50 cal vs rail stock

[Angry_Kitten]

ut even looser less accurate "data" was created by forum members to create a "need" to change the performance of the 50 in game.

[357th_KW]

51 minutes ago, pocketshaver said:

ut even looser less accurate "data" was created by forum members to create a "need" to change the performance of the 50 in game.

Historical documentation was referenced to make some slight changes in mass, velocity and dispersion to the M2 .50.  If you have some actual data that refutes these numbers you should share it.  Otherwise, you should lay off the conspiracy BS.

[messsucher]

So the endless thread yelling "buff .50 calls" worked.

[Jaws2002]

13 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

t's worth noting in the next paragraph that 20mm Hispano Ball ammunition can still pierce the 109F's armor with a strike below the fuel line in 20% of cases - per the table in this link, that 20mm Ball ammo was only rated to penetrate 12mm at 200yds at 0 degrees against a hardened plate (it's described as 14mm earlier in the text).  The 20mm AP Mk II which they note is fully capable of penetrating the armor regardless of fuel level is rated at 27mm.  In that same scenario, drawing from the US Ordnance charts, M2 .50 from a 36 inch barrel (standard AN/M2) will defeat 20.8mm of hardened plate.  Obviously there would have been some differences in the British and US test protocols, but we can easily see that the M2 would have significantly more penetration then the M1 or the 20mm ball.

 

 

Why are you guys still ignoring the rest of the aircraft and only talk about armor penetration?

We are not talking about anti tank use of this guns. We are talking about shooting planes from 6 o'clock. There's a reason FBI has  has standardized ballistics tests, where the bullets have to pass through intermediate barrier and heavy clothing, before it hits the gel.

   Slower fast bullets are easier to deflect and destabilize by intermediate barrier, than slower, heavier bullets. 5.56mm AP has better armor penetration capability than 7.62x39mm, but when they are shot through intermediate barrier, the 5.56mm has much higher chances to fragment, tumble, or deflect. 

 

What's between the armor and the gun matters.

 Just because the .50cal has better penetration than 20mm against armor, it doesn't necessarily means it will have better penetration against armor, after it had to pass through a bunch of stuff.

Edited February 4, 2022 by Jaws2002

[Stig]

On 2/3/2022 at 6:50 PM, Mtnbiker1998 said:

At least I googled, more than the average idiot here can say.

 

So you are above average?

[messsucher]

58 minutes ago, Jaws2002 said:

Just because the .50cal has better penetration than 20mm against armor

 

Roflmao, this sounds like warped alternative facts were presented, ending .50 cals to be more effective than 20mm cannons.

[moeburn]

I'm pretty sure the .50's in this game (as they are now) do the same damage as every other ww2 flight sim I've played, including all the previous IL-2 games, all the way back to CFS3.

 

The only game I've played where .50s do more damage is War Thunder, and it's not a sim, it fudges numbers for balance and fun.  Maybe that's why people are expecting them to be laser death machines? 

[oc2209]

On 2/2/2022 at 7:22 PM, oc2209 said:

For the record, the Russian 37mm HE can also hilariously underperform, so this isn't just a Luftwhining issue.

 

Going to correct this statement of mine.

 

I used to be able to make the 37mm HE look bad with as little effort as the 30mm, but I can't now. I can't get any fighter to survive more than 3 hits. Typically 1-2 is enough.

 

I can break a Mustang's wing with one hit near the tip with the 37mm:

 

Spoiler

 

Which is something I cannot do, no matter how hard I try, with the 30mm:

 

Spoiler

 

[ACG_Cass]

18 hours ago, Jaws2002 said:

What's between the armor and the gun matters.

 Just because the .50cal has better penetration than 20mm against armor, it doesn't necessarily means it will have better penetration against armor, after it had to pass through a bunch of stuff.

This is why the API round was so effective. The smaller steel core could keep going more efficiently after penetrating something else.

[kitsunelegend]

Lets face it guys. We can debate the numbers and tests all we want, but one need only look back at the history books to see just how effective .50s were. Sure, US tactics had a pretty large roll to play as well, but having a crap ton of ammo to just chuck at your enemy, and knowing it'll still do quite a bit of damage, really helped.

 

And besides, theres a reason the US military still uses the M2 Ma Deuce even today, with some of them even having seen service in WWII! Its a very effective weapons platform that has more than proven itself.

[Jaws2002]

2 hours ago, kitsunelegend said:

And besides, theres a reason the US military still uses the M2 Ma Deuce even today, with some of them even having seen service in WWII! Its a very effective weapons platform that has more than proven itself.

 

Definitely an effective weapon, and the cartridge is going to be around for a very long time.  But in my opinion, The actual gun should have been replace with a modern, gas operated design, long time ago.

Just look at the weight different with competing designs. It's not even funny.

[Kurfurst]

5 hours ago, kitsunelegend said:

And besides, theres a reason the US military still uses the M2 Ma Deuce even today, with some of them even having seen service in WWII! Its a very effective weapons platform that has more than proven itself.

 

 

It basically just shows that the US had a insane stockpile of leftover WW2 M2s and ammunition, and that it can still do the job adequately.

 

Otherwise its basically a WW1 design that had long enough development to work out its flaws, but there are, and already were far better guns of similar calibre at the time of WW2 already.

 

The US back then tried literally dozens of alternate HMG designs to replace the M2, but, with all of those being flops and not much time to fool around, it stuck with the US military ever since.

[oc2209]

3 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

It basically just shows that the US had a insane stockpile of leftover WW2 M2s and ammunition, and that it can still do the job adequately.

 

Otherwise its basically a WW1 design that had long enough development to work out its flaws, but there are, and already were far better guns of similar calibre at the time of WW2 already.

 

Agreed. There were also far better guns of higher calibers. Cannons have been proven to be the definitive air-to-air and air-to-ground gun type since WWII.

 

Whether it's the F-35, the Su-57, the A-10, an attack helicopter, whatever: they all mount 25-30mm cannons. It's clearly the sweet spot in terms of range, ammo capacity, explosive charge capacity, and overall lethality.

 

The main value of the .50 in the modern military is anti-infantry and anti-soft target. It's much better suited to ground-to-ground work because of its relative portability compared to cannons. It bridges the gap in lethality between hand-held assault rifle calibers and cannons.

 

It will always have battlefield utility. But it's not now, and never really was, ideal for air-to-air engagements.

[Rjel]

51 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

It will always have battlefield utility. But it's not now, and never really was, ideal for air-to-air engagements.

Never? Ideal? Thousands and thousands of aerial victories during WWII. Thousands more on the ground. Untold numbers or locomotives, rolling stock and vehicles? Ideal or just very effective?  

[40plus]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There's a reason why Americans put six or eight of the things in a plane when everyone else was getting away with one or two cannons.

Edited February 6, 2022 by 40plus

[oc2209]

4 hours ago, Rjel said:

Never? Ideal? Thousands and thousands of aerial victories during WWII. Thousands more on the ground. Untold numbers or locomotives, rolling stock and vehicles? Ideal or just very effective?  

 

If the .50 was in any way desirable over cannons for X reasons, it would still be used today in combat aircraft. That's how I see it, anyway.

 

Cannons maximize lethality probabilities with a minimum necessary number of strikes.

 

.50s require banks of guns spraying the target with so many pieces of metal that one's bound to do some damage. It's inefficient, and inefficiency is illogical when there are better alternatives available (for airplanes).

 

I mean, look at ground attack B-25s. Is carrying ~10 forward-firing .50s really practical? Or a stopgap measure because there weren't enough cannons in the US inventory?

 

It's funny to think that the US developed a nuke before anyone else, could build thousands of 4-engine bombers, etc, but still wouldn't make a useful aircraft cannon design. Obviously we could if we really tried, but we chose not to. I don't understand it myself.

 

.50s make sense as defensive bomber armament because of weight and ammo capacity. Other than that, I see them as secondary armament in attack aircraft. The backup when your cannons jam or run out of ammo.

 

Just because people can make something work doesn't make it a universally good concept. Germany conquered most of Europe with weak, boxy, unimaginative tank designs and WWI-era rifles. That's not a vindication of the Panzer III. Rather, the Panzer III was adequate because it was employed intelligently against tactically incompetent enemies. If Germany could've afforded to build (and get fuel for) 50,000 Pz IIIs and send 10,000,000 men into Russia during the Barbarossa phase, then it probably would've won.

 

Still wouldn't mean the Pz III was an especially good tank.

Edited February 6, 2022 by oc2209

[JtD]

I think we need to distinguish between effectiveness and efficiency. Were 8 0.50 on a P-47 effective against other aircraft - yes, they were. Were they efficient? Not that much.

 

Personally I always like to throw in the more modern Soviet Berezin 12.7mm gun (UB, UBS, UBT), as seen on contemporary Soviet fighters for comparison. As heavy projectile, same muzzle velocity, considerably higher rate of fire and considerably lower weight. Much better to use in syncronized installations. Roughly twice as efficient as a naked gun, together with a decent ammo load about 25-50% more efficient. Or as a practical example a P-47 equipped with 6 UB instead of 8 M2 could spit out about the same amout of lead, but at 120kg less weight (if you carried the same total amount of ammo, too).

 

In damage output per weight the M2 was poor in comparison with most other WW2 airborne guns. Generally you'd want your aircraft to be as lightweight as possible, so from a technological perspective, it was far from an ideal weapon.

[Rjel]

2 hours ago, oc2209 said:

If the .50 was in any way desirable over cannons for X reasons, it would still be used today in combat aircraft. That's how I see it, anyway.

If the Kentucky rifle was in any way desirable over a Brown Bess musket it would still be used as an infantry weapon today too I suppose? 
 

I’m not sure where in my posts I said it was more effective than cannon. What I’ve said was it was effective in the role it was used and in the time frame it was used. It was effective in that it was a proven design, in production with large quantities available and ready to go when needed. 
 

To say it wasn’t effective in WWII belies the facts. To say that if was an effective airborne weapon 80 years ago it would still be used today, is ridiculous.    

Edited February 6, 2022 by Rjel
Spelling

[the_emperor]

My main issue would be, that there is just not enough to damage. No hydraulic/pneumatic/electric/oil/coolant lines/tank/batteries to damage(and many more things that are not modelled)

on top of that liquid cooled engines are too tough and damage to the cooling system is not modelled correctly ( those system are pressurised and damage de pressurises that system and deceases cooling Efficiency dramatically. So flying on a high power setting with a damage radiator should kill your engine very fast. Additionally some planes do seem to be able to leak coolant for an absurd amount of time).

That does not only make the .50 less effective in the game but also all other planes/guns that rely on AP ammunition eg the Hurrikane with 8-10 .303s

To summarise though I really like and enjoy the game but its arcadish and simplified damage model, which feels more like the old Il2 series, is a downer and a serious drawback for a current flight sim . Especially when the Cliffs if Dover series did show it can be done. 

Edited February 6, 2022 by the_emperor

[Jaegermeister]

On 2/2/2022 at 2:39 PM, PatrickAWlson said:

Somethings to consider.

1. He is firing a modern rifle.  No idea what the relative muzzle velocity of his gun vs. a 1940s Browning is.  Browning did have a high muzzle velocity though.

 

The Browning M2 machine gun in WWII with M2 ball ammo was fired at about 2800 FPS. AP and API rounds were running about 2910 FPS. Current M33 API ammo leaves the  45” barreled M2 gun at 2910 fps.

 

The AN/M2 aircraft version of the M2 had about a 21” barrel, as opposed to the M2HB with a 45” barrel, so overall the velocity of the aircraft guns in WWII would have been almost exactly the same as the guy shooting the semi auto rifle from a bench with M33 ammo.

 

 

[Denum]

9 hours ago, oc2209 said:

I mean, look at ground attack B-25s. Is carrying ~10 forward-firing .50s really practical? Or a stopgap measure because there weren't enough cannons in the US inventory?

 

Well... No there's some political stuff in there and the Americans never managed to make a version that worked well. They had something like 40 million rounds of 20mm stored. 

 

 

But with that said the .50 was more then sufficient. API was extremely effective at starting fires. 

 

A quick blip of the trigger from a B25J-20 was enough to destroy the trucks engine and kill the driver. 

 

In the book Into the Teeth of the Tiger which was a memoir of a P40 pilot in China, they referenced ground attack a fair bit also. 

 

They would strafe the lead truck and he mentions how effective the guns are at disabling it. They would try to ensure it was a narrow section of road so they could destroy the entire convoy.

 

 

[[CPT]Crunch]

8 hours ago, JtD said:

I think we need to distinguish between effectiveness and efficiency. Were 8 0.50 on a P-47 effective against other aircraft - yes, they were. Were they efficient? Not that much.

 

Personally I always like to throw in the more modern Soviet Berezin 12.7mm gun (UB, UBS, UBT), as seen on contemporary Soviet fighters for comparison. As heavy projectile, same muzzle velocity, considerably higher rate of fire and considerably lower weight. Much better to use in syncronized installations. Roughly twice as efficient as a naked gun, together with a decent ammo load about 25-50% more efficient. Or as a practical example a P-47 equipped with 6 UB instead of 8 M2 could spit out about the same amout of lead, but at 120kg less weight (if you carried the same total amount of ammo, too).

 

In damage output per weight the M2 was poor in comparison with most other WW2 airborne guns. Generally you'd want your aircraft to be as lightweight as possible, so from a technological perspective, it was far from an ideal weapon.

And the Berezin had what, one tenth the service life of a Browning, if that.  Yeah it had a great fire rate, for a throw away gun.  It wouldn't outlast the Yak it was put in, wartime expedient design philosophy perhaps.  Speaking about reliability... you can always sacrifice it for more effect.  Those equipped soviet aircraft are quite famous for their abundance of ground attack and general use for strafing as recorded, don't think so.  There are official recorded evaluations of obtained examples and they were soundly rejected as an unusable design due to exactly this issue, extremely low service life.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Remember that the USAAF did specify cannon for aircraft initially designed as bomber interceptors, the P38 and P39 (even though the 39 never could meet the performance needed because they deleted the turbo).  The .50 Browning was perfectly adequate for it's intended role in pursuit/fighter aircraft, that is, shooting down other fighters.  It was not until the jet combat of Korea that the deficiencies of the .50 for air combat became really evident to the USAF, and they still managed to shoot down Migs with the things.

 

Something else to consider is that the US military in general, and especially at the time of the Second World War, was seriously infected with NIH (Not Invented Here) Syndrome.  They were, and frankly still are in many ways, averse to using equipment designed or built in other countries.  And when they do adopt foreign designs, they almost always have to "Americanize" it in some way.  Tinkering with the Hispano cannon, changing the crew positions and canopy of the B57 Canberra, designing new wings for the AV8B Harrier, etc...   

Edited February 6, 2022 by BlitzPig_EL

[oc2209]

11 hours ago, Rjel said:

If the Kentucky rifle was in any way desirable over a Brown Bess musket it would still be used as an infantry weapon today too I suppose? 
 

I’m not sure where in my posts I said it was more effective than cannon. What I’ve said was it was effective in the role it was used and in the time frame it was used. It was effective in that it was a proven design, in production with large quantities available and ready to go when needed. 
 

To say it wasn’t effective in WWII belies the facts. To say that if was an effective airborne weapon 80 years ago it would still be used today, is ridiculous.    

 

Not ridiculous at all. The 30mm cannon is still in wide use on aircraft, 80 years later. Obviously it's undergone upgrades to its configuration and shell construction, but the fact remains that it's a very useful shell caliber. The point is that engineers all over the world decided it was the sweet spot for their needs. Not 20mm as much, not 40mm, and damn well not anything smaller than 20mm.

 

The same logic that led the Germans to shift towards 30mm in their desperate need, was borne out to be a universally sound logic on modern weapon platforms that want maximum destructive potential in the smallest amount of time fired.

 

I also didn't say the .50 wasn't effective. I said there was nothing particularly good about it compared to inherently superior cannon designs, but despite that it was still used successfully. Hence my Pz III analogy.

 

You can't really say that blowing up X number of enemy targets is an indicator of quality. By that standard, the 109 is the greatest fighter plane in the history of mankind. And I think we can agree that'd be a bit of a stretch.

 

Like I said, people can make anything work. It mainly comes down to proper tactical implementation.

 

Let's simplify the argument. Is there anybody here who would object to flying a P-47 or P-51 with the Tempest's guns?

 

There is no logical reason to prefer .50s over cannons for an attack/fighter aircraft. It's just something the American military decided to stick with, despite common sense saying otherwise.

[JtD]

2 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

Is there anybody here who would object to flying a P-47 or P-51 with the Tempest's guns?

 

You bet. There's nothing around here that noone around here would object to.

[Denum]

20 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

Let's simplify the argument. Is there anybody here who would object to flying a P-47 or P-51 with the Tempest's guns?

 

 

In game thats pretty obvious due to a lack of modeling. 

 

IRL I'd take the .50s with API. 

It didn't take many strikes to send your enemies down in flames. Higher chance of killing them also.

[Rjel]

23 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

There is no logical reason to prefer .50s over cannons for an attack/fighter aircraft. It's just something the American military decided to stick with, despite common sense saying otherwise.

One must realize the U.S. military was limited by small budgets throughout the 1930s because of the great recession, not to mention isolationism. Both would have hampered development of a useful cannon design. Then once the money was rolling in, WWII was knocking on the door. At that point it wasn't a lack of common sense as much as a calculated decision to use a thoroughly tested weapon already in production and lack of time to procure something not yet in being.

[Irishratticus72]

[[CPT]Crunch]

What other air force mounted the levels of airfield attack, train disposal, barge, and general transportation mayhem, for these the heavy machineguns massed were ideal.  These sorts of attacks fell by the wayside post war as dropable munitions and their delivery methods improved.  Not many other airgun set ups duplicated or surpassed them in this role.  As general purpose all around combat gun set ups they were undeniably good.  Just as the German role was a bomber elimination focus and the Fw's were appropriately armed and developed, and the Russians requiring something lite that would spit out lead fast enough to compensate for the lack of horsepower and gun carrying capacity from their overall engine development.  All of these were the right guns for the users mission requirements at the time.

[357th_Dog]

2 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

 

 

There is no logical reason to prefer .50s over cannons for an attack/fighter aircraft. It's just something the American military decided to stick with, despite common sense saying otherwise.

 The USAAF made a decision to homogonize behind .50 caliber weapons firing API due to commonality with ground forces that also used .50 caliber ammunition as well as a value of length and volume of fire.   The fact that USAAF aircraft in general were not practically tasked with bomber or heavy attack aircraft interception meant that the need for bomber killer level weapons was lower, and as such not worthy of investing considerable time and money when the .50 cal was good enough. There is also documentation showing that the leadership of the USAAF valued "trigger time" as a concern as well. 

A 1 second burst from the six .50 cals firing from a P-51, or the 8 from a P-47, dispensing the *extremely* effective and destructive M8 API round was enough to effectively end the fight against a fighter the size of a 109, 190 or A6M. 

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, JtD said:

 

You bet. There's nothing around here that noone around here would object to.

 

I totally forgot my audience. You're right.

 

1 hour ago, Denum said:

 

In game thats pretty obvious due to a lack of modeling. 

 

IRL I'd take the .50s with API. 

It didn't take many strikes to send your enemies down in flames. Higher chance of killing them also.

 

Please. 

 

Where does the 'higher chance of killing them' come from exactly? You're saying a 20mm AP has a lower chance of penetrating pilot armor than a .50 AP?

 

You know what, don't answer me. This roundabout gets old fast. Keep on believing .50s are gods among guns.

 

1 hour ago, Rjel said:

At that point it wasn't a lack of common sense as much as a calculated decision to use a thoroughly tested weapon already in production and lack of time to procure something not yet in being.

 

If everybody in the world at that time wasn't moving towards cannons at the same time the US was firmly in its .50 mindset, I would agree with you. But since that's not the case, I can't agree.

 

The British, the Germans, the Russians, and the Japanese all treated the cannon as the primary damage dealer, with the .50 as the backup. The US could afford to buck the trend because the US could make up for the .50's offensive deficiency in many, many other ways.

[357th_Dog]

3 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

 

 

Where does the 'higher chance of killing them' come from exactly? You're saying a 20mm AP has a lower chance of penetrating pilot armor than a .50 AP?

 

You know what, don't answer me. This roundabout gets old fast. Keep on believing .50s are gods among guns.

 

It's not a simple question of armor penetration, but the incendiary component was a very large factor as well. If the discussion as isolately only to raw armor penetration, then yes 20mm AP, depending on the specific round and range, does handily out penetrate a .50 cal AP round. 

However, when you factor in the incendiary action of the same round, which sacrificed a marginal amount of raw penetration capability to allow for a strong incendiary action, suddenly the round becomes far and away more effective at damaging critical systems and structures than a simple AP around. 

 

[oc2209]

Just now, 357th_Dog said:

It's not a simple question of armor penetration, but the incendiary component was a very large factor as well. If the discussion as isolately only to raw armor penetration, then yes 20mm AP, depending on the specific round and range, does handily out penetrate a .50 cal AP round. 

However, when you factor in the incendiary action of the same round, which sacrificed a marginal amount of raw penetration capability to allow for a strong incendiary action, suddenly the round becomes far and away more effective at damaging critical systems and structures than a simple AP around.

 

Except a mixed belt of AP/HE 20mm will cause explosive structural damage as well as having a good chance of penetrating vital areas.

 

So it's still not a matter of .50 being better in any way than cannons. It's just that API mitigates the .50's tendency to punch holes in a target without actually setting anything on fire.

 

I don't understand why people try to defend the .50 when it fundamentally shares the same weaknesses as the .30. They both lack explosive potential. They both require banks of redundant guns and concentrated hits on target. Cannons can get away with 'glancing blows' to cripple targets.

 

The British were able to win the Battle of Britain with .303s. Still doesn't mean it was a smart idea. And as soon as they reasonably could, they transitioned to having cannons in all their fighters.

[=RS=EnvyC]

It is quite amazing to see the lengths you'll go to to ignore historical fact and deny reality over a videogame.

[Denum]

42 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

Please. 

 

Where does the 'higher chance of killing them' come from exactly? You're saying a 20mm AP has a lower chance of penetrating pilot armor than a .50 AP?

 

You know what, don't answer me. This roundabout gets old fast. Keep on believing .50s are gods among guns.

 

6 to 8 guns firing AP/API vs at best 4 20mm cannons that were shooting mostly HE?

 

Does math elude you or am I missing something...? 

 

Every .50 round fired has the potential of penetrating armor and killing the pilot. 

 

The 20mm guns that at best, shot AP every second round with a slower rate of fire has less of a chance of killing the enemy. 

 

I have to be missing something here...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2022 by Denum

[Jaws2002]

1 minute ago, Denum said:

I have to missing something here...

 

Of course you do. Non explosive shells HAVE TO hit critical components, while blast from cannon shells don't. The area on a plane, that is vulnerable to .50  cal, regardless of type of round, It's significantly smaller than area that is vulnerable to cannons and it negates the higher number of .50cal guns. 

 

[Denum]

5 minutes ago, Jaws2002 said:

 

Of course you do. Non explosive shells HAVE TO hit critical components, while blast from cannon shells don't. The area on a plane, that is vulnerable to .50  cal, regardless of type of round, It's significantly smaller than area that is vulnerable to cannons and it negates the higher number of .50cal guns. 

 

Area is irrelevant.

 

All .50 equipped aircraft used box convergence. 

 

Which resulted in more rounds on target. 

API was very effective at lighting planes on fire also. 

Don't need to do skin damage when the 109 is extra crispy.

 

 

Also comparing a 30mm auto cannon to the 20/30mm gatling guns of today was pretty funny Oc. I got a chuckle out of that. 

 

You know they use big weapons now because the aircraft are substantially larger and more powerful then what we had in WW2 right? Weight and space is much less of a concern.

 

 

 

Just checking....

 

 

Edited February 6, 2022 by Denum

[=RS=EnvyC]

17 minutes ago, Jaws2002 said:

 

Of course you do. Non explosive shells HAVE TO hit critical components, while blast from cannon shells don't. The area on a plane, that is vulnerable to .50  cal, regardless of type of round, It's significantly smaller than area that is vulnerable to cannons and it negates the higher number of .50cal guns. 

 

 

You're over estimating the impact of German cannon shells. They were super low velocity and did more localised skin damage than area blast damage. PETN isn't all that powerful when combined with poor velocity.

 

A spread of .50 AP incendiary was more effective as when it hit it penetrated the aircraft, had a greater chance of setting fire to said aircraft, and a battery of 6 guns puts out ~90 rounds a second leading to a far higher instance of hitting the target for the average pilot.

 

That philosophy follows the USAF to this day with the 20mm Vulcan, which provides a wall of lead at a super high RPM with a large spread making the chance of hitting a target far more likely than say, the repeater cannons of the modern Russian 30mm.

 

You can also see that philosophy in all the OICW programs for infantry during the 80s and 90s, it's recognised that being able to get more light rounds on, or near, the target at a high ROF beats slower ROF heavier cartridges for the regular GI. The Russians admitted this when they designed the 5.45mm round as well.

Edited February 6, 2022 by =RS=EnvyC

[Jaws2002]

8 minutes ago, Denum said:

All .50 equipped aircraft used box convergence. 

 

Which resulted in more rounds on target. 

 Convergence is irrelevant to the discussion and its not helping, specially when you compare it with the Nose mounted cannons on Russian, Italian ,German aircraft.

[=RS=EnvyC]

1 minute ago, Jaws2002 said:

 Convergence is irrelevant to the discussion and its not helping, specially when you compare it with the Nose mounted cannons on Russian, Italian ,German aircraft.

 

Convergence is everything, the box spread was core to the M2/AN weapon system.