Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
And yet the P-47's with their eight .50s were already devestating to anything on the receiving end.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
The IL-2 and Su-2 were specialised bombers that required air superiority to make missions survivable.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
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
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.
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.And yet the P-47's with their eight .50s were already devestating to anything on the receiving end.
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.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?
My mistake, M2's are 38kg each for 306kg for eight, I have the Hispano at 42kg so 168kg for four.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.
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.One of my favourite "what ifs": hordes of Soviet P-47s on the Eastern Front...
Plus the fact that the P-47 could easily defend itself much like the Fw190F - when bounced, jettison ordnance and turn into the fight.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?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.
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?.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.
For comparable illustration, the F4U-4 was equipped with four 20mm cannon with 231 rounds per cannon.Either way a 100kg weight saving with more firepower, for ground attack 20mm is the better option.
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.What ground target is safe from the gun fire from P-47, that 20mm will be able to defeat?