Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why were the 20mm cannons so unreliable?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 6:24:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Anyone know?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 6:25:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

And here most of us thought you just couldn't spell. :-)
Related resources
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 6:25:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 01 Dec 2004 15:24:59 GMT, artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote:

>Anyone know?
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Because so many people tried using Nikkon lenses with them.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 6:25:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <10qrp7s6isp6p35@news.supernews.com>,
Jim Townsend <not@real.address> wrote:

> ArtKramr wrote:
>
> > Anyone know?
> >
>
> What makes you ask this ? The Vulcan 20mm cannon was and is a very
> reliable and effective weapon.
>
> http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/0200/...

How many Vulcans were used in WWII?

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 6:25:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bob Salomon wrote:

> In article <10qrp7s6isp6p35@news.supernews.com>,
> Jim Townsend <not@real.address> wrote:
>
>> ArtKramr wrote:
>>
>> > Anyone know?
>> >
>>
>> What makes you ask this ? The Vulcan 20mm cannon was and is a very
>> reliable and effective weapon.
>>
>> http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/0200/...
>
> How many Vulcans were used in WWII?
>

About the same number as were used in WW I ;-)
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 6:25:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <10qs2v5ldcr8rf6@news.supernews.com>,
Jim Townsend <not@real.address> wrote:

> Bob Salomon wrote:
>
> > In article <10qrp7s6isp6p35@news.supernews.com>,
> > Jim Townsend <not@real.address> wrote:
> >
> >> ArtKramr wrote:
> >>
> >> > Anyone know?
> >> >
> >>
> >> What makes you ask this ? The Vulcan 20mm cannon was and is a very
> >> reliable and effective weapon.
> >>
> >> http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/0200/...
> >
> > How many Vulcans were used in WWII?
> >
>
> About the same number as were used in WW I ;-)

Gee, I had thought the ones that they kept testing at Kelley while I was
at Lackland were so new.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 6:32:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Subject: Why were the 20mm cannons so unreliable?
>From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
>Date: 12/1/2004 7:24 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20041201102459.06016.00000800@mb-m21.aol.com>
>
>Anyone know?
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>


Sorry, wrong NG. I goofed


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 6:42:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>ubject: Re: Why were the 20mm cannons so unreliable?
>From: Bob Salomon bob_salomon@mindspring.com
>Date: 12/1/2004 7:38 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <bob_salomon-9ABA6F.10382101122004@news.isp.giganews.com>
>
>In article <10qrp7s6isp6p35@news.supernews.com>,
> Jim Townsend <not@real.address> wrote:
>
>> ArtKramr wrote:
>>
>> > Anyone know?
>> >
>>
>> What makes you ask this ? The Vulcan 20mm cannon was and is a very
>> reliable and effective weapon.
>>
>> http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/0200/...
>
>How many Vulcans were used in WWII?
>
>--
>To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
>
Damn few, And they had their own little problems.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 7:34:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ArtKramr" <artkramr@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:20041201102459.06016.00000800@mb-m21.aol.com...
> Anyone know?
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

This is a NG dedicated to digital photography. Or did you mean to write
"Why were the 20mm Canons so unreliable?"

robert
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 7:34:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Subject: Re: Why were the 20mm cannons so unreliable?
>From: "Robert Klemme" bob.news@gmx.net
>Date: 12/1/2004 7:34 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3166k1F2magdjU1@individual.net>
>
>
>"ArtKramr" <artkramr@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:20041201102459.06016.00000800@mb-m21.aol.com...
>> Anyone know?
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
>This is a NG dedicated to digital photography. Or did you mean to write
>"Why were the 20mm Canons so unreliable?"
>
> robert
>

Yup. But for a WW II NG. Sorry 'bout that.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 8:27:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote in news:20041201102459.06016.00000800@mb-
m21.aol.com:

> Anyone know?

Hehe ... actually a rather fun post in this group.
Keep it up!


/Roland
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 8:34:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Subject: Re: Why were the 20mm cannons so unreliable?
>From: Roland Karlsson roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com
>Date: 12/1/2004 9:27 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns95B2BBD5AEE85klotjohan@130.133.1.4>
>
>artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote in news:20041201102459.06016.00000800@mb-
>m21.aol.com:
>
>> Anyone know?
>
>Hehe ... actually a rather fun post in this group.
>Keep it up!
>
>
>/Roland
>


Sorry 'bout that. (sigh)


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 8:42:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Well, they shot down a couple of Zekes near Hawaii in Final Countdown :-)

Jeffery S. Harrison

>
> How many Vulcans were used in WWII?
>
> --
> To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 8:46:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Oh, stop apologizing already, everybody is allowed the occasional disconnect
between their brain and their fingers :-)

By the way, which 20mm's are you wondering about being so unreliable?

Jeffery S. Harrison

"ArtKramr" <artkramr@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041201123458.21909.00001565@mb-m06.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Why were the 20mm cannons so unreliable?
> >From: Roland Karlsson roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com
> >Date: 12/1/2004 9:27 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <Xns95B2BBD5AEE85klotjohan@130.133.1.4>
> >
> >artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote in
news:20041201102459.06016.00000800@mb-
> >m21.aol.com:
> >
> >> Anyone know?
> >
> >Hehe ... actually a rather fun post in this group.
> >Keep it up!
> >
> >
> >/Roland
> >
>
>
> Sorry 'bout that. (sigh)
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 11:11:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Sorry, wrong NG. I goofed

Too bad. I was going to ask if a 200/2.8 Canon was good...
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 2:27:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

OK Art - no more ribbing

Why were the 20mm cannons unreliable?

Aerticeus
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 3:33:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Subject: Re: Why were the 20mm cannons so unreliable?
>From: "Aerticeus" spoofed@spooked.com
>Date: 12/1/2004 3:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <prsrd.204$TF1.8@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>
>
>OK Art - no more ribbing
>
>Why were the 20mm cannons unreliable?
>
>Aerticeus
>
>

They would jam all too often. A fault not shared by the .50 Brownings,


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 3:39:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ArtKramr" <artkramr@aol.com> wrote:

> Anyone know?

I suspect user error. Still, there are people who insist that the Contax
21mm lens is much better than the Canon 20/2.8 when used on a 1Ds.

David J. Littleboy
davidjl@gol.com
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 3:48:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Aerticeus" <spoofed@spooked.com> wrote in message
news:p rsrd.204$TF1.8@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> OK Art - no more ribbing
>
> Why were the 20mm cannons unreliable?
>
> Aerticeus

Dreaded Error 99?



...I'll get me coat....
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 7:09:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Robert Klemme <bob.news@gmx.net> wrote:

>"ArtKramr" <artkramr@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:20041201102459.06016.00000800@mb-m21.aol.com...
>> Anyone know?
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

>This is a NG dedicated to digital photography. Or did you mean to write
>"Why were the 20mm Canons so unreliable?"

Art's a regular here.

---- Paul J. Gans
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 7:12:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ArtKramr <artkramr@aol.com> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Why were the 20mm cannons so unreliable?
>>From: Roland Karlsson roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com
>>Date: 12/1/2004 9:27 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <Xns95B2BBD5AEE85klotjohan@130.133.1.4>
>>
>>artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote in news:20041201102459.06016.00000800@mb-
>>m21.aol.com:
>>
>>> Anyone know?
>>
>>Hehe ... actually a rather fun post in this group.
>>Keep it up!
>>
>>
>>/Roland
>>


>Sorry 'bout that. (sigh)

It's ok Art. Happens to me every so often when
I post in the wrong newsgroup.

Folks need to have a bit of fun.

By the way, was that the f/2 20mm or the f/1.8?

----- Paul J. Gans
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 1:20:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote in message news:<20041201102459.06016.00000800@mb-m21.aol.com>...
> Why were the 20mm cannons so unreliable? Anyone know?

20mm cannons shoot projectiles at 5000 ft/sec, and at a
rapid rate. If you are having trobles with your 20mm cannon
I suggest a good cleaning and an examination of barrel wear.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 5:35:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roland Karlsson wrote:

> artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote in news:20041201102459.06016.00000800@mb-
> m21.aol.com:
>
> > Anyone know?
>
> Hehe ... actually a rather fun post in this group.
> Keep it up!
>
> /Roland

Well, I read one or two of Art's stories, then I read some more, then I read
them all, and looked at the photographs. I was overcome with sadness at Art's
experiences. I was 11 years old when the war ended. Somehow, I can't see the
fun you mention.

Colin.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 5:35:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Subject: Re: Why were the 20mm cannons so unreliable?
>From: Colin D ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1
>Date: 12/1/2004 5:35 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <41AE7148.479D5BFC@killspam.127.0.0.1>
>
>
>
>Roland Karlsson wrote:
>
>> artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote in news:20041201102459.06016.00000800@mb-
>> m21.aol.com:
>>
>> > Anyone know?
>>
>> Hehe ... actually a rather fun post in this group.
>> Keep it up!
>>
>> /Roland
>
>Well, I read one or two of Art's stories, then I read some more, then I read
>them all, and looked at the photographs. I was overcome with sadness at
>Art's
>experiences. I was 11 years old when the war ended. Somehow, I can't see
>the
>fun you mention.
>
>Colin.


Those were long hard days filled with memories of absent friends. Let's
remember those days, but never forget absent friends.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 8:38:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <20041201193350.06251.00000676@mb-m27.aol.com>,
artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Why were the 20mm cannons so unreliable?
> >From: "Aerticeus" spoofed@spooked.com
> >Date: 12/1/2004 3:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <prsrd.204$TF1.8@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>
> >
> >OK Art - no more ribbing
> >
> >Why were the 20mm cannons unreliable?
> >
> >Aerticeus
> >
> >
>
> They would jam all too often. A fault not shared by the .50 Brownings,
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

By the mid 50's we better chargers and electric feeders that corrected
some of the problems.

Still....

--
Rod Smith
for e-mail rodsmith instantiated at mac.com will work
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 9:31:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in
news:41AE7148.479D5BFC@killspam.127.0.0.1:

> Well, I read one or two of Art's stories, then I read some more, then
> I read them all, and looked at the photographs. I was overcome with
> sadness at Art's experiences. I was 11 years old when the war ended.
> Somehow, I can't see the fun you mention.

No one is upset with Art and he is not upset with anyone.
This post shows that you have misunderstood totally.


/Roland
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 10:03:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 02 Dec 2004 00:33:50 GMT, artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Why were the 20mm cannons so unreliable?
>>From: "Aerticeus" spoofed@spooked.com
>>Date: 12/1/2004 3:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <prsrd.204$TF1.8@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>
>>
>>OK Art - no more ribbing
>>
>>Why were the 20mm cannons unreliable?
>>
>>Aerticeus
>>
>>
>
>They would jam all too often. A fault not shared by the .50 Brownings,

What I understand is that they don't handle negative G's well. A feed
problem, from what I've read.
But that could be hearsay.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 2:52:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Subject: Re: Why were the 20mm cannons so unreliable?
>From: Rod Smith old_sac_gunner@net.com
>Date: 12/2/2004 3:38 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <old_sac_gunner-32EE83.17382502122004@news.east.cox.net>
>
>In article <20041201193350.06251.00000676@mb-m27.aol.com>,
> artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: Why were the 20mm cannons so unreliable?
>> >From: "Aerticeus" spoofed@spooked.com
>> >Date: 12/1/2004 3:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <prsrd.204$TF1.8@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>
>> >
>> >OK Art - no more ribbing
>> >
>> >Why were the 20mm cannons unreliable?
>> >
>> >Aerticeus
>> >
>> >
>>
>> They would jam all too often. A fault not shared by the .50 Brownings,
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
>By the mid 50's we better chargers and electric feeders that corrected
>some of the problems.
>
>Still....
>
>--
>Rod Smith


One war too late for me.




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 10:52:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roland Karlsson wrote:

> Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in
> news:41AE7148.479D5BFC@killspam.127.0.0.1:
>
> > Well, I read one or two of Art's stories, then I read some more, then
> > I read them all, and looked at the photographs. I was overcome with
> > sadness at Art's experiences. I was 11 years old when the war ended.
> > Somehow, I can't see the fun you mention.
>
> No one is upset with Art and he is not upset with anyone.
> This post shows that you have misunderstood totally.

No, Roland, you have misunderstood. I did not imply that Art or anyone
else is upset. Read my post again. I said I was sad at Art's experiences,
not with Art personally. What Art and his colleagues - and all serving men
of all the Allied nations - went through in that war was gut-wrenching
horrible. Fun it wasn't. Oh, there may have been some lighter moments,
leavened with black humor perhaps, as a necessary safety-valve now and
then. But reading his short stories of what he and his mates went through
doesn't make me laugh; just the opposite, in fact.

Colin

PS And, before someone says the other side had it just as bad, the
difference is it was they who started it, and reaped the consequences.
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 10:52:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in news:41B00D46.13A0ACA0
@killspam.127.0.0.1:

> No, Roland, you have misunderstood. I did not imply that Art or anyone
> else is upset. Read my post again.

Yep - I read it again. You wrote "Somehow, I can't see the fun
you mention". This implies IMHO that you thought my comment
was inapproriate. Maybe you meant something different, but
that was not obvious.


/Roland
!