P-47 Thunderbolt Pt. 7 Firepower, A Lot of Firepower.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 сер 2020
- In this episode we cover the P-47 weapons, The 50 caliber machine guns, bombs, rockets, and more. There are comparisons with other air to air weapons, and we get into gun convergence and more.
Cannons vs. Machine guns, Fuselage vs. Wing Mounted, it's all covered in this video.
Notes: I made a comment about "average" soldiers, airmen, and sailors and said that they are the ones who win the war. I feel that needs further explanation. We all know that there were top fighter pilots, tank crews and so on who performed incredibly, and they certainly made a difference. However from the point of view of an equipment designer, whether is be a fighter plane, a rifle, or a tank, it has to perform well in the hands of an average soldier or it likely won't be a war winning weapon.
The Official auto and Air Fan Store is Here!
gregs-airplanesandautomobiles...
/ gregsairplanesandautom...
PayPal: mistydawne2010@yahoo.com - Авто та транспорт
Twenty seconds in, and all you need to show is that clip of spent shells falling like macaroni out of a box. That conveys what we're dealing with in a way statistics never can.
I have so much respect for Greg that when he mistakenly said 'kits', I changed my understanding of the English language before he corrected to 'kills'.
The propeller on a plane is there to cool the pilot. Don't believe me? Watch the pilot start sweating if it quits blowing!
Glad to see you are going to do a video on the propeller Greg. This is a much needed part of flight that not much is out there to absorb in less than rocket science explaining terms.
😂😂😂 Made me laugh!
Lol
What really required skill was firing the machine gun between the propeller blades! LOL
@@jobamasux especially at 3000rpm
Encyclopedia Gregtannia. I crack me up. Incendiary ammo brings me right back to sober (literally since 1982).
Thanks for another installment in your great P-47 series. One factor which I didn't hear you mention in your comparison of .50 vs 20mm is that you can carry a lot more .50 rounds than 20mm rounds in a given space. Thus an additional advantage of .50s is that you can stay in the fight longer.
Few things to excite me more about starting a video than hearing Greg say right off the bat that he's going to drift off-topic - because honestly, I can't think of another channel where the diversions are as erudite, surprising, and insightful as this one!
I was a P-47 fan because William Wyler made that movie 'Thunderbolt'. The squadron commander of the featured unit was Lt. Colonel Gil Wymond of Louisville, Kentucky. He flew over almost 150 misssions in a P-47 during the war but was killed flying a Republic F-84 in 1949. This is why Gregg's videos are so important. Great men die in bad airplanes.
I LOVE JUGS!!!
We're not talking about those kinds of Jugs, although I am pretty sure that the pilots and ground crews would with enthusiasm!
Any other video thatd be a flagged comment
@@mgweible8162 ughhhh your prob right lol
Greg go ahead and make the vids as long as u like! Ill watchem.
I listen to them. Like an audiobook in bed.
Love these videos to death. Greg goes way more in-depth than any documentary ever will, and is always packed with tons of research many documentarians dont even bother with.
My friend wally groce flew one in ww2 . when it first came out he said everyone was afraid to fly it. he said it did not fly well at all at low speeds, but when you held it open it was his favorite plane. he shot down a ME 262 . did you know it had cameras ? he has a photo of the shot that took it down. he said his wingman strafed a long train with the 8-50's he said the power was so much it slowed the plane down , and knocked the train over. just the force of 8 -50's did that. wally died a few years ago, he was a fine man all the way. you can google him.
Wally's gun camera footage from his ME262 shoot down is here on UA-cam.
I did what you said Shawn I googled him. World war II did provide us with the Greatest Generation. Men's was Men's then. You should be proud of him!
So...
8 50s have enough weight of shot to knock over a locomotive?
Newton calls bullshit
@@sugarnads I think it's a confusion of terms. When a thug "knocks over" a liquor store it means he robbed it not literally knocked it over. So possibly the old saying knock over means to knock out or take over ie: Destroy. Yes I honestly believe 8 .50 calibers could destroy a train I've seen it many times in gun footage.
@sugarnads one shot from 8 50.s could fling a man 5 ft if he didnt turn into mist, so maybe not in one shot but i could see it at the end of a belt if the car kept all that lead
27:25 Great photo of the ammo belts in the wing. Very interesting.
I enjoyed watching my uncle’s gun camera footage from his P-47. He flew 75+ missions.
Post the footage! You'd get tons of views.
Yes, please post them.
Please share
you have to upload them, it would be great
Did he paint his Jug Black? Was her name K.I.T.T.?
Greg I've driven home from my secret mountain lair so I can be somewhere with a good signal to watch this!
Mine's a hollowed out Volcano, I just hope the secret Ninja's don't invade while I'm out.
Duke Craig as opposed to the notorious “non secret” ninjas
KThe Mecoptera
The Navy has always preferred in-air charging of gun due to the crowded nature or the Hanger/Flight Deck. Far, FAR too many squishy vulnerable things(Deck Crew, Pilots & Other FULLY Loaded Aircraft) both below decks & on the Flight Deck to have live guns/ordnance on the aircraft. That's one of the reasons the Electronic Arming systems were installed on the SBD Dive Bombers at Midway, some of which malfunctioned, creating early releases. The Navy has always been a little leary of live ordnance on a Rolling & pitching Flight Deck/Hanger that is as much of "Organized Chaos" as a carrier spotting a strike package, nothing quite like a plane waiting in the Stack to launch that accidentally ventilates with guns another aircraft overloaded with ordinance & fuel or releases bombs/rockets into the plane park before launch.
Always amazes me how often these lessons seem to be repeated - crowded situations and weapon systems that can arm too early do not mix, on board a ship or otherwise.
One lesser-known landlubber instance of this would be in Vientiane, Laos in early 1964 - when an (American-provided) T-28 being serviced on the ramp had a .50 cal gun pod go off into another T-28 that was already armed with a pair of 500lb bombs. Net result = quite literally half of the Laotian air force's combat strength (a dozen T-28s, plus a couple of Air America aircraft and a Russian-made helicopter) were destroyed by a chain reaction within minutes, at a crucial time in the Southeast Asia conflict (not long before the Gulf of Tonkin resolution). It pales in comparison to some of the carrier fires (including those during the Vietnam era) by sheer scale, but it had some very serious knock-on effects for the broader conflict.
@@otohikoamv Just like every other Bureaucracy, the US Military MUST Re-Learn lessons every or every other "Generation" because the people that LEARNED these lessons IN Blood, Sweat & Pain have either moved up the chain of command or "Left" the service. So Everyone in Service is CONSTANTLY Re-Learning these lessons over & over & over. Just a fact of life.
So I no zero about guns and little about planes, but does "charging" mean having a bullet in the gun itself ready to fire? And you're saying that for safety reasons, the Navy didn't want to have bullets where being jarred could somehow set them off, but instead have the gun barrels empty until the plane was actually going into combat, and therefore they needed a charging system to do that initial load while flying? And that this charging system gave the added ability to clear jams but that wasn't the main reason to have it?
Yes, "charging" means the gun is cocked and bullet in the chamber ready to go. It makes total sense than the US Navy didn't think charging the guns on a carrier was such a hot idea.
Yes it does make good sense to charge 'em upstairs instead of aboard ship!
Another great presentation, thanks!
One thing of note, the Hispano-Suiza gun was Spanish mostly in the name. The French arm of the company was a separate entity and after the outbreak of Spanish Civil War became completely independent (and soon also nationalized by the French goverment). The chief designer and co-founder of the company, responsible among other things for the gun project, was a Swiss gentelman named Marc Birkigt. So it was more like "Swiss design, made in France".
I saw a documentary on the P-38 Lightning and some of the pilots remarked how that single 20mm canon in the nose would just "tear up" any plane in front of it. Yes, it had 4 .50 calibers as well, but with roughly 1 of every 6 rounds coming out as a 20mm shell the pilots were very impressed with its performance. Especially when you consider how lightly most of the Japanese planes were built.
Oh yeah!!!! Tuesday night PRIME TIME: "Greetings this is Greg...?!". and the crowd is OUT OF CONTROL AGAIN AIN'T NO STOPPIN THEM, IT'S A JUG-onaut Fest!!!
Why have machine guns of P47 different lengths of the protrubing gun tubes in the wings?
@@michaelschwarz7210
Wrong guy, bud! You should ask Greg. Good question though, I can only assume it has to do with ammuniton storage layout in the wings and/or for convergence purposes, or perhaps with particularities having to do with the gun feed and expulsion of the cardriges - all highly hypothetical....
Greeeeeeeeeg!!!! Would you come over for a second please?
@@michaelschwarz7210 Obviously, it's so each Ammo Belt has its own unrestricted track. Simple & Brilliant.
@@michaelschwarz7210 Because the guns needed to be staggered for the belts to work properly.
@@michaelschwarz7210 belts line up in the same spot on each gun, guns offset for the layout of the belt racks
There is no such thing as a „too long video“ :-)
And thanks for this one !!!
@45:05 if anybody is interested in U.S. Navy procedure & safety on aerial gunnery, another UA-cam channel called Nuclear Vault has a 1943 film called "Don't Kill Your Friends" that covers some of this. Another nice one you have here Greg.
If I could choose a fighter to fly during WWII, it would be a P-47D or P-47N. Performance, firepower, and rugged reliability.
Me too...seems to be strong in so many, even contradictory, areas of abilities
@@zam6877 The ability to take punishment and still return home with a living pilot is without peer.
Talking about the “Chem trails” I have seen that a lot of the claims come from a document describing testing done at Muroc and other places of an alcohol or glycol tank being added to help dissipate the contrails of jet engines to help eliminate the trail, the use for this being of course the U-2 for spying.
The end result of this testing was to give the pilot a rear view mirror so he could adjust altitude if he was making a contrail.
My day was improved the moment I heard, "Greetings, this is Greg..."
It's my favorite phrase
God, you need to do a series on the Brewster Buffalo. She's so underappreciated.
Remove some weight and she we will fight like a Zero!
Or at least that's what the Dutch did in South East Asia and it made the Britts jealous. Still, didn't made a difference due the larger numbers of Japanese fighters.
I agree - superb turn rate/radius, and the 4x50 model was pretty well armed too. A lot of great Aces flew them (not so much for the USA, but there were definitely some).
@@martijn9568 are you forgetting the Finnish Brewster? Interesting story: desperately short of airplanes the In April 1939, the Finnish government contacted the Roosevelt administration, requesting the supply of modern combat aircraft as quickly as possible. On 17 October, the Finnish Embassy in Washington, D.C., received a telegram clearing the purchase of fighter aircraft. The only strict requirements laid down by Finnish authorities were that the aircraft be already operational and able to use 87-octane fuel Part of an F2A-1 shipment - 44 aircraft originally intended for the US Navy - was diverted to Finland, by the US State Department, after the USN agreed to instead accept a later shipment of F2A-2 variants.On 16 December, the Finnish government signed a contract to purchase 44 aircraft: a F2A-1 variant designated Model B-239E by Brewster. Unlike other fighters already in service, the F2A-1 or more precisely B-239E lacked self-sealing fuel tanks and cockpit armor. However, the B-239E was built with a more powerful engine than the F2A-1, in the form of the Wright R-1820-G5, producing 950 hp and the capacity to carry four machine guns (instead of two carried by the F2A-1). The B-239E was also "de-navalized" before shipment: equipment such as tail hooks and life raft containers were removed. The upgraded engine and reduced net weight like omitted armor and de-navalization resulted in an improved power-to-weight ratio and better general performance.
In four batches of the B-239E was shipped initially to Norway in January and February 1940. The crated fighters were then sent by railway to Sweden and assembled by SAAB at Trollhättan. After delivery of the B-239E, the Finnish Air Force added armored backrests, metric flight instruments, the Väisälä T.h.m.40 gunsight, and four .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns. The top speed of the Finnish B-239s, as modified, was 297 mph (478 km/h) at 15,675 ft (4,750 m), and their loaded weight was 5,820 lb (2,640 kg. In short it was a different airplane and in hands of great pilots in service from 1941 to 1945, the fighter Squadron 24 claimed 477 Russian airplanes with the combat loss of just 19 Buffalos, an outstanding victory ratio of 26:1.
It is is worth to note that B-239 was popular among the Finnish pilots and mechanics and gave various nicknames but it was not called "peanut special"....
The Buffalo?
"It was a DOG!....But the early models, before they weighed it all down with armorplate, radios and other shit, they were pretty sweet little ships. Not real fast, but the little fucks could turn and roll in a phonebooth. Oh yeah--sweet little ship; but some engineer went and fucked it up." - Greg "Pappy" Boyington in an Oct 1977 interview
@@paoloviti6156 No, I'm just telling a fact that even fewer people realise than the effectiveness of the Finnish Brewsters. Probably because I'm Dutch myself :P
My Great Uncle wrenched first on P40s in N.Africa then later on P47s. I recall him stating what a task it was to change the spark plugs on a P47. Just wish I could ask him so much more now.
Pilot to mechanic -"gimme the shotgun spread, Manny, I'm goin' after trains n' airfields...".
@Jack Tangles - if I was British in the fall of 1940 I'd want those cannons. "Bomb my Britain, do you? Meet my Hispano".
@@dennismason3740 There are good arguments for both cannon and higher calibre MG's like the .50 cal... not rifle calibre though, they were all but useless! It really did not take long for us Brits to move towards cannons after the Battle of Britain.
True, cannons have more punch, but 20mm cannon rounds are pretty damned big and heavy, so while an 8 gun P-47 could take up to 500 rounds per gun, a four Cannon C Wing late war Spitfire could take maybe 80 rounds per cannon. I believe the Tempests and Typhoons could carry a few more... but you get the point....
I think the Brits went for more punch, and the Americans went for more dakka with enough punch to matter! Both approaches were perfectly fine... but both approaches had strengths and weaknesses. The amount of ammo available to the guns was a definate weakness of the 20mm even if the Hispano had strengths elsewhere.....
@@dennismason3740
Nigel, Grab the Hispano
@@spindash64 Right after this pint, mate.
I'd give a 2nd like only for the gun harmonization part :)
Merci Greg!
"Greetings this is Greg..."" The warmest words I've heard on T/Y since COVID-19 started
Fantastic research.! Thanks for the effort and info. Republic P-47 is my ALL time favourite aeroplane ...PERIOD...!!!!
I got this quote from a FB Forum : my Grandfather's flying log has the following written in it on the 17th Feb 1945.
"Ginger Horn shot down in his Typhoon over the Rhine by an American Thunderbolt".
explanation about Thorneyed channel. he makes gameplay and history with the background of gameplay videos. In one of his history vids he was heavilly relying on your channel and suggested to go and subscribe if we like history/tech videos with deep research behind. thank you for the content
Thanks, that explains that, I couldn't understand how so many Russian speakers ended up over here.
This channel is pure gold!!! Keep it coming Greg!!!
I believe that in the book 'This Kind of War' by TS Fehrenbach he mentions that in Korea, pilots who had flown -47's in WW2 were not happy with the -51's at all. Most of the -47's were scrap by then. Especially those called back up thought the -51's a death trap for close support.
My life had two chapters, before I found this channel and after
Greg and Drach 👍
Love that story about having a WWII aviation weaponry conversation with a knowledgeable German while flying a 767. I bet video and audio from that flight would be interesting to a lot of people, even the unedited entire thing.
Top notch as usual Greg. Enjoyed it.
I love the P-47 and this channel. She's a war winner alright, glad you picked her for this series. Thanks Greg.
P-47 thunderbolt é o avião do meu coração !
Beaten by the 4x cannon of the Typhoon, Typhoon pipped by the rockets, Typhoon equalled by the Bomb Load But down on the deck the Typhoon had 370 mph the P47D 350 mph
no one cares about the typhoon, it was irrelevent in the air war@@jacktattis
I have waited for this one for a while now.
Greg. I love your series on youtube. Thankyou. Without doubt some of the best content on the web : )
Excellent as usual, Greg. I suspect part of the reason for the role reversal (ground attack vs. high altitude) for the P-47 had to do with battle-damage strength of the R-2800 compared to the Merlin. My Dad's F6F-5 (Same engine as the P-47) took a Japanese 40mm hit to the engine, another to the wing root (I have photos), and flew him 250 miles back to the carrier, where he landed without incident. The plane was pushed over the side afterward as "unrepairable." On another mission, his F6F took a 20mm round to the prop hub, lost about 85% of its engine oil over the course of the 200+ mile flight back to the carrier, but still had enough to get him aboard. Engine was changed, the plane went back into service. I've seen that photo of a P-47 firing at night (at about 28.00) in a couple other places, and always admired it, and also wondered how they got the shot. I'm still not clear on what distinguishes a "cannon" from a "machine gun" as an aircraft weapon. Is it whether or not the round fired has an explosive charge? As for convergence, and charts notwithstanding, I'm going to argue that the M2 Browning was not a match rifle. Unless there was zero wind and no deflection in the shot (possibly common - I have no idea), a .50 caliber round flying through a 250-300 mph wind at an angle (even at 2,500 fps) seems likely to depart from its intended course fairly often. Probably why some pilots were "good shots," because they knew how to make allowances for that on the fly, while others never acquired that skill. The Brownings did jam occasionally. My Dad shot down a pair of Tojos over the Philippines during the Leyte Gulf engagement, one of them when his "…wingman's guns jammed, so I polished it off for him." And, since I'm talking about October, 1944, Dad's Hellcat carried a 500-lb semi-armor-piercing bomb on another Leyte Gulf mission, which he put through the flight deck of a Japanese carrier in Ozawa's "bait force" off Cape Engaño.
You dad must have been an amazing pilot to have made it back in that Hellcat, good job for him!
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles "Engine ran rough but cool" is what he put in the summary of his combat tour, and I'm guessing his cruise speed was lower than usual on the way back to the carrier.
These kind of stories makes UA-cam a pleasure. Thanks for sharing a great story. I had a great uncle who was at Pearl Harbor, my dad was shot at by MiG 15's, ... it's kinda eerie to be close to some very interesting history aint it - know some one who fought in something that they make movies about now? Your story reminds of why they called Grumman Aircraft the "Iron Works" :) Take care.
The difference between canon and machine gun is kind of like sword vs knife.
@Jack Tangles - Have you never heard of the ‘Silent War’? Roosevelt did his best to provoke Hitler in the Atlantic for a year before Pearl Harbor. It less to do with the government and more to do with the US not wanting to send it’s sons off to die -again- for Britain’s and France’s mismanagement of post-war Germany.
Greg has a great radio voice - it makes the channel what it is.
Probably comes at least partially from many years talking on the radio as an airline pilot...
Lol, I lost it when I saw "Weight in Gams". Nice Gams!
That metric system is never going to catch on.
I've awaited this eagerly! Thank you!
I love your WWII airplane videos. Please keep them coming!
I ALWAYS wondered about charging guns and jams in flight! Thanks Greg, really interesting!
Yes! This is the video I’ve been excited for. Not just for the 47 but for gunnery in general.
Yay! An upcoming documentary maker! I've subscribed and I'm stoked to see more of your work. Thanks buddy!
Good stuff Greg. I have really enjoyed the P-47 series
Absolutely great video! I don't mind that it wasn't all that much about P-47 :D I have extensive theoretical knowledge about guns, but I always knew that in practice there are lot of other considerations, most of which are perfectly explained in this video.
Thank you Greg, as ever a real delight to hear your knowledge
Just discovered channel. What an exceptional video. So well done. Thanks Greg.
I love the P-47 and thank you for so much information.
12:48 :But this is not a gun channel"
*Forgotten weapons entered the chat*
That channel is certainly welcome to pick this subject up where I left off. My knowledge of guns is limited to operation and effect, I can't tell you why the Oldsmobile built 20mm jammed, or how they fixed it.
Well said. I had to chuckle when it dawned on me how true it was :-)
I don't know what else you could possibly say about WWII fighter plane guns. I think he's under estimating his knowledge.
@Hoa Tattis ahaha..thanks Hoa....hope you're keeping well
@Hoa Tattis HA!..Tangles my old buddy!....Are you going ok?
Thanks, Greg. I love your videos and learn a lot from them. Keep up the good work!
Nice work Greg, thank you for your efforts.
The Jug was an effective fighter for the 332nd FG and was the first of the famed "Red Tail" fighters.
Didn't know they had thunderbolts
20:11 Greg: "In by Mano Zeiglers' book Rocket Fighter"
*ME: Opens tab to Amazon, buys a copy, returns to video....*
That book is a wild ride. I have a two part series on the featured plane, the Me 163, you might like it.
Another brilliant discussion. Well done!
Between the Wildcat and the p-38 you have destroyed my childhood obsession with the Corsair and the Mustang
Very well narrated and great detail. Easy listening. Love it - keep it up . . .
This is probably one of your best videos: very informative indeed.
Greg: Your ALWAYS, WELL researched videos, on whatever topic you choose, are worth their weight in gold!, to us viewers that run across them. Keep up the GREAT WORK!!
Again another great post, you always at touch on most of the the the important issues and and thinking of the designs and uses of different characteristics.
57:25 "Smoke and Tear Grass" 😂
Nice episode though, thanks 👍
Well, when I speak for an hour, there will be some slip ups.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
Smokin some tear grass?
Lol, I'm just messing with you, cheers
Once again Greg, I can guarantee you that your videos are NOT too long. We all appreciate your research and presentation. Loved the small bit on the Finnish Brewster's as you know I've published articles on them with built model aircraft. BTW, hows the engine project coming along?
Thanks HG. My engine is doing really well, it's powerful, runs great, I'm happy with it. At some point I'll show off what it can do.
God, the P-47 Razorback configuration just looks so menacing; especially @4:03 in the video. Just awesome!
Greg much appreciate the work you put into these vids
Interesting that many Soviet P39's had 20mm cannon switched to fire through the prop vs the 37mm that Bell must've loved so much as you point out.🤔
The P-47 Thunderbolt is my all time favorite fighter of WW2. What a great aircraft, an air killer. The P-38 Lightning was an excellent shooter with all its guns focused straight in front off the nose, but it had problems at altitude in Europe. The "Jug" had some serious safety armor around the pilot's tub. What a monster with twin radial "wasp" engines.
@Jack Tangles I thought the double wasp engine was 2 radial nine cylinder engines bolted in tandem. My error.
Since my last post, I found a small bit of USAF weapons history that you might find interesting? In Korea, the Average range of effective fire, IE the target gets shot down, was 750 Yards with the six fifties that most of our planes carried. We shot down a lot of MiG-15s! The Brits used four 20s in their jets, but were much less effective if you divide kills by missions. After much study, the USAF found that RoF, MV and BC were much more important that weight of fire! We reduced the weight of our 20 MM shell buy 28%, increased MV to 1,036 M/S, made it much more pointed and increased the rate of fire to ~6,000 rounds per minute! Either four M-39 revolver guns at 1,500 rounds per minute, per gun in the F-86H tested in Korea to good effect. Or the six barreled Vulcan gun. In every case, they found the more pointed shell at much higher M/V and at higher rates of fire was very much more effective than the much larger and more powerful Russian guns in the MiGs! This was born out to the Present day in encounters in the middle east between older MiGs and our newer jets! They miss more and while the individual damage might be worse, it was not enough to knock the plane down. But flying threw the Vulcan gun's bullet hose killed everything! For the F-22, they went so far as to test reducing the weight of the shell to 84 grams and lengthen the barrel to increase the MV to 1,525 M/S! Only logistical reasons why they did not adopt this.
Excellent video Greg- yes more air to ground ordinance videos please!
11:00 Graph titled "Projectile Weight in Gams". I wasn't aware that they used the legs of attractive women as a unit of measure back then, but given some of the other crazy shit they used to do, it does not seem beyond the realm of possibility.
I mean, it was the '40s.
Yeah... he missed one letter...which came out quite funny. The left side of the figure has a correct description - "Grams". Multiply it by 15.43 and the results is in [Grains].
Thanks for the very high quality presentations. There was a certain flight simulator that introduced the m2 Browning with the introduction of US planes....initially, the weapons modeled were powerful but showed tremendous dispersion. The community really put the heat on the developer to change this...eventually he did and when he did, the guns were also reduced in effectiveness (power). This video would have been wonderful to have at that time because the developer probably had it closer to correct with his first iteration.
Military History Visualized goes into the effect of machine guns affecting tanks. He agreed that they can be devastating aginst tank support, but that inexperienced tank crews would panic and dismount when being hit by fighter fire. Seasoned crews sat tight.
That's an excellent channel.
I’m enjoying your channel. The work that went into preparing each video is obvious.
Yet another fantastically informative video Greg.
And on the subject of firepower and ruggedness compared to the mustang, I am reminded of the fact that Mustangs were used in ground attack roles in Korea and suffered heavily due to their more fragile nature. With some U.S officers begging for the Thunderbolt's in reserve to be brought over and getting overruled. Really a story for another time but it says a lot.
The use of Mustangs vs P-47 in Korea, was about the dollar. The '47 cost too much.
200 pilots were KIA in a three month period.
Fantastic series Greg! If I may offer my 2cents in regards to a significant reason why a majority of US aircraft during the war were armed with M2 series MGs. Logistics. Simple and not very sexy. However even nowadays, procurement costs, shipping ease of storage for .50 ammo plays a role in planning what you’re using. You’re points are valid and I do believe true. But I’d be will to bet at the end of the day it’s a bean counter pushing to the decision point to use like items across the board in when you dive down the rabbit hole of the overall concept of support.
Logistics are a huge and overlooked factor, so it cost.
Thanks Greg, great stuff!
Great breakdown - thanks Greg
My uncle flew Spitfires in North Africa and Italy. There was not a lot of aerial fighting in Italy so they were mainly doing ground attack. He said he would have rather had his old training Harvard for ground attack than the Spitfire as there was a great big engine in front of you in the Harvard. This was a big surprise to me as a boy that someone would take an AT 6 over a Spitfire but then he was the one in the firing line. That was a revaluation to a kid who idealized Spitfires and Mustangs. Two rows of radial engine pistons make for a lot of protection but more importantly the insight of a pilot goes to why confidence is so important in the cauldron of reality. Thunderbolt pilots were confident because they had a lot to be confident about and a plane they could trust.
Garth Harrison The big air duct just inside the P-47 lower fuselage was supposed to act a bit like a skid and hold a crumpled lower fuselage together in a rough forced landing.
I found (then lost) a study from 1950 about fighter armament effectiveness. .30 cal .50 cal and 20mm were tested. Targets were fueled b17s (over 100) , fueled b25s, and a few b26s. They had a few charts showing the .50 using SAPI rounds was the best (for a 1000 lb gun and ammo load) mainly due to the incendiary effect combined with damage. The 20mm did come out on top with late war ammo that included HE and incindeary (HEI).
I found it on DTIC a couple years ago but cannot find it again :(.
If you find it, I would love to see it.
You know when you hear "greeting this is Greg" you know you are about to learn more than you ever thought possible
Outstanding video Greg
My dad was a master Sargent for armaments for a squadron of p-47 , nice video, thanks
This is great, I learn so much without having to look it up myself, thanks.
Another factor for choice of "gun" is availability and supply of parts and ammunition, where the 50cal probably comes out on top. Everyone in the US military used them, Army, Navy, Air force. Ship's, planes, tank's, car's and infantry.
Not the best but really good for many things.
Forgotten Weapons recently put up a vid, in which he tells us that the M2 was surprisingly rare at the start of the war. Only the Navy apparently using a substantial number of them. But once that war machine shifted into gear, indeed...
Ma Deuce "not the best"? You, sir, risk deportation for such heresy. ;)
Thanks for your excellent analysis. As an aficionado I always enjoy your detailed research.
That was excellent Greg!
Great job as usual.
Here's an idea for a future video, if you haven't done it already: The JU-87 tank-buster. I've read claims that a force of Stuka's, or an improved successor in this role was one of the few measures the Nazi's might have taken, late in the game, that could have made a real difference.
But this sort of claim is more often an exaggeration......
Almost always an exaggeration. Also military aviation history has quite a few videos on the HS 129 and ju 87
This was an outstanding video. I love the fact you went into the reasoning behind .50 vs 20mm in the US fighters of the time. The HS.404 is an autocannon originally designed and produced by Spanish/French company Hispano-Suiza in the mid-1930s. The P-38 had one from the start but would have been better served with Six-50's in the nose. You would eliminate the fall of shot difference between types. And the P-38 had no convergence since all guns fired directly ahead giving the pilot a kill area from the muzzle, out to the limit of the projectiles flight path. The standard weight of a .50 caliber is 650/750 grains per projectile.
That’s a fair argument, but I’d argue that the difference in ballistics between a Hispano Mk II and a Browning .50 cal were small enough that it was worth having the additional High Explosive capability, which meant that a burst anywhere on the target aircraft had a good chance to do severe damage, while just .50s would need to land a burst on something more direct, like the engine block, a radiator, or one of the fuel/oil/hydraulic lines. On the flip side, HEFI ammunition is less effective at dealing with armor plates and engine blocks, so having the 4 .50 cals “escort” the HEFI rounds into a burst helped cover the weaknesses of both weapons.
Go and have a look at WW2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS and all arguments for the 50 Cal is disproved
@@jacktattis a shit load of dead germans and Japanese would argue that point dufus
Great information and photos I've never seen before !
featuring Greg's favorite aircraft of ALL TIMES - the Mighty P 47!!
I'm literally counting down the minutes!
Would love to know your thoughts on the dedicated ground attack A-36 Apache (former AH-64D Apache pilot here, love the channel!).
Subscribed and thumbs-up, Greg. This is the first of your videos I have seen and I appreciate the detail and breadth you bring to your work. Thank you. Now I have to go back to the start and watch them all and each will get a thumbs-up. Thanks for your work.
Cheers from Canada.
You done good Greg. As always.
Bell seemed to love the idea of complex driveshaft systems to spin the props on their late war planes.
Could You have ever imagined the .50 cal as a man portable sniper rifle? Earned a sub!
Interestingly, that was imagined a couple of times but the rifles weren't up to it back in WW2. Ian McCollum has a great video on this. ua-cam.com/video/mf7MezhQ6pw/v-deo.html
The Germans, British, and Soviets had anti-tank rifles with calibers a little above .50 BMG. Nothing about them, barrels, triggers, or was anywhere near the quality needed for sniping. More damning: they would destroy the fragile scopes of the era. Limiting them to iron sights limited them to the same range as the normal sniper rifles.
They exist. Barrett. McMillan. Lots of them
Thanks Greg excellent work.
Great video. Just some info about UK 303s taken from Ian Daytion's Battle of Briton book. .303 load was four types of ammo ball, tracer, explosive( licence bought from Belgium just before the war) and armour piercing.Early war German cannon fired reduced power ammo.