Possibly because even before the P-51B was introduced strafing aircraft on the ground was part of many mission profiles and in that only the number of bullets per second matters because a ground target is only in the gunsight for a fraction of a second.
50 cal (high rate of fire) vs 20mm cannon (hitting power)
- Thread starter grampi
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,058
- Dec 28, 2015
This may help. From USAAF microfilm report.
Good points, but weren't most Tempest missions strafing/ground attack? A different issue from air to air; again, it depends upon your mission.
Cool!
One thing to keep in mind: not all 20mm were created equal. The Hispano fired a bigger shell at a higher muzzle velocity and faster or similar rate of fire than the smaller and lighter Mg151/20; The WWII Fighter Gun Debate: Gun Tables
from wiki for the HS MkV … Ammunition types available included Semi-Armour Piercing, Incendiary (SAPI) and High Explosive, Incendiary (HEI).[10] Around 42,500 Hispano cannon of various marks were manufactured by Birmingham Small Arms (BSA).
Now, just to add more powder to the charge, consider the US M9 37mm cannon. This was used on late model P-63. It differed from the M4/M10 37mm in that it was a completely different design, being developed from the US Army 37mm AA gun. While it had the same low rate of fire as the M4, it fired a 10% larger shell at 2800 ft/s. The down side was it was really heavy. With that big shell at that high muzzle velocity heavy bombers could be attacked outside the range of defensive fire with a one round kill weapon.
Good thing B-17s, B-24s, and Lancasters didn't have to deal with that!
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
I British.
I want my 303.
Moving to Korean War and it was quickly apparent that 20mm cannon was the way.
Fast firing 20mm cannon. The Zero in service quickly found out the Wildcat was a tough old bird. The machine guns were just scratching the paint work. The Tempest didn't carry 303s. So the proof is in that pudding.
I want my 303.
Moving to Korean War and it was quickly apparent that 20mm cannon was the way.
Fast firing 20mm cannon. The Zero in service quickly found out the Wildcat was a tough old bird. The machine guns were just scratching the paint work. The Tempest didn't carry 303s. So the proof is in that pudding.
The most important variable is that 50 caliber gun has less drag in certain circumstances.
Shortround6
Major General
Fixed it
The M9 cannon was used on one P-63 aircraft, as in one plane, not one model or version.
P-63s from the A-9 on got the US M10 37mm cannon which used the same ammo as the M4 cannon. It fired just a bit faster but used a real belt (disintegrating link) for feeding and held a lot more rounds than the M4 set up.
Confusion comes from the M10 cannon being called the T9 when in development.
Shortround6
Major General
During the 30s the .50 cal (not yet the M2 ?) was used by the air corp, the ground army, the Navy (and naval aviation) and the Marines.
Using the same receiver and interior parts it was possible to build an aircraft gun or a water cooled AA gun or any other version. The M2 was also possible to convert from left hand to right hand feed with s few parts. Later it was possible to convert the slow firing ground guns to higher rate of fire aircraft guns by changing barrels and a few other parts. not often done.
The .50 was a barrel burner and light weight aircraft barrels and fast firing guns without 200-300mph cooling breeze was not a good idea. PT boats may have been the only users of high rate of fire guns in surface combat?
This gave quite an advantage in logistics. The advantage tended to fade during the war with the sheer quantity of war material but the light Navy AA gun (before the 20mm Oerlikon) used the same ammo as some of the Navy aircraft guns (the others were .30 cal) , and the Army aircraft guns and the army ground anti-armor gun (up until about 1940) and AA guns. There may have been different kinds of ammo but each and every one could be fired out of any of the "different" guns should the need arise. Likewise bolts, firing pins, springs, extractors, ejectors and feed parts were all 100% interchangeable.
The advantage in manufacturing and supply was considerable.
This may have helped outweigh the disadvantages of the .50 cal.
That is true but two Hispano's weighed 100kg yet had the on target effect of 6 Brownings that combined weighed 230kgs, so pluses and minuses for both.
That was the first job of the escorts, make sure there is no easy shot. They may not have been able to do much about an attacking Me262s speed, other than make sure they had to use all of it and its hard to hit a moving target when you are doing 500MPH yourself.
The Hispano II fired at lower RoF than the MG 151/20. In ww2, Hispano V saw serivce in Tempest.
US Hispano was equivalent of the Hispano II (when worked).
Wan't the original Typhoon design to have 12 .303s, or have I had too much Balvenie Doublewood tonight?
My bad; I know the M9 was used on the P-63D (the bubble top), but I thought it was on the E and F also.Fixed it
The M9 cannon was used on one P-63 aircraft, as in one plane, not one model or version.
P-63s from the A-9 on got the US M10 37mm cannon which used the same ammo as the M4 cannon. It fired just a bit faster but used a real belt (disintegrating link) for feeding and held a lot more rounds than the M4 set up.
Confusion comes from the M10 cannon being called the T9 when in development.
Thanks for the correction!
The Me-262s carried Mk 108 30mm. These had a relatively low muzzle velocity, so you'd have to get closer. The shell was about 40% the size of the M9 37mm, but the rate of fire was 4 times faster and the gun weighed 1/3 as much, so you trade off was heavy shell at long range vs more shells at closer range.
Just a thought: missiles are essentially very big shells at very long range.
Now, that's an interesting take! Tell me more!
In regards to drag the Spitfire lost about 7mph because of the cannon barrels poking forward of the wings and blisters covering the receiver mechanism.
wuzak
Captain
I thought Koopernic was referring to the aerodynamics of the shell for improved ballistics.
