P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,reality

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
m...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message ,
writes
What would be more effective for strafing -- An F-51 with it's six
50-calibers or an A-1 with its four 20 mm cannon?

20mm, definitely.

The .50 was a fine anti-fighter weapon for most of the war, blessed
with
a good rate of fire, excellent ballistics, and reasonable lethality.
Against bombers it would have struggled, but the US rarely faced
large,
armoured bombers. The RAF started with .303, rapidly found it
wanting
and moved to the Hispano; the USAF had the .50 which was a good
all-rounder, even if with hindsight a change to 20mm for many roles
would have been better.

Not necessarily. The .50 cal was generally more reliable than most of
the 20mm cannon then available, and carried more ammo per weapon.
Unless you can show that 20mm armed fighters were demonstrably
superior strafers (and given the records attained by the P-47 and P-51
in both the European and Pacific theaters that is going to be hard to
do), it is kind of hard to say "20mm definitely", IMO. Remember, the
question regards strafing, not the downing of large, reasonably
armored bombers.


And the Hawker Typhoon and Hurricane armed with cannon did a lot
of strafing, the comparison could have been and was done.

Show me where the P-47 was deficient as a strafer. It has been
acknowledged to have been among the best, if not the best, of the
CAS/interdiction platforms used during WWII in Europe--so why was its
.50 cal armament lacking? The USAAF thought that the higher rate of
fire, generally more reliable guns, and greater ammo loads, along with
a flatter trajectory, made the .50 cal a better choice at that time

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.

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.

The AU-1 produced specifically for the marines during the Korean war
also had an all cannon armament



The USN switched to 20mm. the USAF didn't. Difference between
Pacific
and Europe, perhaps?

When did the USN switch to the 20mm during WWII, or for that matter
during the Korean War? AFAIK, the standard remained the .50 cal in
both services until after the Korean conflict, when both began
shifting to the 20mm at roughly the same time (in the same general
timeframe that the A-1 was coming into major service with its 20mm,
the later F-86 variants were also gaining the heavier weapons, IIRC,
as was the new F-100).

Brooks

The USN jets produced in the immediate post war period
were cannon armed. The Grumman F9F for example reached
the fleet in 1949 and had 4 20mm cannon as did the F2H
Banshee

The F9F-5 was indeed cannon armed. But, the USAF also had early
experience in cannon armament for fighters, roughly in the same
timeframe as what you describe. The P-38 offered a combined MG and
20mm cannon armament during WWII; the P-39 also sported cannon in both
the 20mm and 37mm guises. Likewise, the F-86 first sported 20mm during
the Korean conflict (though the initial experience was less than
satisfactory--it was not until the H model came along that the 20mm
appeared as the standard armament). The fact is that the USN did not
switch to 20mm during WWII, ahead of the USAAF, as Paul stated with
his "difference between the Pacific and Euro theaters" comment.

Brooks


Clearly it did since every fighter built after 1946 for the
USN was cannon armed.

Keith