Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You allude to the P-400, but there were also similar P-39D-1s. Pilots tended to prefer the 20mm over the 37mm, especially for air combat. It was more reliable, and the trajectory was closer to the .50 cals.
How many 20mm rounds do you figure it takes to blow the wing off of an airplane? one of the tailplanes? The verticle stabilizer and rudder?
This is from (I believe) a P-38 so it is a mix of 20mm and .50 cal hits, but look at the number of hits he is getting. More than 2-3 I would say, and the rounds are clearly not 44 ft apart. In fact i think there are about 20 hits from the flashes.
View: https://youtu.be/S3cpkQT4Njw?t=141
How many hits (again this is probably 'just' .50 cal) did it take to blow the wings off of these (presumably strongly built, armored) German planes
View: https://youtu.be/2pGz0FGLMCc?t=594
Like this one
View: https://youtu.be/2pGz0FGLMCc?t=613
During the BoB the British were only aware of planes shot down over land or close to the coast. With increased armour German bombers seemed to fly though a hail of rifle calibre ammunition apparently unscathed. However post war records showed that many didnt make it home, or did and crash landed or landed with so much damage they never flew again. The Germans had this experience too, a substantial number of planes on the Schweinfurt Regensburg raid landed in Africa and never took off again.You bring up a good point of why didn't we, in this case, utilize 20mm. I would personally rather have more rounds/ longer trigger time than much less rounds of higher efficacy. Also, it seems to me we had more fighter on fighter combat than fighter on bomber leading me to think that the old .50 was more than enough.
You pounce on everyone for anything and nothing and offer us your "position." Turnabout is fair play, don't you think?And I am pretty sure you are pouncing on clumsy grammar and pretending it's a claim I didn't make.
I'm referring to the difference between lost aircraft and lost pilots
During the BoB the British were only aware of planes shot down over land or close to the coast. With increased armour German bombers seemed to fly though a hail of rifle calibre ammunition apparently unscathed. However post war records showed that many didnt make it home, or did and crash landed or landed with so much damage they never flew again. The Germans had this experience too, a substantial number of planes on the Schweinfurt Regensburg raid landed in Africa and never took off again.
Another factor was RAF fighter pilots were getting hit by cannon fire and that made them want cannon too.
You pounce on everyone for anything and nothing. Turnabout is fair play, don't you think?
And it was obvious what you meant. I was pointing out you didn't say it very well, which I'm pretty sure you knew, but you had to make an acidic reply anyway. Can't stop yourself, huh? If you write something, no one has to claim you said it ... it's right there in print for all to see.
Sic, transit, gloria / macht nichts.
Carry on.
It does, doesn't it?Wow that seems like a long detour!
That was the plan the first wave crossed the Alps to N Africa, the second wave returned to UK.Wow that seems like a long detour!
That's what I think as well
The plan was that the first wave fought its way in and the second wave fought its way out, but the whole thing went FUBAR with timing.Ah, maybe as a way to distract / misdirect the German fighters?
It IS hard to determine the tone of a reply.Just keep in mind, when taking a slightly outlier position (like 'Japanese were not inferior') you get comments coming at you from multiple directions at once. Not all on the level. Sometimes it's hard to determine tone in a comment. So I tend to just spell it out. Sarcasm is just in there, like hydraulic fluid. I'm an old punk rocker it's in my veins. Not necessarily acidic or full of malice.
I dont know of any others landing in Africa (Tunisia) but thre were 7 "Frantic" missions starting in UK or Italy and landing in Sovit Union. Operation Frantic - WikipediaIt does, doesn't it?
I'm trying to think of any mission that started elsewhere and wound up in Africa, and can't seem to think of any logical way for that to happen unless someone gets lost, like the B-24D "Lady Be Good" did.
yes, the P-51-NA/F-6/Mustang IAI think the point about fighter vs fighter is valid, certainly. If we had faced more problems from German bombers especially I think maybe we would have pushed harder to adapt the 20mm. But I do think a Wildcat with 20mm cannon with say, 120 rounds, might have been helpful in some of those 1942 naval battles.
Didn't the British put 20mm cannon in their Mustangs?
That would be wrong.My (I think obvious?) point is that the 20mm was quickly adopted by the British in spite of many problems and challenges, I'm sure in part influenced by their experiences in the BoB. And was at least part of standard fighter armament for every other nation in WW2 except maybe the Italians who came a little later to it.
It IS hard to determine the tone of a reply.
Apologies if I "pounced" a little too fast. You're not the only one who hits "post reply" and sometimes wishes he didn't.
I didn't post that. Nobody saw me post it. You can't prove anything.
View: https://youtu.be/WTbgsoHDc24
Two of the F4F pilots survived as PoWs (at least for a time) so the number killed is 16 to 12. 27 Zeros were lost from all causes vs 31 F4Fs.There is much ballyhoo about the Japanese aircrew losses at Santa Cruz "proving" that American aircraft were far superior to Japanese. The following table is from Lundstrom "Guadalcanal and the First Team"
View attachment 727557
The first thing to note is the trivial difference between the losses of Zero pilots vs F4F pilots. It is a minuscule 2, which in the overall scheme of things is totally irrelevant
Ah but the TBF suffered far less than the Kates which proves the Japanese were idiots. The answer lies in what the TBFs actually accomplished. I.e. the Kates sank the Hornet while the TBFs accomplished SFA. A quick question: How many torpedoes did the TBFs launch against the Japanese carriers? The answer is 0! The truth is that they didn't even see a Japanese carrier. Instead they attacked the heavy cruisers of the Vanguard Group. The losses were low because they weren't facing CAP and the AA was less intense. 5 Zeros eventually turned up and engaged some of the retreating SBDs and F4Fs. Of the 3 TBFs lost 2 were shot down on the way to the attack and the third was lost at back at TF 17 when the pilot foolishly decided to play fighter pilot and paid the price. The 21 TBFs that attacked the Vanguard Group placed one 500 lb bomb on the Chikuma. All the torpedo carrying TBFs missed their targets
The SBDs performed much better with 15 of them attacking the Shokaku. Two were shot down by the CAP and 2 more badly damaged but the remaining 11 successfully planted at least 3 bombs on the Shokaku. The other 12 SBDs also attacked the Chikuma and planted 3 bombs on her.
Note that the majority of American losses occurred over their own task force giving them the opportunity to bale out or ditch near friendly ships whereas for the Japanese it was the opposite.
While case can be made that the Kate and Val were somewhat inferior to the SBD and TBF (Certainly not the TBD) that is definitely not the case for the Zero vs F4F. Quoting Lundstrom:
"Between 7August and 15 November 1942, while operating from the carriers or land based at Guadalcanal, VF-5, VF-6, VF-71, VF-72 and VF-10 claimed 193 aircraft destroyed in aerial combat."
In the next table he reduces the 193 to 102 estimated actual score. He also reduces the claims for Zeros from 54 to 25.
"In strictly fighter- verses-fighter combat, the ratio of loss was approximately thirty-one Navy F4Fs (twenty-three pilots killed) to twenty-five Zeros."
In a previous post I noted that in the first half of 1942 the number of Zero pilots KIA was slightly greater than the F4F pilots KIA. Also note that 75% of F4F pilots shot down died.
There is much ballyhoo about the Japanese aircrew losses at Santa Cruz "proving" that American aircraft were far superior to Japanese. The following table is from Lundstrom "Guadalcanal and the First Team"
View attachment 727557
The first thing to note is the trivial difference between the losses of Zero pilots vs F4F pilots. It is a minuscule 2, which in the overall scheme of things is totally irrelevant
Ah but the TBF suffered far less than the Kates which proves the Japanese were idiots. The answer lies in what the TBFs actually accomplished. I.e. the Kates sank the Hornet while the TBFs accomplished SFA. A quick question: How many torpedoes did the TBFs launch against the Japanese carriers? The answer is 0! The truth is that they didn't even see a Japanese carrier. Instead they attacked the heavy cruisers of the Vanguard Group. The losses were low because they weren't facing CAP and the AA was less intense. 5 Zeros eventually turned up and engaged some of the retreating SBDs and F4Fs. Of the 3 TBFs lost 2 were shot down on the way to the attack and the third was lost at back at TF 17 when the pilot foolishly decided to play fighter pilot and paid the price. The 21 TBFs that attacked the Vanguard Group placed one 500 lb bomb on the Chikuma. All the torpedo carrying TBFs missed their targets
The SBDs performed much better with 15 of them attacking the Shokaku. Two were shot down by the CAP and 2 more badly damaged but the remaining 11 successfully planted at least 3 bombs on the Shokaku. The other 12 SBDs also attacked the Chikuma and planted 3 bombs on her.
Note that the majority of American losses occurred over their own task force giving them the opportunity to bale out or ditch near friendly ships whereas for the Japanese it was the opposite.
While case can be made that the Kate and Val were somewhat inferior to the SBD and TBF (Certainly not the TBD) that is definitely not the case for the Zero vs F4F. Quoting Lundstrom:
"Between 7August and 15 November 1942, while operating from the carriers or land based at Guadalcanal, VF-5, VF-6, VF-71, VF-72 and VF-10 claimed 193 aircraft destroyed in aerial combat."
In the next table he reduces the 193 to 102 estimated actual score. He also reduces the claims for Zeros from 54 to 25.
"In strictly fighter- verses-fighter combat, the ratio of loss was approximately thirty-one Navy F4Fs (twenty-three pilots killed) to twenty-five Zeros."
In a previous post I noted that in the first half of 1942 the number of Zero pilots KIA was slightly greater than the F4F pilots KIA. Also note that 75% of F4F pilots shot down died.