.50 Cal vs 20 mm Hispano - Ground Attack

[JtD]

Just now, Venturi said:

The difference in armor penetration between the Hispano 20mm SAPI and 50BMG API is negligible.

 

Do you have a source for that? I'd expect the .50 API to be better. Haven't seen any penetration data for the Hispano SAPI though, so that's just based on projectile description.

[Venturi]

Another thing to consider is the muzzle velocity of the Hispano, while it starts out nearly equal with the 50BMG - 2800 fps (Hispano) vs 2900 fps (50BMG) - it loses its velocity more quickly with distance.

 

At 300 meters, the Hispano round has lost 23% of its initial velocity.

At 300 meters, the 50BMG round has only lost 15% of its initial velocity.

[LColony_Kong]

45 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

to be almost statistically equivalent to twice as many shots from a non - HE round in this case.

My point exactly.

[Venturi]

 

This means that at longer ranges, the 50BMG will hit harder and penetrate more, and this will be proportionately more apparent as ranges increase. All figures for armor penetration of a particular round being compared must specify a range and incidence angle.

[Ehret]

38 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

No one is saying that it is a death ray or has a nuclear yield. Simply that it produces splinters capable of disabling soft targets - like people - even if there is no direct hit. It only has to produce one such splinter, if it is not a direct hit,  to be almost statistically equivalent to twice as many shots from a non - HE round in this case. Note that all  near misses from ball rounds fail to kill the target.

 

The fuse will explode only on contact with the target and shrapnel propagate only from here in a cone pattern so you better get the direct hit. Or increase the shell size dramatically, or use some kind of smart (dynamically timed or proximity) fuses which weren't available for WW2 fighter armament. Otherwise saturation will be necessary just as with MGs.

[LColony_Kong]

 

[Venturi]

There's your 20mm API figures.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Venturi

[unreasonable]

4 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

The fuse will explode only on contact with the target and shrapnel propagate only from here in a cone pattern so you better get the direct hit. Or increase the shell size dramatically, or use some kind of smart (dynamically timed or proximity) fuses which weren't available for WW2 fighter armament. Otherwise saturation will be necessary just as with MGs.

 

Of course saturation is necessary but that is simply because in strafing, in almost all circumstances,  the probability that each individual shot gets a hit - direct or secondary - is extremely low with either system. The question is how much higher for a single 20mm HE round compared to a single 50 cal round.  In the case of targets such as people, surely no-one here is claiming that the probability is exactly the same? My hypothesis is that is at least double, based on what we do know and some common sense, but unless someone can come up with some test evidence it is hard to see how this can be answered conclusively.

 

As I have already explained, HE shrapnel does not go forwards in a narrow cone, except for the nose cap - it spreads out in a wide flat cone, like a butterfly shape. The velocity of the splinters from detonation is much greater than their forwards velocity. To be potentially effective, a splinter just has to be large & fast enough to disable the target if it hits and pass through some part of the target area.   Each potentially effective splinter = one additional chance for a direct hit, just as if one additional ball round had been fired into the area. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by unreasonable

[Rjel]

These two pages are from a statistical study done by the USAF about operations in WWII and the Korean War published in 1962. I have no idea how these numbers compare to the RAF experience in ground attack during WWII in the ETO. But, for those who feel the .50 cal machine gun was an under performing weapon when used in a ground attack role, these numbers are impressive when viewed in the short time frame of ten months from just before D-day to the end of the war.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Rjel
clarity

[Ehret]

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Of course saturation is necessary but that is simply because in strafing, in almost all circumstances,  the probability that each individual shot gets a hit - direct or secondary - is extremely low with either system. The question is how much higher for a single 20mm HE round compared to a single 50 cal round.  In the case of targets such as people, surely no-one here is claiming that the probability is exactly the same? My hypothesis is that is at least double, based on what we do know and some common sense, but unless someone can come up with some test evidence it is hard to see how this can be answered conclusively.

 

I counted only one clean shoot at the 9:40 mark in the video. The rest were partial hits or even missed. The Sabre had (as I understand) 4x 20mm rotary cannon prototypes (early M39 I think) so up to 4x 1500 cycling rate/m. Even after the 9:40 shot it's hard to assess the damage. Was it a killed truck?

Now those tests were done in safe controlled environment. Add stress, AA fire and average level of marksmanship. The challenge will not be to kill the target but to land hits - any hits. That's easier with in-wing harmonized gun battery like in the Thunderbolt with big ammo reserves. Sure, the maximum damage potential per second is lower but you will have fewer total misses. You can see that in historic gun camera films - pilots were opening fire early and "walking" the burst on the ground to the target.*

 

edit: * do you agree that such modern systems like CCIP are beneficial, right? If so then the "walking" technique serves pretty much the same purpose (but at cost of extra expended ammo which you can afford in the P-47 or P-38) as the CCIP.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Ehret

[Gambit21]

 

...and keeping that trigger squeezed and saturating that target.

Good ol Jug.

[unreasonable]

53 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

I counted only one clean shoot at the 9:40 mark in the video. The rest were partial hits or even missed. The Sabre had (as I understand) 4x 20mm rotary cannon prototypes (early M39 I think) so up to 4x 1500 cycling rate/m. Even after the 9:40 shot it's hard to assess the damage. Was it a killed truck?

Now those tests were done in safe controlled environment. Add stress, AA fire and average level of marksmanship. The challenge will not be to kill the target but to land hits - any hits. That's easier with in-wing harmonized gun battery like in the Thunderbolt with big ammo reserves. Sure, the maximum damage potential per second is lower but you will have fewer total misses. You can see that in historic gun camera films - pilots were opening fire early and "walking" the burst on the ground to the target.*

 

edit: * do you agree that such modern systems like CCIP are beneficial, right? If so then the "walking" technique serves pretty much the same purpose (but at cost of extra expended ammo which you can afford in the P-47 or P-38) as the CCIP.

 

One 20mm HE shell affects a  much larger area than two 50 cal bullets, by producing splinters. As you appear to agree that, in strafing, saturation of the area of the target area with projectiles is required, since precise aimed fire is so difficult, I find it impossible to understand how you can persist with the belief that fewer projectiles (bullets + splinters) produces fewer total misses.  

 

If you want to persuade me otherwise you will have to do so quantitatively: rather than with these ever shifting qualitative assertions. 

 

 

 

[357th_Dog]

Quote

I need my preferred round to be the objectively superior round to satisfy my purely subjective opinions

-Literally everyone in this thread 

[Gambit21]

8 minutes ago, 357th_Dog said:

-Literally everyone in this thread 

 

Hmmm...that’s not quite what I’m seeing, but I’ll leave it there.

[Ehret]

4 hours ago, unreasonable said:

One 20mm HE shell affects a  much larger area than two 50 cal bullets, by producing splinters. As you appear to agree that, in strafing, saturation of the area of the target area with projectiles is required, since precise aimed fire is so difficult, I find it impossible to understand how you can persist with the belief that fewer projectiles (bullets + splinters) produces fewer total misses. 

 

That's exactly why because precise aimed fire is so difficult any technique which makes that easier is welcome. Just watch some P-47s gun camera footage where pilots do very long bursts using visible incendiary hits on the ground to direct fire. They can do because they have 400rpg and battery of 8 harmonized guns. Thunderbolt can expend 3200 (4000 in the N) rounds where the Tempest can only 800.

 

If the Tempest driver would strafe the target shooting for 3s then the Jug's one can (and will) for 6s (4.5s only needed for similar destructive result as Tempest's) and use the same percentage of ammo reserves. Or the Jug will be able to strafe twice number of targets on the same sortie for the same time each. (targets don't have to be in exactly the same place strafed at the same moment so don't tell that this must result in extra exposure to AA threats).

 

You arguments is like that a single 1500 pound bomb must be so much better than two 1000 pounders dropped at two different occasions. (The Tempest has 1.5x more raw destructive power; the Jug has twice the firing time)

 

Maybe; maybe not - probably that's depends on the mission which every may differ.

 

Perhaps it was missed but in this video the author talks about tests they performed in the Vietnam. The results was that HE explosion from 20mm alone couldn't disable a truck for good; even 40mm was not satisfactory (can be found in the video comments by the author). They had to mount 105mm cannon in gunships to have reliable weapon for the task.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Ehret

[unreasonable]

2 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

 

You arguments is like that a single 1500 pound bomb must be so much better than two 1000 pounders dropped at two different occasions. (The Tempest has 1.5x more raw destructive power; the Jug has twice the firing time)

 

No it is not - for a given burst it is like saying that dropping a single 1500lb fragmentation bomb is better than dropping two solid 500lbs! Taking firing time at maximum load into account, it is like saying that dropping a single 1500lb fragmentation bomb is better than dropping four solid 500lbers.      

 

This Jug vs Tempest  comparison, while interesting enough,  is a little off the point.   What would be more to the point would be arguing that the Tempest would have been better in ground attack plane if it had been armed with six or eight 50 cals.  That is the OP's question, and that is the case you have to make to demonstrate that the 50 cal is a better ground attack solution.

[JtD]

2 hours ago, Ehret said:

You arguments is like that a single 1500 pound bomb must be so much better than two 1000 pounders dropped at two different occasions. (The Tempest has 1.5x more raw destructive power; the Jug has twice the firing time)

 

No, the basic statement is that a 1500lb bomb typically does more damage than a 1000lb bomb. We're in a armament debate 20mm vs. 0.50, it's mostly you who insists on making it P-47 vs. Tempest.

 

And don't forget the 1000lb of extra fixed ballast in your analogy, which you always need to carry, even if historically the average ammo expenditure in 1944/1945 was only 185 rounds per sortie (and if we completely forget about escort fighters and assume all 0.50 ammunition spent by fighters in Europe was spent by fighters on ground attack missions, this goes up to 520 rounds per sortie). Means they'd drop a 100lb (300lb) per sortie in your analogy, and bring 1900lb (1700lb) plus 1000lb concrete ballast home from every mission.

Edited September 25, 2019 by JtD

[Venturi]

All models are wrong, but some are useful.

[Ehret]

46 minutes ago, JtD said:

No, the basic statement is that a 1500lb bomb typically does more damage than a 1000lb bomb. We're in a armament debate 20mm vs. 0.50, it's mostly you who insists on making it P-47 vs. Tempest.

 

That a higher caliber rounds provides more destructive power that is just a truism. Is 20mm bigger than 12.7mm - yes it is. It's only when you compare complete applications something more elaborate can be said. Otherwise why continue the topic at all - only to repeat such (20mm > 12.7mm) basic assertion?

 

For the Tempest vs the Thunderbolt they are of similar size and both were used to strafe. Imho, there are no better platforms to compare actual historic real life use of 0.50" and 20mm guns than those. It seems that for in-wing mounted armament you can mount up to 4x 20mm or up to 8x 0.50" and so on. They are good match.

[ZachariasX]

4 hours ago, Ehret said:

If the Tempest driver would strafe the target shooting for 3s then the Jug's one can (and will) for 6s

It just doesn't work like that. Going at 150 m/s, shooting for 6 seconds would make him travel 900 meters. Then the Jug (assuming a flat approach) would have to pull out hard at 150 meters minimum (preferably 200). This would make him initiating to shoot at about 1.1 km distance. With all the dust blown up, it would become increasingly difficult to find a good aim.

 

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

 

Undefended targets, sure, go slow, flaps down, just hose them. Long firing time is surely appreciated then. But in most situations, like for instance locomotives it just doesn't work that way. Because firtsly, it will be unlikely that you live long enough to land good hits and secondly, you won't return home. The locomotive for instance had to be surprised while still steaming ahead. This was of paramount importance, as they had Flak cars in the front, in the back, and sometimes one in the center of the train composition. Having the locomotive steaming ahead makes it very hard for the Flak gunners taking a good aim at you. This is why Tempests used to scout at maybe 1000 meters altitude, and once they found a moving locomotive, the would drop down to tree top level entering a 4 or 8 o'clock attack in pairs, spread wide. Two pairs could attack. Like this, they had the best sighting on target as well as least risk that the leading aircraft would be hit by ricochets of the trailing aircraft. They would attack at full speed, 600 km/h leaving the engineer least time to slam the brakes and the gunners trying to get a sight on you. Going in at 170 m/s leaves you maximum 3 seconds firing time (you'd start shooting at 700 meters range), but realistically 2 seconds of reasonably good aim. This would be then from 550 meters to about 200 meters distance from target. 200 meters is one second and a four letter word away from ramming the locomotive. You're not going to get closer if you plan on getting home after that.

 

Also , farther distance are not possible as you need to line up your attack out of the line of sight of the target, as they would most certainly see of hear you, slam the brakes and gunners trying to get your bearing.

 

Once the locomotive has reached full stop, you just don't attack anymore, as your aircraft and your sorry hide are more valuable than the steam engine. Of course, plenty attacked anyway for manliness sake, and they took that to their grave.

 

Spray time is a great thing, but only if you can loiter a long time over a largely undefended situation with a slow aircraft. Like this, you can zap sorry peeps and anything moving over a long time, making you tremendously popular with your boots on the ground. You do the shooting for them.

 

But if the situation is dangerous, the you have to be fast (weight matters there) and you have to dish out most in the short time available. Cannons are better at that. But if you are at liberty to just spray around, sure. It would work then. But it is a different and more narrow mission set.

 

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by ZachariasX

[JtD]

27 minutes ago, Ehret said:

Imho, there are no better platforms to compare actual historic real life use of 0.50" and 20mm guns than those.

 

Imho, P-51 vs. Typhoon would be better, given that they did the brunt of the job and their gun batteries are of nearly the same weight. A better match and historically more relevant.

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, Ehret said:

 

. Is 20mm bigger than 12.7mm - yes it is. It's only when you compare complete applications something more elaborate can be said. Otherwise why continue the topic at all - only to repeat such (20mm > 12.7mm) basic assertion?

 

 

 

That higher caliber rounds provide more destructive power is not just a truism, it is true.  Additionally, we are comparing fragmenting 20mm HE with 50 cal solid shot.  It is not only the biglyness that matters.

 

Incidently, when you factor in some allowance for the CE of HE, you will find that the total E carried by the Tempest load of 800 is higher than that of the P-47 with 3400, with half the firing time: ie more than double the E output per second. As @ZachariasX has explained so well, this high damage/s output is a huge advantage for the 20mm in the dangerous situations when firing time is short, and it is not particularly disadvantageous on the rare occasions when it is safe to make repeated passes.

 

 

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by unreasonable

[LColony_Kong]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

 

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

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

[Ehret]

41 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

That higher caliber rounds provide more destructive power is not just a truism, it is true.  Additionally, we are comparing fragmenting 20mm HE with 50 cal solid shot.  It is not only the biglyness that matters.

 

Truism by the definition is true... jeez.

 

And you just said it yourself - "It is not only the biglyness that matters." - yet when I provided some ideas and backed up them with something then you object.

Go to and complain to the guy from the Vietnam or the WW2 pilots from videos like this. You can see strafing runs with firing times 5-6s and the "walking" I mentioned.

 

This is at 15:38 good example of 5-6s of firing P-47 at target defended by flak. I think you were severely underestimating Allied pilots.

Or this at 15:55 strafing for about 10s at targets defended by flak as well.

 

1 hour ago, JtD said:

Imho, P-51 vs. Typhoon would be better, given that they did the brunt of the job and their gun batteries are of nearly the same weight. A better match and historically more relevant.

 

Yes - you right - they all are no match for the P-47s as an attack plane simply because they are vulnerable in-lines. My mistake.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Ehret

[ZachariasX]

17 minutes ago, Lord_Flashheart said:

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

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

 

The thing about hunting Flak is to catch them off guard. That is what keeps you alive. It also makes small/mid caliber AAA gunnery such an exciting hobby. They always place you almost directly on the thing that gets pounded. Else you cannot even dream about hitting anyone abeam but the complete idiots .

 

There is an exception to this rule, and this is when you set up Flak traps. There were many of those. How do you do that? Step one is find a target area that requires an obvious attack path, like for instance a river bed. Step two. Place something nice and juicy there. Step three. Set up a lot of guns pre trained to fire directly through the line of attack, with several guns covering several places in the line of attack. Now, all that matters is timing. Once the intrepid ground pounder is doing his hosing run, everybody hit the fire pedal as soon as he's entering the death zone. The attacker will cross many lines of fire then and chances of getting shot down are somewhere between very high and almost certain. Especially the trailing aircraft. It is of note that you can set up Flak traps with both real and staged targets. This makes it very, very important to get a good idea of the ground situation beforehand, without letting the other team know you're there. Your window of opportunity is when they still don't know where you are exactly. After that, you're just one thing. Dead.

 

It's really not like the chopper attack in "Apocalypse Now" when putting up this big show and everyone running abouts. You can only shoot them in the back. If you fail to do that and don't distance yourself from that situation, they can shoot you in the face and in the back. Hence, 2TAF aircraft went down in droves. It was miserable. I'm trying to imagine Thunderbolt pilots happily attacking the same targets over and over, hosing them at their discretion and come away unscathed. Nah.

[LColony_Kong]

10 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

This

Is not

 

This

Edited September 25, 2019 by Lord_Flashheart

[unreasonable]

I do not object to you posting anything, @Ehret,  the problem is that your points are not relevant.

 

Of course sometimes P-47s sometimes strafed flak defended targets, often with success. We all know that and no-one has ever suggested otherwise.

 

Of course P-47s, like other planes, had various characteristics apart from the weapons battery, that helped or hindered in the ground attack role.  We all know that and no-one has ever suggested otherwise.

 

The OP asked us to compare the effectiveness of each weapon option for ground attack: implicit in that is that they are compared other things being equal. So a best comparison would be between two aircraft of the same type, one of each with 50 cals the other with 20mm Hispanos, firing at a mix of defined point targets or target areas, under different scenarios of the allowable attack time.

 

That in practice is not available in this case (AFAIK), so the only way to do that is by looking at the characteristics of the weapons, projectiles, targets and destructive effects themselves. We know a lot about these since they have been measured.  This is purely a technical matter - the kind of thing that Operations Research staff spent a lot of time thinking about, including in the US.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JtD]

32 minutes ago, Lord_Flashheart said:

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

 

The higher density you get with the Hispanos, as they put out more lead than the .50 (yeah, yeah, I get you, just pointing out dense can be interpreted differently). And how's the .50 easier to aim? Both weapons go were the gunsight is pointed, roughly. It's not that the Hispano was firing all over the place or had a muzzle velocity that necessitated significant lead when attacking a truck.

 

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

[LColony_Kong]

1 minute ago, JtD said:

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

 

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

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

 

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

[unreasonable]

3 minutes ago, Lord_Flashheart said:

Id dont know where you get this idea that flak in ww2 was accurate that you could not make passes on alert gunners.

 

 

 

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

  

[LColony_Kong]

Just now, unreasonable said:

 

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

  

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

 

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

12 minutes ago, Lord_Flashheart said:

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

 

[JtD]

14 minutes ago, Lord_Flashheart said:

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

 

OK, understood. But as already posted, harmonization patterns were found to be pretty much irrelevant. That careful setup didn't help jack in combat. USN and USAF findings.

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, Lord_Flashheart said:

 

 

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

 

 

"It might well be your last pass" does not imply, basically or otherwise, "nearly suicidal". Much more risky: that is all. Say going from 1% chance of being shot down to 5%.

 

Pilots taking a 5% chance of being shot down will, on average, have lost half their number after 14 attacks.

 

1 hour ago, Lord_Flashheart said:

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

 

 

You can harmonize wing mounted 4*20mm too.  You could, with the 50 cals, either have the same density of projectiles in the beaten zone on the ground over double the area, or the same area with double the projectiles per unit area. You cannot have both.  edit: although in fairness, you could have a 1/3 larger beaten zone with 50% more hits per area with the 50 cals, but I still think that unless you can quantify splinter effect this is not a direct comparison.

Edited September 25, 2019 by unreasonable

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, Lord_Flashheart said:

Yes you can. AAA in ww2 had an extremely difficult time hitting planes that were even flying in straight lines.

Absolutely not. When that straight line is directly at them or from them, you hit. You can expect about two dozen trying out their luck with scoring you. RADAR control mainly increases positional flexibility of the gun as it makes shots abeam possible. Of course it increases hit rate.

 

Also you should not mistake a 20 mm Flak Oerlikon with the aircraft mounted type. The Flak guns have a better trajectory (900 m/s V0) over distance and you can use it up to almost 2 km distance, something you shouldn't even dream the wing mounted Hispanos. Lookin at HE bullet demonstrations, they easily pack enough punch to destroy thin skinned aircraft. Over that distance, ~25 cm after impact on aluminum AC skin, the projectile will explode and over the next 50 cm depht it shreds an area of roughly 40 x 40 cm.

 

You should also be aware that the Flak gunner has a much more stable platform to shoot, it's more like the mouse pointing that makes the Peshka rear gunner so effective. Flak is the same. If we had Flak tanks for CAP, then that would instantly be the end of low level attacks on any server featuring them. And people would turn rabid over it. You'd just zap those Yaks or Jugs as soon as they line up their attack. You know, sometimes I can even shoot them with the 88 cm gun. It's remarkable how many fly as uninspired as I often do myself. Imagine how much simpler that was with a faster mounting turret and automantic guns. At 500 meters, you'd zap them with any gunsight. It's just straight shooting from a fixed mount.

 

1 hour ago, Lord_Flashheart said:

cranking a gun onto a fast moving plane is not an easy task.

Trust me, you can crank 20 mm guns very well. Maybe not when odered by an NCO, but at things trying to hose you with nasty stuff. You see the aircraft somewhere, in 2, 3 seconds you have the gun pointing near him. And in case of Flak traps, you have all the time in the world for pointing, all you need to do is pedal to the metal when being told to do so.

 

58 minutes ago, Lord_Flashheart said:

or get bounced by a 109.

That's part of the charm of an aircraft that outruns a 109.

 

56 minutes ago, Lord_Flashheart said:

He basically implied that an alert gunner attack is nearly suicidal.

On the alerted gunner sitting on a loaded Flakvierling. On. An alerted gunner as such, he's just nervous otherwise. And i do agree, that's not a great concern. It's mainly a good thing for his own NCO. Like that he can be sure that his imps are not sleeping on guard.

Edited September 25, 2019 by ZachariasX

[JtD]

I think you're both oversimplifying to get your point across. There is a lot of information available on German AAA during WW2 and how the USAAF dealt with it. You need

- recon

- numbers

- tactics

and can mitigate a lot of the threat. Recon would in the first place allow you to select poorly defended targets for attacks, but assuming a well defended target needs to be hit, you'd first evaluate your data and brief the pilots. Mobility is not a priority for AAA, so you can expect the positions you've made out today to still be there when you attack tomorrow. Point out targets, and defenses. Plan attack routes, plan order of attack, plan proper numbers. Generally, the first group to arrive would be the AAA killer group. Supposed to do a Luftberry circle at a few thousand feet altitude without attacking. You'd then send in a quick strike group, bombing the targets. Keep fast, low, and don't pull up until out of AAA range. If AAA hasn't opened fire, have the next group attack. If AAA starts opening fire, the guys circling above the airfield will spot it, and detach the necessary forces to dive down and silence the AAA.

Depending on how it goes, start strafing if AAA is weak or has been sufficiently weakened, or get the hell out of there once all attack groups have done their run. Losses when this was being done were rather low.

 

This, of course, requires the numerical advantages the Allies did have in late 1944 / 1945. You'd not succeed like this if your AAA attack group consisted of 4 aircraft and you have 20 gun installations to silence. If, however, your entire strike group consist of several dozen of aircraft, you can take out heavily defended targets with minimal losses this way.

After the value of reconaissance and proper briefing and tactics had been understood and the necessary steps been introduced, losses to AAA went down significantly. Heavier defended targets could be attacked, and the majority of losses occurred against targets with insufficient recon information (for instance targets of opportunity).

 

To that effect, a camera was more valuable than 4x20 and 8x.50 together.

Edited September 25, 2019 by JtD

[unreasonable]

The Manrho book on Bodenplatte asserted that most of the German losses to LAA were either over the front lines where the crews were alert, or during the second and subsequent passes at the airfields: the airfield LAA crews were caught by surprise. Also that German planes were not only hit flying straight towards or past guns but when they turned to circuit the field too close to the airfield, thus presenting their full wingplan.  That might be a deflection shot but it is many times the target area. 

 

They lost 32% of attacking aircraft destroyed, of which 47% were due to allied AA - so 15% loss rate due to AA plus others damaged. Who knows what the average number of passes was: but 3 would not be a bad guess. The pilots were told to keep attacking until all ammunition was used, and some pilots made several passes. 

 

Unfortunately, in the game we can only surprise gun crews if the mission designer uses a complex trigger mechanism: which does not seem to happen. 

Edited September 25, 2019 by unreasonable

[ZachariasX]

43 minutes ago, JtD said:

To that effect, a camera was more valuable than 4x20 and 8x.50 together.

In all, yes, a very good point as it also illustrates where the use of both configurations (regarding spray time) are.

 

If the target is in a very hostile environment, you need "the camera" to plan and exectue an attack. Typical time needed for this is at least a full day. This will be a fast mission, in, hit, and exfil. You need maximum hitting power in the shortes time possible, as you will have very little time at hand.

 

If the area on the other hand is less defended it can give a CAP plane the luxury of loitering over the battlefield. In such mission, speed kills, as it makes distances greater. You need to be close to tell brownish green friends from greyish green foes by eye. You have to watch the scene and wait until ground troops tasks you to hit that guy on the other side of the fence or whatever. It is clear that long spray time increase the useful time per mission and is greatly desirable. Smaller caliber is also beneficial as it reduces collateral as well as it can offer precise hits.

[Bremspropeller]

On 9/25/2019 at 11:17 AM, Lord_Flashheart said:

Yes you can. AAA in ww2 had an extremely difficult time hitting planes that were even flying in straight lines.

 

No you can't. You should pick up a unit-history and find out how many people were shot down and killed - right up to the last days of the war - by flak.

Flak is absolutely deadly. The amount of flak in the ETO is the major reason, why medium-sized bombers converted to strafers didn't work in this theatre of operations.

The amount of deadliness of flak has been a surprise for high-ranking officers in WW2, Korea and SEA. It's sad how once learned lessons had to be re-learned over and over again.

 

It's amazing how many posts can be written about a simple subject:

A quad of 20mm has less installed weight and more destructive power than six to eight 50 cal machineguns.

Yes the fifties can do the job, but the 20mm is better. Every single day of the week. And twice on sunday.

Every nation and the US Navy agreed to this notion.

 

The P-47 arguably was the best figter-bomber of the war.

Not so because it carried the useless weight of all the 50 cal ammo that could have been much less using a 4x20mm on an "iso-firepower gun-installation" AND that big old turbocharger - but despite so.

 

 

 

[LColony_Kong]

6 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

No you can't. You should pick up a unit-history and find out how many people were shot down and killed - right up to the last days of the war - by flak.

Flak is absolutely deadly. The amount of flak in the ETO is the major reason, why medium-sized bombers converted to strafers didn't work in this theatre of operations.

The amount of deadliness of flak has been a surprise for high-ranking officers in WW2, Korea and SEA. It's sad how once learned lessons had to be re-learned over and over again.

 

It's amazing how many posts can be written about a simple subject:

A quad of 20mm has less installed weight and more destructive power than six to eight 50 cal machineguns.

Yes the fifties can do the job, but the 20mm is better. Every single day of the week. And twice on sunday.

Every nation and the US Navy agreed to this notion.

 

The P-47 arguably was the best figter-bomber of the war.

Not so because it carried the useless weight of all the 50 cal ammo that could have been much less using a 4x20mm on an "iso-firepower gun-installation" AND that big old turbocharger - but despite so.

 

 

 

Yes. You can. That AAA was the leading cause of aircraft losses is not novel. Death counts tell you nothing about about whether X or Y tactics could be done with efficacy. You might was well try to tell me that you cant stand in lines and shoot at each other at Waterloo by pointing out the casualty rates in the front rows. Not to mention telling me to read "unit history" to learn anything meaningful about what does and does not work in war is nearly as absurd as telling me to read a memoir.

 

One does wonder why aircraft carriers (with far more concentrated flak than most ground targets) needed fighter cover? Surely their pew pew lasers could just shoot down every attacker.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Lord_Flashheart

[Gambit21]

32 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

No you can't. You should pick up a unit-history and find out...

 

 

If unit histories are so informative then you should read the 365th unit history (Hell Hawks) and find out about the efficacy of the P-47.