Venomstick121
Airman 1st Class
- 247
- Dec 21, 2023
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Why did the US ww2 fighters have 50 cals instead of 20mms like their european cousins
I am talking about the f-4u and p-51 for the most part
UK had to move all this around, Commonwealth small arms calibers and Lend Lease received from USAWell, logistics was a big factor. No one else had to support so much in so many different theaters of war than the USA. No one else can even distantly close.
Did the British conceal-carry security cops & spy chaps - carry the small calibre Walther, back then?UK had to move all this around, Commonwealth small arms calibers and Lend Lease received from USA
38 S&W
9mm
455 Webley
45 Auto
303
30-06
8mm Mauser
50 Browning
50 Vickers
55 Boys
15mm BESA
Pocket Pistols in 25 or 32acp, Hmm. I know the French and Germans used those calibers, but haven't seen for official British Armed forces.Did the British conceal-carry security cops & spy chaps - carry the small calibre Walther, back then?
Which Spitfire wing accommodated the 6 x .50" fit-out? I can visualise 4, but the Mustang III was compared unfavourably for that "Light"The Spitfire was slightly slower with 2 x 20mm cannon, so there would be an effect on speed and range if 2 or 4 were fitted. Since 6 x 0.5cal was good enough for the job, there was no incentive to change.
I meant slower than when fitted with 8 x 0.303".Which Spitfire wing accommodated the 6 x .50" fit-out? I can visualise 4, but the Mustang III was compared unfavourably for that "Light"
armament, even with the Spit, let alone earlier 4 x 20mm Mustangs, which did comply with the RAF 'standard' (& carried UK-Hispanos).
So the 6 x.50" was too heavy, & slowed the Spit down that way - rather than by the drag of protruding cannon?I meant slower than when fitted with 8 x 0.303".
As far as I know it was the drag of the protruding cannon that made the difference. In 1940-41 when they started fitting cannon to RAF fighters, the 0.5cal wasnt a viable option, not reliable, low rate of fire and USA not in the war. The Spitfire could carry 4 cannon and 4 x 0.303 " there were mock ups with 6 x 20mm cannonSo the 6 x.50" was too heavy, & slowed the Spit down that way - rather than by the drag of protruding cannon?
(Ever seen the Martin-Baker M-B III with the 6 x 20mm (mock-up) fit out, they even designed a more compact belt feed system.)
The cannon barrels, blisters and stubs all added drag to the Spitfire costing speed, about 10mph or so.In service the 4x 20mm of the Hurricane Mk IIC lowered the Vmax by about 1.5-2 mph per 20mm ( total of about 6-8 mph). I have read that the Spitfire Mk VB/C & Mk IX had their Vmax reduced by about 2-3 mph per 20mm installed (total of about 4-6 mph for the 'B' wing and 8-12 mph for the 'C' and universal wing).
As far as I know it was the drag of the protruding cannon that made the difference. In 1940-41 when they started fitting cannon to RAF fighters, the 0.5cal wasnt a viable option, not reliable, low rate of fire and USA not in the war. The Spitfire could carry 4 cannon and 4 x 0.303 " there were mock ups with 6 x 20mm cannon