P-51 would be devastating weapon of war in this game.

[PeterZvan]

Just a random observation - if the MG151-20 was not so good for accurate shooting how come so many pilots managed to shoot down many planes in one sortie with the 109 equiped with only one cannon and two small MG 17 with the limited ammo. And especialy considering that the arguably best deflection shooter (Hans-Joachim Marseille) managed 17 in 3 sorties in 1 day with a cannon that is supposably not suited to accurate deflection shooting

I dont know of any 0.50 cal planes / pilots getting close to that and with plenty more ammo.  

 

 

[Sternjaeger]

Just a random observation - if the MG151-20 was not so good for accurate shooting how come so many pilots managed to shoot down many planes in one sortie with the 109 equiped with only one cannon and two small MG 17 with the limited ammo. And especialy considering that the arguably best deflection shooter (Hans-Joachim Marseille) managed 17 in 3 sorties in 1 day with a cannon that is supposably not suited to accurate deflection shooting

I dont know of any 0.50 cal planes / pilots getting close to that and with plenty more ammo.  

 

because they got very, very close to their targets.

 

Marseille was an excellent shooter, and it's not like you can't do deflection shooting with the 109, it's just harder, because again you got different harmonisation and bullet behaviour when shooting and manoeuvring your aircraft in a dogfight, with a bigger chance of wasting your ammunition.

 

The number of aircraft shot down doesn't depend solely on your skills, but also in the scenario you're flying in: Marseille flew a lot and in an area rich with targets, his aircraft and skills were both superb and far superior to his opponents'.

 

He was a man that learned how to fly his aircraft to its best performance, and that's what gave him the confidence to be such a competitive fighter pilot.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[6S.Manu]

Well, that's your opinion, which I respect, but which unfortunately is confuted by a lot of historians and by empirical evidence.

Look at the word "main". I didn't say it wasn't an issue. They made many mistakes: I'm arguing that standardization won the war (your words).

 

Many historians thinks that the greatest error was going against the Russians. It was a strategy problem, and I agree with them... It was most about having your industries bombed while the majority of your men were fighting thousands of miles away. The soviets were getting a great number of casualties while overseas the USA were working for them (food, vehicles ect): talking about manpower and raw materials.

 

Who cares if tanks like the Tiger were unreliable: in the entire war the Germans build fewer tanks than both USA and Russia... and even a reliable tank is useless without fuel or crews, isn't it?

 

So? I don't get the point?

The point is that they (RAF and Russia) didn't decide to use cannons since "Germans did". They were already think about that (the first cannon mounted on an airplane is back in the WW1)

 

An M-16 is a perfectly reliable gun if maintained adequately. The fact that the AK needs little or no maintenance doesn't make it a better gun. The ammo is heavier, the ballistics are inferior and so is accuracy at long distance, once again it's a classic example of the right gun for the job.

Probably also the German tanks where perfectly reliable if used in the right terrain conditions and "maintained adequately". Sadly they couldn't be used that way (you know, that's the war). The same it's true for the M-16 in Vietnam: the theater conditions and the lack of cleaning kits made it unreliable.

 

It doesn't seem you know history of cannon development, or at least didn't read about it.

So where is the mistake in that I've said above? I can understand if we talk about my English: I know, I'm guilty. :-)

 

They tried because they wanted to use effective HE ammunition on ground attacks, but they never fully got there in WW2. They never had a gun that proved good enough for the job, that's why even in the Navy the 20mm Hispano Suiza saw very little service. 

The USAAF fighters were concentrated on aerial superiority at first, but even when they were needed as ground pounders, they slapped in an extra MG, rocket and bomb racks, and the P-47s did their job superbly.  That's a versatile solution.

So, as I said at the beginning of the discussion, it was the best for THEM because of their situation. I'm not the one claiming that .50 cals could do that job " at a fraction of the cost and more efficiently than 20mm rounds" (AKA "BETTER").

 

No, those were only the calibres, the variation of cartridges within those calibres probably reached the 55/60 types of different rounds. A bit too much, don't you think? Thing about all the machinery, materials, workmanship and time needed to produce such a wide variety of ammunition.

How are the mk101, mk103 and mk108 different in caliber? They are all 30mm, aren't them?

 

No, they needed rockets, as they learned themselves with the Typhoons in Normandy.

The hurricane used rockets but was too much underpowered to carry them safely: they could but it was really dangerous because of the additional drag, while the 40mm cannons were doing a good job with a minimal loss of performance.

That's again your opinion: there are countless reports of US pilots damaging aircraft at 300 yards, whilst the Germans had to get much closer to get an accurate shooting solution. As I said earlier, Ralph Hofer and many others used different convergences for different couple of guns, which gave them a longer convergence area.

 

300 yards is not "long range".

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/temptest.html

Did the Tempests mount only cannons, didn't they? Kill obtained at 400/500/600 yards...? (BTW they had wing mounted cannons...)

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html

And here there are Spitfires too...

 

Those ic measures, you need to put the gunnery in a dogfighting context, where G loads, airspeed and friction all play a part in accuracy: Did you know that the MG151/20 rounds had different muzzle speeds and ballistic performance according to the rounds? Compared to HMGs, it was an imprecise gun.

 

No, they were designed to improve deflection shooting. And performed great too. Firing is not about instinct, especially in aerial warfare where all your senses are pushed to the limit, it's about training, training, training. A great deflection shooter was George Buerling, who learned to use his Spitfire guns in an incredible manner, but he did that by constantly training, even when on the ground.

That's the reason the closer is the better... Of course it was not accurate as an HMG. I'm claiming that it was not impossible like you suggest.

 

My fault about the K-14 here, I was talking about another aspect. Yep I agree and it could work for cannons too, right?. I know they will be less accurate but you're not going to miss the target that much anyway. Above all firing with centered weapons instead of the wing mounted ones.

 

I bet that if they used accurate HMGs they would have scored better on first passes, instead they decided to create a wall of explosive rounds, which sometimes worked, sometimes didn't. Why do you think German pilots learned to get so close to their enemy, if, as you say, their guns were ballistically superior? 

As for bomber engagement, they often did a couple of passes and were out of the way. All the air forces that had to face heavy bombers (Italy included) soon learned the lesson that you needed to attack with boom and zoom and aim accurately for the critical points. That's why I think the choice of shooting with heavy guns from a distance, increasing dispersion, wasn't a good idea. 

The development of bigger calibres (Mk103/108) came from the need of being able to hit a target with as less rounds as possible and causing extensive damage. It was a wrong philosophy in my humble opinion, but there you go..

I'm saying that you need very good pilots for that kind of attack. It's not that easy above all with inexperienced pilots.

 

The German would then accelerate his aircraft to a point two miles ahead of the enemy and 1000 yards above before turning back towards his foe. With closing speeds approaching 500 mph, there was but a few scant seconds to line up a shot, squeeze off a short burst and break away to avoid a collision. A successful frontal attack required superior flying ability, skilled marksmanship and an iron will on the part of the Luftwaffe pilot.

 

http://suite101.com/a/luftwaffe-day-interception-tactics-a59402

Edited December 17, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

Using the .50 HMG to take down bombers:

 

You could do a small test. If we assume IL2 1946 is, if not accurate, at least within the right ballpark, a simple QMB with a Mustang against a B-17 bomber and a similar mission with one of those overloaded 109s againt the same, I think we will very quickly find out why the Germans put all those canons on their planes.

[6S.Manu]

You can probably spray a B-17 with 50 MG151/20 and it will still fly. It was about hitting the right spot with a gun accurate enough to let you do it from a distance.

Of course, you have to be lucky. They couldn't hit the right spot for several reasons (cannons inaccuracy is only one of them); for example they had to stay far from the bomber because of the defensive turrets... if you're going to fire HMG from that range is really probably you're not going to damage the bomber (armor + loss of kinetic energy).

 

They tried everything: bombs, rockets, rammers... do you really think they were so stupid?

 

The main issue with a jamming gun is that 1) you lose firepower 2) you're at a danger of blowing yourself up 3) you might develop shooting stability problems. The Americans went for redundancy: 2 guns jam? We still have 4.

If a wing MG151/20 would jam, your plane would be rocking around the yaw axis if you fired more

And is that not valid for the RAF fighters?... Then why didn't they swap their cannons for HMGs? What's the % of defective shells? How much were the cannons prone to jam?

 

it happened, there's guncamera footage that shows it.

I'm not saying it never happened: I'm saying is was rare. I mean I don't find studies about that.

 

About firing ability and training: there was a guy telling "Aerial gunnery is 90 percent instinct and 10 percent aim.". I trust him: sometime training is not enough, while other guys are "talented". It's something valid in real life.

 

 

 

 

 

Using the .50 HMG to take down bombers:

 

You could do a small test. If we assume IL2 1946 is, if not accurate, at least within the right ballpark, a simple QMB with a Mustang against a B-17 bomber and a similar mission with one of those overloaded 109s againt the same, I think we will very quickly find out why the Germans put all those canons on their planes.

 

Some aspects of the sim is not going to show us a realistic result:

1) the DM is not realistic

2) the average simmer is an Ace compared to those poor kids and is not scared at all.

Edited December 17, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[Sternjaeger]

Look at the word "main". I didn't say it wasn't an issue. They made many mistakes: I'm arguing that standardization won the war (your words).

 

Many historians thinks that the greatest error was going against the Russians. It was a strategy problem, and I agree with them... It was most about having your industries bombed while the majority of your men were fighting thousands of miles away. The soviets were getting a great number of casualties while overseas the USA were working for them (food, vehicles ect): talking about manpower and raw materials.

 

Who cares if tanks like the Tiger were unreliable: in the entire war the Germans build fewer tanks than both USA and Russia... and even a reliable tank is useless without fuel or crews, isn't it?

 

 

I think there is a misunderstanding here: I wasn't referring to the whole war per se, I was talking about the industrial aspect of WW2. Of course there are many more reasons to the fall of Nazi Germany!

 

The point is that they (RAF and Russia) didn't decide to use cannons since "Germans did". They were already think about that (the first cannon mounted on an airplane is back in the WW1)

...by the Germans. The Becker 20mm cannon was introduced by the Germans, although the French themselves had been toying with 37mm cannons on their aircraft as well. Despite looking for a cannon, the RAF had their first line fighters armed with .303s, which again was both because of the poor choice of cannons (they should have followed the Oerlikon way really..) and reliability issues.

 

Probably also the German tanks where perfectly reliable if used in the right terrain conditions and "maintained adequately". Sadly they couldn't be used that way (you know, that's the war). The same it's true for the M-16 in Vietnam: the theater conditions and the lack of cleaning kits made it unreliable.

yeah, right gun to the right situation. :-)

 

So where is the mistake in that I've said above? I can understand if we talk about my English: I know, I'm guilty. :-)

your English is excellent, but we can carry on this conversation in Italian if you wish!

What I mean is that the development history of the Hispano Suiza was a tormented one, it was a gun that promised a lot on paper, but never quite delivered as intended. They had to stick to it for the war because that's the readily available technology and ammunition that they had, but it's not a case it was a design that was ditched soon afterwards.

 

So, as I said at the beginning of the discussion, it was the best for THEM because of their situation. I'm not the one claiming that .50 cals could do that job " at a fraction of the cost and more efficiently than 20mm rounds" (AKA "BETTER").

well, the Navy was adamant the 20mm was "better", but it begs the question on what parametres this "better" was based. There was a HUGE military procurement industry behind WW2, and rest assured that economic interest could overcome the actual needs of troops.

I think the fact that the .50 cal survived the introduction of the HS 20mm is a testament on the fact that they had to choose the best gun, and the marginal use of the 20mm gun proved that yes, once a better calibre was available they should have gone for that, but only when the reliability would reach the M2 standards.

 

How are the mk101, mk103 and mk108 different in caliber? They are all 30mm, aren't them?

The difference is not only made by calibre, it's the propellant charge and priming that plays a major role: the MK101 and 103 had double the propellant charge of the Mk108, making them much more efficient rounds.

 

The hurricane used rockets but was too much underpowered to carry them safely: they could but it was really dangerous because of the additional drag, while the 40mm cannons were doing a good job with a minimal loss of performance.

they carried heavy bombs, I'm sure the problem wasn't in the carrying, it was a matter of availability of technology. The British had this sort of "remedy" application of their technology which I find quite surprising: the Typhoon was born with a completely different role in mind, but it failed miserably at it, so it was moved to ground attacks, where it delivered adequately..

 

300 yards is not "long range".

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/temptest.html

Did the Tempests mount only cannons, didn't they? Kill obtained at 400/500/600 yards...? (BTW they had wing mounted cannons...)

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html

And here there are Spitfires too...

it is long range, or if you wish, "medium/long". If you read the Tiffie reports, of all the ones that opened fire at 600 yards (which is circa 600 metres), only three saw hits. Apart for the fact that I'd like you to try and stand 600 yards away from a Bf109 and see if you can actually even see the damn thing, I think many of these reports overestimated distances. Truly accurate distances could be given with gyro gunsights. The point btw is that on average the American fighters didn't need to get as close as the Germans did to get a kill, and it wasn't just about skills, it was about allowing pilots with a more flexible shooting solution.

 

That's the reason the closer is the better... Of course it was not accurate as an HMG. I'm claiming that it was not impossible like you suggest.

 

My fault about the K-14 here, I was talking about another aspect. Yep I agree and it could work for cannons too, right?. I know they will be less accurate but you're not going to miss the target that much anyway. Above all firing with centered weapons instead of the wing mounted ones.

it wasn't impossible, it was very hard. And yes, gyro gunsights were used with 20mm cannons as well. Once you zero them in properly, you can shoot with anything.

 

 

I'm saying that you need very good pilots for that kind of attack. It's not that easy above all with inexperienced pilots.

 

The German would then accelerate his aircraft to a point two miles ahead of the enemy and 1000 yards above before turning back towards his foe. With closing speeds approaching 500 mph, there was but a few scant seconds to line up a shot, squeeze off a short burst and break away to avoid a collision. A successful frontal attack required superior flying ability, skilled marksmanship and an iron will on the part of the Luftwaffe pilot.

 

http://suite101.com/a/luftwaffe-day-interception-tactics-a59402

oh the German pilots were good pilots indeed, all you needed was a different approach. I think the suggestion Friendly Flier made is worth a try.

[thx1138]

How are the mk101, mk103 and mk108 different in caliber? They are all 30mm, aren't them?

 

 

Each one fired a different round. They are NOT interchangeable, different cases, (size in length and diameter) different powders in different quantities, and even the projectiles are vastly different. (which is what made the Mk 108 round so special, the projectile)

 

Mk 101 - 30x184B mm steel casing

 

Mk 103 - 30x184B (reduced HE powder charge compared to Mk 101)

 

Mk 108 - 30×90RB mm steel casing

[216th_Jordan]

Using the .50 HMG to take down bombers:

 

You could do a small test. If we assume IL2 1946 is, if not accurate, at least within the right ballpark, a simple QMB with a Mustang against a B-17 bomber and a similar mission with one of those overloaded 109s againt the same, I think we will very quickly find out why the Germans put all those canons on their planes.

 

Isn't that the whole point of this thread? That .50ies are not working as they should in il2-46....

[dkoor]

Isn't that the whole point of this thread? That .50ies are not working as they should in il2-46....

Yes it it up to the point.

 

We still may not discuss about some serious comparisons between BoS and 1946 regarding weapon power, namely .50s, but it is plain obvious that in BoS .303s (7,62-7,9mm) work almost as good as .50cals in 1946.

It literally takes one short accurate burst into LaGG and it trails smoke - it is effectively doomed.

 

Neither weapon incarnation feels quite right, although I must say I'd take this BoS one over 1946 any day!

You can really feel progress when you shoot at LaGG whereas in 1946 you could empty hundreds of bullets in its rather tiny frame and not achieve serious damage.

Each one fired a different round. They are NOT interchangeable, different cases, (size in length and diameter) different powders in different quantities, and even the projectiles are vastly different. (which is what made the Mk 108 round so special, the projectile)

 

Mk 101 - 30x184B mm steel casing

 

Mk 103 - 30x184B (reduced HE powder charge compared to Mk 101)

 

Mk 108 - 30×90RB mm steel casing

Coming from 1946 PoV, in fighter aircraft I'd take Mk108's over any other 30mm incarnation.

 

I'd take Mk108 over any 20mm too!

 

In 1946 it just works. Be it for trajectory, muzzle velocity (which isn't great, but it 'clicks'), destructive power, rof or something else, it is the single most devastating weapon in that game for me.

 

Sure there are bigger, there are more destructive but with this one I can regularly hit everything.

 

Part of the reason why Bf-109G6AS felt sooo lethal to me... I used to fly it a lot on 1946 western fronts.

[ImPeRaToR]

Not entirely convinced the effectiveness of all weapons will remain until release but I am quite keen on finding out how that 37mm is going to work on planes, at some point we might be getting P-39 and Yak9T, right?

 

MK108 would be even more destructive with its higher ROF, but it was not used on the Eastern Front until way into 1944 last time I checked so we might have to wait for that a while longer - fingers crossed

Edited December 17, 2013 by ImPeRaToR

[bivalov]

...I am quite keen on finding out how that 37mm is going to work on planes, at some point we might be getting P-39 and Yak9T, right?

we already got lagg with sh-37 and il-2 with shfk-37... , so, you mean something like this or description/mentions?

[Sternjaeger]

A selection of the rounds we've been talking about:

 

12.7x99mm (50cal) Tracer; Incendiary; Armour Piercing.

 

20x110mm (Hispano Suiza) High Explosive - Incendiary; Semi-Armour Piercing - Incendiary; Tracer.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[dkoor]

Not entirely convinced the effectiveness of all weapons will remain until release but I am quite keen on finding out how that 37mm is going to work on planes, at some point we might be getting P-39 and Yak9T, right?

 

MK108 would be even more destructive with its higher ROF, but it was not used on the Eastern Front until way into 1944 last time I checked so we might have to wait for that a while longer - fingers crossed

I share your thoughts... I don't think this weapon effectiveness is going to stay in final release.

 

We wont be seeing Mk108 anytime soon certainly not during our BoS campaign.

 

I'm too lazy to dig it out, but there may be some chance that Bf-110's actually used the Mk108's on eastern front before 1944.

Henschels too.

[T-800]

I would love to see the P-47B in this game 8x50 cal.! but this is BOS only I'm assuming. This is the only reason I'm hesitating to buy this game, no American planes. I'm kinda curious why they didn't just making another 1946. 

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

Isn't that the whole point of this thread? That .50ies are not working as they should in il2-46....

 

No. The subject is how the Mustang would fare in this sim, and then why the US stuck to the .50 throughout the war.

Edited December 18, 2013 by 79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer

[ImPeRaToR]

we already got lagg with sh-37 and il-2 with shfk-37... , so, you mean something like this or description/mentions?

That's what I mean, I want to see what effect the Sh-37 will have as the M4 and NS-37 will probably perform similarly

[=LD=4brkfast]

Here's an example of both American fighter pilot mentality and relative gun effectiveness. Plus. One has to consider the situation each Air Force was in. The Luftwaffe put big guns for the raf and us heavy bombers, not fighters.

 

The f4u1c had 4 browning made 20mm. Only about 200 of them were made, the common complaint was ''not enough ammo'. I think it had sonething like 200-250 rounds per gun.

 

What separates the m2 browning from others is not chemical or physical damage, they were designed to kill vehicles btw, it's the ballistic traits and sheer volume of fire. 6 m2 Brownings is as good as any gun set. 8 of them is arguably the most devastating in the war short of multiple 30mm. The Americans regarded them as 'more effective' than cannon, its not good, bad, right or wrong, just what was noted. In a turn hitting with 50s would require less lead, 860~ feet per minute muzzle vel. Dont hold me to that number, when I get home ill post a nice site filled with gun traits.

 

To respond to the original post, I imagine in the future the mustang will be in an off-shoot of this game. For this particular theater it would be unhistorical however. I hope to see a northern Leningrad campaign. Finnish f2a export b-239's, hurricanes, p36 hawks, g50, a few soviet p47 lend lease, p39 aero cobras, p40, plus all the Luftwaffe and vvs fighters makes for a very diverse fighter list, not mentioning the other export and lend lease attack and bombers craft.

[=LD=4brkfast]

A cool weapon characteristic site as promised.

 

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

[ImPeRaToR]

Quoting it

 

 

To return to the obviously controversial question of the relatively poor performance of the .50 Browning: as has already been stated in this study, "the preferred US armament fit [of six or eight .50 HMGs] was effective for its purpose, but not very efficient by comparison with cannon".

 

[Sternjaeger]

that's his interpretation, which I don't think it necessarily reflect the truth. Reliable 20mm were available in the 50s, yet during that period the USAF stuck to 50 cal, there might be a reason why, other than just convenience and logistics.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

What separates the m2 browning from others is not chemical or physical damage, they were designed to kill vehicles btw, it's the ballistic traits and sheer volume of fire. 6 m2 Brownings is as good as any gun set. 8 of them is arguably the most devastating in the war short of multiple 30mm. The Americans regarded them as 'more effective' than cannon, its not good, bad, right or wrong, just what was noted.

 

Actually, a set of 6 or 8 .50 M2s are quite less devastating than a typical comparable set of cannons, if we are to believe the calculations of Williams & Gustin (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm), the armament of a 6 gun late war Mustang had about a third of the destructive power of a contemporary Tempest (four Mk.V Hispanos). One may disagree with W&Gs parameters, but as they have stated, fiddling with the values up and down changes point scores, but not really the order in which the destruction powers of the various guns rank.

 

Being less devastating is not a critique of the gun itself, it won't make sense to overload a fighter with guns to the degree it can't fly (heavily armed bomber interceptors tend to be poor dogfighters). Clearly, the 6 or 8 .50s were adequate for the job they were put to. They did weight a bit however. 6 M2 HMGs weigh about the same as 4 Hispanos, for less than half the destructive power. This means that had the Americans been able to field a reliable version of the M3 Hispano, the Mustang could have enjoyed the destructive power of the Tempest for the same weight.

 

If you read the chapter of Chinn's book that I linked to further up, you will see that regarding the .50s as 'more effective' than cannon' certainly was not a sentiment shared by the USN Bureau of Ordnance, and appear to be more of a post-war myth. Granted, the Browning M2 was 'more effective' than the American made Hispanos with regard tof technical efficiency, but not with regards to destructive power.

 

 

 

that's his interpretation, which I don't think it necessarily reflect the truth. Reliable 20mm were available in the 50s, yet during that period the USAF stuck to 50 cal, there might be a reason why, other than just convenience and logistics.

 

In the 1950s, the war was over and production was geared over for peace. I imagine re-arming all American fighters with a new gun was very low on the priority list. However, as soon as the Korean War heated up, the change from .50s to 20 mm cannons came very quickly.

Edited December 19, 2013 by 79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer

[Sternjaeger]

mmmmh as usual with anything aeronautical it's a bit of a short blanket: you might have more destructive power with a cannon setup, but then you'll probably have less ammo. 

 

My preference is to have something that is ballistically superior, that has plenty of ammo and that is accurate, hence my preference for the M2 as best compromise. 

This goes back to my initial point: talking about the "best aircraft" or "best armament" is a sterile sweeping statement.

[ImPeRaToR]

The amount of ammunition has to be put in context with its destructive power however, using the numbers off that site the Tempest V has "ammo power" of  16000 while the P-51 only has little more than half, 8648. At least from my extensive virtual air combat experience, you want aircraft weapons that can deliver high volume of concentrated fire within a small time window, preferably without convergence issues to increase versatility, for example when shooting at evading enemy aircraft, maybe a deflection shot or a snap shot during scissors etc. This is exactly where a tempest arnament clearly outperforms the P-51s six .50 cal, even against fighter aircraft.

 

Six .50cal might've been sufficient to shoot down vulnerable Japanese planes, relatively vulnerable 109s and more sturdy Fw190s in sturmjäger setup that were completely unable to dogfight, but it is definitely far from the best arnament, imo.

At the same time, guns such as the M4 and NS37 will also be very situational and in the combat situations described above it will be easy to miss the shots so 20mm guns that have the rate of fire of a 50 cal while providing far better destructive power are the best choice, imo.
However, somebody with very good gunnery will probably make people cry using those big guns

A combination of 1x20mm plus 2xHMG like the Yak3 and 109G-6+ carried them gives you the most versatility (little convergence issue) and weight-saving but you do lose some fire volume. It will be interesting to see how this will pan out in a future il2 theatre - 6-gun P-40s, P-39s and the G-6s should be safe bets so we can try out most of these things

Edited December 19, 2013 by ImPeRaToR

[Sternjaeger]

The amount of ammunition has to be put in context with its destructive power however, using the numbers off that site the Tempest V has "ammo power" of  16000 while the P-51 only has little more than half, 8648. At least from my extensive virtual air combat experience, you want aircraft weapons that can deliver high volume of concentrated fire within a small time window, preferably without convergence issues to increase versatility, for example when shooting at evading enemy aircraft, maybe a deflection shot or a snap shot during scissors etc. This is exactly where a tempest arnament clearly outperforms the P-51s six .50 cal, even against fighter aircraft.

mmmmh this is where the misconception lies IMHO: ballistically the 50cal behaves much better than the 20mm, and it's in high G load scenarios like scissors or dogfighting in general that you need a weapon which will deliver higher speed rounds and a high rate of fire. In a nutshell, it's easier to hit something with a 50 cal than with a 20mm, because you'll need much less lead to place an effective burst on the enemy, and the combined power of multiple guns shooting at a high rate of fire will ensure effective hits are achieved almost always.

 

Six .50cal might've been sufficient to shoot down vulnerable Japanese planes, relatively vulnerable 109s and more sturdy Fw190s in sturmjäger setup that were completely unable to dogfight, but it is definitely far from the best arnament, imo.

At the same time, guns such as the M4 and NS37 will also be very situational and in the combat situations described above it will be easy to miss the shots so 20mm guns that have the rate of fire of a 50 cal while providing far better destructive power are the best choice, imo.

However, somebody with very good gunnery will probably make people cry using those big guns

A combination of 1x20mm plus 2xHMG like the Yak3 and 109G-6+ carried them gives you the most versatility (little convergence issue) and weight-saving but you do lose some fire volume. It will be interesting to see how this will pan out in a future il2 theatre - 6-gun P-40s, P-39s and the G-6s should be safe bets so we can try out most of these things

the difference is that majority of us simmers are experienced shooters as well, so it might be easier to be more successful using larger calibres, but it doesn't change the fact that it's harder to get a good hit with a heavy, slow rate of fire cannon.

 

I agree on the fact that a versatile solution like cannon AND HMG might fix the problem though: I always like to "fish" long distance shots with the MG131, and as you draw closer to your target you finish it with the cannon, but having cannon only is not as good as having MG only in my experience.

[ImPeRaToR]

In a nutshell, it's easier to hit something with a 50 cal than with a 20mm, because you'll need much less lead to place an effective burst on the enemy, and the combined power of multiple guns shooting at a high rate of fire will ensure effective hits are achieved almost always.

I think most of us don't really agree on what "effctive hits" are. I rather rather have 1 cannon and two machine guns and score some really critical hits in a high angle shot, either riping wings off or severely hurting pilot/engine, than saturating both wings and fuselage with AP rounds that don't cause any serious damage. Unless you happen to fire in perfect convergence, but this is rather situational, with a centered cannon you don't have this problem.

 

Not a fan of wing guns in general as you can see, but I do rather take a Tempest over a Mustang But even better for my personal taste is a combination of centered 12-13mm MGs and one or two 20mm cannons, or perhaps the NS-37. Basically 109s, 190s, Yaks or Lavochkins. The M4 does fire very slowly so we will have to see how this works out in a potential BOS addon.

Edited December 19, 2013 by ImPeRaToR

[6S.Manu]

 

 

I think there is a misunderstanding here: I wasn't referring to the whole war per se, I was talking about the industrial aspect of WW2. Of course there are many more reasons to the fall of Nazi Germany!

 

Oh well. I fully agree then!   

...by the Germans. The Becker 20mm cannon was introduced by the Germans, although the French themselves had been toying with 37mm cannons on their aircraft as well. Despite looking for a cannon, the RAF had their first line fighters armed with .303s, which again was both because of the poor choice of cannons (they should have followed the Oerlikon way really..) and reliability issues.

 

Ah, those Germans.   

 

yeah, right gun to the right situation. :-)

 

 

 

your English is excellent, but we can carry on this conversation in Italian if you wish!

What I mean is that the development history of the Hispano Suiza was a tormented one, it was a gun that promised a lot on paper, but never quite delivered as intended. They had to stick to it for the war because that's the readily available technology and ammunition that they had, but it's not a case it was a design that was ditched soon afterwards.

 

Thanks for your kind words! I'm going to stay in English as my Italian is actually worse!   

 

The difference is not only made by calibre, it's the propellant charge and priming that plays a major role: the MK101 and 103 had double the propellant charge of the Mk108, making them much more efficient rounds.

 

So it's the number of weapons then, not the calibre itself. Yep, the Germans ad too many weapon variants: I agree. They were too much in-love with technology research (luckily).

 

it is long range, or if you wish, "medium/long". If you read the Tiffie reports, of all the ones that opened fire at 600 yards (which is circa 600 metres), only three saw hits. Apart for the fact that I'd like you to try and stand 600 yards away from a Bf109 and see if you can actually even see the damn thing, I think many of these reports overestimated distances. Truly accurate distances could be given with gyro gunsights. The point btw is that on average the American fighters didn't need to get as close as the Germans did to get a kill, and it wasn't just about skills, it was about allowing pilots with a more flexible shooting solution.

 

Yes, to me 100m is close, 300 is medium and 500 is long: of course it's not written anywhere.   

He saw 3 hits. We must take in account they were wing mounted weapons. He was spraying and surely he opened the fire closing on the enemy. The same is valid for P51s and P47s.The difference is that at that distance 3 hits of cannon shell are still going to take the enemy fighter down, 9 M2 bullets are not (it depend on the hitting location, but it's rather difficult to hit a vital part).

 

Then I agree that it's a flexible solution for escort fighters who already have air superiority. Just to be honest, I love .50 cals because of their accuracy and I find them good enough for an escort fighter. At the same time I do not think that's the "best" solution for firing at medium-long range since their damage property, above all with wing mounted weapons (because of this the P38 is far better IMO). A centralized weapon location, even with lesser ROF IMo is better (La7 had 3 sync cannons over the engine).

 

oh the German pilots were good pilots indeed, all you needed was a different approach. I think the suggestion Friendly Flier made is worth a try.

 

The first ones maybe. The latest weren't fighter pilots at all.

Edited December 19, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[Sternjaeger]

that's the point: 3 cannon hits with a Hispano Suiza would correspond to a quarter of a second, in the same time you can deliver almost 22 rounds of 50 cal, of which at least 10 would be API. 

[6S.Manu]

The f4u1c had 4 browning made 20mm. Only about 200 of them were made, the common complaint was ''not enough ammo'. I think it had sonething like 200-250 rounds per gun.

That's since they were used to fire at will with their HMGs. 

Look at the Russians: what could they say?

 

I think most of us don't really agree on what "effctive hits" are. I rather rather have 1 cannon and two machine guns and score some really critical hits in a high angle shot, either riping wings off or severely hurting pilot/engine, than saturating both wings and fuselage with AP rounds that don't cause any serious damage. Unless you happen to fire in perfect convergence, but this is rather situational, with a centered cannon you don't have this problem.

 

Not a fan of wing guns in general as you can see, but I do rather take a Tempest over a Mustang But even better for my personal taste is a combination of centered 12-13mm MGs and one or two 20mm cannons, or perhaps the NS-37. Basically 109s, 190s, Yaks or Lavochkins. The M4 does fire very slowly so we will have to see how this works out in a potential BOS addon.

 

Yep. We should take in account that most of the fights weren't featuring planes with the same energy. Simply there were a guy jumping on another (pilots account show this really well). Accuracy was really so important when you're going to chase who has you same speed (escaping?), but most of the times you are firing while closing on it...

[6S.Manu]

that's the point: 3 cannon hits with a Hispano Suiza would correspond to a quarter of a second, in the same time you can deliver almost 22 rounds of 50 cal, of which at least 10 would be API. 

 

I mean if the Tempest hit the enemy at that distance I could only be with a single cannon (because of the convergence); if we take in account the harmonization of a P47 it's not possible to hit the enemy with all the weapons: let's say that only the three weapons of a wing can hit, then it's 10 bullets (if they have a parallel convergence, less if the guns diverge more). 

 

You see, that's my problem with .50 cal weapons: you have to use many of them to be effective... and a fighter has not so much available space: mounting them on wings is not an acceptable solution to me.

 

Lets say that the .50cal bullet hits the enemy's wing: the best result you can have is destroying the gear system (maybe) or cutting the aileron controls (rarely). While with a single cannon shell you are almost sure to destroy that parts (if the fuse works, of course).

Edited December 19, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

This goes back to my initial point: talking about the "best aircraft" or "best armament" is a sterile sweeping statement.

 

Quite, the right tools for the job and all that.

 

In IL2FB I used to fly the Finnish Brewster campaign. The .50s were quite good against the I-16s, but trying to take down bombers was very frustrating, a bit like trying to take down German bombers with Hurricane .303s. The German fighters on the other hand fell quite satisfyingly to the hail of DeWildes. Of course, what 8 .303s can do, 8 .50s can do four times as well, but it is still primarily anti fighter armament.

 

Like Manu, I think the nose mounted combination of "doorknockers" (as the Germans called them) and 20 mm will be interesting!

Edited December 19, 2013 by 79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

the difference is that majority of us simmers are experienced shooters as well, so it might be easier to be more successful using larger calibres, but it doesn't change the fact that it's harder to get a good hit with a heavy, slow rate of fire cannon.

 

I have the opposite experience. I'm not much of a shooter, and I very much prefer cannons. Just a few shells hitting, even from dead astern, will maul up the opponent pretty bad, whereas the .50s require careful aiming (preferably in deflection) or that one lucky shot.

[mark_009_vn]

I don't really see what's the point of comparing 50 cals and cannons... All have it's strengths and weaknesses, cannon rounds explode, so it can damage any parts of the plane, MG rounds penetrate, so it can damage the plane's internals... etc, etc... 

 

[media]http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/advcan.jpg[/media]

 

"The advantage of cannon firing high-explosive rounds, as illustrated in a pre-war French source. Only the black parts of the bomber are vulnerable to machineguns: Crew, engines, fuel tanks. Cannon hits anywhere may cause sufficient damage to down the aircraft."

 

 

Cannons fires slow, have low hit chances, but in general deals damage to any parts of the aircraft once hit, MG fires fast, penetrates much better, but it need to hit something to actually deals damage (but hey, 6x.50 does spam alot of rounds so it ought to hit something...). Then there is the problem of reliability vs convergence, MG wins in reliability, cannons wins in convergence, but in the end of the day none was superior in WW2... they all traded something for something else...

 

I always thought .50 cals in 1946 are pretty good, doesn't take more than 23-35 rounds to set everything on fire, kills the pilot, and blow the engine... The only thing suspicious about the .50 is that, the armor of the Bf-109 G series upward and the Fw-190 seems to be quite immune to it...

[SOLIDKREATE]

I think the Tempest during the Battle of the Bulge would be just as devastating.

[Crump]

 

The only thing suspicious about the .50 is that, the armor of the Bf-109 G series upward and the Fw-190 seems to be quite immune to it...

 

 

Examine the vulnerability test's conducted by the allies.  One page has been posted in this thread.  From dead astern, the .50 cal had a 0% chance of achieving an immediate shoot down of the FW-190A as measured and tested.  As the angle off stern increased, so did the chance of achieving an immediate shoot down.

[NZTyphoon]

From the MG 151 handbook:

 

Interesting to note that the difference between the MG 151/15 ammo and the MG 151/20:

 

 

And the Browning .50 cal M2 Manual - bearing in mind this is the 1942 edition so ammunition introduced during the war isn't included:

 

 

 

[sturmkraehe]

I've read through this thread. My impression from the game is that it seems that the oponent plane is like a bullet magnet. I hit fatally from complete strange positions and from distances in a regular manner. I've just shot off a wing of a 109 that has been about 200-250m away (that would be approximately 660-830 feet if I am not mistaken) with more than 30° deflection and a burst of about 0.3sec. 

 

I regurlarly make them smoke black and green and grey on a pure lucky shot and the second rips off the wing.

 

I for my part believe that the decision cannon vs machine gun depends strongly on the purpose. If you're escorting a bomber formation your first task it to scare away enemy fighters and only as a secondary target to shoot it down. For this purpose 8 .50cals might be perfect (it is also "easier" to sneak on a plane whose pilot has turned his focus on another target, a bomber). If you have to shoot down aircrafts and a wide range of them, including big heavily armored and armed planes, you'd like to have strong fire power. 

 

I do think that a plane equiped with canons and potentially additional machine guns will have the better fire power and kill potential. This does not mean necessarily that a machine gun only plane could not down other planes. That it could was proven during the Battle of Britain where Hurricanes and Spits equiped only with 8 .303 brownings did down bombers and fighters. However, we need to recognize that the RAF did switch to a cannon set up not without reason drawn from her experience during that battle.

Edited December 27, 2013 by sturmkraehe

[Crump]

The FW-190A8 Type I fighter

 

2XMG131 + 4xMG151 with full ammunition load = 1003lbs

 

4xMG151 with full ammunition = 745lbs

 

Fighter Gun Power = 826

 

The P-51 Mustang

 

6XM2 .50cal with full ammunition load = 1006lbs

 

Fighter Gun Power = 360

 

So for equal weight, the cannon equipped aircraft represents 2.3 times the firepower of the six .50 caliber Browning rifle caliber machineguns.

 

The four cannon alone are 75% lighter in weight than the .50 caliber Browning's for a significant increase in destructive power.

 

It takes the P-51 Mustang 6.5 seconds to equal in firepower a one second burst from the Me-262.  That equals an 84 round burst factoring in synchronization effects which happens to exceed the continuous firing limitations of the gun meaning no secondary burst are possible without a cook off or damage to the weapon.

 

The FW-190A8 requires a 2.8 second burst to equal a one second burst from the Me-262. 

 

 

To sum up, the preferred US armament fit was effective for its purpose, but not very efficient by comparison with cannon.

 

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

[Sternjaeger]

yeah, we cleared this already, the edge of the .50 cal was superior ballistics, and enough for pursuit and ground attack roles, but obviously in comparison to cannon rounds it had less destructive power. 

[Crump]

 

To sum up, the preferred US armament fit was effective for its purpose, but not very efficient by comparison with cannon.

 

The .50 cal fell short in several very important categories such as weight, not just raw destructive power. 

[ShamrockOneFive]

I think nearly everyone is, quite logically, looking at this from the point of view of what is the best or most efficient aircraft weapon and the various choices made. The argument that always resonated with me was this: 1940s America was very much in the business of mass production and supporting an Army and Navy with their accompanying air forces in several major theatres of war requires a huge amount of logistical support. The way that you partially solve this is by keeping your weapons and ammunition fairly common. I realize that the guy in the APC doesn't have exactly the same belting as on an aircraft but simplifying your supply chain to support world wide operations makes a lot of sense... and if it means putting essentially the same weapons into a variety of different applications then that makes a huge amount of sense.

 

I'm not actually sure if that was the exact reasoning behind the semi-standardization on banks of .50cal guns on nearly all American fighters... but it makes a heck of a lot of sense. An adequate weapon that would do the job and could keep supply logistics simple.