PDA

View Full Version : OT: Germans, Americans and plane armament during WW2.



Thanatos833
11-27-2006, 09:19 AM
All of the majors powers used cannon to some extent or the other in their fighters, the Germans seemed particularly fond of them. The Americans were the opposite, most of their fighters did not have cannon. The machine guns have higher velocity lower caliber shells as opposed to the lower velocity higher caliber shells of the Cannon.

Machine gun shells have longer range but Cannon shells have more destructive potential. I was wondering why the Germans went for cannon in a big way while the Americans largely stayed away from it, the other powers of course were somewhere in the middle> Any ideas for the causes behind these trends?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9285/do17in9.jpg

The Dornier Do-17, another brilliant example of German engineering, a ???Schnellbomber" which could just outrun all fighters, this plane led to the German victory in the Battle of Britain and indeed, the Second World War.

AKA_TAGERT
11-27-2006, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Aaron--If you look at the weight of (in the P47) 8 MGs and ammo as compared to 4 20mm cannon and ammo you end up with the potential for very similar firing times. I did the calculations once (based on volume of the rounds too) and the difference in firing time wasn't huge. With the same volume (from memory) the firing time was in the region of 2/3 to 3/4 but with reduced weight.



Hya Aaron,
those are Witold Lanowskis words not mine---a real fighter pilots that flew real combat missions. The .50cals seemed to caused alot more destruction in real life to enemy fighters than people realize and you need more ammo from an escort pilots point of view.

Lanowski:
???To make comparisons between the Thunderbolt and any other aircraft, such as the Spitfire, is not really justifiable in that its capacity and ability were totally different. Therefore it is somewhat unfair to make such comparisons. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The Spitfire was a short range --- per one battle, aircraft --- Paris and back.</span> <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The Thunderbolt was a long range (and with later models, a very long range) aircraft --- 2 to 3, or more, battles per mission --- Berlin and back.</span> Even so, this exceptional aircraft demanded greater experience plus additional training of its pilots to do it justice. But due to the progressive speed of the war itself and the demand so placed on the pilots, the US 8th Air Force had no option but to replace the Thunderbolts with the less demanding long range P-51 Mustang."

More air battles equates to more ammo needed and more firing time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed 100%

When you consider the FACT that the .50s were doing the job due to the FACT that the axis had nothing like a B17, let alone the number of B17s it makes sense that you would op for more ammo when the bulk of your work was attacking fighters and maybe a light bomber from time to time.

As an escort, you do NOT have to blow the fighter up into a million peaces to get it to break off it's attack of a B17. Just a few hits and gravity would take care of the million peaces part.

Oh sure, a big explosion looks better in a game.. But in the RW of WWII escort who was more likly to engage other fighters or light bombers more ammo is the way to go!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Cajun76
11-27-2006, 10:30 PM
I think the US decision to use .50 cals on all their planes was a very smart move, from a logistical standpoint as well as combat effectiveness. Mostly used against fighters (ETO,PTO) and thin skinned bombers (PTO), .50cals were just fine. Supply is also easy if you only need one type of gun and ammo size to supply and service.


Imagine the call to a US airfield supply office:

"We need ammo"
"How many planes?"
"Twelve P-47s for ground attack and escort of some B-25s"
"OK, we'll send out about 35000 rounds in the standard ammo mix"
"Thanks"


Imagine the call to a German airfield supply office:

"We need ammo"
"Which kind?"
"For a strike package of Fw-190s escorted by Bf-109s"
"Do you need 13mm, 15mm, 20mm or 30mm?"
"We got some early G6's, some late ones, and half the Fw's are ready to shoot bombers with the 30mm installed."
"But how much of each do you need? Which guns and their versions are installed?"
"..... I'll get back to you. ...... Got any fuel?"
"No."
"Nevermind."<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Good hunting,
(56th)'Cajun76
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/CajunsSig03.gif Magnum-PC.com (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)
If you have trouble hitting your objective, your secondary targets are here and here,
an accordian factory (http://www.musicmagicusa.com/zupanaccordions.htm) and a mime school (http://www.le-mime.com/accueil.htm). Good luck, gentlemen. - Admiral Benson Hot Shots

fordfan25
11-27-2006, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
a F4U-1C carried 240round per canon IIRC........
thats something http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


275 rpg in the Fw 190 D9 For teh win </div></BLOCKQUOTE>didnt it only have two cannons though<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong.

-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

fordfan25
11-27-2006, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
I think the US decision to use .50 cals on all their planes was a very smart move, from a logistical standpoint as well as combat effectiveness. Mostly used against fighters (ETO,PTO) and thin skinned bombers (PTO), .50cals were just fine. Supply is also easy if you only need one type of gun and ammo size to supply and service.


Imagine the call to a US airfield supply office:

"We need ammo"
"How many planes?"
"Twelve P-47s for ground attack and escort of some B-25s"
"OK, we'll send out about 35000 rounds in the standard ammo mix"
"Thanks"


Imagine the call to a German airfield supply office:

"We need ammo"
"Which kind?"
"For a strike package of Fw-190s escorted by Bf-109s"
"Do you need 13mm, 15mm, 20mm or 30mm?"
"We got some early G6's, some late ones, and half the Fw's are ready to shoot bombers with the 30mm installed."
"But how much of each do you need? Which guns and their versions are installed?"
"..... I'll get back to you. ...... Got any fuel?"
"No."
"Nevermind." lol<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong.

-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

faustnik
11-27-2006, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:

275 rpg in the Fw 190 D9 For teh win didnt it only have two cannons though[/QUOTE]

The D9 had two Mg151/20 and two Mg131.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

Ratsack
11-28-2006, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
I think problems with the 20mm and 37mm cannon were also partly responsible for the view of the USAAF towards cannon. There were severe jamming problems with those guns initially, while the .50 was fairly reliable and at least used in banks were redundancy helped.

That's actually the guts of it there, Faust. The US was moving toward 20 mm cannon, and actually went as far as manufacturing a modified version of the Hispano 20 mm. However, this weapon proved unreliable, so they had to settle for the 0.50. Not a bad gun to have to 'settle' for.

This was discussed at length in another thread not so long ago. The business about the U.S. not 'needing' heavier weapons and 'feelings' prior to and during the war is just post facto speculation.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
11-28-2006, 12:25 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 Holtzauge:
Undoubtebly the cannon was lethal in the hands of good shots but the .50 will probably also give some hits even when poorly aimed because of the shotgun effect and the amount of lead in the air.

..... I quite agree, although I think that it was only one of several fctors which resulted in the adoption and retention of the 50cal as the standard US fighter armament in WW2.



So in the hands of an average shot the .50 may not be such a bad idea but seeing the that most powers opted to go with cannons later on in the war I think that pretty much indicates the trend and which way things were going to go in the long run. Also the gyroscopic sights introduced at this time apparantly raised the average pilots marksmanship enormously and would probably lessen the need for shotgun pattern harmonisation.

..... A very astute observation. I actually suspect that we underestimate the effect of the K14 on the air war over Europe. Is it possible that some of the kudos we have customarily bestowed upon the Mustang rightfully belong to the K14?


. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The other thing to remember is that the gyro gunsight had been in use since late 1943. The K-14 was a license copy of the British Ferranti MkII gyro sight (so all the 1944 Spitfires and the Tempest should have it in game).

I'm not sure how much we need to take away from the Mustang. It was just a very good plane.

cheers,
Ratsack

Aaron_GT
11-28-2006, 02:17 AM
sure 20mm was not NEEDED but that is not to say it would not be better.


Indeed, fordfan. It's also worth noting that most RAF fighters, even those employed on escort, and those designed after 1941 when the bomber threat to the UK itself receeded, still the 4 20mm cannon arrangement was selected as offering the best balance of firepower for the majority of situations.

Admittedly firing time in RAF fighters was relatively short and a simple swap out of the 20mm cannon in a Tempest would have yielded only 4 50 cals and probably a significantly higher firing time, but then at a great expense in terms of firepower.

Basically the 50 cal was adequate, and given the logistics and also the relative unreliability of 20mm cannon, especially in wing mounts, it wasn't worth changing. It was probably the right decision until late 1944.

Aaron_GT
11-28-2006, 02:23 AM
I think the US decision to use .50 cals on all their planes was a very smart move, from a logistical standpoint as well as combat effectiveness.

This is one of the big reasons to stick with one ammunition type. More than this is means that manufacture of guns and ammunition is also simplified. The RAF was able (to a fairly large extent) standardise on 20mm cannon for fighters, with a few additional .303 and .50 guns (although I never really saw the point of having the additional .303s on the Mosquito). The RAF would have liked to have dumped the .303s earlier but the US didn't have spare capacity for the number of 50 cals the RAF wanted and the UK had plenty of .303 manufacturing capacity. So in a sense the RAF's continued use of the .303 is analagous to the USAAF's use of 50 cal, except that the RAF didn't have the same logistical simplicity in terms of supply as a result.

mynameisroland
11-28-2006, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
a F4U-1C carried 240round per canon IIRC........
thats something http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


275 rpg in the Fw 190 D9 For teh win </div></BLOCKQUOTE>didnt it only have two cannons though </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but has MG rounds and the cannons are close to the nose. With good gunsight they would be on par. Wait til the Ta 152 C http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

Kurfurst__
11-28-2006, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
Firing time was a big consideration for escort pilots,

That's from 20/20 hindsight, i.e. 'the US fighters had .50s because it was good for the escort duties'.

Problem is, the USAAF doctrine up to 1944 was unescorted 'flying fortresses' penetrating into enemy airspace all alone... The decision to use .50s was not at all related to escort duties, which was concieved much later and after the armament was selected for all the US fighters.



If you were flying over German occupied Europe in 1943-44 in a single engined fighter, tasked with stopping the relatively smaller and more fragile German fighters from shooting down bombers (or just incidentally, yourself), would you have chosen 15 to 25 seconds of cannon firing time, or 30 seconds to (in some cases, especially with the saving a pair of guns for getting home trick) a minute plus of firing time?

Hmmm... 30 seconds to 1 min of firing time, where I ask? The P-51 had about 300 rpg, enough for ca 25-30 secons. The Spit had 200 rpg for .50s, enough for about 20 seconds, and 120 rpg for the cannons, enough for 12 seconds. OTOH the FW 190 had 30 secs for the MG131s, and 250 rpg, about 20 seconds for the cannons. The Soviet fighters had much less, the 109 somewhere between the two. It's a case of space within individual aircraft, ie. the 190 carries almost as many highly destructive 20 mm rounds.

Plus, such 'firing time vs. firing time' completely ignores the fact that with 200-250 20mm rounds you can shoot down a lot more aircraft than with 300 12.7mm rounds, because the former are much more effective bringing down planes.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Pusk??s Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon B??k??ben - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurf??rst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Bremspropeller
11-28-2006, 11:20 AM
Imagine the call to a German airfield supply office:

"We need ammo"
"Which kind?"
"For a strike package of Fw-190s escorted by Bf-109s"
"Do you need 13mm, 15mm, 20mm or 30mm?"
"We got some early G6's, some late ones, and half the Fw's are ready to shoot bombers with the 30mm installed."
"But how much of each do you need? Which guns and their versions are installed?"
"..... I'll get back to you. ...... Got any fuel?"
"No."
"Nevermind."

Disagree:

1.)Armament was usually equalized on fighter-group strength (just as it was with the planes)

2.)You'll usually not find more than one fighter-group on one airfield<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2369/toryusig4me.jpg

Kocur_
11-28-2006, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Simple

Cannons are needed to take out big bombers.

The USA was not under direct threat from any long range bombers big or small.. Thus no real motivation to put cannons on our fighters.. Early modles like the 38 and 39 did, but once the war got rolling and we realised nothing could touch us the fighters that followed didnt employ cannons. Why? Because most of our fighters were attacking other fighters, not big bombers, and the .50 cal is more than enough to take out a fighter.. Sure it wont blow it up into a million pieces.. but no need to, Gravity will take care of that!

Where as the Germans where very motivated to put cannons on thier fighters in that a large number of large bombers where attacking them all the time.


Simple - you are wrong thinking, that US armed forces chose .50s as standard fighters armamanent for the 1940s.

You can put on shelf with fairytales any claims that US were totally satsfied with .50 and didnt want anythig else. As soon as 1936 USN decided to search for suitable aircraft cannon. Four types were initially considered: Danish Madsen, German Rhinemetall-Borsig and two Swiss guns: Solothurn and Oerlikon. Of those only 23 Madsen was actually brough to US and tested by both USN and USAAC.
Develpement of Hispano was closely watched by American Navy AND Army attaches in Paris. On 27 February 1937 War Department authorised its attache to "ascetain prices and dates of delivery" of 20mm and 23mm Hispanos. On 11 March 1937 a US Army technical expert in Paris sent home a detalied report on Hispano cannons, which accelerated Army efforts. On 27 July 1937 US War Department ordered a Hispano with certain amount of ammo, and that was ready for inspection on 15 december 1937. The first 20mm Hispano and ammo arrived in US as soon as 26 February 1938! The gun was tested by Army in Aberdeen Proving Ground, with Navy watching closely, from 21 June 1938 to 9 April 1940. Also 23mm Madsens were tested. Apart from that Army tried to design 0.9'' cannons, which resulted in T1 to T3 models.

Hispano was chosen as future US aerial cannon and contract between US Gov and Societe Francaise Hispano-Suiza was signed on 14 December 1939, by which 33 Hispanos were bought, 20 for Navy, 13 for Army plus option for buying all manufacturing rights within a year for 425.000$ plus 100$ of royalty per gun made in US. Those 33 guns arrived Aberdeen Proving Ground on 20 February 1940.

IT happened on 11 April 1940, when gen. Arnold, chief of USAAC wrote to US Army Chief of Ordnance suggesting him to take immediate steps to buy production rights to Hispano and buy 400 guns even before rights were bought. He also pointed out to standarise Hispano ASAP. Since original blueprints would not be available before buying rights to produce guns, Watervliet Arsenal was ordered to prepare set of drawinigs basing of Hispanos in their disposal. Initial USAAC needs were estimated 456 guns and Navy's - 100, therefore 600 were planned for production to ensure surplus. But when it came to ordering production 1.202 guns were ordered in three companies. Finally Bendix Aviation Corp. was choosen as main US manufacturer of Hispano and order was placed there for up to 5.000 guns on 23 Septeber 1940. And so something unprecedented happened: a major power, the USA, adopted a weapon of foreign origin and ordered its local production before licence to produce it was bought. Simply: US gov stole Hispano, before they bought it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I call it a serious rush, quite far from any kind of satisfaction with .50!
Full licence was finally bought on 6 November 1940. Initially 1.202 guns were ordered in Eclipse Machine Division of Bendix Aviation Corp. as M1., including 500 for US Navy. Before any were delivered, order was changed for modified version standarised as "Gun, Automatic, 20mm, AN M2 (Aircraft)". Bendix shippings begun in late 1941 and soon production capability of 1.300 per month was reached. Until early 1941 Army ordered production of 44.747 20mm cannons! Later on more companies joined production program including Oldsmobile, International Harvester and... IBM.
In January 1942 British Hispano MK.II and its drawnings arrived in US. Brits asked US Army to produce US Hispanos, AN M2s, with minor changes, which would make them identical to British Hispano Mk. II. Of those minor changes, one was rather major, i.e. lenght of chamber - that was shorter by 2mm in British gun. By then it was clear that US Hispanos suffered high misfire rate, which did not happen to British ones, even though both used the same ammo. BUT Army Ordnance engineers decided in their wisedom in April 1942 that British shorter chamber has... no advantages over American and decided not to alter it...
But soon level of unreliability of US manufactured Hispanos forced new tests which lasted from June 1942 to January 1943. It was found that it is necessary to... shorten chamber by 1mm!! AN M2s with shorter chamber of International Harvester and Oldsmobile were tested in UK in July and August 1943, being mounted in Hurricane along with British Hispanos - reliability of all guns was found satisfactory. All 35.955 US Hispanos with long chambers were declared UNSERVICEABLE, i.e. scrap worth.

Another major problem was that by US Army standards any weapon over .60 caliber was not a smallarm, but artillery piece, so adminstative unit of Ordnance that was managing US Hispano production acted like a bunch of incompetent beaurocrats and ordered contractors to meet artillery-like standards, i.e. tolerances WAY too lose for high power, high ROF cannon. Loose tolerances meant that very few of the cannons were lucky enough to be anywhere close to say, proper headspace... In short: on paper contraced and produced were perfectly fine: they were meeting quality requirements, now didnt they? But since the latter were, to say it gently not perfectly suitable for automatic 20mm cannon, in practice US 20mm M2s wouldnt meet PRC quality requirements for smallarms.

So US Hispano was more or less reliable (US standard cannons sent to UK were not mounted in planes and just stored...) in mid 1943. But since in previous years 20mm M2s were unsuable, all the planes that were supposed to be armed with them were redesigned to take .50s. Why? Simply because there was nothing else! There was no other automatic weapon larger than totally obsolete .30s produced in US, apart from way to big, heavy and slow 37mm M4. In mid 1943 it was unthinkable to stop production of say P-51 and retool plants to produce wings with gun bays for US Hispanos again. Their production was stopped when total US war material production was on its way about to peak, in February 1944, for there were barely no planes to use them in...

Army gave up, when they concluded that their planes are shooting mostly enemy fighters and .50s might do. But USN was (as usual) ahead of 'land' air force in thinking of technology and was pursuing cannons. Partial and partial only solution of M2s unreliability was greasing ammo. Nobody knew how would they work in real life conditions, so to meet need of trying them out in the field and not risking, that USN fighters would have far more effective than .50s, but highly probably not working at all cannons, Helldivers were chosen as first USN 20mm M2s platform. After cannons proved to about work in combat planes, cannon fighter experiments was tried.

All in all over 134.000 US 20mm cannons were produced - more than enough to arm, say all the P-47s and P-51s ever produced with four, and almost all of them were scrapped. Counting 1.000$ per complete unit... Im not so surprised, that US military did whatever they could to praise .50s. Something had to be done to cover up that about 130 million US$ of taxpayers money were so senslessly thrown into dustbin. I dont think there was any bigger and more stupid weaponry program flop in US history. Lots of effort, lots of time, material and finally money and virtually no result. And all of that beause of stupidity and conceit of certain US Army officials.

So shhh! We never wanted any cannon, we never had to do with any cannons, for we chose .50s because they were perfect! Be sure!

AKA_TAGERT
11-28-2006, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Simple - you are wrong thinking, that US armed forces chose .50s as standard fighters armamanent for the 1940s. Maybe, maybe not, but one thing for sure is you didn't say anything to prove it otherwise.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

faustnik
11-28-2006, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Simple - you are wrong thinking, that US armed forces chose .50s as standard fighters armamanent for the 1940s. Maybe, maybe not, but one thing for sure is you didn't say anything to prove it otherwise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhhhh....hmmmmm....

Well, good summary of the US 20mm production issues anyway Kocur. Nevermind Tagert, sometimes he gets that way. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustJumboSig.jpg
VFS (http://www.virtualfightersquadrons.com/)
Focke-Wulf 190 Consortium (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8)
The Lockheed Syndicate (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=18)
Hawker Haven (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=19)
CWOS FB Forum More cheese, less whine (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=7)
Magnum PCSupport our support guys! (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

Ratsack
11-28-2006, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Simple - you are wrong thinking, that US armed forces chose .50s as standard fighters armamanent for the 1940s. Maybe, maybe not, but one thing for sure is you didn't say anything to prove it otherwise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhhhh....hmmmmm....

Well, good summary of the US 20mm production issues anyway Kocur. Nevermind Tagert, sometimes he gets that way. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sometimes?

Pass the puppy a biscuit.

cheers,
Ratsack

SkyChimp
11-28-2006, 05:39 PM
Not necessarily true. The muzzle velocities of the Hispano II and the M2 50 cal are very similar.


Muzzle velocities may be similar, but ballistics are not. The .50 BMG projectile had a better ballitics coefficient than 20mm Hispano projectiles. As a result, the .50 had a flatter trajectory and would retain its energy longer than the 20mm.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

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

"Hammer the American hard enough and you forge the best weapon in the world."
Captain Simeon Ecuyer during the siege of Fort Pitt

Blutarski2004
11-28-2006, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Something had to be done to cover up that about 130 million US$ of taxpayers money were so senslessly thrown into dustbin. I dont think there was any bigger and more stupid weaponry program flop in US history. Lots of effort, lots of time, material and finally money and virtually no result. And all of that beause of stupidity and conceit of certain US Army officials.

So shhh! We never wanted any cannon, we never had to do with any cannons, for we chose .50s because they were perfect! Be sure!


..... $ 130 million? Small change. The USA can screw up MUCH better than that and continues to prove so.

;-)

BTW, very interesting discourse on 20mm issue. Where did you obtain the data?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Kurfurst__
11-28-2006, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Not necessarily true. The muzzle velocities of the Hispano II and the M2 50 cal are very similar.


Muzzle velocities may be similar, but ballistics are not. The .50 BMG projectile had a better ballitics coefficient than 20mm Hispano projectiles. As a result, the .50 had a flatter trajectory and would retain its energy longer than the 20mm. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any ballistic on those two rounds ? It would seem unreasonable that the heavy projectile would suffer at E-retention.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Pusk??s Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon B??k??ben - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurf??rst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

AKA_TAGERT
11-28-2006, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Not necessarily true. The muzzle velocities of the Hispano II and the M2 50 cal are very similar.


Muzzle velocities may be similar, but ballistics are not. The .50 BMG projectile had a better ballitics coefficient than 20mm Hispano projectiles. As a result, the .50 had a flatter trajectory and would retain its energy longer than the 20mm. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>BINGO!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

BigKahuna_GS
11-29-2006, 05:53 AM
Fordfan--just because a piolet was a great shot and got alot of kills does not mean his word is gosple.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________


Hya Ford we are not talking about JUST ONE PILOT we are talking about the majority of WW2 Navy Fighter pilots. These pilots felt that the .50cal was more than adaquate to destroy any japanese aircraft. As mentioned before they were not charging some of their guns to extend their firing time. Many 1 & 2 .50cal gun kills occured against non-armored/poorly sealed fuel tanks of japanses fighters.


__

__________________________________________________ ___________________________________________
Kurfy--That's from 20/20 hindsight, i.e. 'the US fighters had .50s because it was good for the escort duties'.Problem is, the USAAF doctrine up to 1944 was unescorted 'flying fortresses' penetrating into enemy airspace all alone... The decision to use .50s was not at all related to escort duties, which was concieved much later and after the armament was selected for all the US fighters.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________



That is incorrect Kurfy. Unescorted strategic bombing missions occured during 1943 and were declared a failure with too high of attrition rates. By late fall of 43' P47s & P38s were escorting bomber missions. Only the P38 could at that time escort all the way into germany and back.



__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
Kocur-Helldivers were chosen as first USN 20mm M2s platform. After cannons proved to about work in combat planes, cannon fighter experiments was tried.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________


Actually the TBF Avenger was chosen first to have a single nose mounted 20mm gun installed. There will always be experiments to up-gun fighters and attack aircraft. Real life experiences deemed many of those experiments as not neccessary ie the 75mm cannon in the B-25.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

CANNON OR MACHINE GUN?

The Second World War Aircraft Gun Controversy

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

ENTER THE AMERICANS - AND THE JAPANESE

The end of 1941 also saw America and Japan enter the war. Their aircraft weapons were very different. America relied almost entirely on the Browning machine-gun, not just in .50 (12.7 mm) calibre, but, for the first couple of years, in .30 (7.62mm) as well. The Japanese army and navy air forces followed their own paths, the army steadily up-gunning from 7.7 mm through 12.7 mm machine-guns and later 20 mm cannon, with 30 mm and even larger guns seeing limited service by the end of the war. The navy started with a mixture of 7.7mm MGs and Type 99 (Oerlikon) 20 mm cannon and continued to rely on this cannon (initially the low-velocity Type 99-1, later the more powerful Type 99-2), although it did make some use of HMGs and was also introducing 30 mm guns by the end of the war. As in Germany, the destruction of American heavy bombers was a strong incentive for the development of weapons of 30 mm or larger calibre.

The Americans did not intend to make such a commitment to the Browning MGs. Both before and during the war considerable efforts were made to secure alternative aircraft guns. Trials of foreign equipment resulted in the selection of the 20 mm Hispano-Suiza HS 404, large numbers being made. The Browning-designed 37 mm M4 cannon was also introduced, although used almost exclusively by the Bell P-39 and P-63. However, the standard fighter armament became a battery of six .50 inch Browning M2 HMGs.

This has led to the often-expressed view that the .50 inch M2 was the best all-round fighter gun of the war. After all, the USAAF and US Navy fighters unquestionably came to dominate the skies in which they fought. If there had been a better gun, America would have used it. However, the truth is not quite as simple as that. There are two issues here; how good was the .50 M2 compared with other HMGs, and how effective was it compared with cannon?

The most obvious comparator was the Soviet UB, which fired ammunition of virtually identical power. The UB weighed 25 kg, compared with the M2's 29 kg, but the Soviet gun fired at 17.5 rps, compared with around 13 for the M2. In terms of power- to-weight ratio the Berezin was therefore clearly superior. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The Browning fared better against most other HMGs, as they all fired less-powerful ammunition, so the M2 enjoyed advantages in range and penetration. </span> However, it had a slightly lower rate of fire than the German and Japanese guns (both around 15 rps), and was also bigger and heavier. The most powerful of all of the HMGs was the 15 mm MG 151, but this was heavier and slower-firing than the M2. Overall, therefore, the .50 M2 was not the best of the HMGs but was about average, with reasonable performance for its weight.

How did HMGs compare with 20 mm cannon? The first problem is that the cannon varied hugely in size, weight and performance. The MG??FFM, Type 99-1 and B-20 were all lighter than the M2, but the first two were significantly worse in terms of muzzle velocity and rate of fire, although the B-20 matched the M2's rate of fire and was not far behind in velocity. The Japanese Ho-5 and Type 99-2 and the ShVAK and MG 151/20 were all somewhat heavier. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Muzzle velocities and rates of fire were closer to the M2's but generally still not as good. The Hispano was significantly heavier and slower-firing until the British Mk V emerged near the war's end, matching the MG 151/20 in weight and rate of fire.</span>

The foregoing compares only the guns' efficiency; it takes no account of ammunition, the area in which the HMG loses most ground. The 20 mm cannon shells were not only two to three times heavier than HMG bullets, but their HEI contents greatly increased their effectiveness. Although HE ammunition was available for most HMGs, their small bullets severely limited the quantity of chemicals carried, so the Americans decided not to use them. Initially, the M2 used a mix of incendiary and AP bullets, with some tracers, but in 1944 the M8 API began to take over. Rather curiously, this was based on the Soviet B.32 API used in the Berezin.

It is difficult to assess the effectiveness of different ammunition types, but various tests suggest that a typical World War Two-era HE or incendiary shell, with chemical contents forming about 10 per cent of total shell weight, was about twice as destructive as a plain steel shell of similar size and weight. This makes it clear that 20 mm cannon were considerably more destructive for a given total weight of armament than any HMG could hope to be. For example, the .50 M8 API contained less than one gram of incendiary, whereas the 20 mm Hispano SAPI achieved similar armour penetration but carried more than ten times as much incendiary material.

This advantage was recognised by the US Navy. After comparing the .50 M2 and the 20 mm Hispano they estimated that the cannon was three times as effective. In other words, the typical RAF armament of four 20 mm cannon was twice as destructive as the USAAF's six .50 HMGs, for very little more weight. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Proponents of the Browning HMG point to its excellent ballistics, which enhanced its range and hit probability. But the Hispano's muzzle velocity was very similar, and although the blunt-nosed shells were less aerodynamic the difference over typical air-combat ranges was not significant.</span>

The cannon's advantages are clearly shown in the decisions made as a result of combat experience by air forces with a choice of good HMGs and cannon. We have already seen how Germany preferred the 20 mm version of the MG 151 despite its poorer ballistics. In the 12.7 mm Berezin the Soviets had arguably the best HMG of the war, but they still preferred the heavier, slower-firing 20 mm ShVAK. Japan had several good HMGs available; the army's Ho-103, and the navy's 13 mm Type 3, a .50 Browning chambered for slightly larger-calibre ammunition, but they made increasing use of cannon.

So why did the Americans not make more use of cannon, specifically the 20 mm Hispano they already had in mass production? There were two main reasons. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">One was certainly that the M2 was adequate for its purpose. In Western Europe the main adversaries were fighters, which were much easier to damage and shoot down than bombers. In the Pacific Theatre the Japanese aircraft were initially poorly protected and easy to shoot down.</span> Later Japanese aircraft were better protected, but again these were usually fighters. If the Americans had faced the need to stop raids by heavy, well-protected bombers, it is likely that the HMG's shortcomings would have been starkly revealed.

There was another reason, however, which explains why the US Navy, despite rating the cannon very highly and facing the need to deal with attacking bombers and kamikazes, fitted it to few aircraft. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">That was serious production prob??lems with the American Hispano, which gave it a reputation for unreliability.</span> Despite production running well into six figures, the American Hispano failed to achieve an acceptable reliability standard for the duration of the war.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">To return to the original question, were the Americans right to rely so heavily on the .50 M2 when all other combatant nations had a clear preference for cannon of at least 20 mm calibre? The answer has to be yes.</span> It was adequate for its purpose, and was the only satisfactory aircraft gun in production in the USA. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">It was very reliable (except where the install

Kurfurst__
11-29-2006, 05:54 AM
Hmmm, the "hunter" phrase was borrowed from O. Groehler using the term, and it's probably a case of 'lost in translation'. Thinking of it now, Groehler is (was?) (East-)German, and he'd use German military terms.

A hunter would be J??ger in German, but when used in the military J??gers were originally light infantry skirmishers marching in loose formation in front of the Napoleonic-era line infantry, and were equipped with rifled muskets as opposed to the common line infantry. Their job was basically that of a snipers, picking off officers, gun crews and such. IE. carefully aimed shots vs. 'mass fire'.

So as a matter of fact, we speak the same, just use different terms. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Pusk??s Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon B??k??ben - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurf??rst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Kocur_
11-29-2006, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
BTW, very interesting discourse on 20mm issue. Where did you obtain the data?

The source is the invaluable, the greatest of them all: "Machine Gun" by George M.Chinn, namely Vol. 1, pages 570 - 590.

Werre_Fsck
11-29-2006, 09:24 AM
Easy. Americans sucked at aiming.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://koti.welho.com/kveijala/ubisignature2.png

JG53Frankyboy
11-29-2006, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by SheerLuckHolmes:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

Phantom had no guns or cannon. They carried gunpods to shoot at all. Want to compare hit
by 20mm to hit by sidewinder missile? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Aaaarghhh... you got me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

not totaly, thinking about the F-4E and the bad hitrate of the early Sidewinders http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mynameisroland
11-29-2006, 01:03 PM
But if .50 mg was so good weapon, why didn't they use it in Phantoms... maybe USA had won the Vietnam war too... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

No offence mates http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Screw Phantoms what you needed were P51s and lots of um. That Russki **** wouldnt have lasted more than 5 minutes against the Reno air-race-modified Mustang (capable of Mach 1.2 supercruise you know and finally they got rid of that puny British Merling fitting it with the much more reliable Allison )

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif .<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

faustnik
11-29-2006, 01:42 PM
I think the answer to the original question as to why the US stuck with the .50 was:

- It worked fine for the required purposes.

- Having one caliber weapon simplified supply issues.

- There were development issues with other possible replacement wepaons.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<IMG SRC="http://pages.

fordfan25
11-29-2006, 03:20 PM
609IAP_Kahuna as i said there is a deffernce between good enough and better. i have NO dout that the 50s were awsome at takeing down fighters. in PTO for sure. all im saying is the 20mm would have been a better choice. sure there were plenty of times when a squirt of 50,s would take down a 109 or FW but iv also read plenty of WW2 USA piolets that state how thay would empty guns and the targets FW/ect would still get away. 4x20mm armed P-47 would have fairly near fire time as there 50 cal RL counter parts but would on avg take less fire time to do the same damnge. of course this gives not only evens out the deffernce in fire time but also lessns the time the attacking fighter needs to stay behaind his prey thus reduceing the chance of him getting shot down ect.

now so there is no confussion about my point of veiw, as things were in real life WW2 era.Do i think the usa made the best choice given the way things were? YES. How ever do i think it would be better if thay coulda waved a magic wand and turn all the .50s into reliable 20mm's like the brits or germans had? YES. Do i think it was needed to win the air war? NO. do i think that it woulda made all fighter piolets ace's? NO. Do i think it would have made a deffernce for the better? YES.

just my opinion.the better 20mm guns had near 50 cal rate of fire. in same air frame had simular fireing time. "dont compair spit to p-47 compair say F4u-c to D" better armor penatration, higher explosive abilty ect.Only down side i can see is 20mm was not as falt a shooting gun BUT if its what you use you would get use to how it shoots and it would be a non issue.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong.

-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

fordfan25
11-29-2006, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Werre_Fsck:
Easy. Americans sucked at aiming. yet we were/are better than every one else at it.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong.

-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

Blutarski2004
11-29-2006, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
BTW, very interesting discourse on 20mm issue. Where did you obtain the data?

The source is the invaluable, the greatest of them all: "Machine Gun" by George M.Chinn, namely Vol. 1, pages 570 - 590. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Thanks, Kocur. That's one I do not have.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

jarink
11-29-2006, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
- There were development issues with other possible replacement wepaons.

Ah, yes, the semi-infamous ".60 cal" MG/cannon that was a total flop.

I'm suprised no one has mentioned that the M2 BMG was originally designed during WWI. It's original purpose was as an anti-tank weapon, even though Tigers were 20 years from entering service. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

My PF movies:Aluminum Eagle (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Aluminum_Eagle/OneVisionLg.zip), Fire and Rain (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Fire_and_Rain/Fire_and_Rain.zip) Snowbirds (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Snowbirds/Snowbirds.zip)and Crew 22 (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Crew_22/Crew22.zip)

http://home.grics.net/jrink/signature.jpg

SkyChimp
11-29-2006, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Anyone got a War Department Technical Manual for a .50 cal with the ballistic coefficients?

The US AN M2 20 mm manual gives the following data:

HEI MK I:

Bal Co-eff: 0.452 lbs/sq in
MV @ 90 ft: 2,770 ft/sec

AP-T M 75:

Bal Co-eff: 0.613 lbs/sq in
MV @ 90 ft: 2,510 ft/sec

Ball:

Bal Co-eff: 0.457 lbs/sq in
MV @ 90 ft: 2,770 ft/sec

IIRC the BC of the .50 BMG AP round was something like .65.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

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

"Hammer the American hard enough and you forge the best weapon in the world."
Captain Simeon Ecuyer during the siege of Fort Pitt

fordfan25
11-29-2006, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Anyone got a War Department Technical Manual for a .50 cal with the ballistic coefficients?

The US AN M2 20 mm manual gives the following data:

HEI MK I:

Bal Co-eff: 0.452 lbs/sq in
MV @ 90 ft: 2,770 ft/sec

AP-T M 75:

Bal Co-eff: 0.613 lbs/sq in
MV @ 90 ft: 2,510 ft/sec

Ball:

Bal Co-eff: 0.457 lbs/sq in
MV @ 90 ft: 2,770 ft/sec

IIRC the BC of the .50 BMG AP round was something like .65. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>your WAY off chimp. it was .64.999932. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong.

-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

Ratsack
11-29-2006, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
I think the answer to the original question as to why the US stuck with the .50 was:

- It worked fine for the required purposes.

- Having one caliber weapon simplified supply issues.

- There were development issues with other possible replacement wepaons.

That's about right, but I would say it thus:

1. they chose the 20 mm cannon as the best option; but
2. there were major problems in its development; so
3. they made do with the 0.50 inch machine gun, which was adequate.


The key thing here is that the question was ???why did the U.S. choose the 0.50 cal???? The answer to that question is that they didn???t: they chose the 20 mm cannon. This in turn raises the question why, if they chose the 20 mm cannon, did they end up using the 0.50 cal? The answer to that has been summarised by Kocur, and he???s given the sources, nice guy that he is.

The rest of the discussion about trigger time, muzzle velocity, ballistics, KE, weight of fire, etc. is very interesting, but utterly irrelevant. The question was an historical one, and it has an historical answer in fact that has nothing to do with our opinions on the technical merits of this gun or that.


cheers,
Ratsack

AKA_TAGERT
11-29-2006, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
I think the answer to the original question as to why the US stuck with the .50 was:

- It worked fine for the required purposes.

- Having one caliber weapon simplified supply issues.

- There were development issues with other possible replacement wepaons. Agreed 100%
That and in that order<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Ratsack
11-29-2006, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

That and in that order

Did somebody ring a bell?

Ratsack

ImpStarDuece
11-30-2006, 03:36 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Anyone got a War Department Technical Manual for a .50 cal with the ballistic coefficients?

The US AN M2 20 mm manual gives the following data:

HEI MK I:

Bal Co-eff: 0.452 lbs/sq in
MV @ 90 ft: 2,770 ft/sec

AP-T M 75:

Bal Co-eff: 0.613 lbs/sq in
MV @ 90 ft: 2,510 ft/sec

Ball:

Bal Co-eff: 0.457 lbs/sq in
MV @ 90 ft: 2,770 ft/sec

IIRC the BC of the .50 BMG AP round was something like .65. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Found some info modern .50 cal ballistic coefficients, which should be approximately similar to WW2 ammo, give or take a standard deviation:

M2 AP: .671 lbs/sq in
M8 API: .663 lbs/sq in
M33 Ball: .680 lbs/ sq in<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

ImpStarDuece,

Flying Bullet Magnet... Catching Lead Since 2002

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

"Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol, morphine or idealism."
-Carl Jung

Tusseladden
11-30-2006, 04:07 AM
USA realized that if .50 cals can take out tigers, who needs 20mm? I mean, they still use the M2 Browning .50 cal today for several purposes, because of it's armor penetration capabilities, hitting power and versatility http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v407/strikestrike/Signature_1.jpg

Blutarski2004
11-30-2006, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Anyone got a War Department Technical Manual for a .50 cal with the ballistic coefficients?

The US AN M2 20 mm manual gives the following data:

HEI MK I:

Bal Co-eff: 0.452 lbs/sq in
MV @ 90 ft: 2,770 ft/sec

AP-T M 75:

Bal Co-eff: 0.613 lbs/sq in
MV @ 90 ft: 2,510 ft/sec

Ball:

Bal Co-eff: 0.457 lbs/sq in
MV @ 90 ft: 2,770 ft/sec

IIRC the BC of the .50 BMG AP round was something like .65. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Found some info modern .50 cal ballistic coefficients, which should be approximately similar to WW2 ammo, give or take a standard deviation:

M2 AP: .671 lbs/sq in
M8 API: .663 lbs/sq in
M33 Ball: .680 lbs/ sq in </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Nice find, ISD. These sectional densities can be used to compare ballistic performance for projectiles of the same shape. However, the comparison value will erode as the projectile forms differ more greatly from one another.

Sectional density is actually only one part of the formal ballistic co-efficient statement. The formula (somewhat simplified) for ballistic co-efficient is -

W/[i.D^2]

- where

W = projectile weight
D = projectile diameter
i = co-efficient of form

Co-efficient of form values reduce in value as the projectile become more streamlined in shape. The principal (but not exclusive) governing factor is the shape of the nose, whose sharpness is classed by it "crh" value.

"Crh" = caliber radius head. This is a lot easier to explain pictorially, but basically it goes like this: [1] start with the profile of the cylindrical body of the projectile; [2] make a nose for the shell body by drawing two arcs of equal radius, each tangent to a side of the projectile body and intersecting at the extended centerline of the projectile. The radii of these arcs, as multiples of the projectile caliber, determine the >>theoretical<< co-efficient of form value.

The crh value chart basically looks like this (where "n" = projectile caliber):

Radius---Co-efficient of Form
-----------------------------
2n-------1.00
3n-------0.82
4n-------0.71
6n-------0.58
8n-------0.49

As you can see, co-efficient of form can have a very great influence on the overall value of the ballistic co-efficient.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

LStarosta
11-30-2006, 06:05 AM
I love the Shvak's pistol grip.

It brings out the Ivan Rambovski in all of us.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5310/tagjimmyssw1.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
11-30-2006, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

That and in that order

Did somebody ring a bell?

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Did somebody turn on a light?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Ratsack
11-30-2006, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

That and in that order

Did somebody ring a bell?

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Did somebody turn on a light? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, look. Ring the bell and he comes running with his tail wagging. Isn't he cute?

Ding-a-ling, little doggie. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Ratsack

AKA_TAGERT
11-30-2006, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Oh, look. Ring the bell and he comes running with his tail wagging. Isn't he cute?

Ding-a-ling, little doggie. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Ratsack
Rats & Sacks..

Dogs & Dingalings..

What is this animal & appendage fetish you have?

On second thought, I really don???t want to know, I just ate.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

fighter_966
11-30-2006, 10:19 AM
Tagert http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif if you are still interested about bulges of Bf109 you should also read David Bakers book
Adolf Galland The Authorized Biography to get bigger picture isbn number is 952-5186-51-2 (hint
Galland had also something to do with bulges) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

AKA_TAGERT
11-30-2006, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
Tagert http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif if you are still interested about bulges of Bf109 you should also read David Bakers book
Adolf Galland The Authorized Biography to get bigger picture isbn number is 952-5186-51-2 (hint
Galland had also something to do with bulges) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Yes thanks! I actully ordered Gallands book just so I can quote him line and verse in future Carson bashing topics! Ill look into this bood and how aval it is too.. thanks for the heads up!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

fordfan25
11-30-2006, 04:21 PM
so why were there so many deffernt 20mms and no 21,22,23 ect guns<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong.

-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

Ratsack
12-01-2006, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Oh, look. Ring the bell and he comes running with his tail wagging. Isn't he cute?

Ding-a-ling, little doggie. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Ratsack
Rats & Sacks..

Dogs & Dingalings..

What is this animal & appendage fetish you have?

On second thought, I really don???t want to know, I just ate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice to see you keeping your IQ safely below the speed limit, small yappy dog.

Ratsack

fighter_966
12-01-2006, 03:30 AM
Fordfan answer lays in suitable caliber.. weapon weight and size and what was availeble...
The bigger caliber bigger ammo more weight etc..Also what aeroplane can carry sensible..these reasons generally

mynameisroland
12-01-2006, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
Tagert http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif if you are still interested about bulges of Bf109 you should also read David Bakers book
Adolf Galland The Authorized Biography to get bigger picture isbn number is 952-5186-51-2 (hint
Galland had also something to do with bulges) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Yes thanks! I actully ordered Gallands book just so I can quote him line and verse in future Carson bashing topics! Ill look into this bood and how aval it is too.. thanks for the heads up! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow buying a Luft Aces book just to big up your own US heroes, now thats smart thinking.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

mynameisroland
12-01-2006, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
so why were there so many deffernt 20mms and no 21,22,23 ect guns

because some calibres are more effective for a given weight penalty, its natural selection. If you increase the calibre by 1mm you dont just square the increase in capacity it gets cubed so the wight of everthing goes up. As the round size increases as does the need for stronger heavier mechanisms which lead to heavier mountings and lower rate of fire.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/Newsig3.jpg

fighter_966
12-01-2006, 04:39 AM
Gallands book is not good for bashing Bf109 or Galland He was Gentleman.Carson is wrong. Punctum.

Kurfurst__
12-01-2006, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
so why were there so many deffernt 20mms and no 21,22,23 ect guns

These are only nominal designations for the caliber, the actual diameter of the bullet is almost always different.

Ie. take two very similiar rounds, the German 7.92mm Kurz for the Sturmgewehr, which actually measures 8.1mm IIRC; the Soviet equivalent, the 7.62 M43 actually measures 7.92mm.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Pusk??s Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon B??k??ben - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurf??rst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Treetop64
12-01-2006, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Thanatos833:
All of the majors powers used cannon to some extent or the other in their fighters, the Germans seemed particularly fond of them. The Americans were the opposite, most of their fighters did not have cannon. The machine guns have higher velocity lower caliber shells as opposed to the lower velocity higher caliber shells of the Cannon.

Machine gun shells have longer range but Cannon shells have more destructive potential. I was wondering why the Germans went for cannon in a big way while the Americans largely stayed away from it, the other powers of course were somewhere in the middle> Any ideas for the causes behind these trends? Simple

Cannons are needed to take out big bombers.

The USA was not under direct threat from any long range bombers big or small.. Thus no real motivation to put cannons on our fighters.. Early modles like the 38 and 39 did, but once the war got rolling and we realised nothing could touch us the fighters that followed didnt employ cannons. Why? Because most of our fighters were attacking other fighters, not big bombers, and the .50 cal is more than enough to take out a fighter.. Sure it wont blow it up into a million pieces.. but no need to, Gravity will take care of that!

Where as the Germans where very motivated to put cannons on thier fighters in that a large number of large bombers where attacking them all the time.

The USN did have to deal with bombers.. but the Jap bombers were not that hard of a target and the .50s worked fine, thus again, no real big need. Later as the komikoszies got busy the NAVY toyed with the idea, but in the end the .50 was still enough. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

What he said.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------
(\_/)
(0.0)
(^^) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny onto your signature to help him on his way to world domination.
------------------------------
"It breaks my heart, but I am almost certain that raaaid will get the Nobel Prize in physics before we get the Avenger in PF."
-- Zeus-cat
------------------------------
"I take off like an epileptic squirrel being attacked by bees. I fly with the equivalant grace of a circus elephant with a compressed airhose shoved up my ***, and to add icing to the cake that is the disgraceful paroxysm of my uncoordinated spasmodic ballet: I have yet to land without flipping the plane over on its canopy. How's that for style?" -- Sobriquet

AKA_TAGERT
12-01-2006, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Wow buying a Luft Aces book just to big up your own US heroes, now thats smart thinking. WOW! Your call for a new and nicer forum didn't last long?

Oh well..

To answer your question, it was not to "big up my heroes" in that a WWII ace turned Aero engineer does not need me to do that!

The purpose of that book was just to put a mirror up to the face of the smacktards trying to "bring down" such fine men. By showing how thier hero agrees with the man they are trying to smear.

SAVVY?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

AKA_TAGERT
12-01-2006, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Nice to see you keeping your IQ safely below the speed limit, small yappy dog.

Ratsack Poor MickyBalls.. You seem a little upset today? Stay up late?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

AKA_TAGERT
12-01-2006, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
Gallands book is not good for bashing Bf109 or Galland He was Gentleman. Was not for bashing Galland.. Wouldn't even think of it! He was a great man.


Originally posted by fighter_966:
Carson is wrong. Punctum. If Carson is wrong, than Galland is wrong, in that Gallands statments agree with Carson's.. Care to try again?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

AKA_TAGERT
12-01-2006, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
Tagert http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif if you are still interested about bulges of Bf109 you should also read David Bakers book
Adolf Galland The Authorized Biography to get bigger picture isbn number is 952-5186-51-2 (hint
Galland had also something to do with bulges) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif By the way, that ISBN number is wrong.. but via the author I found a few copies on amazon! Again, thanks for the heads up!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Zoom2136
12-01-2006, 11:45 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 Kocur_:
Something had to be done to cover up that about 130 million US$ of taxpayers money were so senslessly thrown into dustbin. I dont think there was any bigger and more stupid weaponry program flop in US history. Lots of effort, lots of time, material and finally money and virtually no result. And all of that beause of stupidity and conceit of certain US Army officials.

So shhh! We never wanted any cannon, we never had to do with any cannons, for we chose .50s because they were perfect! Be sure!


..... $ 130 million? Small change. The USA can screw up MUCH better than that and continues to prove so.

;-)

BTW, very interesting discourse on 20mm issue. Where did you obtain the data? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

130 millions in 1930's-1940's is worth way more than that today my friend... let's say 66 years at a capitalisation rate of 10% (wich is the average return of the stock market over the long term) that means that 130 million in 1940 is worth 70,123,013,700 $ in 2006 (130M$(1+0.10)^66) so do you still think this is small change ??? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"http://www.oacsquad.com/images/sigs/zoom.gif "

Xiolablu3
12-01-2006, 02:29 PM
The Russains used a 23mm cannon, but I guess the reason there are so many 20mm's is because its a reasonable size to hold a good amount of explosive, yet small enough to throw out at a high speed.

You have to pick a size, so 20mm seems a good compromise between size and weight of explosive.

Later the Germans were able to develop a good compact 30mm cannon, but this was a terrific engineering feat, and the lessons had to be learned from smaller cannons first. I presume the 30mm cannon was adpoted purely becasue the siz of the planes they had to shoot down was growing, and they wanted to destroy them as quick as possible, with little danger to the fighter.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I despise what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Aaron_GT
12-01-2006, 03:31 PM
130 millions in 1930's-1940's is worth way more than that today my friend... let's say 66 years at a capitalisation rate of 10% (wich is the average return of the stock market over the long term) that means that 130 million in 1940 is worth 70,123,013,700 $ in 2006 (130M$(1+0.10)^66) so do you still think this is small change ???

This is what 130 million would be worth if you had invested it, and didn't take into inflation. 10% is also an optimistic rate of return from the stockmarket - 7% is a more usual figure used.

The calculation should be 130 million + inflation. 130 million with 66 years of inflation is in the 3 to 5 billion ball park.

Ratsack
12-01-2006, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Nice to see you keeping your IQ safely below the speed limit, small yappy dog.

Ratsack Poor MickyBalls.. You seem a little upset today? Stay up late? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pathetic. That's not even worthy of your normal gormless level of invective.

You go and have a little lie down, small yappy dog.

Ratsack

fighter_966
12-01-2006, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
Gallands book is not good for bashing Bf109 or Galland He was Gentleman. Was not for bashing Galland.. Wouldn't even think of it! He was a great man.


Originally posted by fighter_966:
Carson is wrong. Punctum. If Carson is wrong, than Galland is wrong, in that Gallands statments agree with Carson's.. Care to try again? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Galland had his special version of Bf109f his own with heavier machineguns above engine (thats why bulges) and
in wings. He liked those heavier guns which(those above engine) stayed to final version of Bf109models thats why these bulges stayed.. so if he was complaining about bulges... that was almost same as
F1 driver doesnt like color of his car..He also says in that book that he was happy to get heavier armament to Bf109 as war went fore.As he was general of the fighter pilots he had close relation to acency which tested weapons for Luftwaffe and also was friend of Production
Minister Speer he had oppoturnity to make some demands what weapons Bf109 carried..

SkyChimp
12-01-2006, 05:19 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 fordfan25:
so why were there so many deffernt 20mms and no 21,22,23 ect guns

These are only nominal designations for the caliber, the actual diameter of the bullet is almost always different.

Ie. take two very similiar rounds, the German 7.92mm Kurz for the Sturmgewehr, which actually measures 8.1mm IIRC; the Soviet equivalent, the 7.62 M43 actually measures 7.92mm. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup. The .50 BMG bullet diameter is .510. The .30 US was .308.

Even in the civilian world:
.38 Special is .357
.44 Special/Magnum is .429
.45 ACP/.45 Long Colt is .454

and so on and so forth<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

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

"Hammer the American hard enough and you forge the best weapon in the world."
Captain Simeon Ecuyer during the siege of Fort Pitt

AKA_TAGERT
12-01-2006, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Pathetic. That's not even worthy of your normal gormless level of invective.

You go and have a little lie down, small yappy dog.

Ratsack I'm sorry MickyBalls.. I can see your getting all flustered and upset.. I promise to go easy on you in the future.. I didnt realise you were so thin skinnned.. My bad.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

AKA_TAGERT
12-01-2006, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
Gallands book is not good for bashing Bf109 or Galland He was Gentleman. Was not for bashing Galland.. Wouldn't even think of it! He was a great man.


Originally posted by fighter_966:
Carson is wrong. Punctum. If Carson is wrong, than Galland is wrong, in that Gallands statments agree with Carson's.. Care to try again? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Galland had his special version of Bf109f his own with heavier machineguns above engine (thats why bulges) and
in wings. He liked those heavier guns which(those above engine) stayed to final version of Bf109models thats why these bulges stayed.. so if he was complaining about bulges... that was almost same as
F1 driver doesnt like color of his car..He also says in that book that he was happy to get heavier armament to Bf109 as war went fore.As he was general of the fighter pilots he had close relation to acency which tested weapons for Luftwaffe and also was friend of Production
Minister Speer he had oppoturnity to make some demands what weapons Bf109 carried.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's nice but it does not change the fact that if Carson was wrong that so was Galland. SAVVY?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Ratsack
12-01-2006, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
blah blah.. My bad.

Yes, your bad grammar and spelling, as well as your bad knowledge of the topic in hand.

Your yapping is lovely to hear, little puppy, just like your whining and crying. Yap away, Taggie dog.

Ratsack

AKA_TAGERT
12-01-2006, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
blah blah.. My bad.

Yes, your bad grammar and spelling, as well as your bad knowledge of the topic in hand.

Your yapping is lovely to hear, little puppy, just like your whining and crying. Yap away, Taggie dog.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Someone needs a hug!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

fighter_966
12-01-2006, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
Gallands book is not good for bashing Bf109 or Galland He was Gentleman. Was not for bashing Galland.. Wouldn't even think of it! He was a great man.


Originally posted by fighter_966:
Carson is wrong. Punctum. If Carson is wrong, than Galland is wrong, in that Gallands statments agree with Carson's.. Care to try again? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Galland had his special version of Bf109f his own with heavier machineguns above engine (thats why bulges) and
in wings. He liked those heavier guns which(those above engine) stayed to final version of Bf109models thats why these bulges stayed.. so if he was complaining about bulges... that was almost same as
F1 driver doesnt like color of his car..He also says in that book that he was happy to get heavier armament to Bf109 as war went fore.As he was general of the fighter pilots he had close relation to acency which tested weapons for Luftwaffe and also was friend of Production
Minister Speer he had oppoturnity to make some demands what weapons Bf109 carried.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's nice but it does not change the fact that if Carson was wrong that so was Galland. SAVVY? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know the name bulge didnt favor 109 but that came because looks of
109 after bulges but not from flying qualities. So as Galland was complaining about bulges etc
in Bf109 He admitted that direction of evolution of the plane went bit wrong but what else He could have approved to use as weaponsystems in Bf109 .The course of war went as it went and well... When situation turned desperate for germans he wanted to stop makeing Bf109 and start tu produce Fw190 and Me262

Ratsack
12-01-2006, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
blah blah.. My bad.

Yes, your bad grammar and spelling, as well as your bad knowledge of the topic in hand.

Your yapping is lovely to hear, little puppy, just like your whining and crying. Yap away, Taggie dog.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Someone needs a hug! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It must be hard for you, puppy, reading all those words. Does your finger need a rest?

Ratsack

AKA_TAGERT
12-01-2006, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
blah blah.. My bad.

Yes, your bad grammar and spelling, as well as your bad knowledge of the topic in hand.

Your yapping is lovely to hear, little puppy, just like your whining and crying. Yap away, Taggie dog.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Someone needs a hug! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It must be hard for you, puppy, reading all those words. Does your finger need a rest?

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh.. I get it.. Your in 5th grade and need to have the last word to feel special.. My bad! Sorry folks, I didnt realise who I was dealing with! So this will be my last reply to MickyBalls so he can respond and feel like a winner! Unless he actully has someting to say with regards to the topic.. which is unlikly in that he has yet to.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Ratsack
12-01-2006, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
blah blah.. My bad.

Yes, your bad grammar and spelling, as well as your bad knowledge of the topic in hand.

Your yapping is lovely to hear, little puppy, just like your whining and crying. Yap away, Taggie dog.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Someone needs a hug! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It must be hard for you, puppy, reading all those words. Does your finger need a rest?

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>... this will be my last reply ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the outlook is...unlikely. You can't help it.

I see you've discovered cut and paste, Taggie puppy, just so you can try to appear to keep up.

Don't worry, my little posturing Net Warrior, reading and writing gets easier when you grow up. You'll be better at it when you reach puberty.


Ratsack

AKA_TAGERT
12-01-2006, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
So as Galland was complaining about bulges etc in Bf109 He admitted that direction of evolution of the plane went bit wrong Roger.. Just like Carson.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

fighter_966
12-01-2006, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fighter_966:
So as Galland was complaining about bulges etc in Bf109 He admitted that direction of evolution of the plane went bit wrong Roger.. Just like Carson. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I recall Carson said that 109 was obsolete
1940 or something forward ?? Galland didnt agree in that He didnt say that 109 was obsolete

AKA_TAGERT
12-01-2006, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
As I recall Carson said that 109 was obsolete 1940 or something forward ??
You recall wrong!

Not suprising in that what he said has been taken out of context so many times to the point of slander. What he said was specific to the G model and no year was mentioned.


Kit Carson:
But another household work, the highly propagandized Me 109G, was obsolete when it was built and was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. It was a hopeless collection of lumps, bumps, stiff controls, and placed its pilot in a cramped, squarish cockpit with poor visibility.
Sound familiar?


Originally posted by fighter_966:
Galland didnt agree in that He didnt say that 109 was obsolete
Neither did Carson, because he never said that.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Bellator_1
12-01-2006, 06:32 PM
Carson didn't know squat what he was talking about - and there are MANY illustrations of this in his reports.

Galland only saw the 109 as obsolete because of the introduction of the Fw-190 btw, not because of any other reason.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________
"A wise man is superior to any insults which can be put upon him, and the best reply to unseemly behavior is patience and moderation. " - Moliere

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/7665/2001783351240268893_rs.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
12-01-2006, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Carson didn't know squat what he was talking about - and there are MANY illustrations of this in his reports. If so than neither did Galland


Originally posted by Bellator_1:
Galland only saw the 109 as obsolete because of the introduction of the Fw-190 btw, not because of any other reason. Only.. LOL! Not, but nice try!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

fighter_966
12-01-2006, 06:48 PM
In my book Galland says about G6 model: I was relieved that it got 20mm gun(more weight)and also 13mm machineguns (Bulges stayed)plus better engine DB605AM (more weight) and also as a + gun gondols or bomb rack but nothing about plane getting worse than before..CLEAN LINES were of course gone.. Plane got heavier and
direction of its evolution went wrong. This is what Galland ment by complaining about Bulges

AKA_TAGERT
12-01-2006, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
In my book Galland says about G6 model: I was relieved that it got 20mm gun(more weight)and also 13mm machineguns (Bulges stayed)plus better engine DB605AM (more weight) and also as a + gun gondols or bomb rack but nothing about plane getting worse than before..CLEAN LINES were of course gone.. Plane got heavier and
direction of its evolution went wrong. This is what Galland ment by complaining about Bulges Roger.. just like Carson<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

fighter_966
12-01-2006, 07:17 PM
Galland Wrote to Milch about production of plane marks for Luftwaffe May25 1943 that production of the planes must be concentrated to produce Me262 and different models of Fw190 but said again nothing about obsoleteness of Bf 109 Reason to leave 109G out was Me 262 though it was not obsolete Me 262 was just better and we all know that this plan didnt worked out because of Adolf and (G??ring who didnt like Galland) .Galland wanted fighters and Adolf Bombers G??ring was Adolfs side so Galland lost
and Bf 109 was still in production not obsolete but not as good as Me262 would have been as a fighter in situation Germany was in that year