AHC: P-51 Mustang even more prominent

nope you put armour round the engine (which is impossible in a radial )

Fw 190A-8/R2 & R8 Sturmbock

Sturmjager_armor.jpg


You can do the rest of the cowl, if you want to add a bunch more weight, like the Sturmovik and its radial powered competitor the Su-6 that was disrupted by the invasion.
But generally, itwas better to protect the pilot, like on the Skyraider
AD-6+Armor+etc.jpg
 
Since the DAF was flying a lot of Hurricanes and even some Spitfires at that point along with some number of Merlin equipped P-40s of their own ...not a bad idea for the USAAF to send a group of Merlin equipped fighters to a theater where there are already a lot of Merlin equipped fighters.
I'm not at all sure it makes any difference, since the spares would be coming from different supply chains anyhow. Unless you mean cross-AF scrounging?:eek:
 
On the subject of cannon vs MG in US aircraft one thing drove the continued use of .50 cal in US Service

Basically and very surprisingly the US made 20mm HS404s (AN1 and AN2) despite their very high quality finish were so badly out of spec that they were deemed to be unreliable for service – despite 1000s being made for the British - there reliability was so poor that not a single unit was fitted to a British combat aircraft.

It was found that the US had ignored all of the advice concerning known pitfalls etc that the British had discovered and overcome – coupled with the loser tolerances that the US armament industries then had as the weapon was considered to be a cannon and not a machine gun which would have been subjected to tighter tolerances.

The British managed to ramp up their own production that enabled them to arm the RAF and RNs British built aircraft but the US still had issues.

It was only in Mid 1943 that US made ‘Hispano’s’ became as reliable enough and not until 1944 until they began appearing in front line US Navy aircraft and only then in 2 types – SC-2 and a variant of the Corsair.

So it was not a case that the .50 cal was seen as being the better weapon of the 2 simply it was the only weapon realistically available to the USAAF and USN for much of the war.

For further information look up George M. Chinn’s (USMC ret.) work in the 50s on ‘Machine guns’ where he is scathing about these mistakes made and time it took to correct them – summarised here by Antony Williams

Now had these issues been hand waived in a given ATL – I dunno – the British somehow push the various companies (International Harvester, Oldsmobile, and Bendix) who are making the weapon to build them to their designs and not the one supplied OTL by US Army Ordinance Engineers – then I think it is very likely that the later Mustangs that took the Air campaign to the Luftwaffe above Germany would be toting 4 x 20mm cannon or a mix of Cannon and MG and the P47s very likely carrying 4 or even 6 of them in the later varients.
 
I'm not at all sure it makes any difference, since the spares would be coming from different supply chains anyhow. Unless you mean cross-AF scrounging?:eek:

57th FG was the only USAAF fighter group serving with the DAF (there were three bomber groups) and it was attached to No. 211 Group so they would have been drawing from the same supply chain as the DAF P-40s.
 
For further information look up George M. Chinn’s (USMC ret.) work in the 50s on ‘Machine guns’ where he is scathing about these mistakes made and time it took to correct them – summarised here by Antony Williams

Now had these issues been hand waived in a given ATL – I dunno – the British somehow push the various companies (International Harvester, Oldsmobile, and Bendix) who are making the weapon to build them to their designs and not the one supplied OTL by US Army Ordinance Engineers – then I think it is very likely that the later Mustangs that took the Air campaign to the Luftwaffe above Germany would be toting 4 x 20mm cannon or a mix of Cannon and MG and the P47s very likely carrying 4 or even 6 of them in the later varients.

Or the US could have done what the IJA did, make a bigger Browning, and call it good.
 
Or the US could have done what the IJA did, make a bigger Browning, and call it good.
Honestly, all International Harvester (who, iirc, built the US Hispano as the A/N-M1, M2, and starting 43 M2C) needed to do was alter the neck dimensions in the breech. That the main difference between British and American Hispanos and it is what set the successful British Mk.V apart from the troubled US versions.

Up sizing the Browning (AN/M2 .50 BMG) is certainly possible and could be effective but would likely be larger (in the receiver) than the HS.404 and possibly weigh more, as well, making packaging more difficult.
 
Honestly, all International Harvester (who, iirc, built the US Hispano as the A/N-M1, M2, and starting 43 M2C) needed to do was alter the neck dimensions in the breech. That the main difference between British and American Hispanos and it is what set the successful British Mk.V apart from the troubled US versions.

Up sizing the Browning (AN/M2 .50 BMG) is certainly possible and could be effective but would likely be larger (in the receiver) than the HS.404 and possibly weigh more, as well, making packaging more difficult.

Browning .50 M2 12.7x99 29kg 850rpm
Ho-5 (upscale) 20x94 37kg 850 rpm
Hispano Mk.II 20x110 50kg 600 rpm
Hispano Mk.V 20x110 42kg 750 rpm
Ho-155II (biggest Browning) 30x114 44 kg 650 rpm

rebarrel and slightly upsize that Ho-5 to 20x110, and you have a more compact gun with a faster rof
 
Browning .50 M2 12.7x99 29kg 850rpm
Ho-5 (upscale) 20x94 37kg 850 rpm
Hispano Mk.II 20x110 50kg 600 rpm
Hispano Mk.V 20x110 42kg 750 rpm
Ho-155II (biggest Browning) 30x114 44 kg 650 rpm

rebarrel and slightly upsize that Ho-5 to 20x110, and you have a more compact gun with a faster rof

I wonder why they didn't?

The thing is the British have a working cannon - have ironed out the bugs - stopped it from freezing etc at high altitude - and have a reliable working belt feed system - so what's the point in buggering about developing a new unproven weapon system?
 
I wonder why they didn't?

The thing is the British have a working cannon - have ironed out the bugs - stopped it from freezing etc at high altitude - and have a reliable working belt feed system - so what's the point in buggering about developing a new unproven weapon system?

US weapons development was abysmal.
Besides botching the Hispano, they also wasted the whole war trying to make the MG151 work in .60 caliber, and most of the war trying to get the M2 Browning to run faster.
And then the MG-42 in 30-06 fiasco

It just doesn't seem to have occurred to them, despite capturing the Japanese examples.
 
US weapons development was abysmal.
Besides botching the Hispano, they also wasted the whole war trying to make the MG151 work in .60 caliber, and most of the war trying to get the M2 Browning to run faster.
And then the MG-42 in 30-06 fiasco

It just doesn't seem to have occurred to them, despite capturing the Japanese examples.

And the BAR, which was a fantastic rifle design but not a very good squad automatic weapon.
 
I don't know if this has been suggested yet but if you want more P51s then have the orders for the Curtiss P40 canceled and Curtiss be subcontracted to build the more modern P51 in their place.
 
I don't know if this has been suggested yet but if you want more P51s then have the orders for the Curtiss P40 canceled and Curtiss be subcontracted to build the more modern P51 in their place.

Prior to the Merlin experiment was it clear the P-51 was superior enough to the P-40 to justify such a decision?
 
The RAF were certainly happy to get all North American could build and I'd say the improved range and performance even with the Allison engine would have justified the change, even though it was seen more as a ground attack aircraft at the time than a fighter. You need to convince the USAAF to adopt it as a fighter early on, and despite what everyone who flew it said the USAAF just weren't interested until B17 and 24 Losses over Europe became unsustainable. Probably because it was designed for the RAF.
 
Browning .50 M2 12.7x99 29kg 850rpm
Ho-5 (upscale) 20x94 37kg 850 rpm
Hispano Mk.II 20x110 50kg 600 rpm
Hispano Mk.V 20x110 42kg 750 rpm
Ho-155II (biggest Browning) 30x114 44 kg 650 rpm

rebarrel and slightly upsize that Ho-5 to 20x110, and you have a more compact gun with a faster rof
Ok, so maybe it wouldn't be heavier than the HS.404 but the installation would still be limited because of the receiver height. The .50 cal Browning receiver was already taller than the HS.404 and necessitated the gun be installed on its side to fit within the wings of some British aircraft which were originally designed only for .303's. Scaling the receiver up to fit the 20mm x 110mm cartridge would make this even worse. Plus, a Browning made to use the 20mm x 100mm would be bigger and heavier than the Japanese Ho-5 which used Japanese 20mm x 94mm rounds. Also, a good part of the weight of the Hispano was in the barrel which is considerably longer than that of the Browning Light barrel (67" vs 36"). The break down for the A/N-M2 20mm that I can find shows the receiver and breech was about 29.3 kg, the barrel about 21.5 kg, and the feed mechanism and de-linker for the belt-fed variant another 8.6 kg.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Browning and think it is the best HMG platform ever devised, but I just don't see a 20x110mm Browning fitting well in the wings of most aircraft.
 
Top