PDA

View Full Version : The Best Anti-Fighter Armament of the Pacific War



Gunner_361st
04-20-2004, 01:58 PM
I'd like to know what people think is the best anti-fighter armament of the Pacific War.

Before you comment, think about all the factors that go into this choice...

- Damage
- Rate of Fire
- Muzzle Velocity
- Reliability of the weapons
- Trajectory
- Quantity of weapons
- Quantity of ammunition for the weapons
- Ammunition type (Incedinary, High-explosive, Armor-piercing, and their various mixtures)

I can't think of any other factors at the moment.

My choice would have to be the P-38 Lightning. A stable gun platform with a very heavy armament of 4x .50 caliber MG and 1 20mm Hispano M2 in the nose, with 500 rounds per MG and 150 rounds for the cannon, it packed a lot of punch in a tight concentration, all of the weapons having great muzzle velocity and good trajectory with good ammo supply.

While perhaps the P-47 with its 8 .50 caliber MG's packed a comparable punch with lots of ammo as well, they were wing-mounted and had convergence to worry about, making them less-efficient over more distances but probably easier to hit the target with.

Tell me what you think. Remember, Anti-Fighter armament. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Major Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1080.jpg

Gunner_361st
04-20-2004, 01:58 PM
I'd like to know what people think is the best anti-fighter armament of the Pacific War.

Before you comment, think about all the factors that go into this choice...

- Damage
- Rate of Fire
- Muzzle Velocity
- Reliability of the weapons
- Trajectory
- Quantity of weapons
- Quantity of ammunition for the weapons
- Ammunition type (Incedinary, High-explosive, Armor-piercing, and their various mixtures)

I can't think of any other factors at the moment.

My choice would have to be the P-38 Lightning. A stable gun platform with a very heavy armament of 4x .50 caliber MG and 1 20mm Hispano M2 in the nose, with 500 rounds per MG and 150 rounds for the cannon, it packed a lot of punch in a tight concentration, all of the weapons having great muzzle velocity and good trajectory with good ammo supply.

While perhaps the P-47 with its 8 .50 caliber MG's packed a comparable punch with lots of ammo as well, they were wing-mounted and had convergence to worry about, making them less-efficient over more distances but probably easier to hit the target with.

Tell me what you think. Remember, Anti-Fighter armament. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Major Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1080.jpg

Bobsqueek
04-20-2004, 02:02 PM
75mm cannon on the B25 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Gunner_361st
04-20-2004, 02:06 PM
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm - A good link on WWII weapons to help people make a choice.

Come to think of it, the 4x HO-5 20mm cannon of the KI-84B looks like a good performer. Muzzle velocity is about 200 m/sec less than the .50 caliber M2, but its a 20mm cannon, meaning heavier rounds with an explosive charge to boot.

Though, Williams does note

"The American Browning .50 M2 is an undistinguished performer, particularly when compared with its closest competitor, the 12.7 mm Berezin. The relatively small incendiary content in the .50 API (0.9 g instead of 2 g) gives the Soviet round a flying start, which it adds to by its usefully higher rate of fire, then finishes off in style by being lighter as well, and thereby almost twice as efficient overall. The Browning also makes an interesting comparison with the Japanese Ho-5, which was basically the M2 slightly scaled up to take 20 mm cartridges."

Interesting, to say the least.

Major Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1080.jpg

ddsflyer
04-20-2004, 03:06 PM
Have you ever seen up close and personal what a single .50cal will do? The power of this thing is immense. The muzzle blast is incredible, the recoil stunning. I have fired several with a Barnett. It will penetrate 1.5" of steel plate. A single round will wreck a cast iron engine or blow a cylinder off a P&W radial. What do you think it will do to a flimsy aluminum airplane? You people who poo-poo the .50 cal need to experience the thing first hand. Personally I think the weapon is undermodelled in IL2. Watch actual gun camera footage and see how quickly 6 or 8 of these things shred an enemy aircraft. WW2 Pilots used to feel secure behind their armored glass windscreens until one day a mechanic set one up and fired a .50 at it from 50 yards. The windscreen was virtually vaporized. Some protection, huh?

P4 3.4GHz Northwood
Intel D875PBZL
GeForce 5950
1.0GB Kingston HyperX PC3200
W.D. Dual 80GB SATA RAID
Plextor PX-708A
Lite-On 52x
Creative Audigy2 ZS

Bobsqueek
04-20-2004, 03:30 PM
but thats at 50 yards, stationary

not at up to 1000m in a swirling dogfight

CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

MetalG.
04-20-2004, 03:41 PM
Well I didnt fly US aircraft that much in IL-2FB but I'm starting to like the .50 cals...
Even more than the 20mm 109 nose cannon.

Chuck_Older
04-20-2004, 03:41 PM
The best anti-fighter armament of the PTO was the anti-aircraft artillery battery armed with proximity fused shells http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

faustnik
04-20-2004, 04:16 PM
I'm goin' with the Jug's 8x .50 here. You would not need a whole lot of rounds to hit a Japanese a/c to cripple it. The Jug fired a whole lot of lead over a wide area. Hose 'em down and watch 'em burn! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
04-20-2004, 04:51 PM
you right MetalG. as I told here previously, .50 is the best weapon in FB.. Plenty of ammo, you can both shoot from close distance, or spray an pray from 800m still hitting the tgt because of the shotgun effect..

and even if you dont tear a wing off at 1st shot, you still make ennemi unflyable or nearly at 1st hit.

.50 rules in FB/AEP., No match with other weapons.


FZG_Immel
------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm

Gunner_361st
04-20-2004, 04:58 PM
Oh, I agree ddsflyer. I've watched lots of WWII guncam footage. Watched FW-190's getting sawed in half, the cannon ammo in their wing exploding, fuel tanks lighting on fire, planes being chewed apart.

I have a feeling Crazyivan is right when he says we will be pleasantly surprised with the changes coming in future patch.

Major Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1080.jpg

lbhskier37
04-20-2004, 05:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddsflyer:
Have you ever seen up close and personal what a single .50cal will do? The power of this thing is immense. The muzzle blast is incredible, the recoil stunning. I have fired several with a Barnett. It will penetrate 1.5" of steel plate. A single round will wreck a cast iron engine or blow a cylinder off a P&W radial. What do you think it will do to a flimsy aluminum airplane? You people who poo-poo the .50 cal need to experience the thing first hand. Personally I think the weapon is undermodelled in IL2. Watch actual gun camera footage and see how quickly 6 or 8 of these things shred an enemy aircraft. WW2 Pilots used to feel secure behind their armored glass windscreens until one day a mechanic set one up and fired a .50 at it from 50 yards. The windscreen was virtually vaporized. Some protection, huh?

P4 3.4GHz Northwood
Intel D875PBZL
GeForce 5950
1.0GB Kingston HyperX PC3200
W.D. Dual 80GB SATA RAID
Plextor PX-708A
Lite-On 52x
Creative Audigy2 ZS
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you ever been up close and personal to what a 20mm HE round can do? .50s will go right through aluminum skinned airplanes like a knife through butter, but only make a .50in hole. With lots of them they can do damage, I am not disputing that. But have you noticed what a bunch of them do to planes in IL2? They do rip everything a new one if you hit the plane your after.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig6.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

Gunner_361st
04-20-2004, 05:16 PM
Guns are destructive period. Even rifle caliber machine gun can be lethal if they hit the right spots...

Namely, the piping of an inline engine, a radiator, a fuel tank, the pilot.

It will be interesting what the patch does. Maybe we will all be pleased as Ivan said. :P

Major Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1080.jpg

tenmmike
04-20-2004, 05:31 PM
http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v60/flyfish/deadhorse1.gif 1.50 inches armor penetration ..are you nuts?.thats 38 mm that was the armour of the early ww2 tanks and they required at least a hv 37mm or 50 mm cannon, man iv shot that weapon a bunch....ill bet iv shot more .50 then any body here or most anybody, plus the dshk-38 as well, i fired at least 10,000 rounds of m-2 and gave a explanation demonstration and practical application in the utilization of the .50 cal m-2 hb for 4 years straight to the ROTC cadets that came to my post every year to get training.i was infantry for over 7 yrs ..its a great weapon no doubt but you guys get all worked up cause you have seen hand picked gun camera film, you don't think they will show the footage were the guy hoses a 190 to no avail do you ?

http://www.2-60inf.com/2-60_crest.gif 84-91

tenmmike
04-20-2004, 06:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunner_361st:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm - A good link on WWII weapons to help people make a choice.

Come to think of it, the 4x HO-5 20mm cannon of the KI-84B looks like a good performer. Muzzle velocity is about 200 m/sec less than the .50 caliber M2, but its a 20mm cannon, meaning heavier rounds with an explosive charge to boot.

Though, Williams does note

"The American Browning .50 M2 is an undistinguished performer, particularly when compared with its closest competitor, the 12.7 mm Berezin. The relatively small incendiary content in the .50 API (0.9 g instead of 2 g) gives the Soviet round a flying start, which it adds to by its usefully higher rate of fire, then finishes off in style by being lighter as well, and thereby almost twice as efficient overall. The Browning also makes an interesting comparison with the Japanese Ho-5, which was basically the M2 slightly scaled up to take 20 mm cartridges."

Interesting, to say the least.

Major Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1080.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I HAVE A COUPLE OF HIS BOOKS THEY ARE EXCELLANTif you can afford them you should get them..flying guns and rapid fire

http://www.2-60inf.com/2-60_crest.gif 84-91

A.K.Davis
04-20-2004, 06:18 PM
radar-controlled quad-40mm Bofors AAA

--AKD

http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/legalsig.jpg

Chuck_Older
04-20-2004, 06:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
radar-controlled quad-40mm Bofors AAA

- <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

....loaded with proximity fused shells http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

Fennec_P
04-20-2004, 08:33 PM
Have you seen those dual 5in turrets shoot? There's a clip in that Essex documentary of it shooting (the fighting lady?). Its like more than 60 rounds a minute... crazy.

http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/urban.jpg

SkyChimp
04-20-2004, 08:55 PM
The utmost important attribute of any weapon is reliability. If it don't work, it doesn't matter how powerful it was. And the M2 was hugely reliable. And very capable of doing the job.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/wildsig.jpg

faustnik
04-20-2004, 10:05 PM
From "Zero", R. Mikesh:

"In a conversation that Tagaya had with Saburo Sakai on the subject of armament, Sakai exclaimed that although the Type 99 Mk.1 cannon was effective when it was used correctly, most of the aerial victories achieved with the A6M2 Zero pilots during the crucial first six months of the war were being attained with the cowl-mounted 7.7mm types. Sakai made it clear that in his opinion, the American policy of multiple .50cal guns was the correct one.

The American pattern was ideal, according to Tagaya. The .50cal gun afforded much greater destructive power than the .30cal weapons, while at the same time having faster rates of fire and much longer effective trajectory than a 20mm cannon, given the technology of the time."

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

fordfan25
04-20-2004, 10:24 PM
alot of pepole dont relize how fast 6 50s shoot thay fire very rapidly and as it was stated thay will go through a engine block and from a long way off.you mix that kinda penatrion with that rate of fire and it chews up the target and it does it very fast.round for round its not close to a 20mm but in combate round for round doesnt count for much. iv never been in the army but i have seen a single shot 50. go off and ill tell you its a sight you can feel the blast even through the ground when your behind the shoter you can even feel the blast wave go over your skin its very strang.some times i feel like the planes in f.b are armed with 22s instaed of 50.s lol

ImpStarDuece
04-21-2004, 02:53 AM
try looking up Tony Williams website, cant remember the URL btu he does an EXCELLENT study on both ideal fighter armament and lists gun effectiveness for almost all the airborne weapons of WWII.

Type in Millitary Arms and Armament or something like that into google and it should come up. Or try his name in connection with that.

Really highly recommend this site as it cleared up a lot of issues i had with the damage modeling in FB. In fact i think it should be part of the Sturmovik Essential sticky on the FB forums. It would solve a lot of probs and flames that went donw a while ago.

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

Oak_Groove
04-21-2004, 12:05 PM
Some comparisons in here are done by linking a wild mix of modern .50cal special application rifles and/or modern .50cal ammmunition performance to .50cal AC gun configurations that were used 60 years ago, that´s way off. Back then there weren´t any high performance Raufoss or M903 SLAP rounds, even the AC mount .50cal M2 itself was essentially not the same as ground based vehicular or tripod mount .50cal M2 variants, a major difference was the by 20% reduced barrel length, affecting muzzle velocity and accuracy. Due to increased ROF (750-850 rds/min) over ground based M2(450-575 rds/min), a maximum burst of 75rds could be fired from a cold barrel, before the gun had to cool for at least 15 minutes before attempting another long burst. Short bursts (20 or 25 rds/min) could be sustained over a long period.

XP2500 OC'ed 11x200
768MB TWINMOS DDR 400 3-3-2.5-11
A7N8X-D Rev. 2.0/Bios 1.7
SAPPHIRE R9700 Atlantis
2 x IBM IC35040 40GB
Syncmaster 957P
Win XP Pro SP1
DirectX 9.0b
nForce UDP 2.45 w/3.75 Audio
Catalyst 3.7

Voodoo__01
04-21-2004, 01:09 PM
IF your really good at boom and zoom and a very good marksmen,(and have the patience to wait till the last second) then the 20mm/ 30mm guns are superior, other wise .50 cal is a good tradeoff for good ballistic properties and spread

------------------------------

Alienware Aurora Extreme
AMD64FX-51, 1 Gig RAM
BFG nVIDIA 5950 256mb (56.72)
2x36Gig Raptors (RAID 0)
Audilogy 2 7.1
XP Pro
P8000/ TrackIR2
ditched my Satiek X45
4 CH Pro HOTAS and Pedals...

[This message was edited by Voodoo__01 on Wed April 21 2004 at 12:30 PM.]

Blackdog5555
04-21-2004, 01:46 PM
I agree. The Algorithm is off. I think the UBI team has the 50 cal rated at 20% higher destructive power "dp" than the the 303. Actual date shows the 50 cal to have 300% greater dp than the 303/ 30-06. Test show that the russian 20mm has 3x the dp of a BMG 50 cal. so 8 50s is equal to about 3 20mm's. the researched caompared the p47 fp to the la7 x3 20mm. The Ubi teams has programmed the the 50 with the same dp as the the 30 cal. Thats exactly why you feel like your shooting 22s. Your are!!. Facts are facts. Whee not talking about rounds that miss their target. The issue is destructive force! BTW, not all 20s are created equal. the Japanese 20mm Ho-5 had about the same dp as a BMG ball 50. Thats not modeled correctly either. Early Japanese 20s would explode on contact which caused only minor skin damage making it less effective than BMG AP ball 50s. Check the the FB programming and tell me im wrong. This is not real life. Its a computer game.

Snow_Wolf_
04-21-2004, 02:26 PM
Ki-61-Ia:
Two 20mm MG 151/20 cannon in wings (German supplied)
Two 7.7mm machine guns above engines

works for fighters

now for a bomber like a B-29 i take this type of armament

Ki-44-IIIb:
Two 37mm Cannon
Two 20mm Cannon

or

Ki-44-IIc:
Two 12.7mm Type I machine guns in fuselage
Two 40mm Ho-301 low velocity cannon in wings
Note: Fires caseless ammunition at 400 rpm

http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~jtsiekki/mono2.gif

Ruy Horta
04-22-2004, 06:59 AM
What most people seem to forget in this debate is TYPE of target.

The US faced mainly fighters, light and medium bombers.

Especially against the first two the .50 performs outstandingly. The rate of fire combined with muzzle velocity increase the probability of hits, the small and relative weak type of targets ensure that critical damage is easy to achieve.

However try to down a B-29 with a standard set of 6x.50 within a relatively small "window of opportunity" and it will disappoint. Perhaps not the probability of hits, but the probablity of scoring critical hits.

Cannon served best if the targets were better protected medium bombers and certainly heavy bombers.

Its understandable that the Americans swear by their guns, if judged by their targets...

Ruy Horta

ddsflyer
04-24-2004, 08:07 PM
Most cannon shells won't do squat to armor plate. All they do is explode on the surface and create alot of blast effect with some shrapnel but no real penetration. Only explosive rounds with shaped charges will penetrate armor. The .50 AP round absolutely will penetrate 35mm of steel plate. The incendiary and tracer rounds would ignite fuel tanks quite nicely thank you. The effect on human tissue is devastatiing.

P4 3.4GHz Northwood
Intel D875PBZL
GeForce 5950
1.0GB Kingston HyperX PC3200
W.D. Dual 80GB SATA RAID
Plextor PX-708A
Lite-On 52x
Creative Audigy2 ZS

Alyssa1127
04-24-2004, 08:29 PM
Far from the best, but certainly one of the more interesting anti-aircraft weapons I've ever heard of was the Japanese Sankaidan Type 3 Common Anti-Aircraft Shell, or better known by its nickname 'San Shiki' (Beehive). It was essentially an oversized aircraft-killing shotgun round known to have been fired at least once from the Musashi's 18.1" main armament.

Following are the particulars of design and intended use:

As were most Japanese warships, the Yamato and Musashi were provided with a special anti-aircraft incendiary shrapnel shell officially designated as "Type 3 Common" but nicknamed "San Shiki" (The Beehive). This round weighed 2,998 lbs. (1,360 kg) and was filled with 900 incendiary tubes made out of rubber thermite and 600 steel stays. A time fuze was used to set the desired exploding distance, usually about 1,000 meters (1,100 yards). These projectiles were designed to burst in a 20 degree cone extending towards the oncoming aircraft with the projectile shell itself being destroyed by a bursting charge to increase the quantity of steel splinters. The incendiary tubes ignited about half a second later and burned for five seconds at 3,000 degrees C, producing a flame about 5 meters (16 feet) long.

The concept behind these shells was that the ship would put up a barrage pattern through which an attacking aircraft would have to fly. However, these shells were relatively ineffective and possibly inflicted more damage to the Japanese than they did to their enemies, as the Musashi disabled one of her 46 cm (18.1") guns the first time she fired one of these projectiles.

Ruy Horta
04-25-2004, 02:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddsflyer:
Most cannon shells won't do squat to armor plate. All they do is explode on the surface and create alot of blast effect with some shrapnel but no real penetration. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Come on DD, think a little further...ever hear of AP cannon rounds?

Most AFs used mixed shells on their ammo belts, AP, HE and INC (and combined shells). A 20mm AP round from a HS 404 will do plenty of harm to a/c armor, certainly not less than .50 AP.

Ruy Horta

ddsflyer
04-28-2004, 08:59 PM
Unfortunately the HS 404 AP round was a dismal failure at armor piercing due to its very low (comparatively) muzzle velocity and lack of a shaped charge. For a solid penetrator to work it needs a very high velocity. The common problem with 20mm and above sized rounds was the low muzzle velocity necessitated by the amount of recoil the aircraft could absorb and the rate of fire. In that respect the .50 cal was just about ideal.

P4 3.4GHz Northwood
Intel D875PBZL
GeForce 5950
1.0GB Kingston HyperX PC3200
W.D. Dual 80GB SATA RAID
Plextor PX-708A
Lite-On 52x
Creative Audigy2 ZS

PzKpfw
04-28-2004, 10:03 PM
Well all i can say is Japanese pilot's didn't realy care if they were killed with a .50 or a 20mm http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif...

Also i'd add that Japanese AC were not that armored F4U squadrons in the PTO were useing belts loaded with .50 API only as that was all they needed according to them. In fact at one point, their was an shortage of API in the PTO due to this practice.



Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

sugaki
04-29-2004, 12:22 AM
One thing for sure, the best anti-fighter armament for fighters ain't Japanese http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

.50 cal was more than enough to bring down lighter-armored Japanese fighters, plus coupling the fact that it had decent ballistic characteristics, relatively reliable ...but most importantly, they carried a pretty sizable amount of ammo.

All you needed to do was get a good few hits, even stray hits on a Zero and it's going to be cannon fodder.

20mm cannons on the Japanese side were pretty mediocre.

Best armament for Japanese planes were the N1K1 Shidenkai, the Ki-84.

Although the Jug's got a monstrous 8 guns, I think an F6F or F4U's better suited to bring down aircraft due to its overall flight characteristics.

Surprised it hasn't turned into a shamless '46 thread, with talk about 30mm cannons on the Shinden ...or did I just open the floodgates? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-Aki

Col.Thumper
04-29-2004, 01:55 AM
I personally would take the USS North Carolina and all her Quad 40MM Bofors

Ruy Horta
04-29-2004, 04:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddsflyer:
Unfortunately the HS 404 AP round was a dismal failure at armor piercing due to its very low (comparatively) muzzle velocity and lack of a shaped charge. For a solid penetrator to work it needs a very high velocity. The common problem with 20mm and above sized rounds was the low muzzle velocity necessitated by the amount of recoil the aircraft could absorb and the rate of fire. In that respect the .50 cal was just about ideal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you mainly caught me on a technicality due to my choice of HS 404. In fact I choose this gun because it was used by the Anglo-Americans and would not change this thread into a Axis vs Allied debate.

But replace the HS 404 with the MG 151, MG 151/20 or ShVAK and B-20 if you want.

OTOH, your main argument was doing away with cannon because they were mainly HE and ineffective against armor protection, and that's not true whatever the (faulty) details of my original reply.

Ruy Horta

PzKpfw
04-29-2004, 02:05 PM
It's interesting on the Navy's choice to go to the 20mm later in the war, as pilot reports all are pretty consistant that the .50 was more then adequate vs Japanese AC, that did not require much ammo expenditure to bring down.

At the JFC held @ NAS Patuxent MD in Oct 1944 the Navy rep asked the USAAC reps why they had not adopted the 20mm even though it had been developed at their request, wasnt being used in more fighters.

As 200 20mm rounds were more effective then say 400 .50 rounds, ie, 1 20mm, round was equal to 3 .50 rounds @ 500yrds, in KE, the down side was the 20mm took .75 sec to reach 500yrds compared to .62 sec for a .50 according to Navy.

The USAAF rep reply was that they wanted, was the most bullets possible going out across one place as possible with the smallest calibre possible, that would do the job.

If it took a 20mm to down a Bf 109 or A6m2 then they wanted 20s, but as long as the .50 did the job and carried more ammo, for the same weight, then the .50 was fine. Basicly the .50 put out more rounds & weight over the same fireing time then the 20mm, the USSAF was happy with the .50.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

faustnik
04-29-2004, 02:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
Basicly the .50 put out more rounds & weight over the same fireing time then the 20mm, the USSAF was happy with the .50.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John,

Not quite sure what you are saying here? .50 WOF is less than 20mm WOF.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/WeaponsChart.gif

Even 6 x .50 had less WOF than 4 x 20mm. Compare the P-40 with the Hurri IIc in the chart above.

The .50 had a greater likelyhood of hitting a target but, they did not have a greater weight of fire.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

PzKpfw
04-29-2004, 03:55 PM
Faust, mighta been a mistake on my interpretation of the text. Below is the exact text from the RJFC:

Colonel COATS:
I'll try to answer that in this way. I believe the feeling in the Army generally is that we would like to have a lethal density pattern. The most bullets going across one place at a given instance.

We would like to have the smallest calibre gun that can do the job. If it takes a 22mm to tear a Messerschmitt or a Mitsubishi apart, we want 20s, but as long as a 50 will do the job we feel that if we can carry a greater number of guns and a greater ammount of ammunition with the same weight, with an equal or greater fire power, that is the gun we want.

*See: Report of Joint Fighter Conference NAS Patuxent River, MD 16-23 Oct. 1944. p.169


BTW the charts .50 WOF is intetresting compared to data* I have on US AC WOF Ie,

WOF per sec:

P-38:

4 x .50 1 x 20mm = *9.26lbs

P-40E - N:

6 x .50 = 9.54lbs.

P-51B:
4 x .50 = 6.36lbs.

P-51D/K:
6 x .50 = 9.54lbs.

P-47D:

8 x .50 = 12.72lbs.


*P-38 weight of fire broken down was:

4x.50 = 6.36lbs.
1 x 20mm = 2.90lbs.

*See: Dean Francis H. America's Hundred-Thousand p. 135.



Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Thu April 29 2004 at 03:03 PM.]

faustnik
04-29-2004, 04:08 PM
WOF is just projectile weight and rate of fire ocer a given time.

Shouldn't be too much controversy. Rate of fire would be the big variable as all sources do not state the same ROF.

The .50 cal did not put out more weight than the 20mm (Hispano) any way you slice it.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

PzKpfw
04-29-2004, 07:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
WOF is just projectile weight and rate of fire ocer a given time.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it is, and you brought it up http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Shouldn't be too much controversy. Rate of fire would be the big variable as all sources do not state the same ROF.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Their realy isnt, what it boils down to is the 20mm vs .50 debate. Had the US got the .60 into service, we wouldn't even be discussing the .50 or 20mm. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

My data on the Hispano MK II lists ROF as 600 -650rpm. Ie, the US 20mm fired 10rps vs the .50 15rps.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

The .50 cal did not put out more weight than the 20mm (Hispano) any way you slice it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well they wern't realy discussing that if you read the text above, merely stating reasons for armament Ie, more gunds & ammunition with comparitive FP.

The .50 had a higher ROF which means more RPS then the the 20mm anyway you slice it as well.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Thu April 29 2004 at 07:14 PM.]

faustnik
04-29-2004, 10:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
Basicly the .50 put out more rounds & weight over the same fireing time then the 20mm, the USSAF was happy with the .50.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is what I was replying to John.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

tenmmike
04-30-2004, 12:27 AM
(Table 8-4, "An Infantryman's Guide to Combat in Built-up Area" (MOUT) field manual 90-10-1, Chapter 8, US Army, May 1993) "At 35 meters distance, a .50 round will go through 1" armor plate."...........btw that is 25.4mm......that is NOT 35 mm.. that is with modern ap round(but not a SLAP).AT 35meters and 90 deg angle!!..........there are ppl here who have fired the m2 maybe a few hundred rounds down range.....i have fired somewhere between 8-10,000 rds..i will say again its a great weapon i love it, i instructed its use, etc. but some of you guys keep acting like its a frigging tank main gun ENOUGH OF THIS making arbitrary statements like "absolutly it will penitrate x ammount armour with nothing to back it (they must be thinking of non armour (lowgrade steel) etc i can only guess) ........from tony williams.. "Powerful HMGs like the Berezin and the .50" Browning were of course far from useless. They remained quite effective against fighters but would probably would have found great difficulty in shooting down heavy bombers. The USN tested the 20mm Hispano against the .50", and concluded that the Hispano was three times as effective at normal fighting ranges, ".
http://www.2-60inf.com/2-60_crest.gif 84-91

[This message was edited by tenmmike on Thu April 29 2004 at 11:44 PM.]

PzKpfw
04-30-2004, 06:21 AM
US WW2 penetration curve data vs standard US test plate @ 230BHN for the M2 show penetration @ 300m :

21mm @ 90?
13mm @ 60?
5mm @ 30?


R4egards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

Bremspropeller
05-01-2004, 09:38 AM
Well, since the thread's called "best anti-fighter armament in the pacific", I gotta say that it pretty much depends on which side of the conflict you flew:

The US a/c sure were well armed with the cal. 50s - the early japaneese planes had no armor and lighted up like a zippo. Later, they got improved armor and self-sealing fuel-cells.
I think the cal. 50 did it's job pretty well though it was a hard job to shoot down a/c like the "Emily" (if you met one) with them.


Coming to the japaneese side, a 20mm gun was obligatory to bring down the US "iron works" a/c effectively. I can't immagine to bring down a Hellcat or Corsair with two 7.7mm MGs or four 12.7mm MGs (cal. 50).
Imagine you're trying to invite a B-29 crew to stay in Japan for a longer time with throwing 7.7mm peas at them.


Conclusion: the US were well armed with their cal. 50 guns while a japaneese fighter pilot had a pretty much easier life if his a/c was armed with a calibre of at least 20mm.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

Gunner_361st
05-01-2004, 07:32 PM
I would agree with the fact that Japanese fighters with cannons had a better chance of shooting down a tough US fighter, but disagree that they were in actual operation the best.

The Type 99 cannon of the Zero has low rate of fire and a lousy muzzle velocity. It's power is good but you need to be pretty close to shoot accurately and effectively with it.

The Japanese improved their cannon though and came out with the HO-5 20mm cannon later in the war. Quite interestingly though, the HO-5 was based off the .50 caliber Browning M2 scaled up to fire 20mm rounds. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

My conclusion from reading all this is that US fighters really had the best armament for their mission in the war. The .50 caliber Browning had an excellent rate of fire and muzzle velocity and there is ample proof of just how brutally effective it was against none or poorly armored japanese aircraft. Not to mention the American strafers that tore japanese airfields apart with their startling firepower of 8 or 12 .50's in the nose.

Only until late in the war did Japan field fighters with armor and self-sealing fuel tanks, but even tough WWII fighters went down to a well-aimed barrage of heavy machine-gun fire. These late war japanese fighters came in too few numbers to make a serious difference in the Air War and the US had earned the technological and numerical supeiority by that time.

Also note many of Japan's best pilots had died in combat as the war of attrition in the South Pacific drug on.

Sorry for the long-winded post. For their purpose, I have come to believe the slew of heavy MG the US used in it's fighters was the best choice for Pacific Combat. There are accounts after the war of Japanese officers agreeing with this, as well.

Major Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1087.jpg

ddsflyer
05-04-2004, 10:13 PM
Yeah, I've seen those charts too. But tell me , who would you rather not have on your tail, someone lobbing low velocity cannon shells at a slow rate of fire, or someone letting loose with 6 or 8 high velocity .50s loaded Incendiary, Tracer, A.P.?

P4 3.4GHz Northwood
Intel D875PBZL
GeForce 5950
1.0GB Kingston HyperX PC3200
W.D. Dual 80GB SATA RAID
Plextor PX-708A
Lite-On 52x
Creative Audigy2 ZS