Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I know. That was a success because they chased away attacking Jabo's.
It rather depends on the specific timeframe within the war that we're talking about. In the summer of 1940, the .303 was absolutely a better weapon than the 50cal because the latter simply wasn't a workable weapon solution in wing-mounted installations. The significant issues with the 50cal continued until at least the middle of 1942 and, in some cases, through Q3 of that year. I absolutely agree that the 50cal offered considerable advantages during the period late-1942 thru the end of 1943 but after that point I think cannon armament was absolutely ascendant
Personally I would not say that 12.7mm machine guns are better or even close to equal to 20mm cannon. Cannon are just better at tearing apart aircraft because they can rip away the skin and structure. Cannon AP rounds also penetrate better.
However, are two 20mm with 60 rounds each better than 6 x .50s? I'm not convinced. It's a tradeoff, like everything in aircraft design. I think maybe the HMGs are better for carrier aircraft four a couple of different reasons. But it's also true that the only reason the US didn't switch over the cannon wholesale was that they couldn't figure out how to make the Hispanos work, didn't have a viable alternative design either, and ultimately figured the HMGs were "good enough."
Ok some followup.
A) I don't think this is correct because apparently a lot of Spit VB in the MTO were still using 60 round drums through the second half of 1942 and well into 1943, so I'm a little bit confused here. Can you clarify?
B) Again, a little confused because I'm showing 600 rpm, which translates to 10 rounds per seconds, so that would be 45 seconds would it not?
C) Also in the med, and in Darwin, stoppages seemed to continue to be a major problem with the Hispano 20mm.
On the Bonus question - I would agree, it seems to be that the hub mounted guns were more reliable, if not perfect.
If you think 20mm are better at destroying aircraft, and the only reason the USN didn't switch is because of the failed attempts to domestically produce the Hispano, then why would HMG's be better for carrier aircraft?
That does not compute for me. But, that is also not unusual for me
a) No figures to show for it right now but I'd agree that Spitfire Vc numbers didn't overtake Vb numbers until well into 1942.
b) Air service .50-cal Browning had a rate of fire of 700-850 rnds/min, depending on the source.
c) Stoppages rates for a particular weapon are dependent on many factors. Depending on the when, where, who and what mounting -- numbers are all over the place. eg:VIII Fighter Command Mustang .50-cals -- 550 rounds per stoppage (February 1944)VIII Fighter Command Lightning .50-cals -- 5750 rounds per stoppage (June 1944)
I cherry-picked the best and worst figures in the time frame available (Jan-July 1944) to illustrate the point, and I imagine things get more varied when you go to different locales, use different units/armament crews, different ammunition lots, etc.Things moved very fast in those days and a lot could depend on having the latest minor modification or servicing technique.
I think you summed up the love affair with the .50 cal right there.Americans are familiar with the .50 cal and all the American fighter aircraft, because we had uncles and fathers and grandfathers who flew them. Because the US army still uses the M2 HMG and many of us fired them in the service. Because we saw these fighters at airshows and in museums.
So try to give the other side the benefit of the doubt. Most of us want to transcend the cliches and learn as close as we can, what the reality was. We all grew up bathed in the propaganda of our own State and our own culture with it's biases. But we all respect the great fighters and warplanes in general for the most part. Right?
I think you summed up the love affair with the .50 cal right there.
I do not deny there was probably an over-lap period when the belt fed cannons were still somewhat unreliable, and the wing mounted M2 was MOSTLY reliable, perhaps in the 1941-42 period, that an all HMG armament could arguably be called superior. But I don't think that period lasted very long, if it existed at all
The debate here though which was started, kind of as a derail, sprang from the claim that .303 machine guns were better / more useful than the 0.5 inch. Which is just not reality during the actual war.
These "Cannon vs. Machine Gun" arguments have been done to death, and always seem to be divided on National lines. The Americans praise the M2 Browning, while everyone else prefers 20mm. I think history is quite clear as to what is the more effective air-to-air armament.
Once aircraft had the lifting capability to effectively wield auto-cannons, they generally did, and still do.
You need to understand the conversation, the British tested the .303, Vickers .5 and Browning .50 in the late 1930's, in that era, neither of the .50 Cal guns with the ammunition in service at the time gave a worthwhile advantage over the .303 to offset their increased weight, slower cyclic rate and unreliability. The British decided that instead of adopting the Browning .50 that weigh around 38kg it would be better to use the Hispano 404 at 43kgs, the USN tested both and concluded that the effect on target of the 20mm was three times that of the .50 so two Hispano's at 86kgs gave the performance of six .50's that weighed 228kgs, those weights don't include mountings heaters etc. Guns cannons and more importantly ammunition changed dramatically through out the war, the guns and ammunition in service in 1945 were very different to what was available in 1940.
Well, in theory. Have you read about the Seafire in Italy? They lost 70 Seafires from landing accidents alone at Salerno. Not so great.
I don't know why people constantly bring up the Seafires issue's, the Spitfire was never designed to be used off a carrier, given time that the FAA didn't have it's issue's could have been sorted out but there was a war to be won, what I find more interesting is no one says anything about the Corsair, it was designed as a carrier aircraft but could only land by hitting the water after crashing onto the deck and was mostly used off paved strips instead.
I am well aware, I followed the argument, and do understand quite well - but there is a bit of funneling going on here. That is what I meant by a "derail". Some counterpoints:
- What was (maybe, arguably) true in 1939 doesn't necessarily hold for 1940, 41, 42, 43 or 44
- The context of the conversation was not limited to the pre-war
- Two Hispanos with 60 rounds are just definitely not automatically better than 6 .50s with 250-300 rounds or more (or even than four .50s with 450 rounds)
- The .50 cal ammunition in use by 1941 was vastly more lethal and effective for destroying aircraft than any .30 cal ammunition
Point one, that has been explained aleready
Point two, the conversation is pre war because what guns you are going to use have to be fitted to aircraft before the war starts, not after.
Point three, In 1940 two 20mm's give you the performance of six .50's with less weight, that's a very important point considering the engine power available at the time.
Point four, more effective .50 cal ammunition was being developed in 1941 and 42 and again in 43 and finally in 44 everyone was happy with the M8 API.
Wildcats / Martlets seemed to operate just fine on CVEs, including very marginal ones and in awful conditions. I never heard of a Naval fighter with that much of a problem as 70 aircraft lost in two days (even if they eventually repaired almost half of them). I understand why they wanted to make a naval fighter out of the Spitfire, it was the best allied fighter in air to air combat for most of the war. But I don't think it was actually suitable for Naval use. Plenty of Brits and Commonwealth pilots seem to agree.
FAA Pilot Hugh Popham's view:
From "Sea Flight: The Wartime Memoirs of a Fleet Air Arm Pilot"
The Hurricane was a good aeroplane, on land, on a deck or in the air. The Spit was adequate on a runway, bad, as it turned out, on a deck, but in the air one of the most exquisite machines ever made by man. It was beautiful to look at with that knife-fine wing-section and the two sheer ellipses of its leading and trailing edges, and with that flowing line from spinner to fin. And it was beautiful to fly, light and quick on the controls, without vices. It was always said that Mitchell's wife designed the lay-out of the cockpit; whether it was true or not, it was a pretty compliment, for it was as neat as a new kitchen. Against its incomparable virtues could be set its silly little undercarriage, which was quite inadequate against the rough and tumble of deck-landing, and the long, long nose which stretched away in front of the pilot ad made him practically blind in the traditional, nose-up, deck-landing attitude. In so far as it had never been designed for a deck, it was unfair to charge the designer with these disadvantages: they were the outcome of a makeshift policy towards Fleet Air Arm aircraft which threw us on to the doubtful mercies of obsolescent R.A.F. machines, hastily modified, or on to the Americans.
FAA pilot Henry "Hank" Adlam's view:
From "On and Off the Flight Deck: Reflections of a Naval Fighter Pilot in World War II"
The Seafire, which was a normal Spitfire with the attachment of a hook for deck-landing, was in reality entirely unsuitable for Carrier operations. The narrow track of the undercarriage, its fragility and that of the whole fuselage made the Seafire unable to cope with the constant stresses of Carrier landings. The big wooden propeller constantly shattered because it had too little deck clearance. The aircraft had a very limited range, no bomb load and, with the extra weigh of the hook, was not all that much faster than the Wildcat and with lesser fire-power. The in-line engine, with the scoop-type coolers under the wings, made a successful 'ditching' in the sea difficult. But also, although a beautiful machine just to fly, it was very difficult to deck-land because of its tendency to 'float' over the wires when the engine was cut. Over the years, in the process of operating from Carriers, the Seafire seriously hurt or killed many pilots. Yet there were a few pilots of above average ability who loved the thing, despite its many faults as a Carrier aircraft.
Hello Pat303,
Don't you find it somewhat ironic then that the British were the first to use the Corsair aboard carriers when the USN had banished them to Marines and land bases?
Sounds like the RN was desperate for a good naval fighter at the time and didn't mind dealing with the Corsair's bad manners on landing.
It didn't even fit below decks on British carriers because the folded wings were too high and the first idea was to deflate tires to stow the aircraft and yet they needed it so badly they had to find a means to use this awful carrier fighter.
- Ivan.