Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The point is that the USN much preferred the four gun with more than 400 rounds per gun installation of the F4F3 over the six gun with 240 rounds of the F4F4 to the point that the late F4F4s switched back to the four guns as well as the FMs. The Hellcats and Corsairs carried the six guns with 400 rounds without much performance penalty. It is apparent that firing time was important to US pilots. Perhaps it did not matter as much to British and German pilots and the reason might have been that their AC could not stay in the air as long as the US models. Shorter duration flights don't need as long firing times. If you are going to be in the air for four hours or more it is nice to know that your ammo supply may be adequate. A fighter with empty guns is useless. If you read "The Shattered Sword" the Zekes having to land continually to replenish the 20 mms during the attacks from the AC based on Midway had a major impact on the eventual outcome of the battle. I have read that in the Pacific some Corsair pilots would switch off two guns until the other four ran out in order to stretch out firing times. Does not seem logical to me to simply ignore the huge difference in firing times for the P51 with 20mms and the F4F3 with four fifties.
The Japanese 20mm was a copy of the Oerlikon with a short barrel to save weight and only had a 60 round magazine. But since the 20mm was their most effective weapon the Zekes had the IJN CVs were kept busy recovering, rearming and relaunching the Fighters to cope with the onslaught of the Midway based AC. Since the flight decks were being used the Japanese could not ready another strike to be launched. The Japanese attack planes had to get to the flight deck before the ordnance could be armed and the engines warmed up, unlike the US CVs with the open hangar decks. According to "The Shattered Sword" which seems to be the best and most recent version of the battle, that was the reason the US VSBs and VBs were able to enjoy such success. The small magazine capacity was the problem, not the gun itself or the ballistics. A Wildcat, SBD, Avenger or B26 with a Zeke on it's tail with only 30 cal mgs was very difficult to shoot down.
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?"
I don't understand this. Did you mean "doesn't mean the .30 cal gun is not a plane killer…}
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".
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????
Certainly by the end of WW2, the M-2 armed fighters were not up to world standard. However, had the M-3 been incorporated they would have been. Indeed, the M-3 armed F-86 was as potent as the F9F and more so than the Mig-15. This all changed with the M-39 20 mm.
Not adequate to do the job like there was a big demand to upgrade the F4F once the Zero was encountered.
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.
It seems to have been around a long time for such a miserable failure.
It wasn't the size in the jungle, it was the requirement to fire full automatic. No 10lb weapon is controllable in full auto fire using a cartridge in the 7.62X51 power class. It was a dumb requirement, "solved" by removing the selector switch/lever.
Who's to say a pistol grip stock couldn't be installed on an M14?Its digresing I know but when people say that the M14 was very popular, a lot of countries who spent their own money went for the FN instead of the M14. Countries that were equipped with the M14 tended to get them via MAP.
Who's to say a pistol grip stock couldn't be installed on an M14?
The NS-37 fires unevenly and has sledgehammer recoil. It's not accurate (unless you're taking single shots at slow moving targets), but for shooting at bombers from fairly close range, in which case it'll take a whole engine right off it.
...
I agree, 7,62 mm rifle round is simply too powerful to be effective controll. I guess one more thing about M-14 was its unsuited ergonomics - it was a classic rifle shape, not even having a pistol grip to help control it.
So, you are saying the decision makers in the Army and Navy were incompetent because they stuck with a weapon that was not good? This, of course is nonsense. They were well aware of the plusses and minuses of the various armament options and made their decision based on what they perceived as the best way to wage the war. Their conclusions were that the weapon systems they had were good and effective and any disruption in upgrading armament was not warranted by the increased performance of a new weapon system.I keep saying because many people keep saying the .50 must have been good because the US won the war with it (and kept it to Korea) or that the US shoot down XXXXX planes using or try to say it could out range 20mm cannon or other nonsense.
Do you know?Unless the User is really happy with what they are using. How much effort did the US or England put into replacing the 105 howitzer or 25pdr during the war? Or how much effort did the US put into replacing the Grand, the BAR, the 1919 machine gun?
The Army must have spent loads of money developing replacements for the Sherman, the T-20, T-25, T-29, T-30, and eventually successful T-26.The US didn't even put quite the priority on getting a replacement for (or even upgrading) the Sherman tank.
Aircraft technology developed faster than just about all other technology in WWII. In four or five years it went from being barely out of biplanes, shooting twin .30s, to jet and rocket aircraft firing 20mm cannons and up, an incredible leap. All aspects of aircraft were developed intensively, engines, aerodynamics, avionics, survivability, etc., some of which were already deemed adequate. It is not surprising that armament, and the .50 machine gun, was left out of this upgrading expense effort.And yet there were, by count, several dozen projects for faster firing .50s, higher velocity .50s ( a least one larger cartridge case and not just a hot load) , .60 caliber guns (several different receivers) using more than one cartridge case, and fast firing and/or higher velocity 20mm cannon( again with different cartridge cases). A number of these projects date from around 1942. The US may have pulled the German mistake by trying to jump further than the technology allowed as many of the High velocity projects had goals of 3500fps (1060mps). If the .50 was so good why ALL the effort to replace it?
Because it was not only adequate but was effective and when upgraded, the available 20mm offered little to no in improvementand then the Air Force goes into Korea with a "tweaked" version of the old gun? Somebody may have been believing their own press releases.
This looks interesting. Thanks for the site. I am going to enjoy reading it.For a brief rundown on the models programs try; Milsurps - The Machine Gun (by George M. Chinn)
Actually no, the projectiles hitting the target and the damage they do is what counts. If we look at an individual event, in this case a timed burst of fire e.g. one second, the important factors are probability of a strike, which is the probability of a strike per projectile calculated with the number of projectiles fired, and probability of damage given a strike, in this case the 20mm being three times more effective than the .50 calThat rather depends on how you rate the effectiveness of the .50 and 20mm Hispano. The Navy thought that one 20mm Hispano was worth three .50 cal guns so four Hispanos were worth 12 M-2 Brownings. Now if the 1200rpm M-3 Brownings are worth 1.5 times the M-2 that means the Saber had the equivalent of 9 M-2 Brownings, leaves it a little short of the 12 mark doesn't it?
You are the one making the claim that they are not effective, so I think you are the one that should support it.No I don't have any "real evidence" that would not have been devastatingly effective, but then do you have any "real evidence" that they would have been devastatingly effective, or is this supposition?
They were adequate and effective.There is a difference, in my opinion anyway, between what was decent armament in 1942 and what was decent armament in 1944. The .50s did the job, that doesn't make them great or ideal or even particularly desirable, it makes them adequate no more but no less. It also means that a number of American fighters had lower flight performance than they otherwise might have had if the US had had better guns or been a bit smarter in specifying ammo loads.
In reality, I have no idea. I did talk to my brother, who was trained on M-14. He stated that there were some M-14s that retained their auto functions but in order to be issued one a soldier had to be auto-fire qualified. Now, I am as old as dirt and he is older than I am, so memory may be a problem. He was in the Army Security Agency when he was sent to Vietnam in early 1965. As the biggest dude in the group he was handed an M-60 and told he was the machine gunner. He thought the M-60 was a good weapon and did not hear any negative things about it. His favorite saying was that it "barked here and bit out their". Being in the ASA, he was not meant to be involved in any combat and, in fact, he had marines assigned to guard his facility, an air conditioned trailer, which made the marines jealous. The machine gun was strictly assigned for defensive purposes. He also was issued a 1911 colt, he said all machine gunners were.It wasn't the size in the jungle, it was the requirement to fire full automatic. No 10lb weapon is controllable in full auto fire using a cartridge in the 7.62X51 power class. It was a dumb requirement, "solved" by removing the selector switch/lever.
Hi, TomoHi, David,
What could be a reasoning for Sabre's armament being as potent as Panther's, and more potent than MiG-15's?
So, you are saying the decision makers in the Army and Navy were incompetent because they stuck with a weapon that was not good?
This, of course is nonsense. They were well aware of the plusses and minuses of the various armament options and made their decision based on what they perceived as the best way to wage the war. Their conclusions were that the weapon systems they had were good and effective and any disruption in upgrading armament was not warranted by the increased performance of a new weapon system.
The WWII M2 50 cal was not great but it was good and, in fact, could be upgraded to the M3 and, when properly configured, be equitable in performance to the Korean 20mms in effectiveness.
Neither country spent much time or effort improving those field guns. Any modifications were minor and no real replacements were tried until after Korea. Unless you know different? The US had few (if any official) projects to replace the M1 rifle, the BAR or the 1919 mg during the war. The Johnson guns were pre war.Do you know?
the T-29 and T-30 were completed post war. While the M-4 was a world class tank in 1941 (initial design) and 1942 and while ordnance tried the decision makers screwed this one up. Depending on you opponent NOT to upgrade his tanks for several more years is NOT smart. The decision to upgrade the Sherman (even if they didn't go for the M-26) should have been made sooner. Much like the Russians upgraded in the T-34 in early 1944.The Army must have spent loads of money developing replacements for the Sherman, the T-20, T-25, T-29, T-30, and eventually successful T-26.
Aircraft technology developed faster than just about all other technology in WWII. In four or five years it went from being barely out of biplanes, shooting twin .30s, to jet and rocket aircraft firing 20mm cannons and up, an incredible leap. All aspects of aircraft were developed intensively, engines, aerodynamics, avionics, survivability, etc., some of which were already deemed adequate. It is not surprising that armament, and the .50 machine gun, was left out of this upgrading expense effort.
You are the one making the claim that they are not effective, so I think you are the one that should support it.
In reality, I have no idea. I did talk to my brother, who was trained on M-14........
Perhaps you could point to a source that confirms that N-37 had those issues? Nothing bad is mentioned in Tony Williams' 'Rapid fire'.
Throw weight is also on only part of the equation, velocity enters when calculating energy. We need to calculate the energy of the projectile at the moment of impact. I must apologize for not having all the data I need to calculate the actual impact energy on an airborne target. I do not know the termination velocity of 50 cal, 20 mm, 23 mm, or 37 mm projectiles at, say, 1000 ft at an initial platform velocity of 600 mph, at some altitude, and published muzzle velocity. Obviously, aircraft weapons ballistics is not simple. However, I can calculate the initial energy released by an aircraft with zero initial conditions.David, hit probability makes just a part of weapon's 'potency', the other part is effect (of a bullet/shell) upon the plane is hit.
For MiG-15, even at 600* rpm per 23mm gun, that makes 1200 rpg per plane, or 20 rps per plane. Mutiplied by 200g, that's 4 kg per second. For F-86, 120 rps per plane, multiplied by 46g per projectile, makes 5,52 kg. So Sabre fires greater mass from it's guns.
Now, how much a kg of cannon shell is worth of HMG bullets? Even if the ratio is 1,5 to 1, MiG-15 leads in effect on target. Then we add the 37mm (that one fires at same MV as 23mm, 690 m/s), 400 rpm -> 6,67 rps -> 4,9 kg per second.
So even if the Soviet cannons were firing ball ammo, they offer almost 9 kg per second of fire weight vs. Sabre's 5,52 kg. For same gun weight.
50 cal., 46g (710gr), mv 2910 ft/min, energy 13,354 ft/lbs, energy per second (125 rps) 1,669,250 ft/lbs/sec.
23 mm, 200g (3086gr), mv 2265 ft/min, energy 34958 ft/lbs, energy per second (20 rps) 699160 ft/lbs/sec
37 mm, 735g (11342gr), mv 2260 ft/min, energy 128605 ft/lbs, energy per second (6.7 rps) 861654 ft/lbs/sec
Some items are apparent. One, while the 50 cal is only 23 percent of the 23 mm weight, initial energy is 38% of the 23 mm. Two, energy per second of the six F-86 50 cals is more than double the two Mig-15 23 mms, most likely greater than the 23 mm with explosives. Three, the total energy per second of the F-86 is greater than the 23 mm plus the 37 mm. This does not include explosives. Again, this is with initial velocity, and all of this could change if the velocity lost is calculated in.
Earlier I had shown that the Mig-15 had an 83% probability of one cannon hit (either 23 or 37 mm) with a one second burst and that the F-86 would get four hits with a probability of 88%. Comparing these values at initial conditions, the initial energy of the Mig-15 shell was 34958 ft/lbs for a 23 mm and 128,605 ft/lbs for the 37mm. The energy of F-86 hits would be four times 13,354 ft/lbs or 53416 ft/lbs. The F-86 does overpower the 23 mm (without explosives) and is over powered by the 37 mm. However, getting hit by that 37mm is really remote.
Here is a short note on the 37mm. It is a heavy projectile and I suspect does not have the same trajectory as the 23mm. I rather doubt that a Mig could target both the 23mm and 37mm at the same time.
Without having terminal velocity, this is all an approximation. However, I think it does show the power of the six M-3 machine guns and why the AF kept them. Here is another way of looking at it. I have never heard the P-47 being under gunned. You can take the P-47 armament, add 600 rounds per minute, put it on the center line (I read somewhere the Germans thought one gun on the center line was worth two in the wings) and you can get a feel for what was coming out of the nose of a F-86.
I did my analysis based on Navy assessment of the 20mm vs .50 and probability of hits. I suspect that I will get a similar equality if I do the above calculations of energy. Maybe later, I am tired.For Panther: 102g shell x 4 cannons x 11 rps = 4,49 kg per plane per second. Sabre throws 1/4 more mass, but Panther fires shells, not ball. Advantage Panther, that carries 200 kg of guns vs. 180 kg of Sabre.
Its not impossible at all, both chose to emphasize different variables and arrived at a close proximity.While USAF was installing HMGs in their fighters, it's also true that USN was quick to adopt all-cannon weaponry for their fighters, for same post war era. Since it seem impossible that both were right, I'll bet to USN. Other AFs moved for cannons in the same era, making USAF the only proponent of HMGs of that time.