Madsen 23 mm gun for american fighter aircrafts

Archibald

Banned
As said in the title. Imagine if the 23 mm madsen gun had been adopted by the Army Air Corps in 1941.

Two or four guns in the wings of P-51 and P-47 (which were already formidable with the machine guns). One gun in the nose of the P-38 lightning.
I think the air war over Germany in 1943 - 45 could be different.

What do you think ?
 
...
Two or four guns in the wings of P-51 and P-47 (which were already formidable with the machine guns). One gun in the nose of the P-38 lightning.
I think the air war over Germany in 1943 - 45 could be different.

What do you think ?

The increase in armament caliber can't improve two things needed for a succesful air war over Germany made by fighters located in UK. The two things were long range and competitive performance well above 20000 ft. Sticking two drop tanks on the P-47 in mid 1943 means LW is both out-performed and out-numbered over Germany; hi-alt performance is already there, so no acute need for improvement. Eight .50s chew the 190s, let alone 109s. Or - stick the Packard Merlin V-1650-1 on the P-51 already by late 1942 (= instead of going A-36 route); can compete vs. Luftwaffe at desired altitude, and has the range with drop tanks attached. Or - ship more P-38s in the ETO by Spring of 1943.
We wouldn't want the (daylight) air war above Germany in 1944-45 to be any different than it was, with Allies trashing the LW historically. The 1943 is problematic, hence my suggestions.
 

Driftless

Donor
The Madsen 23mm was the pre-war planner's preferred choice - should have been a lot of "bang". From what little I understand of the Madsen, the 23mm was basically a necked out version of their existing 20mm weapon and cartridge. I don't know how one version compared to the other for ballistic performance.

I'd think either version would have been useful in a CAS role, probably better suited to installations in fuselage. On the P-36 thread, I believe JustLeo cited the test case of slinging the bulky Madsen's under the wing in pods, and the drag notably impaired the performance of that small-ish plane.

*edit* As JustLeo points out below, there seems to be a dearth of data (I'll accept alliteration points for that combination...) on the Madsen's, especially the 23mm version. I did just find this Polish site that has some graphics including some limited quantitative information.
 
Last edited:
Tony Williams, who knows guns, I think, doesn't say much about the Madsen as an aircraft cannon. They were made in Denmark, were scheduled to be fitted to several aircraft, but were not, were fitted to a P-36, with no further words except their effect on performance. They had feed problems, maybe sorted out, maybe not, and were drum-fed, belt-fed, or box-fed, depending on source, or not. They had a slow RoF, but made a big bang. They had a somewhat mythical, magical quality in that they were a magnificent weapon that you couldn't see. On the basis of available information, I would like more available information, and I'd like that information to agree, rather that misguide.
 
The Madsen has a velocity of 720 m/ps (2360 f/ps) which seems a bit slow when compared to the 20mm Hispano or 0.5 Browning.

23Madsen.jpg
 
The Madsen has a velocity of 720 m/ps (2360 f/ps) which seems a bit slow when compared to the 20mm Hispano or 0.5 Browning.

Thank you, this is the 1st time I've actually saw a definite 1st hand data on anything for the 23mm Madsen. If I may ask - where is it from, and do you have more on this? 720 m/s is much more favorable than 37mm M4 at 610 m/s, as well as being a much lighter & more compact weapon, with greater RoF.
OTOH - the 23mm with Mine shell (talk 150-200 g) would've made much sense for the Germans.
 

Driftless

Donor
Thank you, this is the 1st time I've actually saw a definite 1st hand data on anything for the 23mm Madsen. If I may ask - where is it from, and do you have more on this? 720 m/s is much more favorable than 37mm M4 at 610 m/s, as well as being a much lighter & more compact weapon, with greater RoF.
OTOH - the 23mm with Mine shell (talk 150-200 g) would've made much sense for the Germans.

http://www.dws-xip.pl/encyklopedia/lotdz23-dk/ This site contained the Cartridge graphic, along with other info - the non-graphic surrounding text is in Polish though.
 
Last edited:
Thank you, this is the 1st time I've actually saw a definite 1st hand data on anything for the 23mm Madsen. If I may ask - where is it from, and do you have more on this? 720 m/s is much more favorable than 37mm M4 at 610 m/s, as well as being a much lighter & more compact weapon, with greater RoF.
OTOH - the 23mm with Mine shell (talk 150-200 g) would've made much sense for the Germans.

Sorry it's just what I have found on google. ROF was 400rpm according to this site http://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7336
 
The important thing is that the 23mm shell carried twice the bursting charge of the 20mm version. This is with conventional shells, with mine shells the effectiveness of the explosive would have been increased even more. Great for knocking down bombers but probably a little slow on ROF for high speed fighter verse fighter engagements. Though any hits on none armoured structure is going to be pretty damaging.
 
The P-47 was already a devastating CAS platform, bigger guns can only help...
The quartet of .50s fit in the wing, the weapons bay of which was fairly shallow, with guns staggered and ammo belts running over and out the length of the wing. It is not certain that alternative cannons would fit without some bulges.
 
The armor penatration is what's going to make the difference.I haven't been able to find any specs on it but if it is at least 1½ inches,the Axis is screwed.
1½ inches of penatration will put a round through the roof or engine deck of a panzer, or the armor of a Japanese destroyer's torpedo tubes.
Axis reaction to this threat thicker armor will put more stress on the Panzer's overstressed drive train,and require diversion of overextended Japanese industry.
 
The quartet of .50s fit in the wing, the weapons bay of which was fairly shallow, with guns staggered and ammo belts running over and out the length of the wing. It is not certain that alternative cannons would fit without some bulges.

Do we know the actual wing thickness (in inches) of the P-47s wing?

The armor penatration is what's going to make the difference.I haven't been able to find any specs on it but if it is at least 1½ inches,the Axis is screwed.
1½ inches of penatration will put a round through the roof or engine deck of a panzer, or the armor of a Japanese destroyer's torpedo tubes.
Axis reaction to this threat thicker armor will put more stress on the Panzer's overstressed drive train,and require diversion of overextended Japanese industry.

The Typhoons have had the pretty powerful Hispano cannon, yet they didn't mamaged to kill German panzers with it. The cannon fire, coming out from a fast fighter, will meet the horizontal plates at shallow angles, thus the AP ammo will be in tough position to penetrate. And pilots of fast aircraft will not dive at angels close to vertical from low altitude beacuse of very real chance they will hit the ground themselves.

At any rate, the 8 .50s on the P-47 were more than capable to wreck the weak point of Axis divisions - the trucks shuffling the material and manpower. The tank without fuel, ammo, spare parts and crew members is kinda useless in the front.
 
Do we know the actual wing thickness (in inches) of the P-47s wing?

366a9892c9f34a968cfbc9c4dbc1ce08.jpg


Do you think I have nothing better to do with my life than to calculate such useless, meaningless figures? However, that useless, meaningless figure is 9.62 inches at 30% of mean root chord of 87.46 inches, about mid-span.
 
Top