|
Forums 1C:Maddox Games IL2 Maddox General Discussion 50 cal superiority over German armaments?|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
I saw a very interesting video interview. I looked for it on youtube but couldn't find it.
According to Dr. Richard P. Hallion, the concentrated fire of 6 or 8 50 cals was more likely to bring down or heavily damage an enemy fighter with a short burst than the armament on most (especially late war) german fighters. "A p-47 pilot getting a snapshot at an opponent would very likely destroy that opponent whereas...they [german guns] tended to be ineffective in fighter vs. fighter combat. They were totally ineffective because the individual firing rate of those weapons tended to be very slow, and then you did not have a single unifying ballistic track to all the bullets that were being fired. Ands as a result a fighter could be exposed to a burst of fire and basically, if you will, almost fly through the bullet pattern...take one hit out of six. The concentrated package of 6/8 50 cals or 4 20mm cannon, actually when you take a look it, was a much more effective means of projecting power from the aircraft and gave you a much higher probability of kill." -Dr Richard Hallion, air force historian What do y'all think of that?  Once again the face I put has very little to do with the topic, but it's cuuuuuuuuute. ------------------------------------------ "Ah yes, Michael," Bader replied, "But these particular Fockers were Messerschmitts..." |
|||
|
Well saying German armaments were "Ineffective" is probably stretching it a bit. Ask those Russian, British, American, Polish, Dutch, Danish, French etc pilots who were shot down by the Luftwaffe and survived just how "Ineffective" they were?
Alot of 109 pilots felt differantly, Saying that 1 in the nose is worth 4 on the wing! Now as to which is better for fighter vs fighter combat, IRL probably the .50 cal but thats not to say that the Germans were lol "ineffective" "The FW-190 is a small aircraft period. It flys like its huge, It hits like its huge but in dimensions its tiny. Goering didnt call it his deadly horse fly for nothing"-Me |
||||
|
If by German weapons you mean a single mk108 and two rather anemic 13mm MGs then yes, I'd say a battery of 6 to 8 .50 MGs was better option vs fighters, although it was a heavy installation, which could fit only in rather large US fighters.
I believe there was a proposed armament configuration for Ta-152 consisting of a nose mounted 20mm + 2 20mm in the wing roots. I think that would be ideal combination vs fighters while still being effective vs heavy bombers. 2 x 20mm in the wing roots plus centrally mounted 30mm was however more effective vs bombers, and that's why it was chosen for Ta-152. |
||||
|
 |
Eh... after all these years spent on this sim, and if that counts for anything really, it taught me one thing and that is.
If I'm to kill something I must hit it first  .No wonder weapon on this world will help if one is lousy shot. |
|||
|
 |
Yep, the cal fifties' superior firepower was the reason why everyone except the god-obeying USAAF (I'm not talking of the USN here..) switched to 20mm
  |
|||
|
|
IL2 Moderator |
Well late war LW fighters include the Me 262 (4 30mm cannon), Fw190A8 (4 20mm cannon, 2 HMGs as standard, up to 6 20mm cannon possible), Fw190D (2 20mm cannon, 2 HMGs), and 109K (1 30mm cannon, 2 HMGs). The normal rule of thumb is that a 20mm cannon is worth an HMG although the MG131 was weaker, so say that is worth 0.75 M2s, taking into account synchronisation and positioning. A 30mm cannon is more than twice as powerful as the 20mm. So... 262 - 4x6 = 24 HMGs worth or more (3x P47) 190A8U? - 6x3+2x0.75 = 19.5 HMGs worth (anti bomber) 190A8 - 4x3+2x0.75 = 13.5 HMGs worth 190D9 - 2x3+2x0.75 = 7.5 HMGs worth 109K - 1x4 + 2x0.5 = 5.5 HMGs worth. So a P-47 has about the same firepower as a 190D9. Two of the 190s cannon fire through the airscrew but German synchro gear was good and the loss of ROF small, and the positioning made convergence less of an issue. MG151/20 ROF was good, but muzzle velocity lower than the Hispano, but made up for by minengeschloss. |
|||
|
 |
That's true. I believe the usa experimented with 20 mm on the Sabre jet because of their added weight of fire. Here it is. The F-86 H http://www.wingsmuseum.org/aircraft_detail.php?id=14  |
|||
|
 |
Probably we're missing part of the context. Maybe we're not. The biggest flaw to the reasoning in the argument is regarding the fire rate of the "German weapons". There are of course no details but lets do a really quick comparison of typical air to air weapons used by German fighters in 1944 versus the M2: MG151/20 (20mm) Rate of fire (rpm): 700-750 Muzzle velocity (m/s): 725 MG131 (13mm) Rate of fire: 900 Muzzle velocity: 730 MK108 (30mm) Rate of fire: 600-650 Muzzle velocity: 505 Browning M2 .50cal (12.7mm) Rate of fire: 750-850 Muzzle velocity: 880 (all from here: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html) Undoubtedly the Browning M2 stacks up really nicely next to the German guns. Muzzle velocity is particularly good. if you look at the MG151/20 which is a cannon firing explosive shells that are quite a bit more deadly the penalty for such power is only slightly less in terms of rate of fire (the MG151/20 at the high end is as good as the M2 at the low end) and the muzzle velocity is still high. The MK108 is definitely slow to fire and has a low muzzle velocity in comparison and really isn't the best anti-fighter gun when it comes to the snap shots that are being talked about. But the MG151/20 and to a lesser extent the MG131...both are in the same general space as the M2 and have their own advantages. So to suggest that they were "totally ineffective" and that their "firing rate of those weapons tended to be very slow" is off the mark significantly. Hopefully due to lack of information when this statement was made. When was the statement made? If it was during the war or just after the war...various factors come into play. If it was made recently then its just bad research. Historians get their A-plus marks along with their D-minuses. The one good point that is made there is the varying trajectory of bullets which is very true for German planes. If you look at a early FW190As then you have three separate trajectories coming from light machine guns in the nose, one type of 20mm in the inner wings, and another type of 20mm in the outer wings...all firing at different velocities, rates of fire, and the individual shells are all going to be different. |
|||
|
|
|
They did that after they found out the hard way in Korea.
The Aussies even fit in a pair of Aden 30mm guns. Navy Furies had 20mm right from the start. |
|||
|
I wasn't saying it was true, but I am several encyclopedias short of an expert and just wanted to see what the people on the forum had to say. In game, I am quite aware that cannons do more damage than 50 cals, but I was just bringing it up for discussion.
------------------------------------------ "Ah yes, Michael," Bader replied, "But these particular Fockers were Messerschmitts..." |
||||
|
|
|
tell you one thing. Erich Hartman loved the 30 mm cannon. He got in close and a few shots was all he needed to blow a enemy aircraft up. You can never say this about the 50 caliber except when they were used agains't flimsy Japanese aircraft.
|
|||
|
So are most of us here. Even those who pass themselves off with expert opinions. |
||||
|
Hi ICEFIRE, It was given in the context of this historian talking about the P-47, why it was good. The interview was from 97. Thanks so much for taking the time to comment so throughly and helping to set this issue straight, I appreciate it a lot. Also thanks for not flipping on me.   ------------------------------------------ "Ah yes, Michael," Bader replied, "But these particular Fockers were Messerschmitts..." |
||||
|
You should really look at the gun setups of the time...
-Spits/hurris had 8x brownings, later converted to cannons. -Me109 had 2 cannons -FW190 had a 'gazillion' cannons (most feared a/c) -P51 had 4x then 6x .5's -P47 had 8x .5s -Tempest had 4x cannons There is a conspiracy not unlike today that certain people in the armanents industry had more 'political influence', so booger the pilots (cannon fodder), We want our bucks!!!   Gimme ... GARLIC & BEETROOT. Also don't forget my hospital Hard Tack |
||||
|
An observation I have made watching a large amount gun camera footage: If the target aircraft is unaware there is an aircraft about to fire on him and the assailant is within range the .50's and the cannons both work about equally as well. Irregardless of weapon type , a three second burst was usually the minimuim necessary to effect the desired result.
As soon as the melee starts and the fighters are pulling high " G " manuvers, dives and climbs. In an effort to present as little a target, for as short a time as possible.When a " snap shot " is about all the opportunity presented. I think Dr. Hallion is correct. There is more lead in the air converging on the target with the .50's. Plus the added advantage of having more rounds per gun with the M2. If your adversary is piloting a fighter with an inline engine Dr Hallion's theory has greater weight. Considering the Allies flew the Mustang, Spitfire, P-40, Yak, P-39 etc. The Luftwaffe flew more 109's than 190's. A single "lucky "round to the cooling system or damage to control surfaces was all that was necessary. The math shifts in favor of the M2. *****************************"Hitler Built A Fortress Around Europe,But He Forgot to Put A Roof On It" ~ FDR |
||||
|
The reason the USN and USAAF stayed with 0.50 cal had more to do with logistics and the pragmatics of supplying munitions then anything connected with air combat itself.
As for Korea ... the 0.50 cal was pretty hopeless against a mig ... a different generation of aircraft, faster moving and the stressed metal skin etc made them a lot harder to kill with a 0.50 cal. |
||||
|
 |
You also have to take into consideration that late in the war the Germans were trying to shoot down bombers, not fighters. They had to get in, shoot their targets and get out while avoiding the defensive fire of the bombers and the escorting fighters. In that situation cannons are a better choice than heavy machine guns. A few cannon hits, even poorly placed, will do great damage to a bomber.
For the U.S. fighters, heavy machine guns were probably a better choice. As an escorting fighter I don't have to shoot you down; I only have to prevent you from getting near the bombers. A larger ammo load would allow me to hang in the fight longer and harass the enemy fighters even if I never got a good shot at one. Zeus-cat Follow this link to my missions and campaigns at Mission4today http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&file=search&sa=301 |
|||
|
Good points Zeus. I might add that unlike our game, no sane pilot was going to stick to fight if he knew he was hit, whether from .333 or 30mm. When your plane isn't flying right you RTB, it's as simple as that.
|
||||
|
|
IL2 Moderator |
I have evidence that this is not always true. Particularly if you have friends on the ground and you MUST stop the bombers regardless. Watch this SPitfire pilot, probably over Malta (I doubt its a 109G10, how the youtube poster knows this I have no idea)...You can see his guns firing at the Me210/Ju88 in the background even after hes been hit/fired on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztcmanwufVg&feature=related The Spitfires priorities were the bombers, who were causing terrible damage to Malta at that point in the war. (1942) The Spitfires/Hurris were outnumbered around 20 maybe 30:1 by the Luftwaffe and Italians in 1942, so they had no choice but to TRY and stop the bombers regardless of being under fire. You can see the problem here of being told 'Ignore the fighters, go for the bombers' The above clip also shows the problems of having only one cannon on your aircraft, you have to be a crackshot, the SPit is flying through the cannon shells most of the time in the video. This would be less of a problem as aircraft were armed with 2 and then 4 cannon. The thing about cannon is that is also does explosive damage whereas the 50 cals must hit something vital. WHen cannon does hit, it can do some pretty serious damage, (although a few SPitfires in this clip get hit in the wings and carry on flying). A direct hit is pretty catastrophic.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aqJwHdMDK0 From the same range as the Hurris/P40's in the above clip, direct hit with 50 cals.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0SWbNKO3L4&NR=1 -------------------------------------------------------------  "Over Dieppe, the wing was immediately bounced by a hundred FW 190s and a few Me 109s. I heard Johnson effing and blinding as he broke 610 into a fierce attack. I was hard at it dodging 190s, but I found time to speak sharply to Johnson about his foul language." - WingCo Jaime Jameson 12 Group Spitfire |
|||
|
|
IL2 Moderator |
Based on combat reports from 4 cannon RAF fighters a three second burst was the length typically used to down a bomber not a fighter.
If you compare a four gun plane (typical for an RAF 4 cannon plane, or the number of cannon on a Fw190A8) then the chance of hitting with 4 guns is almost the same as with eight. It may sound counterintuitive but it is true. The number of hits will be roughly proportional to the total ROF but you need more HMG its to do the same amount of damage. If you have a single 30mm cannon (109K) then your chance of hitting IS very much lower. The is a law of diminishing returns and once you get to about four guns the returns on chances to hit are minimal, you just increase the number of hits. I suspect this was well understood in WW2 as 4 cannon seems to have been the favoured number in general. In fact the USAAF originally wanted cannon armament but failed to produce a fully debugged 20mm weapon until the end of WW2, and in the meantime the HMG was the best choice especially logistically. The USAAF pre war was actually tending towards a 23mm weapon which would have been very effective like the Vya. |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 2 3 4 5 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | Forums | ||
| Servlet | eve1da011 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "IL-2 - Maddox Games" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
Forums 1C:Maddox Games IL2 Maddox General Discussion 50 cal superiority over German armaments?
