Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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
Glider, I hope you did not misunderstand my post when I said the US fighters were mostly longer ranged. I was not talking about the armament but about the fact that the fighters were able to go longer distances. I fail to understand why the critics of the US fifty cal armed fighters, which shot down many many EA in all theaters of the war, can't admit that the longer firing times, compared to cannon armed AC, were a substantial advantage. The early P51s carried 125 rounds of 20 mm ammo for each gun which gave them a firing time of 12.5 seconds. The P51s with 50 cals carried enough ammo for 20 seconds of firing time. If I am in a bomber I would surely feel better that my escort fighters were carrying ammo for more firing time rather than less, especially when the 50 cals had proven to be very effective against enemy fighters.
You have a source for this ?
...
I have always said that my personal choice would be the Fiat G55 3 x 20mm with 240 RPG in the wings and a massive 400 rounds for the centreline 20mm.
...
In Dean's book, upon close reading he makes an interesting point or two. Some of the US fighters with all wing guns had the guns synchronised in a box pattern instead of a converging at one point pattern. Another observation was that the gun sight had to be set to allign with a certain flight condition since the pitch angle of the fighter varied with speed and altitude. Some average condition, such as, say, the pitch attitude for two thirds maximum speed at a medium altitude, might be selected.
In Dean's book, upon close reading he makes an interesting point or two. Some of the US fighters with all wing guns had the guns synchronised in a box pattern instead of a converging at one point pattern. Another observation was that the gun sight had to be set to allign with a certain flight condition since the pitch angle of the fighter varied with speed and altitude. Some average condition, such as, say, the pitch attitude for two thirds maximum speed at a medium altitude, might be selected.
I would guess that there was a SOP in a given squadron for gun convergence patterns until a pilot got a reputation and could individualise his choice.
in short? In WW2 the 6x .50 where good enough to shoot down a fighter. But you would need about 2-3 seconds worth of shooting, which wasn't a problem late war wath less trained opponents. The main reason germans developed bigger guns was to make killing easier. 2 rounds of 30mm would bring a heavie down, I recon 1 round of 30mm would bring a fighter down. The experten of germany would have had enough with a few rounds the novices recuired more.
I personally think the 20mm was the optimum size gun for WW2. Ok rate of fire (600rpm+ ) and hard hititng power (specially the Mine-shells).
Getting back on topic, if the pilots where equal in talent and knew their aircraft limitations the one with the 1st shot would have probably won, same as it was in WW2 and Korea. The aircraft both have it's strong points and it's weaknesses. There is no clear winner.