Armor Penetration - 20mm vs. .50 cal.

[davparlr]

Internet search revealed quite a spread for both, mainly due to configuration, I guess.

Unloaded weight for the BAR ranged from 15.98 lbs (first 1918 model) to 19.4 lbs

Unloaded weight for the Bren ranged from 19.14 lbs (Mk IV) to 22.38 lbs.

Looks like the BAR is about 3 lbs lighter than the Bren, certainly noticeable.

 

[mkloby]

And the US Army also won the majority of its land battles with the BAR as its primary infantry automatic weapon and the Sherman as its main tank. But, you'll find few people that will argue that it wouldn't of been better served by a true light machine gun or a better armed and armoured tank.

I think that the "It must of been worked because we won and shot down lots of stuff with it" argument misses the main crux of the debate.

Just because the .50 was effectively used, doesn't mean that it was as effective as another weapon system, such as the Hispano, could of been.

Sure - this is certainly true. Cost and ability to manufacture are definitely important factors as well, and quantity is an important quality as well. This is not to say other weapons systems may not have been at a disadvantage for production, but it's certainly an important part of the debate.

 

[renrich]

One point I was trying to make(perhaps not well) was that the US really began to get serious about weapons for war in 1940 and then we were in a war a little over one year later. A for instance is the Corsair first flew in 1940, with two guns, one 30 cal and one 50 cal in the nose and little compartments in the wing for small bombs. It began to be produced in 1942 with four and then six guns in the wings, all 50 cals. The 50 cal was a known quantity, the armorers were used to working on it, and the ammunition was available wherever US forces were in action. The cannon armed P39 was not very successful as far as armament was concerned and time was of the essence. The USN actually had a shortage of fighters for carriers in 1942. Trying to develop a reliable air cannon, put it into production, supply all the spares and ammo and train the personnel to service and use it would have been time consuming, especially when most evidence indicated the 50 BMG was good enough. The US was predisposed toward mass production and standardisation. Think Jeep, Sherman, deuce and a half, liberty ship, etc. They had to build weaponry and send it for thousands of miles around the world along with all support material. The mass production of weapons for the US was not well thought out in 1941. The US enlisted the aid of many manufacturers to make weapons. I have a 1911 Government Model made in 1944 by a typewriter company. Producing in volume new weaponry was a big deal. I can see many reasons why the 50 BMG was retained as the main weapon for our air forces.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Mkloby,

>Cost and ability to manufacture are definitely important factors as well, and quantity is an important quality as well.

As far as the 20 m vs. .50 cal. question is concerned, I haven't seen any data on cost, and the hit at the ability to manufacture is very much a red herring as the US inability to manufacture effective 20 mm cannon was an entirely homegrown problem, brought about by lack of foresight.

The 15 mm MG 151 could be converted to 20 mm calibre by two groundcrewmen in 17 min by simply changing the barrel while the gun remained in the aircraft. It was so easy that the manual warned not to forget to change the ammunition belts too whenever the barrel is changed!

Obviously, you'd get a constant output from the production line regardless of the choice of calibre for such a weapon, and I don't believe it could be much different for a Browning-type 20 mm gun. (While the US apparently did not develop such a gun, the Japanese did, introducing the type into service as the 20 mm Ho-5 cannon.) If production of a 20 mm weapon would have been considered in time, it would probably have been easier to produce in the required numbers (which due to its greater firepower would have been lower) than the 12.7 mm Browning.

Note that the US considered the 15 mm MG 151 superior to the 12.7 mm Browning (actually trying to copy it as the Browning replacement), while the Luftwaffe considered the 20 mm MG 151/20 superior to the 15 mm version.

2x MG 151/20 - 388 rpg, 35 s duration - 250 kg - 2,1 MW firepower
6x MG 151 - 325 rpg, 30 s duration - 607 kg - 2,5 MW firepower
8x ,50 Browning M2 - 425 rpg, 33 s duration - 694 kg - 2,3 MW firepower

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Glider]

Internet search revealed quite a spread for both, mainly due to configuration, I guess.

Unloaded weight for the BAR ranged from 15.98 lbs (first 1918 model) to 19.4 lbs

Unloaded weight for the Bren ranged from 19.14 lbs (Mk IV) to 22.38 lbs.

Looks like the BAR is about 3 lbs lighter than the Bren, certainly noticeable.

Certainly there was a difference in the weights of the two weapons as they developed but the Bren got lighter as the marks developed as the BAR gained weight. I also agree that a couple of pounds is noticable but its not massive and the question is if the additional flexibility was worth the weight.

 

[davparlr]

Certainly there was a difference in the weights of the two weapons as they developed but the Bren got lighter as the marks developed as the BAR gained weight. I also agree that a couple of pounds is noticable but its not massive and the question is if the additional flexibility was worth the weight.

I don't know enough to make much of a comment. Certainly a weakness of the BAR was the lack of a quick change barrel. I'm kind of surprised they did not put in a larger magazine, except it certainly would not help over heating or weight. The weight was always a complaint, which the Bren would aggravate, although it indeed was more flexible. I am sure both guns were greatly appreciated by the squads and did yeoman work. They uncomfortably fell into a gap between the lighter submachine gun and the heavier belt fed light machine gun. It wasn't until the advent of the assault rifle round, and its associated lighter rifle, that this gap was efficiently filled.

 

[Glider]

One thing I am confident about. Both the USA and the UK would have swapped the BAR and Bren for the MG42.

 

[renrich]

Wasn't the MG 42 belt fed and crew served? The BAR was a different type of weapon. The equivalent to the MG42 in the US Army was the A6 Browning.

 

[davparlr]

One thing I am confident about. Both the USA and the UK would have swapped the BAR and Bren for the MG42.

I don't think the MG42 fits well here as it is indeed belt fed and heavier than the BAR or Bren. It is a standard light machine gun.

I think the Stg44 fits the role much better, but wasn't available until late in the war.

 

[Glider]

I don't disagree that the MG42 was a different type of weapon. I tend to look at it as being the first GPMG as opposed to being either an LMG or an HMG.
Almost countless nations were happy with the M60/FNMG and have used them for many years. Indeed, many converted from the BAR/Bren type of weapon to include these in their rifle units. It was with this in mind that I wrote that we would happily have taken the MG42 instead of the Bren or BAR

 

[renrich]

According to Wiki, the MG 42 was served by as many as six in a crew. I never did "get" why the BAR was so important. It was still in service when I was in basic but just barely and I felt like a well trained squad with Garands would not gain a lot with a BAR man. A 20 round magazine would not last long in full automatic and the BAR man was a magnet for enemy counter fire. The A6 version in AC and modified for infantry was capable of the same rate of fire as the MG42.

 

[Vincenzo]

six it's crew for tripod variant

 

[BombTaxi]

The MG42s Glider refers to would have been bipod mounted, had a reduced rate of fire (lighter barrel), and most likely had a crew of two. So, that particular weapon would have been infinitely more use than a BAR or Bren. The modern equivalent would be something like an FN Minimi (M249 in US service) or M60E3...

 

[renrich]

As said before the BAR and MG42 were totally different animals. Our A6 was bipod mounted and used a crew of two and would have been the equivalent.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hi, BombTaxi,

Could you provide any info about different barrels for MG-42?

 

[tomo pauk]

Some fellow members have stated repeatedly that introducing a new (or "new") calibre for airplanes would make serious stains to the logistical chain of USAF.

Let's count, for the comparison sake, the different weaponry Soviet AF used:
-soviet origin: 7,62mm, 12,7mm, 20mm, 23mm (+ another kind at the end of war), 37mm (2 kinds)
-UK origin: .303, 20mm
-US origin: .30, .50, 20mm (perhaps interchangeable with UK round?), 37mm.

Al together 12 (or 13) different ammo types.

So, the introduction of a more potent round in a 20mm range could make no noticeable strain for the US logistical chain.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Tomo,

>So, the introduction of a more potent round in a 20mm range could make no noticeable strain for the US logistical chain.

I agree - and the logistics for just one new aircraft type in a theatre would create far more logistical overhead than that for several weapon types.

Additionally, it's easier to solve the logistical problems for high-turnover items than it is to solve them for low-demand parts, and I'd clearly consider guns and ammunition high-turnover items in a WW2 context.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[DaReaperZ]

I am going to make some statements about the discussion of Soren and this anonymous "Lunatic", he truly is a lunatic that's for sure. I know this thread is old as all hell.. but I just can't sit idly by and watch this guy spewing american propaganda all over.

"[...]performed by the US Bureau of Ordnance US tanks were 5 times more reliable than their German counterparts."

Yes, how shocking. The *US BUREAU OF ORDNANCE* found that ***US*** tanks were far more reliable than their enemies tanks. Truly appalling, to see so much lies and "history" written here. It's like when the Soviets at Kubinka found out that their "blah blah" gun could in fact penetrate the front of a tiger and tiger 2. They fail to mention that they put the front at a 90 degree angle (King tigers case) and that they shot over 200 times on them. The problem is that people take tests made by "their own" and post it as fact if it is in favour of "their side".

Operation Barbarossa: Myth Busters Intro

Read that, that explains why every test ever made by both the US and the Soviet Union always say that their AFV's and planes are the superiour ones. Human nature is a core part of it

Lunatic even stated that the Wirbelwind and Ostwind had poor cover for the crew. Shortly after that he makes a ridiculous claim that the Halftrack has better cover. Hardly. That is not the case.

There we are. They're exposed, more so than the crew of the Ostwind and Wirbelwind were. Lunatic also said that the dual .50 cal gun carriages with poor armour (it's a truck.. come on) were better and more efficient. This is simply not true. He even brought up the "Surely 100 US AA halftracks are better than 10 Wirbelwind" statement. While this might be very true, we aren't measuring who could produce the most anti-aircraft vehicles. If you are going to compare them, compare them in a 1:1 ratio. Naturally, the US would produce more, as they had more factories and were sitting safely on their giant island, not getting bombed.

Also, I say that there is a reason the .50 cal machine guns were largely dropped. They used them on the F.86 Sabres at first, which proved to be inadequate. Nowadays every fighter uses cannons. The Germans used 20mms early and the Russians too, hell, even the brits used 20mms. The US were however, stubborn with their .50 cal machine guns.

Onto other matters. For the record, the MG151/15 (15mm) was barely used, on any plane. There were a few planes using them. They did have a better armour penetration as well, but overall they weren't commonly used. The MK103 could penetrate around 40-50mm armour at 60 degrees angle, which in turn means it would have no trouble with the top armour of some of their own heavy tanks, much less others' medium tanks. The Stuka with BK 37 would be carrying APCR rounds to take out take, which would be capable of taking out a T-34 or Sherman. When comparing penetration, we have to think about quality of the steel, it is widely known that the Germans had, and has some of the best quality steel in the world, especially at that time. The russians didn't even have close to it. This would lead to the Soviets testing on worse quality steel and Germans testing on better. There's also the different ways of measuring penetration. If I remember correctly the Germans were picky, they wanted a very high penetration chance to call it enough, while the soviets would go as low as 50% chance and say it was enough.

A thing to think of when speaking about German tanks unreliability is that much of this is exaggerated. There were also loads of sabotage going on, leading to more failures than normal. I would however, have liked some actual sources for the "Sherman in typical operation was about 1300 miles, for the Panther, it was about 400 miles, and for the Tiger I, about 100 miles." statement. These numbers seem like they're grossly under estimated. The Tiger surely could travel further than 100 miles, as well as the Panther. Earlier years, when the tanks were new, I am sure the breakdowns were more frequent, later in the war they were more stable. While they couldn't compete with the Sherman, they were still acceptable. The Sherman was of a much more simpler design. If I remember correctly the Sherman could not fire accurately at all while on the move. Not many tanks could during the period though.

Lunatic also said that the Germans should have focused on the PzIV, while this is somewhat true, they should have updated it too look more like the panther in shape, which the sloped front. But the old, quantity is better than quality isn't quite true. While the Americans used that "method" it doesn't necessarily mean it is the best way for everyone to do it. The Germans needed their more experienced tank crews rather than producing more PzIV which would have had trouble with later tanks such as IS-2. Their production was also limited because of bombings and as I earlier mentioned, sabotage was also a problem.

Someone else posted something about the T-34, while a good design in itself, it has some pretty debilitating flaws.

Operation Barbarossa: T-34 Myth Buster

Everyone should read this link, it is about the T-34 and why so many were lost of such a good design.

Lunatic was disgustingly Pro-US, to the point where it was almost ridiculous, saying that one thing that almost looks the same is better when it's of US make. I had to answer to stop this. Even if I am multiple years too late.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeah and insulting people that no longer are contributing members of this forum sort of takes away from your credibility as well, as they can not defend themselves. Not a good way to start off...

 

[Glider]

Read that, that explains why every test ever made by both the US and the Soviet Union always say that their AFV's and planes are the superiour ones. Human nature is a core part of it

When everyone knows that the British designs were way ahead