.50 Cal vs 20 mm Hispano - Ground Attack

[Gambit21]

Nice

[JonRedcorn]

5 hours ago, JtD said:

The firing rate of HispanoV and M2 are nearly the same. As is muzzle velocity. As unreasonable and RedKestrel already pointed out.

 

It leaves you with 8 guns spitting out 42g projectiles vs. 4 guns spitting out projectiles 3 times the weight. And since 4*3 is 12 and 8*1 only 8, it's a 50% advantage in total armament.

 

The Tempest is and always has been the hardest hitting single engined WW2 fighter aircraft, (if you leave out MK108 in the wings of a Fw190A-8).

Well it's really not the hardest hitting single engine fighter of ww2 then is it? ?

[Rjel]

2 minutes ago, JonRedcorn said:

Well it's really not the hardest hitting single engine fighter of ww2 then is it? ?

And what about versions of the four cannon armed Spitfires and P-51As?

[JonRedcorn]

Just now, Rjel said:

And what about versions of the four cannon armed Spitfires and P-51As?

Or hell 4 cannon armed hurricanes!

[357th_Dog]

5 hours ago, JtD said:

The firing rate of HispanoV and M2 are nearly the same. As is muzzle velocity. As unreasonable and RedKestrel already pointed out.

 

It leaves you with 8 guns spitting out 42g projectiles vs. 4 guns spitting out projectiles 3 times the weight. And since 4*3 is 12 and 8*1 only 8, it's a 50% advantage in total armament.

 

The Tempest is and always has been the hardest hitting single engined WW2 fighter aircraft, (if you leave out MK108 in the wings of a Fw190A-8).

If you have to make exceptions in order for something to be exclusive then it's not exactly exclusive, is it...

[RedKestrel]

4 hours ago, JonRedcorn said:

Or hell 4 cannon armed hurricanes!

Or the Typhoon, it’s older brother

 

[unreasonable]

22 hours ago, 357th_Dog said:

If you have to make exceptions in order for something to be exclusive then it's not exactly exclusive, is it...

 

He did not really have to.  If you leave them in the two aircraft are within a few % of one another's KE per s, depending on your belt mix.  The MK108's lighter rounds and lower MV (especially when firing mineshells) are made up for by the MG131s.   On a 50/50 AP-HE belt mix I have the Tempest just ahead. 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by unreasonable
edit: revised

[JtD]

11 hours ago, JonRedcorn said:

Well it's really not the hardest hitting single engine fighter of ww2 then is it?

 

It is in this topic, as far as I am concerned, because the MK108 relies on mine shells to achieve the destructive potential, which have a low kinetic energy and don't really work against ground targets. I'd give that Fw the edge in air combat, though. But of course, it is up to you.

 

11 hours ago, JonRedcorn said:

Or hell 4 cannon armed hurricanes!

7 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

Or the Typhoon, it’s older brother

11 hours ago, Rjel said:

And what about versions of the four cannon armed Spitfires and P-51As?

 

All armed with Hispanos MkII or the US Hispano, with a lower damage output than the Hispano MkV used on the Tempest.

 

11 hours ago, 357th_Dog said:

If you have to make exceptions in order for something to be exclusive then it's not exactly exclusive, is it.

 

I'm not making exceptions, I stated my point of view. I'm leaving out the MK108, because they don't work well in ground attack. But you will only arrive at the same conclusion, if you do the same. Hence the mention.

Edited September 19, 2019 by JtD

[Soilworker]

15 hours ago, Pre said:

penetration (giggity) capabilities,

 

That amused probably way more than it should have. ?

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Mk108 works fantastic against soft targets though.  Just lob it into the vicinity...

[EAF19_Marsh]

17 hours ago, Pre said:

Given the total number of bullets sent to the target, penetration (giggity) capabilities, and total amount of ammunition available, my guess would be [2x Hispano + 2x .50s] < [6-8 .50s] < [4x Hispano], but that’s a complete guess.

 

Damn you! That was the joke that I totally failed to make ?

[cardboard_killer]

Why the USAAF stuck with 6x M2s in the F-86 when the navy was using 4x 20mm has always been a head scratcher.

 

From Wikipedia, so YMMV:

 

Quote

On 18 November 1952, Lt. Royce Williams of VF-781, flying off USS Oriskany destroyed four MiGs in a single, 35-minute combat. This unique feat has remained little-known, due to the involvement of National Security Agency (NSA) – the existence of which was then top secret – in planning the mission.^[10] Following intelligence provided by the NSA, the MiGs had been intercepted during a series of air strikes against the North Korean port of Hoeryong. After losing contact with his wingman, Williams found himself alone in a dogfight with six MiG-15s; when he was able to land on Oriskany, his Panther was found to have sustained 263 hits by cannon shells or fragments, and to be beyond repair. Williams' victories were even more notable in that all four MiGs were flown by Soviet Naval Aviation pilots: Russian sources confirmed Williams' claims, 40 years later, stating that the pilots lost were Captains Belyakov and Vandalov, and Lieutenants Pakhomkin and Tarshinov.

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by cardboard_killer
single engine not two engine

[RedKestrel]

36 minutes ago, cardboard_killer said:

Why the USAAF stuck with 6x M2s in the F-86 when the navy was using 4x 20mm has always been a head scratcher.

 

 

 

 

Institutional inertia and inter-service rivalry is my guess. If the navy's fer it, aaaahhhhm aginst it!!!

[ZachariasX]

57 minutes ago, cardboard_killer said:

Why the USAAF stuck with 6x M2s in the F-86 when the navy was using 4x 20mm has always been a head scratcher.

In the F-86, propellant gases of the 20 mm gun ingested by the turbine could cause compressor stall. They tried.

Edited September 19, 2019 by ZachariasX

[MiloMorai]

Did the Australian Sabres with the 30mm Aden have the same problem?

[EAF19_Marsh]

38 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Institutional inertia and inter-service rivalry is my guess. If the navy's fer it, aaaahhhhm aginst it!!!

 

In production, proven, extant supply-chain: these are the factors that drive procurement.

[[CPT]Pike*HarryM]

They figured out the gun gas problem in the F-86 but the Korean War was almost over by that point. http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p86_25.html

[cardboard_killer]

20 minutes ago, [CPT]Pike*HarryM said:

They figured out the gun gas problem in the F-86 but the Korean War was almost over by that point. http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/p86_25.html

 

Interesting but from the link provided it seems like they did not try to change over until feedback from combat pilots complaining about the lack of punch of the M2 .50s. Certainly the F-86 was designed and tested after all the Navy a/c had transitioned to 20mm (including the F4U, F7F, F8F and F9F already referenced).

[JtD]

M3 0.50ies on the Sabre. They have a ~50% higher rate of fire than the M2.

[Bremspropeller]

2 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

Did the Australian Sabres with the 30mm Aden have the same problem?

 

They did some extensive re-design of many parts of the airframe, including the intake. The gun-muzzles did have blast-deflectors, so I'd hazard a guess they were doing okay.

The early Avons were retty stall- and surge-happy to begin with. Re-fitting the Avon 26 engine cured a lot of these troubles.

 

http://www.adf-serials.com.au/2a94intro.htm

 

 

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

In the F-86, propellant gases of the 20 mm gun ingested by the turbine could cause compressor stall. They tried.

 

And the Navy succdded with the FJ-2/3/ 4x20mm gun-installation.

 

Quoting Joe Baugher:

Quote

All of the *Gunval* Sabres had to be grounded to figure out what the problem was. It turned that during the firing of the cannon, excessive amounts of gun gas were being sucked into the engine, much larger amounts than the engineers had expected. The early stateside firing tests had been carried out at lower altitudes and no problems had been encountered, but at higher altitudes there was lesser oxygen to run the engine and the gun gas was causing a compressor stall, resulting in a flameout.

The idea of extracting the gun gas by sucking it into the engine had to be abandoned. The doors that bled gun gas into the engine intake duct were welded shut, and a selector switch was installed in the cockpit that permitted the pilot to be able to choose either two or four cannon firing. Small holes were drilled into the aft portion of the gun bay doors to alleviate gun gas buildup. These changes seemed to cure most of the gun gas buildup problems.

However, gun gas problems soon returned once combat trials were resumed. Test photos indicated that large amounts of gun gas were building up ahead of the nose during firing and were being ingested directly into the intake. This problem was ultimately solved by North American engineer Paul Peterson, who added a small horseshoe-shaped clip inside the recessed nozzle trough of each weapon. This clip broke up the gun gas, deflecting it away from the nose of the aircraft and trailing it harmlessly away in the wake of the aircraft.

This seemed to cure the gun gas ingestion problem, and combat tests resumed. A total of 282 combat missions were flown. Out of the 41 MiGs fired at, six were destroyed, three were probably destroyed, and 13 were damaged. Two *Gunval* Sabres were hit by MiG cannon fire, but both aircraft were able to return safely to base. The *Gunval* tests were completed on May 1, 1953, and the surviving aircraft were sent back to the USA, ultimately to be assigned to the Colorado Air National Guard *Minutemen* aerobatic team.

The combat tests were sufficiently encouraging that the T-160 cannon was placed into production by a division of the Ford Motor Company as the M-39, and the cannon ended up arming the F-86H and some of the Century Series of supersonic fighters.

 

 

[69TD_Hajo_Garlic]

13 hours ago, JtD said:

 

It is in this topic, as far as I am concerned, because the MK108 relies on mine shells to achieve the destructive potential, which have a low kinetic energy and don't really work against ground targets. I'd give that Fw the edge in air combat, though. But of course, it is up to you.

 

 

All armed with Hispanos MkII or the US Hispano, with a lower damage output than the Hispano MkV used on the Tempest.

 

 

I'm not making exceptions, I stated my point of view. I'm leaving out the MK108, because they don't work well in ground attack. But you will only arrive at the same conclusion, if you do the same. Hence the mention.

Mk108s can destroy buildings, small boats, and everything short. They are far better than hispanos.  Their arcing trajectory is also nice when you are flying at tree top level so you don’t collide with the ground too.  

[cardboard_killer]

3 hours ago, JtD said:

M3 0.50ies on the Sabre. They have a ~50% higher rate of fire than the M2.

 

And yet the combat pilots still wanted 20mm. Doesn't that answer the question.

[LukeFF]

On 9/18/2019 at 11:46 AM, EAF19_Marsh said:

Larger ammo load probably wins over destructive power per shell

 

That's one reason why the cannon-armed Corsairs were not produced in large numbers - pilots wanted the longer firing time of the .50 cals.

[Lusekofte]

8 x ,50 cal with extra ammo. You simply hit more with them. 

And theoretically it is more survive able pointing a radial against a armed enemy than a radiator the size of a barn door 

[RedKestrel]

13 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

That's one reason why the cannon-armed Corsairs were not produced in large numbers - pilots wanted the longer firing time of the .50 cals.

And it must be said that the Japanese in general fielded more lightly constructed planes and, to a lesser extent, vehicles. So in that theatre 20mm cannon might be considered a bit of overkill if .50s are doing the job quite well.
 

[Gambit21]

Can’t beat the dispersion (in real life anyway) and firing time of the .50’s against soft targets, truck parks etc.

 

For a fortified position or a tougher target I suppose the cannon’s (assuming precise gunnery) would be superior.

 

...and yeah the 50’s shredded those poor Japanese aircraft.

Edited September 19, 2019 by Gambit21

[RedKestrel]

39 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Can’t beat the dispersion (in real life anyway) and firing time of the .50’s against soft targets, truck parks etc.

 

For a fortified position or a tougher target I suppose the cannon’s (assuming precise gunnery) would be superior.

 

...and yeah the 50’s shredded those poor Japanese aircraft.

I do wish we could see the convergence patterns that were used IRL for the wing-mounted guns. It would be interesting to compare it to the point conversion we currently have.

[ZachariasX]

I‘d much rather carry 200 kg of extra ammo than 200 kg of extra guns by increasing barrel numbers from 4 to 8 *and* going down in caliber.

[Gambit21]

5 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

I‘d much rather carry 200 kg of extra ammo than 200 kg of extra guns by increasing barrel numbers from 4 to 8 *and* going down in caliber.

 

The 3rd armored and 5th armored forward ground controllers were as impressed with the results of the 8 50’s as the Germans were horrified by it.

 

So horses for courses.

[II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson]

On 9/18/2019 at 10:46 AM, JtD said:

 

The Tempest is and always has been the hardest hitting single engined WW2 fighter aircraft, (if you leave out MK108 in the wings of a Fw190A-8).

 

A8 by default has 4x 20mm PLUS 2X 13mm. 

[Jaegermeister]

I'm not sure what the debate is about when you can have both ...

 

 

?

[Frequent_Flyer]

On 9/18/2019 at 12:46 PM, JtD said:

The firing rate of HispanoV and M2 are nearly the same. As is muzzle velocity. As unreasonable and RedKestrel already pointed out.

 

It leaves you with 8 guns spitting out 42g projectiles vs. 4 guns spitting out projectiles 3 times the weight. And since 4*3 is 12 and 8*1 only 8, it's a 50% advantage in total armament.

 

The Tempest is and always has been the hardest hitting single engined WW2 fighter aircraft, (if you leave out MK108 in the wings of a Fw190A-8).

The P-51A  used the same 4 X 20mm , years earlier.

[Venturi]

A study was made of the effectiveness of anti-air gun weaponry by the USAF after the war.

 

They determined that it was number of projectiles occupying a given space at a given time which equaled effectiveness of aircraft armament.

 

The problem it turned out, is similar to what skeet shooters face. To hit a fast moving target moving through a particular space for a fleeting second, the optimal solution is to have less spacing between projectiles, so that it can't "fly through" the spaces between the projectiles in the "projectile cloud".

 

The Jug put out twice the projectiles than the Tempest. This means that a snap shot at a crossing target (the majority of gunnery solutions) might double the hits received, or it might mean that the target was hit at all when compared to a aircraft with fewer, but more powerful, guns.

 

The real reason why the US Navy eventually used aircraft with cannon was because it also used its carrier fighters to pound ground targets, and they wanted increased firepower (as stated above in this thread). Remember, a limited number of aircraft could be put on a carrier, so optimizing the fighters for increased effectiveness in ground attack made a great deal of sense. And, the more aircraft you have off the carrier in battle, beyond the CAP and primary strike aircraft, the less fuel and ammunition there is to explode in the case of a hit, anyways. In fact you can see the ultimate expression of this reality in the modern Hornet which does both jobs very well.

 

Contrast this to the USAF who stuck with 50cal. Their doctrine centered on pursuit aircraft attacking airborne targets, and bomber aircraft attacking ground targets (fighters returning from escort missions, or fighters who no longer have enemy aircraft to fight are notable exceptions). You see the gun choice change only when rotary cannon become available or when missiles became the primary choice to attack enemy aircraft, and not guns.

 

This idea of maximizing the number of projectiles was not necessarily new - the Brits knew it too, with their 8x and 12x MG setups - its just that the projectiles of the 50BMG are sufficient to easily destroy all aircraft they encountered - not so the 303.

Edited September 20, 2019 by Venturi

[JtD]

11 hours ago, Hajo_Garlic said:

Mk108s can destroy buildings, small boats, and everything short.

 

I was referring to real life, where they fail at that. A MK108 mine shell cannot penetrate anything. It has a thin 2mm steel shell and will easily break up upon impact - or detonate outside. Either way, the damage then falls way short of the potential of the shell is. It's also poor against structures beyond a certain size, say a bomber wing or a fighter fuselage.

Of course, as in game gas shock and gas pressure damage aren't modelled but improvised through a higher damage value, MK108 may work better against some targets that they would fail to work against in real life.

 

7 hours ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

A8 by default has 4x 20mm PLUS 2X 13mm.

 

Yes, 4x20 with less punch against ground targets, which isn't fully compensated by the 2xMG131. See here.

 

1 hour ago, Frequent_Flyer said:

The P-51A  used the same 4 X 20mm , years earlier.

 

No, it used a different Hispano with less punch. As already stated here.

 

8 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

I‘d much rather carry 200 kg of extra ammo than 200 kg of extra guns by increasing barrel numbers from 4 to 8 *and* going down in caliber.

 

Four Hispanos V weigh about as much as six M2 Brownings. For the same total weight, you can carry more ammunition in a four Hispano V setup than you can in eight M2 setup. Roughly 400 rounds. And with eight Brownings firing two rounds for each round the four Hispanos fire, ammunition for the same firing time is only 15% lighter for the Brownings.

 

So four Hispano V's with 450 rounds each weigh the same as eight M2 Brownings with 450 rounds each. For roughly the same firing time, with 50% more projectile mass output per second from the Hispanos, or twice the number of projectiles from the Brownings. The Brownings also produce more shell casings and belt links per second, both in mass and in number.

 

As it is, the historical installations came with more firing time for the P-47, but at a far, far higher weight. Total weights (guns and ammo) are roughly 350kg on the Tempest vs. 700kg on the P-47.

[unreasonable]

48 minutes ago, Venturi said:

A study was made of the effectiveness of anti-air gun weaponry by the USAF after the war.

 

They determined that it was number of projectiles occupying a given space at a given time which equaled effectiveness of aircraft armament.

<snip>

Quote

 

This idea of maximizing the number of projectiles was not necessarily new - the Brits knew it too, with their 8x and 12x MG setups - its just that the projectiles of the 50BMG are sufficient to easily destroy all aircraft they encountered - not so the 303.

 

It would be interesting to see the source for that, since it is not as simple as that - as your own examples make clear.  True that other things being equal you are ~twice as likely  to get a hit with 8 .50 cals: but then the question is what happens after a hit.

 

My own view is that while a .50 cal hit has more than double the probability of destroying an aircraft than a single 303 hit, a single 20mm Hispano hit has more than double the probability of the 50 cal. To start with it has ~ three times the KE per round: then there is the additional CE.

 

The US Ballistics Research Laboratories report a800394 quantified this: it gives probabilities for a kill on a P-47 from a single hit in the order of 3 times higher for 20mm HEI or Incendiaries compared to a 50 cal. The probability for the 50 cal, BTW is 0.037  

 

Firing at aircraft with a 20mm will get you more kills than with 2 50 cals: half as many hits but each one is at least three times as effective. 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2019 by unreasonable

[ZachariasX]

2 minutes ago, JtD said:

Four Hispanos V weigh about as much as six M2 Brownings.

I find 38 kg for the M2 and 42 kg for the Hispano V as gun weights. Can this be true?

 

4 minutes ago, JtD said:

As it is, the historical installations came with more firing time for the P-47, but at a far, far higher weight. Total weights (guns and ammo) are roughly 350kg on the Tempest vs. 700kg on the P-47.

This is my point. We are not comparing a gun arrangement on a fixed platform, but an aircraft, where every kg matters. If the other team just point their rears to the sky and let you have it, then weight on an attack plane is not that problematic. But if you‘re in a P-47 plowing mud and run into a 190-A8, then that is the end of the P-47. Conversely, if you‘re in a Tempest and meet the same A8, chances are that he will be on the receiving end. The Jugs arrangement was perfectly fine in 1943 intercepting bombers (that never materialized) at 21k ft., as it so much more powerful than the competition up there, it could make up for the extra weight.

 

Weakly contested airspace is permissible for many more propositions.

 

30 minutes ago, Venturi said:

In fact you can see the ultimate expression of this reality in the modern Hornet which does both jobs very well.

Not at all. The modern Hornet just illustrates the confidence of the NAVY that nobody would attack their carrier fleet anyway, no supersonic attack planes and cruise missiles, no nasty stuff. They made the E/F fat to the degree that in air combat it has no chance against his own predecessor for the simple reason that the latter will easily outlast him during high power maneuvering. It almost doubled in weight making it as heavy as the F-111 that originally was deemed too heavy for a carrier fighter. Essentially, the E/F variants are bombers, not fighters, regardless wether your HUD can do Minesweeper or not. But this is the charm of evolution. If it doesn‘t really need to fly, then it‘s ok if it can‘t fly anymore. It‘s just sad if the Dodo thinks in the end „Darn, I thought I was a Kiwi!“.

 

 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

My own view is that while a .50 cal hit has more than double the probability of destroying an aircraft than a single 303 hit, a single 20mm Hispano hit has more than double the probability of the 50 cal. To start with it has ~ three times the KE per round: then there is the additional CE.

 

I have some experience using the .50 BMG in anti-materiel role, and while a 7.62 round might take anywhere from 7 to 12 hits to reliably disable an (unarmored) engine; the .50 BMG was 1-2.  Add in light armor and the gulf widened.

 

I can't imagine what a 20mm would have done to them.

Edited September 20, 2019 by hrafnkolbrandr

[JtD]

1 hour ago, Venturi said:

A study was made of the effectiveness of anti-air gun weaponry by the USAF after the war.

 

The USAF conducted a lot of studies after the war. Many of those to justify the use of the M2 throughout the war and beyond. I don't think there ever was a consensus on anything, but they also determined that the Hispano was three times as effective as a Browning and that it thus was not the number of projectiles in the air that made a weapon effective.

 

And with regard to official USAF thinking, they also thought for a large part of the war that a belting composed of 50% AP and 50% I rounds is as effective as a belting composed 100% of API rounds, because 50% plus 50% also equals 100%. Why then bother with a round that can do both?

 

WRT hitting anything, it has been pointed out on this board several times already, that the chance for a single hit on a fighter sized targets is not really much larger with 100  (8 Brownings) than with 50 (four Hispanos) projectiles in the air. If you, for instance, fly a 10m long aircraft through a stream of 50 bullets per second, you'll have to go 500 meters/second to have a >0% chance to not be hit. So Mach 1.5. At Mach 3 you have already a 50% chance to not be hit. Not appliciable to WW2 aircraft. So it all is down to aiming and dispersion.

 

There, in a situation where you have a 50% chance to score at least one hit out of 100 rounds, you also have a 30% chance to hit with at least one out of 50 rounds. In a situation where you have a 99% chance to score at least one hit out of 100 rounds, you have a 90% chance to hit with at least one out of 50 rounds. All in all, in situations where you'd actually fire, you'll soon get diminishing returns in terms of hit probability.

 

What's way more important than the number of projectiles would be the accuracy of fire (gyro sights, radar sights, pilot skill) and a decent dispersion.

 

9 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

I find 38 kg for the M2 and 42 kg for the Hispano V as gun weights. Can this be true?

 

It always depends on the installation and what is considered "gun". From loading lists in manuals I'm getting 432lb for 4 Hispano II's for the Typhoon (Tempest should therefore be less), and 575lb for the 8 gun installation on a P-47.  That's 49kg per Hispano II vs. 32kg per Browning.

Edited September 20, 2019 by JtD

[HagarTheHorrible]

Quite frankly this is all rather academic.  If it’s on target, and that has as much to do with circumstance, platform and pilot , then I rather think the poor dick on the ground really doesn’t much care what is coming in his direction, between the two, it’s still gonna hurt and ruin your day. 

 

Incidentally, part of a machine guns destructive power is it’s ability to apply a continuous force against a specific point, which makes it more destructive than the number of rounds alonemight suggest. The suggested advantage of saturation (dispersion) of the 50 cal’s, more rounds fired per attack, mitigates against this destructive force.

Edited September 20, 2019 by HagarTheHorrible

[unreasonable]

30 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

Quite frankly this is all rather academic.  If it’s on target, and that has as much to do with circumstance, platform and pilot , then I rather think the poor dick on the ground really doesn’t much care what is coming in his direction, between the two, it’s still gonna hurt and ruin your day. 

 

Incidentally, part of a machine guns destructive power is it’s ability to apply a continuous force against a specific point, which makes it more destructive than the number of rounds alonemight suggest. The suggested advantage of saturation (dispersion) of the 50 cal’s, more rounds fired per attack, mitigates against this destructive force.

 

"All rather academic"  - no it is not. It is an entirely practical choice about what kind of guns to put on your fighters. The point    about a solid shot round as in an MG, vs a shell in a cannon, for a ground target, is that the target is, in effect, much larger for a cannon than for an MG. If an MG round passes between your legs and hits the ground, you get dust on your trousers. If a 20mm HE round does that, you get a bum full of splinters. Your choice. 

 

People talk about the "number of projectiles" being the determinant of ground attack effectiveness - how many potentially disabling projectiles are there in a splintering 20mm HE cannon round?  Seriously, if you would rather be strafed by one Hispano than two 50 cals you are out of your mind and immune to any kind of empirical evidence.

 

At some point this discussion has gone beyond ridiculous: all post war designers were clearly idiots because they went for cannons in their aircraft.  All Light AA organizations that ditched HMGs and even 20mm cannons for heavier cannons  like the Bofors clearly did not know what they were doing: they should have stuck with 50 cals. Really!

 

A wing full of Brownings was good enough most of the time: half the number of Hispanos was just better.