PDA

View Full Version : Why did US Fighters in WW2 not use cannons...



MB_Avro_UK
08-18-2007, 04:35 PM
Hi all,

Maybe this has been mentioned before and if so I apologise for raising the subject again.

US fighters as we are aware used 0.50 inch guns up to the end of WW2. (Let's not diverge towards the effect on Tiger Tanks please.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif).

The British commenced in WW2 with 0.303 inch guns but transitioned to cannons after their experiences in the Battle of Britain in 1940.

Would a cannon armed Mustang provide better protection for B-17s and B-24s?

This link touches upon the subject:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-in.html

If given the choice, would you opt for a cannon armed Mustang?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

MB_Avro_UK
08-18-2007, 04:35 PM
Hi all,

Maybe this has been mentioned before and if so I apologise for raising the subject again.

US fighters as we are aware used 0.50 inch guns up to the end of WW2. (Let's not diverge towards the effect on Tiger Tanks please.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif).

The British commenced in WW2 with 0.303 inch guns but transitioned to cannons after their experiences in the Battle of Britain in 1940.

Would a cannon armed Mustang provide better protection for B-17s and B-24s?

This link touches upon the subject:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-in.html

If given the choice, would you opt for a cannon armed Mustang?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Blood_Splat
08-18-2007, 04:40 PM
Probably because their mission wasn't to shoot down bombers.

ploughman
08-18-2007, 04:41 PM
I think that, given the need to remain effective at range that typified most US fighters, that the duration of fire .50s gave over 20mm means .50s were the right choice most of the time.

A .50 calibre bullet is a fierce some thing.

MEGILE
08-18-2007, 04:41 PM
Because they were dumb.

20mms are better.

Capt.LoneRanger
08-18-2007, 04:46 PM
They primarily intercepted fighters. The higher rate of fire against those targets meant better chances to score hits. And quite opposite to IL2 every Cal50 bullet degraded the targets performance by damaging the skin, even before more critical damage was done.

AKA_TAGERT
08-18-2007, 04:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blood_Splat:
Probably because their mission wasn't to shoot down bombers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Bingo

logie7
08-18-2007, 04:51 PM
The USN got the right idea about mid way though the war when the helldivers had 2 of them and a bit later the corsair got 4. But even after the war 6 .50cals were still on USAF aircraft, the sabre being the most obvious one, when the navy had shifted to the 20mm cannon.

berg417448
08-18-2007, 04:55 PM
Problems with US 20mm development explained:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/US404.htm

Widowmaker214
08-18-2007, 04:55 PM
20s are nice for causing explosions...
50s are just fine for downing enemy fighters.
The US was doing a lot of escorts in Europe. Not attacking bombers where the cannons really make an impact.

And in the Pacific... the Japanese aircraft, even the bombers would go up like matches when hit with the incendiary 50s. (wish they did in the game!! Damn Bettys LOL)

So in reality there wasn't as big of a need.

I also read in a few places (not stating this as fact) that the early 20mms the US experimented with were seriously unreliable, so they stuck with the 50s instead.


Its the NUMBER of 50s that can make the difference.
the B/C and British mustangs with four 50 cals are just well...
Damn. I don't know how many times Ive flown the Mk III mustang just WISHING it had six 50s.. because it flys so much nicer than the D models. That engine boost makes a huge difference (oh and yeah, I pefer the D cockpit as well!!)

four 50s just don't put enough lead on the target.

Six 50s is decent.. but hey..
I'll take the the P47 with extra ammo over anything. Thats some serious gun time. If you are an accurate shot, you can lay serious waste over MANY targets.

DuxCorvan
08-18-2007, 05:00 PM
1) .50 is a rather powerful weapon.

2) Having a single standard gun and ammo, makes weapon maintenance and supply a dream, compared with the variety carnival and logistic nightmare of other AFs.

MEGILE
08-18-2007, 05:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:

2) Having a single standard gun and ammo, makes weapon maintenance and supply a dream, compared with the variety carnival and logistic nightmare of other AFs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excuse my ignorance... but is this a fact?
Specifically, did other *nations have any real difficulty with supplying their airforces with different round types?

AKA_TAGERT
08-18-2007, 05:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by logie7:
The USN got the right idea about mid way though the war when the helldivers had 2 of them and a bit later the corsair got 4. But even after the war 6 .50cals were still on USAF aircraft, the sabre being the most obvious one, when the navy had shifted to the 20mm cannon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The NAVY had to protect thier ships from attacking bombers.. Just like the Lw had to protect the motherland from attacking bombers.. P47s and P51s in the ETO.. not so much.. more fighter vs. fighter.. And the .50s were more than enough to wake up a Lw pilot on the tail of a B17.

gdfo
08-18-2007, 05:03 PM
Yes the earliest WW2 canons were problematical.
Plus the .50 cal was cheaper and universally used by US Fighters.

The belts of .50 cal alternated from tracers to AP to incendiary. I do not think that is modeled into the game correctly.

Then also in the Pacific it occured that the loads were changed to predominantly incendiary when it was found the the IJN and IJA planes were fire traps and unarmored. I do not think that this is correctly modeled in the game either. Oh well.

berg417448
08-18-2007, 05:03 PM
XP-51B
http://www.aerofiles.com/noram-p51b.jpg

MB_Avro_UK
08-18-2007, 05:09 PM
hi all,

I can see the logic of your replies in that the US fighters were attacking fighters and that therefore cannons were not needed...or maybe they should have been http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But the British persisted with cannons throughout WW2 even though there were very few bomber attacks against Britain after 1940 and early 1941.

The Luftwaffe retained their cannons against fighters during the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain throughout 1940. And the Luftwaffe persevered with cannon armed fighters throughout WW2.

The Russians and Japanese also used cannon armed fighters throughout WW2.

Cannons are equally effective perhaps against both fighters and bombers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

logie7
08-18-2007, 05:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by logie7:
The USN got the right idea about mid way though the war when the helldivers had 2 of them and a bit later the corsair got 4. But even after the war 6 .50cals were still on USAF aircraft, the sabre being the most obvious one, when the navy had shifted to the 20mm cannon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The NAVY had to protect thier ships from attacking bombers.. Just like the Lw had to protect the motherland from attacking bombers.. P47s and P51s in the ETO.. not so much.. more fighter vs. fighter.. And the .50s were more than enough to wake up a Lw pilot on the tail of a B17. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True but for a given number of hits scored the 20mm makes much more of a mess, plus if you can seriously damage or destroy the target in the opening salvo it saves on ammo and does more than just wake them up.

DKoor
08-18-2007, 05:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
XP-51B
http://www.aerofiles.com/noram-p51b.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes....British ordered some Apaches too IIRC

I found wiki link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_A-36

Very interesting.

Enforcer572005
08-18-2007, 05:19 PM
Yeah, there were also cannon armed versions of the Hellcat and Corsair. I think it's a combo of reliability problems and low ammo load, but they used the same basic 20mm gun design as the Brits, so I don't understand that. They even experimented with 20mm armed F-86s in Korea. I think the result was the M-39 cannon used on the F-100 and others.

I think..........

MB_Avro_UK
08-18-2007, 05:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
Problems with US 20mm development explained:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/US404.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

This is an interesting quote from berg's link above:

The British gun experienced 19 stoppages in firing 5,012 rounds. The American guns experienced 67 stoppages out of 4,092, 97 out of 3,705 and 94 out of 2,610 respectively. Incidentally, Wallace states that the US guns were "beautifully made and better finished than our own" and expressed surprise that although lightly struck caps were a major source of stoppages, even more frequent were mis-feeds.]


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

SeaFireLIV
08-18-2007, 05:21 PM
I think at the end of the day it`s a command decision process. A certain amount of experiment and `belief` is used also. Some military persoannel just believed their idea was better, even if actually untested in the field. Let`s not forget the finanacial side of things too, that can sometimes decide between a worse armamant being used over better.

just my tuppence.

berg417448
08-18-2007, 05:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enforcer572005:
I think it's a combo of reliability problems and low ammo load, but they used the same basic 20mm gun design as the Brits, so I don't understand that.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check the link I posted above. It explains how they managed to produce a 20mm gun that was not reliable.

ploughman
08-18-2007, 05:27 PM
Well the thing is a .50 was likely to provide a mission kill over an actual kill, which for a covering fighter is the same thing, in that the enemy AC desisted insisting, but the one thing I don't get about .50s in US use is that its use persisted on to F-86s.

But that's a different kettle of fish entirely.

AKA_TAGERT
08-18-2007, 05:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by logie7:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by logie7:
The USN got the right idea about mid way though the war when the helldivers had 2 of them and a bit later the corsair got 4. But even after the war 6 .50cals were still on USAF aircraft, the sabre being the most obvious one, when the navy had shifted to the 20mm cannon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The NAVY had to protect thier ships from attacking bombers.. Just like the Lw had to protect the motherland from attacking bombers.. P47s and P51s in the ETO.. not so much.. more fighter vs. fighter.. And the .50s were more than enough to wake up a Lw pilot on the tail of a B17. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True but for a given number of hits scored the 20mm makes much more of a mess, plus if you can seriously damage or destroy the target in the opening salvo it saves on ammo and does more than just wake them up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
True but you don't have to make a big mess of a figher to get it off the tail of a B17..

Just enough holes to cause the pilot to eject..

Gravity will take care of the rest..

Where as with an attackig bomber, you want to stop him short of his target ASAP and if he blows up in the air, or before he has a chance to arm his bombs, all the better.

BSS_CUDA
08-18-2007, 05:35 PM
as has been said by a few here. in the ETO the US fighters weren't attacking bombers. they were escorting and in an escort mission they didnt need to blow the opponent apart. unlike in this "simulation" where we say in the fight even when our planes on fire or missing control surfaces, IRL if you got tagged with 60lbs of lead in a 3 second burst, you'd probably do 1 of three things

1. die
2. bailout
3. bugout

all that being the same results. another plane out of the action. and since you could carry more 50cal than 20mm it meant that you had more ammo to knock more planes out of action

jimDG
08-18-2007, 05:38 PM
USAF switched to 20mm when there were no more Tigers left to kill. USN never had to kill Tigers and switched to 20mm earlier.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

leitmotiv
08-18-2007, 05:38 PM
Good question, and, bafflingly, I don't recall ever seeing an answer. The Army pioneered cannon in fighters with the twin 37mm-armed Bell bomber interceptor of the 1930s. Contrary to what some have posted, the P-38 and P-47 were designed as high altitude bomber interceptors for protecting the continental U.S. and Panama Canal. The P-39 and P-40 were intended to be low-altitude close support fighters. The P-39, of course, carried a whopping big 37mm cannon. Now, why the P-38 was given a single 20mm instead of a battery, I don't know. Why the P-47 didn't receive 20s I don't know. Note, a U.S. version of the Allison Mustang received quad 20s. Why the Merlin B,C, and D didn't get this battery I don't know. The P-61 night fighter carried four twenties and four fifties (the latter for self-defense). You know, the British did not build the U.S. .50 Browning, their license was only for the .30 Browning, thus, the next step up for them was 20mm. The British were the only major combatant which did not widely use a half-inch caliber heavy machine gun, everybody else did. The Browning fifties they used in aircraft were Lend-Lease from America. There is an excellent three volume history of guns in aircraft (WWI, WWII, post-WWII) which I have, but I haven't finished reading. The answer is likely in the books.

logie7
08-18-2007, 05:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by logie7:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by logie7:
The USN got the right idea about mid way though the war when the helldivers had 2 of them and a bit later the corsair got 4. But even after the war 6 .50cals were still on USAF aircraft, the sabre being the most obvious one, when the navy had shifted to the 20mm cannon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The NAVY had to protect thier ships from attacking bombers.. Just like the Lw had to protect the motherland from attacking bombers.. P47s and P51s in the ETO.. not so much.. more fighter vs. fighter.. And the .50s were more than enough to wake up a Lw pilot on the tail of a B17. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True but for a given number of hits scored the 20mm makes much more of a mess, plus if you can seriously damage or destroy the target in the opening salvo it saves on ammo and does more than just wake them up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
True but you don't have to make a big mess of a figher to get it off the tail of a B17..

Just enough holes to cause the pilot to eject..

Gravity will take care of the rest..

Where as with an attackig bomber, you want to stop him short of his target ASAP and if he blows up in the air, or before he has a chance to arm his bombs, all the better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah you want to stop bomers, but with fighters i have found myself plugging rounds into planes where the pilot had been killed or bailed out with out me realising it, so i prefer the 20's for a more visual result. Plus the 20mm lets you have the advantage of criticaly damaging bombers and fighters, it also does quite nicely for ground work. I just think its more "multirole" than the .50cal. Although there are times when its nice to have the ammo of the 50's.

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2007, 05:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blood_Splat:
Probably because their mission wasn't to shoot down bombers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gotta disagree with this to a large degree. US doctrine before the war is what gave birth to these planes, and they developed as the war taught the US lessons, and eventually became specialised. The planes were not 'born' as escorts, nor was the US doctrine decided on the eve of Dec 7 1941. US doctrine had been in place a long time

It may interest you to know this is exactly how the US Army got additional funding for "fighter" types. They called them "pursuit" planes, and at least in theory they were indeed designed to attack hostile bombers. The US Army performed something of a trick, as they simply wanted a modern air force. The USA was Isolationist until 1941. It's official doctrine was defensive before this. This is also how the B-17 was born- as a defensive measure, not offensive. The B-17 was to bomb enemy Navies approaching the US coast

The US military tried many things, for many roles. Since the .50 was powerful, plentiful, could shoot down any and all aircraft in the sky at the time (and after), shared commonality with other weapons in use, had great range, had a great rate of fire, carried a fair amount of ammo, and could be used with API/incendiary ammo, the .50 was used- with great success- as a general aerial weapon

While it is true that planes like the Airacuda carried heavy weapons specifically to attack bombers, and that US doctrine evolved into one that had Escorts, not bomber interceptors, it's simplistic to think that US doctrine sprung up out of the Earth as requiring Fighters to escort bombers, not attack them

The .50 could do it all, and was a "Home Built" weapon. Naturally the US gravitated toward it. No matter what forum posters think or guess or say, the .50 was a fine aerial weapon in WWII. the History of the conflict speaks for itself. The real events bear out the notion that the .50 was outstanding as an aerial weapon

AKA_TAGERT
08-18-2007, 05:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by logie7:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by logie7:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by logie7:
The USN got the right idea about mid way though the war when the helldivers had 2 of them and a bit later the corsair got 4. But even after the war 6 .50cals were still on USAF aircraft, the sabre being the most obvious one, when the navy had shifted to the 20mm cannon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The NAVY had to protect thier ships from attacking bombers.. Just like the Lw had to protect the motherland from attacking bombers.. P47s and P51s in the ETO.. not so much.. more fighter vs. fighter.. And the .50s were more than enough to wake up a Lw pilot on the tail of a B17. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True but for a given number of hits scored the 20mm makes much more of a mess, plus if you can seriously damage or destroy the target in the opening salvo it saves on ammo and does more than just wake them up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
True but you don't have to make a big mess of a figher to get it off the tail of a B17..

Just enough holes to cause the pilot to eject..

Gravity will take care of the rest..

Where as with an attackig bomber, you want to stop him short of his target ASAP and if he blows up in the air, or before he has a chance to arm his bombs, all the better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah you want to stop bomers, but with fighters i have found myself plugging rounds into planes where the pilot had been killed or bailed out with out me realising it, so i prefer the 20's for a more visual result. Plus the 20mm lets you have the advantage of criticaly damaging bombers and fighters, it also does quite nicely for ground work. I just think its more "multirole" than the .50cal. Although there are times when its nice to have the ammo of the 50's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Im talking real life, not this game

MB_Avro_UK
08-18-2007, 05:56 PM
hi all,

It would be interesting to hear the accounts of WW2 pilots who used both 50s or cannons in their combat careers.

If you are flying B & Z tactics would cannons be best? A target that you are diving on fast with a short firing window would be best served with heavy hitting cannon rounds maybe?

If you are closing from a six position with a degree of time on your side maybe 50s are best http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2007, 05:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:

If you are flying B & Z tactics would cannons be best? A target that you are diving on fast with a short firing window would be best served with heavy hitting cannon rounds maybe?

If you are closing from a six position with a degree of time on your side maybe 50s are best http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would say that due to the rate of fire of each weapon, your ideas on this are exactly backwards http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

the .50 for the slashing boom and zoom, as it's RoF is high, the 20mm for the stern shot, as the RoF is comparatively low, as is muzzle velocity

ploughman
08-18-2007, 06:07 PM
Hmmm.

Some reference. (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html)

logie7
08-18-2007, 06:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by logie7:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by logie7:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by logie7:
The USN got the right idea about mid way though the war when the helldivers had 2 of them and a bit later the corsair got 4. But even after the war 6 .50cals were still on USAF aircraft, the sabre being the most obvious one, when the navy had shifted to the 20mm cannon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The NAVY had to protect thier ships from attacking bombers.. Just like the Lw had to protect the motherland from attacking bombers.. P47s and P51s in the ETO.. not so much.. more fighter vs. fighter.. And the .50s were more than enough to wake up a Lw pilot on the tail of a B17. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True but for a given number of hits scored the 20mm makes much more of a mess, plus if you can seriously damage or destroy the target in the opening salvo it saves on ammo and does more than just wake them up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
True but you don't have to make a big mess of a figher to get it off the tail of a B17..

Just enough holes to cause the pilot to eject..

Gravity will take care of the rest..

Where as with an attackig bomber, you want to stop him short of his target ASAP and if he blows up in the air, or before he has a chance to arm his bombs, all the better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah you want to stop bomers, but with fighters i have found myself plugging rounds into planes where the pilot had been killed or bailed out with out me realising it, so i prefer the 20's for a more visual result. Plus the 20mm lets you have the advantage of criticaly damaging bombers and fighters, it also does quite nicely for ground work. I just think its more "multirole" than the .50cal. Although there are times when its nice to have the ammo of the 50's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Im talking real life, not this game </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair doos, was just giving my experiance with each weapon in game.

MB_Avro_UK
08-18-2007, 06:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Good question, and, bafflingly, I don't recall ever seeing an answer. The Army pioneered cannon in fighters with the twin 37mm-armed Bell bomber interceptor of the 1930s. Contrary to what some have posted, the P-38 and P-47 were designed as high altitude bomber interceptors for protecting the continental U.S. and Panama Canal. The P-39 and P-40 were intended to be low-altitude close support fighters. The P-39, of course, carried a whopping big 37mm cannon. Now, why the P-38 was given a single 20mm instead of a battery, I don't know. Why the P-47 didn't receive 20s I don't know. Note, a U.S. version of the Allison Mustang received quad 20s. Why the Merlin B,C, and D didn't get this battery I don't know. The P-61 night fighter carried four twenties and four fifties (the latter for self-defense). You know, the British did not build the U.S. .50 Browning, their license was only for the .30 Browning, thus, the next step up for them was 20mm. The British were the only major combatant which did not widely use a half-inch caliber heavy machine gun, everybody else did. The Browning fifties they used in aircraft were Lend-Lease from America. There is an excellent three volume history of guns in aircraft (WWI, WWII, post-WWII) which I have, but I haven't finished reading. The answer is likely in the books. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

@ leitmotiv

I've done some searching but there seems to be no clear answer for the 50 option by the US http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif.

It seems a bit strange that the most powerful nation in WW2 opted for a machine gun armament whereas all other nations opted for cannons or a combination of cannons and machine guns.

There is a view that numerous machine guns favour the poorly trained pilot. This was true for many Battle of Britain pilots in 1940 who were able to 'spray and pray' with some effect.

But US pilots by 1942/1943 IMO were highly trained and capable.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2007, 06:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:

I've done some searching but there seems to be no clear answer for the 50 option by the US http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif.

It seems a bit strange that the most powerful nation in WW2 opted for a machine gun armament whereas all other nations opted for cannons or a combination of cannons and machine guns.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Allow myself to quote...myself

"The US military tried many things, for many roles. Since the .50 was powerful, plentiful, could shoot down any and all aircraft in the sky at the time (and after), shared commonality with other weapons in use, had great range, had a great rate of fire, carried a fair amount of ammo, and could be used with API/incendiary ammo, the .50 was used- with great success- as a general aerial weapon

While it is true that planes like the Airacuda carried heavy weapons specifically to attack bombers, and that US doctrine evolved into one that had Escorts, not bomber interceptors, it's simplistic to think that US doctrine sprung up out of the Earth as requiring Fighters to escort bombers, not attack them

The .50 could do it all, and was a "Home Built" weapon. Naturally the US gravitated toward it"

ploughman
08-18-2007, 06:18 PM
I rather fancy it was one of those 'justified after the event' type things by which the ends were achieved therefore the means must have been correct type thing, had the bulk of US fighter armament been 20mm that would've worked out just fine too and been endorsed by history. .50's big enough to matter if you've got 6 or 8 of them spraying at you anyway, Lord knows the projectiles are like rocks rather than bullets. Probably not as effective as 4 x 20mm but effective enough that the same end was achieved.

Matz0r
08-18-2007, 06:23 PM
Actually ROF is not that much higher for the M2 compared to the typical 20mm. The fact that the M2 requires more bullets on target to do sufficient damage, means that it will carry more guns, more ammo and therefore more weight compared to fighters armed with 20mm cannons. Did you know that the armament and ammunition in a FW-190A4 weigh less than in a P-40E? The Tempest guns and ammo weigh 374kg while the guns and ammo of the P-51D weigh 385 kg.

The .50 decision was probably more logistical than a tactical or practical.

MB_Avro_UK
08-18-2007, 06:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:

If you are flying B & Z tactics would cannons be best? A target that you are diving on fast with a short firing window would be best served with heavy hitting cannon rounds maybe?

If you are closing from a six position with a degree of time on your side maybe 50s are best http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would say that due to the rate of fire of each weapon, your ideas on this are exactly backwards http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

the .50 for the slashing boom and zoom, as it's RoF is high, the 20mm for the stern shot, as the RoF is comparatively low, as is muzzle velocity </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sorry, but I have to disagree. The issue is not Rate of Fire but size of calibre on target.

With a diving attack on a fighter or bomber...there is maybe a 2 second or much less opportunity to fire. I would sooner deliver cannon rounds than rifle rounds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

The Luftwaffe realised this concept as equated by their fighter armaments and tactics.

My opinion of course, and open to informed and objective debate.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2007, 06:37 PM
You're free to have that opinion

Blutarski2004
08-18-2007, 06:52 PM
Consider this.

The 20mm fitted in the P38 was an Hispano-Suiza design.

The 20mm AA carried by the USN was an Oerlikon design.

The 40mm AA carried by the USN was a Bofors design.

At the outbreak of the war, the US simply did not have a mature reliable domestically developed auto-cannon design in that caliber range.

PBNA-Boosher
08-18-2007, 07:16 PM
Isn't there a gun loading handle for the P-39's 37mm? I could swear it's modeled in game in the cockpit. The lettering's right there. Even the 37mm wasn't auto and came with flaws. My opinion sides with BBB462cid and Blutarski.

The .50 was very reliable, had a high ROF, and was able to get the job done just as well as with a 20mm cannon, though maybe using a few more rounds to do so.

R_Target
08-18-2007, 07:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
Because they were dumb.

20mms are better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol, just tell them what they want to hear.

berg417448
08-18-2007, 07:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
Isn't there a gun loading handle for the P-39's 37mm? I could swear it's modeled in game in the cockpit. The lettering's right there. Even the 37mm wasn't auto and came with flaws. My opinion sides with BBB462cid and Blutarski.

The .50 was very reliable, had a high ROF, and was able to get the job done just as well as with a 20mm cannon, though maybe using a few more rounds to do so. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the US 37mm was auto. I've seen the rate of fire given as 150 rounds per minute.
There was also a version of the XP-72 interceptor which was going to have an option to be armed with four 37mm guns.

leitmotiv
08-18-2007, 07:46 PM
MB_Avro is right. The Battle of Britain taught the British Air Staff bombers had to be blasted out of the sky with cannon---that's why the .303 was dropped like a hot potato. This is a fact, not an opinion. Note: when fighters were tasked with destroying bombers first and foremost, as occured in the BOB and the air battle over Germany, the pilots and staffs wanted cannon.

Here is the best source for information on the design and development of aerial armament:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_b/202-8024015-20926...&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go (http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_b/202-8024015-2092611?initialSearch=1&url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=FLYING+GUNS&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go)

Choctaw111
08-18-2007, 07:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
XP-51B
http://www.aerofiles.com/noram-p51b.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I am not mistaken, and without looking it up, I do believe that these were built for the British at their request. Take a look at what they were dealing with at the time. They were dealing with a bomber threat on their homeland. The 50's were tried and true and was felt that there was no need to go with anything bigger at the time. The 50's were doing a splendid job. There was some experimenting being done on a 60 caliber gun using a 20mm cartridge necked down to 60 cal. That is a very interesting read if you can find it on Google or wherever. I have it in a book. There were also some other "wildcat" cartridges being worked on that were getting around 4,300 feet per second! In the end the 50 was doing its job well enough that there was no sense of urgency to find a harder hitting weapon.

leitmotiv
08-18-2007, 07:50 PM
What are you talking about! Of course the U.S. 37mm was an automatic weapon. Who loaded it? The P-39 had a cocking handle for each .50 cal. butt in the cockpit.

leitmotiv
08-18-2007, 07:52 PM
The Mustang was designed for British requirements in 1940. The AAF had nothing to do with its design. That photo is of a Merlin Mustang prototype built using an Allison Mustang fuselage with the quad 20s in the wings.

horseback
08-18-2007, 10:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F16_Matz_:
Actually ROF is not that much higher for the M2 compared to the typical 20mm. The fact that the M2 requires more bullets on target to do sufficient damage, means that it will carry more guns, more ammo and therefore more weight compared to fighters armed with 20mm cannons. Did you know that the armament and ammunition in a FW-190A4 weigh less than in a P-40E? The Tempest guns and ammo weigh 374kg while the guns and ammo of the P-51D weigh 385 kg.

The .50 decision was probably more logistical than a tactical or practical. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>All very interesting, but may I ask two questions?

1. How many rounds does an equal weight of 20mm gun and ammunition give you for a mission that asks you to spend between two and four hours over enemy controlled territory?

2. How much less firing time does that 'equal weight' of 20mm weapons and ammo give you for that mission?

Availability is everything in wartime, and good enough and available beats excellent but in limited quantities every time.

cheers

horseback

HellToupee
08-18-2007, 11:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2. How much less firing time does that 'equal weight' of 20mm weapons and ammo give you for that mission? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How does firing time matter? 20mms require less firing time for a kill, avg of 5 hits vs 20.

20mm was simply a better gun, but they never developed one reliable enough to be used.

ImpStarDuece
08-18-2007, 11:58 PM
There are a plethora of reasons why the US did not switch to a 20mm, or larger, cannon for their fighter armament.

1. The M2 was "good enough" for the job at hand: knocking down fighters and medium bombers. The USAAF/USN rarely faced the sort of 4 engine bombers that the Italians, Germans and Japanese did.

2. Production simplicity. The M2 was already in quantity production at the outbreak of war.

3. Logistical simplicity. Single chain of parts and ammunition for tanks, heavy infantry MGs, fighter and bomber armament makes a lot of sense. Compare this to the German situation in where the supply cahin had to deal with 15mm, two types of 20mm, 13.2 mm and 7.92 mm and then later 30mm.

4. The failure of the US to produce an effective replacement for the M2, in sufficient quantity. The .60, which was actually a more powerful MG151/15, was stilborn and US 20mms weren't sufficiently reliable during the war. There were also some problems with the reliability of US produced 20mm ammo in 1942. They simply didn't have a realistic alternative.


The 20mm was the preferred aerial combat weapon of choice for fighter targets in WW2. Genrerally speaking, they combined good ballistic performance, reasonable rate and weight of fire, and a high explosive shell with a lighter installed weight and enhanced lethality over a battery of heavy MGs.

leitmotiv
08-19-2007, 01:13 AM
The P-38 used a 20mm cannon, several versions of the P-39 used a 20mm cannon, the P-61 used four 20mm cannon, the early B-29s had a 20mm tail gun with two .50s, the Hellcat and Corsair night fighters carried 20mm cannon, the F4U-4C (last wartime version of the Corsair) carried four 20mm cannon, the Tigercat carried 20mm cannon, the Bearcat carried 20mm cannon, the improvised A-20 night fighter carried 20mm cannon. Clearly, the U.S. used 20mm cannon from 1941 until 1945, and all the speculation in this thread is, as usual forum-style blather.

ImpStarDuece
08-19-2007, 02:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The P-38 used a 20mm cannon, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which was a replacement for the even more unsatisfactory 37mm and 23mm cannon originally used. The Pratt & Whitney and Oldsmobile AN-M2 cannon, of which 77,00 were produced during the were, were still significantly less reliable than their British counterparts.

The P-38 was designed as a bomber destroyer, not a pursuit fighter. Its armament reflected its role.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">several versions of the P-39 used a 20mm cannon, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two versions of the P-39 had a 20mm, the P-400 and some P-39Ds. There were approximately 400 P-400s and 517 P-39Ds fitted with 20mm cannon. Funnily enough, both were manufactured for service with the British or French, not for the USAAF, and a large proportion of the P-400s ended up serving with the Russians.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> the P-61 used four 20mm cannon, the early B-29s had a 20mm tail gun with two .50s </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The decision to mount 20mms on the P-61 wasn't made until mid-1943, when the problems with the 20mm reliability were mostly solved, with the development of the M2 Type B. A British Hispano Mk II had been shipped over the the US in late 1942 to help rectify the problems that US manufacturers were having.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the Hellcat and Corsair night fighters carried 20mm cannon, the F4U-4C (last wartime version of the Corsair) carried four 20mm cannon, the Tigercat carried 20mm cannon, the Bearcat carried 20mm cannon, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All late war/post war period and all in penny-packet numbers during the war. There were 200 F4U-1Cs made, the Bearcat didn't get a 20mm until the post war -2 version. The Tigercat was too late to see combat.

Besides, the USN were all in favou of switching to a 20mm armed fighter. They considered that a 20mm had at least 3 times the "horsepower" of a .50, with extra benefits besides.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> the improvised A-20 night fighter carried 20mm cannon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and gave enough trouble with reliability after the first 57 aircraft that subsequent versions reverted to a ventral tray or chin blisters with 6 or 8 .50s.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Clearly, the U.S. used 20mm cannon from 1941 until 1945, and all the speculation in this thread is, as usual forum-style blather. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And, equally clearly, the US had real trouble getting the 20mm into full service until late in the war because of reliability issues.

Of the 100,000 plus fighters manufactured between 1940 and 1945 by the US, less than 20% mounted 20mms. Cimpare that to the European and Japanese fighters, of which the majority mounted cannon of 20mm or higher calibre.

MEGILE
08-19-2007, 05:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Consider this.

The 20mm fitted in the P38 was an Hispano-Suiza design.

The 20mm AA carried by the USN was an Oerlikon design.

The 40mm AA carried by the USN was a Bofors design.

At the outbreak of the war, the US simply did not have a mature reliable domestically developed auto-cannon design in that caliber range. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tinkz we av a winnar maan.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

luftluuver
08-19-2007, 06:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
MB_Avro is right. The Battle of Britain taught the British Air Staff bombers had to be blasted out of the sky with cannon---that's why the .303 was dropped like a hot potato. This is a fact, not an opinion. Note: when fighters were tasked with destroying bombers first and foremost, as occured in the BOB and the air battle over Germany, the pilots and staffs wanted cannon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agh? The Brits knew cannons would be required before the war started and were looking for a suitable weapon.

The Whirlwind fighter to Spec F.37/35 was to be armed with cannons.

The Beaufighter to Spec F.11/37 was to be armed with cannons.

A 4 cannon armed Spitfire was proposed also to Spec F.37/35.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
08-19-2007, 06:05 AM
I'm soooooo tempted to hijack this for the Whirly Whiners... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

leitmotiv
08-19-2007, 09:16 AM
Please do!!!!

http://www.classicairframes.com/articles/images/whirlwindjb_2.jpg

horseback
08-19-2007, 11:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2. How much less firing time does that 'equal weight' of 20mm weapons and ammo give you for that mission? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How does firing time matter? 20mms require less firing time for a kill, avg of 5 hits vs 20.

20mm was simply a better gun, but they never developed one reliable enough to be used. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The real question is, how many rounds fired does it take to hit a moving target? Like a big league baseball player, getting a hit in one out of three at bats is exceptional, which meant that most guys missed most shots. It therefore follows that it is better to have more shots than it is to have fewer opportunities to take an opponent out of the fight (to be honest, anyone who knew his aircraft was hit usually headed for home as soon as it was practical).

Which situation would you rather be in?

A. Two sure kills under your belt, but still over Germany and looking at a ninety minute flight home looking over your shoulder with 4 empty 20mms, OR

B. Two enemy aircraft damaged and out of the fight with plenty of ammo left to defend yourself while scooting back to Blighty.

USN and USMC pilots complained long and loud when the F4F-4 replaced the the F4F-3's 4x.50s with 6x.50s and less overall ammo and 46% less firing time (the Dash 3 had 450 rounds per gun for a total of 1,800 rounds while the Dash 4 had a measly 240 rounds per gun for a total of 1,440). Bear in mind that at this point in the war, these were among the best trained aviation marksmen in the world; more firing time translates into more shooting opportunities and more hits.

If I'm over enemy territory and looking at a long trip home, I'll gladly trade confirmed kills for multiple opponents rendered hors de combat AND a clean getaway.

Given the unreliability and limited availibility of US made 20mm and other cannon in the early war vs the .50's proven record, it is no surprise that most WWII US pilots in all services developed a certain affection for it.

While I agree that cannon are more immediately effective, the American flavors had reliability problems, and the British made guns were harder to come by. We can go "woulda, coulda, shoulda" all day long, but the logistical reality was that there weren't enough good cannon to go around for the Western Allies' fighters, and the RAF and Commonwealth had first dibs on the Hispanos.

cheers

horseback

Frequent_Flyer
08-19-2007, 12:58 PM
The .50s Simply got the job done. The Finn's flew the 4 X .50 armed Brewster Buffalo and the cannon armed Bf-109.Their kill ratio was much better in the Buffalo( 26 to 1 ). The Ki-43, latter models used 2 X .50 copied Brownings and shot down a plane or two. As for Cannon vs. .50s. The allied aircraft that produced the greatest number of aerial aces was not cannon armed. The allied aircraft type credited for bringing down the most Luftwaffe aces was not cannon armed. As the saying goes its hard to argue with success. The results speak for themselves.

leitmotiv
08-19-2007, 01:07 PM
To illustrate how far afield intuitive thinking on historical matters leads, note that the AAF/USAF did not give up its .50 cal. after WWII. The USN shifted to the 20mm cannon for its fighters and retained the 20mm until replaced by the Vulcan in the F-14. Thus, in the Korean War, all the USN aircraft (Skyraiders, Panthers, and Banshees) had 20s. On the other hand, all the USAF aircraft in the Korean war (B-29s, A-26s, F-86s, F-84s, F-80s, and P-51s) were still using the outdated .50 cal. While the USN used the quad 20mm battery as standard from the late WWII F4U-4C until the Crusader of the Vietnam War, the USAF used the .50 cal. until the post-Korean War F-100 when they finally shifted to the USN standard quad 20mm battery. The USAF's loyality to the grizzled .50 cal. is illustrated in the tail gun armament of the B-52 which was a quad .50 cal. battery until the last production model, the H, of the early 1960s, was shifted to the Vulcan.

As for the Finn Buff vs. the 109, the Finns used the Buff from 1941 until the end of the participation in the war in 1944. They did not receive 109s until very late. Two factors come to mind: the Buffs were in the action far longer, thus a higher number of shoot-downs, and they were in the action when the Soviet aircrew were largely untrained tyros. By the time the Finns received the 109, they were up against higher quality aircraft and pilots.

As for the slaughter the Hellcat wreaked on Japan, the Hellcat entered service in late 1943 by which time most of the best Japanese pilots were dead as door nails. The low quality in terms of staying power of Japanese aircraft played right into the hands of the Cat's fifties. The huge "score" of the Hellcat remains impressive but it was not against first class opposition.

Nobody would deny the battery of six fifties which was generally the U.S. standard of WWII was murderous, but compared to the destructive power of the redoubtable Soviet 20 and 23mm cannon, and the German MG151, the fifty was much less impressive.

Frequent_Flyer
08-19-2007, 02:01 PM
Leitmotiv, I will respectfully disagree with you. Brewster Buffallos accounted for 496 VVS aircraft including the Spitfire,LA-5s,IL-2 and Yak-9s.While losing only 19.They were always vastly outnumbered.The Germans were fighting against the same poorly trained VVS ( from 1941 past 1944) but in a superior aircraft. At the end of hostilities the Buffalo was fighting the same advanced aircraft and pilots along side the superior Bf-109G-6.In March of 1943 the Finns started taking deliveries of the Bf-109G-6s. I know 162, 109s flew from Malmi. I dont know the total number of 109s used, suffice to say probally 3 to 4 times the number of Buffalos.

super71957
08-19-2007, 02:48 PM
Some one help me out here,U.S.N. Carriers had a boatload of 20mm cannons for defence correct?
And plenty of ammo.
Or am I wrong on this.Totally different beast?

HellToupee
08-19-2007, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
The real question is, how many rounds fired does it take to hit a moving target?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

depends on the shooter.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Like a big league baseball player, getting a hit in one out of three at bats is exceptional, which meant that most guys missed most shots. It therefore follows that it is better to have more shots than it is to have fewer opportunities to take an opponent out of the fight (to be honest, anyone who knew his aircraft was hit usually headed for home as soon as it was practical). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

but counter to that you also have less opportunities to get shots so its better to have them count, if your just trying to get opponents out of the fight u dont even have to hit them, you just have to let them know you are their and they will go defensive.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Which situation would you rather be in?

A. Two sure kills under your belt, but still over Germany and looking at a ninety minute flight home looking over your shoulder with 4 empty 20mms, OR

B. Two enemy aircraft damaged and out of the fight with plenty of ammo left to defend yourself while scooting back to Blighty.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

why would the 20mms be empty and the .50s not?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
USN and USMC pilots complained long and loud when the F4F-4 replaced the the F4F-3's 4x.50s with 6x.50s and less overall ammo and 46% less firing time (the Dash 3 had 450 rounds per gun for a total of 1,800 rounds while the Dash 4 had a measly 240 rounds per gun for a total of 1,440). Bear in mind that at this point in the war, these were among the best trained aviation marksmen in the world; more firing time translates into more shooting opportunities and more hits.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yet raf pilots were very happy to have 2 hispanos intially with 60rpg to replace their 8 303s, with 300 rpg. More firing time does not translate into more shooting opportunities, most kills were made in bounces, you had one chance before the enemy was aware and went defensive.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
If I'm over enemy territory and looking at a long trip home, I'll gladly trade confirmed kills for multiple opponents rendered hors de combat AND a clean getaway.

Given the unreliability and limited availibility of US made 20mm and other cannon in the early war vs the .50's proven record, it is no surprise that most WWII US pilots in all services developed a certain affection for it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well its all they had, they had better like it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
While I agree that cannon are more immediately effective, the American flavors had reliability problems, and the British made guns were harder to come by. We can go "woulda, coulda, shoulda" all day long, but the logistical reality was that there weren't enough good cannon to go around for the Western Allies' fighters, and the RAF and Commonwealth had first dibs on the Hispanos.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

which is what most agree on, while 20mm cannons were the better weapon, they had no working design in production, not even the RAf would use the american made hispanos.

loppenainen
08-19-2007, 03:13 PM
The Hispano took time to iron-out operational idiosyncrasies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif
It then took all war to iron-out American idiosyncracies, as they had to develop their own 'better' version, instead of copying the pre-existing British model. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
US industry was good at simple and mass, not in hi-tolerance engineering, hence the equipment issued. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
American tendency is to reinvent the British wheel. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif
British tendency to invent the wheel, then wait till the enemy deploys it, to realise how good it was. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

leitmotiv
08-19-2007, 03:20 PM
Correct, super---the USN started fitting the 20mm Oerlikon on all its ships in late 1941 (although none of the ships in Pearl Harbor had them---contrary to the recent film). The 20mm Oerlikon and the Bofors 40mm were the standard close-in defense of the USN. Yes, all USN ships carried 20s. The big ships carried, literally, dozens.

Thanks for the reminder.

MB_Avro_UK
08-19-2007, 03:40 PM
@ Leitmotiv:

Check your PMs.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Blutarski2004
08-19-2007, 03:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by loppenainen:
The Hispano took time to iron-out operational idiosyncrasies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif
It then took all war to iron-out American idiosyncracies, as they had to develop their own 'better' version, instead of copying the pre-existing British model. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
US industry was good at simple and mass, not in hi-tolerance engineering, hence the equipment issued. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
American tendency is to reinvent the British wheel. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif
British tendency to invent the wheel, then wait till the enemy deploys it, to realise how good it was. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... While I agree that the NIH ("not invented here") syndrome frustrated several US wartime efforts to copy foreign-designed weapons, this is hardly an indictment of American precision engineering capability overall. There are plenty of examples of high-precision instruments and systems having been successfully developed and fielded by US industry during the war.

Frequent_Flyer
08-19-2007, 03:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by loppenainen:
The Hispano took time to iron-out operational idiosyncrasies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif
It then took all war to iron-out American idiosyncracies, as they had to develop their own 'better' version, instead of copying the pre-existing British model. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
US industry was good at simple and mass, not in hi-tolerance engineering, hence the equipment issued. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
American tendency is to reinvent the British wheel. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif
British tendency to invent the wheel, then wait till the enemy deploys it, to realise how good it was. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you refering to the tactics the British employed in the American Revolution ? Or maybe the A-22 Raptor?

Blutarski2004
08-19-2007, 04:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Correct, super---the USN started fitting the 20mm Oerlikon on all its ships in late 1941 (although none of the ships in Pearl Harbor had them---contrary to the recent film). The 20mm Oerlikon and the Bofors 40mm were the standard close-in defense of the USN. Yes, all USN ships carried 20s. The big ships carried, literally, dozens.

Thanks for the reminder. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... For those interested, a short history of the medium and light anti-aircraft armament of US BB South Dakota:

Sep 1942
(7 x quad 1.1) + (35 x 20mm) + (16 x 50cal).

Nov 1942
(4 x quad 40mm) + (5 x quad 1.1) + (57 x 20mm).

Feb 1943
(17 x quad 40mm) + (57 x 20mm).

Aug 1945
(17 x quad 40mm) + (72 x 20mm).

MB_Avro_UK
08-19-2007, 04:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by loppenainen:
The Hispano took time to iron-out operational idiosyncrasies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif
It then took all war to iron-out American idiosyncracies, as they had to develop their own 'better' version, instead of copying the pre-existing British model. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
US industry was good at simple and mass, not in hi-tolerance engineering, hence the equipment issued. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
American tendency is to reinvent the British wheel. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif
British tendency to invent the wheel, then wait till the enemy deploys it, to realise how good it was. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... While I agree that the NIH ("not invented here") syndrome frustrated several US wartime efforts to copy foreign-designed weapons, this is hardly an indictment of American precision engineering capability overall. There are plenty of examples of high-precision instruments and systems having been successfully developed and fielded by US industry during the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hi,

I'm getting a bit OT here from my original post,but the above hits a sensitive historical spot for me.

We Brits in 1946 donated to Russia our latest jet engine. At that time it was the best in the world.The new British Labour Government saw the Communist Russians as 'friends'.

The Russians used this 'gift' to power the Mig 15 which caused a shock to the allies in the Korean war.

When Churchill's government lost the General Election immediatly after WW2 and was replaced by a Labour government, the US eyed Britain with suspicion as possible Communist sympathisers.

Ok let's get back on topic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif.

If your camera gun shows hits with 50s and the enemy breaks away damaged and 'maybe'out of the fight would the kill be confirmed? But if your camera gun showed a wing being blown off by cannons would that be better?

Would it be better to detach the wings of two enemy fighters than damage four?

I don't understand the differentation in this thread between fighter and bomber targets.

Both targets are vulnerable to fire. Bombers may soak up a few more rounds but they have limited evasive opportunities and therefore more rounds are on target.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

leitmotiv
08-19-2007, 04:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
@ Leitmotiv:

Check your PMs.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did, thankee MBA.

HuninMunin
08-19-2007, 04:12 PM
I thought the MG vs MC argument was ended by the Korean War and the fact that all fighters from the 60s onwards used and use cannons....

leitmotiv
08-19-2007, 04:16 PM
You nailed it, MBA. The British Air Staff realized after the BOB that fighters had to have cannon to "deconstruct" bombers quickly in the seconds of time in which modern fighters had targets in sight---this was what obsessed them---they needed weapons which could destroy in seconds. This was why the single-engine fighter standard was changed to four cannon (although most Spitfires never carried this).

leitmotiv
08-19-2007, 04:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
I thought the MG vs MC argument was ended by the Korean War and the fact that all fighters from the 60s onwards used and use cannons.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See my info on U.S. gun batteries from the end of WWII in a post above. There was also the freakish mid-'50's to mid-'60's belief cannon were outdated, and that fighters only needed missile armament. This was why the U.S. Phantom, both USAF and USN versions, went into the Vietnam War with no cannon and primitive, largely worthless, missile armament.

horseback
08-19-2007, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
The real question is, how many rounds fired does it take to hit a moving target?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
depends on the shooter.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Like a big league baseball player, getting a hit in one out of three at bats is exceptional, which meant that most guys missed most shots. It therefore follows that it is better to have more shots than it is to have fewer opportunities to take an opponent out of the fight (to be honest, anyone who knew his aircraft was hit usually headed for home as soon as it was practical). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
but counter to that you also have less opportunities to get shots so its better to have them count, if your just trying to get opponents out of the fight u dont even have to hit them, you just have to let them know you are their and they will go defensive.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Which situation would you rather be in?

A. Two sure kills under your belt, but still over Germany and looking at a ninety minute flight home looking over your shoulder with 4 empty 20mms, OR

B. Two enemy aircraft damaged and out of the fight with plenty of ammo left to defend yourself while scooting back to Blighty.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

why would the 20mms be empty and the .50s not? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Firing time. Yes, it depends on the shooter. If we assume that the pilot in question had the enemy a/c in his crosshairs for the same period of time, he puts more .50s into his target, and will have more .50 rounds left. More rounds, more firing time.

If he's shooting 20mm, he's probably expended his full load of ammo in the same amount of shooting time. More firing time makes greater use of the average marksman's skills, and gives him a better chance to defend himself.</span>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
USN and USMC pilots complained long and loud when the F4F-4 replaced the the F4F-3's 4x.50s with 6x.50s and less overall ammo and 46% less firing time (the Dash 3 had 450 rounds per gun for a total of 1,800 rounds while the Dash 4 had a measly 240 rounds per gun for a total of 1,440). Bear in mind that at this point in the war, these were among the best trained aviation marksmen in the world; more firing time translates into more shooting opportunities and more hits. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
yet raf pilots were very happy to have 2 hispanos intially with 60rpg to replace their 8 303s, with 300 rpg. More firing time does not translate into more shooting opportunities, most kills were made in bounces, you had one chance before the enemy was aware and went defensive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><span class="ev_code_YELLOW">This is a classic apples and oranges comparison. First, because the .50 is to the .303 as the 20mm is to the .50, and second, because US Naval aviators had far more air to air gunnery training than their prewar RAF counterparts. The Spitfire was built for short combats, rarely engaging more than three targets in a sorty. 60 heavy rounds per gun is okay for a quick dash across the Channel, but not for a 3 to 4 hour escort mission or for greeting a kokotai of Bettys visiting your carrier.</span><span class="ev_code_YELLOW">I might also point out that the RAF pilots were thrilled when the Hispanos worked, as initially, they often did not. It is instructive to remember that when the US had sufficient production of the M2, the .50 quickly supplanted those last two .303s in each Spitfire type 'e' wing. Instead of shooting big rocks and BBs, the RAF happily went to big rocks and medium sized rocks.</span><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
If I'm over enemy territory and looking at a long trip home, I'll gladly trade confirmed kills for multiple opponents rendered hors de combat AND a clean getaway.

Given the unreliability and limited availibility of US made 20mm and other cannon in the early war vs the .50's proven record, it is no surprise that most WWII US pilots in all services developed a certain affection for it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
well its all they had, they had better like it.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
While I agree that cannon are more immediately effective, the American flavors had reliability problems, and the British made guns were harder to come by. We can go "woulda, coulda, shoulda" all day long, but the logistical reality was that there weren't enough good cannon to go around for the Western Allies' fighters, and the RAF and Commonwealth had first dibs on the Hispanos. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
which is what most agree on, while 20mm cannons were the better weapon, they had no working design in production, not even the RAf would use the american made hispanos. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><span class="ev_code_YELLOW">What was I saying? Obviously, a mix of 20mm and .50s is better than just .50s, but .50s weren't a bad choice at all given US fighters' needs and capacity. My sole point is that for an average WWII fighter pilot, heavy machine guns might be preferable because they provide more firing time for the same weight of ordnance and ammo.</span><span class="ev_code_YELLOW">After we get to jets, though, I'm a pure cannon guy, the faster firing and higher the muzzle velocity, the better.</span>

cheers

horseback

luftluuver
08-19-2007, 05:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
You nailed it, MBA. The British Air Staff realized after the BOB that fighters had to have cannon to "deconstruct" bombers quickly in the seconds of time in which modern fighters had targets in sight---this was what obsessed them---they needed weapons which could destroy in seconds. This was why the single-engine fighter standard was changed to four cannon (although most Spitfires never carried this). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sure the AM did. That is why the Supermarine Type 305 proposal for Spec F.37.35 of April 1936 had cannons and cannon were fitted to se fighters before BoB ended. Even in Jan 1939 the AM stated that 2 cannons would be enough. Trials were conducted in March 1939 on a Spit L1007 and Hurrie L1750. Of the 30 cannon Spits ordered, 24 had been delivered by Aug 16 1940.

HuninMunin
08-19-2007, 05:29 PM
Exactly.
The only thing that somewhat hindered a more rash deployment of greater numbers was the quality of the weapons themself.
That and the "conservative" attitude of the BAS in general.

Blutarski2004
08-19-2007, 06:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by loppenainen:
The Hispano took time to iron-out operational idiosyncrasies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif
It then took all war to iron-out American idiosyncracies, as they had to develop their own 'better' version, instead of copying the pre-existing British model. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
US industry was good at simple and mass, not in hi-tolerance engineering, hence the equipment issued. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
American tendency is to reinvent the British wheel. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif
British tendency to invent the wheel, then wait till the enemy deploys it, to realise how good it was. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... While I agree that the NIH ("not invented here") syndrome frustrated several US wartime efforts to copy foreign-designed weapons, this is hardly an indictment of American precision engineering capability overall. There are plenty of examples of high-precision instruments and systems having been successfully developed and fielded by US industry during the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hi,

I'm getting a bit OT here from my original post,but the above hits a sensitive historical spot for me.

We Brits in 1946 donated to Russia our latest jet engine. At that time it was the best in the world.The new British Labour Government saw the Communist Russians as 'friends'.

The Russians used this 'gift' to power the Mig 15 which caused a shock to the allies in the Korean war.

When Churchill's government lost the General Election immediatly after WW2 and was replaced by a Labour government, the US eyed Britain with suspicion as possible Communist sympathisers.

Ok let's get back on topic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif.

If your camera gun shows hits with 50s and the enemy breaks away damaged and 'maybe'out of the fight would the kill be confirmed? But if your camera gun showed a wing being blown off by cannons would that be better?

Would it be better to detach the wings of two enemy fighters than damage four?

I don't understand the differentation in this thread between fighter and bomber targets.

Both targets are vulnerable to fire. Bombers may soak up a few more rounds but they have limited evasive opportunities and therefore more rounds are on target.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Avro, the 20mm was clearly the superior air-ro-air weapon in terms of lethality. I think it is pretty clear that the 50cal was selected not in preference to the 20mm, but in the absence of a decent 20mm alternative.

That having been said, the 50cal did prove itself to be a tolerably good weapon for the particular classes of enemy aircraft it confronted. Also (and I think this more serendipitous than premeditated) the greater amount of ammunition and time of fire provided by the 50cal probably proved quite useful for long-range escort fighters which faced the possibility of fighting their way both into the target and then out again. By a very rough rule of thumb, a 20mm hit = about 3 50cal hits; but a 20mm cartridge weighed about 4x as much.

A thought ...

Clipper_51
08-19-2007, 06:34 PM
seems pretty clear that the US was pretty slow on the uptake vis. 20mm cannon. everyone else was using them, but we had problems making a good one. hence, we stayed with the .50's until we had a good cannon. now we have a good cannon.

Skoshi Tiger
08-19-2007, 07:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Sure the AM did. That is why the Supermarine Type 305 proposal for Spec F.37.35 of April 1936 had cannons and cannon were fitted to se fighters before BoB ended. Even in Jan 1939 the AM stated that 2 cannons would be enough. Trials were conducted in March 1939 on a Spit L1007 and Hurrie L1750. Of the 30 cannon Spits ordered, 24 had been delivered by Aug 16 1940. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The main problems the British had with the Hispano's was the installation in the Spitfires.

When the French had bolted the cannon onto the engine of their fighter, the Gun was very reliable. The British placed the guns in the wings which flexed and vibrated every time the gun fired. Also the the Hispano's were tilted over on an angle that caused jams and miss-feeds.
If memory serves me right I think the early mustangs had a similar problem with the 50 cals which required a re-design of the wings! now if they hadn't ironed out the problemsd with Mustang I wonder what armerment they would have ended up with? (Eight 30cals??)

leitmotiv
08-19-2007, 07:09 PM
OK, enough speculation. I'm dragging out my copy of FLYING GUNS WWII.

BoCfuss
08-19-2007, 07:17 PM
Germany, Japan and Russia were compensating for something. Germany also drove around in mamoth sized tanks. Japan had huge guns on the largest battleship ever built. Size doesn't matter, its how you use it boys, surely you've learned this by now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

leeG727
08-19-2007, 07:24 PM
For an aircraft weapon you want low installed weight, accuracy, high weight of fire, reliability, range and a flat ballistic trajectory. The American 50cal had a combination these attributes which made it a superior aerial weapon.

At the outbreak of the war it was also very powerful compared to contemporary machine guns. The 50cal was originally designed for use against lightly armored vehicles. Commonwealth pilots flying P-40C in the desert often referred to the 50s as canon in after-action reports.

Recall too that it took the British some time to get the canons sorted out on the Spitfire. Bader flew a MkV with 8 .303 because he didn't trust the canons to work.

And the logistical benefit of having a common aircraft gun can't be overemphasized. Just remember the old saw "amateurs argue tactics while professionals argue logistics."

leitmotiv
08-19-2007, 08:39 PM
End of blather:

See:

FLYING GUNS WORLD WAR II: THE DEVELOPMENT OF AIRCRAFT GUNS, AMMUNITION AND INSTALLATIONS 1933-45. Emmanuel Gustin and Anthony G. Williams. Airlife, Shrewsbury (UK), 2003. ISBN 1 84037 227 3.

See pages 149-151

"The real advantages of the Browning .50 in. were its great reliability and standardization [my emphasis]. All U.S. military forces used the gun." (page 151)

The authors note the unreliability under some circumstances (particularly Normandy dust) of the U.S Hispano, which was not as reliable as the British Hispano (page 27). They maintain the .50 was preferred because it eliminated the need to train armorers in many different weapons (in a mass force this made sense). Use of a single type eased supply problems, and, of course, eased aiming since there were not several weapons of different trajectories to attempt to harmonize. They emphasize the fantastic qualities attributed by the U.S. to the fifty was wartime propaganda. It was a mundane heavy machine gun without an exceptional rate-of-fire, and it, too, had several disconcerting reliability problems (barrel overheating in sustained fire among them, see page 150).

Thus, the fifty was not chosen because it was a super-weapon or because it was better than the U.S. Hispano 20mm, but because of the mundane reasons of military efficiency: supply, training, and commonality.

fordfan25
08-19-2007, 09:39 PM
In game i would rather use the 2 20mms in the FW than the 8 50s in the jug any day. IRL might be a another story.

Skoshi Tiger
08-19-2007, 10:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Correct, super---the USN started fitting the 20mm Oerlikon on all its ships in late 1941 (although none of the ships in Pearl Harbor had them---contrary to the recent film). The 20mm Oerlikon and the Bofors 40mm were the standard close-in defense of the USN. Yes, all USN ships carried 20s. The big ships carried, literally, dozens.

Thanks for the reminder. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It may be stated else where the 20mm Oerlikon used completely different round to the 20mm Hispano's.

Persecutor_352
08-19-2007, 10:26 PM
From:"Notes on Air Gunnery and Air Fighting (1943) by Wing Commander E.M. Donaldson, D.S.O., A.F.C., R.A.F", in "Fighting in the Air -- The official combat technique instructions for British fighter pilots, 1916-1945, Vol 7", at pages 272 and 273:

"I should now like to just mention what sort of aircraft we are employing. It is impossible for me to go into any detail as details are secret. Suffice to say that anythng that will not do over 400 m.p.h. and be able to climb to 40,000 feet is no good. I am glad to say that we have very large numbers of such aircraft. Our latest new fighter, that is not counting the latest marks of Spitfires and Hurricanes, is the Tornado and this really is a tremendous airplane. It is very heavily armed and I can tell you altogether, it is a very lethal weapon. The armament of these fighters are cannons and machine guns. Last year, of course, we only had eight Browning machine guns in each airplane. This is an intereting point to Americans because the Browning gun is an American gun; I am sure you will be proud of the fact that in my squadron alone during about five months of active warfare, we fired some 3,000,000 rounds of ammunition and you could count the number of stoppages these guns had during this time on the fingers of one hand. It really is a remarkably reliable gun. Some of you might question the effectiveness of machine gun fire against heavily armored enemy aircraft. If you do question this, I should like to tell you an incident which convinced me how effective this concentration of machine gun fire is. You must remember each gun fires 1,200 bullets a minute which makes a total of 9,600 bullets a minute coming from one airplane. This particular incident took place in France last year when we were endeavoring to tack up our army which was fighting over there. I came across one German soldier and took a careful aim and pressed the trigger -- I was amazed to see the man disintegrate. There is no question that the bullets just drilled him; they literally blew him apart. And so when firing against aircraft, however heavily armored, this concentration is sufficient to blow off some quite important parts to the embarrassment of the German pilots concerned. It is quite obvious that if one were to blow the tail unit off an airplane, it doesn't really matter how heavily armored he is. The cannon has tremendous power and there is no doubt as to its value in air fighting. A cannon shell can penetrate practically any thickness of armor, but of course has a slow rate of fire, and one has to be more careful in one's aim.

"We picked up a German M.E. 109 fighter which had been shot by a cannon shell. This shell had penetrated through the rudder, stern post, through varous members of the fuselage, the wireless set, two thicknesses of armor plate, both sides of the gas tank, the back of the pilot's seat, through the pilot's chest removing various ribs and passed out through the dashboard and out the front of the airplane. This was a most effective demonstration of the power of penetration of the cannon shell."

jensenpark
08-19-2007, 10:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
hi all,

It would be interesting to hear the accounts of WW2 pilots who used both 50s or cannons in their combat careers.

If you are flying B & Z tactics would cannons be best? A target that you are diving on fast with a short firing window would be best served with heavy hitting cannon rounds maybe?

If you are closing from a six position with a degree of time on your side maybe 50s are best http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok, I'm entering the 'debate' late (oh - and I'm impressed by 5 pages of no flames - just great discussions/disagreements back and forth). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Anyway, I had the pleasure of getting to know and befriend a great man, George "Lefty" Whitman (RCAF - 3 Squadron) who flew everything from Hurris up to Tempests. He was also a member of a group who flew test evaluations on captured German planes, and all the US planes as well...

Lefty loved to tell of his experiences and I asked him this exact question - (we were discussing the Spit with the 20mm cannon and .50 cal vs 20mm and .303) and he said that machine guns were 'lousy' and to 'give him a cannon every time for stopping power'. He'd then pump the air in exclamation.

Lefty, who passed away this year, is a recipient the Order of Canada. Bit of interesting info for you Tempest fans...

www.hawkertempest.se/whitman.htm (http://www.hawkertempest.se/whitman.htm)

HellToupee
08-19-2007, 11:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Firing time. Yes, it depends on the shooter. If we assume that the pilot in question had the enemy a/c in his crosshairs for the same period of time, he puts more .50s into his target, and will have more .50 rounds left. More rounds, more firing time.

If he's shooting 20mm, he's probably expended his full load of ammo in the same amount of shooting time. More firing time makes greater use of the average marksman's skills, and gives him a better chance to defend himself.</span>
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well thats still alot of sight time and he has to put more .50s in target. 20mms have a lower installed weight than .50s for the same power, if firing time was important you could have less guns with more ammo and still be lighter.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">This is a classic apples and oranges comparison. First, because the .50 is to the .303 as the 20mm is to the .50, and second, because US Naval aviators had far more air to air gunnery training than their prewar RAF counterparts. The Spitfire was built for short combats, rarely engaging more than three targets in a sorty. 60 heavy rounds per gun is okay for a quick dash across the Channel, but not for a 3 to 4 hour escort mission or for greeting a kokotai of Bettys visiting your carrier.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Escorts didn't engage fighters that much, individuals were not often shooting at multiple different fighters per sortie. For poorer gunners you would think 8 303s would be preferred spraying about the sky but they preferred the hitting power of the cannon. As for greeting visitors to your carrier USN did prefer the 20mm.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">I might also point out that the RAF pilots were thrilled when the Hispanos worked, as initially, they often did not. It is instructive to remember that when the US had sufficient production of the M2, the .50 quickly supplanted those last two .303s in each Spitfire type 'e' wing. Instead of shooting big rocks and BBs, the RAF happily went to big rocks and medium sized rocks.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Initially they were rushed into the BoB, mk1b then mkIIb, by the time of the MKV issues were largely ironed out. Raf also happily went from medium sized rocks to big rocks as well, final spitfires carried 4 20mm cannons, they had always specified a 4 cannon setup.

If I'm over enemy territory and looking at a long trip home, I'll gladly trade confirmed kills for multiple opponents rendered hors de combat AND a clean getaway.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">What was I saying? Obviously, a mix of 20mm and .50s is better than just .50s, but .50s weren't a bad choice at all given US fighters' needs and capacity. My sole point is that for an average WWII fighter pilot, heavy machine guns might be preferable because they provide more firing time for the same weight of ordnance and ammo.</span>
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">After we get to jets, though, I'm a pure cannon guy, the faster firing and higher the muzzle velocity, the better.</span>
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ild argue for the average ww2 fighter pilot hitting power is more preferable as the avg pilot isnt going to have enemy fighters in their sights all that often.

Zoring
08-20-2007, 12:15 AM
For those saying that 20mm cannons have poor muzzle velocity or ROF compared to the M2 Browning, the numbers on the German 15mm and 20mm guns are

MG 151/15 v M2 Browning

Cartridge: 15mm v 12.7mm
Rate of Fire: 680 rpm v 500 rpm
Muzzle Velocity: 950 m/s v 930 m/s
Weight: 39kg vs 38kg

The larger bullet would mean a lower long range, although probably at a range further then you'd want to be shooting at another aircraft with, the Germans considered the MG 151/15 to not have enough stopping power (however they only mounted 1 or 2 on their planes so of course it's not going to be as effective)

MG 151/20 v M2 Browning
Calibre: 20mm v 12.7mm
Rate of Fire: 750 rpm v 500 rpm
Muzzle Velocity: 800m/s v 930m/s
Weight: 42kg vs 38kg

The 20mm has a larger exploding shell and fire at a faster rate then the .50cal, however it is as stated a little slower, and will drop off in speed earlier then the .50, then again they do tell you to start firing when your enemy 'fills your windscreen'

The German weapons were in no ways inferior to the .50 in terms of rof or muzzle velocity, had the Americans adopted a couple of mauser cannons it would more then likely been to their benifit. The .50s were certainly adequate for their job, though i doubt the yank pilots would have objected to a couple of 20's

Xiolablu3
08-20-2007, 12:20 AM
The answer is very simple.

The US didnt have a reliable 20mm cannon and refused to believe that theirs were inferior, it took a lot of testing to prove that the US cannon was faulty.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/US404.htm

Quote :- 'In 'Guns of the Royal Air Force 1939-1945' by G.F. Wallace - who was there - there is an account of British tests of the British and US Hispanos which took place early in 1942. The British were unhappy with initial supplies of the American-made guns: "there were frequent misfeeds and lightly struck cap stoppages, and the life of several small components was very short" so a comparative test between one British and three American guns was set up. The intention was to fire 5,000 rounds from each gun without replacing any components. "The British gun fired the full programme but the performance of the American guns was so bad that in each case the trial had to be abandoned before the 5,000 rounds had been fired." The British gun experienced 19 stoppages in firing 5,012 rounds. The American guns experienced 67 stoppages out of 4,092, 97 out of 3,705 and 94 out of 2,610 respectively. Incidentally, Wallace states that the US guns were "beautifully made and better finished than our own" and expressed surprise that although lightly struck caps were a major source of stoppages, even more frequent were mis-feeds.'


So they made do with the 50 cal, which is OK but cannon would absolutely have been better, there can be no question.

Logistics was nothing to do with it, apparantly in 1943 the US Services had 40,000,000 20mm Hispano rounds stockpiled with no reliable gun to fire them.


EDIT : apologies, some of this page has already been posted by Berg.

csThor
08-20-2007, 12:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Leitmotiv, I will respectfully disagree with you. Brewster Buffallos accounted for 496 VVS aircraft including the Spitfire,LA-5s,IL-2 and Yak-9s.While losing only 19.They were always vastly outnumbered.The Germans were fighting against the same poorly trained VVS ( from 1941 past 1944) but in a superior aircraft. At the end of hostilities the Buffalo was fighting the same advanced aircraft and pilots along side the superior Bf-109G-6.In March of 1943 the Finns started taking deliveries of the Bf-109G-6s. I know 162, 109s flew from Malmi. I dont know the total number of 109s used, suffice to say probally 3 to 4 times the number of Buffalos. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're comparing apples to oranges here. The Buffalo was used from 1941 to early 1943 as frontline fighter but was relegated to "less dangerous areas" in 1943. Its prime opponents were the I-16, I-153, SB, DB-3 and L&L-Hurricanes - hardly an opposition comparable to the stuff the 109s faced from late 1943 on. The VVS-KBF, the units of Leningrad PVO and the Karelian VVS units fought a poor man's war for quite some time. Some regiments had to use the I-153 and/or I-16 as long as 1943 whereas other fronts received the newest types a lot earlier.

Plus the BW's combat achievements have little to do with the .50cal vs 20mm debate but more tactics, training and fighter doctrine.

Vipez-
08-20-2007, 12:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Sure the AM did. That is why the Supermarine Type 305 proposal for Spec F.37.35 of April 1936 had cannons and cannon were fitted to se fighters before BoB ended. Even in Jan 1939 the AM stated that 2 cannons would be enough. Trials were conducted in March 1939 on a Spit L1007 and Hurrie L1750. Of the 30 cannon Spits ordered, 24 had been delivered by Aug 16 1940. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The main problems the British had with the Hispano's was the installation in the Spitfires.

When the French had bolted the cannon onto the engine of their fighter, the Gun was very reliable. The British placed the guns in the wings which flexed and vibrated every time the gun fired. Also the the Hispano's were tilted over on an angle that caused jams and miss-feeds.
If memory serves me right I think the early mustangs had a similar problem with the 50 cals which required a re-design of the wings! now if they hadn't ironed out the problemsd with Mustang I wonder what armerment they would have ended up with? (Eight 30cals??) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't know about the French, but Finns considered Hispano very unreliable. For example Morane 406 used by the FAF had serious reliability problems, and ofted ground crew had no choise but to replace the Hispano with MG151/20 or Russian UBS. Afaik Later Hispano models proved to be much more reliable..

M_Gunz
08-20-2007, 02:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Would a cannon armed Mustang provide better protection for B-17s and B-24s? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. I'd want more trigger time. Those guys were using 4 guns then switching to 2 as it was.
It'd be hell running out of ammo deep into enemy territory.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If given the choice, would you opt for a cannon armed Mustang? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At the time, US-production 20mm cannons were unreliable.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Maybe this has been mentioned before </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

THAT after the title of this thread is my nomination for slickest line of the year!

IBTL!

M_Gunz
08-20-2007, 02:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zoring:
MG 151/15 v M2 Browning

Cartridge: 15mm v 12.7mm
Rate of Fire: 680 rpm v 500 rpm
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where you get this 500 rpm for M2?
Even Oleg had it from the start as 850.

Of course Russian UBS MG's stack up as better, as is real.
It is a shame that US did not get design rights of those in trade for Lend-Lease.

Blutarski2004
08-20-2007, 02:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zoring:
For those saying that 20mm cannons have poor muzzle velocity or ROF compared to the M2 Browning, the numbers on the German 15mm and 20mm guns are

MG 151/15 v M2 Browning

Cartridge: 15mm v 12.7mm
Rate of Fire: 680 rpm v 500 rpm
Muzzle Velocity: 950 m/s v 930 m/s
Weight: 39kg vs 38kg

The larger bullet would mean a lower long range, although probably at a range further then you'd want to be shooting at another aircraft with, the Germans considered the MG 151/15 to not have enough stopping power (however they only mounted 1 or 2 on their planes so of course it's not going to be as effective)

MG 151/20 v M2 Browning
Calibre: 20mm v 12.7mm
Rate of Fire: 750 rpm v 500 rpm
Muzzle Velocity: 800m/s v 930m/s
Weight: 42kg vs 38kg

The 20mm has a larger exploding shell and fire at a faster rate then the .50cal, however it is as stated a little slower, and will drop off in speed earlier then the .50, then again they do tell you to start firing when your enemy 'fills your windscreen'

The German weapons were in no ways inferior to the .50 in terms of rof or muzzle velocity, had the Americans adopted a couple of mauser cannons it would more then likely been to their benifit. The .50s were certainly adequate for their job, though i doubt the yank pilots would have objected to a couple of 20's </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... The standard RoF for the M2 50cal was 750rpm. RoF also varied, depending upon set-up, and could reach 850-900 rpm . MV for the 36-inch barrel version was 2850 ft/sec and 2950 ft/sec for the 45-inch version.

Von_Rat
08-20-2007, 02:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by loppenainen:
The Hispano took time to iron-out operational idiosyncrasies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif
It then took all war to iron-out American idiosyncracies, as they had to develop their own 'better' version, instead of copying the pre-existing British model. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
US industry was good at simple and mass, not in hi-tolerance engineering, hence the equipment issued. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
American tendency is to reinvent the British wheel. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif
British tendency to invent the wheel, then wait till the enemy deploys it, to realise how good it was. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... While I agree that the NIH ("not invented here") syndrome frustrated several US wartime efforts to copy foreign-designed weapons, this is hardly an indictment of American precision engineering capability overall. There are plenty of examples of high-precision instruments and systems having been successfully developed and fielded by US industry during the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



yeah the A BOMB for one. lol.



.

Xiolablu3
08-20-2007, 03:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by loppenainen:
The Hispano took time to iron-out operational idiosyncrasies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif
It then took all war to iron-out American idiosyncracies, as they had to develop their own 'better' version, instead of copying the pre-existing British model. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
US industry was good at simple and mass, not in hi-tolerance engineering, hence the equipment issued. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
American tendency is to reinvent the British wheel. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif
British tendency to invent the wheel, then wait till the enemy deploys it, to realise how good it was. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... While I agree that the NIH ("not invented here") syndrome frustrated several US wartime efforts to copy foreign-designed weapons, this is hardly an indictment of American precision engineering capability overall. There are plenty of examples of high-precision instruments and systems having been successfully developed and fielded by US industry during the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



yeah the A BOMB for one. lol.



. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe most of the scientists working on the A bomb were actually not from the USA. Many were European, a lot of them had fleed the Nazis. I think the Jewish Germans and some Europeans were heavily involved too? I am no expert on this subject and am asking for confirmation, really....

Of course the USA provided the cash and the Premises to make it happen, without which it would never have been built, so they have some right to claim it as their own.

Didnt some German Uranium from a U boat also help to build the Hiroshima A bomb?

EDIT linkys [It seems its likely the German UIranium went into the Manhatten project] :-

http://www.ww2pacific.com/u-234.html


Here states 6 of the top scientists working on the A bomb project, 2 out of the 6 are from the USA. The leader of the project was an Italian. Would be interesting if someone came up with a better list..

http://nhs.needham.k12.ma.us/cur/mp/whos_who.html

Quote :-

'While most knowledgeable readers are aware that there were also efforts to develop nuclear weapons by other nations, notably in Germany, the making of the atom bomb has largely been told as an American story with the far-ranging efforts of the Manhattan Project taking center stage. But atomic science was an international endeavor and even the Manhattan Project was more of an allied effort than most have traditionally understood. As a result, Ferenc Morton's Szasz's "British Scientists and the Manhattan Project" serves as a useful corrective to many earlier accounts that have all but buried any knowledge of the British role in the project.'

Von_Rat
08-20-2007, 03:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by loppenainen:
The Hispano took time to iron-out operational idiosyncrasies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif
It then took all war to iron-out American idiosyncracies, as they had to develop their own 'better' version, instead of copying the pre-existing British model. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
US industry was good at simple and mass, not in hi-tolerance engineering, hence the equipment issued. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
American tendency is to reinvent the British wheel. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif
British tendency to invent the wheel, then wait till the enemy deploys it, to realise how good it was. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... While I agree that the NIH ("not invented here") syndrome frustrated several US wartime efforts to copy foreign-designed weapons, this is hardly an indictment of American precision engineering capability overall. There are plenty of examples of high-precision instruments and systems having been successfully developed and fielded by US industry during the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



yeah the A BOMB for one. lol.



. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe most of the scientists working on the A bomb were actually not from the USA. Many were European, a lot of them had fleed the Nazis. I think the Brits/Commonwealth/Poles/Jewish Germans were heavily involved too? I am no expert on this subject and am asking for confirmation, really....

Of course the USA provided the cash and the Premises to make it happen, without which it would never have been built, so they have some right to claim it as their own.

Didnt some German Uranium from a U boat also help to build the Hiroshima A bomb?

EDIT linky [It seems its likely the German UIranium went into the Manhatten project] :-

http://www.ww2pacific.com/u-234.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

true most of the theory was developed by foreign born scientists.

but us industry actually BUILT the thing. and if that doesnt prove that us industry could engineer and produce complex devices or systems, i don't know what would.


thats the point btw, that us industry was able to engineer and build complex items. not just simple mass produced items like the poster above said.

Skoshi Tiger
08-20-2007, 03:45 AM
.50cals are porked!

I was just watching Sky Capt'n and the World of Tomorrow and the .50cals in that Curtis didn't even scratch the big robot thingies!
He definately needed a pair of 20mm Hispano's.
.
.
.
.
(I seriously concidered getting another login before posting this message! I realy did!)

Xiolablu3
08-20-2007, 03:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by loppenainen:
The Hispano took time to iron-out operational idiosyncrasies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif
It then took all war to iron-out American idiosyncracies, as they had to develop their own 'better' version, instead of copying the pre-existing British model. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
US industry was good at simple and mass, not in hi-tolerance engineering, hence the equipment issued. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
American tendency is to reinvent the British wheel. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif
British tendency to invent the wheel, then wait till the enemy deploys it, to realise how good it was. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... While I agree that the NIH ("not invented here") syndrome frustrated several US wartime efforts to copy foreign-designed weapons, this is hardly an indictment of American precision engineering capability overall. There are plenty of examples of high-precision instruments and systems having been successfully developed and fielded by US industry during the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



yeah the A BOMB for one. lol.



. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe most of the scientists working on the A bomb were actually not from the USA. Many were European, a lot of them had fleed the Nazis. I think the Brits/Commonwealth/Poles/Jewish Germans were heavily involved too? I am no expert on this subject and am asking for confirmation, really....

Of course the USA provided the cash and the Premises to make it happen, without which it would never have been built, so they have some right to claim it as their own.

Didnt some German Uranium from a U boat also help to build the Hiroshima A bomb?

EDIT linky [It seems its likely the German UIranium went into the Manhatten project] :-

http://www.ww2pacific.com/u-234.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

true most of the theory was developed by foreign born scientists.

but us industry actually BUILT the thing. and if that doesnt prove that us industry could produce complex devices or systems, i don't know what would.


thats the point btw, that us industry was able to BUILD complex items. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, Of course it could.

The Hispano Debacle is the exception, not the rule.

Von_Rat
08-20-2007, 03:51 AM
exactly

HellToupee
08-20-2007, 03:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Of course Russian UBS MG's stack up as better, as is real.
It is a shame that US did not get design rights of those in trade for Lend-Lease. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

would have wound up like the hispano if they had :P

Abomb was complex but not mass produced, its not making complex things that is hard, its doing it on a large scale.

But hispano had nothing to do with complexity, it was the faulty design elements they wouldnt change despite british recommendations.

Von_Rat
08-20-2007, 03:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Of course Russian UBS MG's stack up as better, as is real.
It is a shame that US did not get design rights of those in trade for Lend-Lease. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

would have wound up like the hispano if they had :P

Abomb was complex but not mass produced, its not making complex things that is hard, its doing it on a large scale.

But hispano had nothing to do with complexity, it was the faulty design elements they wouldnt change despite british recommendations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the A bomb was the largest scale industrial enterprise in history up till that time. it was by every defination hard, even if it wasnt mass produced.

the poster above said us industry was good at mass production and bad at complex enginneering. i used the manhatten project to refute this./ dont know why its so hard for some to understand.

R_Target
08-20-2007, 05:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Didnt some German Uranium from a U boat also help to build the Hiroshima A bomb? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From your link:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It was most certainly sent to Oak Ridge, but there was probably not enough time for it to have been processed and used in the two WW2 weapons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

HellToupee
08-20-2007, 05:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Of course Russian UBS MG's stack up as better, as is real.
It is a shame that US did not get design rights of those in trade for Lend-Lease. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

would have wound up like the hispano if they had :P

Abomb was complex but not mass produced, its not making complex things that is hard, its doing it on a large scale.

But hispano had nothing to do with complexity, it was the faulty design elements they wouldnt change despite british recommendations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the A bomb was the largest scale industrial enterprise in history up till that time. it was by every defination hard, even if it wasnt mass produced.

the poster above said us industry was good at mass production and bad at complex enginneering. i used the manhatten project to refute this./ dont know why its so hard for some to understand. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well he said industry, as in production not armies of scientists, a better example would be norden bombsight production or h2x sets etc.

The little boy Abomb also wasnt a work of complexity was essentially a gun firing a lump of uranium into a lump of uranium :P

Von_Rat
08-20-2007, 06:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Of course Russian UBS MG's stack up as better, as is real.
It is a shame that US did not get design rights of those in trade for Lend-Lease. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

would have wound up like the hispano if they had :P

Abomb was complex but not mass produced, its not making complex things that is hard, its doing it on a large scale.

But hispano had nothing to do with complexity, it was the faulty design elements they wouldnt change despite british recommendations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the A bomb was the largest scale industrial enterprise in history up till that time. it was by every defination hard, even if it wasnt mass produced.

the poster above said us industry was good at mass production and bad at complex enginneering. i used the manhatten project to refute this./ dont know why its so hard for some to understand. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well he said industry, as in production not armies of scientists, a better example would be norden bombsight production or h2x sets etc.

The little boy Abomb also wasnt a work of complexity was essentially a gun firing a lump of uranium into a lump of uranium :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


the manhatten project wasnt just armies of scientest, it was a HUGH INDUSTRIAL undertaking. the largest and most complex INDUSTRIAL project ever attempted. compared to the size and complexity of the industrial effort put into the manhatten project, the effort to make the norden or h2x or us 20mm gun were insignificant.

if you think making the Abomb wasnt complex or that it didnt need hi tolerance engineering, you dont know anything about the engineering invovled. the engineering for gasous diffusion to name just one part of the project, was very complex, and called for extremly hi tolerance engineering. im now using the words hi tolerance engineering because those are the words the poster above used.

gasous diffusion is what produced those "lumps of urainium", that little boy used.

horseback
08-20-2007, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zoring:
For those saying that 20mm cannons have poor muzzle velocity or ROF compared to the M2 Browning, the numbers on the German 15mm and 20mm guns are

MG 151/15 v M2 Browning

Cartridge: 15mm v 12.7mm
Rate of Fire: 680 rpm v 500 rpm
Muzzle Velocity: 950 m/s v 930 m/s
Weight: 39kg vs 38kg

The larger bullet would mean a lower long range, although probably at a range further then you'd want to be shooting at another aircraft with, the Germans considered the MG 151/15 to not have enough stopping power (however they only mounted 1 or 2 on their planes so of course it's not going to be as effective)

MG 151/20 v M2 Browning
Calibre: 20mm v 12.7mm
Rate of Fire: 750 rpm v 500 rpm
Muzzle Velocity: 800m/s v 930m/s
Weight: 42kg vs 38kg

The 20mm has a larger exploding shell and fire at a faster rate then the .50cal, however it is as stated a little slower, and will drop off in speed earlier then the .50, then again they do tell you to start firing when your enemy 'fills your windscreen'

The German weapons were in no ways inferior to the .50 in terms of rof or muzzle velocity, had the Americans adopted a couple of mauser cannons it would more then likely been to their benifit. The .50s were certainly adequate for their job, though i doubt the yank pilots would have objected to a couple of 20's </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, it's a damn shame the Pentagon never managed to iron out that licensing agreement for the MG 151/20 with the RLM, but what can you expect? The Germans wouldn't give their Japanese Allies licensing rights to the MG 151/20 either. One could hardly expect them to come to a reasonable understanding with a declared enemy, no matter how cash rich...

Compare the .50 with the Hispano, which we could have had, and try to factor in the 'lead time' between development in Britain of improved models and installation in fighters built in California and Texas. Remember that they were not able to send documents and drawings across the world instantly the way we can today.

Prewar US doctrine, such as it was, did call for use of 23mm and 37mm cannon then in development, but these designs turned out to be 'busts'. It is unfortunate that a few boneheads felt it was necessary to 'Americanize' an already working system, but it wasn't fatal, because the .50 was a workable fallback.

cheers

horseback

M_Gunz
08-20-2007, 11:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
But hispano had nothing to do with complexity, it was the faulty design elements they wouldnt change despite british recommendations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, even then they could F-up a free picnic!

Blondeknght
08-20-2007, 12:14 PM
Difficult to answer the question...due to age/death.. but, ask a German Pilot what it was like to have the .50 cals hitting his aircraft... and then ask the American or Brit their respective opinion on getting hit with 20mm or 30mm cannons .... then follow up with "if" they had their choice ... which would they pick. Would be interesting to hear their comments.

Blutarski2004
08-20-2007, 12:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Remember that they were not able to send documents and drawings across the world instantly the way we can today.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... There were also headaches involved in converting foreign manufacturing specs and dimensions from metric measurement to US ft/in standards.

I wonder whether the tiny dimensional discrepancies which remained despite this conversion process could have caused some of the problems encountered with US manufactured items.

A thought anyways.

M_Gunz
08-20-2007, 01:20 PM
Only in a sloppy shop, Blutarski. 25.4001 mm to the inch does fine for precision work up
to over a foot. Precision getting down to where the temperature of the metal makes a difference,
you can cut it but it won't stay that exact summer to winter.

And yes, done it in small production runs up to 1,000's of pieces only. The capability was
there before WWII but good engineering does not require anything so precise with military
arms. M-16 tolerances being so tight is one reason why they're problematic, be sure that
the UBS guns were not needing such high tolerances *by good design*. Nor the Hisso's.
It was some people at this end with their 'gotta F with it' to 'make it theirs' attitudes,
'just a little change', etc. There might be a nickel in it, per gun. Line the pockets first
and worry about the men on the front later kind of thing. Happens all the time. NIH.

Blutarski2004
08-20-2007, 03:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Only in a sloppy shop, Blutarski. 25.4001 mm to the inch does fine for precision work up
to over a foot. Precision getting down to where the temperature of the metal makes a difference,
you can cut it but it won't stay that exact summer to winter.

And yes, done it in small production runs up to 1,000's of pieces only. The capability was
there before WWII but good engineering does not require anything so precise with military
arms. M-16 tolerances being so tight is one reason why they're problematic, be sure that
the UBS guns were not needing such high tolerances *by good design*. Nor the Hisso's.
It was some people at this end with their 'gotta F with it' to 'make it theirs' attitudes,
'just a little change', etc. There might be a nickel in it, per gun. Line the pockets first
and worry about the men on the front later kind of thing. Happens all the time. NIH. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Sounds like the voice of practical experience there, Gunz.

Maybe a mathematical conversion error or adaptation mistake, though? I recall reading that US WW2 ordnance people screwed up the attempt to reverse manufacture the MG42 by making the cartridge chamber a mm or two too short.

Of course, then again, maybe it wasn't altogether an accident .....

M_Gunz
08-20-2007, 06:01 PM
Yes, a few years in a precision fabrication shop.

The thing is that when you have a sample of an object to reproduce in quantity that good
machinists and tool makers will measure the object directly and proceed to make tooling
for production as well as notes and procedures. Conversions may be made but the results
*should* be checked against the sample which should be as good as can be gotten. And I
don't think that the Brits sent a faulty piece and should have sent samples with prints
of every part, sub-assemblies and assembly drawings. It's industry standard as of the
industrial revolution though in the sloppy shops of course standards just aren't.

IIRC the US gun makers took liberties with the British design but I don't have link.

Skoshi Tiger
08-20-2007, 06:44 PM
I guess the introduction of any new system is a bit of a gamble. Now when that system is a weapon system the stakes your playing with is the lives of the soldiers / pilots that using them.

History shows the Browning .50 cals worked. It doesn't matter how good the Hispano's design was or the benifits of the 20mm round.

The British only introduced the cannon armed Spitfires for a short time during the Battle of Britain. Then withdrew them until the bugs were ironed out. The RAF Pilots prefered 8 .303 MG's that worked rather than the 2 cannons that more often than not jammed in combat conditions.

I guess it's easy to forget how quickly planes like the P51 were designed and introduced into service. Were talking abount 120 days from initial design to prototype. To make a difference the planes had to be put into action as quickly as possible. So useing guns that worked was a good choice. Other refinements and alterations could wait.

M_Gunz
08-20-2007, 07:31 PM
The speed that the P-51 went through design and into production was far less than typical at
least in the US. My guess is that NA already had an idea well thought out, kind of a what
someone would want if they only had the chance, before they pitched it to the Brits as an
alternative to making more P-40's.

horseback
08-20-2007, 07:58 PM
Yeah, Gunz, that's about how it was...NAA engineers had been using a fighter design as a kind of fantasy project/intellectual exercise, so when the British Aircraft Purchasing Commission showed up and asked for them to build P-40s, they already had most of the concept worked out - and they were sure that it would be waaaay better than the P-40.

As for your speculations about how the US outfits tasked with making an American Hispano-based 20mm, I suspect that you're dead on the mark, although it's not so much a matter of getting more money as a basic management ploy.

Ever since my days in the Navy 30 years ago, I've found that a bad manager/boss will usually self-identify by changing stuff just to demonstrate that he's in charge...

cheers

horseback

M_Gunz
08-20-2007, 08:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Ever since my days in the Navy 30 years ago, I've found that a bad manager/boss will usually self-identify by changing stuff just to demonstrate that he's in charge... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the less they know about what/how it's being done, the quicker and more often they push in.
I've seen some really good things crippled/killed that way.

The smart ones step back, let the good things 'happen' and we all benefit!
The cheap ones short-term the work, "never time to do it right, always time to do it over".
The worst ones would rather steal a dime than earn a dollar from the same effort.

Can't shoot em, much as I'd like, it's against the law.

MrBlueSky1960
08-21-2007, 02:51 AM
Don't know much about the American view but this was the first RAF fighter to have canon armament... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/BoB%20Whirlwind%20P9%20Project/CanonFighter/SWScan00084.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/BoB%20Whirlwind%20P9%20Project/CanonFighter/SWScan00085.jpg