Shortround6
Major General
Maybe
I get all sorts of questions about starting a poll but no space to insert any text to go with the title?
I get all sorts of questions about starting a poll but no space to insert any text to go with the title?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Maybe
I get all sorts of questions about starting a poll but no space to insert any text to go with the title?
Hurricane wing shot into less than 9" at 100 yards, plus the guns were grouped into a single battery where the bullet streams of all four guns were parallel to one another and thus much more effective at much longer ranges, typically Zeroed at 250 Yards rather than the Spit's 200.
All that you just posted is irrelevant.Neither! My gun club has a 500 M / 600 Yard Range which I use regularly. ( Almost every week!) I used to be a Sniper for the ASA-SOD and I practiced at long range every week that I was not on a mission. I qualified with the M-2 and M-82, and fired thousands of rounds out of them over a 20 year period. Did you know that the standard soft lead cored 710 grain .50 Cal bullet will perforate a rigidly mounted 3/8" AR500 armor steel plate at 600 yards? I have done it more than a few times. Heck, my .300 RUM with a 180 grain Ballistic Tip will do it at 500! Either steel cored AP round from the M-2 will perforate steel armor plates the thickness of which you would not believe at ranges you will swear it could not be done. ( Like 3/4" AR 500 at 300 Meters!)
The "Average Gunnery Combat Range" in WW-I was 250'! In WW-II it was 250 yards. In Korea it was 750 yards! That means that half of all Mig kills were made at more than 750 yards! The Transonic Mig was a very much tougher bird than any fighter plane from WW-II, yet we shot down ~800 of them?
Why on earth would you think that a gun powerful enough to do that at such long range would not tear a WW-II plane to shreds?
This is all true, but not relevant. The original premise, not stated by me, was that the P-40 would have made a better option for the RAF, if they had been bought before the BoB. All I did was agree with and defend that point of view!
Negative.But compared to all the rest of the planes in this discussion, it was the only gunfighter!
Agreed!There is a new thread created to discuss the P40 in the BoB.
They tried to address the canopy issues with the "Erla Haube", starting with the G-10.I think the 109 could be improved with a better canopy giving better visibility.
Once again, if the Brits had had the foresight to order the P-40 because of the lack of fire power in eight gunned .303 RCMGs, then they would have been available in time for the battle of Britain. America was one of the first to realize that RCMGs would not cut it in the next war. We put .50s on mass produced planes starting in the 1920s. When did the RAF see the need for bigger guns? Long after the Germans had installed crappy 20s. I just bought a book about Russian aircraft and do not know the history of their weapons development, so any info will be greatly appreciated! Sincerely. But as far as I know, the RAF were the last force on the planet to get larger guns?
Yes, I agree! But once again, I did not start the P-40 argument, but certainly did contribute to it. So did others. I have a valid point to make about how to improve the Me-109.These changes would have made the Me-109 into a revolutionary combat plane, far and away better than anything that actually flew in WW-II
P-26 - 1 .30 & 1 .50 (introduced 1933)Curtis P-30, Boeing P-26? There are others with up to 37 MM Autocannons and at a time when no other Air Force that I know of has installed anything bigger than a RCMGs in a large series of planes! ( Again, I am not that familiar with Russian planes.)