Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thanks for that. I suppose one factor was that aircraft guns tended to be tuned to give the highest performance for the least weight, and were often operating on the ragged edge of reliability. The Soviets, for instance, worked out that the life of an aircraft gun in combat was very short, so they built them to last only just long enough.
Right, thanks.The Oz made 20mm ammo was terrible, a new factory was set up at St Mary's on the outskirts of Sydney and it was way out of spec.
I have a few bits and pieces of information concerning Soviet aircraft guns.Do we have some quantification about the number of bullets fired before the guns were rendered useless? Eg. when Soviets tested the Beresins' HMG, the guns were good for 10000-12000 rounds fired.
The GSh-30-1 is also remarkably light and compact, with a fantastic rate of fire for a 30mm non-revolving cannonThe GSh-301 (current gun in Su-27 and MiG-29 families): 2,000 rounds (1,000 rounds for the barrel).
For comparison, the US M61A1: gun life 90,000 rounds, barrels 15,000, certain other parts 30,000.
I have a few bits and pieces of information concerning Soviet aircraft guns.
The NS-23 (right at the end of WW2) lasted for 4,000 rounds free, or 3,000 synchronised (more little pieces to go wrong)
The AM-23 (1950s) managed 6,000 rounds
The NR-30 (1950s) 2,000 rounds initially, later 3,000 rounds
The R-23 (1960s) 3,000 rounds
The GSh-23 (1960s) 4,000 rounds (after modification to enhance life)
The GSh-30 (1970s) 4,000 rounds
The GSh-301 (current gun in Su-27 and MiG-29 families): 2,000 rounds (1,000 rounds for the barrel).
For comparison, the US M61A1: gun life 90,000 rounds, barrels 15,000, certain other parts 30,000.
Sorry, I don't.Thank you.
Do you have anything on the ww2 era guns.
The GSh-30-1 is also remarkably light and compact, with a fantastic rate of fire for a 30mm non-revolving cannon
I would be curious to see any information regarding the reliability of the 20mm cannon version of the Beresin. The B20 checks a lot of boxes for a fighter weapon, light weight and hard hitting
If you were a fighter pilot in WWII, would you rather have the high rate of fire of the 50 cal, or the hitting power of the 20mm? I personally feel the 50 cal was plenty hard hitting enough to take out ANY aircraft, and its high rate of fire made it even more effective...the slow rate of fire for the 20mm meant you had to be a much better marksman...
If you were a fighter pilot in WWII, would you rather have the high rate of fire of the 50 cal, or the hitting power of the 20mm? I personally feel the 50 cal was plenty hard hitting enough to take out ANY aircraft, and its high rate of fire made it even more effective...the slow rate of fire for the 20mm meant you had to be a much better marksman...
The Beresin was another outstanding design, matching the performance of the ShVAK at little more than half the weight and was also more compact, yet was stated to be "more reliable". It is a mystery why this was not adopted much earlier than October 1944 as the adaptation to fire 20mm rather than 12.7mm ammo was quite straightforward.
Well, my source only said that the Beresin was "more reliable" than the ShVAK.I quote Milos Vestsik's book ("Lavockin La-7"):
"The reliability of the cannon was also never to reach the required level, this is documented by the tests carried out with La-7 aircraft, at the NII VVS from September 10 to October 1945. Of the three aircraft in test, none were to attain the expected service life of 5,000 rounds fired (the first test fired 3,275 times, the second 3,222 times, the third 3,155 times)."
View attachment 601455
Yes the Hispano's were big.
Hispano's were a hybrid gun. They used a combination of gas and recoil. The shorter lighter barrel helped with the increase in the rate of fire.
I have a few bits and pieces of information concerning Soviet aircraft guns.
The NS-23 (right at the end of WW2) lasted for 4,000 rounds free, or 3,000 synchronised (more little pieces to go wrong)
The AM-23 (1950s) managed 6,000 rounds
The NR-30 (1950s) 2,000 rounds initially, later 3,000 rounds
The R-23 (1960s) 3,000 rounds
The GSh-23 (1960s) 4,000 rounds (after modification to enhance life)
The GSh-30 (1970s) 4,000 rounds
The GSh-301 (current gun in Su-27 and MiG-29 families): 2,000 rounds (1,000 rounds for the barrel).
For comparison, the US M61A1: gun life 90,000 rounds, barrels 15,000, certain other parts 30,000.
I can't find the document anywhere at the moment, but I have an RAF report on fighter operations in Tunisia (I think) that noted the importance of weapon maintenance in this regard, giving figures for the average Hispano stoppage rate and the rate of the worst squadron in this respect. The difference was significant.
Found it (report from an Ordnance Board Mission to North Africa and Malta).
20 m.m. Hispano Gun Mks. I and II and U.S. M2.
The performance of this gun is generally satisfactory, but it is stressed that this is only after personnel have become thoroughly versed in the meticulous maintenance necessary under active service condition ... the stoppage rate varies from one in 350 rounds to one in 2000 rounds in different squadrons.