Guns vs cannons

[StarLightSong]

Horrido! manual, yes.

 

I think the bottom comment is  something like "the fighter pilot prefers the most direct route of attack / frontal attack".

 

I hope the energetic and informed participation on this board indicates the future success of IL2:BOS.

 

I like the devs respect for the lethality of high calibre guns, this of course becomes tricky with some of the WWII warhorses like the Il2 and Thunderbolt which at least anecdotally can take a terrible mauling and still fly sputtering and smoking back to allied lines...

Calibrating guns

 

 

Calibrating Big guns

[Sternjaeger]

yep, so far the devs have done a sterling job and have been adjusting a lot of stuff, it's a vibrant community, and a lot of useful information has been shared so far.

 

Uh and thanks for the cool pictures, although there's a mistake on the description of the first one: those are not VYa-23 23mm rounds, those are ShVAK 20mm rounds.

[Jaws2002]

Why did the USA stick with .50cals while everyone else was developing several versions of 20mm and 30mm?

 

Simple the USA was not faced with the need to stop raids by heavy, well-protected bombers. The destruction of American heavy bombers was a strong incentive for the axis to development of weapons of larger caliber. In Western Europe the main adversaries of the USAAF 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. Later Japanese aircraft were better protected, but again these were usually fighters.

 

So where the Americans right to rely on the .50 M2 when all other combatant nations had a clear preference for cannon of at least 20 mm caliber? The answer is YES! The M2 was adequate for its purpose, and was the only satisfactory aircraft gun in production in the USA. It was very reliable, was made in huge quantities, and the simplification of supply by comparison with the diversity of weapons used by the Axis powers gave a major logistical advantage. The importance of logistics is typically lost on gamers, even though the USA was about the only country in WWII that had the logistics in place to deal with 20 different types of weapons, they were savvy enough to stick with it. That and the USAAF and USN was clearly, as Charley Sean would say "WINNING" thus the old adage of "If it ain't broke don't fix it" comes to mind.

 

In the end, if the Americans had faced the need to stop raids by heavy, well-protected bombers, they would have, and were one of the few countries that could have switched to cannons in a short period of time, much like the USN considered doing near the end of the war to deal wit the kamikazes.

 

 

Actually it was not as simple as that. That was one of the reasons, but not the whole story.

 US actually planed replacing the .50cals with 20mm cannons early on. They even bought the license for the Hispano 20mm cannon and built a dedicated plant for that gun.

The problem was, they  messed up.

First when converting the blueprints from metric to imperial, then they modified the chamber and specs, plus they thought that, since the Hispano-Suiza 20mm gun was considered cannon, was ok to make them with the production tolerances they use for other cannons (heavy howitzers, and field artillery), so the first guns built were close to junk.

 On top of that, they couldn't be bothered to make prototypes and test the cannons before setting up the production line, so they ended up with a production line for horribly unreliable guns.

This,  in part sealed the fate of the 20mm cannon as main fighter gun in US service.

[Venturi]

That's what you get when no one cares.

[Finkeren]

It's funny. When the U.S. used large quantities of simple, readily available yet only somewhat adequate weaponry to fuel the war effort, that's seen as a clever move and a necessary prioritizing quantity over quality.

 

When the USSR did exactly the same thing it's often considered wasteful and a sign of a primitive, backwards military.

[DD_fruitbat]

It's funny. When the U.S. used large quantities of simple, readily available yet only somewhat adequate weaponry to fuel the war effort, that's seen as a clever move and a necessary prioritizing quantity over quality.

When the USSR did exactly the same thing it's often considered wasteful and a sign of a primitive, backwards military.

Lol.

[Venturi]

I'd have to say, .50cal got the job done.

 

Is it optimal against heavily armored bombers? Probably not. But then again, it was just fine against bettys and 109s. The US went to 20mm a few years after they realized they had to start worrying about Bears.

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95

 

FYI:

 

"During 2012, according to U.S. military sources, two different incidents took place involving Russian Tu-95 Bear-H bombers flying near United States airspace. The first occurred in mid-June during Russian military exercises near Alaska, prompting NORAD to send U.S. F-15s and Canadian CF-18 fighters to intercept and escort the two Russian bombers from the area. The second occurred on July 4 when two Tu-95's were intercepted by U.S. aircraft off the west coast of the United States, and U.S. fighters again escorted the Russian bombers from the area."

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

I seem to recall that the designed-before-WW2 P-39 had cannon, as did the more successful and also pre-war-designed P-38.  The reliability issues with license built cannons were realized until '41, 2 years after the Jug had it's armament selected.

 

The Ma Deuce, it might be worth remembering, is still in production over 8 decades after Browning designed it, and still in service around the world with different versions being offered for different roles.  It is still found  on stationary and vehicle mounts, are armored vehicles and rotary and fixed wing aircraft including the brand new Super Tocanos going into production for the USAF.

[MiloMorai]

F-86s in Korea could have had more MiG 'kills' if they had had 20mm cannons instead of the .50"s.

[Jaws2002]

F-86s in Korea could have had more MiG 'kills' if they had had 20mm cannons instead of the .50"s.

 

No question about it. Jet fuel is not as flammable  as the gasoline and the MIG-15 was one tough built bastard. It was pretty obvious , by the end of the war, that even 20mm cannons were not powerful enough for air to air. With higher speeds and extra armor, the structural strength of planes increased dramatically and in the same time, it was much harder to keep the guns on target long enough to get the kill.

[Sternjaeger]

F-86s in Korea could have had more MiG 'kills' if they had had 20mm cannons instead of the .50"s.

Mmmh that's speculation though.. A 50 cal could still sever lines, break through things etc..

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

Strange that 20mm was still the choice being made for US fighter aircraft all the way up to (but not including) the F-35.  I know the requirement document that led to the M61 Vulcan came out right after WW2, and I believe that 20mm was picked not just for hitting power, but also for ballistics and the number of rounds carried.

 

The F-86 entered service after the requirement for the Vulcan was written, and production stopped around the time the cannon was actually put in service.  Simply identifying a need is not the same as having something that can fulfill that need, and apparently the US didn't find a bunch of single barrel cannons a very workable solution - it was tried at least as early as the Banshee, and continued at least to the Tiger/Skyhawk/Corsair II/Crusader.

[Jaws2002]

Strange that 20mm was still the choice being made for US fighter aircraft all the way up to (but not including) the F-35.  I know the requirement document that led to the M61 Vulcan came out right after WW2, and I believe that 20mm was picked not just for hitting power, but also for ballistics and the number of rounds carried.

 

The F-86 entered service after the requirement for the Vulcan was written, and production stopped around the time the cannon was actually put in service.  Simply identifying a need is not the same as having something that can fulfill that need, and apparently the US didn't find a bunch of single barrel cannons a very workable solution - it was tried at least as early as the Banshee, and continued at least to the Tiger/Skyhawk/Corsair II/Crusader.

 

They increased the rate of fire of the gun to insane levels  to get the required weight off fire. A lot of extra weight and complexity was introduced in the system because of that.

      You can easily get the same weight of fire with simpler, lighter, lower rate of fire guns, in heavier calibers. Basically all other air to air cannons out there today, are lighter than the 20mm Vulcan. The 30mm gun installed in the latest Russian fighters is half the weight of the Vulcan.

 There's a point where you are better off with an increase in caliber, than hoping for more hits on target to get to the same results. It was the same in ww2. Once you need more than four guns to do the job, you are better off to increase the caliber.

It was stupid to install eight similar guns, with all the required additional installations, to get what you could do with three. And I think it's the same today. Why do you need a heavy, six barrel gun, that has to shoot 6000 rounds per minute, to do the same job as a lighter single barrel gun?

Edited May 6, 2014 by Jaws2002

[Venturi]

Except the ammo is what's heaviest and ROF is what matters in AtA

[Jaws2002]

Except the ammo is what's heaviest and ROF is what matters in AtA

 

 

Most modern, 25-30mm aircraft guns shoot over fifteen hundred rounds per minute, so I don't think this guns are handicapped in this respect. What matters is how much destructive power you deliver per second and the bigger, slower shooting guns do just as good as the heavier 20mm.

      Basically it's like in ww2. Bigger guns require less rounds to get the job done. Back then, the big guns were heavier. Now it's not the case. The 20mm Vulcan is the heaviest of the lot.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Jaws2002

[Venturi]

If you say so

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

Most modern, 25-30mm aircraft guns shoot over fifteen hundred rounds per minute, so I don't think this guns are handicapped in this respect. What matters is how much destructive power you deliver per second and the bigger, slower shooting guns do just as good as the heavier 20mm.

      Basically it's like in ww2. Bigger guns require less rounds to get the job done. Back then, the big guns were heavier. Now it's not the case. The 20mm Vulcan is the heaviest of the lot.

 

 

The new GAU-22 weighs a little more, I think.

 

You are right though, delivering the shells counts and apparently the US gun designers like a shell that goes over 1,000 m/s to help get hits on a target.  

 

As i mentioned with the Ma Deuce, the longevity of the Vulcan and the diversity of its applications tends to speak for itself.

[Finkeren]

I think with modern rates of fire, designing new autocannon has essentially become a dick waving contest. The insane power of those guns were illustrated quite elegantly by Randall Munroe a couple years back:

 

https://what-if.xkcd.com/21/

[CreepiJim]

The principle behind high rates of fire are not too bad. While it may be much more efficient to only fire one round to do the job (principle of anti-tank/ship/... missiles), a high rate of fire guarantees a hit in fast engagements. You don't hunt airborne ducks/birds with a sniper rifle, you fire shot to increase the chance of hitting.

 

Now most tanks do not fly for long, so the aircraft is the shooting duck in this case, trying to hit the hunter on the ground. With 4000 rounds per minute you are quite certain to hit your target (of course you need to aim, too).

 

And with the caliber chosen for anti-tank use, the 30mm GAU-8 in the A-10 was what the Americans learned from lessons by Rudel with his Kanonenvogel (Ju-87 G-2) in WW2.

 

Depleted uranium helps alot in fighting tanks, especially the incendiary nature of the heavy hitting projectiles.

 

Back in WW2, the development of airborne anti-tank weapons was mostly done by Germans, because they faced russian T-34 and did not have the logisitcs to haul artillery and anti-tank guns to the ever changing frontlines.

 

While the US and British forces had basically air superiority, they could use their tanks to advance and fly bombing runs with their strategic bombers to stop the tank before it leaves the factory. This "slowed" down the development of airborne anti-tank cannons, as rockets and bombs were sufficient for the scenario.

 

With the communist threat rising at the end of WW2, the US adopted concepts of airborne tank hunters, so they worked out concepts at which end the A-10 emerged.

 

Until then, most cannons were against air targets as those were the largest threats. With air superiority you can move tanks with close air support. When the rocket technology evolved to wire-guided TOW and unguided 70mm rockets, helicopters were the better option.

 

Cannons still are an important aspect for multirole capabilities. You need enough range to combat enemies before they can reach you, which requires large charges (and therefore increased cartridges) and you need effect on target, which leads to large calibers with "payload" such as incendiary, explosive or armor-piercing capabilities.

 

Development in war times is not always rational, as you can tell by ever bigger guns that were impossible to move and sometimes a political endeavour instead of scientific research. Not always was the issued gun/cannon what the users had hoped for, but they made due with what they had. Engineering qualities were of course an important factor and that is what Germans were (in)famous for. Despite the lunatic and his "dreams" the weapons developed usually were pretty good, often copied and still in use (the K98 for example, the MG3, formerly MG42...). However, sometimes all it needs is the will to make something work and I give credit to the russian engineers for field modding the heck out of stuff. They are sometimes the McGyvers of gun design. The Americans had such great minds, too. John Moses Browning of course is one of the most notable in that time and the M2 is still in use, all over the world, so it can't be that bad a gun as it was sometimes seen in WW2.

 

Sadly, I can not research cannons as much as I'd like to, because they under a strict law in Germany, so I have to make due with "small arms". If any of you ever sets foot on German soil, don't forget to visit the military technology museum in Koblenz (by the German military). Some interesting gun designs for education of military weapons engineers and enthusiasts.

[Sternjaeger]

what's interesting to see is how guns are becoming of secondary importance again: there's a new tendency to go back to single barrel designs, like the 27mm Mauser cannon installed on the Eurofighter, which has a rate of "only" ~1700 rounds per minute and 150 rounds on board, for a mere ~5 secs of fire!

[Finkeren]

The thing is, the World hasn't seen any true fighter vs. fighter air superiority combat between top-of-the-line fighters in decades, so noone really knows what to expect, all we have are guesstimates.

 

Maybe the escalating situation in Ukraine will remedy that? (let's hope not!!!)

[Sternjaeger]

The thing is, the World hasn't seen any true fighter vs. fighter air superiority combat between top-of-the-line fighters in decades, so noone really knows what to expect, all we have are guesstimates.

 

Maybe the escalating situation in Ukraine will remedy that? (let's hope not!!!)

 

well, there has been, but never made it to guns vs guns. 

 

I went to visit my friend, a Eurofighter pilot, to his base last week, and he confirmed to me that yes, the use of guns is very "remote" and is more there either for a low level engagement or as a very last resort. 

 

This is interesting especially considering how the tendency to remove board guns that was started with the F-4 Phantom was suddenly stopped, as pilots complained that this "new idea to save weight" left them exposed once they ran out of missiles. This was in an era were dogfighting was still in existence but was changing rapidly, and where missile technology was still far from BVR and even the IR or RG missiles were not that reliable.

 

I guess it's more of a psychological thing for pilots than anything else, but in fairness, and considering the manouvrability of modern fighter jets, I think that a Eurofighter vs Su37 "gun vs gun" dogfight would be quite an amazing one to look at!

Edited May 14, 2014 by Sternjaeger

[Finkeren]

Pardon my ignorance, but where have we seen actual air combat between well matched jet fighters in the last 30 years?

[Sternjaeger]

oh there have been several interesting scenarios

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogfight