Best armed fighter

claidemore said:

I believe the mounting of guns in the nose or the wing of a particular aircraft tended to be more of a design consideration, rather than a gun 'effectiveness' issue.

Click to expand...

Where's the difference? Nose armament was seen as more effective / efficient by some air forces. Thus they made it a requirement and subsequently it was incorporated in those designs. One leads to the other.

As Henning pointed out in an earlier post, the highest chance of hitting an airborne target from an airborne gun platform, was at the ranges where wing mounted guns were harmonized. The only place I see an advantage is at extremely close range where all guns could be brought to bear on an unsuspecting target. Anecdotal evidence suggests that most WWII pilots fired at much longer ranges, often at too long a range.

Click to expand...

No. When not exactly at the point of convergence (harmonization), shots from a centerline gun deviate from the point of aim only on the y-axis, while those of a wing mounted gun deviate from that point on both y- and x-axis.

Contrary to what you wrote, a centerline gun is beneficial at all ranges, before or beyond harmonization range.

Overall it didn't matter that much because fighters with wing guns usually had a lot of them (except early P-51s). I like the statement that this kind of weaponry was effective but not efficient. There's something to it. Things would've probably been a bit different if they had to fight heavy bombers, but that's another story.

Just a thought about mixing the cannons and MG's together on an aircraft ..... didnt the projectiles have different trajectories that made it near impossible to have all of them fired at once and hit what you thought you were aiming for?

Either you fire you MG's or your cannons, but not both (unless youre so close it didnt matter).

Click to expand...

In my opinion, for most combinations the difference is not bigger than the typical error a pilot would make anyway. As said by claidemore, a certain amount of spread is probably even beneficial. Up to convergence range, hit probability was apparently seen as sufficient, else you wouldn't see so many mixed gun platforms (basically all fighters except for early British and of course American single engined fighters). Even with the same type of guns there is some minor trajectory deviation between inner and outer guns.

Hi Claidemore,

>I'm of the opinion that the 'single stream' of projectiles from nose mounted guns is not that big of an advantage given the technology of gunsights used during WWII. The odds of hitting a fast maneuvering target were just too great.

The problem with wing-mounted guns is that in most typical situations, the pattern extends horizontally while you need it to extend vertically.

a) Imagine a shooter setting up a tracking shot by turning with a target aircraft ... both are rolled into the same turn, and the difficult thing to get right is the lead, which is controlled by the vertical displacement of the pipper above the target in the sight picture. What convergence/divergence gives you is a horizontal spread - but that's the dimension that easy to get right anyway.

b) Imagine a shooter setting up a snap shot by crossing the flight path of the target ... typically, that's done by tracking for a short moment and then pulling ahead and letting the nose fall back again immediately, firing a short burst while this happens so that the target flies through the burst. Just as in case a), shooter and target will have their wings in the same plane so that the difficult dimension is the vertical while the convergence/divergence is in the vertical.

c) Imagine a target crossing in front of the shooter from the left to the right so that a snap shot is possible without prior tracking. OK, here the horizontal pattern is helpful

d) Imagine a target clearly beyond convergence range. This kind of long-range shooting is only feasible with a non-manoeuvring target, probably one trying to run at full power from a slower pursuer (for example a MiG running from an F-86, as described by Blese). The main problem is trajectory curvature there ... vertical dimension. The centreline-gun fighter can simply put the pipper on or above the target and fire away. The wing-gun fighter has to estimate the range and put the pipper on the wing, on the wing tip or even outside of the wing tip of the target, depending on the exact range. Even so, only half of the guns will hit. (If he aims right for the target, most of his fire will go above and below the wings if he's within about two times convergence range, or even miss the target entirely if he's yet farther away.)

e) Imagine a target in good shooting range. Whatever the situation, the centreline fighter can simply fire away without knowing the exact range. The wing-gun fighter still has to keep track of the range as getting too close is just as bad as being too far. Priller's "JG 26" has an example for a Luftwaffe pilot suddenly seeing tracers passing him closely on both sides of his fuselage, evidence of a P-47 attacking him from point blanc range (but failing to compensate for wing guns). USAAF pilots were aware of this effect as well - quoting Major Riemensnider (from "Combat Profile: Mustang" by Roger Freeman:

"I had previously flown the twin-engined P-38 Lightning where the nose-mounted armament made for an ideal gun platform. Ranging wasn't the problem it was with the P-51 and other fighters which had wing-mounted armament where the fire converged. It out outfit the guns were adjusted for a point of convergence 300 yd ahead where, theoretically, they gave an approximately 8 x 10ft bullet pattern. In practice, because of the speed of closure, it was not easy to achieve that exact range when you hit the gun trigger. So there was a tendency for pilots to open fire at a target further off and hold a long burst as they closed. If you got in a correctly ranged burst, it was highly destructive."

Mölders summed it up concisely as "One cannon in the nose is as good as two in the wings". (Galland, when asked by Hitler what he preferred, pointed out "I'd rather have all three" - thus the Me 109 wing gondolas

>Anecdotal evidence suggests that most WWII pilots fired at much longer ranges, often at too long a range.

Well, the RAF evaluation showed that killing ranges were shorter than 366 m in 86 % of the cases, and this number is already based on half of the kills being achieved with computing gunsights. With standard sights, 92 % of the kills were achieve at 366 m and less. This would actually support your view by showing that case d) above is just an unimportant disadvantage

An additional disadvantage of wing armament which you didn't mention is that wing guns also have a higher dispersion than centreline guns due to the flexiblity of the outer wings. This leads to a poorer concentration of fire and results in decreased effectiveness even beyond the pure convergence/divergence problems.

>On a completely different subject, this thread encouraged me to do some reading about the P61, and apparently no P61s were lost to enemy action!

One He 177 tail gunner claimed a P-61 shot down (though he misidentified it as a Lightning), but the P-61 actually managed to return home after putting out an engine fire caused by the tail gunner's hits in a steep dive. This dive of course created the illusion of a shoot down - what the gunner saw was a streak of fire going down rapidly, then disappearing at low altitude. I think I read about this several times, the first time in Jet + Prop which had full details on both the He 177 and the P-61 crews.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hi Syscom,

>Just a thought about mixing the cannons and MG's together on an aircraft ..... didnt the projectiles have different trajectories that made it near impossible to have all of them fired at once and hit what you thought you were aiming for?

>Either you fire you MG's or your cannons, but not both (unless youre so close it didnt matter).

No problem at all. The effective combat ranges were in fact so close that it didn't matter (closer than 400 m), and depending on the exact weapon type, the differences might in fact be smaller than the dispersion of a single weapon type at these ranges. Remember that the weapons were bore-sighted individually, so that the type with the more curved trajectory would be set to fire higher than the type with the flatter trajectory.

Even looking at the Me 109G-6/U4 with wing gondolas (nose MK 108, cowl MG 131, wing MG 151/20) has just 60 cm vertical difference between MK 108 and MG 151/20 at 400 m ... compare this to the 8 x 10 ft bullet pattern for the P-51 at 300 yards pointed out by Riemensnider, and you'll see it's hardly worth noting.

In fact, operational testing of the first Fw 190 aircraft showed that pilots preferred wing root cannon and cowl guns to be fired by the A button and the outer wing cannon by the B button over the factory configuration, which had the MGs on the A button and all cannon on the B button.

Unfortunately, it's not a perfect example as wing-root cannon were MG 151/20 and outer wing cannon MG FF/M, so there were actually three sets of trajectories involved However, I can still point out that the preferred set-up was the one that gave one set of guns that were not affected by convergence issues, so it's a fair indication that these were important to the front-line pilots.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Sys brings up an interesting point which in a roundabout way I have been trying to get to and that is that the flight ballistics of the different projectiles might vary a lot. For instance, the A6M had two 20 mms with 60 rds of ammo each. Their rate of fire was around 5oo rds/min and had a muzzle velocity of 1968 fps. I don't have the figures for the two 30 cals in the nose but imagine they had a MV of around 2600-2800 fps. In other words they were kicking along at about 600 or 800 fps faster at the muzzle than the cannon rds. I don't know what the ballistic coeficient of the cannon rds were but suspect it was not as good as the MG rds. That means that the trajectory of the projectiles will be different, which can be compensated for but the flight time will be different which can't be compensated for. My math could be screwy but the cannon rds could perhaps arrive a full second later than the MG rds depending on the range. I have done a lot of shooting at animals and one can really tell the difference in a slow bullet like a 22 LR and a fast one like a 270 Win in the time it takes to get to a target. On an airplane that might be traveling 350 mph, that translates to 513 feet per second so if a cannon rd gets to the target a tenth of a second later then it might miss completely or if the guns are sighted in together and the cannon round hits the MG bullets are going to miss in front. This would be for a full deflection shot. I do know the Japanese used all guns at once at times but sometimes only the mgs until they got close and then triggered the cannon. I also know that many WW2 pilots opened fire at too long a range just as many of us do when hunting with shotguns. 300 yards is pretty much point blank range as far as trajectory is concerned with MG bullets. 300 yards is 900 ft so if the avg vel over 300 yds is 1800FPS the bullet get there in .5 seconds. If a cannon rd averages 1500 fps then it takes .6 second to get there. In a tenth of a second the target on a full deflection shot had traveled around 50 feet. Most fighters are not that long. Hmmmm!

Hi Krazykraut,

>Contrary to what you wrote, a centerline gun is beneficial at all ranges, before or beyond harmonization range.

Absolutely ... and even at harmonization range in a way, because the pilot has not to think about his range, freeing his mind for tactical thoughts Of course, that's not quantifiable, but in a fast-moving dogfight, it's an important factor anyway.

Attach two graphs, showing the sight picture and pattern for a MK 108 nose cannon as mounted in the Me 109 and the 12.7 mm Browning M2 wing guns as mounted in the P-47 for ranges from 700 m (top) to 100 m (bottom) in 100 m steps. The target silhouette is approximately of P-47 size.

The pilot is considered to compensate for the trajectory drop. Note that this is hardly noticable for the M2 Browning, and only clearly evident for the MK 108 at long ranges. In fact, even the low-velocity MK 108 can perfectly well be used for "boresight" shots (where the pilot ignores trajectory drop and simply puts the pipper in the middle of the target) at ranges out to 500 m.

I think the graphs illustrate Major Riemensnider's point about the impact of the correct firing range when using wing guns quite nicely.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun, an important point about guns of significantly different velocity.
The trajectories may not be very different in the practical firing range, but time in flight will.
Higher velocity projectiles (particularly those with a ballistic coeficient equal or grater than the low velocity projectile's) will get to the target much faster, and while the actual difference may be fairly small, in a tight turn (moving frame of refrence) the slower shells could go behind the target while the high velocity one hit. (the curved trajectory becomes greater due to the moving frame of refrence)

I hae been having a think about this and have changed from the Tempest which probably had the heaviest firepower, to the Fiat G55 which I now think was the best armed fighter. There is a difference.

The reason is as follows.

The Fiat G55 had a 20mm and 2 x HMG in the nose giving it all the benefit of being a centralised weapon for accuracy and long range, plus of course the 20mm didn't have any problems with synchronisation. In addition the 2 x 20mm in the wings would be ideal for Heavy Bombers or if you have a good shot at a fighter.

What it also had, was a huge amount of ammo. The Central 20mm carried 380 rounds, so the pilot didn't have to be afraid of having a snap shot or firing at the longer ranges.
The wing guns carried 200 rounds per gun which is more than the average.
Put it together, and its a formidable package.

Hohun

quote: "a)… both are rolled into the same turn, and the difficult thing to get right is the lead, which is controlled by the vertical displacement of the pipper above the target in the sight picture."

IMHO in fact the right lead in horizontal turning fight needs the skill to put the piper on right amount ahead of the target and to correct ballistic drop one needed to put the piper on the right amount above enemy's projected flight path and when in bank other than 90 deg the wing armament gives some leverage in both directions.

In fact this is a question in which different air forces had different ideas; LW, VVS and Finns valued highly armament concentrated in nose, some others preferred wing armament. And in LW there were those Galland and Mölders schools. And I'm sure that there was also debates inside RAF and USAAF.

After the war nose armament became a norm, Sweden put sometimes cannon in the wings (Draken, Viggen), UK's Meteor NFs and Javelin also had wing armament but they were AW fighters. How much the need of thin wing, but in deltas, dictated that or was it purely product of conclusion that nose armament was more effective, I don't know.

Glider
IMHO still Tempest and FW 190 from A-6 onwards were best. Tempest armament was more than enough against all aerial targets it met, be it Ju 188 or Me 262 or Bf 109. 4 * MG 151 should have been enough against fighters, medium bombers and Il-2s. Heavy bombers were a bit problem for average pilots but heavier armament would have made 190 more vulnerable to enemy fighters. So a good compromise. The two inner MG 151s allowes a tight pattern and MG 151 didn't suffer badly from syncronation


Juha

Juha said:

Hohun
Glider
IMHO still Tempest and FW 190 from A-6 onwards were best. Tempest armament was more than enough against all aerial targets it met, be it Ju 188 or Me 262 or Bf 109. 4 * MG 151 should have been enough against fighters, medium bombers and Il-2s. Heavy bombers were a bit problem for average pilots but heavier armament would have made 190 more vulnerable to enemy fighters. So a good compromise. The two inner MG 151s allowes a tight pattern and MG 151 didn't suffer badly from syncronation


Juha

Click to expand...

The Tempest I ruled out as being all wing mounted, the guns would have problems with long range shooting.
The 190 I seriously considered. You are of course correct in saying that the two inner 151's give a tight pattern and I don't doubt that the throw weight of those two guns was more than the single centerline weapon on the G55, even if the slightly better italian HMG's helped with the difference. However, what turned it for me was the ammount of ammunition that was carried. Nothing I know of comes close.
I believe that the choice is between these two, leaving out the Jets of course.

The Whirlwind at first glance would be a contender with 4 x 20mm in the nose, but with only 60 rpg, I don't think so.

HoHun,
In your charts in post #65, they apear to be for guns set to converge at a single point. However the guns could also be "harmonized" to converge at varying ranges, giving higher dipursion but better hit probability and a larger convergence zone. (IMO a better congiguration than the single point, of course the broadness of the convergence zone is limited by the number of guns -obviously it could not be done with just 2x wing guns)

For example, with a six gun fighter, you could set the convergence for the guns to be at 250 yards, 300 yards, and 350 yards to give a good firing zone at a reasonable range. (although at very close range it will still be necessary to fire off to the side of the target, or skid back and forth so that the guns will be on target)

Here's a picture to represent what I was referring to:
The WWII Fighter Gun Debate: Ballistics

KK, I have read that some Hellcat pilots had the guns synchronised exactly as you have written, Have see a photo where USN fighters were lined up on the fight deck with the tails jacked up firing at a target sled in the water. Since they appeared to be under way(this was early on and the planes were Wildcats and they were in a hurry) there must have been another ship towing the sled.

Hi Koolkitty,

>In your charts in post #65, they apear to be for guns set to converge at a single point. However the guns could also be "harmonized" to converge at varying ranges, giving higher dipursion but better hit probability and a larger convergence zone.

This one distracted me a bit because it have never seen it in a firepower discussion before I have not forgotten the other posts above, but I'll answer your point first because I was fascinated!

Attached you'll find my firepower comparison between P-38 with 4 x 12.7 mm machine guns (as before), and the P-47 with 8 x 12.7 mm machine guns set up to converge at 250 m (as before), and additionally between variations with a different convergence range for each of the four pairs of guns.

In short: Setting up different convergence ranges is not worth it. The reason is simply that you can't make more guns hit than before because they're still mounted unfavourably in the wings.

You can see that the characteristic hit power peak of the wing guns gets smaller (as you no doubt expected) with increasing difference between individual gun pair convergence ranges, and for the largest difference indicated in the diagram you can even see exactly four small peaks in the graph, each equivalent to the peak of one pair.

True, the zone of good hit power extends over a longer range, but at the same time the peak decreases so much in size that it finally drops below the nose gun hit power curve which is achieved with only half the number of guns!

The main gain of the multiple-range harmonization is at long range, but it's still markedly inferior to the nose-gun battery there, and as the area below the hit power curve stays (approximately) constant regardless of the choice of convergence ranges, the better long range hit power is paid for with poorer short range hit power - and the RAF statistics show that most kills were achieved at rather short range.

About the method for generating the new graphs: They are arithmetically derived from the original firepower graph which is scaled in power to 25% of the full battery (2 out of 8 guns - simple! , and scaled in range to simulate the different convergence ranges for each pair of guns. The values read from the four resulting individual graphs which are exactly of the original shape (though not dimesion) are then added up for each range on the range axis to arrive at the total firepower.

This is a deliberate simplification that does not take into account that the apparent target size at the scaled ranges would change. This underestimates target size at short range, and overestimates it at long range, exaggerated hit chances in the latter case. (You can see the effect of target size in the P-38 graph.) To err on the optimistic side, I have selected two longer convergence ranges and just one shorter convergence range so that multiple-range harmonization appears slightly more attractive than it actually is.

(Even the simplication was a bit complicated to capture in a diagram, but I think the result is well worth the effort

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hohun

I think what Kitty is refering to was called a box convergence, as opposed to a point convergence. This became more common with the introduction of the heavier armed fighters in the RAF such as The Hurricane IIc, the Typhoon and the Tempest. The guns would be aimed to hit a set area at a specific range. ie at 200 yds a 5 ft by 5ft target window would be evenly hit. This is one of the nice advantages of a 4 20mm cannon armament. The size of the box would be limited by the number of guns x the dispersion area of a single gun at a set range.


Slaterat

Hi Slaterat,

>I think what Kitty is refering to was called a box convergence, as opposed to a point convergence.

According to what I've read, the RAF's "box convergence" also had a deliberate vertical spread of the pattern, with some weapons firing high and some low. The example given was the Spitfire, which actually had the snigle port and the single starboard cannon adjusted differently.

However, with regard to horizontal harmonization, the box convergence has exactly the disadvantages I outlined above. Vertical spread does not increase the concentration of fire either, so hit power would drop even further if you'd introduce that. (Chances of achieving at least a few hits would obviously increase.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hi Koolkitty,

>HoHun, an important point about guns of significantly different velocity.
The trajectories may not be very different in the practical firing range, but time in flight will.

>Higher velocity projectiles (particularly those with a ballistic coeficient equal or grater than the low velocity projectile's) will get to the target much faster, and while the actual difference may be fairly small, in a tight turn (moving frame of refrence) the slower shells could go behind the target while the high velocity one hit.

That's correct. However, unlike horizontal convergence/divergence, flight time difference increases the beaten zone along the vertical axis, which is a more useful spread when you are shooting at a tighly turning target.

(As attacks on tightly turning targets are only worthwhile from fairly short ranges, the impact of flight time difference is relatively small because the absolute projectile flight times are fairly short to behin with.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hi Glider,

>I hae been having a think about this and have changed from the Tempest which probably had the heaviest firepower, to the Fiat G55 which I now think was the best armed fighter. There is a difference.

Interesting thought - I hadn't considered the Fiat fighter before.

>The Fiat G55 had a 20mm and 2 x HMG in the nose giving it all the benefit of being a centralised weapon for accuracy and long range, plus of course the 20mm didn't have any problems with synchronisation. In addition the 2 x 20mm in the wings would be ideal for Heavy Bombers or if you have a good shot at a fighter.

In terms of total firepower, the Fiat is in the top group, but actually a bit toward the bottom of the top group:

Me 262: 20,1 MW
Fw 190A-8/R2: 13 MW
Ta 152H: 7,6 MW
Fw 190A-8: 5,5 MW
Me 109K-4: 5,5 MW
Beaufighter Mk 21: 5,3 MW
Tempest: 4,9 MW
Fw 190A-4: 4,3 MW
Typhoon: 4,2 MW
Fiat G.55: 4,1 MW
Spitfire IXE: 2,7 MW

(Note the big gap to the Spitfire IXE - the "top group" is really clearly defined

>What it also had, was a huge amount of ammo. The Central 20mm carried 380 rounds, so the pilot didn't have to be afraid of having a snap shot or firing at the longer ranges.

The total energy of the cannon rounds you describe comes down to 82.4 MJ. The Ta 152H had 67.2 MJ worth of cannon ammunition, combined with almost twice the firepower so that it was easier to knock down a target with a snap shot. Along with the all-centreline positioning of the Ta 152H's armament, this makes for a clearly superior battery in my opinion.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

I am not suprised that the 262, 190A8-R2 and Ta152 are in a class of their own. That said, I am suprised that the G55 is so far behind the 190A8. The difference in only one 20mm 151, plus the G55 had a better HMG which should have reduced the gap as well as having a free firing 151 on the center line instead of the syncro guns on the 190.
I did expect the 190 to have a heavier throw weight but am suprised at the difference. The Ammunition point would still make me prefer the G55 though.

The Beaufighter is more a strike plane than a fighter so I wouldn't have included it on that basis. Also the Ta152 I would ignore as being irrelevent. Only a handful (more a pinch) went into action and a Meteor would be a better aircraft.

Hi Glider,

>That said, I am suprised that the G55 is so far behind the 190A8. The difference in only one 20mm 151, plus the G55 had a better HMG which should have reduced the gap as well as having a free firing 151 on the center line instead of the syncro guns on the 190.

Well, heavy machine guns are not really powerful enough to make the difference you're expecting.

In detail:

MG 151/20

Fw 190A-8: 4 x 1.27 MW = 5.08 MW
Fiat G.55: 3 x 1.27 MW = 3.81 MW

Heavy machine guns

Fw 190A-8: 2 x 0.21 MW = 0.42 MW
Fiat G.55: 2 x 0.18 MW = 0.36 MW

Total:

Fw 190A-8: 5.08 MW + 0.42 MW = 5.50 MW
Fiat G.55: 3.81 MW + 0.36 MW = 4.17 MW

Hm, turns out that the Italian heavy machine guns actually are inferior to the MG 131. This is owed to the lower rate of fire of the Italian guns and the lower explosive content of the HE projectiles. (Both guns were considered to fire a 1:1 AP/HE mix.)

>The Ammunition point would still make me prefer the G55 though.

Have you actually checked the ammunition count of the Fw 190A-8?

Fw 190A-8: 2 x 140 rounds + 2 x 250 rounds = 780 rounds
Fiat G.55: 2 x 200 rounds + 1 x 380 rounds = 780 rounds

Looks like less than a decisive advantage, to put it midly.

>Also the Ta152 I would ignore as being irrelevent. Only a handful (more a pinch) went into action and a Meteor would be a better aircraft.

Chauvinistic kneejerk. We're discussing armament technology, and the Ta 152H was clearly superior to the Meteor here, and battle-proven in WW2 air-to-air combat. If you mean to argue flight characterstics, performance and operational record, there are quite a few bad things to say about the WW2 Meteor, but that doesn't belong here.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hi Juha,

>IMHO in fact the right lead in horizontal turning fight needs the skill to put the piper on right amount ahead of the target and to correct ballistic drop one needed to put the piper on the right amount above enemy's projected flight path and when in bank other than 90 deg the wing armament gives some leverage in both directions.

Hm, I don't think this vertical difference is a factor of meaningful magnitude.

Even in a tight turn at 90 degree bank, the apparent lateral drop of the projectile is about 8 cm after 1/8 s of flight, and 31 cm after 2/8 s of flight. After 3/8 s of flight and 70 cm of drop, the projectile has already reached the typical convergence range where the proposed advantage no longer exists. (And you're not likely to do any deflection shooting from a tight turn with 90 degree of bank at ranges beyond typical conversion range.)

As table:

Time - Drop - Lateral offset
1/8 s - 08 cm - 200 cm
2/8 s - 31 cm - 100 cm
3/8 s - 70 cm - 000 cm

(Average projectile speed ca. 800 m/s, P-47 gun setup.)

>In fact this is a question in which different air forces had different ideas; LW, VVS and Finns valued highly armament concentrated in nose, some others preferred wing armament. And in LW there were those Galland and Mölders schools. And I'm sure that there was also debates inside RAF and USAAF.

If you look at the available technology, the RAF and the USAAF had weapons that were not available with synchronization (the Hispano cannon) or too weak for a realistic nose gun battery and losing much of their rate of fire when synchronized (the 12.7 Browning M2).

The armament layouts we see are technology-driven, not demand-driven. Whenever the airframe layout allowed installation of nose guns, neither the RAF nor the USAAF decided for anything else but a centreline battery.

In fact, I've never seen any historical debate showing a preference for wing guns if nose guns were possible too. Galland's desire clearly was for the highest possible firepower, as evident both from his quote "I'd rather have all three" and from the equipment of his personally modified fighters, one having heavy machine guns on the nose, and the other adding wing guns while leaving the centreline armament in place.

>After the war nose armament became a norm, Sweden put sometimes cannon in the wings (Draken, Viggen), UK's Meteor NFs and Javelin also had wing armament but they were AW fighters.

Right now I can't think of any jet fighter with wing guns that were out on the wing and not in the root, and even that position obviously resulted from competition for space of the guns with the radar or, in the case of the Thunderflash, of the guns with the photographic equipment. I'm pretty sure that the common denominator of all these installations is "as close to the centreline as possible".

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun said:

Hi Glider,

>Hm, turns out that the Italian heavy machine guns actually are inferior to the MG 131. This is owed to the lower rate of fire of the Italian guns and the lower explosive content of the HE projectiles. (Both guns were considered to fire a 1:1 AP/HE mix.)

Click to expand...

Yep your right and I admit to not expecting that.

Have you actually checked the ammunition count of the Fw 190A-8?

Fw 190A-8: 2 x 140 rounds + 2 x 250 rounds = 780 rounds
Fiat G.55: 2 x 200 rounds + 1 x 380 rounds = 780 rounds

Looks like less than a decisive advantage, to put it midly.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this either, what I like about the G55 was how long it could continue firing. Its a personal preference.

>Also the Ta152 I would ignore as being irrelevent. Only a handful (more a pinch) went into action and a Meteor would be a better aircraft.

Chauvinistic kneejerk. We're discussing armament technology, and the Ta 152H was clearly superior to the Meteor here, and battle-proven in WW2 air-to-air combat. If you mean to argue flight characterstics, performance and operational record, there are quite a few bad things to say about the WW2 Meteor, but that doesn't belong here.

Click to expand...

Chauvanistic nothing - I always liked the 4 x 20 Hispano V grouped in the nose. Maximum firepower, very good long range shooting, good rate of fire. Certainly sufficient to deal with any likely enemy. However I didn't count it as it was in small numbers.

The Mk103 is a fearsome weapon, but it does have a very slow ROF and its very heavy. If I was up against a B29 then its my weapon of choice, against a fighter thats trying to evade then the 4 x 20 Mk V would get my vote.

As an aside, I don't know how much ammo the Ta152 carried do you know?

Thanks again