In regards to RAF types the armor, bullet proof windscreen, aerials, rear view mirror all had an effect on performance, but they were willing to accept the loss for an increase in pilot survival, the most important element.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
In regards to RAF types the armor, bullet proof windscreen, aerials, rear view mirror all had an effect on performance, but they were willing to accept the loss for an increase in pilot survival, the most important element.What effect might armor have on a fighter's performance?
Manufacturing issue?,
That's well past it's effective range, the ammunition industry in Australia had a rocky start so probably a combination of all the above?.Potentially a combination of things. On further digging through some guns/ammunition sites, there are offhand mentions of a wobble or spinning characteristic for the G Mk II at ranges beyond about 550-600 yards. It might be that the round was unstable once a certain amount of tracer had burnt off and poor manufacturing may have exacerbated an existing problem.
Just to be clear, the question of which bomber was the most redundant has been settled - and it is the B-24?
I never said they didn't?, the British even designed a ''daytime'' tracer for the .50, the G Mark IIz
Because you have more tracers going out, twice the number of guns firing twice as fast. There's no ''best'' defensive guns .303's or .50's when the Luftwaffe are shooting 20-30mm cannons at you.Then why are you touting it as an advantage for the .303? Americans could walk their rounds in too.
And British tanks.7.92mm is the same 8x57 cartridge used in mauser rifles.
Bf109E-3 had the wing mounted MG/FF and a MG/FF motorkannone, though the motorkannone was often removed by the crews.no built variant of the Emil had the motorkannone
E-3, E-4, E-7 had the wings cannon (around 58% of E new fighter production)
E-1&E-8 only the MG, some were upgraded with the 2cm gun in the wings
the other built variant were recce (afair just with the nose MG)
Again provide sources that back up your assertions. You are painting yourself as an expert. Do tell.You cited a document from the end of the war, Feb 1945, the war started in 1939 so what do they do in the 5 year gap?, you also stated an opinion from Harris that .50's should be fitted which is then refuted by your own evidence that it would cause CoG problems, the British never got the .50 until the lend lease agreement was activated in mid 1941 long after the war had started and planes had been designed, you also haven't explained how your going to fix the sighting issue for the years 1939-44 after you remove tracer rounds. Let's be clear I'm not saying the .303 is better than the .50, what I'm saying is you need to take into account the timeline of when different weapons could have been issued and the issues involved, the .50 was not a reliable air weapon until mid war, both the guns themselves and it's ammunition.
Finally! We agree on something!Because you have more tracers going out, twice the number of guns firing twice as fast. There's no ''best'' defensive guns .303's or .50's when the Luftwaffe are shooting 20-30mm cannons at you.
You mean it was not the P-39?
No you're wrongBf109E-3 had the wing mounted MG/FF and a MG/FF motorkannone, though the motorkannone was often removed by the crews.
But the fact remains that it was built and introduced that way.
You mean it was not the P-39?
It's good to see others taking their turn.It's ALWAYS the P-39 because that aircraft ALWAYS exceeded every other aircraft in EVERYTHING important in air combat.
See? I can drink the Koolaid too!
It's good to see others taking their turn.
So it was the B-24 then ?
A personal view I admit. Harris was the chief of Bomber Command and was in a position to get what he wanted. Yes it was important that he had the .50 not the .303 but there were priorities. Improved Navigation was probably the first priority and a vast amount of resources was poured into getting that sorted, which it was. Improving the performance of the bombers was probably second, it not an equal priority. Again vast resources was spent on this. The Manchester became the Lancaster, the Halifax I and II became the III, The Sterling was developed and then dropped for good reason. If the 0.5 had been a top priority it would have been sorted earlier, but it wasn't, it was further down the priority list.So why then was the Chief of Bomber Command so insistent on getting 50 caliber rear turret then? I guess he wasn't as knowledgeable on this subject as as you? And at night here was less urgency? I presume you think that Bomber crews found solace that there was less urgency?
The salvation of daylight operations was fighter cover, not the GM250.
I give up! Where is Flyboy when I need him!