|
Forums 1C:Maddox Games IL2 Maddox General Discussion Question about corsair/USN decision process|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Why the heck did they USN change the corsair back to 50 cals in the D version after having 20mms on the C? 20mms seem like the perfect blend of rate of fire and destructive power against the manueverable and lightly armored Japanese planes.
In the European theatre, the 50 cals feel real good attacking german planes, but against the Japanese I'd rather have a real quick kill with the more destructive gun. ------------------------------------------ "Ah yes, Michael," Bader replied, "But these particular Fockers were Messerschmitts..." |
|||
|
I dont think I understand your post... you seem to be saying 20mm cannons would be better against jap planes while .50cal would be better against the german planes? Weren't the german planes better armoured than the japs?
And if this game is anything to go by, Id say the ROF from the .50cals and the amount of guns compared to the 20mm cannons were much more effective against the jap planes... -Flying as rubber_ducky- Intel Q6600 @2.5ghz Inno3D iChiLL 8800GT 512 OC'd Asus p5k/EPU 2x 1GB Corsair 800mhz Antec EA500W |
||||
|
The US had significant reliability problems with its version of the Hispano 20 mm cannon. The AN-M2 averaged approximately one stoppage for every fourty rounds fired (compared with the British Hispano Mk II, which averaged one stoppage for every 275 rounds fired). As a result, it was reluctant to install it in anything more than a minority of aircraft. It should be noted that the SB-2C and the SB-W also carried the weapon into combat for the USN, as did some night fighter versions of the F6F. ImpStarDuece, Flying Bullet Magnet... Catching Lead Since 2002 "There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!" "Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol, morphine or idealism." -Carl Jung |
||||
|
Late war German planes were well armored but not very manuverable. So it is easy to keep hitting them with sustained 50 cal fire. But the Jap planes never even fly level at all in a fight if they can help it, which means I want to be able to destroy them with only a couple bullets from a longer range, not have to worry about sustained firing even for a second. ------------------------------------------ "Ah yes, Michael," Bader replied, "But these particular Fockers were Messerschmitts..." |
||||
|
The problem here is you are thinking like a WW1 pilot, not like a WW2 USAAF/USN aviator. All the maneuverability in the world doesn't mean anything if your opponent can engage and disengage at will, due to superior speed and/or altitude performance. Against fighters like the Ki-43/61/100 and the Zero, pilots in a Corsair or P-51/47/38 have the speed and rate of climb advantage (at speed) to dominate the fight completely. All the Japanese pilot can do is use his superior rate of turn to avoid attacks, without much hope of returning fire. The German aircraft, while not as nimble in the horizontal as their Japanese counterparts, are generally the equal o(r better) of the US ETO aircraft in terms of speed, climb and performance at altitude (although the FW 190A series suffers above 24,000 ft). Similar conditions exist for the later Japanese aircraft, like the N1K2-J, Ki-84 and J2M, which have the speed and power to stick with the US fighters. Personally, I'd rather the revers of your preferance: multiple, lighter, more rapid firing machine guns against the lighter, more nimble, more flammable Japanese aircraft and the heavier, slower firing, more destructive cannon against the German aircraft. ImpStarDuece, Flying Bullet Magnet... Catching Lead Since 2002 "There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!" "Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol, morphine or idealism." -Carl Jung |
||||
|
When looking at real world equipment decisions remember its not a game and real world military rarely have the luxury of always having the best weapon for the job.
Why was the early war Panzer III fitted with a 37mm cannon when the much more effective 50mm was available? Because the ordinance people said we already have 37mm anti-tank guns and we want to use the same ammo in the new tanks. Similarly why wasnt teh p38 upgraded to Packard Merlins once they were available ? (Would have made an awesome p38)Because every P38 made would mean losing 2 x p51D's .. the engines were in short supply. In the case of USAAF Marine Corp and USN aircraft, the US made 20 mm cannon was unreliable as mentioned above ... but in addition it would need special separate ammo. Almost nothing else used 20mm guns. On the other hand the 0.50 cal Browning was fitted to aircraft, tanks, jeeps, half tracks, armored trains, personnel carriers, ships and even lugged by hand with numerous rifleman squads all over Europe and the Pacific. The 0.50 cal BMG was ubiquitous. The decision process was probably something like "The 20mm cannon are probably 10-20%(made the figure up) better but at least 30% of the time they will be low on ammo whereas crates of 0.50 cal are everywhere" _________________________________ WTE (Australasian IL2 Squadron): http://www.wte-anga.com/ New detailed engine layer for Gladiator/J8A: http://tiny.cc/J8A_engine Set of alternate cockpits (external view) Gladiator/J8A: http://tiny.cc/J8Apits Early War Czech/Slovak Republic skins for use on Slovakia map (now updated to fix historical errors): http://tiny.cc/J8ASlovakia |
||||
|
but going by that logic, wouldn't it be much easier to bring down the less manoeuverable german planes with cannon rounds which have a lower ROF but more power? and for the jap planes, more manoeuverable would mean harder to hit, which means if you use the .50cal, you have a much higher chance of hitting them than with the slow firing cannons (and besides, since their armour is so light anyway, a few rounds of .50cal would be enough to bring them down) -Flying as rubber_ducky- Intel Q6600 @2.5ghz Inno3D iChiLL 8800GT 512 OC'd Asus p5k/EPU 2x 1GB Corsair 800mhz Antec EA500W |
||||
|
Yes, obviously it would be easier to bring down the less manuverable Gerry planes with cannons than with 50 cals, but it's not hard with 50 cals if you come from above with speed. With the Japs, those little bastards can always break away and manuver around the instant they see a 50 cal tracer wiz by their cockpit. Only a couple 20mm shells (1 if in fuel tank) will destroy a zero or zeke or even ki-84 from 300m. So, if I could have the 20mm in the european theatre, that would be awesome, but I don't need it. Whereas in the pacific it makes my job much easier. I know this does sound backwards, but don't worry if it is at least I am having fun in my mixed up fairy tale world. And it does work that way for me anyway. BTW, thanks guys who provided info on unreliability of hispano cannon and lack of rounds lying around. ------------------------------------------ "Ah yes, Michael," Bader replied, "But these particular Fockers were Messerschmitts..." |
||||
|
50 cals are easier to hit with, and carry more ammo (and more firing time). Against vertically superior but slow and weak planes(you have all the time in the world) its better have a reliable but less effective gun than an effective but highly unreliable. Against German planes you might get only that one guns solution. Better hit hard while you still can...
|
||||
|
 |
...in IL2 1946 simulation that is. But USN used .50cals instead of 20mm in real world. No one in sane mind ever turns when he has any other option. ~ DKoor |
|||
|
..... A well reasoned, logically presented post is indeed a thing of beauty. BLUTARSKI |
||||
|
That isn't entirely true. ALL of the close in AA weaponry on ships larger than say an LCT were 20mm, which means that in all likelyhood, in the USN, there were MORE cases of 20mm available than there were cases of .50.
I'm also going to question this. Based on what I know and have read about, it seems that it would have more been a case of "37mm is enough for all the tanks that we are planning to fight, so lets go with that which also allows us to carry more ammo". |
||||
|
But was it the same type 20mm gun and ammo as the aircraft used? |
||||
|
Wasn't the 20mm Oelikons used on ships? Would the ammo be the same?
 The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the best of my knowledge, always. swept wings on the Me262 to correct CG problem A Sealion success is a delusional fantasy |
||||
|
I'm fairly sure the answer to the first questions is YES and the second definately NO! I remember reading somewhere that the reliability problem with the US Hispanos was caused by an oversized chamber. The British found out that the problem could be solved by smearing the cases of the cannon rounds with grease (To take up the extra space in the chamber), but the US forces weren't allowed to to use the grease. |
||||
|
|
IL2 Moderator |
Thats a good question, I dont know.
I doubt it, as the Hispano shells were seen to be more powerful and have a better trajectory. I THINK the Hispano shells were bigger. -------------------------------------------------------------  "Over Dieppe, the wing was immediately bounced by a hundred FW 190s and a few Me 109s. I heard Johnson effing and blinding as he broke 610 into a fierce attack. I was hard at it dodging 190s, but I found time to speak sharply to Johnson about his foul language." - WingCo Jaime Jameson 12 Group Spitfire |
|||
|
|
IL2 Moderator |
 Left to Right :- First 5 :- Not sure of the first one, can anyone help? , 15mm MG 151 (15x96), 20mm MG 151/20 (20x82), 20mm Ho-5 (20x94), 20mm Hispano (20x110) 2nd Group of four :- 60" T17 (15.2x114), .50/60 (12.7x114), 20mm M39/61 (20x102), 20mm Mk 11/12 (20x110 USN) 3rd Group of two :- 20mm FM-K 38 drill round (20x139), 20mm HS 820/Oerlikon KAD (20x139) 4th group of two :- 20mm and 23mm Madsen (20x120 and 23x106) COmpare to Oerlikon family...  Maybe if the Oerlikons on the Ships fired the Oerlikon 'S' round that is shown above, they may be compatible? They look identical to the Hispano round. What exactly were the Oerlikon guns on the US ships? ------------------------------------------------------------- "Over Dieppe, the wing was immediately bounced by a hundred FW 190s and a few Me 109s. I heard Johnson effing and blinding as he broke 610 into a fierce attack. I was hard at it dodging 190s, but I found time to speak sharply to Johnson about his foul language." - WingCo Jaime Jameson 12 Group Spitfire |
|||
|
hi all! my grandfather flew p39s and p40s early in the war and later did debreifings. hes still alive but last year got really sick. he had nothing good to say about the US decision makers higher up. i feel he always told the truth. he said almost all decisions were due to politics and fighting with each other. he said stuf like pilots of the p39 always got in and out the right side door as stuff on the left side caught on the parachute. he thought the original p39 was the greatest. the British had asked for it very early for the BOB but we wouldnt give it to them. then later we gave them and the Russians a really bad one. He said the original p39 did not spin any more than any of the other planes and the allison engine was meant to be flown as an interceptor for only a short time ane never left waiting inline to take off. you never read about all the P39s lost in the pacific because they ran out of gas. he said there were lots. he said losses were lied about both europe and pcific.
you never read about the pilots got out of their planes and threw up or **** their pants or asked and asked for a 20mm cannon in europe or pilots who broke their back or neck and died from a bouncing landing. dont read about all the US planes shot down by their own pilots. My grandfather said they shot at anything and couldnt tell the planes apart so he finally got the higher ups to take the paint off the planes. he said it had notheing to do with flying faster. US pilots also asked for the 20mm cannon. My grandfather new the US and British cannons were bad so he let some US pilots put german cannons on which worked great. he got in lots of trouble he said and was told "US pilots fight with US made equipment" and at that time he said they had never decideed on what shell to use. He recommmened that they copy the german gun but was told that was against US policy. At one time he said the US was going to fly the Spitfire as its main plane but pilots complained of no combat flaps so my grandfather recommended to change it. He was told it wouldnt hapen anyway as it would be "unAmerican" for us to fly Spitfires. My granfathers normal saying: remember the ronson lighter (referring to the Sherman tank) |
||||
|
 |
Read this.
Or at the very least the purple paragraph on top.  Airspeed, altitude, or brains; you always need at least two. |
|||
|
What was your grandfathers name and what unit did he fly with?
We did fly with Spitfires in the ETO/MTO... Interesting comments from a veteran. Tell us more if you can. vbr, Ron |
||||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | Forums | ||
| Servlet | eve2da011 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "IL-2 - Maddox Games" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
Forums 1C:Maddox Games IL2 Maddox General Discussion Question about corsair/USN decision process