Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Wildcat mentioned also had some pilots successful run it with 4x.50 (they dropped 1 in each wing) to get more aerobatic. They consider this successful a the time for the targets they were fighting.
That's a function of aircraft size. More airframe to shoot away. But it's not tougher. Any projectile that will harm Me-109 wing will also harm a B-29 wing.takes a lot more .50 cal hits to saw a wing off a B-17 or B-29 than a G4M Betty or a Me 109.
My premise is that AP and HE cannot be directly compared. Just because someone converts the units of energy to some pseudo equivalent does not mean that perform the same damage in actual combat.
AP is intended to penetrate a hard target On an aircraft this is the engine (s) and Armor plate (mainly)
HE is intended cause pressure wave to push metal aside until it deforms. The amount of deformation may or may not be considered critical damage.
I simply the concept because in combat it is much more difficult to get an effectiveness measure.
A .50cal hole in a wing was generally considered repairable, not a significant performance degradation. (same for .30). A .50 CAL AP ruins engines and goes through armor plate (to possibly hit the Pilot) with a high probability. You all can quote tables on test better then I on their capabilities.
20mm HE blows holes in AL skin, maybe affecting the performance significantly. But at least American fighters took damage returned to base and even shot down there opponents with damage.
I am not Implying the .50cal was better or worse than the 20mm. I submit the .50cal setup and 20mm setup varied with various results but was acceptable for the limitations and conditions of WWII.
That's a function of aircraft size. More airframe to shoot away. But it's not tougher. Any projectile that will harm Me-109 wing will also harm a B-29 wing.
A ground hog and a deer or even a moose are made of the same materials. Are you thinking it is reasonable to hunt them all with the same gun?
I figure the tougher critter is the one that will most likely take more damage before falling down.
Again it was simply to show that individual case can go either way. I am more interested in the big picture of the decisions made a their affect, hence the .50cal setup vs 20mm setup not just round energy (to which it is a part).I would hazard a guess not more then a couple aircraft survived a direct 88mm or 90mm hit during the entire war. And they survived because the projectile failed to explode and failed to hit anything solid while making an 88mm hole in the fuselage or wing.
Mod comment on the snarky reply?
I can come back with many pics of P-47's and B-17's with up to multiple 88mm hits and say if an 88mm cant kill it then how can a 20mm?.
If you refuse to acknowledge certain types of damage that was done by the 20mm rounds it gets very hard to access their damage potential.