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

[Shortround6]

So you read only what you want to reinforce your own opinion but refuse to read what might trigger you to change your own mind. That's called myopic thinking.

No, it means I am too lazy to wade through over 100 pages of a Forum thread to try to find what you were too lazy to pin point better. Like page numbers or reply numbers.

I have tried to give a few sources or use easily found references, It shouldn't be too hard to find the F-89 or other US fighter types on the internet.

 

[Readie]

The Browning .303in gun could be found in the vast majority of British bombers. It was used in many Frazer-Nash turrets, such as the FN-5, which was used in both the Wellington and Lancaster bombers. In contrast, the Americans used .50in machine guns in their bombers, while fighter aircraft were increasingly using 20mm cannon.

The Browning Mark II did have some important advantages. It was reliable, accurate, and available in large numbers. The longer range of the heavier guns was more useful in daylight operations, and was of little benefit at night, at least until radar assistance was available for gunners. The heavier calibre guns also used heavier ammunition – the .303 bullet weighed 0.4 oz, the .05 more than three times that much at 1.4 oz. The use of the heavier gun forced a reduction in potential bomb load, or in the amount of ammunition carried.

Ammo or bomb load?
The article makes an interesting point about night operations
Cheers
John

 

[Shortround6]

The weight difference was actual much worse. A loaded .50 round weighed about 5 times what a .303 or .30 round did.

The .50 could somethings very well but neither it or it's ammo were light in weight.

 

[CobberKane]

I think the USN/USAF perseverance with the .50 in preference to cannon armament had sound basis in logistics and the weapons effectiveness for the work at hand ; interception of aircraft up to the size of medium bombers. However, this does not mean the fifties represented the level of destructiveness of 20 mm cannon. The conclusion of the USN was that one 20mm was worth about three .50s. The navy went to cannon after the war, the airforce did not, and the armament of the F 86 in Korea has often been cited as a weakness.
The .50 was/is an excellent weapon, but there is a reason heavy machine guns largely disappeared from fighters after the war. Explosive cannon shells were almost universaly seen as the way to go.

 

[Shortround6]

The other thing with the US .50 was it was about the heaviest .50 cal/12.7-13mm MG in service. The Russian 12.7 which more powerful and fired faster was lighter. ALL the rest of the common 12.7-13mm guns were much less powerful and except for the Italian guns, much lighter.
The later American planes had the engine power to lug the .50 battery and ammo around. Some of the more common American fighters in 1942 can lay some of their poor performance at the .50 cal door ( or the insistence on using SIX guns)

 

[zjtins]

Which runs contrary to the conclusions of both armament experts of the period - of all nations - and present day experts.

I keep hearing this mantra but no combat data to support it. Like I said before you can analysis the round or gun by themselves but a round cant fly. A 30mm minegeshoss beats all on paper but the ROF and MV limited the value. Ralls comment was he thought he could watch the B-17 fly between the rounds when he shot.

I added just 1 link of many German aircraft being shot down in under 1/2 sec of fire. I see no comment on how a 20mm setup would have markedly improved on that. I see no real discussion as to why US did not switch to a 3 times better weapon. At that rate 2x20mm = 6x.50 call so the fighters would only have to carry 2x20mm and been lighter for it. So explain that, why not change? Somewhere this 20mm setup being so much better argument falls apart. Again the .50's were good enough (.5 sec burst = fight down) and the US had a production base.

 

[Glider]

Your entire case seems to depend on films. You ignore any research and rely on your own reading. You also ignore the fact that the films only show the aircraft that got away. When asked for evidence you just post references back to the films.
If the evidence of the war was based on films, Germany won the war hands down as they had the best film propaganda

Re this comment added just 1 link of many German aircraft being shot down in under 1/2 sec of fire. I see no comment on how a 20mm setup would have markedly improved on that. You ignore the evidence of the Spitfire written off by four hits in non critical areas, four hits that with a 0.5 would have done nothing.

and this So explain that, why not change? Somewhere this 20mm setup being so much better argument falls apart you know the reply, the 1942 US 20mm guns and their ammunition were very unreliable, that for the USAAF the 6/8 x HMG were good enough but were not good enough for the USN. You ignore the fact that the USN were very keen for the 20mm.

and this A 30mm minegeshoss beats all on paper but the ROF and MV limited the value you ignore the fact that the Mk 108 had the same ROF as the 20mm Hispano II (10 rps) and was very similar to the 0.50 HMG (13 rps)

You say it was range but produce nothing to support it. You ignore the fact that 20mm were mainly fitted on NF's who fight at close range. You ignore the written views of the fighter conference which debated this very point from both USN and USAAF.

 

[zjtins]

Re this comment added just 1 link of many German aircraft being shot down in under 1/2 sec of fire. I see no comment on how a 20mm setup would have markedly improved on that. You ignore the evidence of the Spitfire written off by four hits in non critical areas, four hits that with a 0.5 would have done nothing.

So 1 picture of spit is worth more than dozens of fighter shot down???

You ignore the fact that the USN were very keen for the 20mm.

They were so keen they built almost 20,000 aircraft with 20mmm as front line fighters. Whats your point. Mine is the .50 cal setup was sufficient. I might to the point where an alternative was not a priority until after the war. A classic example or wartime priority would be fixing our non exploding torpedoes. That received top priority once the head guy got out of the way and pentagon finally believed the numbers. It was solved in short order then. The 20mm never got this attention. So the NAVY being keen deos not translate into planes shot down, combat performance. Being keen is not a combat result.

and this A 30mm minegeshoss beats all on paper but the ROF and MV limited the value you ignore the fact that the Mk 108 had the same ROF as the 20mm Hispano II (10 rps) and was very similar to the 0.50 HMG (13 rps)

I am lost on your point here, I did not ignore anything here, my point is shell size alone does not translate into better combat performance. a larger slower shell with limiting ROF = not a very effective weapon system. Basically that was Ralls opinion, loved the ME262 did not think much of the 4x30mm.

You say it was range but produce nothing to support it. You ignore the fact that 20mm were mainly fitted on NF's who fight at close range. You ignore the written views of the fighter conference which debated this very point from both USN and USAAF.

Hence they only used it on night fighter= short range... my point thanks

 

[zjtins]

You also ignore the fact that the films only show the aircraft that got away

No I see them and also see they are not taking hit near center mass. You don hit something is does not matter what round you are using. An yes I have seen 20mm hits on wings and tail and fuselages. Again Bob Johnsons book show many 20mm hits and the planes still came home.

 

[Glider]

So 1 picture of spit is worth more than dozens of fighter shot down???

Yes, as it proves that the 0.5 had to hit a critical area wereas the 20mm didn't. Something you do not deny

I might to the point where an alternative was not a priority until after the war.

For the USN it was a priority during the war

So the NAVY being keen deos not translate into planes shot down, combat performance. Being keen is not a combat result.

Being keen is wanting a better combat result because you need a better combat result.

I am lost on your point here, I did not ignore anything here, my point is shell size alone does not translate into better combat performance. a larger slower shell with limiting ROF = not a very effective weapon system. Basically that was Ralls opinion, loved the ME262 did not think much of the 4x30mm.

The point is simple the 30mm mk 108 had a very good ROF, it did have a slower shell with less range but it had a good rate of fire. Also at the normal combat ranges in air to air in ww2 the range was good enough

Hence they only used it on night fighter= short range... my point thanks

At least you agree that it wasn't because the USN wanted the 20mm for long range. By the way, where was your evidence for that claim I never did get it, or was it because you never had any evidence in the first place, so why did you make the claim?

PS they needed the 20mm on night fighters so they could get a one pass kill. All night fighters were heavily armed for the same reason

 

[zjtins]

Yes, as it proves that the 0.5 had to hit a critical area were as the 20mm didn't. Something you do not deny

but a film with many plane shot down by .50 call does not?????


How many spits were shot down in the same area? other wise the critical ares is meaningless.

Actually if he got home it was a fine, as pilots were the limiting factor not planes.

 

[zjtins]

For the USN it was a priority during the war

who cares? they did not arm their fighter with 20mm till korea.

 

[zjtins]

Being keen is wanting a better combat result because you need a better combat result.

Shooting down the enemy proves all, the .50 cal did, being keen did nothing.

 

[zjtins]

The point is simple the 30mm mk 108 had a very good ROF, it did have a slower shell with less range but it had a good rate of fire. Also at the normal combat ranges in air to air in ww2 the range was good enough

except RALL did not think so nor do the statistics prove it out (from various sources, prove me wrong)
for heavy bomber losses
ME-163 9-16 claimed
ME-262 500 claimed
on d-day the Germans had around 400 fighters on the western front.
The first use off the MK108 was in Sept 1943 on a ME110-G2
Could not find the data but by the time any twin engine model were built in sufficient numbers the fighter coverage for the US destroyed them before they had a chance.

Also could not find the data: around 2500 fighter aircraft (minus me262) were used on the western front between d-day the end. Claims were around 2500 heavy bombers. Around 600 mk108 conversions appear to have been made (that is a tough number to come up with, if anyone has a better number please be my guest).

So roughly a MK108 and non Mk108 had about the same success.

3 notes, the mk108 came out (in numbers) when air superiority was way lost. The largest use of the mk108 (me262) had a major speed advantage to all other MK-108 platforms (prop, I discounted the me-163 due to low numbers) , around 1200 me262 built only ~400 flew due to lack of fuel or engines

so roughly speaking the fighter with MK108 had the same kill rate as those without. And the fighters with

 

[Shortround6]

who cares? they did not arm their fighter with 20mm till korea.

False.

 

[Matt308]

Hey guys I'm seeing that some snarky comments are popping up. Please keep it civil.

 

[zjtins]

Yes, as it proves that the 0.5 had to hit a critical area whereas the 20mm didn't. Something you do not deny

Exactly that's why 6x in the wings were generally needed in the case of the P-47 eight preferred. But this is not a round discussion but a plane armament discussion. More guns more rounds. Hence a a preference for 4 x20mm not 2.

 

[Njaco]

In addition to what Matt stated, keep your comments to one post. These multiple posts are spam and trashing the thread. It actually helps with a better comment if you have to take the time to complete one post.

 

[parsifal]

The reliability issue does raise a question for me that I know virtually nothing about. How did the 20mm, in its most common guises (Brit, Russian, German Japanese and US) compare in terms of relaiability (resistance to jams) to the 50 cal. We used 50 cals on the back of our patrol vessels, and their relaiability was legendary. They never gave us problems. How did they compare to the various types of 20mm weapon? why was the US early attempts at a 20mm weapon given such a poor report as to relaiability. was it htat bad, or were the Americans simply too entrenched at the time in their belief in the M2.

 

[Shortround6]

It has been gone over many times.

Basically the .50 Browning was more reliable than the either the Hispano or Oerlikon guns. One question is how many or what rate of stoppage is acceptable. one stoppage per gun every 3-5 flights on which the ammo bins are totally emptied or do you NEED 5-7 flights or????

The Americans screwed up in two ways.
1. They classified the 20mm as a cannon and not as a small arm or machine-gun. In US ordnance terms this meant that there was a bigger + / - tolerance allowed on the parts than would be allowed on a Machine gun's parts. This took quite a while to sort out.
2. They were working from original French drawings. The chamber was a bit longer than it should have been and this lead to light primer strikes. The British had already shortened the the chamber and got much better reliability but for some reason the US Ordnance dept refused to listen.
US 20mm ammunition manufacturers were not happy as production batches of ammo would fail in US guns and yet work fine in a British gun.

There is also the question of greased or wax coated ammunition.

See: Modifications and Attempts at Standardization