U.S. Aerial Armament in World War II: The Ultimate Look, Vol. 1 - Guns, Ammunition, and Turrets

I saw other reviews of this book, finding a thread of posts between author Wolf and a critic. Reading those posts lessen the credibility of the author almost to the point where I sent the book back in protest. However, it's a pretty darn good book and will stay in my library. It is what I wanted, a comprehensive, very detailed technical look at how the US Air Force armed their planes for attack and defense.1/3 of the book addresses aircraft guns from rifle caliber to cannon. A brief history from WW1 through 1941, and then excellent detail about .30 and .50 caliber machine guns, the ammo used, characteristics specifications as well as the technical data on the weapons. A lot of the text, photos, and line drawings are straight from the technical or field manuals. Narrative tells the reader how to operate, clean, disassemble, and maintain the weapons.Parts 4&5 (76 pages) review gunsights, fire control and then my favorite section - Bomber armament & turrets 150 pages worth of information, drawings, statistics, history, facts, data, photos...including how to operate the turrets! Fighters, heavy & medium bombers and naval planes are discussed. The B-24 and B-17 get the most attention, but the B-25, A-26, PBY Catalina and others are included as well. The last section of the book covers training, tactics, capabilities. There are some photos that are upside down. I am not an arms expert, so if there are any technical errors included, it is not something that I'd pick up on. Since I am not building a .30 or .50 caliber weapon, nor trying to maintain one, that's ok. Seeing these weapons again in such detail brought back fond memories.Two things that would have made this book a five star book - color photos of the restored planes. It is unbelievable how much more you can see & visualize with color. There are good B&W pix of restored planes here, but check out the Squadron Signal Walk Around Series or Martin Bowman's B-24 Combat Missions to see the difference. The other observation - as the war progressed, gun turrets changed - it would have been very helpful to have a chart showing each plane with what version of gun turret was being used where and when. The info is in the text, just seeing it in a chart makes it easier to track.Four stars - for the price, I think it should have more color photos of the turret. Having said that, this is an excellent, single source book on many different planes, turrets, weapons used in WW2. This is very much a nuts and bolts, down to each nut and bolt book. For serious, hard core aviation aficionado's, this is a real treat.

The Ultimate Look, indeed! Wolf's extensive use of Tech Order data combined with truly encyclopedic coverage of the subject leaves little to be desired in terms of detail. As with any tome of this size, organization of material may be debated but what I would change in this, while different would probably be no better. Highly recommended for anyone interested in the nuts and bolts of air warfare circa 41-45. Those looking for an overview of the subject will likely get bogged down in the immense amount of details here. Must include a "shout out" for Mr Wolf's occasional sidetracks to cover the background/history of things like gun turrets - information not to be found elsewhere!Hey, Amazon what about a Kindle version of this!

POSITION STATEMENT: The author of this book has stated that he has heard no complaints about inaccuracies or other problems in his books other than my complaints and those of two other individuals. When evidence to the contrary was presented, he chose to dismiss it and say that the points made were "obscure" and "nitpicky." I tried to resolve this without having to resort to the time-consuming task of documenting evidence of these and other errors I have noted in a wide assortment of this author's books. Rather than have a rational debate on the merits of the issues at hand, the author has chosen to belittle, demean, and dismiss his critics. He continually denies that he makes mistakes or says that they are minor and insignificant. I suggested that he discontinue all insults and invective. He refused. I warned him that if he continued to challenge my credibility and dismiss my qualifications to make such complaints, I would demonstrate, in full, just how bad the problem is. After repeated attempts to resolve this without having to resort to such measures, it became obvious that this author would never listen to his critics, never accept their complaints, and never take responsibility to improve his product. Therefore, as of 7 July, I advised that I would no longer have any communication with him and would simply begin going through his books and pointing out the flaws. The first installment in that ongoing effort is now underway and presented below.The author makes the false and unsubstantiated claim that this is part of a vendetta. It is not. He challenged my credibility, my competency and my expertise and I told him that this would be the result if he did not simply let the matter rest. It was his choice to continue hurling insults and making false allegations that he admits were provocative. The following is merely a statement of facts as I see them. I will prove that photos are printed upside-down and sideways, that other photos are completely uncaptioned, and that there are numerous errors of technical and factual information. As previously stated, I will have no further discussion or contact with the author. He has demonstrated his unwillingness to discuss these matter with his critics in a mature, reasoned and rationale manner and, therefore, there is no further purpose in trying to engage him in dialogue.If this statement is perceived to be overly long or the information below lengthy, detailed and even sometimes bewildering, I do apologize, but that is what I have been dealing with in trying to use these books. As a museum docent, aviation historian, aircraft weapons specialist, and military aircraft systems specialist, I had hoped to use these books as research tools. The author even went so far as to defend against other critics by citing me and stating that I was the kind of person he markets his books to! If so, I will demonstrate why, in my opinion, he has failed to meet the standard people in those fields need.As a final note: I have decided NOT to cite everything I find wrong with these books and I do not want to raise any possible expectations by current owners that they will be able to update and correct their copies completely. I feel it is the responsibility of the author to fix his problems and I have no desire to do his job for him. This is meant to demonstrate the scope and severity of the problem. Hopefully, the author will come to realize just how had the problem is and accept responsibility. Likewise, I hope that the book publishers will finally wake up, begin enforcing standards, and properly editing and proofing their products so that their customers are not forced to suffer these failures.Finally, this is meant as a public service to other potential buyers of these and similar publishing products. You may not be able to see the photos described or read the text involved without the book in front of you but, at some point, I hope it will become obvious that there are valid reasons to avoid any product that has so much obviously wrong with it. Learn from mistake and do not assume that a high price and large size translates into quality.I'll close this opening statement with this thought: the author claims that there are "thousands and thousands of facts" in these books and he has legions of fans whom have not complained. That is irrelevant. Once you begin to find errors, you are likely to find more. A few may have seemed insignificant, and this is how they have been treated until now, but the doubts they pose are corrosive. Take a look at the following material. One confused paragraph. One errant designation. Seemingly, they were minor, but they led to more and more problems. The author has continually dismissed them. That dismissive attitude is precisely why he missed them in the first place--they were not important enough to notice and correct. The small errors led to bigger ones. It sowed the seeds of doubt and undermined overall credibility, to the point that I can no longer trust much of anything in these books. Somebody needs to wake up and pay attention before there is no hope of recovery. The author can attack the messenger but the message will remain the same: do your duty, take responsibility, and get it right.Thank you for your time and patience. I sincerely hope that you find the following information of interest and assistance.Ronald Lewis----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US AERIAL ARMAMENT IN WORLD WAR II: THE ULITMATE LOOK VOL. 1: GUNS, AMMUNITION, AND TURRETSPart 5, Chapter 2: General Electric CFC Systems** Page 207, column 1:<snip> "The AAC [Army Air Corps] made an A-20A available to Douglas and GE as a test platform for the GE system and remote turrets that even then was considered a possibility to eventually equip the A-26 and perhaps forthcoming A-20 models. This A-20A (39-725), the last A-20A, was transferred from the Douglas production line to the company's El Segundo modification center and was redesignated the XA-20F. (Note: The next to last A-20A serial was actually 39-797, but the original 39-725 airframe was sent earlier to the Navy as the only BD-1, and Douglas built this second replacement 39-725 at the end of A-20A production.)" <snip> - WOLFText above is needlessly contorted and confused. Aircraft serial number(S/N) 39-725 is confirmed as the one converted. USAF museum provides no serial number info on its website but the Baugher listings confirm 39-725. However, nobody claims to aircraft with the same serial number.[...]S/N 39-725 was most certainly NOT, however, the last A-20A. Nor was S/N 39-797 the "next-to-last A-20A." In fact, it wasn't even an A-20, but a P-70 fighter version of the A-20 design, the last P-70 of in the 1939 contract year (bearing a 39-xxx type of serial).The lone BD-1 bailed to the Navy was NOT S/N 39-725 and NOT an A-20, but S/N 39-741, a photo-recon version known as a Douglas XF-3 Havoc - (`F' as in Foto, not as in the modern `F'ighter designation). This aircraft was transferred to the US Navy as and designated as a BD-1. (see[...])[...]) (see Navy Bureau Number 4251).According to Joe Baugher's well-respected website of aircraft Serial/Bureau numbers, 39-797 was assigned to a P-70. It was NOT the "next-to-last" A-20.39-735 was the last in a serial number series for A-20s in 1939 and converted to the XP-70 fighter. 39-797 was a production P-70.One example of the XA-20F did exist. See [...](text copied at bottom for reference).There were no two aircraft bearing the same serial 39-725. Mr. Wolf has this info completely confused and seems not to understand something as basic as the convention for assigning aircraft tail numbers. His book carries no source notes to even explain where he got this supposed info.On page No. 206, there is a photo at bottom right, with the following caption: "This Douglas A-20A which was redesignated as the XB-20B [sic] as part of the A-20B contract for testing purposes." Douglas did not make a B-20; Boeing did. This is not a mere typo, as "XB-20B" is repeated twice more in column 1, paragraphs 1 and two of page 207.In addition, the photo of the dorsal turret shown on page 207 is so closely cropped that you cannot tell what aircraft it is on or where it is located. Print quality is also substandard, with a grid pattern that is not original photo damage but a printing failure.The caption for the photo does not identify the caliber or model of the twin guns in the solid-dome turret. The barrels have the machined, slotted cooling jackets typical primarily of .30-cal machine guns vs. those with drilled, round holes that are associated with most .50 cal guns. Early .30-cal guns had the slots and later models were fitted with the round ones typically of the .50-cal Brownings.The caliber of the guns is not mentioned until, finally, in column 2 of page 207, .50-cal barrels are cited for "the A-20 fire control system." However, by this time, both the XA-20F and the XA-20B have been discussed and it is unclear which aircraft is being referred to and what weapons belong to what aircraft.As often happens within the text of Wolf books, the writing is unclear. Lack of detail within the caption (when there was more than enough room) helps create needless confusion. The caliber of the guns in the photo could easily have been described, but was not. As will be noted in the next paragraph, this omission sets up conditions for utter chaos.The photo on the bottom of age 206, erroneously described as a non-existent "XB-20B" actually appears to be the aforementioned A-20A S/N 39-725 redesignated as an XA-20F. Check the stats on the USAF Museum web page here[...]and copied below. It states that the XA-20F had a turret with twin .50-cal machine guns.According to [...] the following demonstrates that the designation should have been XA-20B, not XB-20B. This mistake is virtually inexcusable because anybody familiar with aircraft designations of the period would know that 'A' indicated an attack plane and "B" stood for bomber. It should have been stunningly obvious that the "A" designation had suddenly changed to depict an entirely different class of aircraft and mission role. This is NOT something that would be easily missed.In Jim Mesko's "A-20 Havoc In Action" book, Squadron/Signal, c. 1983, on page 16, under the heading "A-20B," it states that "the original XA-20B was an A-20A modified in 1941 with three experimental gun turrets. Each turret was power-operated and fitted with twin .30 caliber machine guns. Two were fitted above and below the rear gunner's station..."In short, both the XA-20B and the XA-20F had similar domed turrets but the XA-2OB is said to have mounted .30 caliber guns and the XA-20F had .50 caliber guns. However, the photo ON PAGE 207 that allegedly depicts the XA-20F shows it with slotted barrels that fit a .30 caliber Browing, not a .50 cal. Again, if the question about the slots vs holes in the M2 Browing .30/.50 caliber guns had been properly answered, it would be relatively easy to sort this out. The same with questionable .30/.50-cal gun comparisons later in a PBY waist blister image. The issue of the slotted/drilled holes in the machine cooling jackets is anything other than the "obscure" fact it was summarily dismissed as being. If the author truly knew this subject, he might well have recognized that fact. Much is described about the features of different machines but the configuration of their cooling jackets is not mentioned, even though it is perhaps the most easily recognized feature on these guns.To make matters worse, the photo at the bottom of page 207 reveals flat glazing directly to the right, underneath the machine barrels. The glazing bends down sharply on both sides, not gently curving as though on an A-20 or P-70. The framing in the glazing and a small black post in the center of a circular piece of framing in the center of the glass all matches perfectly the features of one of the earliest A-26 Invaders, the XA-26, of 1941. However, the XA-26 reportedly had twin .50-cal machine guns. Are any .50 caliber Brownings fitted with slotted barrels in 1941? I suspect so but, once again, nothing in the discussion of the machines in the very opening section of this book will confirm this. And, again, this is the "obscure" fact that the author merely brushed aside rather than addressing. It is NOT obscure and it is not insignificant.It is also evident that one can have no confidence that either of the two photos on pages 206-207 can be trusted as accurate in what they depict. The text contains at least three references to a designation that didn't exist (XB-20B) for these aircraft, the gun positions and surrounding features don't match what is listed in the caption. All data on both page 206 and 207 is corrupted with errors and cannot be trusted.On page 20, an upside-down photo of both slotted (M2 Flexible) and drilled .30-cal (M2 Fixed) Brownings still manages to demonstrate both styles of jacket for that weapon. However, note that since the caption for this single photo of two guns describes them by orientation at top or bottom, it is critical to know that they are upside-down before you can properly match the description to the images. Flipping photos upside is not a minor thing or just a nuisance. It does have serious consequences when trying to understand the weapons.There is, however, no corresponding illustration of a .50-cal version of the the machine gun fitted with a slotted barrel, yet various photos throughout this volume on aircraft guns shows both slotted and round holes on different Browning machine guns, all described as .50-cal weapons. Are they, really? The two weapons are extremely similar and in some views, depending upon distance or angle, key recognition features needed to distinguish them are not evident. Are they .30-cal guns or .50-cal?At this point, the whole issue of central fire control and which aircraft had what turret, with what caliber of weapons, is so muddled and mired in confusion that no sense can be made of it. It has utterly no value for research purposes because the data cannot be trusted due to obvious errors, and the information is so scrambled, it isn't even funny. A reference should not leave you more confused than when your research started. And, again, any book that touts itself as an "ultimate" guide should make it unnecessary to check another book. In this case, I had to go through at least two other Squadron/Signal books in order to confirm that this whole section is invalid as a research source.A closing remark on the use of the acronym "CFC" without spelling out the term and explaining its meaning. CFC stands for Central Fire Control, but in this book it is ONLY spelled out on the intro page (for "Part Five", the (un-numbered page 194). The acronym is also missing from the "Abbreviations & Glossary section on pages 436-439, where it most definitely SHOULD be, while page 445 of the "Index" lists "Central Fire Control," yet fails to include the acronym of CFC!Yes, the acronym is spelled out at some point. However, this is supposed to be primarily a reference book, not something you typically go through progressively, from front to back. If used like an encyclopedia, as intended, and used for quick reference, the serious researcher cannot afford to be flipping back and forth, hunting for the corresponding meanings of acronyms and they should not be missing from a deficient glossary and index.CONCLUSION OF REVIEW #1 IN A CONTINUING SERIES------------------------------------------------------------------------REFERENCE SOURCES (Please note that I aM solely responsible for my posts and that there is no suggestion of endorement of my views by any source listed below. The following links are provided only as sources of independent verification of the data presented. No affiliation or association with any of the parties or websites listed is suggested.------------------------[...],Douglas A-20B Havoc--------------------------------------------------------[...]See BD-1 description for one A-20.-----------------------------------------------------------------------[...]Site confirms serial number errors on part of Wolf. S/N 39-735 is confirmed as first XP-70 night-fighter, not what Wolf claims.------------------------------------------[...]Serials of F-3:Confirms Navy Bureau Number (BuNo) of 4251 for BD-1------------------------------------------------------------------------[...]Bureau Number 4251 - BD-1 - Douglas - (obtained from Army) [A-20]------------------------------------------------------------------------[...]Douglas XA-20F HavocCites XA-20B. There was no XB-20B by Douglas, as suggested by Wolf.------------------------------------------------------------------------[...]Douglas XA-20FPosted 12/30/2008 Printable Fact SheetDouglas XA-20F No. 69 "Porcupine I." Note the modified nose with the 37mm cannon barrel protruding about three feet. (U.S. Air Force photo)One A-20A was converted for use as a weapons test platform. The nose was modified for a 37mm cannon T-20-E-1 and the aft gunner positions were updated from flexible machine gun mounts in the dorsal and ventral positions to General Electric remote controlled power turrets with dual .50-cal. machine guns.The aircraft, No. 69, was nicknamed "Porcupine," probably in reference to the nose-mounted cannon that protruded about three feet.The armament tested on the XA-20F wasn't used on any production A-20; however, test data gathered during the remote controlled turret testing was used in the development of the Douglas A-26 Invader.Type: XA-20FNumber built/converted: 1 (cv)Remarks: Weapons test aircraftTECHNICAL NOTES (A-20A):Armament (Standard A-20A): Four forward-firing .30-cal. machine guns infuselage blisters, two .30-cal. machine guns in a flexible dorsalposition, one .30-cal. machine gun in a ventral position and tworearward-firing .30-cal. machine guns in the engine nacelles, plusprovisions for 1,600 lbs. of bombs.(XA-20F): One forward-firing 37mm cannon mounted in the nose, one dorsaland one ventral General Electric remotely-controlled power turrets withtwo .50-cal. machine guns eachMaximum speed: 347 mphCruising speed: 295 mphRange: 1,000 miles maximum ferry rangeService ceiling: 28,175 ft.Span: 61 ft. 4 in.Length: 47 ft. 7 in.Height: 17 ft. 7 in.Weight: 20,711 lbs. gross takeoff weightEngines: Two Wright R-2600-3 or -11 Cyclone radials of 1,600 hp eachCrew: Four (pilot, navigator, bombardier and gunner)

This book offers superb coverage, with plenty of photos and drawings, of American aerial armament in WWII. The first of a projected three volume series on American aerial armament in WWII, it covers machine guns and cannons and everything related to them. The book has detailed coverage of the guns, ammo, turrets, gunsights, fire control, gun laying radar etc. All sections of the book are extremely well illustrated with photos and drawings often taken from WWII manuals. Its the most detailed book currently available on this subject area.My only criticism of the book is minor, there are a few photos that are turned on there side, ex. the tail guns of a B-29. This is annoying, but I suspect it is the fault of the editors/publisher, not the author. I am looking forward to the other two volumes of the series.

top rate book