Question for aviation buffs.............

[Bob Wright]

I saw the article in The American Rifleman concerning the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Noted was abut the P-40Bs in action at that time. The article stated that the P-40B has two .50 cal. and two .30 caliber machine guns.

My question is, in fighters with guns of different calibers, such as the P-40B, the P-39 and the P-38, could the guns be fired separately? Did the pilot have some way of firing only his .30 caliber guns? Or did all guns (those having ammunition) fire at once?

Bob Wright

 

[Fox Mike]

Look here. On the left side are the gun control switch. Looks like it was 'ya got'm or they were off'.
http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/media/020/P-40E%20Cockpit.html

 

[WAYNO]

..

 

[Bob Wright]

Look here. On the left side are the gun control switch. Looks like it was 'ya got'm or they were off'.
http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/media/020/P-40E%20Cockpit.html

That's a P-40E, which had all .50 caliber guns. I'll try something else.



Bob Wright

 

[Bob Wright]

As an aviation ordnanceman long ago,...............................................................

..............assortment of weapons we could place on different wingpoints and in the turret of our Cobras.
WAYNO.

WAYNO,

Cobras ain't "long ago." Unless you're talking about the Air Cobra, but they didn't have turrets.


Bob Wright

 

[WAYNO]

My point only being...In modern aviation, individual guns are selectable, so I would have assumed this was a lesson learned long earlier. I was surprised to discover not all P40 variants had individually selectable guns.

 

[Mike Armstrong]

I believe that (from reading accounts of the Flying Tigers and others), the wing (.30cal) and nose (.50 cal) guns were selected separately. They COULD all be fired at once, but you had to select both at once.

Originally these guns were synchronized to hit the same point at a given distance. The pilot could get "on" the target with tracers from the wider-spaced, faster firing wing guns, which also carried more ammo, and then fire the .50s to hit the same place. Not sure how well this worked out in combat with another fighter, but it would work for a large slow target like a bomber, I think. The idea originally was to conserve the .50 ammo since the storage was much more limited than the .30. The predecessor of the P-40, the Curtiss Hawk Model 75, or P-36, shared this system.

I suspect that all this was just "too many moving parts" when you were in a dogfight with a Zeke, an Oscar, or an ME-109, so they simplified it so all guns were the same and fired all at once, and got rid of the nose guns which also had to be synchronized to miss the prop, which slowed their rate of fire even more.

 

[Bob Wright]

The purpose of the .30 caliber guns on tactical fighters was for strafing troops in the open. Then switch to the .50s for vehicles or harder targets. The concept of the P-40 at the time was for use as a tactical fighter, while such planes as the P-39 and P-38 were interceptor fighters. Their cannon armament was intended to bring down the bombers anticipated.

For this reason, the P-40 was not equipped with superchargers, as a low level fighter.

We sort of had our heads in the sand attitude prior to Peal Harbor.

Bob Wright

 

[2tall79]

Not sure how accurate it was, but we were told in AIT (1967), that the use .50 Cal against personnel was forbidden by the Geneva Convention.

 

[Bob Wright]

Not sure how accurate it was, but we were told in AIT (1967), that the use .50 Cal against personnel was forbidden by the Geneva Convention.

Never heard that before! The B-25 strafers in the CBI sure never practiced that. Nor the P-47s that strafed both Japanese and German strongholds. Nor the use of the quad-fifties in softening up positions.

Bob Wright

 

[Jeepnik]

Not sure how accurate it was, but we were told in AIT (1967), that the use .50 Cal against personnel was forbidden by the Geneva Convention.

Some one at AIT was fibbing. Besides the fact that both parties had to be signatories for the accords to be effective, it was the Hague Accords that dealt with prohibited arms and ammunition.

As to the P-40, the model the Tigers flew was the export version, the Tomahawk. Fifties in the nose, thirties in the wings. Either or both depending on pilots wishes. One of the problems of using 30's and 50's was regulating them. 30's rightly should have been regulated at one point due to their lesser range the 50's at another.

In practice the folks that flew P-40's (which by the way was the only fighter aircraft flown by all of the US services, and the only fighter aircraft flown by all of the Allied nations) regulated all of the guns at the optimal range for the 30. The pilots figured out that getting close and putting more rounds on target was better than trying to figure out which to use when. They got sort of busy up there, what with the other fellows shooting at them.

As just another aside, everyone is familiar with the famous sharks mouth on the Tigers P-40's, and credit them with coming up with it. Nope, the first ones were on British P-40's flow in North Africa.

 

[Fox Mike]

Look here. On the left side are the gun control switch. Looks like it was 'ya got'm or they were off'.
http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/media/020/P-40E%20Cockpit.html

That's a P-40E, which had all .50 caliber guns. I'll try something else.



Bob Wright

OK, here is a "B".
http://www.navalaviationmuseum.org/nnam/virtualtour/?s=pano701

 

[Bob Wright]

Jeepnik:As to the P-40, the model the Tigers flew was the export version, the Tomahawk. Fifties in the nose, thirties in the wings.

The export version was the P-40B. The name for all P-40 models in the AAF was "Warhawk", the P-40B in British use was known as the Tomahawk, later models were named "Kittihawk." The difference between the AAF and RAF versions was that the RAF version used .303 caliber machine guns.

And: In practice the folks that flew P-40's (which by the way was the only fighter aircraft flown by all of the US services, and the only fighter aircraft flown by all of the Allied nations)

All of the US services? Are you saying they were used by the Navy and Marine Corps? If so, under what designation? During WW II era Navy and Marine aircraft would have had an "F*C designation, designating as a Fighter from Curtis.

And incidentally, the first use of shark teeth was on the German ME-110s in North Africa.
Bob Wright

 

[flyingtiger]

Left wing 30s guns, right wing 30 guns, or center 50s could be fired indepent of each other. Wing guns could be fired on one side to help bank tighter turn in mountain pass due to recoil.

 

[Bob Wright]

Left wing 30s guns, right wing 30 guns, or center 50s could be fired indepent of each other. Wing guns could be fired on one side to help bank tighter turn in mountain pass due to recoil.

That's a new one to me!

Fiddling around with selector switches sounds like a perfect way to slam into a mountain!

Bob Wright

 

[WMB30]

To me its BS

Bill

 

[Bob Wright]

To me its BS

Bill

My thoughts exactly. Nowhere on the instrument panel is there such a selector switch.


Bob Wright

 

[Mike Armstrong]

Unless I'm mistook (not unlikely) the Convention forbade the use of "explosive" bullets on human targets, so didn't apply to aircraft machine guns smaller than 20mm in our services. (If we had ISSUE explosive .30 or .50 cal MG rounds, please enlighten me--I'm aware of all kinds of experiments in that area, but I don't think practical ammo was developed in WWII....).

And of course the troops on the ground and in the air ignored all those ammo Conventions when the bullets started flying, including us. Wouldn't you have?

 

[Jeepnik]

Jeepnik:As to the P-40, the model the Tigers flew was the export version, the Tomahawk. Fifties in the nose, thirties in the wings.

The export version was the P-40B. The name for all P-40 models in the AAF was "Warhawk", the P-40B in British use was known as the Tomahawk, later models were named "Kittihawk." The difference between the AAF and RAF versions was that the RAF version used .303 caliber machine guns.

And: In practice the folks that flew P-40's (which by the way was the only fighter aircraft flown by all of the US services, and the only fighter aircraft flown by all of the Allied nations)

All of the US services? Are you saying they were used by the Navy and Marine Corps? If so, under what designation? During WW II era Navy and Marine aircraft would have had an "F*C designation, designating as a Fighter from Curtis.

And incidentally, the first use of shark teeth was on the German ME-110s in North Africa.
Bob Wright

My bad. What I recalled was that "former" USN and USMC pilots flew the P-40 while serving with British or AVG groups. And, my comment on the sharks teeth was relating to Allied aircraft. I guess I needed to be more specific on that.

 

[Bob Wright]

............................ (If we had ISSUE explosive .30 or .50 cal MG rounds, please enlighten me--I'm aware of all kinds of experiments in that area, but I don't think practical ammo was developed in WWII....).

Prior to and even early into WW II experiments were conducted to develop explosive projectiles in the .60 caliber range. Final findings were that a reliable fuse/detonator was impractical in projectiles smaller than 20mm.

Funny I always hear about prohibited ammunition for anti-personnel use but never really see any documentation. Seems odd that a .50 caliber bullet would be prohibited but its perfectly acceptable to drop a 105mm fragmentation HE round down on troops. With air bursts, no less.

Bob Wright

 

[blume357]

Would not anything you shot at with the 50 caliber have personnel somewhere in or around it? My understanding of the Geneva Convention was the idea that you are not really trying to kill soldiers but actually wound them.... A wounded soldier is much more costly than a dead one.

 

[Bob Wright]

Would not anything you shot at with the 50 caliber have personnel somewhere in or around it? My understanding of the Geneva Convention was the idea that you are not really trying to kill soldiers but actually wound them.... A wounded soldier is much more costly than a dead one.

The Geneva Convention had mostly to do with the treatment of prisoners or war and treatment of civilian refugees.


Bob Wright

 

[Jeepnik]

Would not anything you shot at with the 50 caliber have personnel somewhere in or around it? My understanding of the Geneva Convention was the idea that you are not really trying to kill soldiers but actually wound them.... A wounded soldier is much more costly than a dead one.

The Geneva Convention had mostly to do with the treatment of prisoners or war and treatment of civilian refugees.


Bob Wright

Yep, it's the Hague agreement that deals with guns and ammo. But again, both parties need to be signatories, and if one violates the other parties are not restrained from using proscribed items.

As an example, poison gas is proscribed. Yet, during WWII Hitler had intended to use it in Sicily. Had things not prevented that, the Allies were prepared to respond in kind. Would really have sucked for the civilian population regardless of who used it.