"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...


From a purely pragmatic point of view sticking with an
established
gun design and logistics chain probably made sense but the
reality
is that the 20mm cannon has superior penetration as it simply
has more KE and a larger explosive filling.

I say again, show me where the P-47 was ineffective with its .50
cals.
Or show me where the Typhoon was decidedly better (in which case I
wonder why the RAF was a P-47 user...).


Show me where I claimed it was ineffective ?

Are you defending Paul's assertion that the 20mm was a hands-down
better weapon in the strafe roll or not? I am just claiming rough
parity between the two weapons; if you are gonna claim one was
demonstrably better than the other, bring out the evidence.


The fact that the USAF and USN did in fact both switch from
the .50 cal to the 20mm cannon would seem evidence enough

Not really. They both found the .50 cal to be a good weapon throughout
the war; the USAF continued to use it until the "next generation" of
cannons became available, so to speak. Times changed, the threats
changed, capabilities changed--and the 20mm became the caliber of
choice. Again, if you are going to claim that the .50 cal was
demonstrably inferior to the 20mm during WWII, show some evidence--the
fact that both the USAF and USN continued to use .50 cal armament
throughout the Korean conflict would seem to contradict your theory.


The Korean war caught the US flatfooted, they had to use whatever
was available. The USAF used the P-51 in the ground attack
role because in the early part of the war its all they had.

The USAF also found to its chagrin that their sabre pilots
were having considerable difficulty inflicting lethal damage
on Mig-15's with .50 cal MG's



The point is that the 20mm was MORE effective not that the .50
was useless , it clearly wasnt

Can you prove it was MORE effective? How so? You discount reliability,
rate of fire, ammo load, and velocity and reach that conclusion...how?


Who says I discount those issues , presumably the USN and
USAF also considered them or they wouldnt have switched

Read the response above.




than the 20mm (and the USN agreed, as we saw with the armament
that
was affiixed to the Hellcats and Corsairs through the end of
the
war,
and in the case of the Corsair through the Korean experience).


In point of fact the Corsair switched to cannon armament in
the F4U-4B and F4U-4C.

"Production included 2050 F4U-4s with six .50 guns, 297 F4U-4Bs or
F4U-4Cs with four 20mm cannon"


As I said

But I believe the .50 cals were still being produced upo to the very
end of the war?


Quite so, mostly for the USAAF

Production of the MG armed F6F continued through November 45. I
believe -4 series Corsairs with MG armament were also still being
delivered when VJ Day came around. And you think this indicates the
.50 cal was demonstrably inferior?


The F4U from the 4C series onwards was fitted with cannon.
The first 300 of the production F4U-4Cs were assigned to Marine Air
Group 31 and were taken into the Battle for Okinawa aboard the escort
carriers Sitko Bay and Bereton.

Keith