Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The one thing the the 303 Browning did in 1939 was work as did it's ammunition, it took many years to get the .50 cal Browning and various 20mm's to the same level of reliability, as for lasting very long, if I was fighting against A6M's I'd happily take the eight MG's, four with AP four with De Wilde all zeroed at 200m.I know they had some trouble with the cannon, but i also know the cannon worked, which is why basically every nation except the US switched over to 20mm cannon on every fighter. As 'superlative' as the eight (lmg) gun armament was supposed to be, it didn't last too long in the world of fighter design
I've read some rubbish in my time but this takes the cake, every country, EVERY country, even Japan fitted protection to their aircraft after the experienced and realisation of what an actually shooting war is like, often to the detriment of the aircraft's performance yet you think it's exaggerated?.Pilot armor and self sealing fuel tanks were good to have, but their importance is sometimes exaggerated.
Read the operational histories.
One notes that it was the Whitley that was chosen for early bombing of Italy from UK bases.To be fair, the Mosquito was both a fighter as well as a fast bomber and the Beaufighter was .... a fighter. The G4M was a medium bombers, not a small, fast bomber.
If you want to compare it with something, compare it to Whitleys, Wellingtons, Bostons, B-25s, and B-26s.
G4M: 266 mph. 1941. 2200 pounds bombs. 21000 pound airplane. 1770 mile range. 3130 mile ferry. Cruise 196 mph.
Whitley: 230 mph. 1937. 7000 pounds bombs. 33500 pounds airplane. 1650 mile range. 2400 mile ferry. Cruise 210 mph.
Wellington: 235 mph. 1938. 4500 pounds bombs. 28500 pound airplane. 2550 mile range. Cruise 195 mph.
Boston: 317 mph. 1941. 4000 pounds bombs. 24000 pound airplane. 945 mile range. 2300 mile ferry. Cruise 280 mph.
B-25: 272 mph. 1941. 3000 pounds bombs. 35000 pound airplane. 1350 mile range. Cruise 230 mph.
B-26: 278 mph. 1941. 4000 pounds bombs. 37000 pound airplane. 1150 mile range. 2850 mile ferry. Cruise 216 mph.
I seriously doubt any could haul the max bomb load and also go the max range. In any airplane, you trade payload for fuel.
So, as far as speed goes, the G4M is faster than a Whitely or a Wellington, about the same as a B-25 and the B-26 has a small speed advantage, but not enough to matter. NONE of them cruised at maximum speed, so I'm not sure why comparing maximum speeds is even relevant. The G4M cruised about like the bottom of the class, which wasn't all THAT much slower than the middle of the class. Only the B-25 and A-20 were significantly faster at cruise.
It serves to highlight the A-20, which is the fastest in the list and hauls a good payload.
The G4M doesn't seem to carry as much weight as the others, but it has a better standard range than all but the Wellington. They seem to have used it mostly as an attack airplane and not a medium bomber, going for specific tactical targets. All in all, the G4M is not especially impressive, but it also isn't too far behind the field if you are using it for tactical purposes. It is easily the lightest of the medium bombers above by a ton and a half.
Everything was a percentage.My point is that the Allied planes were vulnerable too. The pilot armor also didn't always work, the rubber lined fuel tanks didn't always prevent fires. The Hurricane and Spitfire still had an unprotected (except for aluminum 'armor') fuel tank in front of the pilot as late as 1943.
Pilot armor and self sealing fuel tanks were good to have, but their importance is sometimes exaggerated. Read the operational histories. Zeros didn't burst into flames every time they were hit. Hurricanes and P-40s and P-39s were not immune to 20mm cannon fire. Their radiators did get punctured, yes sometimes by a single small caliber bullet, and that did result in planes going down. These are just facts.
And even that is way too far, same with the idea that you aim for a certain part of the aircraft, the most vulnerable part, where's the radiator in this photo?.300yds.
View attachment 727490
View attachment 727491View attachment 727495
Do you think the pilots of these Spitfires think pilot protection is overrated?.
Everything was a percentage.
Nothing worked 100% of the time.
Nothing failed 100% of the time.
Probability of kill goes through several stages.
Ph X Pd = Pk
Ph = probability of hit.
Pd = probability of damage.
Pk = probability of kill.
Both Ph and Pd have a number of components.
For Ph they can include (but not limited to)
number of rounds fired per engagement, this can be broken up several ways, like rounds per sec or rounds per burst or......
Pilot skill, accuracy of aim,,,which can depend on the sighting system used among others.
Range, which is flight time of projectiles.
target aspect
size of the target.
Speed of the target. like how much lead is needed and this goes back to range and target aspect.
Once you actually have hits on target we can discuss damage and this varies depending on the target aircraft in addition to the projectiles.
Most aircraft fired a mix of ammo. Most aircraft did NOT fire all the same types of ammo.
For the Germans with their 'mine' shells it was often about 40% (2 out of 5) mine shells in the drum or belt.
British often used 50/50 mix of HE and AP (or semi AP) for their 20mm guns.
For the importance of aiming and target aspect and rate of fire, in a hypothetical situation where a plane is flying 300mph at 90 degrees to a fixed gun that is firing at 600rpm the bullets will land 44ft apart on the aircraft, or 22ft apart from a gun firing at 1200rpm. At 45 degrees the bullets are closer together, if the gun traverses the hits can be much closer together.
The problem with combat reports is that tell you what happened but not why in regards to gunnery.
Range is unknown or guessed at or some something like "fired a burst at long range, closed the range and fired another burst, observed hits on fuselage " Which actually tells us nothing about the actual distances or wither pilot Bob and pilot Sam have the same meaning for long range and medium range. Also does not give any idea of rounds fired, 2 second burst or 3 second or 4 seconds. Most of the time the hits that are visible are tracers or incendiary (for the Germans 7.9mm explosive rounds) that give a visual indication. AP and ball don't give much of an indication which is why they used the indicator rounds. Problem is that at long range the indicatory rounds often don't hit where the non indicator rounds do.
It takes a lot of analysis of gun camera footage and ground testing to figure out what was happening. Like British figuring out that pilots were sometimes opening fire at 3 times the estimated distance. 900 yds instead of 300yds.
I've read some rubbish in my time but this takes the cake, every country, EVERY country, even Japan fitted protection to their aircraft after the experienced and realisation of what an actually shooting war is like, often to the detriment of the aircraft's performance yet you think it's exaggerated?.
None of the pilots they "lost" were saved. That's why they were called "lost." The ones who got shot down and survived are not listed as lost and that's why there is a difference between the number of planes shot down and the number pilots lost ... it's the guys who survived.Thanks for the primer on ballistics. I've shot machine guns on the range before.
I think the difficulties in hitting moving targets is why many pilots shot from closer than 300 yards. But we know that the British lost over 1,500 aircraft during the Battle of Britain, including more than 1000 fighters. So somebody was getting hit. And I think it is a safe bet that these were not all shot down by 7.92 mm machine guns, nor did the armor save everyone in those planes. The Germans lost even more of course (1887) though a smaller percentage of these were fighters (650 Bf 109 and 223 Bf 110).
The British lost 1500 pilots and aircrew during the BoB, including 544 fighter pilots. I'm sure some of them were saved by armor and SS tanks, but obviously that alone did not prevent dying in combat.
And of course, it is worth noting that both Hurricane and Spitfire were converted to cannon ammunition as quickly as possible in spite of the not trivial challenges, especially for the Spitfire. Right? Or did I miss something?
Approximately half those shot down survived, but some were injured while many were not shot down but landed with injuries. Fitting of SS tanks and armour was an absolute requirement although you can read on this forum that the British just used it to get out of the P-39 contract. The Spitfire and Hurricane started carrying cannon in late 1940, what was th standard armament of a US P-40 in late 1940?Thanks for the primer on ballistics. I've shot machine guns on the range before.
I think the difficulties in hitting moving targets is why many pilots shot from closer than 300 yards. But we know that the British lost over 1,500 aircraft during the Battle of Britain, including more than 1000 fighters. So somebody was getting hit. And I think it is a safe bet that these were not all shot down by 7.92 mm machine guns, nor did the armor save everyone in those planes. The Germans lost even more of course (1887) though a smaller percentage of these were fighters (650 Bf 109 and 223 Bf 110).
The British lost 1500 pilots and aircrew during the BoB, including 544 fighter pilots. I'm sure some of them were saved by armor and SS tanks, but obviously that alone did not prevent dying in combat.
And of course, it is worth noting that both Hurricane and Spitfire were converted to cannon ammunition as quickly as possible in spite of the not trivial challenges, especially for the Spitfire. Right? Or did I miss something?
Everything was a percentage.
Nothing worked 100% of the time.
Nothing failed 100% of the time.
Probability of kill goes through several stages.
Ph X Pd = Pk
Ph = probability of hit.
Pd = probability of damage.
Pk = probability of kill.
Both Ph and Pd have a number of components.
For Ph they can include (but not limited to)
number of rounds fired per engagement, this can be broken up several ways, like rounds per sec or rounds per burst or......
Pilot skill, accuracy of aim,,,which can depend on the sighting system used among others.
Range, which is flight time of projectiles.
target aspect
size of the target.
Speed of the target. like how much lead is needed and this goes back to range and target aspect.
Once you actually have hits on target we can discuss damage and this varies depending on the target aircraft in addition to the projectiles.
Most aircraft fired a mix of ammo. Most aircraft did NOT fire all the same types of ammo.
For the Germans with their 'mine' shells it was often about 40% (2 out of 5) mine shells in the drum or belt.
British often used 50/50 mix of HE and AP (or semi AP) for their 20mm guns.
For the importance of aiming and target aspect and rate of fire, in a hypothetical situation where a plane is flying 300mph at 90 degrees to a fixed gun that is firing at 600rpm the bullets will land 44ft apart on the aircraft, or 22ft apart from a gun firing at 1200rpm. At 45 degrees the bullets are closer together, if the gun traverses the hits can be much closer together.
The problem with combat reports is that tell you what happened but not why in regards to gunnery.
Range is unknown or guessed at or some something like "fired a burst at long range, closed the range and fired another burst, observed hits on fuselage " Which actually tells us nothing about the actual distances or wither pilot Bob and pilot Sam have the same meaning for long range and medium range. Also does not give any idea of rounds fired, 2 second burst or 3 second or 4 seconds. Most of the time the hits that are visible are tracers or incendiary (for the Germans 7.9mm explosive rounds) that give a visual indication. AP and ball don't give much of an indication which is why they used the indicator rounds. Problem is that at long range the indicatory rounds often don't hit where the non indicator rounds do.
It takes a lot of analysis of gun camera footage and ground testing to figure out what was happening. Like British figuring out that pilots were sometimes opening fire at 3 times the estimated distance. 900 yds instead of 300yds.
None of the pilots they "lost" were saved. That's why they were called "lost." The ones who got shot down and survived are not listed as lost and that's why there is a difference between the number of planes shot down and the number pilots lost ... it's the guys who survived.
But, I'm pretty sure you know that.
Approximately half those shot down survived, but some were injured while many were not shot down but landed with injuries. Fitting of SS tanks and armour was an absolute requirement although you can read on this forum that the British just used it to get out of the P-39 contract. The Spitfire and Hurricane started carrying cannon in late 1940, what was th standard armament of a US P-40 in late 1940?
You bring up a good point of why didn't we, in this case, utilize 20mm. I would personally rather have more rounds/ longer trigger time than much less rounds of higher efficacy. Also, it seems to me we had more fighter on fighter combat than fighter on bomber leading me to think that the old .50 was more than enough.One good question - would a P-40 or say, a Wldcat have been better with two 20mm cannon and maybe two 12.7mm guns? I think maybe yeah. Would the P-39 have been better with just a 20mm gun instead of the 37? Well, if you had a reliable 20mm gun then yes. We know that some of them did have 20mm guns in fact though in US service these had a variety of other problems (like the wrong fittings for oxygen etc.)
Apologies for mentioning the aircraft that shall not be named.
You allude to the P-400, but there were also similar P-39D-1s. Pilots tended to prefer the 20mm over the 37mm, especially for air combat. It was more reliable, and the trajectory was closer to the .50 cals.One good question - would a P-40 or say, a Wldcat have been better with two 20mm cannon and maybe two 12.7mm guns? I think maybe yeah. Would the P-39 have been better with just a 20mm gun instead of the 37? Well, if you had a reliable 20mm gun then yes. We know that some of them did have 20mm guns in fact though in US service these had a variety of other problems (like the wrong fittings for oxygen etc.)
Apologies for mentioning the aircraft that shall not be named.
You bring up a good point of why didn't we, in this case, utilize 20mm. I would personally rather have more rounds/ longer trigger time than much less rounds of higher efficacy. Also, it seems to me we had more fighter on fighter combat than fighter on bomber leading me to think that the old .50 was more than enough.
Oddly, the XP-51F or G, if chosen as an interceptor, would likely have had 4x20mm cannons. Why the US couldn't get the HS404 to work until the AN/M3 and M24 (basically post war) is beyond me. The British fixed the problems with jamming (mostly due to not being entirely suited to wing mounting and weak primer strikes due to a poorly dimensioned chamber) fairly early on. They also developed a pretty compact belt feed system instead of using the Chatelleralt "drum" belt feed adapter, though that wasn't widely used until after the war.
IMO, give me a P-51 or F-82 with 4x20mm Hispano Mk Vs (which the AN/M3 and M24 were based on, though the M24 I've read did use electrically primed ammo) with 150+rpg, and I'd be happy.