# Best aircraft weapon on a plane during WWII



## elmilitaro (May 17, 2005)

to me the best weapon was a .50 caliber machine gun during a dogfight but a 37 mm or 45 mm cannon during ground attacks.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2005)

That's easy - THE RELIEF TUBE!

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2005)

I like the MG151/20


----------



## evangilder (May 17, 2005)

There are alot of variables there. Best aircraft weapon for dogfights in fighter vs fighter, fighter vs bomber or ground attack?


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2005)

I've already answered this somewhere else. 

Browning M2 .50 cal for fighter vs. fighter. Hispano Mk. 20mm or Mk.108 30mm for bomber and ground attack.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 17, 2005)

M2 for fighter vs. fighter, MK108 for fighter vs. bomber, and 5" HVAR/1000lb GP bomb for ground attack...after all, the chap did say weapon, not gun!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 18, 2005)

that is true, well why not go for a grand slam in the ground attack role........


----------



## mosquitoman (May 18, 2005)

Hispano for anything that flew, grand slams and cookies for everything else


----------



## BombTaxi (May 18, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> that is true, well why not go for a grand slam in the ground attack role........



Cos its no good for blasting moving targets with


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 18, 2005)

I think the 20mm Hispano II was probably the best air to air weapon. 

The late war M3 .50 cal. with its extremely high rate of fire (approximately 1,200 rpm) was also quite excellent, especially when oufitted in a battery of eight on a P-47. (That's 158 rounds per second!)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 18, 2005)

BombTaxi said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > that is true, well why not go for a grand slam in the ground attack role........
> ...



get it within a mile of the moveing target, noty only will you overturn that vehicle, but ever vehicle in the convoy.........


----------



## BombTaxi (May 18, 2005)

But using a Grand Slam (and the Lanc it has to be mounted on) to attack a convoy is a waste of time and resources when two P47s with HVARS can do the job just as effectively and more efficiently.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 18, 2005)

yeah but it's not as spectacular..........


----------



## elmilitaro (May 18, 2005)

The 37 mm cannon was agood weapon for tearing up a bomber but it offered a lower rate of fire than a 20 mm cannon.


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2005)

I think there's a mass of agreement that the Hispano Mk.II 20mm was an awesome air-to-air and air-to-ground weapon. Especially when there's four!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> that is true, well why not go for a grand slam in the ground attack role........



What about an A Bomb


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2005)

He's right, just nuke the convoy.


----------



## trackend (May 18, 2005)

The best weapon a plane was the pilot, even with inferior armaments if the plane is in the right place at the right time or puts it in the pickle barrel its Adios Amigo


----------



## lesofprimus (May 18, 2005)

Take a look at the pics below... See all the craters??? How much $$$ did all that damage cost, in material and lives???? The Viaduct was finally taken out with a TallBoy..... One shot, one kill........

The debate over the M2 or the Hispano has raged for years...... I think it usually works out to which side of the pond u live on......

I am in the group that says fighter vs fighter; the M2; bombers Hispano II...


----------



## delcyros (May 18, 2005)

Give me a combination of MK103/30 mm and R-4M and I take any target out. Or just give me a MG 213B/20mm for all purposes. (That´s what I call firepower!)


----------



## lesofprimus (May 18, 2005)

> I think it usually works out to which side of the pond u live on......



America......... Berlin..........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2005)

You gotta admit, these were pretty cool, especially when the troops on the ground came out and started shooting at them thinking they were airborne! These get my vote, especially when filled with razors and shrapnel!


----------



## lesofprimus (May 18, 2005)

Great pic....... I stole it....

As for any weapon, gotta throw Napalm into the fray.... It could destroy anything on the ground, from troops to aircraft to tanks to structures......


----------



## evangilder (May 18, 2005)

yep and one hell of a horrific weapon to be on the receiving end of!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> As for any weapon, gotta throw Napalm into the fray.... It could destroy anything on the ground, from troops to aircraft to tanks to structures......



NO FAIR, NO FAIR - I WANTED TO SAY NAPALM!


----------



## lesofprimus (May 18, 2005)

Ok.... Ill delete my post and let u say it..........

NOT.............


----------



## Glider (May 18, 2005)

At the risk of upsetting the Americans, I should point out that if you believe that the M2 was the best air to air weapon, then the russian UB was a much better 12.7
Bullet weight UB 48g M2 43g
Rate of fire UB 17r/s M2 13r/s
Weight of gun UB 25KG M2 29KG
M Velocity UB 840M/S M2 890 M/S

So it weighed less, fired a bigger bullet, at a much faster rate of fire, for a small drop in MV. I should also add that the bullet was a better design as the USA copied it in 1943 for issueing to their own forces.

The M2 was better than the HMG's in the Italian, German and JAAF but well behind the Russians. 
I omitted the Jap Navy as they used a copy of the M2 bored out to 13mm but their use of HMG's was minimal.

For my money the 20mm Hispanio V was easily the best air to air weapon. It weighed about 50% more than the M2, had the same rate of fire, fired a shell that was three times the size and had ten times the amount of high explosive in each shell. If you work it out, the Tempest had about twice the firepower of a P47 for the weight of 6 M2's


----------



## lesofprimus (May 18, 2005)

Its not really a matter of weight and whatnot... Its more of a matter of how many rounds can u penetrate with in a given amount of time..... Accuracy comes into this as well..... A bigger round is affected more by gravity/wind/atmosphere/humidity.....

In a 3G turn, partially inverted, with a snapshot of 1.2 seconds, I want those .50's ......
(Although I happen to love the Hispo's and the high explosive)

Air to air is one thing..... Fighter to fighter is another....


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 18, 2005)

Just a point of clarification, the P-47 had eight and not six .50's and the M3 .50 had a cyclic rate of 1,200 rpm as opposed to 750 for the M2. Thus, the M2 only had 63% of the firepower of the M3.

Eight M3 .50's at 1,200 rpm could throw out 160 rounds per second! *A 1/4 second burst in which only half the guns connected would still yield 20 hits*.


----------



## Glider (May 18, 2005)

I agree but the MV was close between the M2 and the Mk V, the penetration would always be on the side of the larger shell with the bigger warhead and greater momentum. This would also help the trajectory.

Lesbo there is always room for differences between the 12.7 and the 20 and in a fighter you wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of either. But wouldn't you rather have 6 or 8 of the UB's in your P51 P47?


----------



## lesofprimus (May 18, 2005)

Glider, no actually i like the M2/M3 .50's better.... They were more reliable from what ive read, and the barrel life on the M3 was said to last up to 3 times as long......

I will agree with u though that the Russians made some great weapons.....


----------



## Glider (May 18, 2005)

David
I know the P47 had 8 guns. The point was that the Tempest had twice the firepower of the P47 for the WEIGHT of 6 M2's. In other words it was more effective for less weight.
As for the M3 I don't know when it came into widespread use, can you tell me more on this. The Russian UB was in use almost from the start of the war and was therefore without question the best 12.7 in general use during the war.
Hope this helps


----------



## Glider (May 18, 2005)

Barrel life was the least of everyones worries as statistically the gun was unlikely to last long enough to run out of life. The plane was more likely to crash before the guns wore out. It was cheaper to replace the barrels of the few that lasted that long, then spend the extra effort and money in building them to last. 
As for reliability I doubt if there was much in it. Russians were not known for their sophistication, but there equipment was known for being reliable.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 18, 2005)

It didn't come into widespread use. (But it did see service on planes in WWII per the posted question) It entered service on Le Shima just a few months before the war ended in the Pacific and was mounted in P-47N's. 

Those poor Japanese pilots in their lightly constructed aircraft never knew what hit them.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 18, 2005)

> Those poor Japanese pilots in their lightly constructed aircraft never knew what hit them.


YUP..........


> just a few months before the war ended in the Pacific and was mounted in P-47N's.


And everyone knows how superb the -47N was...... I shiver thinking about it on chilly days in my hammock..........


----------



## DAVIDICUS (May 19, 2005)

Les said, "_They were more reliable from what ive read, and the barrel life on the M3 was said to last up to 3 times as long......_"

This, of course, is counterintuitive as friction is what ruins barrels and thus all things being equal, a cyclic rate of 1,200 rpm as opposed to 750 rpm would be more damaging to a barrel. 

Do you know how they achieved up to three times the barrel life? How were they defining barrel life? Ordinarily, it is measured in number of rounds fired.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 19, 2005)

The quality of the steel that the barrel was made out of also has some bearing on how long a barrel will last.... But yes, friction is the major factor, or how long the barrel will hold up to the friction of multiple rounds passing through it.....


----------



## Monkeysee1 (Jul 18, 2005)

Its gotta be the .50 cal. Think of all the aircraft shot down with .50 cal, all the rail transportation destroyed by .50 cal. Those half inch bullets did more damage combined than anything else. And it was an excellent combination of weight and lethality per round while still having a high rate of fire, and a high velocity as well. 

You get to 30mm cannon and there is just too much drop. You go to 20mm cannon and there is a slower velocity plus slower rate of fire. Granted a single hit from a 30mm cannon was often enough to take an aircraft out but you had to land the round home. Plus the weight of cannons and their ammunition is far greater than the .50 cal round.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2005)

While I agree the 50 cal was a great weapon, I would say it depends on the what you are using the gun for. The 30mm and 20mm were great at knocking out bombers.


----------



## red admiral (Jul 18, 2005)

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

P.47 8x0.5" 
Ammo power (HE content) ; 15640
Gun power (KE) ; 480
Time to fire 2320 ; 4.8s
Weight ; 613kg

Tempest 4x20mm Mk V
Ammo power ; 16000
Gun power ; 1000
Time to fire 2320 ; 2.3
Weight ; 374 kg

So for 40% less weight the Tempest has an armament twice as powerful. A single 0.5" hit will basically do no damage. A single 20mm hit will severely incapacitate a fighter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2005)

Agreed also. 8)


----------



## Erich (Jul 18, 2005)

well I think sticking with 4 30mm's and a truck load of 24 plus R4M's is a good idea on the Me 262


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 19, 2005)

i'm not sure i'd use a -262 as my first choice for air-to-air combat, i'd rather have something a bit more reliable, can turn tighter and actually gives me time to line up a shot


----------



## plan_D (Jul 19, 2005)

_"...actually gives me time to line up a shot."_

I know you probably slow down on Il-2 to shoot down bombers - but you want to stay as fast as possible. The Me-262 was perfect for high speed passes, heavy armament and fast aircraft. If you can't hit anything - learn to shoot! 

I used to slow down on Il-2 to blast bombers but now I keep it really fast, the gunners don't have a chance of hitting you.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2005)

Agreed Erich I wouldn't turn down the 30mm and the R4M.

And Lanc no one said anything about dogfighting with the 262. As you probably know the 262 with that armament was great for bomber killing.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 19, 2005)

Wasn´t one of the MG213/20 mm guns experimentally installed as a engine mounted gun in one of those long nose Fw-190? This weapon could do all you ask for...


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jul 19, 2005)

The 262 was too fast. It had to dive below the bombers (~1500' and a position ~1 mile behind) and bleed speed off in a high G pull-out climb, levelling off at the intended victum's atltitude.

see _Luftwaffe Handbook_ by Alfred Price, pg 20


----------



## delcyros (Jul 19, 2005)

Some of these tactics has been used in order to avoid interception by the masses of screening escort fighters. A number of the KG(J) Me-262 planes have been shot down because they reduced their speed in order to aim more precisely (energy tactics: always keep, not offer, your energy!). 
I believe that there was no "too fast" for a ww2 fighter either.
Even the Me-163, while beeing the fastest combat plane of ww2, wasn´t too fast to get kills. It´s short endurance was the problem, not it´s speed.


----------



## Erich (Jul 19, 2005)

the Me 262 unit JG 7 flew behind and above and attacked in porpoise style after it released its lethal cargo of R4M's. According to bomb group vets the jets flew thorugh the formation and upward not below, as well as from JG 7 jet piots.

Your reference is bogus KK. the 262 proved itself as a contender for top bomber killer in the Luftwaffes arsenal. as a fighter vs fighter we already know that it's turning radius and fuel deficintcies killed it


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jul 19, 2005)

Erich,

did I say they attacked from below? I will tell Price that he does not know what he is talking about, if I ever meet him.  Another reference source, which I can't put my hands now, also has a diagram of the described attack profile.

I also describe a gun only attack.

Why did they attack porpoise style after releasing the R4Ms and how much porpoise? Would say only to upset the aim of the gunners, for the R4Ms (usually released at a range of ~600m) were released inside the leathal distance of the .50s. 

It was dangerous to fly below because of any debris that came off the bombers.

Where did you read that I said the 262 was not a bomber killer?

delcyros,

I think you misunderdstood, for sure, speed is life. That is before and after attacking the target. Attacking bombers from the rear, doing less than 200mph, at 500mph proved difficult, though not impossible. The closing rate at that speed differential was ~8,000m/min. A 262 pilot would have only a few seconds to acquire the target (500mph = ~223m/sec) and fire with the low flat range of the 30mm if they porpoised like Erich says. The attack profile did say they dived through the escorts at ~550mph.

More 163s were lost than what they 'killed'.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 19, 2005)

> More 163s were lost than what they 'killed'



Very true, but mostly by operational accidents.

And my favorite all-around weapon is this; 38 kilos of nice german machinery, the Mauser MG-151/20.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 20, 2005)

Watching gun camera footage of Me-262s shooting up B-17s and B-24s shows fast passes with a lot of damage done to the bomber. They've been from under, behind, on top, even to the front! So, as del said, there was no aircraft too fast for aim in World War 2.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2005)

The only problem with speed during attacks was the amount of lead or "rads" (if any) you had account for when developing a firing solution. Tactics! Once this was figured out, the -262 (and even the -163) could fire away at top speed (as stated by "D" and Del).


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 20, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> > More 163s were lost than what they 'killed'
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Me too... 8)


----------



## delcyros (Jul 20, 2005)

Is there any reliable source for Me-163 kills? For all units? Covering the timeframe till wars end? This would interest me.
The approaching speed of a Me-163, attacking an 200 mp/h fast bomber from the rear vector at 950 Km/h (590 mp/h) is 175 m/sec. That means the pilot has about 10 sec. from finding an plane, developing a firing solution, firing and breaking away. A little more than half of the time avaiable for a Fw-190 or Bf-109 attacking pass. It is enough to do so, if you ask me. But it would be better for the Komet, if the guns would have been removed for SG 115 Jagdfaust (automaticly upward firing recoilles grenades) and additional salvos of R-4M. Both weapon have been tested in the Me-163 A and B but not in combination.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 20, 2005)

"One squadron (Jagdgeschwader 400 (J.G.400)) was equipped with the craft in two units, with the mission of defending synthetic gasoline installations during May 1944. First actions occurred at the end of July, attacking two USAAF B-17s without confirmed kills and continuing in combat from May 1944 to spring 1945. During this time, there were 9 confirmed kills with 14 lost."

I think the firing time is plenty. Keep the guns Del, they are more reliable!


----------



## Erich (Jul 20, 2005)

accorodng to II./JG 400 Kommandeur Rudi Opitz, JG 400 had 12 kills. Measly compared to the losses sustained. Wolfgang Säte's book on the unit isn't bad neither is Mano Zieglers.......

ok back to the Me 262. the up down up attacks was to throw off the Bomber tail gunners .50 firing, also to disrupt the possible higher flying P-51 escorts. My reference to the jet being in contention with US fighters was not to ridicule anyone, it was just an obvious note aimed at no one.

Plan I think the attacks from the front via gun cam ~ me 262's were probably by piston engine fighters as the Me 262's were ordered to attack from the rear only. to discharge the R4M's enmasse and then attack by threes and sometimes individually plowing through the rear of the formation and then bank hopefully to repeat another attack with the short range Mk 108's


----------



## plan_D (Jul 20, 2005)

It probably was some piston aircraft but it did a hell of a lot of damage!


----------



## Erich (Jul 20, 2005)

even in the spring of 44 when the Luftwaffe was still attacking bombers from the front, aka JG 1 and JG 11 by stafflen strength the Fw 190A-7/MK was in existance and it had outboard Mk 108, 3cm weapons and of course you probably saw the result in the gun footage....characteristic of the Me 262


----------



## plan_D (Jul 20, 2005)

It was definately 30 mm cannon shells striking it. It sprayed all across the nose - I bet the navigator and bombadier didn't have a very nice time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2005)

delcyros said:


> Wasn´t one of the MG213/20 mm guns experimentally installed as a engine mounted gun in one of those long nose Fw-190? This weapon could do all you ask for...



I have heard this too, but it overheated to much I think. Not sure though.


----------



## Arrawin (Sep 20, 2018)

DAVIDICUS said:


> I think the 20mm Hispano II was probably the best air to air weapon.
> 
> The late war M3 .50 cal. with its extremely high rate of fire (approximately 1,200 rpm) was also quite excellent, especially when oufitted in a battery of eight on a P-47. (That's 158 rounds per second!)



I had no idea they developed a 50cal with that rate of fire in WW2, that is an astounding amount of lead in the air in a very short time.


----------



## Madelman (Sep 24, 2018)

What about the soviet designs? How did compare the 12.7 Berezin UBN to the M2/M3? And the Berezin B-20 and ShVAK to the Hispano?

Thanks


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 24, 2018)

Madelman said:


> What about the soviet designs? How did compare the 12.7 Berezin UBN to the M2/M3? And the Berezin B-20 and ShVAK to the Hispano?
> 
> Thanks



Arguably, the 12.7 mm Berezin was better than the 0.50 in M2/M3, but the Soviets thought it inferior to their 20 mm and 23 mm guns.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 24, 2018)

The 12.7 mm Berezin may have been slightly more powerful than the US .50 M2 and fired a bit faster. It may not have been slowed down as much by synchronization.
The Russians traded lighter weight for shorter gun life (barrel life is different ) but then the Russians weren't trying to support planes armed with 4 -12 guns each halfway around world. 

The Russian 20mm vs the Hispano is a bit tougher. The Russian guns were lighter (the B-20 was a lot lighter) and fired faster but each cartridge was a lot less powerful than a 20mm Hispano round. The B-20 didn't show up until 1944 in small numbers (or late) and 1945.


----------

