P-39 37mm gun - MiG-15 37mm gun?
Paul J. Adam
0...@email.msn.com> writes
>Was the MiG-15's 37mm gun similar in shell, etc. to those on the P-39 and
>P-63 fighters that the USSR bought/were leased in WW2?
Same calibre, obviously, but IIRC the velocity was a lot higher and the
MiG's cannon didn't use a 15-round magazine.
>Was it derived or
>copied from those automatic cannon?
Not to my knowledge. (Tony Williams would know)
>
>Why didn't the US apply the 37mm automatic cannon they had to fighters like
>the Sabre and Shooting Star? A couple of them plus machine guns would have
>been hellacious....
For the same reason that the USSR binned the 37mm from later fighters.
Too slow-firing, too little ammunition for the big gun, inadequate
destructive effects from the MGs, and the dissimilar ballistics of
multiple calibres make aiming a lot harder. The 6 x .50" on many US
aircraft in Korea were very good at getting hits, but needed a lot of
hits to inflict fatal damage: while the MiG's cannon suite was very
destructive but also hard to hit with, being designed for destroying
bombers rather than fighters.
A more effective weapon suite would be several cannon in 20-30mm: the US
settled on 4 x 20mm and then a 20mm Gatling, the USSR on 2/3 23mm or the
occasional 30mm, and the RAF had 4 x 30mm on several fighters (ouch!)
Combining a uniform calibre, a high rate of fire, adequate ammo storage
and a destructive projectile was the goal, with various solutions
adopted.
--
There are four kinds of homicide: praiseworthy, justifiable, excusable and
felonious...
Paul J. Adam ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
David Lentz
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
<snip<
> >Why didn't the US apply the 37mm automatic cannon they had to fighters like
> >the Sabre and Shooting Star? A couple of them plus machine guns would have
> >been hellacious....
>
> For the same reason that the USSR binned the 37mm from later fighters.
> Too slow-firing, too little ammunition for the big gun, inadequate
> destructive effects from the MGs, and the dissimilar ballistics of
> multiple calibres make aiming a lot harder. The 6 x .50" on many US
> aircraft in Korea were very good at getting hits, but needed a lot of
> hits to inflict fatal damage: while the MiG's cannon suite was very
> destructive but also hard to hit with, being designed for destroying
> bombers rather than fighters.
>
> A more effective weapon suite would be several cannon in 20-30mm: the US
> settled on 4 x 20mm and then a 20mm Gatling, the USSR on 2/3 23mm or the
> occasional 30mm, and the RAF had 4 x 30mm on several fighters (ouch!)
>
> Combining a uniform calibre, a high rate of fire, adequate ammo storage
> and a destructive projectile was the goal, with various solutions
> adopted.
I believe the first US fighter using a cannon for air to air was
some of F-86H models which sported four twenty millimeter
cannons.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Chris Morton
>I believe the first US fighter using a cannon for air to air was
>some of F-86H models which sported four twenty millimeter
>cannons.
There were test models of the Brewster Buffalo with 20mm cannons.
The P-38 Lightning had a 20mm cannon as part of its standard armament.
If I'm not mistaken, some nightfighter versions of the F6F and the F4U used 20mm
cannons.
The 37mm aircraft gun of the P-39 was not a good gun, unreliability being its
principle failing.
David Lentz
I did recall the Aircobra, P-39. However, at least in US
service, it really can't be considered and air to air fighter.
air to mud yes. as for forgetting abut the Brewster Buffalo, I
don't know what was going through my mind.
I's say that six fifties were pretty much the standard Air Force
fighter armament from World War Two to the Century Series.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Paul J. Adam
<Ro...@signfile.net> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
>> A more effective weapon suite would be several cannon in 20-30mm: the US
>> settled on 4 x 20mm and then a 20mm Gatling, the USSR on 2/3 23mm or the
>> occasional 30mm, and the RAF had 4 x 30mm on several fighters (ouch!)
>>
>> Combining a uniform calibre, a high rate of fire, adequate ammo storage
>> and a destructive projectile was the goal, with various solutions
>> adopted.
>
>I believe the first US fighter using a cannon for air to air was
>some of F-86H models which sported four twenty millimeter
>cannons.
Nah. The P-39 had a 37mm cannon, the P-38 started with a 37mm and
switched to a 20mm, some F4Us had 4 x 20mm as did all the F8F Bearcats,
the F7F Tigercat had 20mm guns... I recall some early Mustangs having
cannon, before 4 (later 6) .50s became standard.
Paul J. Adam
<Ro...@signfile.net> writes
>I did recall the Aircobra, P-39. However, at least in US
>service, it really can't be considered and air to air fighter.
Designed as such... used as such, too, around Guadalcanal and in the
Pacific.
>I's say that six fifties were pretty much the standard Air Force
>fighter armament from World War Two to the Century Series.
Hmm... it was one common armanent, but a quick list throws up a _lot_ of
variation.
P-38, 4 x .50" and 1 x 37mm or 20mm.
P-39, mixed battery of .30 and .50 plus a 37mm.
P-40, either a mixed battery of .30s and .50s or six .50s.
P-47, eight .50.
P-51B, four .50cal. P-51D, six .50cal.
P-61, four 20mm and four .50" (forgot that one).
F-80, 6 x .50".
F-82, six .50s.
F-84, four or six .50s.
F-86, either 6 x .50", or cannon, or (in the most numerous -D variant)
rockets.
F-89, lotsa rockets or AIM-4s.
F-94, lotsa rockets and/or some AIM-4s.
Interestingly, the USAF seemed to cling to the .50" longer than anyone
else, then jumped at unguided rockets as "the next weapon" with more
enthusiasm than anyone else, and came later than practically anyone else
to cannon.
Peter Stickney
Well, the P-38 came standard with an Hispano AN/M2. The P-61 had 4 of
them. Late War/Post WW2, the Air Force set a lot of stock in the
development of the .60 caliber gun. (15mm) the idea was to have a
heavier round than the Browning .50, but to keep the .50's better
downrange ballistics and rate of fire. It didn't work. Day fighters,
which tended to be smaller, contunued with the Browning, but in the m3
version with a nominal 1500 rd/min rate of fire, basically increasing
the Weight of Fire by half again over a WW 2 fighter. Night fighters
that were designed as such, like the Curtiss XF-87, adn the Northrop
F-89, were originally specified with a Marting "Barrel Turret" that
occuped the entire nose, behind the radar. This held 4 20mm guns.
When this also didn't work, the production airplane, the F-89, had 6
20mm M24 guns.
The .50 was though to be sufficient for the day fighters, but Korean
experience showed that the thicker skins anf more oblique striking
angles (Deflection shots were rather low angle, basically, the
shooters were nearly directly behind the targets) meant that the .50
was marginal for shooting down fighters. This led to the development
of the Pontiac M39 revolver cannon (Hitting power of a 20mm, RoF of a
50 cal). Preproduction versions of this gun were fitted to very
early model F-86Fs and sent to Korea, as part of Project Gun-Val.
These pointed up problems: Ammunition capacity was rather low, and
gun gas ingestion was a big problem. It took a long time to sort out.
(The gun gas ingetion problem wasn't just in the U.S. Early Avon
engined Hawker Hunters, the F.1 and F.4, weren't able to fire their
guns at altitudes of over 25,000' for much on their front line
careers.)
The U.S> Navy simply went to 4 20mm guns at the end of WW2, using the
Hispano originally, and later replacing it with the Colt Mk 12.
The Mk 12 also was rather troublesome, with feed problems in the F8U
and A4D.
--
Pete Stickney Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within.
Julian Cosson
p-sti...@worldnet.att.net wrote on 12/3/01 7:37 AM:
SNIP..
>
> The .50 was though to be sufficient for the day fighters, but Korean
> experience showed that the thicker skins anf more oblique striking
> angles (Deflection shots were rather low angle, basically, the
> shooters were nearly directly behind the targets) meant that the .50
> was marginal for shooting down fighters. This led to the development
> of the Pontiac M39 revolver cannon (Hitting power of a 20mm, RoF of a
> 50 cal). Preproduction versions of this gun were fitted to very
> early model F-86Fs and sent to Korea, as part of Project Gun-Val.
> These pointed up problems: Ammunition capacity was rather low, and
> gun gas ingestion was a big problem. It took a long time to sort out.
>
> (The gun gas ingetion problem wasn't just in the U.S. Early Avon
> engined Hawker Hunters, the F.1 and F.4, weren't able to fire their
> guns at altitudes of over 25,000' for much on their front line
> careers.)
>
> The U.S> Navy simply went to 4 20mm guns at the end of WW2, using the
> Hispano originally, and later replacing it with the Colt Mk 12.
> The Mk 12 also was rather troublesome, with feed problems in the F8U
> and A4D.
The RAAF apreciated the effectiveness of cannons and the CAC Sabre was
fitted with 30mm cannons from day one.
JC
David Lentz
It seemed that in the post war era the Air Force had two
philosophies. The air superiority fighters got the fifties and
the interceptors got the unguided rockets. For example the
Sabre Jet, (F-86) was generally armed with six fifties, except
the D variant, the interceptor version, which got unguided
rockets.
It would seem that Air Force figure that the machine guns lacked
the punch to knock out a bomber and the rockets the speed and
accuracy to get a fighter.
Then, if there is a type which violates these general rules, I am
sure I'll hear of it.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Emmanuel Gustin
news:srgg89...@Mineshaft.att.net...
> which tended to be smaller, contunued with the Browning, but in the m3
> version with a nominal 1500 rd/min rate of fire, basically increasing
> the Weight of Fire by half again over a WW 2 fighter.
1200 rpm, not 1500. Still a 50% increase over the rate of fire
of the wartime M2 version, 750 to 850 rpm.
> of the Pontiac M39 revolver cannon (Hitting power of a 20mm,
> RoF of a 50 cal).
The M39 was credited with 1700 rpm, again 40% more than the
.50 M3.
The Browning .50 M2 actually did not fire faster than the best
of the WWII 20-mm cannon, such as the ShVAK or the Japanese
Ho-5 (which /was/ basically an enlarged Browning). It was a
relatively old gun, firing a fairly heavy projectile at a high muzzle
velocity, at the cost of a somewhat lower rate of fire than many
other .50 guns.
For the interested:
http://www.geocities.com/gustin_e/fgun/fgun-fr.html
Emmanuel Gustin
Pelzig
> > P-38, 4 x .50" and 1 x 37mm or 20mm.
> > P-39, mixed battery of .30 and .50 plus a 37mm.
> > P-40, either a mixed battery of .30s and .50s or six .50s.
> > P-47, eight .50.
> > P-51B, four .50cal. P-51D, six .50cal.
> > P-61, four 20mm and four .50" (forgot that one).
> > F-80, 6 x .50".
> > F-82, six .50s.
> > F-84, four or six .50s.
> > F-86, either 6 x .50", or cannon, or (in the most numerous -D variant)
> > rockets.
> > F-89, lotsa rockets or AIM-4s.
> > F-94, lotsa rockets and/or some AIM-4s.
The F-89A and the F-89B packed six 20mm cannon as did the F-89C. Eight
underwing 5" rockets could also be carried. With the introduction of the
F-89D, the cannon gave way to the rockets. The "D" had 104 2.75" FFARs
which were based on the German R4M AARs from WW2. The F-89H packed six
GAR-1 ( later AIM-4 ) Falcon AAMs and 42 2.75" FFARs.
The F-86D carried 24 of the FFARs while the F-94C carried 24 FFARs in the
nose and could also carry a further 48 FFARs via mid-wing rocket pods.
> > Interestingly, the USAF seemed to cling to the .50" longer than anyone
> > else, then jumped at unguided rockets as "the next weapon" with more
> > enthusiasm than anyone else, and came later than practically anyone else
> > to cannon.
The USAF's usage of rockets, I believe, stemmed from the very concept the
Germans did in their use of the R4M rocket, that of securing a hit by a
spread of unguided rockets. It is easier to just launch a volley of
rockets into a bomber box than to line up a single bomber and close with
it to lay guns on it. You also get that stand-off ability. At the time the
rockets were in vogue, the Soviets had a good sized bomber fleet
available. For instance, if a F-89D unleashed all of its 104 rockets, the
spread would be enough to blanket a football field and like the R4M, one
hit by the FFAR would be enough to pluck a Soviet bomber from the air and
you may get more hits depending on how close the bombers were to each
other. I'd imagine that since the F-89 and, for the most part, the F-86D
and F-94 were used to national defense of the US, the lack of cannon or
machineguns wouldn't be much of a issue when it is doubtful Soviet
fighters could make the trip to escort the bombers all the way. Even if
some did, there would have been enough gun-toting interceptors to protect
the rocket armed aircraft or engage the bomber's escorts.
Just my two cents here.
Regards,
Peter Stickney
"Emmanuel Gustin" <Emmanue...@skynet.be> writes:
> "Peter Stickney" <p-sti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:srgg89...@Mineshaft.att.net...
>
>> which tended to be smaller, contunued with the Browning, but in the m3
>> version with a nominal 1500 rd/min rate of fire, basically increasing
>> the Weight of Fire by half again over a WW 2 fighter.
>
> 1200 rpm, not 1500. Still a 50% increase over the rate of fire
> of the wartime M2 version, 750 to 850 rpm.
>
_nominal_ values. Other factors, like wear, state of lubrication,
temperature, ammunition quality (Let me tell you about the couple of
belts of ex-Yugoslav .303 I had with a built-in 1/4 second delay in
the primers. (Not to pick nits, but it can be easy to divide rabbits
when it isn't necessary.)
>> of the Pontiac M39 revolver cannon (Hitting power of a 20mm,
>> RoF of a 50 cal).
>
> The M39 was credited with 1700 rpm, again 40% more than the
> ..50 M3.
My references tend to agree at about 1500 RPM, but again, no big
deal. Either way you get a "Hail of LEad strike rate, which is what
was wanted).
>
> The Browning .50 M2 actually did not fire faster than the best
> of the WWII 20-mm cannon, such as the ShVAK or the Japanese
> Ho-5 (which /was/ basically an enlarged Browning). It was a
> relatively old gun, firing a fairly heavy projectile at a high muzzle
> velocity, at the cost of a somewhat lower rate of fire than many
> other .50 guns.
Yeah, but the USAF/USAAF wasn't going to be using ShVAKs at any time I
can think of. While I can't testify to it, I think the Air Force
Brass somehow has a huge impression made on them by the MG 151. And
it seems like a good compromise between size/weight/ammunition
capacity and hitting power. The chosen cartridge, which, IIRC, was a
necked-down 20mm Hispano round, was too "hot" for good durability.
>
> For the interested:
> http://www.geocities.com/gustin_e/fgun/fgun-fr.html
A most useful resource.
David Lentz
Pelzig wrote:
<snip>
> The F-89A and the F-89B packed six 20mm cannon as did the F-89C. Eight
> underwing 5" rockets could also be carried. With the introduction of the
> F-89D, the cannon gave way to the rockets. The "D" had 104 2.75" FFARs
> which were based on the German R4M AARs from WW2. The F-89H packed six
> GAR-1 ( later AIM-4 ) Falcon AAMs and 42 2.75" FFARs.
Best I can make out, only the C model carried the twenty
millimeter cannons. However, maybe you can make more sense of
this:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f89.htm
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Maury Markowitz
news:AeAKkzB1...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
(missing the original, sorry)
> >Was the MiG-15's 37mm gun similar in shell, etc. to those on the P-39 and
> >P-63 fighters that the USSR bought/were leased in WW2?
Nope, completely different. The common size is a side effect of history,
just like there are a whole bunch of .30x, .5x and 20mm rounds that are all
different. In this case I believe the 37mm was the "two pounder" gun that
the British used in the 1800's, but my pre-war gunnery is rather spotty.
The MiG's gun had a much better firing rate and muzzle velocity.
> >Why didn't the US apply the 37mm automatic cannon they had to fighters
like
> >the Sabre and Shooting Star? A couple of them plus machine guns would
have
> >been hellacious....
Well again this is all about history. The P-39 got the 37mm because when
it was originally designed it was a supercharged bomber interceptor. Even
the low velocity of the gun was OK for that purpose, where they would be
doing straight shots at bombers looking for single round kills. It was kept
on the plane after it was converted to an attack vehicle because it was
fairly useful in that role, the Sovs apparently loved them.
The MiG got the gun for exactly the same reason. The MiG's main purpose in
life was to shoot down bombers in the interceptor role and the "pure
fighter" role was somewhat secondary. It's reasonable to sugges that four of
the 23mm's would have been better, but I suppose they felt otherwise. The
idea was that the two 23's were the fighter-fighter arms and when attacking
bombers you'd switch over to the 37 and take "plink" shots.
As to the Sabre and such, these were fighters, built to shoot at other
fighters. For that reason you don't need nearly as much firepower, and a
high rate of fire becomes much more important than the punch of each hit.
You need the numbers because you're going to miss a lot more. Note that the
86D's and other interceptors in the US used rockets as their primary weapon
against bombers, as opposed to cannon or machine guns. One exception was the
Clunk, which mounted 10 50's in some cases.
Maury
John Campbell
<snip>
> It seemed that in the post war era the Air Force had two
> philosophies. The air superiority fighters got the fifties and
> the interceptors got the unguided rockets. For example the
> Sabre Jet, (F-86) was generally armed with six fifties, except
> the D variant, the interceptor version, which got unguided
> rockets.
>
> It would seem that Air Force figure that the machine guns lacked
> the punch to knock out a bomber and the rockets the speed and
> accuracy to get a fighter.
>
> Then, if there is a type which violates these general rules, I am
> sure I'll hear of it.
I think it had to do with the need for more destructive power
for bombers but the cannon recoil/vibration was too much for
the very complex tube avionics of the interceptors. Hence a/c
like the F89 went from cannon to FFR when the more complex
electronics went in.
regards
jc
John Campbell
<snip>
> fitted with 30mm cannons from day one.
Unfortunatly the avon/aden problem meant they couldn't really use
the cannon until about day 1,500 and basically a new engine.
regards
jc
Pelzig
<Ro...@signfile.net> wrote:
> > Pelzig wrote:
Not too sure what I'm looking at there, but, according to Larry Davis &
Dave Menard "F-89 Scorpion In Action", the F-89A and F-89B clearly sported
six Mk24 cannon. This is also confirmed in Marty Isham and David McLaren's
"Northrop F-89 Scorpion".
Regards,
Ed
UPP
> against bombers, as opposed to cannon or machine guns. One exception was
the
> Clunk, which mounted 10 50's in some cases.
>
> Maury
>
I've never heard that one before... please, what is a "Clunk"?
-mika-
Michael Williamson
>
> I've never heard that one before... please, what is a "Clunk"?
>
> -mika-
Canadian CF-100, built by Avro Canada, and officially designated the
"Canuck." The aricraft entered service in the early '50s.
David Lentz
Heck I am non partisan. I can argue both sides of the same issue.
Here is sources citing the six twenties on the the A and B
models:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p89.html
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Maury Markowitz
news:E0Hr6.2322$a83.1...@news.kpnqwest.fi...
> I've never heard that one before... please, what is a "Clunk"?
Avro CF-100, an all-weather twin-jet fighter from the 50's. Alternately
loved or hated by it's crews, more hated considering the nicknames which
were clunk, lead sled, etc. It was armed with rocket pods on either wingtip
that held a lot of FFARs, as well as a pop-up belly pack with the 10 50's.
Maury
David E. Powell
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:AeAKkzB1...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>
>(missing the original, sorry)
>
>> >Was the MiG-15's 37mm gun similar in shell, etc. to those on the P-39
and
>> >P-63 fighters that the USSR bought/were leased in WW2?
>
> Nope, completely different. The common size is a side effect of history,
>just like there are a whole bunch of .30x, .5x and 20mm rounds that are all
>different. In this case I believe the 37mm was the "two pounder" gun that
>the British used in the 1800's, but my pre-war gunnery is rather spotty.
>
> The MiG's gun had a much better firing rate and muzzle velocity.
Thanks for the answers. IIRC the Bell folks had designed a twin engine
fighter in the 30s or thereabouts which also carried a 37mm cannon for such
a purpose.
Thanks for the answers. What was the Clunk, though? The F-94? The Twin
Mustang?
>Maury
>
>
Peter Stickney
> Thanks for the answers. IIRC the Bell folks had designed a twin engine
> fighter in the 30s or thereabouts which also carried a 37mm cannon for such
> a purpose.
That would be the YFM-1 (Prototype Fighter Multiplace) Airacuda.
Basically a gun platform for 2 37mm guns & the associated gunners.
The idea, apparently, was to pick off hordes of Axis bombers that
would raid the U.S. after the Germans took Europe. But, since the
Germans didn't read DeSeversky, or "Air Trails", I guess it wasn't
needed. While it would not have been an effective combat aircraft, it
was an interesting experiment in advanced technology gor the time.
>> The MiG got the gun for exactly the same reason. The MiG's main purpose
> in
>>life was to shoot down bombers in the interceptor role and the "pure
>>fighter" role was somewhat secondary. It's reasonable to sugges that four
> of
>>the 23mm's would have been better, but I suppose they felt otherwise. The
>>idea was that the two 23's were the fighter-fighter arms and when attacking
>>bombers you'd switch over to the 37 and take "plink" shots.
I don't buy tht all they way, Maury. Everything I've found about the
MiG's invoolvement in the Korean war shows them as carrying the
23mm/37mm mixed armament. If teh 23s were "Anti-Fighter", and the
37mm "Anti-Bomber". why didn't the Soviets, or the Chinese, replace
the 37mm with another 23mm, or remove it without replacing it, or, for
that matter, just not load it, saving the ammunition weight. The
ballistic character of the two types of guns made shooting them at the
same target a hit-or-miss proposition (Sorry), and the vast majority
of the targets were fighters and fighter bombers. The 3 23mm solution
was, I believe, used on some MiG-17s, so it was certainly practical.
>> As to the Sabre and such, these were fighters, built to shoot at other
>>fighters. For that reason you don't need nearly as much firepower, and a
>>high rate of fire becomes much more important than the punch of each hit.
>>You need the numbers because you're going to miss a lot more. Note that the
>>86D's and other interceptors in the US used rockets as their primary weapon
>>against bombers, as opposed to cannon or machine guns. One exception was
> the
>>Clunk, which mounted 10 50's in some cases.
>
> Thanks for the answers. What was the Clunk, though? The F-94? The Twin
> Mustang?
The Clunk was the crew's nickname for tehAvro Canda CF-100
interceptor. It was a big twin engined, straight wing jet. In many
respects, the CF-100's career parallels teh Northrop F-89 Scorpion.
It was conceived in the late '40s as a long-ranged Night/All-Weather
interceptor. The initial weapon fit was eight .50 cal MGs under the
belly, and the APG-33 radar feeding information to the E-1 Fire
Control System. Later versions used the APG-40/E-6 Radar/FCS
combination, providing collision course direction for a battery of
2.75" FFARs, which were carried in wingtip pods.
Others have pointed out that one reason for going with the rocket
salvos was because there would only be one shot at an approaching
bomber. There is a bit more than that. I've just read Bill Lear Jr's
(The son of the Lear avionics and Lear Jet founder) Autobiography, and
the tells a bit about his days as an F-84D (Plank Wing) interceptor
pilot with the 83rd FIS at Hamilton AFB, CA. At tht time, they'd try
to intercept B-36s flying out over the Pacific. He describes 100 mile
tail chases in order to catch the bombers cruising at 40,000', and the
need to be _very_ cautious making a gun pass on them, due to the
danger from teh prop wash & wake turbulence. The collision couse
systems allowed teh fighter to attack from ahead or abeam, thus making
the intercept occur more quickly. (If you could get up to the
bomber's height in time.)
John Keeney
David E. Powell <David_Po...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:OcFgUuBrAHA.464@cpmsnbbsa09...
> Maury Markowitz wrote in message ...
> >"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:AeAKkzB1...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> >
> >(missing the original, sorry)
> >
> >> >Was the MiG-15's 37mm gun similar in shell, etc. to those on the P-39
> and
> >> >P-63 fighters that the USSR bought/were leased in WW2?
> >
> > Nope, completely different. The common size is a side effect of
history,
> >just like there are a whole bunch of .30x, .5x and 20mm rounds that are
all
> >different. In this case I believe the 37mm was the "two pounder" gun that
> >the British used in the 1800's, but my pre-war gunnery is rather spotty.
> >
> > The MiG's gun had a much better firing rate and muzzle velocity.
>
> Thanks for the answers. IIRC the Bell folks had designed a twin engine
> fighter in the 30s or thereabouts which also carried a 37mm cannon for
such
> a purpose.
The Bell FM-1 (in YFM-1, XFM-1, XFM-1A and XFM-1B flavors).
One of the frequent posters to this group, Erik Shilling, is one of the few
poeple to actually have time flying this type.
Emmanuel Gustin
news:ed_pelzig_dyer-...@ip32.dublin7.oh.pub-ip.psi.net...
> For instance, if a F-89D unleashed all of its 104 rockets, the
> spread would be enough to blanket a football field and like the R4M, one
> hit by the FFAR would be enough to pluck a Soviet bomber from the air and
> you may get more hits depending on how close the bombers were to each
> other.
An interception, with the technology of that time, would often only
allow a single pass at the bomber. Collision course intercept was the
standard for the first all-weather fighters. And the alternative was a
chase at high altitude and high subsonic speeds, but experience showed
--- for example for B-47s and MiG-15s --- that the fighters often found
it very difficult to get near the bombers. Because of the steep drag rise
in the transsonic region, the fighters weren't much faster; and because of
their larger wings and lower wing loading the bombers could often
outmaneuver the fighters at high altitude.
To shoot down a big bomber in just a single pass, the brute firepower
of a mass of rockets was a reasonable solution. Large-calibre guns,
37-mm and bigger, were also considered in several places; but they
gradually disappeared in favour of rockets. Rockets don't have recoil
or heavy gun barrels. (Recoilless guns were not mature enough to be
practical.)
The extreme solution was the nuclear-tipped Genie rocket; perhaps less
reasonable, but the concept was the same. Considering that they could
be expected to carry nuclear bombs, the enemy bombers had to be shot
down at any cost. And would not be caught flying in formation. (I seem
to remember that I have read somewhere that the crews of the F-94A and
Bs, that were badly outgunned by the Soviet bombers, were told to ram
them if they could not shoot them down. Does anyone know?)
Emmanuel Gustin
Emmanuel Gustin
> That would be the YFM-1 (Prototype Fighter Multiplace) Airacuda.
> Basically a gun platform for 2 37mm guns & the associated gunners.
Actually the "gunners" were more "loaders", gun aiming being
done by a gunner in a central fuselage, using a periscopic sight,
a fire control system, and a hydraulic gun aiming system. An
interesting idea, and Sperry learnt a lot from this effort; but not
a practical combat concept. Even an escort of Bf 110s would have
been easily superior to the heavy FM-1s.
> The 3 23mm solution was, I believe, used on some MiG-17s, so
> it was certainly practical.
Also on some La-15s, which might have been better suited opponents
for the F-86s (not having some of the MiG's disadvantages) but were
too fragile and had a too high maintenance requirement for operations
in Korea.
Emmanuel Gustin
John Campbell
He didn't seem too impressed with some of the features
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/Prototypes.html
regards
jc
Maury Markowitz
> MiG's invoolvement in the Korean war shows them as carrying the
> 23mm/37mm mixed armament. If teh 23s were "Anti-Fighter", and the
> 37mm "Anti-Bomber". why didn't the Soviets, or the Chinese, replace
> the 37mm with another 23mm, or remove it without replacing it, or, for
> that matter, just not load it, saving the ammunition weight.
From what I understand the answers are:
1) the gun carriage was standardized, you dropped them all out at the same
time. There wasn't a way to replace the 37 easily.
2) a lot of them did leave it empty IIRC
> same target a hit-or-miss proposition (Sorry), and the vast majority
> of the targets were fighters and fighter bombers. The 3 23mm solution
> was, I believe, used on some MiG-17s, so it was certainly practical.
Different plane, different belly pack.
> to intercept B-36s flying out over the Pacific. He describes 100 mile
> tail chases in order to catch the bombers cruising at 40,000'
Wow.
Maury
Peter Stickney
"Maury Markowitz" <maury@remove_this.sympatico.ca.invalid> writes:
> "Peter Stickney" <p-sti...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:foou89...@Mineshaft.att.net...
>> I don't buy tht all they way, Maury. Everything I've found about the
>> MiG's invoolvement in the Korean war shows them as carrying the
>> 23mm/37mm mixed armament. If teh 23s were "Anti-Fighter", and the
>> 37mm "Anti-Bomber". why didn't the Soviets, or the Chinese, replace
>> the 37mm with another 23mm, or remove it without replacing it, or, for
>> that matter, just not load it, saving the ammunition weight.
>
> From what I understand the answers are:
>
> 1) the gun carriage was standardized, you dropped them all out at the same
> time. There wasn't a way to replace the 37 easily.
It's nothing to remove the barrel, (They come off for easy
cleaning/replacement, and don't weigh much. If it's a ballast
problem, leave teh breech in. Fair over the blister/trough, and
you've picked up a knot or two.
>
> 2) a lot of them did leave it empty IIRC
I've yet to see a reference for this. From my notes, nearly all
Korean Pilot debreifings talk about the different-sized tracers.
>
>> same target a hit-or-miss proposition (Sorry), and the vast majority
>> of the targets were fighters and fighter bombers. The 3 23mm solution
>> was, I believe, used on some MiG-17s, so it was certainly practical.
>
> Different plane, different belly pack.
Same nose, and the armament bay is the same.
>
>> to intercept B-36s flying out over the Pacific. He describes 100 mile
>> tail chases in order to catch the bombers cruising at 40,000'
>
> Wow.
Not too surprising, really. 40,000 ft is quite a ways up, and
something like a plank-winged F-84 isn't going to be able to make a
pass any way other than behind. (A head on shot won't give enough
hits), and by the time the interceptor gets up to tht height, the
bomber will be nearly past. At those heights, flying the fighter is
like trying to stand on a bowling ball. Precision flying it isn't.
Again, it's one of the main reasons for teh development of teh
collision course fire control system and rocket combination. If
you're only going to get one chance, you've got to hit hard.
Maury Markowitz
> Not too surprising, really. 40,000 ft is quite a ways up, and
> something like a plank-winged F-84
Ahhh, you said "F-84" and I read "F-86".
Maury