Allied airframes, German parts

[tomo pauk]

...

Maybe sufficient at very, very close range or with an excellent marksman. Also consider that unaware target and the attacker are moving in multiple directions simultaneously every second. Aircraft don't fly smoothly in one direction as if on rails.

I'd agree that it took a good marksman to hit a moving plane with P-39's 37mm, or a good pilot to 'fill the windscreen with enemy plane'. We can remember that not every Axis plane was 109/190/Zero - there were plenty of bombers, recon planes etc to bring down. Think we can agree that 37mm was capable enough to hit those?

Four, count 'em, 4, much faster firing weapons with many more projectiles per burst, at targets only needing a few hits per many misses to be effective. I don't think your Thatch reference works. Anyone want to speculate that Thatch would have preferred one 37mm and a couple of .50s? He was an experience gunnery instructor before the war so maybe it would work out for him, but I doubt he would believe it was the best option for average pilots.

(Shotround6
Thach began training as a Naval Aviator in 1929 and spent time as an aerial gunner instructor before making squadron commander. His experience and expectations may have been a bit different than an "average pilot" who started training in 1942.

Agreed.

I hope JoeB can provide information. It is my understanding that the only reason the MiG had a 37mm was that the Soviets specified it for destroying B-29s. The caliber 37mm does not last long as a MiG armament, it was not used in the MiG-19 or later MiGs.

You do know that Soviets have designed even bigger aircraft cannons? By the time of late MiG-17/early MiG-19 they fielded missiles, so no wonder they dumped the big cannons.

Nobody today specifies 37mm caliber even for ultra-fast rotary cannons. Gotta be a reason.

To kill what?

I always hope to be educated more than educating when participating in these discussions. Thank you to all forum members for the education.