Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Browning .50 caliber machine gun was a great choice! It had range & penetrating power far in excess of the .303 and it could be loaded as ball, AP, tracer, or explosive tipped.True, the 20mm packed a harder punch but those cannons had a slower rate of fire and the aircraft could not carry as much ammo. Look at the P-47 with 4ea .50 cal in each wing! Patton said he could always tell when they arrived in a place that had been worked over by Thunderbolts- there were holes in the concrete.There is a compelling argument for ditching the defensive armament all together, with the corresponding bump in performance. Box formations and massed bomber firepower proved to be almost ineffective at preventing fighter attacks anyway.
The .303 on British bombers probably wasn't the best option in hindsight, but then again, either was the .50 Browning.
Bet they make beautiful music together.
Only if you build a completely new bomber. Don't even keep the wheels/tires.There is a compelling argument for ditching the defensive armament all together, with the corresponding bump in performance.
You could even upgrade the name to make it sound good .... Superfortress maybe. Or if it's British something bitey .. say .. Mosquito ?Give it some in-flight refueling and a landing base at Okinawa, I'm sure it could drop a nuke or two.
(Grabs helmet, dives for trench).
No, this is the only Lancaster that was capable of nuking Japan...You could even upgrade the name to make it sound good .... Superfortress maybe. Or if it's British something bitey .. say .. Mosquito ?
The Browning .50 caliber machine gun was a great choice! It had range & penetrating power far in excess of the .303 and it could be loaded as ball, AP, tracer, or explosive tipped.True, the 20mm packed a harder punch but those cannons had a slower rate of fire and the aircraft could not carry as much ammo. Look at the P-47 with 4ea .50 cal in each wing! Patton said he could always tell when they arrived in a place that had been worked over by Thunderbolts- there were holes in the concrete.
So when your freezing your arse off at 20,000ft inside an alloy tube travelling at 200 miles an hour trying to hit a cannon armed fighter flashing past you doing 400 miles an hour with nothing more than ring and bead sights to aim with how is the .50 cal better than the .303?The .303 was a really bad choice!
A few things, or more than a few.I remember when first (too many years ago) I noticed that the speed of the early B-17's were a good bit higher than the later models, the G understandably being the slowest. Even then, it clearly was not considered to be high enough. But i coulkdn't help thinking that increasing speed could be an alternative to increasing armament.
So again I have for a long time wonderd why neither the B-17 nor the B-24 got more poerfull engines, though there certainly were some of considerably higher power available before the US entered the war. So i hope those who understand the technical side better than me can give some input. Would stronger engines be more difficult to boost for high altitude, making a difference so small it was not worth it? Would the increased fuel consumption and weight be unacceptable? In other words, did the engine packages used simply hit a sweet spot, neccessitating a new design to take advantage of the higher power available?
Sorry, the answer is so obvious this does not deserve a reply.So when your freezing your arse off at 20,000ft inside an alloy tube travelling at 200 miles an hour trying to hit a cannon armed fighter flashing past you doing 400 miles an hour with nothing more than ring and bead sights to aim with how is the .50 cal better than the .303?
You're NOT helping! .....LOL........Give it some in-flight refueling and a landing base at Okinawa, I'm sure it could drop a nuke or two.
(Grabs helmet, dives for trench).
You're NOT helping! .....LOL........
So when your freezing your arse off at 20,000ft inside an alloy tube travelling at 200 miles an hour trying to hit a cannon armed fighter flashing past you doing 400 miles an hour with nothing more than ring and bead sights to aim with how is the .50 cal better than the .303?
Oh, I caught the reference... I was similarly compelled to read the entire thread ....... At least you didn't mention the obvious solution.......'Twas a reference to a famous thread here. If you haven't read it, you ought to. Even though it was locked before I became a member here, I read every.damned.page.
Oh, I caught the reference... I was similarly compelled to read the entire thread ....... At least you didn't mention the obvious solution.......
The P-39
I will now retreat to my bunker........