Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
140/150rpg.
Not much more, even the MK 21 with the new wing and 4 guns only carried 175rpg for inboard and 150 rpg for outboard guns. Of course a MK 21 weighed less with with full tanks and ammo boxes than a F6F-3 did with empty fuel tanks and ammo boxes.
No but that proves what? That 1100lbs of armament is better than 500-750lbs of armament?
The top score in a single day in Europe was by George Preddy, 6 fighters in one day, perhaps conditions in Europe were a bit different than in the Pacific?
If the aircraft can carry it, outperform enemy fighters, and shoot down more enemy fighters per mission than they lose, then I would vote "yes".
I would vote 'yes' too but it doesn't tell you that .50 cal guns were better than 20mm guns. It only tells you that if you increase the weight of armament carried by 50% and are able to keep competitive performance you can shoot down more planes. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
do not want to argue here, just curious, but its generally accepted that it takes anywhere from 15-25 MG151 hits to knock down a B-17. much less for the Mk108. so how many rounds would be needed for a 50cal to knock down a B-17? I know its a tough one to answer.. so just a best guess. thanks.
Best guess?? 45 to 75 hits?
Some people figure the MG 151 was about equal to the Hispano so figure 3 rounds of .50 equal 1 round of 20mm. (some other 20mm were not equal)
theres a pic of a lancaster ( shoulda saved the pic) that got riddled with 13mm hits (100s and 100s). most of the hits were not grouped, and did very little damage. when compared to another lancaster that got hit with 13mm 20mm hits, it was night and day. ie: devestating. written off I believe.
Not necessarily BETTER, but BETTER FOR THE INTENDED TARGET. The 20mm were many times better for large 4 engined bombers, or even very tough, armored, well defended twin engined bombers such as A20, B25, B26, and A26's, but against a fragile little ME109 or a slightly tougher FW190, a 50 hit plenty hard and carried much more ammo with considerable longer firing time.
I'm figuring a 3 second burst as a realistic minimum. Say 6 50's, 80 rounds thrown out, 48 hits, thats 60%. What would 4 20mm in a late war Spitfire or Typhoon throw out in a 3 second burst? Then use 60% as a hit ratio. I'm winging it here. Both bursts would destroy a small single engine target, like an ME109. So, how many 3 second bursts do both airplanes carry? My point being that both airplanes will spend far more ammo missing than hitting, and 6 50's give you more ammo to miss with until you get on your target.
I'm figuring a 3 second burst as a realistic minimum. Say 6 50's, 80 rounds thrown out, 48 hits, thats 60%. What would 4 20mm in a late war Spitfire or Typhoon throw out in a 3 second burst? Then use 60% as a hit ratio. I'm winging it here. Both bursts would destroy a small single engine target, like an ME109. So, how many 3 second bursts do both airplanes carry? My point being that both airplanes will spend far more ammo missing than hitting, and 6 50's give you more ammo to miss with until you get on your target.
A typhoon would throw out 120 rounds in 3 seconds. even 17 percent hits would give you 20 shell hits and probably a dead bomber. Six .50s would throw 240 rounds in three seconds.
Dick Audet of 411 Sq RCAF got 5 in one day with a Spit IX. Burt Houle of 417 Sq RCAF got 5 in one engagement, with a Mk VIII, was not officially credited for it, but later research proved his claim correct. Clive Caldwell got 5 Ju87s in one day in North Africa flying a Tomahawk IIb, 2 x .50 and 4 x .303.
Pierre Le Gloan, French Air Force, shot down 5 in a day with a D.520, 1 x 20mm cannon, 4 x 7.5 mgs.
Two BoB pilots achieved ace in a day, one from 610 Sq, one from 501 Sq using . 8 x .303.
Finnish pilot Hans Wind got 5 in a day on five seperate occasions, flying a 109G6.
German pilot Emil Lang claimed 18 in one day flying a FW190, not sure what variant, but probably 4 x 20mm cannon and two mgs. If the gun loadout was the determining factor in multiple kills per day, then the multi cannon armament on the FW190 is the obvious choice (#2 guy with 17 kills/claims in one day flew FW190 as well), however there are many other factors that come into play.
Target rich environment being the first one to come to mind.
There are not as many cannon armed Spitfire pilots who achieved the ace in a day status, mostly because they never got the opportunity. The most common gripe you hear from late war Spitfire pilots is the lack of 'trade'. There were fewer and fewer opportunities for air to air combat for pilots in 2TAF because so many Luftwaffe resources were relegated to Reich defence. It had very little to do with the weapon loadout. I believe Wally McLeod RCAF downed a 109 with just 3 cannon shells? and Johnny Johnson was angry with himself for not matching McLeods performance when he used 17 rounds. (this is from memory, but it illustrates the point)
Just to remind everyone, the AAF was not hepped up on the 20 MM cannon as I posted earlier and it had little to do with the lethality of the 50 BMG versus the 20MM but rather the amount of bullets a fighter could put into the space the enemy occupied. As an aside, regarding the ground use of the 50BMG against E/A, if one looks at film of early WW2 the AA 50 BMGs had water jackets just like the Vickers and Browning 30 cals had.
There have been several statements about whether the different ballistic properties of the projectiles of the 50s versus the 20MMs caused problems. The AAF thought those different properties were a real problem and disliked mixed armaments on wing mounted guns. This from the Fighter Conference Report.
Also, according to the report, Navy Armament Rep, Commander Monroe, was enthusiastic, as armament people tend to be on different weapons (he also was enthusiastic about the 60 cal weapon (?)), on the 20 mm and thought the 20 mm would soon be prevalent in the Navy. He stated that the final decision would be left up to the fleet. It is interesting to note that this report was in October, 1944, almost one year later, August, VJ day, the great majority of Navy fighters including the latest F8F and future jets, FH-1, FJ-1 was still armed with the .50s. So, it is apparent that the Navy fleet had no problem keeping the .50s, for most likely good reasons.
I can think of a lot of good reasons for the Navy "keeping" the .50s.
1. We have a lot of left over .50 cal ammo.
2. We have a lot of left over parts for .50 cal guns.
3. We would have to retrain our armorers.
4. We would have to print new (more) training manuals.
And probably more along those those lines.
The truth is the Navy "kept" the .50 cal for a very short space of time and only for planes whose design was well advanced.
There were 297 F4U-4Bs with 20mm guns and about 550 F4U-5s with 20mm guns completed post war along with about 200 close support models.
The 652 Bearcats with .50 guns were followed by another 600 with 20mm cannon.
While some F7Fs carried both the majority used four 20mm cannon.
The 60 FH-1 Phantoms (1600lb thrust engines) with .50 cal guns were followed by 762 FH-2 Banshee's (3000lb thrust engines to start) with 20mm cannon. Prototype contract was placed March of 1945, 5 months after the conference. the FH-1 can be traced back to Jan 1943, with final configuration decided on in early 1944.
The 30 NA FJ-1s were followed by the FJ-2s with 20mm guns but these were actually modified F-86Es so don't count.
Vought, however, did come up with the unlamented F6U-1 during this time frame (Navy request for proposals issued in Sept 1944) Plane had four 20mm cannon but might have been better with the .50 cal guns because of serious under power issues.
No Navy fighter after the ones mentions used .50 cal guns.