B-17G Cutaway

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I would need to check, but I don't think the rate of fire of the cannons on the B-36 was that far below that of the B-29's machine guns. And shooting down a fighter with .50cals would require several hits. Say that a cannon has a rate of fire 2/3s that of a machine gun. It will (in theory) still achieve 2/3 as many hits which will be more deadly than the machine gun.
 
But that's theory, no evidence. The cannons would be hard pressed to hit the fighters.
 
There's no evidence because the B-36 never had to take a shot at enemy fighters. But since the USAF switched from machine guns to cannons I'm going to guess the guys in the know expected them to be effective.
 
That's not always true. Unless they were multi-barreled 20mms then firing rate would not be increased to that of the 12.7mm. The Tu-4 had 23mm cannons, but that is the Soviets thinking of heavier firepower is better.
 
Well the .50cal Browning's rate of fire wasn't that impressive. I think the 20mm would have been able to put out enough fire. The Mk. V Hispano gun had a rate of fire of around 700-750rpm and that was pretty much equal with a Browning.
 
Even with that (which is pretty impressive) they would have struggled. Remember the Korean pilots in the Korean war weren't smart, and the Germans had combat experience they knew how best to attack a bomber formation.
But the 20mm would have been better than 12.7 mm on the B-29.
 
i think at over $3,000,000 each, they would find and use the best armourment they had, if they think the cannon was the way to go, they must be right.............
 
I wouldn't make that claim. But with the 20mm you did get a longer range and more damage per shell. I feel it was probably the right choice.
 
Neither would I, I was joking. The speed of the shell itself is still slower than that of the 12.7mm.
 
I think everyone has acknowledged that. In needs to also be realized that the 30mm guns of the Me-262 suffered the same problems (low rate of fire, low muzzle velocity, low range). I'm not claiming that the Me-262 would have trouble hitting the B-36 as it is huge but it would have to get in relatively close to do it and that would ease things on the B-36 gunners.
 
Yes, remember you do not always tail hang, and the German tactic to was to do a head on run of the bombers, very fast closing speed which gives the fighter higher chance of survival against the enemy guns.
 
But that wasn't a common practice with Me-262s against B-17s. The B-36 would have been quite a bit faster so I doubt the 262 would have made many head-on attacks.
 
And would have provided an easier shot for the gunners. For that matter, a head-on attack provides and easy shot for the gunners.
 
I meant it wouldn't have been their first choice, bouncing would have probably been the first. The 'ole up and under.
 
Side attacks would have probably been the best way. But the B-36 had the same compensating gun sights used on the B-29 so even a side attack would have been far from safe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

CANADA BANS 1500 TYPES OF ASSAULT WEAPONS IMMEDIATELY
2 3
Replies
47
Views
4K
Dana Bell
D
Clear your browser cache
Replies
18
Views
9K
VALENGO
C
Signature in B-17 Book
Replies
0
Views
2K
CamaroDMD
C
M
Boring.................
2
Replies
24
Views
6K
Matt308
HAPPY BIRTHDAY B-17
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
wheelsup_cavu
Menu
Log in
Register