Smokey Stover
Banned
The Allied aircraft designers believed that the 50 (.5) caliber and the 20mm were satisfactory weapons. They were capable of taking down aircraft, fighters, heavy bombers as well as dealing with a lot of ground installations.
The Allied forces preferred weapon systems that were jack of all trades; and they preference standardization over optimization. The Germans on the other hand preferred weapons that were highly specialized. They developed heavier guns to deal with enemy tanks. They even tried it out on enemy bombers with mixed results. But those same heavily armed aircraft were slow, and vulnerable to enemy fighters. Almost every model and manufacturer from Browning, to Hispano to Oerlikon all had problems either reliability or rate of fire/load capacity. It all depended on what a fighters armament was designed to be used against. Ie: Other fighters, bombers, tanks, shipping or ground targets. I remember reading one B-25 Mitchell pilot's account of the 75mm gun performance and they hated it. There was one time they actually managed to hit a small ship with it and it spectacularly exploded. But they decided not to report that the 75mm scored the kill in case the higher brass decided to give them more heavily armed aircraft. The same was said about the Mosquito's 57mm molins gun. A 6 round capacity is hardly efficient for any aircraft. And one of the reasons the British didnt go above 20mm weapons in fighters was simply down to weight/flight characteristics being rapidly reduced. Some aircraft like the US 37mm airacobra and the Russian 23mm and 37mm guns werre for specific targets, and not so much other fighters.
We all agree the purpose of the gun is to damage the target, right? So when your considering the answer to such a question, you have to consider what the weapon is firing at, regardless of what the weapon is carried on. For the majority of the war, Allied fighters with MGs were rarely shooting at bombers, ships or other armored targets. They were aiming at the other sides' fighters. These rarely required big shells to damage. And the goal was to cause damage, rendering the target unable to perform its mission, not necessarily to blow it up every time. Same reasoning applies to naval guns. Destroyers were never intended to fight battleships so no 16″ main guns. There's also other factors such as the number of rounds carried, fewer if bigger, and the speed of the target, requiring more shots to hit it. Most of the cannons of the day fired so slowly that is was very hard to hit high speed targets. Notice how the later in the war, the bigger the guns became. The Axis nations were more concerned with shooting down bombers, which of course are bigger, slower and harder to bring down. I think the Brits went from their .303 to cannons because they never seemed to have that big machine gun round.
If you consider planes designed to attack ground targets or ships, the cannon get bigger or you see a switch to rockets, which can carry a much bigger payload, usually explosive. Their targets were not moving, slow moving and/or resistant to bullets. But a plane might only carry 8 rockets due to space and weight. And lack of guidance. The Russian guns you mention were primarily meant to shoot German armor as I recall. The .50 cal. Browning was probably close to perfect for attacking other planes or lightly armored targets. Groups of these bad boys were mounted on twin engine bombers in the Pacific and were able to blow holes through the sides of Japanese destroyers. It was still used in US interceptors into Korea. Same effects when mounted on vehicles. The .30 cal was the infantry support weapon because it was meant to shoot men. A .50 was overkill. And heavy.
To sum up: A successful weapon design is rarely a case of building it you because you can but building it to damage a certain type of target well. If it can be used in multiple roles, even better.
The Allied forces preferred weapon systems that were jack of all trades; and they preference standardization over optimization. The Germans on the other hand preferred weapons that were highly specialized. They developed heavier guns to deal with enemy tanks. They even tried it out on enemy bombers with mixed results. But those same heavily armed aircraft were slow, and vulnerable to enemy fighters. Almost every model and manufacturer from Browning, to Hispano to Oerlikon all had problems either reliability or rate of fire/load capacity. It all depended on what a fighters armament was designed to be used against. Ie: Other fighters, bombers, tanks, shipping or ground targets. I remember reading one B-25 Mitchell pilot's account of the 75mm gun performance and they hated it. There was one time they actually managed to hit a small ship with it and it spectacularly exploded. But they decided not to report that the 75mm scored the kill in case the higher brass decided to give them more heavily armed aircraft. The same was said about the Mosquito's 57mm molins gun. A 6 round capacity is hardly efficient for any aircraft. And one of the reasons the British didnt go above 20mm weapons in fighters was simply down to weight/flight characteristics being rapidly reduced. Some aircraft like the US 37mm airacobra and the Russian 23mm and 37mm guns werre for specific targets, and not so much other fighters.
We all agree the purpose of the gun is to damage the target, right? So when your considering the answer to such a question, you have to consider what the weapon is firing at, regardless of what the weapon is carried on. For the majority of the war, Allied fighters with MGs were rarely shooting at bombers, ships or other armored targets. They were aiming at the other sides' fighters. These rarely required big shells to damage. And the goal was to cause damage, rendering the target unable to perform its mission, not necessarily to blow it up every time. Same reasoning applies to naval guns. Destroyers were never intended to fight battleships so no 16″ main guns. There's also other factors such as the number of rounds carried, fewer if bigger, and the speed of the target, requiring more shots to hit it. Most of the cannons of the day fired so slowly that is was very hard to hit high speed targets. Notice how the later in the war, the bigger the guns became. The Axis nations were more concerned with shooting down bombers, which of course are bigger, slower and harder to bring down. I think the Brits went from their .303 to cannons because they never seemed to have that big machine gun round.
If you consider planes designed to attack ground targets or ships, the cannon get bigger or you see a switch to rockets, which can carry a much bigger payload, usually explosive. Their targets were not moving, slow moving and/or resistant to bullets. But a plane might only carry 8 rockets due to space and weight. And lack of guidance. The Russian guns you mention were primarily meant to shoot German armor as I recall. The .50 cal. Browning was probably close to perfect for attacking other planes or lightly armored targets. Groups of these bad boys were mounted on twin engine bombers in the Pacific and were able to blow holes through the sides of Japanese destroyers. It was still used in US interceptors into Korea. Same effects when mounted on vehicles. The .30 cal was the infantry support weapon because it was meant to shoot men. A .50 was overkill. And heavy.
To sum up: A successful weapon design is rarely a case of building it you because you can but building it to damage a certain type of target well. If it can be used in multiple roles, even better.