Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
If the Russians truly pulled the wing .30s from the early P-40s they must have been really desperate
such guns were a really bad armament in 1940 against such aircraft as as a Do 17 which was only about 20% heavier than a P-47 empty and a much bigger target doesn't follow
2 popguns did often bring down early war aircraft. Not often enough it is true, but if two "popguns" could do the job a fair amount of the time trying to claim that 8 such popguns were a huge mistake doesn't make much sense.
The Bf 109 fought in Poland and France with , at times, four "popguns" and the rest of the time with two 20mm guns very close to the Japanese Zero and two "popguns" firing through the prop. They kept the two "popguns" for another 2 years. Mostly because they didn't have anything better. Same situation as the Zero, 20mms are empty in about 8 seconds and any additional fighting is done with the "popguns".
Something of a mixed message here. the 240 rounds per gun for the F4F-4 weighed 532lbs. that is just the ammo. you are comparing the ammo for a single gun to the ammo for two cowl guns. Are you saying that single .50cal MG would have done any better in the situations you describe than the paired "popguns" with their much higher rate of fire and much higher hit rate?
Bad analogy's, you don't "spray" an elephant (or even spray the area it is in which is what some air combat came down to) with gunfire and hope to hit a vital part. your tank analogy might be better if compared a Sherman with a 75 to a Sherman with a 17pdr. and even then it depends on the target.
Ah yes, two famous incidents that do not tell us how many times Japanese or German pilots used the same tactic and succeed in shooting down the target. Now going back to the Wildcat, there is little doubt that with either four or six .50cal guns they would have made short work of the target but let's examine the Johnson case a little more closely. Why was the German pilot using his "popguns"? to save 20mm ammo or had he used up all his 20mm ammo already? Fw 190s carried 200rpg for their wing root 20mm guns that fired a bit slower than .50 cal mgs. Any fighter armed with .50s with 200-240rpg would have been out of ammo and in no position to attack Johnson with any gunfire.
Now by 1943 the "popguns" had certainly seen their day and carting around a pair of them with the ridiculous amount of 1000rpg ( around 35-40 seconds more firing time than the 20mm guns) seems a bit of a waste, but claiming that a pair of guns that guns that couldn't bring down a P-47 in 1943 means that eight such guns were a really bad armament in 1940 against such aircraft as as a Do 17 which was only about 20% heavier than a P-47 empty and a much bigger target doesn't follow.
You misunderstood me reguarding the Wildcat, I meant if Saburo Sakai had a pair of syncronized 50's, he could have destroyed the Wildcat without resorting to using his cannon again. Question: How much more would 2 50's plus 250 rounds per gun weigh than the 2 7.7's of the Zero? If the 190 had 50's, it might have brought down Johnson. Obviously the 190 was out of cannon shells or her would have used them.
I think elephant hunting is a good example. If the weapon can't penetrate deep enough to destroy vital organs then why use it? Firing broadside into an Me 109 from 100 yards, will a 303 crack the engine block? I'll bet a 50 will. Will a 303 penetrate the wing spar? We've all seen gun camera footage of 50's taking a wing off of a German aircraft.
I still believe, and I may be wrong, that the British used 303's because they just happen to have a hundred million rounds in storage, and that was it.
If a 303 will penetrate one side of the block, a 50 would go all the way out the other, or bury itself into the crank or through a piston etc. There should be no comparison in the amount of damage.
So we hang 10 miniguns under the wings of my plane set to converge at 200 yards.
" Engines were not bullet proof. .303s, 7.62 Nato, 30-06 will all punch holes in cast iron engine blocks let alone aluminum ones "
not so fast, may many factors to take into consideration here. the least of which is .303's punching holes in an engine block. I doubt
very much a .303 could do that. I doubt also that it could make it through the armored oilpan on a DB601/605.
When I refer to the .50, I am always refering to the US Browning model. I know there were others, but for the sake of simplifying things I'll just refer to the Browning model.
I know the US improved the ammunition used in the 50 as the war progressed, but even standard ball ammo for a 50, I would think, would outperform anything they had back then coming out of a 303. Unless your loading depleted uranium bullets in a 303 and styrofoam bullets in a 50, I just dont see any comparison. Lets remember that a great portion of the ammo being spat out of the 303 was ball. I've personally fired a 3006 into an altenator from a range of about 40 feet. It did not exit. I have fired rifles ranging from 3030, 3006, 300 win mag, and even 30-378 weatherbys into trees, I fired and have seen a 50 fired into trees, I wouldn't want to have been on the other side of that forest. Whatever the standard loading of 303 rounds into the ammo belt is, I would imagine that would be the standard loading for the 50 also, so I don'tsee there being any great advantage to some sort of 303 super bullet, it all comes down to weight and velocity.
I understand that you have to hit the target, but as Thach said, "if you miss with 4, you won't hit with 8". ...... If I have 2 50's, 450 rounds per minute, and I'm a good shot, and I pull proper lead, then I'm going to hit the guy.
" Engines were not bullet proof. .303s, 7.62 Nato, 30-06 will all punch holes in cast iron engine blocks let alone aluminum ones "
not so fast, may many factors to take into consideration here. the least of which is .303's punching holes in an engine block. I doubt
very much a .303 could do that. I doubt also that it could make it through the armored oilpan on a DB601/605.
I appreciate what your saying, but again, not so fast. there are various things that the .303 has to pass through just to get to the engine. not to mention the angle that it hits the engine at. realisticly, how many .303 bullets fired in combat conditions would penetrate the block? 1 in 10? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? 1 in 10000?
Well, 1 in 1000 would be enough... 2400 rds in a Spitfire Mk 1. Of course some of the other 999 rounds might hit something else, like an oil or coolant line, which even a .22 LR could break.I appreciate what your saying, but again, not so fast. there are various things that the .303 has to pass through just to get to the engine. not to mention the angle that it hits the engine at. realisticly, how many .303 bullets fired in combat conditions would penetrate the block? 1 in 10? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? 1 in 10000?