oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
I believe that was due to a lucky hit with a small bomb amidst the destroyer's depth charges. I don't think the HMGs played a role, but perhaps they did.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
At Wake in Dec 41
Juha
There's nothing to wait about here
...Yep, I figured that!
and I'm not challenging the LW study on what it would take to bring down an allied bomber.
...Oh - when you said "based on loose statistics" you actually intended an endorsement of the the Luftwaffes methodology.
My point is 4 .50 cal are deadly if placed in the right spot regardless of the aircraft.
... You also said that 4x .50s were adequate for tackling heavy bombers. you included the qualification: '... providing the pilot knew arial gunnery skills' but I thought the LW had a pretty good reputation in that area, even while they were looking for ways to upgun and well before the US escort fighters really started to diminish the standard of their average pilot
I guess we're just talking gunnery skills....
...Not sure I understand, but if you mean the LF study was indicative only of the average pilots ability to bring down the bomber once he was in firing range, for sure. Not much relevence to navigation, take-off and landing etc.
Well its been fun guys, and it would seem we have all settled into our camps. I'm going to claim a solid points decision for the affirmatives on the grounds of evidence offerered, as opposed to speculation, but good luck to you if you want to stick to your (inadequate) guns. (Extra points for wit, there!) And perchance anyone does come up with pilots accounts of fighters with similar or less firepower encountering B-17s (MC202 or Bf109F, maybe?), please stick it up.
...Yep, I figured that!
and I'm not challenging the LW study on what it would take to bring down an allied bomber.
...Oh - when you said "based on loose statistics" you actually intended an endorsement of the the Luftwaffes methodology.
My point is 4 .50 cal are deadly if placed in the right spot regardless of the aircraft.
... You also said that 4x .50s were adequate for tackling heavy bombers. you included the qualification: '... providing the pilot knew arial gunnery skills' but I thought the LW had a pretty good reputation in that area, even while they were looking for ways to upgun and well before the US escort fighters really started to diminish the standard of their average pilot
You're making reference to a pilot's ability with regards to gunnery - there's a lot more to flying than gunnery. I'll be more than happy to explain some of those aspects....I guess we're just talking gunnery skills....
...Not sure I understand, but if you mean the LF study was indicative only of the average pilots ability to bring down the bomber once he was in firing range, for sure. Not much relevence to navigation, take-off and landing etc.
Well its been fun guys, and it would seem we have all settled into our camps. I'm going to claim a solid points decision for the affirmatives on the grounds of evidence offerered, as opposed to speculation, but good luck to you if you want to stick to your (inadequate) guns. (Extra points for wit, there!) And perchance anyone does come up with pilots accounts of fighters with similar or less firepower encountering B-17s (MC202 or Bf109F, maybe?), please stick it up.
Regarding the effectivenes of 4x.50s - depends on what you're using them for! Good on Zeros, average on 109s, badly inadequate on heavy bombers (bear in mind that the Fw200 was pretty lightly built, and Brown knocked down his two by targetting the cockpit).
Go ahead. Make my day.If I may cut in:
Aw, now, it very well can destroy a B-17. Disable or disrupt would be more likely, though, I'm sure.Posted by VBF-13
CobberKane, had you ever seen gun film of a Wildcat catching a Zero in its sweet spot? There's nothing left of that Zero. Just pieces flying everywhere. That quick.
Great. The paper mache plane gets caught in a burst of HMG bulets and his fuel tank explodes. Hence that's the proof that BMG can destroy B-17 class of target?
Concentrate. A "land fighter" is a fighter that's deployed to targets on land. Yeah, like a bridge. Good example.Posted by VBF-13
Now, I understand where you're coming from. For one, you're relying on a presumption. Let me just address that, here. That is, because the Luftwaffe fighters charged with intercepting those Allied bombers was more heavily armed than quad 50s, that's evidence the latter was inadequate armament as against those Allied bombers. Do you know what you're not thinking of? You're not thinking of the fact that the Luftwaffe fighters had other roles than scattering when Allied bombers were overhead. One such role, their original and indeed their most familiar role, was blitzkrieg. Those aircraft were designed as land fighters just as the Zeros were designed as land fighters.
Now what is a 'land fighter'? MAybe a fighter that is to destroy tanks, trucks, artillery pieces? If that's the definition, and Bf-109 and Zero fit there - I happen to sell the Brooklyn bridge for the fair price, care to buy?
OK, so I'm not accustomed to fact-checking in Wikipedia, and I got the Claudes in China mixed up with the Zeroes. Big deal. We were discussing the Luftwaffe fighters and the point I was trying to make was that those were deployed in Poland on land targets well before they were put to the task of taking on those Allied bombers. You'll excuse my lapse of memory on the caliber of those nose guns, too, I'm sure.Posted by VBF-13
And, look at the armament on the Zeroes, a 20mm cannon on the nose. A 20mm cannon could take down a building.
Both sentences are flaty wrong. Zero's cannons were in the wings, while the building the 20mm can take down, in any practical terms, need to be constructed of wood or canvas, not from a proper material.
I never said they were "off duty." I said, rather, "off that duty," referencing the bomber duty. Again, it pays to concentrate.Posted by VBF-13
If the Japanese didn't see a necessity to "down-arm" the Zeroes for carrier duty, why would one expect the Germans to see a necessity to "down-arm" their fighters for bomber duty? It could very well be, in other words, those fighters just so happened to be so equipped by the time they were put to that bomber duty. When they were off that duty, they hardly sat around in the hangars. They were deployed otherwise, over land.
Axis fighers were rarely, if ever, off duty. They were, for the most of WW2, contested with superior number of Allied planes, and their job was to kill those.
Sure there is. Common sense. Four .50s on sight will tear a big hole in any bomber. But there are other ways short of that they could take those down, as well.Posted by VBF-13
There's no question the Luftwaffe fighters were more heavily armed. Maybe they had too much? That could be, too. Regardless, that's hardly evidence the 50s were inadequate for the job, I'm saying.
And there is evidence that 50s were adequate for heavy bomber busting? Plenty of opinions here, let alone the ones easily proved wrong.
The LW was looking for more effective ways to bring down as many bombers as possible. I think that was pretty obvious with some of the weapons they came up with outside conventional armament
You're making reference to a pilot's ability with regards to gunnery - there's a lot more to flying than gunnery. I'll be more than happy to explain some of those aspects....
Your original post that started all this...
If that isn't speculation, I don't know what is (especially if you're basing this on the FW 200)
I would like to ask what was the record of the early B-17s (pre "E" model) against the Japanese in 1941/early 1942?
It may be too small an example to draw a valid conclusion from but I think there was more going on in shooting down B-17s than just the size/number of the attackers guns.
And who's heavy bombers? US? German? Who would be firing .50 calbers at what aircraft?Flyboy, I made a statement that 4x.50 were ineffective against heavy bombers. You asked for evidence and I gave it, drawing on the conclusions (not opinions) of the Luftwaffe. and the USN.
You're assuming that..You called that evidence "loose statistics", but when I asked if you rejected the findings of the Luftwaffe you said no. When I asked if you actually did believe that 4x .50's werre sufficient for tackling heavy bombers you said yes, if the pilot could shoot, thereby apparently excluding the luftwaffe from that catagory.
You made a statement about the amount of effectiveness .50 calibers would be against a -109. I'm saying even based on the information you cited, that would be impossible...You gave no evidence to support your opinions and agreed that you had none. Now, you refer back to my original statement that four .50s are inadequate for tackling heavy bombers and say "If that isn't speculation, I don't know what is". Ergo, the Luftwaffes studies are once more back in the trash can. No evidence to support your views, no evidence to contradict mine, no consistency.
It has been fun, but at this point please don't piss me off...It's been fun, but honestly - don't take up debating.
F/Lt Stanley Huppert and P/O John Christie,flying a Mosquito N.F. XIII,MM456,coded RA-D,of 410 Squadron shot down a Heinkel 177 A-3 (6N+AK of 2./KG 100) in the early hours of Wednesday19th April 1944.
To do this they used their four 20mm cannon.
They expended 110 rounds of A.P.I. and 111 rounds of H.E. ammunition. "Many" strikes were seen,initially on the port wing and engine,then tearing away sections of the airframe.
We'll never know how many of the 221 rounds fired hit the big Heinkel but I very much doubt that the same result would have been achieved with a similar burst from four 0.5" machine guns.
Steve
I didn't see that Luftwaffe study but if it concluded 20s were more effective firepower than .50s I'll bet I could pick anybody off the street who could add two and two together and they could have told them that. That's not evidence .50s are ineffective against bombers, however. It's simply evidence 20s are more effective.Posted by CobberKane
You gave no evidence to support your opinions and agreed that you had none. Now, you refer back to my original statement that four .50s are inadequate for tackling heavy bombers and say "If that isn't speculation, I don't know what is". Ergo, the Luftwaffes studies are once more back in the trash can. No evidence to support your views, no evidence to contradict mine, no consistency.
You made a statement about the amount of effectiveness .50 calibers would be against a -109. I'm saying even based on the information you cited, that would be impossible...
At least he didn't call you "incoherent." If I might observe, some debating-style that is...Posted by CobberKane
It's been fun, but honestly - don't take up debating.
It has been fun, but at this point please don't piss me off...
I didn't see that Luftwaffe study but if it concluded 20s were more effective firepower than .50s I'll bet I could pick anybody off the street who could add two and two together and they could have told them that. That's not evidence .50s are ineffective against bombers, however. It's simply evidence 20s are more effective.
At least he didn't call you "incoherent." If I might observe, some debating-style that is...
BINGO!I didn't see that Luftwaffe study but if it concluded 20s were more effective firepower than .50s I'll bet I could pick anybody off the street who could add two and two together and they could have told them that. That's not evidence .50s are ineffective against bombers, however. It's simply evidence 20s are more effective.
At least he didn't call you "incoherent." If I might observe, some debating-style that is...
CobberKane, I think I just picked a bad day to stop sniffing model glue. At any rate, thanks. And I can see the Luftwaffe wanting to go with everything they got in terms of their fighters to protect their cities--definitely. FWIW, you never had a debate from me on whether 20s were more effective than .50s, only on whether .50s had the capacity to take down bombers, as well. Perhaps I should have said that from the outset, but I just didn't think of it at the time.
Hey, you know how it is.
Surely...No worries. But don't call me Shirley...