Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The AAF liked the 50BMG because it allowed for 6-8 guns with a lot of ammo which enabled the pilot with not great gunnery skills more opportunity to get hits. The USN came around to the point of view that the 20 MM cannon would make a better armament package. Perhaps their POV was influenced by possibly more emphasis on gunnery skills in USN pilot training. Just my guess. The AAF's and USN's opinions were stated in the "Report of the Joint Fighter Conference, 1944."
They don't if they don't don't work, and the 50s worked.So I'd say pilots praised what they had, and they had only the fifties.
Did the Brit P-51B/D pilots complain about the ineffectiveness of the 50s and demand 20mm be installed? I have not seen any, but, of course, I may just not know.I think that is an over simplification.
The American pilots didn't have anything to compare to. Very few flew planes that had .30 cal guns and very few flew planes with 20mm cannon so they had nothing to compare the .50s to.
But there were complaints that the 30s were not effective, or they never would have changed them.Any pilot who is not concerned about any enemy aircraft regardless of it's armament is a fool. Even a .30 cal bullet can cut an oil line and keep a pilot from getting home, doesn't mean the .30 cal gun is a plane killer as the British found out in the BoB.
The American battery of .50s "worked" but it was heavy for it's target effect. A lighter weight but just as effective (or more effective armament) would have allowed better performing aircraft (Better climb or turn or better range or pick something) without decreasing the effectiveness once on target.
The American .50 cal battery "worked" against the targets it came up against but the vast majority of targets weren't actually all that tough.
If they did, it would have been reported privately to Leigh-Mallory, who'd already got quite narked about not being given the .5" in the Spitfire, as early as 1942.Did the Brit P-51B/D pilots complain about the ineffectiveness of the 50s and demand 20mm be installed? I have not seen any, but, of course, I may just not know.
I don't know about combat evidence, since an unhurt German pilot would have got away, and the RAF pilot couldn't be sure what damage he might have effected. However, in tests on German armour plate, it was found that the .5" had no more penetration than the .303", especially as they could both be toppled as they went through the fuselage skin. This was the reason for the RAF sticking with 4 x .303", rather than having 2 x (slower-firing) .5", coupled with their cannon, since the average pilot wasn't a very good shot, and, in a deflection shot (always the most difficult) the "scatter-gun" approach was more likely to disable the pilot; the change of mind came with the introduction of the gyro gunsight, which made even ordinary pilots into crack-shots, so the "E" wing was born, but not until 1944.As far as ineffectiveness against tougher targets, is there any combat evidence that they wouldn't be or is it just supposition? As far as I have read, neither the AAF, Navy, or British fighting forces demanded the removal of 50s and the installation of the cannons,
I don't know about combat evidence, since an unhurt German pilot would have got away, and the RAF pilot couldn't be sure what damage he might have effected. However, in tests on German armour plate, it was found that the .5" had no more penetration than the .303", especially as they could both be toppled as they went through the fuselage skin. This was the reason for the RAF sticking with 4 x .303", rather than having 2 x (slower-firing) .5", coupled with their cannon, since the average pilot wasn't a very good shot, and, in a deflection shot (always the most difficult) the "scatter-gun" approach was more likely to disable the pilot; the change of mind came with the introduction of the gyro gunsight, which made even ordinary pilots into crack-shots, so the "E" wing was born, but not until 1944.
Interesting since the 50s are often used against light armor.However, in tests on German armour plate, it was found that the .5" had no more penetration than the .303", especially as they could both be toppled as they went through the fuselage skin.
This was the same rationale that the AAF used in support of their usage of the 50s even after the advent of the gyro sight.This was the reason for the RAF sticking with 4 x .303", rather than having 2 x (slower-firing) .5", coupled with their cannon, since the average pilot wasn't a very good shot, and, in a deflection shot (always the most difficult) the "scatter-gun" approach was more likely to disable the pilot; the change of mind came with the introduction of the gyro gunsight, which made even ordinary pilots into crack-shots, so the "E" wing was born, but not until 1944.
That's a myth, since the IIC (bomber) and IID (fighter) sights were in production in late 1943, and the Spitfire E wing, with a single .5", was not produced until March 1944. American production (of the K-14 Mk.18 versions of the Ferranti sight) might have started after the U.K., of course, since they first had to see it tested, then formally accept it.Its worth remembering that the 4 x 303 in the Spitfire was replaced with 2 x HMG before the Gyro gunsight was in full production .
While true, it was found, in tests, that removing the guns had little effect, and, though permitted, the practice was discouraged. The main protagonists seem to have been the Poles, who were famous for their desire to get in close, to make sure, and where the "popgun" .303" gave no advantage. Removing the .5" would have had no effect, whatsoever, since it was so much closer to the fuselagepilots sometimes removed some of the LMG both to try and improve roll rate, and because the LMG was ineffective. You never hear of the 0.5 being removed to improve roll rate
Did the Brit P-51B/D pilots complain about the ineffectiveness of the 50s and demand 20mm be installed? I have not seen any, but, of course, I may just not know.
But there were complaints that the 30s were not effective, or they never would have changed them.
This is a tiring argument and redundant to other threads.
However, they were available, produceable, reliable and effective. The decisions at the time was based upon the effectiveness verses performance impact, the production line impact of selecting another weapons system, and the analysis of probability of hits versus experience of the pilot.
To claim now, with no risk in the answer, that this decision was incorrect and that the 50s, mounted in American aircraft, were not devastatingly effective against the targets faced is ludicrous and ignores history.
As far as I have read, neither the AAF, Navy, or British fighting forces demanded the removal of 50s and the installation of the cannons, but I am certainly open to being enlightened.
My opinion is that the American military decisions concerning the 50s was correct and, for the most part, the American weapons systems had excellent results for the jobs they were intended.
If I am defending my sinkable air base though and if I am a good gunner, I might prefer four or six fifties with 400 rounds per gun or more than four 20s with around 120 rounds each. The firing time for the F4F3 was 28.7 seconds. The firing time for the P51 with 20 mm cannon was 12.5 seconds. That 16 extra seconds could come in handy.
I don't think I said this. What I said was "Does anyone have a report from the Germans or Japanese saying they were not concerned about the American fighters because they only had 50s?"[/QUOTE]Several points here.
1. you made a statement about pilots being unconcerned about planes armed with .30 cal guns. a rather bogus argument.
I don't understand this. Did you mean "doesn't mean the .30 cal gun is not a plane killer…}2. I did say that the .30 cal was not an effective armament "doesn't mean the .30 cal gun is a plane killer as the British found out in the BoB"
I don't understand why you keep saying this. I haven't seen anyone say it was a super weapon or a "be all and end all of aircraft armament".This is a tiring argument and redundant to other threads.
You are right, this argument is tiring argument and redundant. But some people can't seem to grasp that the .50 cal gun, even in multiples, was not the be all and end all of aircraft armament.
I don't understand this argument. During war time lots of money and time go into advancing the current capabilities. What other weapons system could you apply you philosophy that spending money and time on improving was a sign of lack of capability, engines like the Merlin, airframes like the Fw-190, bombs, tanks????The US spent a lot of money and engineering time trying to come up with a replacement. Why bother if the .50 was so good or doing everything they wanted? I am referring to the .60 caliber program/s and the high velocity .50 cal programs ( most of which would require new guns) and the multiple programs to boost the rate of fire of the basic M2 Browning which finally bore fruit in the spring of 1945.
And one of the reasons of why the 50s was kept by the AAF instead of 20 mm.As far as " the analysis of probability of hits versus experience of the pilot" goes, that was a big part of the push for the .60 cal and HV .50 cal programs. To increase the probability of hits for the average pilot.
And yet I showed on another thread that the effectiveness of the F-86, with six M3 machine guns, was as effective as the F9F with four 20 mms, in addition, one poster indicated that the weight including ammo, was similar.Hardly, as far as now and no risk goes, the Navy wanted 20mm cannon, as has been shown in other threads. 20mm guns were also the preferred armament for night fighters, from the P-70 (A-20) on up. Some prototype aircraft were specified with 20mm guns.
Do you have evidence that a P-51D or P-47 would not have been devastatingly effective against, say, a B-17 or B-24, or is this supposition?The fact that the Japanese failed to up with better protected planes or that the Germans were fielding predominately singe engine fighters in the later part of the war certainly helps with the the .50 cal being "devastatingly effective against the targets faced" but depending on your enemy to field small, light aircraft that suit your armament is hardly the mark of good planning or evidence that your armament is really up to world standard.
Not adequate to do the job like there was a big demand to upgrade the F4F once the Zero was encountered.I am willing to be enlightened also. I am not sure what you mean by "demanded the removal".
I know very little about combat weapons. I am sure others here are much wiser than I am. The BAR was heavy and did not have a replaceable barrel, I think. Heavy seems to be important for the power it possessed since the M-14 was critized for being too light to replace it.The BAR was a good automatic rifle in 1918, it was a poor light machine gun in WW II.
The M-14 seems well liked but out of place in the jungle as any full sized rifle would be. In the Middle East it seems to be popular.The M-14 was a joke in full automatic fire and suffered from a number of problems in it's "intended" role even if it performed many other roles/duties well
It seems to have been around a long time for such a miserable failure.we are still living with the problems of the M-16
I have no idea.and the early M-60s had enough design flaws to make some people wonder if the designers had been paying attention at all to how machine guns were used.