Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Anyone know what missile proposal this was?
This was my first impression as well.An early U2 perhaps
Not to an American, I suspect.Doesn't 10 forward firing 20mm cannon seem a bit of overkill?
Meaning???Not to an American, I suspect.
Nothing perjorative; Americans have a reputation, which I suspect is cultivated somewhat by themselves, for incorporation of lots of firepower. What seems over the top or lavish would be considered just better.Meaning???
Still, what targets require 10 20mm cannon? Aren't 4-6 plenty?
I recall that the XP-67 was intended to have 6 37mm cannon, but it was, at the time, intended as a bomber destroyer. The V-156 would be attacking tanks and ships, so wouldn't the extra weight be better as ammo for the 6 fuselage mounted cannon, rather than 4 extra cannon plus their ammo?
Was the 37mm cannon any good? I have read that it had poor muzzle velocity and lacked penetrating power. Is this correct?
What I get from the article is that the guns were intended 1. to suppress AA guns on ships. A lot of shells hitting over a large area (compared to a tank or aircraft target) in a short period of time. 2. for ground strafing, beacheads, airfields and such, again the maximum amount of shells in the least time.
Repeated strafing runs into enemy anti-aircraft fire were to be avoided.
It's muzzle velocity was 2000fps which is low for an aircraft gun but better than the German MK 108 and MG/FF cannon or the early Japanese Navy 20mm guns. It wasn't very good for armor penetration but probably not much different than 20mm Hispano.
air to air was a bit a of a problem for the 37mm but no worse than the already mentioned guns.
Interesting how they were considering the "V" tail configuration on that design.
Wouldn't 4 20mm plus several .30s achieve the "shells hitting over a large area"? Or .50s.
They were trying to sink submarines and ships. 10 x 20mm would probably be able to do the job in terms of suppressing the ships defensive AAA, radar and directors as well as penetrate into the waterline etc.
Some Me 262 pilots reported succesfull tank busting with the Mk 103, they just sprayed the rear deck. The explosive and incendiary content was probably enough to penetrate the louvers with shock, shrapnel etc and wreck the tanks cooling and induction systems.
When did the Me262 get the MK103 cannons?