P-47 vs IL-2 vs SU-2 vs Typhoon

[GrauGeist]

Four Hispano's weigh 170kg where's eight .50's are 360kg so switching to Hispano's gives you the on target effect of 12 BMG's with the added bonus of a 200kg weight saving, if the Spit MkV could carry four cannons I don't think the Jug is going to have problems

And yet the P-47's with their eight .50s were already devestating to anything on the receiving end.

Was the P-47's wing designed for the 20mm?
How long would it take to design the weapon bay to accept the change?
How long would it take to interrupt the assembly line to make the changes?

So what could a four 20mm equipped P-47 do any better than an eight .50 equipped P-47?

 

[Howard Gibson]

Wondering how these 4 compare and who was best in the attack role I'd list them as P-47 frist decnt range decent power decent bomb load and it can be used as a fighter 2 is the IL-2 good bomb load and good armor 3 is the SU-2 just an older IL-2 style aircraft 4 is the the typhoon not armored as well as everyone else and the bomb load isnt as good

The IL-2 and Su-2 were specialised bombers that required air superiority to make missions survivable.

The Thunderbolt was effective at around 30,000ft, not a good altitude for ground attack. The Typhoon probably was better armed, and it was fast at ground attack altitudes.

 

[tomo pauk]

Four Hispano's weigh 170kg where's eight .50's are 360kg so switching to Hispano's gives you the on target effect of 12 BMG's with the added bonus of a 200kg weight saving, if the Spit MkV could carry four cannons I don't think the Jug is going to have problems

Four Hispano IIs were 200 kg (Hisso V was not available for anything that was not a Tempest). AN M2 .50 was 8 x 35 = 280 kg.
Hispano was also using much heavier ammo.
Whetever the P-47's problems were (real or imagined), those were not in guns' firepower department.

The IL-2 and Su-2 were specialised bombers that required air superiority to make missions survivable.

The Thunderbolt was effective at around 30,000ft, not a good altitude for ground attack. The Typhoon probably was better armed, and it was fast at ground attack altitudes.

In everyday's service, the P-47 was just fine as a ground attacker. Whether it was dive bombing with dives starting at 15000-20000 ft, or the low-level strafing, bombing and rocketing.

 

[Acheron]

And yet the P-47's with their eight .50s were already devestating to anything on the receiving end.

Agreed. While 20mm cannons, not sure if these would have helped against tanks, even from the rear, so it would only have added capability against armored cars and such, which to me seems a rather narrow and circumstantial advantage.

 

[PAT303]

Was the P-47's wing designed for the 20mm?
How long would it take to design the weapon bay to accept the change?
How long would it take to interrupt the assembly line to make the changes?

So what could a four 20mm equipped P-47 do any better than an eight .50 equipped P-47?

The Spitfires much narrower wing wasn't designed for cannons yet they fitted four without a problem, how long to make the change, well Supermarine did it quickly and they were under more pressure than any of the American makers, as to whether it was worth it, for ground attack bigger is better and one Hispano was worth 3 BMG's in regards to effect on target so four would be where I'd start, where I'd actually want to go would be two 37mm's or better yet 40mm.

 

[PAT303]

Four Hispano IIs were 200 kg (Hisso V was not available for anything that was not a Tempest). AN M2 .50 was 8 x 35 = 280 kg

My mistake, M2's are 38kg each for 306kg for eight, I have the Hispano at 42kg so 168kg for four.

 

[tomo pauk]

My mistake, M2's are 38kg each for 306kg for eight, I have the Hispano at 42kg so 168kg for four.

Hispano V, the lighter, shorter and faster-firing type, was at 42 kg. The earlier Hispano, Mk.II, was at 50 kg.

 

[Shortround6]

Hispano guns often do not include accessories.
The basic gun could be often be fed with a drum magazine.
The belt feed mechanism could be fitted to the basic gun (most always by pulling the muzzle brake on the end of the barrel).

The US M2 .50 cal may or may not include a charging mechanism.

Both guns usually needed gun heaters.


When comparing the Russian guns to the British and American guns you have pretty much 4 guns.

The Russian 23mm (in the IL-2) had a bit over 50% more power than the Hispano 20mm per round.

The Russian 20mm has about 70% less power than the 20mm Hispano per round. Or the 23mm has about twice the power as the Russian 20mm round.

The US and Russian 12.7mm ammo is about as 1/2 as power as the Russian 20mm ammo. The US just a bit little bit lighter and the Russian just a bit more powerful.

Since the 12.7mm ammo makes a smaller hole in armor plate , the Russian 20mm ammo doesn't have much advantage for shooting up armored vehicles.

Even crappy tanks (under 15 tons) often had twice the armor that armored cars and half tracks did. Open topped vehicles had a whole different level of vulnerability.


I would be very careful of comparing Typhoon performance to P-47 Performance.

The P-47 might only be 10-20mph slower at some altitudes.
You also have several different Sabre engines, and the planes with the rocket rails lost how much speed?
P-47s had the paddle blade props and by fall winter of 1943/44 had the water injection.

Point is that both of the western fighter/bombers varied quite a bit in both aircraft performance and in war loads when performing close support tasks.


A P-47 added

 

[Dimlee]

One of my favourite "what ifs": hordes of Soviet P-47s on the Eastern Front not only as CAS but also in the interdiction missions hundreds of km beyond the front line. Something that VVS has never done on regular basis. 4x20mm setup is welcome but I agree that 8x12.7 mm is just fine.

 

[Howard Gibson]

One of my favourite "what ifs": hordes of Soviet P-47s on the Eastern Front...

The P-47 was a complete violation of Soviet air doctrine. They liked simple and low altitude, and direct support of troops on the ground. Soviet fighters were poorly armed. They did develop an escort version of the Yak-9. If they wanted, they could have escorted Pe-2s and Shturmoviks on missions behind German lines.

 

[Dimlee]

Yes, the prevailing doctrine was different. This was a bit surprising since the theory of deep raids and interdictions was well developed in the USSR in the 1930s. In my opinion, the shock of 1941-1942 when whole armies disappeared in days, was so big that the Army (as the main customer) was too persistent in requesting more and more CAS, here and now. VVS was relegated to the supportive roles and was not a decision-maker in the strategy.
They did escort Pe-2 and Il-2. But the former was vulnerable at low altitudes and the latter didn't have the range. P-47 was superior to both in the range and speed with comparable bomb load.

 

[GrauGeist]

They did escort Pe-2 and Il-2. But the former was vulnerable at low altitudes and the latter didn't have the range. P-47 was superior to both in the range and speed with comparable bomb load.

Plus the fact that the P-47 could easily defend itself much like the Fw190F - when bounced, jettison ordnance and turn into the fight.

 

[Acheron]

Yes, the prevailing doctrine was different. This was a bit surprising since the theory of deep raids and interdictions was well developed in the USSR in the 1930s. In my opinion, the shock of 1941-1942 when whole armies disappeared in days, was so big that the Army (as the main customer) was too persistent in requesting more and more CAS, here and now. VVS was relegated to the supportive roles and was not a decision-maker in the strategy.
They did escort Pe-2 and Il-2. But the former was vulnerable at low altitudes and the latter didn't have the range. P-47 was superior to both in the range and speed with comparable bomb load.

Didn't this also happen to the Luftwaffe, finding themselves drawn into ground support instead of trying to mess up the Red Army's rear?

 

[PAT303]

Hispano V, the lighter, shorter and faster-firing type, was at 42 kg. The earlier Hispano, Mk.II, was at 50 kg.

Either way a 100kg weight saving with more firepower, for ground attack 20mm is the better option. The P47 was a big plane that could and did haul a good load of ordinance over an effective range and the invasion of Europe could not have happened without the work it did but to me .50 cals on it are like .303's on a Spitfire, good in their day but why not go bigger if the option is there?.

 

[tomo pauk]

Either way a 100kg weight saving with more firepower, for ground attack 20mm is the better option.

One Hispano is certainly more powerful.
Eight .50 BMGs vs. 4 Hispano II? We have 8x800= 6400 rd/min for the 1st battery, and 4x600 = 2400 rd/min for the 2nd one. Yes, the Hispano fires explosive shells, small as they were.
What ground target is safe from the gun fire from P-47, that 20mm will be able to defeat?

I'd reiterate: if there was a problem with P-47, it was not his guns. That, BTW, were not the HB types ('heavy barrel') that are in use today, but lighter versions of 70 lbs.

 

[GrauGeist]

Either way a 100kg weight saving with more firepower, for ground attack 20mm is the better option.

For comparable illustration, the F4U-4 was equipped with four 20mm cannon with 231 rounds per cannon.
The Typhoon's four 20mm had 140 rounds per cannon.

And as noted earlier, the P-47 carried 3,400 rounds of ammunition for it's MGs = 425 rounds per MG.

If you've ever watched wartime guncam footage of a P-47 catching an enemy in it's crosshairs, you'd see that needing 20mm cannons is rather moot.

As for the Spitfire having cannon, yes, they did. But in order to do so, they had to create a new wing for it (the "B" wing), but even then, the cannon had to be laid on it's side. It was the "C" wing that eventually allowed the Spitfire to carry cannon without issues.

 

[tomo pauk]

WRT the weight discrepancy of the bare gun, M2 .50 Browning in this case. The barrel of the HB version was 28 lb back in ww2; the 'airborne' version barrel weight was 10 (ten) pounds. Bare 'airborne' version, as found on tens of thousand of US aircraft was 64 lbs; the HB was at 82 lbs.
(all per manual TM-9-1255 from 1943)

 

[Acheron]

I would like to point out that the MGs higher rate-of-fire surely was useful to hit anything in the first place, especially if local AA was around and it tended to be.

 

[GregP]

Why would an MG be especially useful in the presence of AAA but not with it? I must be missing something. Not trying to argue; trying to clarify only.

Cheers.

 

[PAT303]

What ground target is safe from the gun fire from P-47, that 20mm will be able to defeat?

Hispano MkII AP could penetrate 24mm of face hardened plate at 400 yards @ 20 degree's, the Panther as an example has deck armor that is 16mm, the MkIII and Mk IV could go through 30mm at 600 yards @ 30 degree's. The standard Hispano SAPI round has the same 20mm of penetration as the .50 M2 AP but with 10 times the incendiary content.