CUJO_1970 Posted February 7, 2022 Posted February 7, 2022 18 hours ago, =RS=EnvyC said: The .50 BMG is a full 1000ft/s faster out the barrel and maintains its energy far longer than MG151, they are no where near close to being similar. A hit from that range is vastly more effective from the 20mm round, because it will still release it's full chemical energy. A .50cal from that range has to score a direct hit on something really important to be effective...according to RAF forensic testing with their aircraft and pilots the 20mm HE round only has to hit with 5 foot radius, and can and did maim aircrew from 7 foot radius...that is exactly what happened with this Spitfire x4110: When an Oerlikon shell burst, it fragmented into thousands of pieces which varied in weight from less than 1 mg. to 20 gm. (fig. 140). However, the largest number of "effective" Oerlikon shell fragments bursting in an area 5 feet in diameter and capable of causing incapacitation to the person exposed was 260. The majority of those 260 fragments weighed between 10 and 50 mg., and their velocity varied between 400 and 600 m.p.s. (meters per second)." (source: http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/actvssurgconvol2/chapter4.htm ) Re: the RAF study: Fragments from the exploding shells injured both of Dunlop-Urie's legs in spite of the fact that the closest hit was several feet away. This illustrates the advantage of the German cannon armament compared to the contemporary British choice of rifle caliber 0.303" machine guns whose bullets would only damage objects in their path. Looking at X4110's right side, one can see the large number of small fragment holes resulting from the cannon shell detonations. The damage from gunfire and the resulting heavy landing was so severe that the aircraft was deemed beyond repair and was struck off charge less than an hour after taking off on its first combat flight, making it apparently the shortest serving aircraft in the Royal Air Force during the Second World War. 3
=[TIA]=I-Fly-Central Posted February 7, 2022 Posted February 7, 2022 CONTEXT NEEDED! Envy was replying to this knuckleheaded statment alone when he said that: "Mg151/20 shells weren’t that much slower then .50 BMG. Being considerably heavier they had more energy" Envy was simply pointing out that a 1000 ft/s difference in muzzle velocity is NOT an insignificant difference in speed, and that the ballistic coefficient of the .50 BMG is superior. Terminal ballistic wasn't even part of that argument. 2
oc2209 Posted February 7, 2022 Posted February 7, 2022 16 hours ago, =RS=EnvyC said: My bias? I'm literally a 190 fanboy, I just understand the historical fact rather than wishing something is true because it's on my favorite plane. It's called living in reality. The reality is at the time batteries of .50s were better for fighter to fighter combat. As technology improved and the threats changed the US moved to cannons. No onea arguing that a singular cannon is better than a singular HMG, however when you put 6+ of them together into a single battery with a harmonisation pattern that doesn't require amazing marksmanship to deliver kills you end up with a superior weapons system for fighter to fighter combat. That's reality. Don't tell me what reality is like I'm too dense to see it. All you did was move the goalposts because your statement regarding the lethality of 30mm shells was indefensible. See how you shift to suit the needs of the moment? Now you're implying cannons are okay for bombers but not for fighters. The 30mm is best suited to destroying massive 4 engine bombers. Which is funny in a discussion about ignoring reality, because a shell that can take down a literal flying fortress in 3 hits, on average (if you object to that claim, take it up with John Weal from Osprey, among others--not me) can also annihilate a fighter in less than 3 hits. That's what logic says. No one has been arguing that the 30mm in WWII, especially the Mk 108, was ideal for taking out fighters. It was overkill, with a slow rate of fire, and in the 108's case, drooping trajectory that necessitated firing from close ranges to not waste ammo lobbing the shells in. But none of that has any bearing on the destructive potential of the round once it hits a target. The destructive potential is exactly what you're trying to downplay to an absurd degree. You say it does mostly superficial damage. How does a round that delivers superficial skin damage destroy or cripple a 4-engine bomber famous for its durability? If, as Denum claims, the .50 with API was a more reliable fire starter and pilot killer than a cannon, then why didn't the Germans mass .50s and attack bombers with those instead? Wouldn't the same logic that works for fighters apply to bombers too? Does anyone else see the gigantic logic flaw here, or am I alone? These are the facts, this is reality: the 20mm was the ideal anti-fighter round in WWII. The 30mm was the ideal anti-bomber round. The .50 was neither of those, and not ideal for anything in particular. But the .50 was still effective enough, when employed in massive numbers in conjunction with good training and tactics. I never said it wasn't effective. Unlike you, who tried to say the 30mm just did skin damage. These arguments are stupid and pointless. All people do is say whatever they need to say to protect their preconceptions, without even realizing they do it. Nothing ever gets resolved. 16 hours ago, Denum said: Oc, you need to pick up a history book. Seriously. Or don't. Either is fine. The latter is much more fun. You said this right after the mod told everyone to lay off the personal attacks. Yes, this is so much fun. You're really fun to talk to. Nothing in your post is news to me, so don't condescend to teach me anything. Just don't talk to me anymore. Ever. 1 1
354thFG_Drewm3i-VR Posted February 7, 2022 Posted February 7, 2022 (edited) 13 minutes ago, oc2209 said: Don't tell me what reality is like I'm too dense to see it. All you did was move the goalposts because your statement regarding the lethality of 30mm shells was indefensible. See how you shift to suit the needs of the moment? Now you're implying cannons are okay for bombers but not for fighters. The 30mm is best suited to destroying massive 4 engine bombers. Which is funny in a discussion about ignoring reality, because a shell that can take down a literal flying fortress in 3 hits, on average (if you object to that claim, take it up with John Weal from Osprey, among others--not me) can also annihilate a fighter in less than 3 hits. That's what logic says. No one has been arguing that the 30mm in WWII, especially the Mk 108, was ideal for taking out fighters. It was overkill, with a slow rate of fire, and in the 108's case, drooping trajectory that necessitated firing from close ranges to not waste ammo lobbing the shells in. But none of that has any bearing on the destructive potential of the round once it hits a target. The destructive potential is exactly what you're trying to downplay to an absurd degree. You say it does mostly superficial damage. How does a round that delivers superficial skin damage destroy or cripple a 4-engine bomber famous for its durability? If, as Denum claims, the .50 with API was a more reliable fire starter and pilot killer than a cannon, then why didn't the Germans mass .50s and attack bombers with those instead? Wouldn't the same logic that works for fighters apply to bombers too? Does anyone else see the gigantic logic flaw here, or am I alone? These are the facts, this is reality: the 20mm was the ideal anti-fighter round in WWII. The 30mm was the ideal anti-bomber round. The .50 was neither of those, and not ideal for anything in particular. But the .50 was still effective enough, when employed in massive numbers in conjunction with good training and tactics. I never said it wasn't effective. Unlike you, who tried to say the 30mm just did skin damage. These arguments are stupid and pointless. All people do is say whatever they need to say to protect their preconceptions, without even realizing they do it. Nothing ever gets resolved. The only thing similar between shooting at fighters vs. bombers is that they are both airplanes--that is literally it. Also, your logic is flawed and does not take into account many other variables such as rate of fire, range, muzzle velocity, target maneuverability, # of guns in the battery (i.e. 2x 13mm +1 30mm vs. 8x .50s API for example). Anyone can see that when going against fighters who typically will wiggle and evade fire as best as possible, you need lots of ammo, a wide dispersion pattern, a high rate of fire, and ideally a bullet that doesn't drop as much (although a gyro sight could help with this, which by the way, the Allies also had readily available). What NO ONE is doing, is comparing 1x .50 API round to 1x20/30 MM HE/AP mine shell. What we ARE doing in the CONTEXT of WW2 air combat, is comparing PLATFORMS, yes, but further what we are really discussing is how these platforms adapted to their DESIGNATED PURPOSE fared during WW2. In short, you are strawmanning, while others are using red herrings by bringing up post-WW2 usage, etc. Edited February 7, 2022 by -332FG-drewm3i-VR
MisterSmith Posted February 7, 2022 Posted February 7, 2022 OK, we've been around this bush a few times and it's getting personal again. Time to move on. 1 1 4
Recommended Posts