davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Of course fast firing (6*1200rpm M3 .50 cal) light caliber armament would be expected to wing but not knock down more a/c than a slower firing heavier caliber armament even if it was equally effective. The question would be how many. I don't view the descriptions in the book I mentioned as the end of this story but rather IMO the .50 cal v MiG issue really needs more data to nail it down.
Joe
I agree with you. Lots of talk about Mig 15s landing with bullet holes, but how many F-86s landed without them. In other words how many were fired upon but were missed. In a one second burst the F-86 will fire 120 rounds, the Mig 15 will fire 34. So, considering the muzzle velocity of the 50 cal is about 30% higher than the opposing projectile, thus easier to aim, there is almost four times the probability of a strike for an equal firing time for the F-86. We don't know what the probability of kill given a strike for either weapon so we guess. The Navy says the 20 mm was 2.5 times more damaging than the 50 cal, if that relates directly to a probability of a kill, then I would say the f-86 was more effectively armed. Complexing the issue is the vulnerability of different sections of the aircraft. A single 50 cal bullet through the engine section of the Mig would almost assuredly incapacitate the aircraft as would a 23 mm. However, one or two 23 mm could take off a wing whereas a good number of 50 cals would be required.
An interesting side note is that the F-86 had about 14 seconds of ammunition, the Mig had about 6 second, according to wikipedia data.