Still waiting for your evidence for these claims...
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That is a generalization not born out by combat. 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. I have seen many gun cameras of many German fighters using 20mm and the plane they shot would at first lose sheet metal. It generally took a several shots before they finally found a soft spot to damage the plane enough to down it. When gun camera from US fighters were compared in the east once an SAPI round hit the fuel tank they always burned, a 20mm HE does not start fire like that. Against the Germans, IHMO the .50 cal fired until the engine quit, the pilot was killed, or the fuel tank flamed.
The Germans quickly switched to essentially only Mingeshoss, thins walled HE
Not sure what why you are basing any comments on less than 5% of the ammo and gun type that caused fighter combat losses. What about the other 95%
You do realize the Navy did not accept the HS as is was unsuitable and spent over 15 years making changes to it and the ammo until it was.
You do realize the Navy did not accept the HS as is was unsuitable and spent over 15 years making changes to it and the ammo until it was.
Look at the film link its all there.Still waiting for your evidence for these claims...
It in the other forum link go read.b) You have not put any evidence forward to support your often made claim that the USN considered these weapons to be unsuitable.
As you say prove it.Standard fighter belting for the MG151/20 from 1942 onwards was 2 M'gschoss, 2 high explosive incendiary and either 1 or 2 AP HE or one API. Anti-bomber configurations had more M'gschoss, Eastern Front configurations had more AP, give the presence of the Il-2.
No it isn't. My evidence is simple all the USN aircraft which were fitted with 20mm cannon from the Helldiver in 1944 onwards. The USN would not have installed and used them if they were unsuitable.Look at the film link its all there.
As you say prove it.
Everything I have read says the Germans changed rounds for whatever target they felt best used the resources something even personal preference AND by early 44 they were running out of both ammo and specific types of ammo.
I know (read in the past) that mid 43 German guns for the first time first time reduced in their allowance for chrome, nickel, cobalt copper tin. Somewhere there is paper about Speer and him quoting to Hitler war material production time left given certain metals. The ones that stick out in my mind was chrome, cobalt 21 months (this was in mid 43) and copper, aluminum <30 months. Tungsten for antitank round was 13 months, hence there shortage in 44-45.
MG151/20: "(3) Ammunition. Projectiles fired in this gun include high explosive, incendiary tracer, armour-piercing, armour-piercing high explosive and high explosive incendiary".
20 mm (MG 151/20)
2 Minengeschoß m. Zerl.
2 Brandsprenggranatpatronen L'spur m. Zerl
oder Brandgranatpatronen
1 Panzersprenggranatpatrone o. Zerl
oder Panzerbrandgranatpatrone (Phospor) o. Zerl.
Here the Minengeschoß appears for the first time. A version of the 20mm M-Geschoß with tracer did not exist, so tracer was used on HE/I (Brandsprenggranatpatrone) or pure incendiary (Brandgranatpatrone) rounds. The latter was apparently a new development in 1944, intended to replace the less effective HE/I. The fifth round was a semi-AP projectile, explosive or incendiary. Apparently the main reason this was used instead of a solid AP round was that a solid projectile would have been too heavy.
It was recommended that more AP or semi-AP ammunition would be loaded when the probable targets were well-armoured attack aircraft such as the Il-2. On the other hand, against the four-engined bombers of the RAF and USAAF the high explosive types were more effective.
The following types of ammunition are used in the 20 mm version: H.E. with S.D. fuze; H.E.I./T. with S.D. fuze; A.P.I., A.P.H.E., and two different H.E.I. (S.D. fuze) rounds.
2 cm Brandsprenggranatpatrone 151 mit L- oder Glimmspur mit Zerleger
2 cm Panzergranatpatrone 151 mit L-spuhr ohne Zerleger
2 cm Panzersprenggranatpatrone 151 mit und ohne Zerleger
2 cm Brandgranatpatrone 151 mit L- oder Glimmspur mit Zerleger
2 cm Panzergranatpatrone 151 (Ph) ohne Zerleger
Cite your source because this simply is not true.No it isn't. My evidence is simple all the USN aircraft which were fitted with 20mm cannon from the Helldiver in 1944 onwards. The USN would not have installed and used them if they were unsuitable.
The gun was heavy and normally fired from a 60-round drum. Smaller drums were devised for flexible mountings, and a 160-round drum was designed for fixed guns, though this was unreliable if loaded with more than about 150 rounds. The somewhat low rate of fire was compensated by an unusually powerful cartridge.
The gun averaged one jam every 1500 rounds under good operating conditions, but twice that rate under dusty conditions. The gun was more vulnerable than the Browning to cold temperatures at high altitude. American-manufactured Hispanos were particularly unreliable and the gun was disliked by most American pilots. Those installed on the SB2C were particularly notorious for jams, although the problems were largely worked out in the SB2C-4 and may have been due as much to poor maintenance as anything else in the earlier SB2Cs.
Sure but what more likely a .50 hitting mostly near center mass or a 20mm taking out lines with random shrapnel. Basically from any direction only the very outside edge of the enginee would a .50 bounce off which equates to asmall percent of the target.
Also a 20mm could not penetrate pilot armor (backseat)...it hurts but cannot penetrate the .50 could and did. Again my point is the info to date is energy based NOT terminal ballistics, target type and and round actual affect data.
But that was not my comment. It is that the 6 or 8 .50 were good enough for the day, and did not see a need to switch to 4x20mm. In WWII the US did not have production capability of either 20mm guns or ammo. They could produce massive amounts of .50 guns and ammo.
Nor did I claim the US should stick with the .50 for Kamikaze as AAA. I brought it up to show there were situations where the 20mm was NOT effective.
HS404 comments
The gun was heavy and normally fired from a 60-round drum. Smaller drums were devised for flexible mountings, and a 160-round drum was designed for fixed guns, though this was unreliable if loaded with more than about 150 rounds. The somewhat low rate of fire was compensated by an unusually powerful cartridge.
The gun averaged one jam every 1500 rounds under good operating conditions, but twice that rate under dusty conditions. The gun was more vulnerable than the Browning to cold temperatures at high altitude. American-manufactured Hispanos were particularly unreliable and the gun was disliked by most American pilots. Those installed on the SB2C were particularly notorious for jams, although the problems were largely worked out in the SB2C-4 and may have been due as much to poor maintenance as anything else in the earlier SB2Cs.
One jam per 1500 rounds would make the 20 mm Hispano MORE reliable than the .50 Browning - depending on who built it. One jam per 750 rounds would make it slightly better than half as reliable.
Over the first 8 months of 1944, the USAAF 8th AF found that the M2 Browning averaged 1 stoppage per 1440 rounds. The 20 mm AN/M2 averaged 1 stoppage per 505 rounds, making the .50 cal almost three times as reliable in US service.
The US Bureau of Ordnance found a stoppage rate in Africa of about 1 stoppage per 1300 rounds.
In comparison, the RAF found between D-Day and the end of the war that their Hispanos averaged 1 stoppage per 1560 rounds. Their M2s jammed about 1 per 2,400 rounds.
The main problem with the Hispano was sensitivity to cold temperatures (which caused jamming in the P-38 in the ETO and also Spitfires over Darwin), a sensitivity to dust (which affected Spitfires and Hurricanes in the MTO and also Spitfires over Darwin) and some sub-standard manufacturing in the feed mechanism and belts (responsible for more than 50% of jams). Once the gun heating problem was sorted in 1942, the RAF reported reliability was more than adequate, with one stoppage recorded per 1600 rounds. Given that the gun life was only about 2,000 rounds, this was seen as sufficient.
If the US hadn't buggered up their re-design, the 20 mm would have been comparably reliable to the .50 cal, at least if maintained properly.
Cite your source because this simply is not true.
Not sure of the production rates but the Corsair only had 300 20mm total delivered AFTER the war F4U-4:
HS404 comments
There is my non reliable citation
Use your eyes, find any USN type that entered service after the SB2C that didn't have 20mmCite your source because this simply is not true.
Now why would that be if range was the major factor for wanting the 20mm?appears only night fighters got the 20mm, a small portion of production
So do not ask me for a source since you cannot share yours, if you actually have any...Use your eyes, find any USN type that entered service after the SB2C that didn't have 20mm
There is my non reliable citation If I may use your own quote
Those installed on the SB2C were particularly notorious for jams, although the problems were largely worked out in the SB2C-4 and may have been due as much to poor maintenance as anything else in the earlier SB2Cs.
Once again your own evidence does you in.
All you have shown so far is that the .50 was adopted en masse by the Americans because it was their only reliable weapon available in quantity in time, not because it was better overall.
The USAAF wanted to switch to a larger calibre than .50 cal, but was frustrated by its own inability to do so
Back to one plane again, what about the Spit, MGFF on German ....all drum all problematic.Quite true but then which guns in which air force are you comparing? The ONLY US fighters that used Drums were were the P-400s, some P-70s and few odd balls. The P-38 carried 150 rounds, the P-51 with 20mm cannon carried 125 rpg. P-61 carried 200rpg,
Go read bob Johnston P-47 book numerous examples of engine pieces blown off and plane got home. I never said the 20mm could not cause damage but the myth vs fact is more than one round in air cooled engine was needed to bring a plane down with a high confidence.A 20mm would destroy an engine,
You apparently do not understand damage physics. There is simply is no way to predict or compare prediction for mechanical vs chemical damage, they use different physics.If you think that a single 46 gram .50 bullet will wreck and engine when a 128 gram AP 20mm round going about the same speed won't then I guess the laws of physics have been repealed.
You miss the point, I never said it was better overall I said it was sufficient for WWII.