What if the F-86 was a armed with cannon?

I was reading about the F-86 “GunVal” testing of some T-160 20mm cannon armed F-86s in Korea (this was driven by the perception that the .50 guns weren’t effective against the MiGs). During the test period, out of 41 MiGs engaged, 6 were destroyed, 3 probable, and 13 damaged.

Would the F-86’s performance in Korean been more successful if it had been armed with cannon from the outset?

Also, an early issue found during the tests were flameouts due to the outgassing of the cannons. If that was the case, how did the MiGs deal with the outgassing of its cannon, especially the 37mm?

Ric350
 

SsgtC

Banned
It may actually perform worse than in OTL. The US had issues with it's airborne 20mm cannons up until the M61 was introduced. Primarily, they tended to jam when engaged in high angle of attack or high-G maneuvers.

During Korea, the Sabre would have used the AN/M3 cannon, which was a modified Hispano HS.404. This gun, and it's predecessors, were extremely unreliable and would frequently misfire. So IMO, the F-86 would have had a worse record than it did using .50 cal
 
Australian Avon Sabres had a pair of 30mm Aden cannon, similar to planes like the Mirage III and Lightning but well below the 4 Aden cannon of the Hunter.
 
The USN had the FJ-2 and FJ-3 Fury, which were essentially Sabres modified for carrier service with an arrestor hook, strengthened landing gear with a lengthened nosewheel strut, and 4 Colt Mk.12 cannon.

However, the Fury was introduced in 1954, and the Mk. 12, itself an HS 404 derivative, wasn't entirely satisfactory- and I'm not sure if the Pontiac revolver cannon would even fit.
 
The POD could be that US Built HS404s did not have the 1/8th" and later 1/16th" head spacing issues (which resulted in light strikes and made the weapons unreliable) and had developed into a weapon as reliable as the British Hispano V and more importantly trusted by the USAF - had this happened then it is likely that the P47, Corsair, Hellcat and P51s of WW2 would have been armed with 20mm Cannon or a mix of Cannon and .50 cal by late war.

So it would stand to reason that the F86 Sabre would have been armed with 4 Cannon from the very start instead of the brace of 6 x .50 cals.

Later variants of the F86s did swap to 4 Cannon - but it's sobering that even as late as 1953 the US cannon was not trusted and reportedly still unreliable.

One of the few failures of US Armament industry during WW2 - in what was otherwise a startling overwhelming success story.

There are many opportunities for the US production of HS404 to be successful however

  • They Listen to the British with regards to the head spacing issue
  • They Listen to their own ammunition companies making the 20mm ammo with regards to the head spacing issue
  • They listen to the US Navy (Lt Col Chin of the USMC for example championed the weapon) with regards to the head spacing issue
  • The British resolve their own reliability issues earlier than OTL and the weapon is a success in the Battle of Britain and so this carries greater weight with US manufacturers
  • The US Ordnance treats the weapon as a Machine gun rather than a artillery piece with regards to tolerances and this butterflies the headspacing issues
 
If the US want's F86's with working 20mm guns they can always buy British and I'd say they'd definitely be more effective than aircraft armed with .50's. Has anyone ever come up with a reasonable excuse for US companies not being able to copy perfectly good guns, or were they just too proud to ask for help?
 

SsgtC

Banned
If the US want's F86's with working 20mm guns they can always buy British and I'd say they'd definitely be more effective than aircraft armed with .50's. Has anyone ever come up with a reasonable excuse for US companies not being able to copy perfectly good guns, or were they just too proud to ask for help?
A lot of it is Not Invented Here. But part of it is the differences in measurements, tolerances, even how far apart threads are spaced on nuts and bolts.
 

Driftless

Donor
I don't know if NIH applied with the 20mm or not, but the US did use some British equipment in WW2. The 6lb/57mm gun is a good example, and there were USAAC Spitfires and Beaufighters as well. You would think after mucking up the HS 404 20mm for years, that someone at the War Department would have an "Aha" moment and compare notes. But then.... that might open the doors to real cooperation... ;)
 
One of the few failures of US Armament industry during WW2 - in what was otherwise a startling overwhelming success story.

Along with Wright and the R-3350 engine, Torpedoes, Tank and Tank Destroyer policy, the failure of Ordnance Department to pull their collective heads out of their asses are among the top failures
of WWII

And the 20mm wasn't even the worst Ordnance did

The short list
1.
a 'light' MG in the form of the 32 pound M1919A6
m1919a6l.jpg
Weight was less ammo, too. This turd lasted till 1957, despite the Army wanting a LMG since 1922, that was a bit better than the BAR


Despite having access to LMGs and the German GPMGs, this was the best that was done, leading to #2

2.
inability to convert the MG-42 to run on .30-06. Headspace issues, indeed.

3.
Wasted the entire war on the HMG .60 cal Machine Gun and the early part on an Anti-Tank Rifle that never saw service.
It started life as a necked down Navy 1.1" cartridge.

From the US History on this round
In 1939 the Army developed a caliber .60 antitank cartridge. Early in World War II our ordnance engineers anticipated a need for a machine gun heavier than our caliber .50 Browning and began work on this caliber .60 which would fire a 1200-grain projectile at the then “hypervelocity” of 3500 fps.

This round was later necked down to caliber .50 and achieved a velocity of 3900 fps! Later yet, it was necked up to 20 mm, known as the 60/20, and fired a 1500-grain projectile at 3300 fps. This round gradually evolved into the M50-series which is now the most widely used 20 mm ammunition in the world.


So yeah. only took 15 years, and using a gatling setup to get things working.

4. 20mm Hispano. See #2. another case of taking a weapon that worked, and made many that rarely worked.

5.
The BAR. Pretty good for an automatic rifle from 1918. A number of countries, the Swedes, Poles and Belgians, improved it to being lighter, QD Barrels, and even belt feed.
Ordnance worked on the bipod and carry handle. Woohoo!
 
The t-160 (m39) was based on the german mg-213 revolver cannon (as was the ADEN), so it didn’t have the issues of the US built Hispano. The only operational issue with the combat F-86 I read, was regarding the smoke ingestion, nothing about jamming. I know in the late 40s-50s the US Navy was pro-cannon for their aircraft, but the USAF pressed on with the .50, perhaps to spite the Navy?

Ric350
 
Along with Wright and the R-3350 engine, Torpedoes, Tank and Tank Destroyer policy, the failure of Ordnance Department to pull their collective heads out of their asses are among the top failures
of WWII

And the 20mm wasn't even the worst Ordnance did

The short list
1.
a 'light' MG in the form of the 32 pound M1919A6
m1919a6l.jpg
Weight was less ammo, too. This turd lasted till 1957, despite the Army wanting a LMG since 1922, that was a bit better than the BAR


Despite having access to LMGs and the German GPMGs, this was the best that was done, leading to #2

2.
inability to convert the MG-42 to run on .30-06. Headspace issues, indeed.

3.
Wasted the entire war on the HMG .60 cal Machine Gun and the early part on an Anti-Tank Rifle that never saw service.
It started life as a necked down Navy 1.1" cartridge.

From the US History on this round
In 1939 the Army developed a caliber .60 antitank cartridge. Early in World War II our ordnance engineers anticipated a need for a machine gun heavier than our caliber .50 Browning and began work on this caliber .60 which would fire a 1200-grain projectile at the then “hypervelocity” of 3500 fps.

This round was later necked down to caliber .50 and achieved a velocity of 3900 fps! Later yet, it was necked up to 20 mm, known as the 60/20, and fired a 1500-grain projectile at 3300 fps. This round gradually evolved into the M50-series which is now the most widely used 20 mm ammunition in the world.


So yeah. only took 15 years, and using a gatling setup to get things working.

4. 20mm Hispano. See #2. another case of taking a weapon that worked, and made many that rarely worked.

5.
The BAR. Pretty good for an automatic rifle from 1918. A number of countries, the Swedes, Poles and Belgians, improved it to being lighter, QD Barrels, and even belt feed.
Ordnance worked on the bipod and carry handle. Woohoo!

To be fair to the USA - they unlike everyone else effectively went from a standing start - No tanks to Pershing's - tubby biplanes to P51Ds and Silver plates

FIDO and Garand and M1 Carbine, Jeep, Liberty ship and the Atom bomb

Not too shabby ;)

The M1919A6 - there was no plan B - there was no time! Britain spent 10 years developing the Bren and Germany the MG34 - America was in blissful isolation and didn't bother!

MG42 - yep that T24 - taking the worlds then best Machine gun and.....making it one of the worst

Wasn't really aware of the .60 cal (I thought it was something from Crimson Skies!)

Cannon yep

The BAR - I totally agree - as you say look at what everyone else did with it between the wars but again no plan B - just watching the 'Project Lightning' Episodes with Ian From Forgotten Weapons and some others folks testing WW1 'LMGs' and the BAR did surprisingly poorly and to think the US Army could have had the Lewis instead!
 
The t-160 (m39) was based on the german mg-213 revolver cannon (as was the ADEN), so it didn’t have the issues of the US built Hispano. The only operational issue with the combat F-86 I read, was regarding the smoke ingestion, nothing about jamming. I know in the late 40s-50s the US Navy was pro-cannon for their aircraft, but the USAF pressed on with the .50, perhaps to spite the Navy?

Ric350

Lt Col Chin* of the USMC championed the Cannon in USN service and he helped create some of the workarounds such as packing the weapons in grease etc to reduce the headspacing effects and the gun did see some WW2 service with the USN who were desperate for a working cannon!

I recall that he was the person that gave rise to the Garand 'Ping' getting GIs killed Myth as well as the Bren gun 'being too accurate' Myth that has become truth! But other than that his 5 volume work on machine guns and cannon is well worth a 'look' and can be found online with some google fu
 
Lt Col Chin* of the USMC championed the Cannon in USN service and he helped create some of the workarounds such as packing the weapons in grease etc to reduce the headspacing effects and the gun did see some WW2 service with the USN who were desperate for a working cannon!

I recall that he was the person that gave rise to the Garand 'Ping' getting GIs killed Myth as well as the Bren gun 'being too accurate' Myth that has become truth! But other than that his 5 volume work on machine guns and cannon is well worth a 'look' and can be found online with some google fu
I thought those myths came from Jeff Cooper ?
 
Top