Why didn't the US experiment with 20mm on the b-25 and a-20? Pack a bigger punch and less are needed. Gotta say though, it would be hard to turn down so many oodles of .50s....
Haha lanc alot of people would agree that those medium bombers/attack are some of the best looking planes. I think so, anyways. Seriously what looks better than a fully loaded b-25 bristling with more .50's than 5 mustangs?
i think that for strafing soft targets, which you're gonna get more of in the pacific (apart from ships, obviously) the weight of fire provided by all the .50s was more worthwile.........
Haha lanc alot of people would agree that those medium bombers/attack are some of the best looking planes. I think so, anyways. Seriously what looks better than a fully loaded b-25 bristling with more .50's than 5 mustangs?
Why didn't the US experiment with 20mm on the b-25 and a-20? Pack a bigger punch and less are needed. Gotta say though, it would be hard to turn down so many oodles of .50s....
Most ground targets that were succeptable to 20mm fire were succeptable to .50 fire. The .50's offered 3 times the reliabiliity and nearly twice the ammo of the Hispano. Carrying more .50's meant a wider strafe area too.
The exception was Japanese pill boxes in the PTO, which were specifically made just tough enough to hold up against .50 fire, which is why the USN and USMC wanted the 20mm guns for ground attack.
Armament:
Nose: Fixed firing forward
Two 30mm Mk 108 Cannon with 135 rounds per gun
Two 20mm MG 151 Cannon with 300 rounds(port) and 350 rounds(starboard)
And
Two 20mm MG 151 Cannon in Shrage Musik Installation (Firing Obliquely forward)
Or
Two 7.92mm MG 81 in rear cockpit
I once read that a B-25 pilot had bagged 5 Japanese aircraft in flight. Its been years and I haven't seen it again but I've always thought that would be cool if it really happened. They certainly had the fire power, 14 foward, will do a number on any aircraft!