PDA

View Full Version : 50 cal superiority over German armaments?



chunkydora
06-30-2008, 01:36 PM
I saw a very interesting video interview. I looked for it on youtube but couldn't find it.

According to Dr. Richard P. Hallion, the concentrated fire of 6 or 8 50 cals was more likely to bring down or heavily damage an enemy fighter with a short burst than the armament on most (especially late war) german fighters.

"A p-47 pilot getting a snapshot at an opponent would very likely destroy that opponent whereas...they [german guns] tended to be ineffective in fighter vs. fighter combat. They were totally ineffective because the individual firing rate of those weapons tended to be very slow, and then you did not have a single unifying ballistic track to all the bullets that were being fired. Ands as a result a fighter could be exposed to a burst of fire and basically, if you will, almost fly through the bullet pattern...take one hit out of six. The concentrated package of 6/8 50 cals or 4 20mm cannon, actually when you take a look it, was a much more effective means of projecting power from the aircraft and gave you a much higher probability of kill."
-Dr Richard Hallion, air force historian

What do y'all think of that? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif
Once again the face I put has very little to do with the topic, but it's cuuuuuuuuute.

Freiwillige
06-30-2008, 01:49 PM
Well saying German armaments were "Ineffective" is probably stretching it a bit. Ask those Russian, British, American, Polish, Dutch, Danish, French etc pilots who were shot down by the Luftwaffe and survived just how "Ineffective" they were?

Alot of 109 pilots felt differantly, Saying that 1 in the nose is worth 4 on the wing!

Now as to which is better for fighter vs fighter combat, IRL probably the .50 cal but thats not to say that the Germans were lol "ineffective"

anarchy52
06-30-2008, 01:53 PM
If by German weapons you mean a single mk108 and two rather anemic 13mm MGs then yes, I'd say a battery of 6 to 8 .50 MGs was better option vs fighters, although it was a heavy installation, which could fit only in rather large US fighters.

I believe there was a proposed armament configuration for Ta-152 consisting of a nose mounted 20mm + 2 20mm in the wing roots. I think that would be ideal combination vs fighters while still being effective vs heavy bombers. 2 x 20mm in the wing roots plus centrally mounted 30mm was however more effective vs bombers, and that's why it was chosen for Ta-152.

DKoor
06-30-2008, 02:01 PM
Eh... after all these years spent on this sim, and if that counts for anything really, it taught me one thing and that is.

If I'm to kill something I must hit it first http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .
No wonder weapon on this world will help if one is lousy shot.

Bremspropeller
06-30-2008, 02:59 PM
Yep, the cal fifties' superior firepower was the reason why everyone except the god-obeying USAAF (I'm not talking of the USN here..) switched to 20mm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Aaron_GT
06-30-2008, 03:10 PM
According to Dr. Richard P. Hallion, the concentrated fire of 6 or 8 50 cals was more likely to bring down or heavily damage an enemy fighter with a short burst than the armament on most (especially late war) german fighters.

Well late war LW fighters include the Me 262 (4 30mm cannon), Fw190A8 (4 20mm cannon, 2 HMGs as standard, up to 6 20mm cannon possible), Fw190D (2 20mm cannon, 2 HMGs), and 109K (1 30mm cannon, 2 HMGs).

The normal rule of thumb is that a 20mm cannon is worth an HMG although the MG131 was weaker, so say that is worth 0.75 M2s, taking into account synchronisation and positioning. A 30mm cannon is more than twice as powerful as the 20mm.

So...

262 - 4x6 = 24 HMGs worth or more (3x P47)
190A8U? - 6x3+2x0.75 = 19.5 HMGs worth (anti bomber)
190A8 - 4x3+2x0.75 = 13.5 HMGs worth
190D9 - 2x3+2x0.75 = 7.5 HMGs worth
109K - 1x4 + 2x0.5 = 5.5 HMGs worth.

So a P-47 has about the same firepower as a 190D9.

Two of the 190s cannon fire through the airscrew but German synchro gear was good and the loss of ROF small, and the positioning made convergence less of an issue. MG151/20 ROF was good, but muzzle velocity lower than the Hispano, but made up for by minengeschloss.

stalkervision
06-30-2008, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Yep, the cal fifties' superior firepower was the reason why everyone except the god-obeying USAAF (I'm not talking of the USN here..) switched to 20mm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

That's true. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I believe the usa experimented with 20 mm on the Sabre jet because of their added weight of fire.

Here it is. The F-86 H

http://www.wingsmuseum.org/aircraft_detail.php?id=14

http://www.wingsmuseum.org/aircraft/f-86/f-86_head.jpg

VW-IceFire
06-30-2008, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by chunkydora:
I saw a very interesting video interview. I looked for it on youtube but couldn't find it.

According to Dr. Richard P. Hallion, the concentrated fire of 6 or 8 50 cals was more likely to bring down or heavily damage an enemy fighter with a short burst than the armament on most (especially late war) german fighters.

"A p-47 pilot getting a snapshot at an opponent would very likely destroy that opponent whereas...they [german guns] tended to be ineffective in fighter vs. fighter combat. They were totally ineffective because the individual firing rate of those weapons tended to be very slow, and then you did not have a single unifying ballistic track to all the bullets that were being fired. Ands as a result a fighter could be exposed to a burst of fire and basically, if you will, almost fly through the bullet pattern...take one hit out of six. The concentrated package of 6/8 50 cals or 4 20mm cannon, actually when you take a look it, was a much more effective means of projecting power from the aircraft and gave you a much higher probability of kill."
-Dr Richard Hallion, air force historian

What do y'all think of that? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif
Once again the face I put has very little to do with the topic, but it's cuuuuuuuuute.
Probably we're missing part of the context. Maybe we're not. The biggest flaw to the reasoning in the argument is regarding the fire rate of the "German weapons". There are of course no details but lets do a really quick comparison of typical air to air weapons used by German fighters in 1944 versus the M2:

MG151/20 (20mm)
Rate of fire (rpm): 700-750
Muzzle velocity (m/s): 725

MG131 (13mm)
Rate of fire: 900
Muzzle velocity: 730

MK108 (30mm)
Rate of fire: 600-650
Muzzle velocity: 505

Browning M2 .50cal (12.7mm)
Rate of fire: 750-850
Muzzle velocity: 880

(all from here: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html)

Undoubtedly the Browning M2 stacks up really nicely next to the German guns. Muzzle velocity is particularly good. if you look at the MG151/20 which is a cannon firing explosive shells that are quite a bit more deadly the penalty for such power is only slightly less in terms of rate of fire (the MG151/20 at the high end is as good as the M2 at the low end) and the muzzle velocity is still high.

The MK108 is definitely slow to fire and has a low muzzle velocity in comparison and really isn't the best anti-fighter gun when it comes to the snap shots that are being talked about. But the MG151/20 and to a lesser extent the MG131...both are in the same general space as the M2 and have their own advantages. So to suggest that they were "totally ineffective" and that their "firing rate of those weapons tended to be very slow" is off the mark significantly. Hopefully due to lack of information when this statement was made. When was the statement made? If it was during the war or just after the war...various factors come into play. If it was made recently then its just bad research. Historians get their A-plus marks along with their D-minuses.

The one good point that is made there is the varying trajectory of bullets which is very true for German planes. If you look at a early FW190As then you have three separate trajectories coming from light machine guns in the nose, one type of 20mm in the inner wings, and another type of 20mm in the outer wings...all firing at different velocities, rates of fire, and the individual shells are all going to be different.

Bremspropeller
06-30-2008, 03:19 PM
They did that after they found out the hard way in Korea.
The Aussies even fit in a pair of Aden 30mm guns.

Navy Furies had 20mm right from the start.

chunkydora
06-30-2008, 03:20 PM
I wasn't saying it was true, but I am several encyclopedias short of an expert and just wanted to see what the people on the forum had to say. In game, I am quite aware that cannons do more damage than 50 cals, but I was just bringing it up for discussion.

stalkervision
06-30-2008, 03:23 PM
tell you one thing. Erich Hartman loved the 30 mm cannon. He got in close and a few shots was all he needed to blow a enemy aircraft up. You can never say this about the 50 caliber except when they were used agains't flimsy Japanese aircraft.

Rjel
06-30-2008, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by chunkydora:
I wasn't saying it was true, but I am several encyclopedias short of an expert and just wanted to see what the people on the forum had to say.

So are most of us here. Even those who pass themselves off with expert opinions.

chunkydora
06-30-2008, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Probably we're missing part of the context. Maybe we're not. The biggest flaw to the reasoning in the argument is regarding the fire rate of the "German weapons". There are of course no details but lets do a really quick comparison of typical air to air weapons used by German fighters in 1944 versus the M2:

MG151/20 (20mm)
Rate of fire (rpm): 700-750
Muzzle velocity (m/s): 725

MG131 (13mm)
Rate of fire: 900
Muzzle velocity: 730

MK108 (30mm)
Rate of fire: 600-650
Muzzle velocity: 505

Browning M2 .50cal (12.7mm)
Rate of fire: 750-850
Muzzle velocity: 880

(all from here: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html)

Undoubtedly the Browning M2 stacks up really nicely next to the German guns. Muzzle velocity is particularly good. if you look at the MG151/20 which is a cannon firing explosive shells that are quite a bit more deadly the penalty for such power is only slightly less in terms of rate of fire (the MG151/20 at the high end is as good as the M2 at the low end) and the muzzle velocity is still high.

The MK108 is definitely slow to fire and has a low muzzle velocity in comparison and really isn't the best anti-fighter gun when it comes to the snap shots that are being talked about. But the MG151/20 and to a lesser extent the MG131...both are in the same general space as the M2 and have their own advantages. So to suggest that they were "totally ineffective" and that their "firing rate of those weapons tended to be very slow" is off the mark significantly. Hopefully due to lack of information when this statement was made. When was the statement made? If it was during the war or just after the war...various factors come into play. If it was made recently then its just bad research. Historians get their A-plus marks along with their D-minuses.

The one good point that is made there is the varying trajectory of bullets which is very true for German planes. If you look at a early FW190As then you have three separate trajectories coming from light machine guns in the nose, one type of 20mm in the inner wings, and another type of 20mm in the outer wings...all firing at different velocities, rates of fire, and the individual shells are all going to be different.

Hi ICEFIRE,
It was given in the context of this historian talking about the P-47, why it was good. The interview was from 97. Thanks so much for taking the time to comment so throughly and helping to set this issue straight, I appreciate it a lot. Also thanks for not flipping on me.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

K_Freddie
06-30-2008, 04:16 PM
You should really look at the gun setups of the time...
-Spits/hurris had 8x brownings, later converted to cannons.
-Me109 had 2 cannons
-FW190 had a 'gazillion' cannons (most feared a/c)
-P51 had 4x then 6x .5's
-P47 had 8x .5s
-Tempest had 4x cannons

There is a conspiracy not unlike today that certain people in the armanents industry had more 'political influence', so booger the pilots (cannon fodder), We want our bucks!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Frequent_Flyer
06-30-2008, 07:22 PM
An observation I have made watching a large amount gun camera footage: If the target aircraft is unaware there is an aircraft about to fire on him and the assailant is within range the .50's and the cannons both work about equally as well. Irregardless of weapon type , a three second burst was usually the minimuim necessary to effect the desired result.

As soon as the melee starts and the fighters are pulling high " G " manuvers, dives and climbs. In an effort to present as little a target, for as short a time as possible.When a " snap shot " is about all the opportunity presented. I think Dr. Hallion is correct. There is more lead in the air converging on the target with the .50's. Plus the added advantage of having more rounds per gun with the M2.

If your adversary is piloting a fighter with an inline engine Dr Hallion's theory has greater weight. Considering the Allies flew the Mustang, Spitfire, P-40, Yak, P-39 etc. The Luftwaffe flew more 109's than 190's. A single "lucky "round to the cooling system or damage to control surfaces was all that was necessary. The math shifts in favor of the M2.

WTE_Galway
06-30-2008, 08:10 PM
The reason the USN and USAAF stayed with 0.50 cal had more to do with logistics and the pragmatics of supplying munitions then anything connected with air combat itself.

As for Korea ... the 0.50 cal was pretty hopeless against a mig ... a different generation of aircraft, faster moving and the stressed metal skin etc made them a lot harder to kill with a 0.50 cal.

Zeus-cat
06-30-2008, 08:54 PM
You also have to take into consideration that late in the war the Germans were trying to shoot down bombers, not fighters. They had to get in, shoot their targets and get out while avoiding the defensive fire of the bombers and the escorting fighters. In that situation cannons are a better choice than heavy machine guns. A few cannon hits, even poorly placed, will do great damage to a bomber.

For the U.S. fighters, heavy machine guns were probably a better choice. As an escorting fighter I don't have to shoot you down; I only have to prevent you from getting near the bombers. A larger ammo load would allow me to hang in the fight longer and harass the enemy fighters even if I never got a good shot at one.

StellarRat
06-30-2008, 10:34 PM
Good points Zeus. I might add that unlike our game, no sane pilot was going to stick to fight if he knew he was hit, whether from .333 or 30mm. When your plane isn't flying right you RTB, it's as simple as that.

Xiolablu3
07-01-2008, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by StellarRat:
Good points Zeus. I might add that unlike our game, no sane pilot was going to stick to fight if he knew he was hit, whether from .333 or 30mm. When your plane isn't flying right you RTB, it's as simple as that.

I have evidence that this is not always true. Particularly if you have friends on the ground and you MUST stop the bombers regardless.

Watch this SPitfire pilot, probably over Malta (I doubt its a 109G10, how the youtube poster knows this I have no idea)...You can see his guns firing at the Me210/Ju88 in the background even after hes been hit/fired on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztcmanwufVg&feature=related

The Spitfires priorities were the bombers, who were causing terrible damage to Malta at that point in the war. (1942) The Spitfires/Hurris were outnumbered around 20 maybe 30:1 by the Luftwaffe and Italians in 1942, so they had no choice but to TRY and stop the bombers regardless of being under fire. You can see the problem here of being told 'Ignore the fighters, go for the bombers'

The above clip also shows the problems of having only one cannon on your aircraft, you have to be a crackshot, the SPit is flying through the cannon shells most of the time in the video.

This would be less of a problem as aircraft were armed with 2 and then 4 cannon.

The thing about cannon is that is also does explosive damage whereas the 50 cals must hit something vital.

WHen cannon does hit, it can do some pretty serious damage, (although a few SPitfires in this clip get hit in the wings and carry on flying). A direct hit is pretty catastrophic....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aqJwHdMDK0


From the same range as the Hurris/P40's in the above clip, direct hit with 50 cals....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0SWbNKO3L4&NR=1

Aaron_GT
07-01-2008, 02:33 AM
An observation I have made watching a large amount gun camera footage: If the target aircraft is unaware there is an aircraft about to fire on him and the assailant is within range the .50's and the cannons both work about equally as well. Irregardless of weapon type , a three second burst was usually the minimuim necessary to effect the desired result.

Based on combat reports from 4 cannon RAF fighters a three second burst was the length typically used to down a bomber not a fighter.


As soon as the melee starts and the fighters are pulling high " G " manuvers, dives and climbs. In an effort to present as little a target, for as short a time as possible.When a " snap shot " is about all the opportunity presented. I think Dr. Hallion is correct. There is more lead in the air converging on the target with the .50's. Plus the added advantage of having more rounds per gun with the M2.

If you compare a four gun plane (typical for an RAF 4 cannon plane, or the number of cannon on a Fw190A8) then the chance of hitting with 4 guns is almost the same as with eight. It may sound counterintuitive but it is true. The number of hits will be roughly proportional to the total ROF but you need more HMG its to do the same amount of damage.

If you have a single 30mm cannon (109K) then your chance of hitting IS very much lower. The is a law of diminishing returns and once you get to about four guns the returns on chances to hit are minimal, you just increase the number of hits. I suspect this was well understood in WW2 as 4 cannon seems to have been the favoured number in general.

In fact the USAAF originally wanted cannon armament but failed to produce a fully debugged 20mm weapon until the end of WW2, and in the meantime the HMG was the best choice especially logistically. The USAAF pre war was actually tending towards a 23mm weapon which would have been very effective like the Vya.

Blutarski2004
07-01-2008, 09:16 AM
I'll just pop in to make one or two observations.

The varying trajectories of different gun calibers and MV's really caused no problem to speak of within about 300 yards, the effective air-to-air combat range of most of WW2.

When computing gunsights appeared in 1944, effrective range increased to 400+ yards and differing trajectories began to appear as a problem. And a high MV and flat trajectory over distance became more attractive features

When radar-ranging gunsights appeared in the Korean War, engagement ranges increased to 1,000 yards and high MV and flat trajectory became essential.

Choctaw111
07-01-2008, 09:54 AM
As already mentioned, the different MV and trajectories within a couple hundred yards is minimal. Any Luftwaffe pilot who was worth his salt would have known to aim differently for different calibers at greater distances anyway. That is just my thought.
The rate of fire is the bigger issue here, and all pilots were aware as to how important this was. The lower the ROF, the longer you have to keep the target in your sights. Forget about snapshots with a low ROF gun...unless your timing is perfect.

Kurfurst__
07-01-2008, 10:25 AM
Different trajectories only matter if the guns are all set up the same. They were not, however.. In practice (based on ballistic sheet of G-6/U4) the MK 108 and the cowl MG 131s had almost identical trajectories (the MK 108 was mounted pointing slightly upwards).

Jaws2002
07-01-2008, 10:30 AM
I wouldn't call that guy a historian. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

All you have to do is look at the specs of the guns and ammo he talks about to know he's blowing smoke.

Nobody is saying the .50 cals were not effective fighter vs fighter weapons in ww2. Saying that they were more effective then the late war cannons is stupid.

csThor
07-01-2008, 10:37 AM
Ask him to go up against targets like B-17 or B-24. Should cure him of whatever he's suffering from http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BOA_Allmenroder
07-01-2008, 11:11 AM
Oh boy, I love the rate of fire stuff on cowl mounted weapons.

What's not considered is the ROF shown is test stand stuff: on the ground.

The same in service ROF could not be achieved on cowl mounted weapons because of the need to fire through the propellor arc thus needing an interrupter gear that stopped the max ROF from happening because if it was achieved you'd shoot your friggin' prop off.

So, the same weapon fired through a prop arc could, IN NO WAY POSSIBLE, achieve the ROF it could on a test stand.

Think folks, think.

Xiolablu3
07-01-2008, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by BOA_Allmenroder:
Oh boy, I love the rate of fire stuff on cowl mounted weapons.

What's not considered is the ROF shown is test stand stuff: on the ground.

The same in service ROF could not be achieved on cowl mounted weapons because of the need to fire through the propellor arc thus needing an interrupter gear that stopped the max ROF from happening because if it was achieved you'd shoot your friggin' prop off.

So, the same weapon fired through a prop arc could, IN NO WAY POSSIBLE, achieve the ROF it could on a test stand.

Think folks, think.

Extremely good point that I had not thought of.

I guess this refers to all the machine guns fitted to LW single engined fighters, and the two Innner cannon on the FW190A

JtD
07-01-2008, 11:41 AM
For the electrically fused guns the Luftwaffe used that meant a rof reduction of about 5-10%.

BOA_Allmenroder
07-01-2008, 12:16 PM
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 BOA_Allmenroder:
Oh boy, I love the rate of fire stuff on cowl mounted weapons.

What's not considered is the ROF shown is test stand stuff: on the ground.

The same in service ROF could not be achieved on cowl mounted weapons because of the need to fire through the propellor arc thus needing an interrupter gear that stopped the max ROF from happening because if it was achieved you'd shoot your friggin' prop off.

So, the same weapon fired through a prop arc could, IN NO WAY POSSIBLE, achieve the ROF it could on a test stand.

Think folks, think.

Extremely good point that I had not thought of.

I guess this refers to all the machine guns fitted to LW single engined fighters, and the two Innner cannon on the FW190A </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not just LW, any cowl mounted weapon of any nationality firing through the prop arc.

JSG72
07-01-2008, 12:17 PM
.303s/7.62s were essencially used in early war fighters due to the light materials that the planes were made of. And the chance that you may actually kill the pilot?

.50ins cals/12.7mms were introduced for attacking harder skinned ground targets.
Later they would be used in defensive positions on bombers/Attack craft to allow a punch that would incapacitate an intercepting aircraft.(Through the engine block.(Germany introduced the 13mm for this).

As aircraft were now becoming heavier with metal skin and armour and self sealing tanks. The 20mm was introduced as fighter armmament to allow for Bomber intercept.(For the British) and both intercept and ground attack by the Germans. The advent of multirole fighters. Carrying light bombloads but a better strafing armmament.)

The FW.190 typified this philosophy.With many proficient fighter pilots removing the outer 20mm cannons to save weight and gain manouvrability. The Fw. Attack pilots doing the same but to allow for weight saving and being able to escape after ordinance drop.

The advent of the 30mm 108 was borne about, by the study of Max effect bomber destroyer munitions and Tactics employed within.(There can be nothing more devastating than a full Wing/Gruppe of Bomber interceptors descending on a "Box" Closing to fire with those 30mm 108s).Convergence and disimilar trajectories didn't matter as the were trained to get in close. As seen in many a "Tube video" This gun was never envisaged as "Dogfight" armament. (Far too slow a Rof) Even though a hit from just one shell would often be enough to incapacitate a fighter.
The investigation into higher calibres. 37mm/50mm and 75mm was meerly there, to be able to produce less aircraft with a greater "Standoff" ability. Thus aiding the War economy.A flawed tactic that made the gun carriers "Easy Prey" for the escorting .50 cal fighters.

The USAAF usage of the .50 cal was to my mind, a good compromise. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

In multiple form. Firing enough lead in the air/towards the ground. To allow even the average gunner a chance of a hit and a chance to do damage. With this calibre and also having the ability to penetrate much of the ground targets asigned during "Total War" (I.E. Anything. Trucks,cars,trains,barges,hayricks,barns,cows and tractors.)

The .50 cal was able to be produced in large numbers and fitted to large numbers of planes.(And so becomes a "War winner".(The British pilots certainly welcomed it.)

However! it must be said. That when the 20mm MG213 was invented? Discovered by the Allies in Germany. A new era of aircraft armmament was introduced and lasted for 50odd years!

Xiolablu3
07-01-2008, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by BOA_Allmenroder:
<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 BOA_Allmenroder:
Oh boy, I love the rate of fire stuff on cowl mounted weapons.

What's not considered is the ROF shown is test stand stuff: on the ground.

The same in service ROF could not be achieved on cowl mounted weapons because of the need to fire through the propellor arc thus needing an interrupter gear that stopped the max ROF from happening because if it was achieved you'd shoot your friggin' prop off.

So, the same weapon fired through a prop arc could, IN NO WAY POSSIBLE, achieve the ROF it could on a test stand.

Think folks, think.

Extremely good point that I had not thought of.

I guess this refers to all the machine guns fitted to LW single engined fighters, and the two Innner cannon on the FW190A </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not just LW, any cowl mounted weapon of any nationality firing through the prop arc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah I realise that mate, however I cant think of any RAF fighter planes with guns firing through the prop. Nor any US ones for that matter. Possibly the early P40's?

USSR used this method a lot, for sure.

Xiolablu3
07-01-2008, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by JSG72:
.303s/7.62s were essencially used in early war fighters due to the light materials that the planes were made of. And the chance that you may actually kill the pilot?

.50ins cals/12.7mms were introduced for attacking harder skinned ground targets.
Later they would be used in defensive positions on bombers/Attack craft to allow a punch that would incapacitate an intercepting aircraft.(Through the engine block.(Germany introduced the 13mm for this).
As aircraft were now becoming heavier with metal skin and armour and self sealing tanks. The 20mm was introduced as fighter armmament to allow for Bomber intercept.(For the British) and both intercept and ground attack by the Germans. The advent of multirole fighters. Carrying light bombloads but a better strafing armmament.)

The FW.190 typified this philosophy.With many proficient fighter pilots removing the outer 20mm cannons to save weight and gain manouvrability. The Fw. Attack pilots doing the same but to allow for weight saving and being able to escape after ordinance drop.

The advent of the 30mm 108 was borne about, by the study of Max effect bomber destroyer munitions and Tactics employed within.(There can be nothing more devastating than a full Wing/Gruppe of Bomber interceptors descending on a "Box" Closing to fire with those 30mm 108s).Convergence and disimilar trajectories didn't matter as the were trained to get in close. As seen in many a "Tube video" This gun was never envisaged as "Dogfight" armament Even though a hit from just one shell coukd often be enough to incapacitate a fighter.
The investigation into higher calibres. 37mm/50mm and 75mm was meerly there, to be able to produce less aircraft with a greater "Standoff" ability. Thus aiding the War economy.A flawed tactic that made the gun carriers "Easy Prey" for the Escorting .50 cal fighters.

The USAAF usage of the .50 cal was to my mind, a good compromise. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

In multiple form. Firing enough lead in the air/towards the ground. To allow even the average gunner a chance of a hit and a chance to do damage. With this calibre and also having the ability to penetrate much of the ground targets asigned during "Total War" (I.E. Anything. Trucks,cars,trains,barges,hayricks,barns,cows and tractors.)

The .50 cal was able to be produced in large numbers and fitted to large numbers of planes.(And so becomes a "War winner".(The British pilots certainly welcomed it.)

However it must be said that when the 20mm MG213 was introduced? Discovered by the Allies in Germany. A new era of aircraft armmament was introduced and lasted for 50odd years!

Nice write up JSG, my opinion too.

20mm would maybe have been a little better, but as the US didnt have to attack German bombers, the .50's were OK and reliable.

Eric Brown certainly liked the 4x50's on the Wildcat/Martlett.

JtD
07-01-2008, 12:39 PM
The Allies didn't use electrically fused projectiles, so the loss in the rof was large. In case of the 0.50 almost 50%. That's why these guns were wing mounted in most installations.

F2A, P-39, P-40 and P-63 were four major US fighter types that had synced guns firing through the prop.

JSG72
07-01-2008, 12:41 PM
P39? P36? P63? Mk1 Mustang? Gladiator?

chunkydora
07-01-2008, 12:57 PM
OK guys, whatever I know about this kinda stuff is sketchy, but I figured I'd add a little comment. Dr. Hallion (in other parts of the interview) specifically mentioned the jug as the premier fighter of WW2, for flight characteristics, versatility, and armament. The rof was high, muzzle velocity was high. With so many moderately destructive bullets flying around, well, we've all seen the US gun cameras right? It just didn't take that long to down a german plane. The Germans' objectives wasn't even to shoot down fighters late war, it was to intercept bombers. If just say we had no big 4 engine bombers, and they were able to fight jugs/stangs without having to worry about what those bombers were escorting, I think the gerries would've followed a more british style and put maybe 4 20mms on the wings. I think what Hallion was trying to say was that an uninterrupted stream of bullets (50 cal or 20mm) was more effective (when deflection shooting anyway) than the heavy damage of the guns the luftwaffe used to take down fortresses + the 13mm usually thrown in.

JSG72
07-01-2008, 01:14 PM
Hey! Chunkydora.

Sure The P47s 8 gun armament made it a good fighter/Ground attack aircraft.

But Supposing the U.S. Didn't have 4 engined bombers???!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

You must be drinking stronger juice than me! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

The U.S. fighters, would have been facing Jets much earlier.

Go figure?

Seriously. If the US. didn't have 4 engined bombers and only produced erm.. Twin engined bombers. Well.....

A) they would have taken longer to fly accross.
Thus producing less of a threat.
B) They were tactical and would therfore have contributed nothing to the reduction of the German War Machine, production.
C)They would have been bombing France/Belgium/ Holland! And so allowing less migration of Soviet Front fighters to the Western Front.
D) If? The fighters showed a superiority over the then extant 109s and 190s. (Which they would. In numbers.) Jet fighters Heinkel 280 and even the Me 109 TL? with perhaps Nose mounted. 6x mg131s would have been the order of the day?

Aaron_GT
07-01-2008, 02:00 PM
.303s/7.62s were essencially used in early war fighters due to the light materials that the planes were made of. And the chance that you may actually kill the pilot?

I'd contend that rifle calibre guns were still in use then only because they hadn't been replaced in service yet. All major WW2 nations (Italy, Germany, Japa, USSR, UK, USA) were in the process in replacing them, this being planned or in operation from the late 1920s well before any uprating of aircraft construction. In fact even in WW1 some felt rifle calibre guns were obselete. During the relatively peaceful period from 1921-30 there wasn't much urgency, though.


.50ins cals/12.7mms were introduced for attacking harder skinned ground targets.
Later they would be used in defensive positions on bombers/Attack craft to allow a punch that would incapacitate an intercepting aircraft.

They were used offensively before defensively. The US introduced the one .30 plus one .50 armament in the early 1930s. It took until the very end of the decade for the .50 to find its way into common usage in bombers, with the .30 still being dominant.




In multiple form. Firing enough lead in the air/towards the ground. To allow even the average gunner a chance of a hit and a chance to do damage.

Ah, this is completely oversold and not supported by the statistics of the situation.

A typical hit rate in WW2 was about 5% but many of these misses were total or were bracketing shots.

If you look at shots fired close to the target (i.e. a wall of lead that is likely to make contact) then perhaps 20% of those shots might hit (seems about what I get in tests in IL2).

If you assume that the chance of any individual shot in the perhaps one second the target is in the firing zone then the number of shots fired might be:

4 Hispanos - 4 x 10 = 40
8 M2 - 8 x 13 = 104
2 MG151/20 - 2 x 11 = 22 (e.g. 190F8 stripped)
1 MK108 - 1 x 10 = 10

Chance of missing enitrely:

4 Hispanos: 0.8^40 = 0.00014
8 M2s 0.8^104 = 0.00000000008
2 MG151/20 0.8^22 = 0.007
1 MK108 0.8^10 = 0.11

So you assuming you are sighted correctly (and assuming each round has a 20% chance to hit) you aren't likely to miss with either of the multi gun setups. Even with one gun you are more likely to hit than not

This IS a grossly simplified example, but the general principle holds.

Even going down to a 5% chance to hit (high deflection, hard manoeuvering) you get:

0.12, 0.004, 0.32, 0.60

Here a gap opens up between them, but the extra chance to hit with 8 guns over 4 is only 0.1196

What having more guns -does- do is give you more hits on target.

At 20% chance (in order): 21, 8, 4, 2 (in reality it is a bell curve of course, around this average).

Multiplying by destructive power (M2=1): 21, 24, 12, 12*

Again really you want to look at the area under the bell curve up to a certain level of destructiveness.

* - taking a low estimate of a 30mm it being only twice as powerful as a 20mm hit.

So in other words, when on a target's 6 (20% hit chance) you're almost as likely to hit with four Hispano IIs as with 8 M2s and will do as much damage. Even in hard maneovering the difference wouldn't be huge.

A theoretical 4 cannon P-47 would have enough ammunition volume in the wings for about 2/3 the firing time of the max ammunition load of an M2 armed version, but with less overall weight (volume for rounds being the limiting factor).

I am sure everyone did these and the full normal distribution calculations in the 1930s and 40s.

So the M2 does not give you that much of an advantage in terms of hitting and larger number of guns are required to make up the damage numbers. But given that the USA lacked an effective 20mm cannon the use of the M2 made perfect sense, especially in the Pacific when logistics were paramount. In multiples of 4 to 8 it is equivalent to 2 to 4 cannon - sufficient for fighter v. fighter.

JSG72
07-01-2008, 02:11 PM
Aahh Hee Hee Hee! Aaron-Gt.

Much as I like your post.

You forget the BIGGEST! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gifthing.

You are not at War with Germany. It is not 1942/3/4/5.
You! Are not under pressure to produce results.

And! You can Surf. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

These all were attributes our fellow Air Combat Enthusiasts could never do. In the War years

Statistics? Pah! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif They were Born of the Devil. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Bremspropeller
07-01-2008, 02:21 PM
People are always talking about shooting down bombers...

The Spits also had 20mm right from the Mk IB (when it was indeed a desperate move towards firepower) - but then again, they retained them.

Same with the Tiffie. They fit four of them in there, starting with the IB.

The Japaneese also seemed to like 20mms right early on.

Aaron_GT
07-01-2008, 02:43 PM
You forget the BIGGEST! Eekthing.

You are not at War with Germany. It is not 1942/3/4/5.
You! Are not under pressure to produce results.

I noted that lacking an effective 20mm weapon that the use of the M2 made sense.

It's not like the USA didn't try to introduce cannon - it did - it was that the Hispano was troublesome initially as it was designed for engine block mounting and the 23mm Madsen became unavailable and the 37mm cannon was problematic for all nations that tried (all but Italy) as an anti-aircraft (in this case anti bomber) weapon. In the end the USA managed fine with the M2, but I was mostly respondinf to the erroneous idea that multiple (e.g. 8) M2 installations offer the level on increase in chance of hitting that some think, nothing more.

Basically 4 Hispano 20mm cannon and 8 M2 HMGs were roughly on a par with each other in terms of chances to hit and destructive power (MG rounds might change things a bit, though, in the MG151/20).

JSG72
07-01-2008, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
People are always talking about shooting down bombers...

The Spits also had 20mm right from the Mk IB (when it was indeed a desperate move towards firepower) - but then again, they retained them.

Same with the Tiffie. They fit four of them in there, starting with the IB.

The Japaneese also seemed to like 20mms right early on.

The Spit MKiB was built to intercept German bombers.

Japanese fighters, having flown so far, Had to invoke a feeling of superiority. By again showing that through their skills.

Could destroy. Any US craft. Be it airborn? grounded. Or indeed Seaborn?(I.E. On a carrier.). Being able to destroy the infrastructure that enabled U.S. Aircraft to be able to function. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Aaron_GT
07-01-2008, 02:56 PM
The Spits also had 20mm right from the Mk IB (when it was indeed a desperate move towards firepower)

It was to some extent, but the first plans for a cannon armed Spitfire were tendered to F.37/35 (Whirlwind won). In fact Supermarine was told then to -not- proceed so that they got something in the air, ditto Hawker. The Supermarine fighter was seen as more risky as it was more technologically advanced. It wasn't clear at that point how possible it would be to mount 4 cannon in the relatively thin wings of the Spitfire, and some designs of the period (e.g. by Folland, for whom Petter of Whirlwind fame later worked) had the four cannon under the wings in fairings.

Later Supermarine tendered the 323 to F.18/37 and related designs for a twin engined bomber destroyer to be armed with 6 20mm cannon and/or 12 .303s. The Tornado won this, although that morphed into the Typhoon parallel development and the Tornado was cancelled. The Tempest I was almost a revisiting of the Tornado.

But it shows the sort of thing the RAF was looking towards in the mid/late 1930s. In fact the presumption was that for anti bomber work the required number of 20mm cannon was really 6, or a 40mm weapon (cf. P-38 and P-39 with 37mm cannon).

The Whirlwind not being ready for the Battle of Britain forced the bringing forward of the delayed Spitfire cannon plans (despite the specification being 5 years before).

chunkydora
07-01-2008, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by JSG72:
Hey! Chunkydora.

Sure The P47s 8 gun armament made it a good fighter/Ground attack aircraft.

But Supposing the U.S. Didn't have 4 engined bombers???!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

You must be drinking stronger juice than me! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

The U.S. fighters, would have been facing Jets much earlier.

Go figure?

Seriously. If the US. didn't have 4 engined bombers and only produced erm.. Twin engined bombers. Well.....

A) they would have taken longer to fly accross.
Thus producing less of a threat.
B) They were tactical and would therfore have contributed nothing to the reduction of the German War Machine, production.
C)They would have been bombing France/Belgium/ Holland! And so allowing less migration of Soviet Front fighters to the Western Front.
D) If? The fighters showed a superiority over the then extant 109s and 190s. (Which they would. In numbers.) Jet fighters Heinkel 280 and even the Me 109 TL? with perhaps Nose mounted. 6x mg131s would have been the order of the day?

Hi JSG. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I didn't mean to present some kind of alternate reality or anything, just thinking about what decisions the Germans might have made differently if their prop planes could just duke it out with the US prop planes. I wasn't trying to present it in any real historical context or anything.

JSG72
07-01-2008, 03:26 PM
Good Lord Aaron _GT

You have certaily been Picking whatever you like from Whatever sights you like?

Regardless of what you have "Googled" "Yahoohed" "Jeeved"

Yet again! (And a Human Failing of all those born after 1972? Is the fact that the Internet was not available to those in the 1930/'40s.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BTW. The Whirlwind, has only come to prominence.
Funnily enough. Due to IL2! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif In my experience http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The 4x 20mmcannon armmament was indeed, deemed to be the most efficient. However, As you know? The Tide of War was changing.

With the discovery of the FW. 190. A fighter armmament capable of defeating such a foe. Had to be found? As well as being able to fulfil the new strategey of "Leaning into Europe".

Thus the 2x20mm with an eye on adding 2x.50s was introduced.
OK. So far? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

chunkydora
07-01-2008, 03:26 PM
BTW, although I know cannon were good against bombers, mgs must have done something because that's all that was on the Brit hurris and spits in the bob and they shot down plenty of he-111s right?

JSG72
07-01-2008, 03:57 PM
chunkydora?

Whilst admiring your enthusiasm

I have to call it into question.

Your insistance of subject matter and naivety of WW2 Air warfare. Can only conclude.

That. You are truly a Noob or a Troll in WW2 subjects?

Oh and I am a C**t. And so, say all of us! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

chunkydora
07-01-2008, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by JSG72:
chunkydora?

Whilst admiring your enthusiasm

I have to call it into question.

Your insistance of subject matter and naivety of WW2 Air warfare. Can only conclude.

That. You are truly a Noob or a Troll in WW2 subjects?

Oh and I am a C**t. And so, say all of us! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

I protest sir, I protest!

Most emphatically!

A n00b I am not!

I've been getting my *** handed to me since 2003, and have gotten quite good at it.

What subject matter are you referring to? The bob thing?

Why do you conclude I am naive of WW2 air warfare, good sir?

Farewell Mr. C**t. Hope to hear another one of your uniquely punctuated replies as soon as possible! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif It makes my day!

Aaron_GT
07-01-2008, 04:55 PM
BTW. The Whirlwind, has only come to prominence. Funnily enough. Due to IL2! In my experience

I'd agree that the Whirlwind failed to meet the promise hoped for it when tendered to F.37/35. It was too late and the engines were too problematic. It was designed along the lines of the P-38 (.50s and 1 23mm cannon originally intended).

The logic of using a twin was to allow the Hispano to be more solidly mounted than wing mounts, and the Spitfire IB did suffer from jams as predicted. The Hurricane F.37/35 was designed for Oerlikons, so would have been similar to an MG.FF. Never built. Well I suppose the Hispano was an Oerlikon too, if second hand.


The 4x 20mmcannon armmament was indeed, deemed to be the most efficient. However, As you know? The Tide of War was changing.

With the discovery of the FW. 190. A fighter armmament capable of defeating such a foe. Had to be found? As well as being able to fulfil the new strategey of "Leaning into Europe".

Agreed


Thus the 2x20mm with an eye on adding 2x.50s was introduced.
OK. So far?

The hope with the C and E wings still seems to have been for four cannon, both wings being capable of carrying them. I don't know if the Mk.24 had (the first mark apart from a relatively small number of VC to routinely carry 4 cannon)

But, just to reiterate, the 4 20mm cannon armament was a good set up and the USA wanted them, but in the absence of reliable cannon then 6 or 8 50 cals were a good compromise, especially from a logistic point of view. In comparison when the British landed on D-day the forces needed four types - .303, 7.92, .50 and 20mm to supply army and air force. I don't know if any P-38s or P-61s operated from France, but if not then it was just .30 and .50 for the ground forces and only .50 for the airforce - much simpler logistics. The US Army was the master of logistics in WW2.

Without a doubt the M2 was better than the .303 Browning the RAF used extensively through the whole war even despite its incremental replacement.

blairgowrie
07-01-2008, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by JSG72:
chunkydora?

Whilst admiring your enthusiasm

I have to call it into question.

Your insistance of subject matter and naivety of WW2 Air warfare. Can only conclude.

That. You are truly a Noob or a Troll in WW2 subjects?

Oh and I am a C**t. And so, say all of us! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

A bit surprised you don't recognise the return of a former member JSG72.

Let me give you a couple of clues from a "clueless nub".

He rides a Harley and drives a Dodge pick up.

chunkydora
07-01-2008, 05:38 PM
Hi JSG72,

As to our squabbling and your total awesome amazingness when it comes to knowing everything there is to know about WW2 air combat:

By B16Enk:

"With the in-built offline dynamic campaign/career mode offering immersion only ever experienced before with gallons of whipped cream, and the sisters of St. Olegs Priory (yes there really is a religious order that has sprung from the IL2 franchise and offers succour to it's addicts, some of which is of a spritual nature) a new subset of humanity was created. The flight sim addict. Typified by pale skin, staring eyes, constant over the shoulder looking and mumbles of various o'clocks. Unlike traditional geeks and script kiddies, however, the IL2 junkie knows what a joystick is. Both definitions.

They also commune frequently with others of the same addiction, exchanging pleasantries on UBI Zoo where they vie to out do each other on the IQ stakes. Apparently the prize will go to the one who convinces the judges that they are insufficiently intellectually equipped to operate their trouser zipper in the confines of their bathroom, let alone indulge in attempted sane congress with other intellectually challenged individuals.

Unless of course they are discussing the merits, or otherwise, of a particular war bird. Then, and only then, does any semblance of intellect come to the fore. The discussions can and will ramble on for near eternity with claims of why their currently favoured warbird can perform that starwars maneuver."

I'm sure that your daily schedule looks like this

639 am: get up

800 am be at work at the ministry for understanding WW2 air combat

1230 decide to skip lunch because there are things you STILL don't know about WW2 air combat

530 leave work. pretend to be flying a spit as you honk at the traffic. Mull over you what rather blast that pickup with the 50 cals or go all out and use the 20mms. When he goes 55 in the left lane, wish you had a 37mm.

630 get home. Show off what you know about WW2 air combat at the UBI Zoo.

1130 FLY online

1230 go to bed

blairgowrie
07-01-2008, 06:20 PM
And he believes he is irresistible to red haired women.

csThor
07-01-2008, 10:17 PM
If the USA did not have a working 20mm cannon at the beginning of their involvement in WW2 then it is not hard to understand why they went for a standardized large-caliber MG as the M2. It did its job and it worked within the confinements of the tactical and technical environments it faced. But trying to slap the label of some perceived "superiority" on it just because it was on the winning side stinks worse than rotten fish.

deepo_HP
07-01-2008, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by chunkydora:
I think what Hallion was trying to say was that an uninterrupted stream of bullets (50 cal or 20mm) was more effective (when deflection shooting anyway) than the heavy damage of the guns the luftwaffe used to take down fortresses + the 13mm usually thrown in.

it could be worth to read, what others already posted about changes in the cadence of weapons caused by prop-synching:


Originally posted by JtD:
For the electrically fused guns the Luftwaffe used that meant a rof reduction of about 5-10%.

5% might be more the optimum, but less than 10% is mentioned quite often in analysis.
for a short summary (although i find some of the tables too general), there is a good comparison of guns and cartridges at
world war 2 fighter armament effectiveness (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm)

there the '.50 m2' is rated with an 'efficiency' of 2.1, the 'mg 151/20' with 4.6 and the 'hispano V' with 6 (the exact calulation of the values is explained on the site).
these values take in account (amongst other characteristics) the muzzle-velocity, the weight of weapon and cartridge and rate of fire.
although (as stated there), they lack a factor for reduced rof at synchronised guns - however (see above) it is assumed, that it is less than 10% for electrical fuses.

a last comparison of several fighters is done by listing the time needed to fire an ammunition-power of 2320 (which is what the me-262 did in one second) - having the p-47d (8xm2) at 4.8s, the fw-190a4 (2xmg151/20-synch, 2xmg17-synch, 2xmg151-ffm) at 3.5s and the tempest mkV (4xhispanoV) at 2.3s (the reduction of rof is taken in account in this table).

i have no idea how to consider these tables... most of the data seem to be more or less correct, i am by far not able to say, if the resulting scaling is the same usable. however, the author furthermore brings up some criticism to his calculations and dicusses them in a proper manner.
therefore, i find that tables much more worth to be discussed than the statements of 'ineffectiveness' of cannons compared to the 'concentrated package' of guns by mr. halliot.

Friendly_flyer
07-02-2008, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by deepo_HP:
world war 2 fighter armament effectiveness (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm)

Very interesting, thank for the link!

WOLFMondo
07-02-2008, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
If the USA did not have a working 20mm cannon at the beginning of their involvement in WW2 then it is not hard to understand why they went for a standardized large-caliber MG as the M2. It did its job and it worked within the confinements of the tactical and technical environments it faced. But trying to slap the label of some perceived "superiority" on it just because it was on the winning side stinks worse than rotten fish.

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

WeedEater9p
07-02-2008, 03:04 AM
Well...

.50cals:
1. High ROF
2. You can have lots more ammo
3. If you can hit the target at the right spot and at the right time... they are really deadly
4. Otherwise, the target will be wounded badly, but not killed.

Cannons:
1. Slow ROF
2. Little Ammo (Except for 190s)
3. Deadly if you hit
4. Larger shells are devastating to bombers

So looking at this crude analysis .50s were better for fighter-to-fighter work. High ROF and lots of ammo meant the pilot had more room for error in a dogfight. Good if your escorting bombers. Cannons with slow ROF aren't good for dogfights, but are good for attacking lumbering bombers. With the heavy defenses bombers posed, German pilots needed a weapon that could kill B-17s quickly and efficiently. 30mm cannons were good at that.

So both weapons where better at the job they needed to do.

Friendly_flyer
07-02-2008, 03:28 AM
Originally posted by WeedEater9p:
.50cals:
1. High ROF


The M2 does not have a high ROF, actually, it has a rather low ROF. The "high ROF" is only true if you have enough of them (6 or 8). In Spifires or Bf 109s, being realively small and light planes, the .50ies would not be very effective, because you couldn't put enough in without seriously hurting performance. In the big American planes, a battery of M2s where an OK alternative.

Blutarski2004
07-02-2008, 04:51 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
The M2 does not have a high ROF, actually, it has a rather low ROF. The "high ROF" is only true if you have enough of them (6 or 8). In Spifires or Bf 109s, being relatively small and light planes, the .50ies would not be very effective, because you couldn't put enough in without seriously hurting performance. In the big American planes, a battery of M2s where an OK alternative.


..... A "rather low ROF"? Compared to what? The cyclic rate for M2 50s in wing mounts was between 720 and 900+ rounds per minute. To the best of my memory, the only WW2 HMG with a higher cyclic rate was the Soviet UBS.

The P51B/C models carried 4 x wing-mounted M2 50s and were perfectly effective in air-to-air combat versus fighters. The Spitfire was commonly fitted with 2 x 20mms and 2 x 50s in the wings, so it was by no means too small to carry an armament of 4 x 50s.

Friendly_flyer
07-02-2008, 05:38 AM
..... A "rather low ROF"? Compared to what? The cyclic rate for M2 50s in wing mounts was between 720 and 900+ rounds per minute. To the best of my memory, the only WW2 HMG with a higher cyclic rate was the Soviet UBS.

I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear. The M2 has a low ROF when you include all MGs in the comparison, including cartridge MGs (typically around 800 rounds/min for the M2, 1200 rounds/min for .30 cal (and thereabouts) MGs). The M2 was on par with most .50 cal HMGs, except as you mention, the Berezin. However, the rate of fire of all the non-Berezin HMGs are rather low, my argument is that you need quite a few of them to be effective.



The P51B/C models carried 4 x wing-mounted M2 50s and were perfectly effective in air-to-air combat versus fighters. The Spitfire was commonly fitted with 2 x 20mms and 2 x 50s in the wings, so it was by no means too small to carry an armament of 4 x 50s.

The Spitfire was an interceptor rather than an escort fighter, and needed quite a bit more punch than offered by 4 M2s. 6 would be the minimum (and even that would be marginal against a bomber). 6 M2s weigh just a tad more than the late war Spitfire armament (6 M2s weigh 174 kg + ammo, two Hispanos IIs and two M2s weighs 158 kg + ammo). If we are to believe Mr. Williams calculations, you'd need more than 8 M2s to rival the Spitfires firepower, weighing in at 232 kg, and now we are talking weighs that will hit the performance of a plane like the Spitfire.

Despite the M2s many good points, it is not an ideal fighter gun, it's merely adequate. On the other hand it was reliable (reliability must have been a very important point back then), and more importantly, it was there, with ammo to spare.

Xiolablu3
07-02-2008, 05:54 AM
I know most will have seen this, but just in case you havent, it explains the exact reason why the .50 cal was retained, and why the USAAF nor the US Navy AF had no real alternative for wing mounted 20mm weapons.

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

(The early Model Hispano was fine when not fitted into wings which bend and warp, and so was fine in the P38/Whirlwind/Beaufighter)

BTW just found this beast, Typhoon with 2x47mm tank busters

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/47mm%20P.jpg

Was intended to replace the Hurricane IID's 40mm gun, to give Aircraft a gun to take out the Tiger.

Blutarski2004
07-02-2008, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear. The M2 has a low ROF when you include all MGs in the comparison, including cartridge MGs (typically around 800 rounds/min for the M2, 1200 rounds/min for .30 cal (and thereabouts) MGs). The M2 was on par with most .50 cal HMGs, except as you mention, the Berezin. However, the rate of fire of all the non-Berezin HMGs are rather low, my argument is that you need quite a few of them to be effective.


..... I do not desire to start a big argument here, but I consider RoF comparisons between HMGs and rifle-caliber MGs to be of little consequence. The principal consideration is not whether the sheaf of projectiles is the >>most<< dense, but whether it is >>sufficiently<< dense to guarantee effective damage upon a given aerial target. Viewed from that perspective the RoF performance of the M2 was quite satisfactory. It also bears mention that, even allowing for the disparity in HMG versus RCMG rates of fire, the HMG will deliver about 5x the weight of fire per unit of time.

Also, the difference in RoF between the UBS HMG and other HMG models is more incremental than dramatic - perhaps a difference of 10-15 percent. I am of the opinion that overall the UBS was a better and more sensible HMG design for aircraft armament, but that has less to do with its RoF or ballistic performance than it does with its very light weight in relation to the caliber of ammunition it fired.




The Spitfire was an interceptor rather than an escort fighter, and needed quite a bit more punch than offered by 4 M2s. 6 would be the minimum (and even that would be marginal against a bomber). 6 M2s weigh just a tad more than the late war Spitfire armament (6 M2s weigh 174 kg + ammo, two Hispanos IIs and two M2s weighs 158 kg + ammo). If we are to believe Mr. Williams calculations, you'd need more than 8 M2s to rival the Spitfires firepower, weighing in at 232 kg, and now we are talking weighs that will hit the performance of a plane like the Spitfire.

Despite the M2s many good points, it is not an ideal fighter gun, it's merely adequate. On the other hand it was reliable (reliability must have been a very important point back then), and more importantly, it was there, with ammo to spare.


..... The question was whether the Spitfire was too small to carry a sufficient number of HMGs. In order to qualify what would have constituted "a sufficient number of HMGs", its intended tactical role must be taken into account. Clearly the Spitfire was designed as an interceptor. But its evolved role, as witnessed in the Battle of Britain, was principally to engage the German fighter escorts while it stable-mate Hurricanes attacked the bomber formations. An armament of 4 x HMG would have been quite suitable for fighter-versus-fighter engagements. A 4 x HMG armament for the Spitfire would also have saved 40 or 50 kilos in weight and represented a weight of fire equivalent of 18-20 x RCMGs.

In addition, while it is absolutely fair and reasonable to say that 4 or 6 HMGs was an inadequate armament with which to engage heavy four-engined bombers, Germany's bomber fleet throughout the war almost exclusively consisted of light/medium twin-engined bombers dfended by RCMGs. American fighters armed with 50cal HMGs had no problems disposing of such targets.

So, I think there are reasonable argument in support of a 4 x HMG armament for the Spitfire. I don't think that an all HMG armament would have made sense for any German fighter, simply by virtue of their need to be able to effectively kill heavy bombers. I don't consider the 50cal to have been a suitable weapon for this role, due to its lack of any useful HE projectile.

This is admittedly a bit of after-the-fact wisdom, but it is IMO nevertheless correct.


Note: RCMG = rifle caliber machine gun

JtD
07-02-2008, 09:33 AM
The only HMG that had a lower RoF than the M2 was the Breda Safat construction. All other HMG were about on par or better. This changes when you compare the synced versions, there the M2 is pathetic.

The RoF is about on par with the newer 20mm cannons and considerable better than the older 20mm cannons.

If you were to mount 6xB-20 20mm cannons instead of 8xM2 in the P-47 wing, you'd easily double the firepower for about no penalty, as the B-20 is lighter, has a higher RoF and a more powerful projectile than the M2.

M2 wasn't efficient.

Friendly_flyer
07-02-2008, 11:47 AM
Actually, we're in the position to test these assumptions. If I remember correctly, Olegs damage values aren't that far off from Mr. Williams calculation. A few rounds in quick mission builder with Spitfire Mk.IXe or Mustanng B, C or Mk.III against a Ju 88 or He 111 should give us a few hints.

JtD
07-02-2008, 12:21 PM
Maybe the guns are ok, the damage model sure isn't.

Blutarski2004
07-02-2008, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
The only HMG that had a lower RoF than the M2 was the Breda Safat construction. All other HMG were about on par or better. This changes when you compare the synced versions, there the M2 is pathetic.

The RoF is about on par with the newer 20mm cannons and considerable better than the older 20mm cannons.

If you were to mount 6xB-20 20mm cannons instead of 8xM2 in the P-47 wing, you'd easily double the firepower for about no penalty, as the B-20 is lighter, has a higher RoF and a more powerful projectile than the M2.

M2 wasn't efficient.


..... If one were to ignore the big differences in MV and armor penetration characteristics between the M2 and other HMGs, you might have a point.

Same deal with the Berezin B20. There is ALWAYS a trade-off. The B20 gives up 400+ ft/sec in MV and gives a reduced duration of fire.

But, hey, if you like to believe that the M2 was "pathetic", it's OK with me.

Kurfurst__
07-02-2008, 12:35 PM
IIRC the M2 would fire 650 to 750rpm, the latter figure was only true if a booster was fitted. I am not sure if this was common or not.

This is an interesting comparison by F. Hahn between the two approaches:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Bordwaffen/Hahn_shotgun_vs_rifleapproach.jpg

Blutarski2004
07-02-2008, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Maybe the guns are ok, the damage model sure isn't.


..... I agree. The kinetic model track with historical evidence, in that 15-30 hits are needed to bring down (as opposed to blow up) an opposing fighter.

But it still lacks the incendiary effect provided by the 50cal API which was in widespread use from the beginning of 1944.

Blutarski2004
07-02-2008, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
Actually, we're in the position to test these assumptions. If I remember correctly, Olegs damage values aren't that far off from Mr. Williams calculation. A few rounds in quick mission builder with Spitfire Mk.IXe or Mustanng B, C or Mk.III against a Ju 88 or He 111 should give us a few hints.


..... I agree. I think it would be very interesting.

Kurfurst__
07-02-2008, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... If one were to ignore the big differences in MV and armor penetration characteristics between the M2 and other HMGs, you might have a point.

There were big differences? I just do not think so.

IMHO the practical difference between the Browning .50 M2 and other, more modern designs is that the Browning has lower rate of fire and weights about 2-2,5 times as much as other 12,7-13mm guns, or as much as a 20mm cannon. At the same weight and bulk, the cannon is simply a better choice.

Blutarski2004
07-02-2008, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
IIRC the M2 would fire 650 to 750rpm, the latter figure was only true if a booster was fitted. I am not sure if this was common or not.

This is an interesting comparison by F. Hahn between the two approaches:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Bordwaffen/Hahn_shotgun_vs_rifleapproach.jpg


..... The official WW2 RoF figure for the air-cooled aircraft version of the M2 50cal was 750 rpm. With booster, the Rof was 850-950 rpm. Shortly after the war (according to a USAF publication I have) the Rof had been increased to "1200-1500 rpm".

Thanks for posting that comparison page. Did Dr Hahn do a comparison against the Browning 50cal as well?

Blutarski2004
07-02-2008, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... If one were to ignore the big differences in MV and armor penetration characteristics between the M2 and other HMGs, you might have a point.

There were big differences? I just do not think so.

IMHO the practical difference between the Browning .50 M2 and other, more modern designs is that the Browning has lower rate of fire and weights about 2-2,5 times as much as other 12,7-13mm guns, or as much as a 20mm cannon. At the same weight and bulk, the cannon is simply a better choice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... See my previous post to you re RoF. Regarding weight of the gun itself, it is partly a function of gun horsepower and partly a result of the excessive amount of mechanical life built into the design. I do agree that Berezin 12.7 was a more sensible design from awartime use point of view. It effectively did the same job at considerably less weight. The trade-off was mechanical life, but the design assumptions regarding practical battlefield survival time which underpinned the Berezin design approach were much more sensible than those set down for the M2.

Kurfurst__
07-02-2008, 01:09 PM
Yup, I cross checked the S.O.C. on the M2, aircraft (air cooled), and indeed its 750rpm base. 850 is given as maximum. 75 rounds may be fired from the standard barrel. After a minute of cooldown allowed, firing can be resumed at rate of one 20 round burst per min. Without long burst, 25 rounds per min is allowed for a long period.

I wonder what was barrel life of the M2, given the above limitations in the S.O.C. IIRC the M3 was introduced post-war with a 1200/min.

No, unfortunately Hahn didnt make any comparisons with the M2. He gives so figures for the price of the MG 151/20 (787 Reichsmark a piece) and the US produced Hispano (708 USD a piece) though.

Aaron_GT
07-02-2008, 01:23 PM
Shortly after the war (according to a USAF publication I have) the Rof had been increased to "1200-1500 rpm".

The version with the increased ROF was the M3 fitted in the F-86. ROF (from the US Army) 1150-1250, which is impressive, but rather short of 1500. It is a post war weapon, although its development started during WW2 to improve the aggregate ROF without needing to mount ever increasing number of guns.

M2s averaged around 750 to 800 with booster, with some examples managing 900, but these were worn examples, so accuracy and reliability may have been compromised that much above design ROF.

Aaron_GT
07-02-2008, 01:27 PM
Regarding weight of the gun itself, it is partly a function of gun horsepower and partly a result of the excessive amount of mechanical life built into the design

The Russians may well have assumed that building a long life into an aircraft gun when aircraft lasted a relatively short time may have been wasted effort. It depends on the expected lifetime before destruction of a plane. If the plane is expected to make it back then it's worth giving the weapons a longer design life as even if the plane becomes obselete then if the weapon is still current you can put it into a new plane (or give it to the infantry or whatever, which is what happened to a lot of old MG15s, 17s, etc in German service, and a lot of old Lewis and Vickers K observer guns from the RAF, going to the Home Guard and the LRDG respectively).

JtD
07-02-2008, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

Same deal with the Berezin B20. There is ALWAYS a trade-off. The B20 gives up 400+ ft/sec in MV and gives a reduced duration of fire.

The difference in MV is lower, and 3 B-20 weight a lot less than 4 M2, so there is room for plenty of extra ammo. In fact, you'd gain a parity in weight if you were to supply about 300rpg for an about equal firing time, which is about what the US birds carried.

The trade off would be that you couldn't just put a 40 years old weapon into your combat machines but had to develop new ones.


But, hey, if you like to believe that the M2 was "pathetic", it's OK with me.

I specifically stated this for M2 guns that had to fire through props, where the RoF was about halved for that antique weapon. You know another HMG that cannot get past 400 rpm and still weights 30kg? I know one that managed more than twice that RoF, had an as good projectile and was lighter still. That's like lapping someone 100 times in the course of the Indy 500. Pathetic.

d9720267
07-02-2008, 02:31 PM
As soon as he said "totally ineffective" he lost all credibility.

Osprey_334th
07-02-2008, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Yep, the cal fifties' superior firepower was the reason why everyone except the god-obeying USAAF (I'm not talking of the USN here..) switched to 20mm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

And they tried to but insisted on modifying the Hispano when manufacturing on licence, which already worked but they managed to break. Thus it broke down and broke down and was ready just in time for the war to end. The US Hispano was one of the US cockups of production.

From Wiki: "....The gun was also licensed for use in the United States as the M1, with both the United States Army Air Corps (USAAC) and U.S. Navy planning to switch to the 20 mm as soon as sufficient production was ready. A massive building program was set up, along with production of ammunition, in 1941. When delivered the guns proved to be extremely unreliable and suffered a considerable number of misfires due to the round being "lightly struck" by the firing pin. The British were interested in using this weapon to ease production in England, but after receiving the M1 they were disappointed. In April 1942 a copy of the British Mk.II was sent to the U.S. for comparison, the British version used a slightly shorter chamber and did not have the same problems as the U.S. version of the cannon.

The U.S. declined to modify the chamber of their version, but nevertheless made other different modifications to create the no-more-reliable M2. By late 1942 the USAAC had 40 million rounds of ammunition stored, but the guns remained unsuitable. The U.S. Navy had been trying to go all-cannon throughout the war, but the conversion never occurred. As late as December 1945 the Army's Chief of Ordnance was still attempting to complete additional changes to the design to allow it to enter service.

Meanwhile, the British had given up on the U.S. versions and production levels had been ramped up to the point where this was no longer an issue anyway...."

Osprey_334th
07-02-2008, 03:21 PM
......And I failed to notice 4 pages where this has already been brought up lol

Blutarski2004
07-02-2008, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

Same deal with the Berezin B20. There is ALWAYS a trade-off. The B20 gives up 400+ ft/sec in MV and gives a reduced duration of fire.

The difference in MV is lower, and 3 B-20 weight a lot less than 4 M2, so there is room for plenty of extra ammo. In fact, you'd gain a parity in weight if you were to supply about 300rpg for an about equal firing time, which is about what the US birds carried.

The trade off would be that you couldn't just put a 40 years old weapon into your combat machines but had to develop new ones.


But, hey, if you like to believe that the M2 was "pathetic", it's OK with me.

I specifically stated this for M2 guns that had to fire through props, where the RoF was about halved for that antique weapon. You know another HMG that cannot get past 400 rpm and still weights 30kg? I know one that managed more than twice that RoF, had an as good projectile and was lighter still. That's like lapping someone 100 times in the course of the Indy 500. Pathetic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about 4 x B-20s in place of 6 x M2s for a wing-mounted fighter armament, since US WW2 fighters except P38 carried principally wing-mounted weapons?

4 x B-20s @ 25 kg each = 100 kg
300 x 4 x 0.183 kg = 220 kg
Total Weight 320 kg

6 x M2s @ 29 kg each = 174 kg
300 x 6 x 0.112 kg = 202 kg
Total Weight 376 kg

Makes sense, provided that weight does not need to be added to strengthen wing gun mounts. Although 4 x B-20s only have about 17 pct greater ME than 6 x M2s, the individual B-20 has about 75 percent greater ME than a single M2.

The B-20 fires a VERY light 20mm projectile at 95 grams [which is in part how they get the high RoF and light gun weight]. Just on a W/D^2 basis, its ballistics are actually inferior to the M2 projectile.

The B-20 looks like a very good gun, but there are indeed always trade-offs. The trade-off here is poorer trajectory. If I have some time and can get good estimates on form factors, I'll run a ballistic comparison and see to what extent.

Xiolablu3
07-03-2008, 04:54 AM
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 JtD:
The only HMG that had a lower RoF than the M2 was the Breda Safat construction. All other HMG were about on par or better. This changes when you compare the synced versions, there the M2 is pathetic.

The RoF is about on par with the newer 20mm cannons and considerable better than the older 20mm cannons.

If you were to mount 6xB-20 20mm cannons instead of 8xM2 in the P-47 wing, you'd easily double the firepower for about no penalty, as the B-20 is lighter, has a higher RoF and a more powerful projectile than the M2.

M2 wasn't efficient.


..... If one were to ignore the big differences in MV and armor penetration characteristics between the M2 and other HMGs, you might have a point.

Same deal with the Berezin B20. There is ALWAYS a trade-off. The B20 gives up 400+ ft/sec in MV and gives a reduced duration of fire.

But, hey, if you like to believe that the M2 was "pathetic", it's OK with me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

JTD just said that the M2 in its synched version that the Rate of Fire was pathetic.

Not the whole gun. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aaron_GT
07-03-2008, 11:18 AM
The B-20 fires a VERY light 20mm projectile at 95 grams [which is in part how they get the high RoF and light gun weight]. Just on a W/D^2 basis, its ballistics are actually inferior to the M2 projectile.

The trade off is that in a WW2 scenario if the ballistics are ok to 300 to 400 yards. Your chance of hitting (other than sheer luck) a moving target when you are yourself moving beyond those ranges with typical WW2 sights (or at least before the K14 and similar) beyond that are minimal so it's pointless to design a gun that has good ballistics beyond that range unless it is a side effect of some good property up to that range.

Basically if you want to produce an effective 20mm cannon with a lifetime limited to roughly the anticipated airframe lifetime in an intensive war with accuracy sufficient only to the typical eyes-only engagement distance then the B-20 makes sense. The Russian design ethic seems to have been largely to create things which would have a lifetime equal to the anticipated service lifetime and only a small margin on top, rather than overengineering things. Given the typical attrition of things in Soviet service this was often quite short. If it stopped working, then you'd replace it with a newly manufactured item, the idea being that the overall total use of materials would be less. It's a very utilitarian outlook.

When radar ranging started coming into play then decent ballstics beyond that range became worthwhile, but that only just started becoming an issue right at the end of WW2 (e.g. Village Inn, although that was more a blind-firing aid that a distance aid) and some of the projected US, UK, and German designs that were not implemented in WW2 and fed into post war developments.

Actually at the end of WW2 it was envisaged that missiles would soon take over in air-to-air combat, missiles would be used instead of interceptors, and that improved V2-style aircraft or 'disposable' bombers would take over from short range bombers. (The curvature of the earth prior to satellites led to a practical control limit of a similar range to the various radio bombing aids of WW2).

The B-47 is a product of this sort of thinking - a subsonic swept-wing plane designed for fuel efficient flight for long range to provide the long range capability that 'expendable bombers' could not provide. In the event the developments weren't quite as envisaged in 1947/48.

Hottie1961
07-03-2008, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">An observation I have made watching a large amount gun camera footage: If the target aircraft is unaware there is an aircraft about to fire on him and the assailant is within range the .50's and the cannons both work about equally as well. Irregardless of weapon type , a three second burst was usually the minimuim necessary to effect the desired result.

Based on combat reports from 4 cannon RAF fighters a three second burst was the length typically used to down a bomber not a fighter.


As soon as the melee starts and the fighters are pulling high " G " manuvers, dives and climbs. In an effort to present as little a target, for as short a time as possible.When a " snap shot " is about all the opportunity presented. I think Dr. Hallion is correct. There is more lead in the air converging on the target with the .50's. Plus the added advantage of having more rounds per gun with the M2.

If you compare a four gun plane (typical for an RAF 4 cannon plane, or the number of cannon on a Fw190A8) then the chance of hitting with 4 guns is almost the same as with eight. It may sound counterintuitive but it is true. The number of hits will be roughly proportional to the total ROF but you need more HMG its to do the same amount of damage.

If you have a single 30mm cannon (109K) then your chance of hitting IS very much lower. The is a law of diminishing returns and once you get to about four guns the returns on chances to hit are minimal, you just increase the number of hits. I suspect this was well understood in WW2 as 4 cannon seems to have been the favoured number in general.

In fact the USAAF originally wanted cannon armament but failed to produce a fully debugged 20mm weapon until the end of WW2, and in the meantime the HMG was the best choice especially logistically. The USAAF pre war was actually tending towards a 23mm weapon which would have been very effective like the Vya. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hits by .50`s from a p47 were nasty, but I would hate to be hit by a typical Hartmann or Gunther Rahl burst, of which the result was you being out of the war.

.50's started showing its drawbacks in Korea, where Mig 15's armaments of 2 x 23mm + 1 x 37mm really scared the West.

Friendly_flyer
07-03-2008, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... I agree. I think it would be very interesting.

I just did a very quick and informal test. The setup was very simple. Using the QMB, I put up a single Ju 88 as target and Mustang Mk.III and Spitfire Mk.IXe as fighters, three runs each. In all instances I climbed a bit as the planes closed, swung around and dove on the target. Each fighter was allowed a single attack run.

The results are obviously flawed in that the two planes are not the same. However, I'm not one of those who have had problems with wobbly Mustangs, so if anything the difference in gun platform favours the Mustang, but I don't think the disparity is big enough to influence the results.

The Mustand downed 1 out of the three, the Spitfire downed 1 and mauled another very badly (though it was stil flying). After just three rund it's too early to name a winner, but I feel the 2 x 20mm + 2 x .50ies has the upper hand. To me (being a lousy shot) the canons give good results. I am positively surprised by the .50ies though, and they are a joy to shoot with.

Blutarski2004
07-03-2008, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... I agree. I think it would be very interesting.

I just did a very quick and informal test. The setup was very simple. Using the QMB, I put up a single Ju 88 as target and Mustang Mk.III and Spitfire Mk.IXe as fighters, three runs each. In all instances I climbed a bit as the planes closed, swung around and dove on the target. Each fighter was allowed a single attack run.

The results are obviously flawed in that the two planes are not the same. However, I'm not one of those who have had problems with wobbly Mustangs, so if anything the difference in gun platform favours the Mustang, but I don't think the disparity is big enough to influence the results.

The Mustang downed 1 out of the three, the Spitfire downed 1 and mauled another very badly (though it was stil flying). After just three rund it's too early to name a winner, but I feel the 2 x 20mm + 2 x .50ies has the upper hand. To me (being a lousy shot) the canons give good results. I am positively surprised by the .50ies though, and they are a joy to shoot with. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I did a terrible lot of research on the M2 50cal HMG in air-to-air applications during the great "50cal Debate" a few years ago - about 30+ pages of primary source data ended up in Oleg's hands. I'm of the opinion that he's modelled its ballistics well and whatever the problems with the damage modelling of this or that virtual airframe it'll shoot down most SE fighters with about 15-30 hits - which is, again IMO, spot on. About the only thing missing is an improved incendiary effect to represent the use of API ammunition in 1944/1945.

The M2 is NOT a 20mm in lethality, but its a straight-shooting gun and a rack of them should be quite sufficient to deal with fighters and TE bombers, especially if you hit a target within your convergence zone.

Kurfurst__
07-03-2008, 03:54 PM
All incendinaries suffer from the lack of precise DM modelling. From .303 to 30mm.

OTOH, incendinaries hitting something does not automatically mean fires. In fact, only a small percentage of the hits caused fires. One in 5 incendinary rounds would be already an outstanding result. That not counting armor that could get in the way - 109s, for example, had 32kg of armor fitted behind the fuel tank which would render incendinaries ineffective.

JSG72
07-03-2008, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
All incendinaries suffer from the lack of precise DM modelling. From .303 to 30mm.

OTOH, incendinaries hitting something does not automatically mean fires. In fact, only a small percentage of the hits caused fires. One in 5 incendinary rounds would be already an outstanding result. That not counting armor that could get in the way - 109s, for example, had 32kg of armor fitted behind the fuel tank which would render incendinaries ineffective.

Unless, not all rounds in the belt were incendiaries?
AP. round bursts tank and leaking fuel is ignited by the following incendiary round? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Blutarski2004
07-03-2008, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
All incendinaries suffer from the lack of precise DM modelling. From .303 to 30mm.

OTOH, incendinaries hitting something does not automatically mean fires. In fact, only a small percentage of the hits caused fires. One in 5 incendinary rounds would be already an outstanding result. That not counting armor that could get in the way - 109s, for example, had 32kg of armor fitted behind the fuel tank which would render incendinaries ineffective.


..... Kurfurst, even if the fuel tank were completely impervious, there is still a network of fuel feed lines, injector lines, and oil lines, that remain vulnerable.

Broken fuel line

Fuel hitting hot engine block or manifold vaporizes

Incendiary round ignites vapor

Ergo, fire.

Just as the engine of a bomber bursts into flame when hit.


Byron

Gibbage1
07-03-2008, 07:09 PM
Incendiary's are rather.... "weak" in IL2.....


http://www.gibbageart.com/files/burn.jpg

Or non-existent.

chunkydora
07-03-2008, 08:44 PM
I'm so proud of myself!

I started a thread that has run for 5 pages!

JtD
07-03-2008, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:

Or non-existent.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/screens/burningG4M1.jpg

Can you come up with something new for once?

Kurfurst__
07-04-2008, 02:58 AM
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 Kurfurst__:
All incendinaries suffer from the lack of precise DM modelling. From .303 to 30mm.

OTOH, incendinaries hitting something does not automatically mean fires. In fact, only a small percentage of the hits caused fires. One in 5 incendinary rounds would be already an outstanding result. That not counting armor that could get in the way - 109s, for example, had 32kg of armor fitted behind the fuel tank which would render incendinaries ineffective.


..... Kurfurst, even if the fuel tank were completely impervious, there is still a network of fuel feed lines, injector lines, and oil lines, that remain vulnerable.

Broken fuel line

Fuel hitting hot engine block or manifold vaporizes

Incendiary round ignites vapor

Ergo, fire.

Just as the engine of a bomber bursts into flame when hit.


Byron </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


... like I said, it effects every single guns from 7.7mm to 37mm all the same. It effects others guns, not just the .50 cal Browning. So why the Browning-specicific whining about it? In any case, incendinaries were not giving 100% results in real life either, as noted, only a fraction of the hits *in the right place* actually started fires. And just how many German bombers came back in 1940 riddled by 1000 hits, de Wilde and all that? Quite a few, and those are literal flying fuel tanks compared to fighters.

Blutarski2004
07-04-2008, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<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 Kurfurst__:
All incendinaries suffer from the lack of precise DM modelling. From .303 to 30mm.

OTOH, incendinaries hitting something does not automatically mean fires. In fact, only a small percentage of the hits caused fires. One in 5 incendinary rounds would be already an outstanding result. That not counting armor that could get in the way - 109s, for example, had 32kg of armor fitted behind the fuel tank which would render incendinaries ineffective.


..... Kurfurst, even if the fuel tank were completely impervious, there is still a network of fuel feed lines, injector lines, and oil lines, that remain vulnerable.

Broken fuel line

Fuel hitting hot engine block or manifold vaporizes

Incendiary round ignites vapor

Ergo, fire.

Just as the engine of a bomber bursts into flame when hit.


Byron </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


... like I said, it effects every single guns from 7.7mm to 37mm all the same. It effects others guns, not just the .50 cal Browning. So why the Browning-specicific whining about it? In any case, incendinaries were not giving 100% results in real life either, as noted, only a fraction of the hits *in the right place* actually started fires. And just how many German bombers came back in 1940 riddled by 1000 hits, de Wilde and all that? Quite a few, and those are literal flying fuel tanks compared to fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Why am I being "Browning-specific"? Check the title of the thread.

And who's "whining"? I've spent 90 pct of my bandwidth here praising Oleg overall for a job well-done on modelling the 50cal.

Kurfurst__
07-04-2008, 07:16 AM
I was under the impression that your comments are specific to the lack of .50 API issue. Maybe my perception was wrong.

I am sure BOBSOW will improve matters a lot. Or at least we can discuss how 111s should literally melt unde de Wilde ammo. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Blutarski2004
07-04-2008, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I was under the impression that your comments are specific to the lack of .50 API issue. Maybe my perception was wrong.

I am sure BOBSOW will improve matters a lot. Or at least we can discuss how 111s should literally melt unde de Wilde ammo. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


..... K, if incendiary ammunition is ignored by IL2 for all kinetic energy weapons, then that explains why 50cal API appears to be absent from the M2 ammunition mix. I have not investigated the issue from that overal perspective.

Does anyone have any information re the effectiveness or non-effectiveness of British .303 incendiary ammunition in BoB? It would be an interesting subject to investigate.

VW-IceFire
07-04-2008, 06:10 PM
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 Kurfurst__:
I was under the impression that your comments are specific to the lack of .50 API issue. Maybe my perception was wrong.

I am sure BOBSOW will improve matters a lot. Or at least we can discuss how 111s should literally melt unde de Wilde ammo. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


..... K, if incendiary ammunition is ignored by IL2 for all kinetic energy weapons, then that explains why 50cal API appears to be absent from the M2 ammunition mix. I have not investigated the issue from that overal perspective.

Does anyone have any information re the effectiveness or non-effectiveness of British .303 incendiary ammunition in BoB? It would be an interesting subject to investigate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think incendiary ammunition is ignored...its just that the .50cal has a single API round in its belt and that is on the tracer. So unless the tracer round hits...your hitting with AP and the mysterious HE (no idea why there is a .50cal HE round in the belting but there is).

Destructively the .50cal seems to be quite fine to me...it just doesn't start as many fires as the .303.

Monguse
07-05-2008, 07:13 AM
We do not have the correct belting in IL2. What we have is
APIT - AP - HE - AP

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2830

I just hope the API-API-API-API-APIT belting makes it before 4.09 is actually delivered.

JtD
07-05-2008, 08:28 AM
The HE round is pretty effective in starting fires.

TinyTim
07-05-2008, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
All incendinaries suffer from the lack of precise DM modelling. From .303 to 30mm.

I have to disagree. 8 light machineguns on SpitI or HurriI light german bombers even He111 up like roman candle. Now try to consistently set he111 on fire with .50cals (or any other HMG for that matter). Also extensive testing that I have done, comparing heavy versus light machinegunes shows, that light machineguns are way, way better at lighting fuel tanks up.

Fire (after crew killed etc) is the most likely reason for a plane to go down when hit by light machineguns (like it was a case in RL).

However, with HMG, majority of planes destroyed will go down due to structural failure (unlike RL, where fire was, again, most common result).

Bottom line: Yes, lack of incendiary power is proliferated thru all heavy machineguns, but not to other kinds of weapons.