Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
Care to elaborate what does "Yet this was use door copied" for someone whose 1st language is not English?
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
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 claimThe MGF [=MG-FF]or Oerilkon was slow, low rate of fire, and not reliable.
I will when I can find one. Read this a long time ago before the internet.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
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.
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.
What is the American proverb? Put your money where your mouth is?
Exactly my point, looking at gun and round specs do not tell the whole store thank you.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.