PDA

View Full Version : 40mm Mustang variant...



MrBlueSky1960
09-07-2007, 01:36 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/Mustang40mm00.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/Mustang40mm01.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/Mustang40mm02.jpg

MrBlueSky1960
09-07-2007, 01:36 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/Mustang40mm00.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/Mustang40mm01.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/Mustang40mm02.jpg

DKoor
09-07-2007, 01:45 AM
lol

leitmotiv
09-07-2007, 02:41 AM
Obviously intended to replace the 40mm Hurricane IID "tank buster." Fortunately for the British Allison Mustangs, the rocket replaced the cumbersome S Gun.

luftluuver
09-07-2007, 07:33 AM
Yes very fortunate that the highly inaccurate rockets replaced the 40mm.

leitmotiv
09-07-2007, 08:01 AM
Somehow I don't think lumbering in a 300 mph with two huge guns under the wings at 50 feet above the ground would have been a brilliant idea for the Typhoons in 1944. Rockets were, indeed, area weapons. Typhoons carried bombs when more precision was required. There was too much flak over Western Europe for playing Rudel with S guns. The RAF tried using Hurricane IIDs over Western Europe and they were slaughtered.

Maj.Kaos
09-07-2007, 08:05 AM
"it will be possible to retain the outboard .30 colt gun".

"in addition to the two .5 guns which will remain in the nose"

Which Mustang version had these?

luftluuver
09-07-2007, 08:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Somehow I don't think lumbering in a 300 mph with two huge guns under the wings at 50 feet above the ground would have been a brilliant idea for the Typhoons in 1944. Rockets were, indeed, area weapons. Typhoons carried bombs when more precision was required. There was too much flak over Western Europe for playing Rudel with S guns. The RAF tried using Hurricane IIDs over Western Europe and they were slaughtered. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bombs are more precious weapons? They were just as bad, or worse, than rockets.

It didn't matter what weapons the a/c carried, ground attack was very dangerous.

leitmotiv
09-07-2007, 08:33 AM
Ohhhhh my, LL is on a roll!

SUPERAEREO
09-07-2007, 08:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Yes very fortunate that the highly inaccurate rockets replaced the 40mm. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Rockets were cheaper, carried a bigger warhead, did not require major structural modifications and once fired they presented no drag or weight problems.

I think these are the reasons why they generally ended up by supplanting the 40mm Vickers S cannon (see the Hurricane Mk.IV). It is also worth remembering that neither the RAF or the USAAF ever fielded a dedicated ground attack/anti-tank plane, only adaptations or modifications of existing fighter planes.

Just my two cents (pennies).

luftluuver
09-07-2007, 08:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Ohhhhh my, LL is on a roll! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>At least I am not rolling in my own. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

luftluuver
09-07-2007, 08:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
Rockets were cheaper, carried a bigger warhead, did not require major structural modifications and once fired they presented no drag or weight problems.

I think these are the reasons why they generally ended up by supplanting the 40mm Vickers S cannon (see the Hurricane Mk.IV). It is also worth remembering that neither the RAF or the USAAF ever fielded a dedicated ground attack/anti-tank plane, only adaptations or modifications of existing fighter planes.

Just my two cents (pennies). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sure they did, the Vengeance in the RAF and the A-24 in the USAAF for ground attack.

There was still the rails the rockets were mounted on.

Deedsundone
09-07-2007, 09:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maj.Kaos:
"it will be possible to retain the outboard .30 colt gun".

"in addition to the two .5 guns which will remain in the nose"

Which Mustang version had these? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No expert here but probably Mustang Mk1

SUPERAEREO
09-07-2007, 09:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Sure they did, the Vengeance in the RAF and the A-24 in the USAAF for ground attack.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>



They were both dive bombers, the Vultee Vengeance was used only in the Pacific AFAIK and the A-24 was nothing more than the Dauntless in service with the the USAAF...

JG53Frankyboy
09-07-2007, 09:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Deedsundone:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maj.Kaos:
"it will be possible to retain the outboard .30 colt gun".

"in addition to the two .5 guns which will remain in the nose"

Which Mustang version had these? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No expert here but probably Mustang Mk1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yep, indeed, the Mustang Mk.I

http://www.minitaria.republika.pl/historia/stavanger/lewkowicz_2.jpg

Daiichidoku
09-07-2007, 10:35 AM
if i had a scanner i could post an in flight pic of the 40mm equipped mustang http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif


for a true groundpounding late war heavyweight, google "XA-38 Grizzly" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

luftluuver
09-07-2007, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
They were both dive bombers, the Vultee Vengeance was used only in the Pacific AFAIK and the A-24 was nothing more than the Dauntless in service with the the USAAF... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So how can you say they never had ground attack a/c? the Stuka with bombs was used to attack ground targets and that includes tanks.

DuxCorvan
09-07-2007, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Deedsundone:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maj.Kaos:
"it will be possible to retain the outboard .30 colt gun".

"in addition to the two .5 guns which will remain in the nose"

Which Mustang version had these? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No expert here but probably Mustang Mk1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yep, indeed, the Mustang Mk.I

http://www.minitaria.republika.pl/historia/stavanger/lewkowicz_2.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

British version of A-36 Apache.

joeap
09-07-2007, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
if i had a scanner i could post an in flight pic of the 40mm equipped mustang http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif


for a true groundpounding late war heavyweight, google "XA-38 Grizzly" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ohhhhhhhhhh nice.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I'll let you guys google it too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif

Phas3e
09-07-2007, 04:15 PM
From Camouflage & Markings RAF Mustangs

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v164/Phas3e/stang1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v164/Phas3e/stang2.jpg

SUPERAEREO
09-08-2007, 03:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
They were both dive bombers, the Vultee Vengeance was used only in the Pacific AFAIK and the A-24 was nothing more than the Dauntless in service with the the USAAF... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So how can you say they never had ground attack a/c? the Stuka with bombs was used to attack ground targets and that includes tanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


By those criteria even the B-17 and B-24 would be ground attack aircraft.

By specialised ground attack aircraft I meant planes like the Hs.129 or the Il-2, heavily armed and armoured and solely dedicated to low-level attack duties on the battlefront.

Sergio_101
09-08-2007, 07:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Yes very fortunate that the highly inaccurate rockets replaced the 40mm. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rockets replaced the 40MM.
Inaccurate BUT had the ability to use
the Crosley RADAR proximity fuses.
Many did use that fuse especially from late 1944 on.

RADAR proximity fuses were pretty reliable
by mid 1944, and did a marvelous job when
they worked.

Smallest projectile that could be fitted with
a prox (VT) fuse was the US 75MM.

Sergio

SUPERAEREO
09-08-2007, 12:46 PM
AFAIK proximity fuses were nly used in AA artillery and in torpedoes, never in air-to-ground rockets.

carguy_
09-08-2007, 01:00 PM
Those guns would explain the wing shedding problem with the Pony http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

jarink
09-08-2007, 01:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
AFAIK proximity fuses were nly used in AA artillery and in torpedoes, never in air-to-ground rockets. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were also used (to great effect) in conventional army artillery. The big advantage being that every round was an airburst a few feet above the ground, spraying everything below it with splinters. Rounds with conventional impact fuses would sometimes bury themselves into the ground (especially if it was wet) before exploding, which greatly minimized the fragmentation pattern. Used this way, they were known as "VT" (Variable Time) fuses; a misnomer to confuse the enemy as the the true nature of the fuses.

The A-36 Apache was designed for ground attack as it's primary role. I would think the A-20 would fall in the "specialized ground attack" category as well. This would be especially true of the solid nose versions.

luftluuver
09-09-2007, 09:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Somehow I don't think lumbering in a 300 mph with two huge guns under the wings at 50 feet above the ground would have been a brilliant idea for the Typhoons in 1944. Rockets were, indeed, area weapons. Typhoons carried bombs when more precision was required. There was too much flak over Western Europe for playing Rudel with S guns. The RAF tried using Hurricane IIDs over Western Europe and they were slaughtered. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tony Williams

The average hit probability of the Typhoon + rocket projectiles against tanks, in combat, was 0.5% (5% in training). The average miss distance was 60 yards IIRC (later showing improvement to around 40 yards with a better sight). The average miss distance with Typhoons + bombs was 120 yards. All results from Operational Research, examining the battlefield immediately afterwards.

Agt_Homer
09-09-2007, 10:23 PM
Wouldn't it make alot more sense to stick a 40mm in a P-47 or P-38? Using a high altitude fighter on dedicated ground attack doesn't seem like too good of an idea.

Sergio_101
09-09-2007, 11:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
AFAIK proximity fuses were nly used in AA artillery and in torpedoes, never in air-to-ground rockets. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No RADAR VT fuse was used in Torpedoes during WWII

RADAR VT fuses were in fact used in AAA, surface to surface artillery and rockets.

Check out the Crosley Radio site or the other sites dealing with this subject.

RADAR fails under water....

Torpodoes with RADAR VT fuses,,,,, like putting screen doors on a submarine.

Sergio

luftluuver
09-10-2007, 05:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Agt_Homer:
Wouldn't it make alot more sense to stick a 40mm in a P-47 or P-38? Using a high altitude fighter on dedicated ground attack doesn't seem like too good of an idea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agh Homer, the P-38 and P-47 were high altitude fighters. The Typhoon ran out of steam at around 20,000ft which would make it a medium and low altitude fighter.

Nice article on VT fuses, http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq96-1.htm#anchor1190487

Sergio, do you have a link to the use of VT fuses in rockets, for I could not find any?

JG53Frankyboy
09-10-2007, 05:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Agt_Homer:
Wouldn't it make alot more sense to stick a 40mm in a P-47 or P-38? Using a high altitude fighter on dedicated ground attack doesn't seem like too good of an idea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

actually these early RAF Mustangs were espacially good at low altitude and used by its Squadrons in this way !
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_4.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p51_4.html)
their Allison engines were not very usefull upper high- because of the lack of a turbocharger (as in the P-38) or a suitable two stage supercharger (as in the XP-51J).
P-40s and P-39s had the same "proplem".

first the "marriage" between Mustang fuselage and Merlin engine made that kind of a P-51 that most people remember....................

Agt_Homer
09-10-2007, 06:47 AM
Well the P47 was a high altitude fighter, but I thought it really stood out as a low altitude attacker. (At least it was the best the Americans had in Europe) I heard they made a 4 20mm version, but I don't know if it was mass produced. So if anything could handle a 40mm it was a Thunderbolt.

Now for the 38 I'm not so sure on. But the IL2 supplement says the 51 engine had a danger of being disabled in 1 shot, if that's true then it's probably not something you want absorbing ground fire. The two engine 38 would probably have a little more survivability.

luftluuver
09-10-2007, 07:04 AM
Homer, the A-36 (a version of the P-51) flew some 23,373 missions and only 177 where lost to enemy causes. That is a loss every 132 missions.

Any a/c that is liquid cooled can be lost with one lucky shot.

Sergio_101
09-20-2007, 01:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Homer, the A-36 (a version of the P-51) flew some 23,373 missions and only 177 where lost to enemy causes. That is a loss every 132 missions.

Any a/c that is liquid cooled can be lost with one lucky shot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A-36 had the lowest attrition rate of ANY allied
combat aircraft. (I cannot remember the source, sorry).
Not bad you a liquid cooled ground attack aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

A-36 may have had the lowest attrition rate of any
combat aircraft of WWII.
Allison engines were very reliable
in the proper application!
Also having a dive bomber that doubled
as a good fighter (unlike the Ju-87) certainly helped.

Sergio

luftluuver
09-20-2007, 05:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
A-36 had the lowest attrition rate of ANY allied
combat aircraft. (I cannot remember the source, sorry).
Not bad you a liquid cooled ground attack aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

A-36 may have had the lowest attrition rate of any
combat aircraft of WWII.
Allison engines were very reliable
in the proper application!
Also having a dive bomber that doubled
as a good fighter (unlike the Ju-87) certainly helped.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That should put to rest that the Myth that the P-51 had a glass jaw of a radiator. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG53Frankyboy
09-20-2007, 05:07 AM
i thought this "myth" came from the Korean war time.....................