What was the air to air weapon, or combination of weapons, used in WWII?

[zjtins]

Best choice is limited to all limitations, cost , production capability, power, accuracy, reliability, ammo availability, weight....
Many of the spit had 2 20mm and 4 .30 cal. The ME109 had 1 20mm and 2x 8 or 13 mm MG. The P-47 had 8 .50 Cal all others had 6 (basically).

The MGF or Oerilkon was slow, low rate of fire, and not reliable. Yet this was used or copied for most of the war until others were developed because they had it. The Brits could not move to a .50 cal cause they had no production base. They actually had a .60 cal in development just before the war but dropped it to maximize production on existing weapons for what soon came to be the BoB.
The best example of 20mm use was the FW190 4xmg151/20 (not the 2 MGFF version). That seemed to really work well.

Also later the US went to 20mm x4 or vulcan later due to range over the .50 cal. Today the US is moving the 25mm for even more range.

 

[Gixxerman]

The Mosquito combo of 4 x 20mm cannons 4 x .303 machine guns always seemed a very deadly brew to me.

 

[tomo pauk]

Best choice is limited to all limitations, cost , production capability, power, accuracy, reliability, ammo availability, weight....
Many of the spit had 2 20mm and 4 .30 cal. The ME109 had 1 20mm and 2x 8 or 13 mm MG. The P-47 had 8 .50 Cal all others had 6 (basically).

The MGF or Oerilkon was slow, low rate of fire, and not reliable. Yet this was use door copied for most of the war until others were developed because they had it. The Brits could not move to a .50 cal cause they had no production base. They actually had a .60 cal in development just before the war but dropped it to maximize production on existing for what soon came to be the BoB.
The best example of 20mm use was the FW190 4xmg151/20 (not the 2 MGFF version). That seemed to really work well.

Also later the US went to 20mm x4 or vulcan later due to range over the .50 cal. Today the US is moving the 25mm for even more range.

By 'all others' you presume some of US fighters?
The 90% of Hispano cannon RoF still does not qualify as low rate of fire. Any good data about the (I presume) MG-FF being not reliable?
Care to elaborate what does "Yet this was use door copied" for someone whose 1st language is not English?
British Vickers was selling abroad their .50in guns ammo prior the war, there was other things what made the .50 cal not that appealing for the British. For the Hispano their production base was also equal to zero pre-ww2, they geared pretty fast for that one.
Any good data about British .60 cal in development?

 

[Denniss]

Never really heard of reliability problems with MG FF or MG FF/M, at least nothing I could remember having read of.

 

[Greyman]

Care to elaborate what does "Yet this was use door copied" for someone whose 1st language is not English?

I think he meant to type 'used or copied'.

 

[tomo pauk]

Yep, Greyman, that seems to be that. So the MG-FF or Oerlikons were being "used or copied for most of the war until others were developed because they had it". That description fits to all of (not only) ww2 weaponry: one use or copy (or the other way around, plus designs, produces...) one thing until he does the same with a next, hopefully better thing.

 

[yulzari]

The British .303 Browning choice was governed by a desire to use existing huge stocks and production lines of .303" ammunition as used by the army as well. Also by a belief that future combat would only give the briefest of moments when the guns could be brought to bear. Hence the cheap choice of a sort of airborne shotgun of x8 .303". At the same time they knew their weakness against armour, heavy engine castings and self sealing fuel tanks and that these would be the coming things. The research had shown that .5" rounds could not carry effective HE so the next step up they took was to seek the introduction of 20mm cannon and the pre war specification was for a 4 cannon fighter which went into production as the Westland Whirlwind and the Bristol Beaufighter. These used 60 round drums and the RAF already knew this was a restriction and were investigating belt feed versions as the war began and these became the new norm by 1942 and allowed the single engined fighters to fit 20mm cannon into wings designed for .303".

So the RAF went through the whole issue of this thread before the Battle of Britain and found battle experience only confirmed the pre war policy of multi .303" to be superceded by 20mm.

The production advantages of the .303", both in supply and existing gun manufacturing resources, did keep the multi .303" alive into 1942 with x12 .303" machine guns going into the Hurricane II and being designed by Martin Baker for the nose of the Whirlwind. The latter being a real airborne shotgun with 20 rps giving 240 rps in a circle of fire of less than a metre across when aligned straight ahead. That could saw off a wing or fuselage even if it could not penetrate armour. Nevertheless it was only a temporary measure until the 20mm cannons could be made in enough numbers to be the standard.

Had the RAF needed to defeat heavy bombers post 1943 then I suspect we would have seen a rerun with 20mm cannon increased to x6 while the 40mm S gun was developed into a belt feed, possibly for high speed twin engined fighters or jets. Post war the threat of Soviet B29 (apologies Tu-4) heavy bombers was being met with the development of 30mm rotary cannon using German experience.

 

[J.A.W.]

British NF Mosquitos armed with 4 close grouped 20mm Hispano cannon showed they were well able to bring down heavy bombers - He 177s in the Operation Steinbok/Baby Blitz `44, sans drama, P61s were armed with those too, to good effect [ plus some had another 4 .50s in a turret].

 

[zjtins]

Sorry about the typos, I will try to clean them up before I post.
The MG FF reliability was relative to the use and other weapons (particularity the MG151/20 for comparison). The Oerlikon based weapon relied on a heavy external spring. G loading, wear, dirt, sprig quality (particularly in Japan)all caused problems, also the fed mechanism was problems initially it was only fed by drum. Attempts later took a a while to get a belt feed model reliable.

One of the reasons (not the only one) for the ME109E to switch from the twin cannon to the single cannon F models, was the gun stoppage on one side caused real problems in fighting. If reliability was not an issue then this would not have been a factor.

Some issue I have with some statements will continue as real world experience never meets with simple testing or analysis.

A 1 meter spread on the ground rapidly becomes 2,3, 4 or more in a fight. With the guns synchronized at a given distance, any deviation from that distance between two planes rapidly increase the dispersion. And since the best attack is to pounce someone (highs relative speed from behind) that affect seemed to be very significant. Loss data seems to indicate the 8x.303 were not very good, generally most of Brits aces (BoB) were getting 1 or two a day coming back low or no ammo.

Also low dispersion does not mean a hit, it means more rounds on target assuming the average is on target, the difficult part.

 

[tomo pauk]

Sorry about the typos, I will try to clean them up before I post.
The MG FF reliability was relative to the use and other weapons (particularity the MG151/20 for comparison). The Oerlikon based weapon relied on a heavy external spring. G loading, wear, dirt, sprig quality (particularly in Japan)all caused problems, also the fed mechanism was problems initially it was only fed by drum. Attempts later took a a while to get a belt feed model reliable.

One of the reasons (not the only one) for the ME109E to switch from the twin cannon to the single cannon F models, was the gun stoppage on one side caused real problems in fighting. If reliability was not an issue then this would not have been a factor.

...

I'll again ask for definitive stoppage values, or at least creditable data re. MG-FF reliability. The 'oerlikons' were designed as drum-fed weapons, stating that it took a while to convert them to belt feed have no bearing on drum-fed versions. The MG-FF was a stop gap, until the MG-151 could be worked up to be a viable weapon.

 

[zjtins]

I will try to find the references.

I'll again ask for definitive stoppage values, or at least creditable data re. MG-FF reliability

Same can be said about assuming they were equal in reliability, where's the proof?

 

[tomo pauk]

You've stated that

The MGF [=MG-FF]or Oerilkon was slow, low rate of fire, and not reliable.

Yet, despite being asked 3 times, you did not bothered to support that claim (in bold) by any means. So I'll politely ask you to post some facts that can support your claim

 

[zjtins]

You've stated that
The MGF [=MG-FF]or Oerilkon was slow, low rate of fire, and not reliable.
Yet, despite being asked 3 times, you did not bothered to support that claim (in bold) by any means. So I'll politely ask you to post some facts that can support your claim

I will when I can find one. Read this a long time ago before the internet.
And just because I can or cannot find a reference does not make the assumption they were the same any more valid.

 

[tomo pauk]

You have fired a lot of duds, apart form the 'oerlikons' having issues. Let me remind you (bolded words):

Best choice is limited to all limitations, cost , production capability, power, accuracy, reliability, ammo availability, weight....
Many of the spit had 2 20mm and 4 .30 cal. The ME109 had 1 20mm and 2x 8 or 13 mm MG. The P-47 had 8 .50 Cal all others had 6 (basically).

The MGF or Oerilkon was slow, low rate of fire, and not reliable. Yet this was used or copied for most of the war until others were developed because they had it. The Brits could not move to a .50 cal cause they had no production base. They actually had a .60 cal in development just before the war but dropped it to maximize production on existing weapons for what soon came to be the BoB.
The best example of 20mm use was the FW190 4xmg151/20 (not the 2 MGFF version). That seemed to really work well.

Also later the US went to 20mm x4 or vulcan later due to range over the .50 cal. Today the US is moving the 25mm for even more range.

What is the American proverb? Put your money where your mouth is?

Same can be said about assuming they were equal in reliability, where's the proof?

And just because I can or cannot find a reference does not make the assumption they were the same any more valid.

Who are 'they', and at that part of 'them' I was claiming anything, let alone something I cannot prove?

 

[zjtins]

They as in the two weapons.

What is the American proverb? Put your money where your mouth is?

I am merely asking for the same information you are of me. Cite some reference that shows the reliability of the two weapons are the same, otherwise that is an assumption not a fact.

 

[tomo pauk]

Okay, so 'they' means MG-FF and MG-151.
If it's not too much a problem for you, could you please quote my claim about reliability of MG-151 (especially relative to MG-FF) that I need to back up with reliable data. In the mean time I'll patiently wait for you to shed some light about the claims from post #61 of this thread.

 

[Matt308]

Easy guys. Don't let this get out of hand.

 

[zjtins]

Your claim is that you say (and keep assuming) they are the same and demanding I come up with a reference to say they are not. If you make no claim then there is no discussion, we can agree that my claim is in fact valid.

Asking someone for proof is by definition an assertion their claim is false, ergo your claim.

All things being equal my claim they were not have the same reliability is as valid as yours, until one of us comes up with a valid reference.

Problem is this came from reading a book before the internet, so I have to figure out what I read and try to find it. That's probably not going to happen immediately but I will keep trying.

 

[Glider]

I admit that I was not aware of any serious reliability issues with the 20mm FF type of weapon and believe that it was down to more than the gun. How it was mounted was as important, if not more so.

 

[zjtins]

I admit that I was not aware of any serious reliability issues with the 20mm FF type of weapon and believe that it was down to more than the gun. How it was mounted was as important, if not more so.

Exactly my point, looking at gun and round specs do not tell the whole store thank you.