the lancaster kicks ass said:
so you're saying that against "soft targets, possibly designed to withstand MGs, you would rather have 6x.50cals than 4x20mm cannon??
There were few targets designed to withstand heavy machine gun fire, short of tanks. The .50 M8 API round could penetrate 19 mm of steel plate at 200 meters, making anything upto and including a German halftrack extremely vulnerable. Most targets that could not be destroyed by .50 fire could not be destroyed with 20 mm's either!
Again, very few single engine fighters could successfully mount 4x20mm Hispano's. I'd certainly rather have 6 x .50's with 2000 rounds than 2 x 20mm Hispano II's with 240 rounds, and even probably over four Hispano's with 420 rounds (as on the Spit IXc with 4 guns mounted).
Realistically, the appropratiate comparsions are the P-51 vs. the Spitfire, which means only two 20mm's, or the P-47 vs. the Typhoon or Tempest, which means 8 x .50's. For ground attack, unless the targets are very hard, I think 3200 rounds of .50's are more effective than ~600 rounds of 20mm.
Now, if we are looking at the Corsair, with 928 rounds of 20mm, that is a harder choice.
=S=
Lunatic