Jump to content

YIPPEE

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    491
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by YIPPEE


  1. Just now, unreasonable said:

     

    And I do not know why you have to misrepresent what people say. He did not say you could not make passes on alert gunners; he said it was very dangerous. It is orders of magnitude less dangerous if you catch them napping. You only need what looks like a small level of risk - per attack run - to make a ground attack tour of duty hard to survive. This is just a matter of cumulative percentages.  

      

    I didnt misrepresent him, nor anyone else in this thread. If anything, you saying this is misrepresenting me.

     

    And thats not what he said. He basically implied that an alert gunner attack is nearly suicidal.

    12 minutes ago, Lord_Flashheart said:

    You cannot make a second pass on a locomotive or targets like that, or it might well be your last pass. Almost no one did (that lasted). By then the gunners are definitely alerted and not all dead (the Flak cars are distributed over the whole train) and the locomotive has come to a standstill, enabling precise Flak gunnery. Remember, you're making the easiest target for them by going straight at them

     


  2. 1 minute ago, JtD said:

    Both weapons go were the gunsight is pointed, roughly. It's not that the Hispano was firing all over the place or had a muzzle velocity that necessitated significant lead when attacking a truck.

     

    And again I'd like to point out that multiple passes to the extent that 200rpg were insufficient were extremely rare and pretty much irrelevant. Not only expressed by the average ammunition usage. It happened like 2% of the time the 8x.50 were actually used (which wasn't always the case). Typically, you'd also be a gun down by then, due to stoppages. Mind you, not all of this is relating to .50 with API ammo, so 200rpg in a Hispano would be way more lethal than in a .50.

    The 50s are easier to aim because 6-8 guns harmonized have a extremely dense but also very "wide" pattern of fire. In other words, more shotgun.

     

    With regards to 200rpg being being sufficient/insufficient: It is still an advantage, and it also means you could fire a longer burst....and also be less worried about it if you miss etc. It also means you have more ammo left over if you find a new target on the way home.....or get bounced by a 109.


  3. 10 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

    You cannot make a second pass on a locomotive or targets like that, or it might well be your last pass. Almost no one did (that lasted). By then the gunners are definitely alerted and not all dead (the Flak cars are distributed over the whole train) and the locomotive has come to a standstill, enabling precise Flak gunnery. Remember, you're making the easiest target for them by going straight at them. All they have to do is point their sight directly at you and let all go. Even if you like to do several passes, no one lasted to do so repeatedly. I've seen a lot hopeless chaps sitting on their Oerlikons. While their aim is just good for polluting the environment (especially concerning all things abeam), what goes directly at them, that they can hit.

    Yes you can. AAA in ww2 had an extremely difficult time hitting planes that were even flying in straight lines. The sights on alot of those guns are crude and hand cranking a gun onto a fast moving plane is not an easy task. It is also usually a multi crew operations requiring frequent reloading etc. The fact that AAA was the leading cause of aircraft losses doesnt mean its super accurate. It took a lot of guns to defend a target. This is also why flak shells existed even on small guns, so you didnt have to hit. Carrier task forces fielded more AAA than virtually any ground target and planes STILL got through well enough to sink ships. Had this not been the case the carrier would not have been the dominate weapon. Id dont know where you get this idea that flak in ww2 was accurate that you could not make passes on alert gunners.

     

    There is a reason we invented radar guided SHORAD, which is the only AAA system that has ever existed that would be as dangerous as you are indicated ww2 AAA was.

     

     

     

    This

    Gepard_1a2_overview.jpg

    Is not

     

    This

    s-l640.jpg


  4. 1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

     

    Bottom line is, it is not you that decides the amount of firing time. But the situation and the nature of the target (should you plan to survive your attack run).

    Which is why I prefer a weapons setup where I have a higher total rate of fire, easier aim, a wider and denser beaten zone, and the opportunity to make more passes.


  5. I don't know why I only thought of this just now, but everyone in this thread can go watch 30mm footage from Apaches....as well as on other weapons on youtube vs real targets. I wont post it here because I'm sure it violates some rule....but for anyone who hasnt see it it should convey pretty clearly that the explosive effect of 20-30mm is not a death ray. You will frequently see near misses fail to kill the target.


  6. 7 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

     

    The reason why you have dedicated ground ponders as the exception is just corporate welfare by selling a „one size fits all“ that is mainly good at generating high running costs. There is no lobby for them, even though they are the most important aircraft you can have once you achieved air superiority. Dedicated ground pounders are cheap. They are meant and made to be shot at. It’s just not a great product to sell unless you are forced to produce it. Of course, they say it is most efficient to have „one aircraft that can do everything“ (like the fast fighter that can carry bombs too, and is invisible, and... ) as you have only to buy one aircraft. We know how that goes.

    I strongly disagree. The only type of airplane you need is a strike eagle type. Anything else is highly inefficient. No other airplane types should be made unless their design is required to do a completely different and necessary role, or that design could do a role several orders of magnitude better. The "muh CAS" lobby is huge. There has been a huge lobby for reformer ideas ever since the dumbest man ever to grace the USAF (John Boyd) left his hideous mark behind. That lobby you say doesn't exist has been doing nothing for the last 10 years but distribute misinformation to slow down a certain extremely important aircraft project. An aircraft program whose costs and delays are not what the detractors say they are.

     

    So I guess the answer to the 20mm vs .50cal debate is F-35?😁

     

     


  7. Just now, JtD said:

     

    No, that's not really the point. The feature because of which the Il-2 was considered "needed" was the armour. Simple thing, high value targets are typically well defended, if not by airforces, then by ground forces, i.e. AAA and small arms fire. The planes involved in such attacks will inevitably take damage. In April 1944 for instance, nine P-47's of the 8th Air Force were lost to light AAA, five to small arms fire (US figures). High performance fighters, even structurally strong ones, are just not built to cope with that to the same degree dedicated ground attack aircraft are. It's true, and it's a matter of preference/priorities/warfare how you deal with it.

    Right the armor approach is a misguided one. Better not to get hit. And if you cant do this, the armor doesn't really help much and detracts from range and payload. Planes like the il2 got shot down by AAA about as easily as anything else, and any plane that takes a hit is not likely to finish the mission even if its not shot down.

     

    If you are going to build dedicated general purpose strike planes, they should justify their existence by being large enough to do things a general purpose fighter cannot really do at all. Like a B-25, Pe-2, A-20, etc. Fighter sized attack planes are a total waste of space: literally, ramp space.

     

    People put armor on planes. It doesnt work very well, except the small amounts of armor on fighters to protect the pilot.

    • Upvote 1

  8. 3 hours ago, JtD said:

     

    Well, the topic is 20mm vs. .50 and not P-47 vs. other aircraft.

     

    But since you're going down that road, I'd like to mention that the F4U carried a bigger load than the P-47 and was more versatile in terms of ground attack. It had, for instance, dive brakes and could be used as a dive bomber. Other than that, same big engine, smaller airframe - more useful load. Plus I think it's not surprising that aircraft that big and powerful could carry more than say the smaller/lighter Hs129 which had half the power available. And if the P-47 was a 'better' attacker than the Il-2 is definitely arguable - given that one of the lessons learned by the USAAF in WW2 was that "we need a Sturmovik type aircraft". Personally I'm not a big fan of the Il-2 (I prefer general purpose aircraft such as the P-47), but it had uses where it was better suited to the task than any fighter bomber. It's also not an attackers job to carry bombs over large distances, that's what bombers are there for.

    I dont dispute the F4U was good, I didnt realize it was arguing against it. But it if was between a 4 20mm f4u and a 6 fifty f4u, my reaction to it is "meh". The increase in firepower to me is not worth the loss of trigger time.

     

    You said you prefer general purpose aircraft so I dont think Ill say much on this, but in my view dedicated attack aircraft are a waste of time for any major air power. Historically speaking, the best option has always been to simply outfit your air superiority plane with bombs. Since they are already designed for performance, they can carry larger payloads. And they perform better doing it. They also dont waste air frames and pilots on planes that can only do one task. The only think an il2 could do better than a P-47 was have slightly better odds vs a tank with its cannon. And as you pointed out earlier, these were generally not the main targets.

     

    Needing a dedicated strike aircraft goes under the laundry list of false lessons to include: "The sherman sucked," "The missiles dont work," "The phantom sucked," etc.

     

    But now we really off topic!

    2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

    There is something about that you you could tell me (or maybe someone else with experience shoothing with those guns). Looking back through he thread, it was often pointed out that part of the effectivity comes from the bullets having "more spread" than the 20 mm arragnement, in the sense that you can afford something like a larger hitcone due to a higher population of bullets there. Looking at the diagram of the P-47 gun harmonization pattern, it doesn't look to me as a "spread", but more likely the arrangement where at least one gun shoots at where you point your gunsight. It is the most "precise" arrangement and it uses those many guns to the effect of precision rather than just plain hitting power. It results in a very long range where some bullets precisely strike where aiming aiming at. If I wanted a shotgun pattern, I would choose a different arragngement.

     

    So my question is, is my observation correct? Or wold there be a better way to arrange the guns if all I wanted is hitting with most bullets where I aim at? I have no such diagram for the Tempest, although that oone would be intersting as well.

     

    I mean, intutitvely, I'd have all gun trajectories converge at ~200 meters. So if I'd hit, it would make short work of the target. But at 400 meters, it would be impossible to hit anything and for plowing mud I must be able to shoot at least 600 meters. I'd be almost harmless to ground targets because at these speeds I would certainly not go in to 200 meters distance if there's just a remote chance that the other guy can bite back.

     

    I'm asking this because for any rifle I consider spread the worst. It makes you miss. But if you aim in the wrong place, it doesn't make you miss the wrong place and hit the right place instead. At least I've never seen such in my life.

     

     

    I dont think my experience really helps with investigating the harmonization pattern.

     

    My point with "spread" through really just means the cone of fire. Not the literal dispersion of the guns. This is one of the reasons that for soft targets (planes, trucks) I dont feel 20mm adds much (relative to what disadvantages it has). Any target that gets caught in the pattern of 6-8 fifties is going to get shredded.

     

    You can see this in gun camera footage all the time. Virtually any time a plane gets hits with 50s you see the plane erupt in flashes all across the fuselage. Explosive filler doesnt make that big a difference when your plane or truck just flew/drove through a hail of lead. Each bullet is its own shrapnel.

     

    As seen here:

     

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1

  9. 2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

    Going for 8 guns was both logic and reasonable in the case of the Jug. But not in case of other fighter aircraft. As the war progressed, the Jug just found a new lease of life because the enviroment was permissive for it to workt out well, not because it was the ideal solution.

    All strike planes need a permissive environment to function. A P-47 was a better attacker than any of the dedicated planes made for this purpose during ww2 (il2, hs129, stuka, etc) this doesn't start to become untrue until you get to much larger planes, like the a-20, b-25, bf110. Even then its not always a big difference. A P-47 can carry more bombs, longer distances, with better performance than any of the dedicated strike planes that dont have multiple engines or bomb bays. And whether the disagreement of 50cal vs 20mm is ever resolved here regarding specific effectiveness, whatever advantages 20mms have does not warrant a entirely different airplane unless its going to be a completely different design. (like a B-25) At which point I could put in much bigger guns than 20mm, or have 10 of them.


  10. 12 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

    Beyond some digressions, is it silly to say both configurations get the job done but one configuration weights less? And that would be a preferable one for the shooter?

     

    @Venturi also showed that the lighter configuration is more efficient in other business than ground attack. Clearly that would also be grounds for my decision on how to arm a fighter aircraft. But that is just me.

     

    In contrast to him, personally, I wouldn‘t hope that much for the „insta kill“ that would turn everything for the better. Especially since the BMG has less penetration than the Hispano, in an air combat situation I’d expect less insta kills under normal situations. But I also wouldn‘t want to argue about that point. I‘ve seen some things shot up by HMG as well as what the 20 mm Oerlikon can do. And when I compare fist sized torn holes done by 20 mm HE and compare that to neat little holes where i can stick my little finger through, this gives me some preference. Then again, I wouldn‘t want to be on the receiving end of neither. I assume there are many here with way more experience on working these tools, so if they come up with a different take on that, I certainly respect that.

    You can save weight in other places, and the increase in weight doesnt mean its not worth doing. Design choices are obviously more complex than who has the most efficient gun package from a weight standpoint.

     

    I mean just in considering the gun package alone, its not just about weight. also about size, and the ammunition for 20mm cannons takes up alot more space. Which is why I can have 8 fifties with more rounds per gun even though the 50s and 20mm guns are about the same in weight.

     

    If I know that my design is going to have adequate performance already, it makes complete sense to gain some weight to get more firepower. And the biggest difference between US fighters and other nations with regards to weight isn't even remotely down to the choice of gun package.


  11. 1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

     

    I completely agree that "who won" etc is off topic:  just far too many variables.

     

    The other point is where the difficulty lies. The US tested these weapons, immediately post war, against surplus P-47s, and produced statistical analyses of hits to various parts of the aircraft.   https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a800394.pdf  It is an interesting read and about the most fully documented research on these weapons I have seen. 

     

    They concluded that, in the test scenario,  the probability of a 20mm HEI, M97 shell rendering a P-47 incapable of RTB, was 0.120

    For 0.50 API-T M20 it was 0.037    so 3.24 times the "kill" probability for the 20mm.

     

    So what is the probability of surviving n hits? Roughly:

                             20mm                50 cal            50cal/20mm

    n              

    1                          0.880              0.963                      1.09

    2                          0.774              0.927                      1.20

    3                         0.681               0.893                      1.31

    4                         0.545               0.860                      1.58

    5                         0.436               0.828                      1.90

    6                         0.383               0.797                      2.08

     

    Because the individual shot kill probabilities are rather low, the probability of surviving one shot of either type may not "feel" very different:  although it is. But as you are hit by successive shots the probability of surviving n hits drops far more sharply with the 20mm - which is what JtD means by the probabilities stacking.

     

    Now this is in relation to use against aircraft. Turning to ground targets, you have been critical of the alleged exaggeration of the splinter effect of cannon rounds, but I still have not seen any numbers.  It does not take a large splinter to disable a human. (My British artillery site that had data on the splinters required to do this is now being flagged as containing malware, unfortunately).  

    This data hardly contradicts any of what im saying.

     

    The debate over the exaggeration of the HE filler was largely over the effect of a single round. I stated quite clearly that a single round of 50 vs 20mm has little difference in chance of a kill. Which exactly what this data shows. Does 6 20mm have a higher chance of killing than 6 50s? Yes. But ive never debated this. The fact is though that you are going to get alot more hits with the 6-8 fifty configuration that with the 20mm configuration, and you will have alot more ammo to try again if you dont. In any situation where either of these gun systems gets multiple hits, both of them will kill the target.

     

    Is 20mm more powerful? Are there situations where you might get a kill you otherwise would not have because of that? Yes. Does it warrant using them all the time? No. 9 times out of 10 the 6-8 fifty config is the more flexible solution. A one second burst of 4 hispanos would put out roughly 47 rounds. 6 fifties, roughtly 80, and 8 fiftys roughly 106.


  12. 37 minutes ago, sevenless said:

     

    Nope, the turning point in the ETO was in the middle of 1943 when the 8th AF started to cover their bombers with fighters as you can see from the graphs below. Big Week in 2/44 only accelerated that effect. From Q4/1943 on the germans lost the battle of attrition in the air. The results were more an more untrained and inexperienced pilots in the air serving as cannon-fodder for the well trained RAF and USAAF fighter pilots. Local tactical superiority in one place didn´t help when the GAF as a whole wasn´t able to replace the human losses with adequately trained pilots.

     

    DefeatGAF14.jpg

     

    DefeatGAF15.jpg

    You have an extremely interesting way of interpreting data.

     

     

    The fact that bomber losses reached their peak and started to drop in mid-43 does not show that it was the turning point. Its only the turning point in the graph. Turning point, strategically speaking, is not until bomber losses got below acceptable levels. Simply doing down  (which is what you would expect when going from practically un-escorted to escorted) does not show that it went down enough.

     

    The Luftwaffe was still quite capable at the beginning of 1944. Which really has nothing to do with my point as I made it anyhow: which is that having larger numbers of fighters did not translate to having large numbers of fighters at any given point of a battle. The myth that 51s, 38s, and 47s (especially the first one), only succeeded because it was 10 American fighters vs every German one, is a counter factual.

     

    -it is a fact that pointblank did not begin to really gain momentum until the beginning of 1944.

    -it is fact that the Luftwaffe held back most of its fighters on intercepts until the thunderbolts had to turn around

    -it is a fact that only 2 groups of 51s and 2 groups of 38s were the only planes capable of escorting into Germany in early 44.

     

    And it is also a fact that this is now very much off topic.

    16 minutes ago, JtD said:

    Sorry, this does not add up. Either you have a higher chance to hit at all, in which case you're talking about a couple of rounds if not just a single one will hit, in which case a 20mm hit will typically do more damage than the corresponding two hits from a .50. Or you're hitting multiple times, in which case the 20mm rounds do more damage than the .50. The scenario you're promoting that the .50 are more likely to hit a with multiple rounds than the Hispanos are to hit at all, is not remotely realistic. Same way 8x.50 is not twice as likely to hit as 4x.50, it just doesn't work that way. But they are more likely to put twice the number of hits into the target for twice the damage.

    your missing my point. I am not saying 20mm is not more powerful. The point is that both rounds are about as likely to kill the target with any number of hits. Neither 1 20mm or 1 50cal is likely to kill a truck in one hit, especially assuming a random hit anywhere on the vehicle. there are situations where the extra oompf of the 20mm would make the difference, but thats not the statistically significant bit.

     

     

    • Upvote 1

  13. 1 minute ago, sevenless said:

     

    This is correct. The reason for this is numerical superiority and abysmal training of the german pilots. The human factor is decisive here.

    Except tactically the Germans were not out numbered, especially not during big week or during the first half of 1944 when the luftwaffe really took its hammering. The relay system meant that the few fighter groups actually capable of going into Germany were spread out and never there all at once. In actual combat, the Germans had the numbers advantage, especially early on. The idea they lost due mainly due to being out numbered only even makes half sense if your just counting the number of planes each air force had.


  14. 4 hours ago, JtD said:

    Thank you for the polite tone you keep using. It makes your points much more valid.

     

     

    Fair enough.

    5 hours ago, Lord_Flashheart said:

    With Hispano APIII kind of ammunition, the difference is extreme - APIII being capable of penetrating two inches of armour at 400 yards. And that's indeed sufficient to successfully attack the 30mm armour of Pz IV's. Wasn't used on a general basis, though, because German tanks weren't that common and the RAF went with the SAP&HEI round.

    Going back to this I want to note that as you yourself pointed out, this round was not generally used, precisely because it was not the main target. Both of which are points which reduced the utility vs tanks.

     

    Additionally the other 20mm rounds available would have been far less effective:

    image.thumb.png.194689319d79f28e85b0c5caddf523cc.png

    4 hours ago, JtD said:

    You need some time on target, as not every round you fire is a hit. In particular when firing at a moving target with possible partical cover from several hundred meters out. It is a fact, that not everytime someone fired .50's from aircraft at a vehicle they scored dozens of hits. Not every vehicle got destroyed when it was strafed, in particular when it was defended and when there were several of them. Many of them were just damaged, starting with two simple holes in the canvas. I don't know where you take the certainty from claiming otherwise.

    Yes you do. Which is why its better to have more ammo and a denser/wider beaten zone. However, given the patterns of these guns bursts, it is just as unlikely that you only get one hit as it is you hit with every single round. If you hit at all, you are likely to hit with multiple rounds. And you are more likely to hit "at all" with the 50s. And if you miss, you have more ammo to try again.

     

    Additionally you guys are wildly overestimating the destructive nature of a 20mm round with explosive filler in ww2. A single 20mm hit hitting a random part of the vehicle as very likely not to kill the vehicle, just like a single 50 would not. A single 20mm to the engine or the crew cabin is only slightly more likely to kill the vehicle outright. It is not a bloody mortar round.

     

    The most likely scenario for any burst from either gun system that finds its target at all, dozens of rounds to hit. Not one round. Not all of them.


  15. 2 hours ago, cardboard_killer said:

     

    There are a bunch of old curmudgeons here who still think our military should  use 7.62x51 instead. I suspect most also think the M2 .50cal was the perfect weapon for a WW2 a/c. Quite a few also think the 1911a2 pistol is far superior to the glock 17.

     

    Sentiment blocks reality.

    Thats odd because I dont think 7.62 or 1911a2 are better than the examples you mentioned. I despise sentiment. If there is anything cancerous about the sim/airplane/gun/tank/grog community, it is the infatuation with pop-opinions and weapons and gear that get placed on a pedestal or committed to the trash heap.

     


  16. 6 minutes ago, JtD said:

     

    And the burst for the 4x20mm doesn't need to be even half as long as that for the 6x50. That's why they are better for ground attack.

    Lol. At any burst length likely to actually hit the target, the difference would be meaningless. Again, this is like shooting a man with a .308 or a 50bmg and pointing out that one is "more dead"

     

    Also why always the 4 20mm as the comparison? Most cannon armed fighters in ww2 carried two or 1 cannons, not 4. The Tempest is really is not the ordinary.


  17. 1 minute ago, unreasonable said:

     

    Look at the gun cams of strafing - they are rarely flying straight at a target: usually they are walking the shots through the target area, starting at ranges well beyond the harmonization point for air-air combat. A single truck is a very difficult target for a fast fighter, which is why they would rather attack down the length of a road packed with a convoy rather than across.  

     

    The P-38s have a tighter pattern while strafing, with their nose mounted battery, but P-47s strafing are all over the place.

     

     

    Not even sure what your point here is. Also you know that the guns are still effective and providing a decent beaten zone outsize the middle of the harmonization pattern right?


  18. 1 minute ago, JtD said:

     

     

    So two shrapnel vs. twenty. I'd still go with twenty.

     

     

    Yes, and the 20mm will do it quicker with less effort. That's why they are better for ground attack.

    Except no, because in both cases you are hitting the target with a burst. There is no two vs twenty. There is no "quicker," You are hitting the target with a hail of 20mm and 50 cal, in both cases the target is obliterated.


  19. 1 minute ago, unreasonable said:

     

    No, you really cannot have it both ways: one moment the argument is that 50 cals are superior because they have a greater dispersion, but now they are effective because they are saturating a truck with rounds.  You cannot do both.  The only possible argument for more but lighter weapons in ground attack is a larger beaten zone.  But that comes at the expense of effectiveness per hit.   

    Lol what? How do you think they saturate the truck? through dispersion. six fifties firing at 800 rounds per minute with a harmonization pattern is going to SHRED a truck, or people, or ammo dumps, etc. And so will 20mm.


  20. 8 minutes ago, JtD said:

    Certainly, the requirement of hitting the same target much more often is not beneficial. And while dead is dead, the guy with 4x20 gets to go in quicker, fly away sooner without having spend half as much ammo - for the same result, with a lighter armament.

     

    And for what it's worth, it's not the 6grams of explosives that kill, it's the 120 grams of razorsharp splinters.

    Yes of course the damage is done with the shrapnel.

     

    -In no case are we hitting the truck with 1 round. In either case you are saturating the truck with fire. Those extra 50 cal rounds ARE shrapnel.

    4 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

     

    This is simply not true, as anyone with even rudimentary military knowledge would know. You clearly have none. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

    No, I just have ten years of military service with experience on one of the weapons we are discussing, and ive seen both THIRTY MM and 50 cal hit real people.


  21. 2 minutes ago, JtD said:

     

    A 20mm round exploding inside of a truck does a lot more damage than a 12.7mm/20mm round going through. There are a very few spots you need to hit if you want to disable a truck with AP rounds - though the chances are pretty good if you hit it a hundred times. Chances to disable the same truck are much better with explosive rounds. Starts already in the drivers cabin, an AP round goes in and out, and unless the driver in in the path, nothing but two holes happened. A HE round goes in, explodes, leaves a bloody mess in the cabin and two dozen holes on its way out. Same is truck for a lot of other spots.

     

    Then all armies featured lightly armoured vehicles, be it APC's or some artillery behind shielding or scout cars or whatever. As mentioned above, the AP capabilities of the 20mm are significantly better than of the .50, even with standard AP rounds. And if there's half an inch of armour, the chances are the .50 bounces of, while the 20mm creates havoc.

     

    With Hispano APIII kind of ammunition, the difference is extreme - APIII being capable of penetrating two inches of armour at 400 yards. And that's indeed sufficient to successfully attack the 30mm armour of Pz IV's. Wasn't used on a general basis, though, because German tanks weren't that common and the RAF went with the SAP&HEI round.

    -No it doesn't in the sense that both rounds will completely obliterate the target. Apparently you didnt read what I said. 1 50 call or 1 20mm are BOTH very unlikely to stop a truck cold unless the placement is extremely good. Hundreds of rounds from both make a dead truck.

     

    -50cals have sufficient armor penetration to destroy ANY light armored ww2 vehicle. Armored cars, half tracks etc. Some of those vehicles are vulnerable to 7.62.

     

    -30mm of armor on a Panzer 4 is not likely to be penetrated by 20mm AP at any realistic angle of impact from an aircraft, at realistic ranges. 20mm under matches 30mm of armor, and at a 45degree dive angle the slope multiplier would make the armor nearly 60mm thick effectively. And that assumes no compound angles. Both 50 cal and 20mm could mess up engine decks, gun barrels, etc.

     

    3 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

    No. It‘s just that the 8x .50 weights more than other solutions and you have to be fine with having the weight (and space) penalty on your aircraft design. That is the true downside besides giving you considerably less options than a cannon on how to deal with a target. And it turns out, designers are generally not ok with that. For the Jug it was ok (and the BMG was the only  gun at hand at the time besides peashooters) being so much more powerful high up and as when they had to plow mud, the Luftwaffe was largely extinct. It is a very special case. No single engine fighter before and after ever used this weapon arrangement again. For good reason. And the reason was not that you couldn‘t be mean to people on the ground.

    A Jug or P-38 can carry more ordnance (significantly more) than any of the dedicated 20mm armed attack planes like the il2. The tempest is another matter obviously. But it is clearly not the case that said weight = worse platform. Even a P-51 can outmatch dedicated strike aircraft during ww2 for ordnance and still have better performance.

     

    I dont deny there are disadvantages to the 50 cal setup, but pointing them out does not make them the overall worse solution. And neither does pointing out that it was never done again. Alot of stuff changed very fast during this period. Dont forget that we went from 450mph fighters in 1945 to Mach 2 fighters shooting missiles just 15 years later. The decades after ww2 were a massive period of flux.


  22. 3 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

     

    Absolute rubbish. A 50 cal round hitting a truck full of infantry will go straight though it, and the people in it, perhaps disabling 2-3 men, and maybe - but probably not - disable the vehicle.  A 20mm AP shell would do much the same thing: but a 20mm HE shell would likely disable every infantryman in the truck.   You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. 

    Yes, because only 1 solitary 50 cal round will hit the truck.

     

    Yes, because 20mm HE filler of 6-11 grams is apparently a nuclear bomb in your eyes.

     

    The fact that you are even questioning the lethality of 50cals on soft targets being more than sufficient is completely nuts. A truck that gets strafed by 50 BMG or 20mm hispano is DEAD.

    • Upvote 1
×
×
  • Create New...