Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
If you guys stayed focused and stopped implying something on I did not say or at least read it all and stay on track, this would work better.
Yes the US 20mm guns in 1942 were unreliable (as was the ammunition a point often forgotten). But in 1942 the RAF were not unreliable and by 1945 the US had fixed the problems, the USN 20mm cannons were copies of the RAF (and therefore reliable) Hispano II and V.
True but its one more than you have posted, it shows the damage inflicted by four hits, damage that the 0.5 couldn't come close to inflicting, damage the Spitfire was lucky to get away with.Great... one picture!?!?
For the USN there wasAgain the .50 cal setups worked in WWII and after for Air Air combat. There was no driving factor to push the US to 20mm.
Actually I have. In the Med a number of USAAF units converted from the Spit IX to the P51B/C and one of the reasons they didn't want to lose the Spit was because of the reduced firepower. There were other reasons but this was one of them.The .50 cal worked and worked well. Again i have never seen a pilots reports ever talking about they wanted 20mm after running the .50 cal setup.
Wrong and Right. Wrong - other countries chose the 20mm for the same reason, increased firepower. Right - they did have different guns and ammo. The Russians had a better HMG with until 1943 better ammunition and went for the 20mm. The reason it changed in 1943 was that the US copied the Russian HMG ammo. The IJAF had the same gun as the USA and they also went for the 20mm.Other country's chose the 20mm for different reasons. They had different guns and different ammo.
Why ignore the explosive content of the different 20mm guns as they are very relevent to the discussion?If you want to talk about Brits fuzed ammo the German minegeshoss results are out. If you want to talk about 3 gun setups on Russian fighters then you cant use the results from 1x 20mm (and 1 .50cal) gun setup which was the vast majority of combat on the eastern front.
Why ignore the explosive content of the different 20mm guns as they are very relevent to the discussion?
I also note that you have never tried to comment on the big outstanding question which drives a coach and horses through your case.
WHY WERE THE USN SO KEEN TO START USING THE 20MM IF THE 0.5 WAS AS GOOD?
Ok name the explosive used, the difference between them, the shrapnel created and the affect on aircraft each had in WWII You need to answer that if you want to discuss it. I dont have it and I dont ever remember seeing it.
I do know that .50 SAPI ignites fuel tanks ever some hits take out self sealing taken (not sure how many but some).
I also know that ,50 CAL SAPI hitting any structure in an WWII aircraft causes damage probably most of the time based on angle and structural content WWII plane cant be heavy so they are essentially weak to structural damage. And no amount of quoting specs will tell you how badly mangled an engine, frame member, landing gear, prop, drive shaft etc is damaged by a .50 SAPI hit. And I do know the SAPI vs ball on a metal structure are totally different.
Another way to look at it was the .50 cal was fine until somewhere in the jet age. Th F-86 used them successfully but that was the limit.
Ok name the explosive used, the difference between them, the shrapnel created and the affect on aircraft each had in WWII You need to answer that if you want to discuss it. I dont have it and I dont ever remember seeing it.
I can tell you studies of grenades showed they ended up in 2-3 big pieces and now grenades are made with wire or ball bearings for more destruction.
I can tell you that AA missile warheads are pre-fragmented for the same reason.
In WWII I don't know of anyone using enhancement techniques for 20mm ammo. So the German Minegeshoss is thin sheet metal and about all you get is a few small pieces of thin metal or over pressure.
And I do know the SAPI vs ball on a metal structure are totally different.
The number one reason for USN switch to the 20mm was range, with higher aircraft speed more range is needed. They did not push for 20mm in WWII the Oerikon version due to low velocity this was a specific requirement in WWII.
If you want to look at the damage a 20mm cannon can do have another look at that Spitfire, four hits in non critical areas and the plane is a write off. Without a warhead the 0.5 will do nothing, with a the small warhead carried in a 0.5in almost next to nothing. Four 0.5 hits in those areas would ahve done no damage at all.Ok name the explosive used, the difference between them, the shrapnel created and the affect on aircraft each had in WWII You need to answer that if you want to discuss it. I dont have it and I dont ever remember seeing it.
I can tell you studies of grenades showed they ended up in 2-3 big pieces and now grenades are made with wire or ball bearings for more destruction. I can tell you that AA missile warheads are pre-fragmented for the same reason. In WWII I don't know of anyone using enhancement techniques for 20mm ammo. So the German Minegeshoss is thin sheet metal and about all you get is a few small pieces of thin metal or over pressure.
This I agree with but the problem is that it has to HIT THE STRUCTURE a near miss is nothingI also know that ,50 CAL SAPI hitting any structure in an WWII aircraft causes damage probably most of the time based on angle and structural content WWII plane cant be heavy so they are essentially weak to structural damage.
You can of course support this statement? I would to like to see itThe number one reason for USN switch to the 20mm was range, with higher aircraft speed more range is needed. They did not push for 20mm in WWII the Oerikon version due to low velocity this was a specific requirement in WWII. They tried to upscale/modify other 20mm versions but never found something they really liked until the Colt. Take a look in the link I quote earlier it has that in their.
Some of that information is available in Tony Williams books. Fillings often changes with availability though.
Go read about the mingeshoss and why it was replaced. IT WAS CAST, why because it was cheap. When they wanted more explosive they had to go to and draw it, they could not cast that thin. Go ask any mech engineer casting is the cheapest form of metal forming.You can say it but that does not make it true, NOBODY was making cast iron AA missile warheads.
Do you even have any idea what you are talking about? The .50 cal WILL outrange the 20mm Hispano. The Bullets are more streamlined than the 20mm shells. Since they both start at the same speed it makes little difference over PRACTICAL WW II ranges like under 600-700yds. TO fire much further you need both a Gyro gun sight and some sort of range finder like the radar range finder in the upper lip of the F-86 intake.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idfMaeAk9z4
WWII video on fighters, P-47 and P-51, mostly shooting FW-190 and ME-109s.
Note the length or fire is typical less than 1/2 sec , none more than a second. damage is wing sections coming off, planes burst into flames, major explosions, planes blow up, etc major damage, not a little .5" hole in the skin.
The announcer even mentions the SAPI ammo.
Depending on the 20mm of choice a plane may even have longer time to fire with 5.0s than 20mm setup. certainly anyone with the 60 or 90 rnd drum could not shoot as long.
So a.50 cal setup had around 25-30 seconds of ammo per gun. The 90 round 20mm had around 14 seconds depending on gun type. The .50 cal could shoot roughly 30 to 50 trigger pulls, the 20mm around 14 to 28. And since I do not see a difference in gun camera evidence of actual combat footage of a 20mm doing much shorter trigger pulls, then the .50 is at least it good a setup for the targets in mind.
So no I do not see an advantage to the 20mm setup in WWII against fighters.
So here is you pictorial evidence (at least 50 x times over) the announcer talk about the "non existent round", the damage on a AL, steel, magnesium or whatever broke the planes apart is shown.
So no I do not see an advantage to the 20mm setup in WWII against fighters.
Numerous B-17s and P47's came back with severe 20mm damage and flew home. Shredding the skin basically doe snot bring plane down, a critical system or several less critical systems must be damaged/destroyed. The 20mm could not destroy an engine in one shot a .50 cal can, same with armor plate (typically). Any system hit by a .50 is at least severely damaged is had too much penetration.
The announcer even mentions the SAPI ammo.
Depending on the 20mm of choice a plane may even have longer time to fire with 5.0s than 20mm setup. certainly anyone with the 60 or 90 rnd drum could not shoot as long.
So no I do not see an advantage to the 20mm setup in WWII against fighters
Ohh a 20mm and drum of water I can show that.
And what damage does a 20mm do with near miss? Nothing that is why both weapons were automatic to get a bunch of rounds downrange.
In the day the M8 was called the SAPI for semi armor piercing Incendiary. The actual M8 nomenclature was Semi-armor-piercing high-explosive incendiary (SAPHEI), names changed as new rounds and type were created.
The US NAVY wanted a longer range shell and a .50 could not foreseeable be enhanced. The 20mm was chosen and attempts to increase range took them until the Colt before they accepted the gun system.
I do know that .50 SAPI ignites fuel tanks ever some hits take out self sealing taken (not sure how many but some). I also know that ,50 CAL SAPI hitting any structure in an WWII aircraft causes damage probably most of the time based on angle and structural content WWII plane cant be heavy so they are essentially weak to structural damage. And no amount of quoting specs will tell you how badly mangled an engine, frame member, landing gear, prop, drive shaft etc is damaged by a .50 SAPI hit. And I do know the SAPI vs ball on a metal structure are totally different.
The number one reason for USN switch to the 20mm was range, with higher aircraft speed more range is needed. They did not push for 20mm in WWII the Oerikon version due to low velocity this was a specific requirement in WWII. They tried to upscale/modify other 20mm versions but never found something they really liked until the Colt. Take a look in the link I quote earlier it has that in their.
Another way to look at it was the .50 cal was fine until somewhere in the jet age. Th F-86 used them successfully but that was the limit.
E type
Structurally unchanged from the C wing. The outer machine gun ports were eliminated, although the outer machine gun bays were retained and their access doors were devoid of empty shell case ports and shell deflectors. The inner gun bays allowed for two weapon fits;
•2 × 20 mm Hispano Mk II cannon with 120 rpg in the outer bays.
•2 × .50 cal Browning M2 machine guns, with 250 rpg in the inner bays.
or
•4 × 20 mm Hispano cannon with 120 rpg
The .303 machine guns mounted in the outer wings were no longer fitted as most aircraft at that time had armour impenetrable by .303 bullets. During a turning combat the effectiveness of the outboard machine guns was low because if the aircraft was pulling 'g' the flexing of the wings meant that the rounds scattered in a large cone. The 20 mm Hispano cannonCannonA cannon is any piece of artillery that uses gunpowder or other usually explosive-based propellents to launch a projectile. Cannon vary in caliber, range, mobility, rate of fire, angle of fire, and firepower; different forms of cannon combine and balance these attributes in varying degrees,...
were moved outboard and a more effective .50 calibre Browning .50 cal M2/AN heavy machine gunHeavy machine gunThe heavy machine gun or HMG is a larger class of machine gun generally recognized to refer to two separate stages of machine gun development. The term was originally used to refer to the early generation of machine guns which came into widespread use in World War I...
with 250 rpg was added to the inner gun-bay. The first trial installation of the installation (modification 1029) was made in BS118 in November 1943; by mid-March 1944 the first Spitfires to be modified were from 485(NZ), 222 and 349 Squadrons. Spitfires with this armament were referred to as Spifire IX LF .5 and the E suffix was not officially introduced until early 1945. This armament was standard for all Spitfire Mk IXs and XVIs used by the 2nd Tactical Air Force as fighters and fighter-bombers from shortly after D-DayD-DayD-Day is a term often used in military parlance to denote the day on which a combat attack or operation is to be initiated. "D-Day" often represents a variable, designating the day upon which some significant event will occur or has occurred; see Military designation of days and hours for similar...
. The improved armament was more effective for both air-to-air engagements and air-to-ground attacks.
Including the USAAF, concluded in the late 1930s or early 1940s that 20 mm was the minimum preferable calibre for air to air cannon. RAF, Armée de l'Air, Luftwaffe, VVS, Regia Aeronautica, IJA, IJN and the USN all switched from LMG to 20 mm cannon during this period.
RAF testing of .303, .30, .50 and 20 mm ammunition showed the 20 mm was MORE likely to result in catastrophic airframe damage and MORE likely to set a fuel tank on fire, even when protected by armour.
You do realise that the Colt Mk 12 is just a 20 mm Hispano with an increased rate of fire and modifications for the USN's 20 x 110 mm ammunition (basically a longer version of the USAAF's 20 x 102 mm ammunition)?
They eventually went with necking up to .60 cal cartridge to 20 mm to make the 20 x 102, which went on to arm the M61 Vulcan, a project which began in 1945
I gave you a 16 page link... go read it.Still waiting for any evidence that range was the requirement. You keep saying this but there is nothing to support it and all the evidence says that range had nothing to do with it.
For an idea of what a single 20mm Hispano round could try this video:
P-38 Lightning Glacier Girl 60 Year old 20mm cannon - YouTube
When even Four .50 cal WW II rounds can do that kind of damage get back to me.
Are you mental shortroudn???
The rest of your posting was as bad, so bad I almost gave it a like, in the same way that some films are so bad I somtimes like them.
No one is saying the USAAF screwed up, for the requirements they had in WW2 the 6/8 x 0.5 was good enough and did the job. Had they gone up against aircraft such as the B17 or IL2 then the problem would have magnified.
So this is acceptable?
Are you mental shortroudn???
I responded to your post besuase you ASKED. Don't bring it up it you don't like the answer.