If the US built Hispano-Suiza HS.404 had been successful...
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
It did show up in a few bombers But the early versions worked best with a support fairly well out the barrel. After all the gun ws designed to be mounted like this
It took a while to get versions that could be mounted in turrets even after switching to belt feed.
It took a while to get versions that could be mounted in turrets even after switching to belt feed.
It was supposed to form the bulk of single and quadruple mounts made in Canada (2,600 single mounts, 1,000 quadruple mounts - 6,600 guns ordered).
Fortunately the requirement evaporated with the Luftwaffe in 1944 so the fact that the American Hispanos weren't exactly satisfactory didn't effect things too much.
Fortunately the requirement evaporated with the Luftwaffe in 1944 so the fact that the American Hispanos weren't exactly satisfactory didn't effect things too much.
- Thread starter
- #4
The M45 Quadmount (.50 caliber M2 Brownings) was introduced in 1943.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M45_Quadmount
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
The Avro Lincoln used a top turret with a pair of Hispanos.
It is a big turret and still most of the gun/s are outside.
Israeli twin 20mm mount (modified US quad .50 cal mount)
Note the pipes and brackets to provide support well out on the barrel of the 20mm guns.
It is a big turret and still most of the gun/s are outside.
Israeli twin 20mm mount (modified US quad .50 cal mount)
Note the pipes and brackets to provide support well out on the barrel of the 20mm guns.
Given that the usually solid 0.5 inch round seems to lack an effective self destruct facility I have a feeling the 0.5 browning would have been less popular with the US Army if it had of been tasked with use over the US civil population itself. From memory German 20mm rounds self destructed after 3.8 seconds.
For AAA the western allies gravitated towards a modified Oerlikon canon. The modification was a more powerful cartridge which increased velocity at the expense of cadence. The "Oerlikon" is often regarded as a Swiss design but it is a derivative of the German WW1 Becker canon. After WW1 German companies developed ways of parking their technology, patents and earning a little money by using shelf companies in neutrals or reaching licence agreements and taking shares etc.
Companies such as Bofors, Oerlikon benefited from this.
The Oerlikon was recoil operated instead of gas operated and so a much lower fire rate than the Hispano. It was however relatively light, reliable and easy to maintain. Equipped in a twin or double mount, with a 60 round magazine gave it long firing times before the need to reload, it was well loved because it could be easily installed in many locations on a ship (or elsewhere), with a little shield. It could operate independently of power (though I presume the gyro site might need power). The US Navy reckoned that the 40mm boffors destroyed 40% of targets and the Oerlikon also 40% (which gives you an idea of how close the enemy could get).
The German quad 2.0cm C38 canon, the famous "vierling" was a very powerful weapon that could fire continuously but it might take 7 men to fully man it.
These quad Hispano's look like they have a big magazine, at least 60 perhaps 100 round. I would imagine that they were rather heavy and hard to change. The German vierling used only 40 round clips but they were quick and easy to change with alternative pairs of guns allowing more or less continuous fire.
For single guns with light manning I would judge the bigger magazines more useful.
These Hispano mounts all look like heavy power driven mounts for us with RPC (remote power control) rather than being manually trained. If that complexity is the case why not use the longer ranged 40mm bofors?
For AAA the western allies gravitated towards a modified Oerlikon canon. The modification was a more powerful cartridge which increased velocity at the expense of cadence. The "Oerlikon" is often regarded as a Swiss design but it is a derivative of the German WW1 Becker canon. After WW1 German companies developed ways of parking their technology, patents and earning a little money by using shelf companies in neutrals or reaching licence agreements and taking shares etc.
Companies such as Bofors, Oerlikon benefited from this.
The Oerlikon was recoil operated instead of gas operated and so a much lower fire rate than the Hispano. It was however relatively light, reliable and easy to maintain. Equipped in a twin or double mount, with a 60 round magazine gave it long firing times before the need to reload, it was well loved because it could be easily installed in many locations on a ship (or elsewhere), with a little shield. It could operate independently of power (though I presume the gyro site might need power). The US Navy reckoned that the 40mm boffors destroyed 40% of targets and the Oerlikon also 40% (which gives you an idea of how close the enemy could get).
The German quad 2.0cm C38 canon, the famous "vierling" was a very powerful weapon that could fire continuously but it might take 7 men to fully man it.
These quad Hispano's look like they have a big magazine, at least 60 perhaps 100 round. I would imagine that they were rather heavy and hard to change. The German vierling used only 40 round clips but they were quick and easy to change with alternative pairs of guns allowing more or less continuous fire.
For single guns with light manning I would judge the bigger magazines more useful.
These Hispano mounts all look like heavy power driven mounts for us with RPC (remote power control) rather than being manually trained. If that complexity is the case why not use the longer ranged 40mm bofors?
Last edited:
I'm sure the quad Hispano was still lighter, more 'agile' and threw out a better wall of lead. Less range and 'stopping' power though. I'm sure it would have had its place if the Luftwaffe was still a factor.
British 20mm ammunition wasn't self destroying either, and was certainly a cause for concern.
British 20mm ammunition wasn't self destroying either, and was certainly a cause for concern.
- Thread starter
- #8
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Still odd the US didn't develop the browning beyond .50 cal ... the basic design seemed to scale up well enough to 20-37 mm caliber in Japanese practice, but I haven't even seen any mention of attempted adaptations of such in the US. (Browning did design the M4 37 mm cannon used in the P-39, but that wasn't related -and performed much worse than the .30/.50 BMG based 37 mm gun)
Same could be said for the becker/oerlikon derived guns though, Japan developed those further than anyone else bothered to as well. (that and noone bothered to adopt the FFL other than the IJN ... just FFF or some attempts at the heavier FFS -those early attempts with the spitfire and hurricane using FFS cannons probably would have fared better with FFLs)
Same could be said for the becker/oerlikon derived guns though, Japan developed those further than anyone else bothered to as well. (that and noone bothered to adopt the FFL other than the IJN ... just FFF or some attempts at the heavier FFS -those early attempts with the spitfire and hurricane using FFS cannons probably would have fared better with FFLs)
Shortround6
Major General
No.
The Ground forces preferred the Oerlikon as did the Navy/s. It may have required less maintenance. Since the projectiles were in many instances the same there is no difference in target effect. MV was almost identical between Allied Oerlikon and the Hispano. British preferred the Polsten gun (developed by Polish engineers) as it was much cheaper to manufacture.
BTW the German 20mm flak guns used 20 round magazines, not 40. Confusion comes in because they were carried in a box that held two magazines.
