me.