Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I think this might have been a case where the 'aces', like Thach, opinion's carried more weight than the other pilot's actual results, as many came back with ammo remaining. RAF theory was that the average pilot would only make one or two firing passes and maximum firepower was more important than firing time. However, the RN's FAA always emphasised firing time in their purpose built aircraft so the decision for 6 guns in the F4F-4 is interesting, since a 6 gun Martlet was wanted by the FAA.In First Team (currently reading it now) Lundstrom makes several mentions of the VF pilots' dislike of the gun and ammo setup on the -4; many and perhaps most of them preferred four guns with longer trigger time -- not to mention the lighter -3 being more maneuverable with a marginally better rate of climb.
The RN FAA did not want or ask for a six gun Martlet. Its a common story but it isn't true.I think this might have been a case where the 'aces', like Thach, opinion's carried more weight than the other pilot's actual results, as many came back with ammo remaining. RAF theory was that the average pilot would only make one or two firing passes and maximum firepower was more important than firing time. However, the RN's FAA always emphasised firing time in their purpose built aircraft so the decision for 6 guns in the F4F-4 is interesting, since a 6 gun Martlet was wanted by the FAA.
I have never gotten a good answer on this although I have mentioned it a number of times.However, the RN's FAA always emphasised firing time in their purpose built aircraft so the decision for 6 guns in the F4F-4 is interesting, since a 6 gun Martlet was wanted by the FAA.
Lundstrom assessed 4 USN TF AA kills, with the rest of the IJN aircraft brought down by CAP or ditching near their carriers. Total USN TF AA and aerial kill claims far exceeded the number of IJNAF aircraft encountered.
and what years were doing that?In the early Pacific battles they were taking guns out of Hurricanes, Buffalos and P-40s routinely.
They also routinely took two guns out of P-40s flying in the Western Desert, especially when they were flying Air Superiority missions. Regardless of the rate of fire, four guns was considered sufficient to shoot down German and Italian fighters and light bombers. The six guns were preferred for strafing and suppressing AAA.
and what years were doing that?
Was it 1940 and 1941?
If not the rate of fire question stands.
I also want to hear about the .50 cal guns taken out of Hurricanes
Well, there can be situations where CAP and AA will claim the same aircraft, but here's a breakdown of USN Kill claims:
AA = 30 (all accepted by the USN Bureau of Ordnance's and included in their 1942 AA Summary!)
F4F claims = 16
SBD claims = 34 (!)
TBF claims = 2
Some of these kill claims were shared amongst aircraft types, but a large of number of claims arose from a supposed encounter with IJNAF Kates, which were never anywhere near the USN carrier TFs...
Lundstrom:
Lundstrom made his kill assessments by a careful comparison of IJNAF and USNAF individual aircraft combat reports and USN ship action reports.
The poor climb rate of the F4F-4 was once again an issue however, the F4F-4's 6 gun armament was not really an issue as most F4F-4 pilots who made firing passes didn't exhaust their ammo supply.:
The inaccuracy of the kill claims had consequences for Fletcher, who had decided to withdraw the carriers from close support of the Guadalcanal invasion forces, because it seemed to the higher command that the USN had crippled IJNAF carrier airpower, when this was far from the case, and was also Fletcher's concern. Fletcher was relieved of command for his caution.
I think this might have been a case where the 'aces', like Thach, opinion's carried more weight than the other pilot's actual results, as many came back with ammo remaining. RAF theory was that the average pilot would only make one or two firing passes and maximum firepower was more important than firing time. However, the RN's FAA always emphasised firing time in their purpose built aircraft so the decision for 6 guns in the F4F-4 is interesting, since a 6 gun Martlet was wanted by the FAA.
I think this might have been a case where the 'aces', like Thach, opinion's carried more weight than the other pilot's actual results, as many came back with ammo remaining. RAF theory was that the average pilot would only make one or two firing passes and maximum firepower was more important than firing time. However, the RN's FAA always emphasised firing time in their purpose built aircraft so the decision for 6 guns in the F4F-4 is interesting, since a 6 gun Martlet was wanted by the FAA.
Point is that period of 1940-41 the difference between the fast four guns guns and the slow 6 guns wasn't that great. Four fast guns were firing a bit faster than 5 slow guns. It made it easier to accept the 4 gun battery. Especially when you consider the change in ammo. The US .50 was pretty much a kinetic energy weapon, No HE and darn little Incendiary. The increase in kinetic energy was almost 30%. No help if you just poked a hole in the skin but you could do more damage to structure or large components. With the new ammo and the higher rate of fire four guns of 1942 could do as much damage as 6 guns of 1940 could do. Makes it easier to take out a few guns and lighten the load.Again, I don't think the ROF matters that much with four HMGs against a relatively small aircraft like a fighter
Some aircraft did have hand chargers for the wing guns, however in guns larger than rifle caliber they didn't work well, They take a lot of effort to cock and sometimes the system didn't provide enough leverage.The wing-mounted guns often had electric chargers which didn't seem to work after a stoppage. This was a problem because all the early HMGs and the Hispano 20mm as well routinely had stoppages or jams.
The F4F-4/FM1 with 4 x .5in BMGs with 430RPG actually weighed more than the same aircraft with 6 x .5in BMGs and 240RPG:You may well be right -- precisely why I couched my point in qualifiers. Even a source as solid as Lundstrom can be unconsciously selective. But Lundstrom is clear that many of the rank-and-file shared Thach's feelings, especially about how much more encumbered the -4 became. I'm sure S Shortround6 knows the weight increase off the top of his head, hopefully he can chime in? [ETA -- I see he already has, though not directly to this point of mine.]
The RAF certainly had a solid point in their approach, and given the gunnery training of USN pilots of the era, no doubt many of them could use the extra two guns to the same advantage. I don't know enough to have my own definitive opinion.
The 6 gun battery gets a lot of blame. The question is how much of it was justified.You may well be right -- precisely why I couched my point in qualifiers. Even a source as solid as Lundstrom can be unconsciously selective. But Lundstrom is clear that many of the rank-and-file shared Thach's feelings, especially about how much more encumbered the -4 became. I'm sure S Shortround6 knows the weight increase off the top of his head, hopefully he can chime in?
The F4F-4/FM1 with 4 x .5in BMGs with 430RPG actually weighed more than the same aircraft with 6 x .5in BMGs and 24ORPG:
F4F-4 with 6guns/240rpg = 7575lb.
FM1 with 4guns/430rpg = 8025lb.
Like, you, I'm not sure who's right on this issue.
The 6 gun battery gets a lot of blame. The question is how much of it was justified.
From 'AHT' the wing went from 893lbs to 1181lbs on the F4F-4 and 1154lbs on the FM-2.
Any two planes of the same model might vary 10-20lbs in assembled wing weight.
Now how much was do to the wing fold, how much was due to the extra doors/hatches and braces for the 6 gun installation and how much was due to just beefing up the sutructure to handle the added weight ( F4F-3s did not get drop tanks) I don't know but the FM-2 figure gives us a good guess.
A bunch of other weights jumped around by 10-20 lbs.
Empty weight (without guns installed) went from 5426lbs on the F4F-3 to 5779lbs on the F4F-4.
Basic weight (guns, radios, pilot, etc) went from about 6063lbs to about 6595lbs so we can see were the problem is starting to come from.
We've already discussed the fact that 4 x 20mm cannon SH1C/2C carried ~100rpg. The purpose built SH2C was fitted with drop tank capability from the start. Only Martlets that came with fixed wings, no self sealing tanks and no armour had a theoretical range that approached 950 miles (Martlet 1 data card = 870 miles with 136IG at 15K ft).You can already see in the operational histories of the battles posted thus far, that a CAP fighter will need to engage enemy aircraft repeatedly, over and over again, which is one of the reasons why a large ammunition capacity was valued for carrier fighters. The same is true for escort fighters (one of the many reasons why P-51s were good in that role). An aircraft with heavy guns but short ammunition capacity is more suitable for an interceptor role. Which is basically what a Hurricane was.
This is mentioned in the (I am pretty sure) UK based "Armored Carriers" page repeatedly vis a vis the Hurricane. The machine-gun armed Sea Hurricanes had half the ammunition capacity of the Fulmar, and early cannon armed Sea Hurricanes with 60 rounds were particularly unsuited for use as CAP, both because their short range (roughly half that of a Martlet on internal fuel - 500 miles vs 950) and because of their limited ammunition capacity.
Quoting directly from the CO of the HMS Ark Royal in July 1941:
The short operational endurance of the Hurricane and small amount of ammunition carried must result in frequent turns into wind to land on aircraft which have been in combat, greatly aggravating the position in regard to flying off others or maintaining sections standing by to fly off.
Sorry that's from the SAC data on the F4F-4:My understanding doesn't comport with what you're saying here. Where might I read up on this more?
Thanks for that, I'd not really considered the folding mechanism and the weight it added as well -- duh on me, right? 350 lbs from the folding mech and the other minor additions you mention must have played a big role in the perceived diminution of performance between the two variants.