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

Jabberwocky · May 3, 2013

zjtins said:
The P51 always had 6 not 4 MG.

Well, except for the 900 P-51/Mk 1s AND the 1500 P-51As AND the 3750 P-51B/C AND the 850 Mk IIIs then yes all P-51s had six M2s

zjtins · May 3, 2013

Well, except for the 900 P-51/Mk 1s AND the 1500 P-51As AND the 3750 P-51B/C AND the 850 Mk IIIs then yes all P-51s had six M2s
And how many were in Air-Air combat.

Fine not all, most, a large number, the most popular model, 11,000 whatever you want.

Now I expect you to chastise Glider just as hard since he said they all normally had 4 MG in the first place.

zjtins · May 3, 2013

Minus 1578 Allison powered P51's they were undoubtedly used as ground attack. So 10,116 H/K models, 3738 B/C Rolls Royce powered. A 2.70 ratio for 6 guns I do not see how that is considered normally 4 MG

Glider · May 3, 2013

zjtins said:
Fine not all, most, a large number, the most popular model, 11,000 whatever you want.

Now I expect you to chastise Glider just as hard since he said they all normally had 4 MG in the first place.

Jabber and I are fine. We recognise what matters isn't how many but when the aircraft were introduced. By the time the P51D came into service most of the Me109 had 1 x 30mm and 2 x HMG.

PS you do know the difference between a P51D, a P51K and a P51H don't you?

CobberKane · May 3, 2013

zjtins said:
The MG131 was underpowered vs the Browning.
If you want pure efficiency then a.22 would look really good... but no on used it. For that matter the .30 probably look very efficient.

Efficiency is only one factor, it not effective then its moot.

Efficiency as discussed here is a function of mass AND firepower, so irrespective of the light weight of your hypothetical .22 mg, it would never be éfficient' because it's obvious lack of firepower would totally hobble it.

Njaco · May 3, 2013

zjtins, keep your posts to one post. I don't know why that is so hard to understand.

Aozora · May 3, 2013

zjtins said:
Minus 1578 Allison powered P51's they were undoubtedly used as ground attack. So 10,116 H/K models, 3738 B/C Rolls Royce powered. A 2.70 ratio for 6 guns I do not see how that is considered normally 4 MG

Assuming that no Allison engine P-51s engaged in aerial combat...

CobberKane · May 4, 2013

Aozora said:
Assuming that no Allison engine P-51s engaged in aerial combat...

And they did, of course, in the Pacific and the ETO. According to "Clash of Wings" at least one Apache pilot became an ace.

zjtins · May 6, 2013

And they did, of course, in the Pacific and the ETO. According to "Clash of Wings" at least one Apache pilot became an ace.

So 4 x50 cal was good enough

Shortround6 · May 6, 2013

Apaches had SIX .50 cal guns. Two in the fuselage and two in EACH wing.

zjtins · May 6, 2013

Apaches had SIX .50 cal guns. Two in the fuselage and two in EACH wing.

Ok so you are backing my arguement thanks.

Glider · May 6, 2013

zjtins said:
Ok so you are backing my arguement thanks.

Priceless

If you follow this logic

.

So 4 x50 cal was good enough

because one apache pilot made an ace then

4 x LMG in a light medium bomber is good enough, as one pilot made ace flying Marylands

zjtins · May 7, 2013

More info Declassified in 1973 it is test data from 1952, 20mm vs new 20mm vs .50 all AP.

tomo pauk · May 7, 2013

Thanks for the table. It shows nicely indeed how the 20mm would pierce the armor plates with 500-900 ft/sec less speed than .50.

CobberKane · May 7, 2013

There seems to be a bit of a fan base out there for the 4x50 cal arrangement. I'd suggest that it was adequate against fighters in the ETO, going on the results of pilots flying the P-51 B and C, but the progression to 6xHMG in the D models indicates that there was a recognised need for more firepower. That said, I believe many pilots kept the extra guns in reserve and didn't use them until the inboard four had run dry anyway.
In other threads there have been opinions that 4xHMG should have been sufficient for knocking down heavy bombers, which still seems far fetched to me. But the USAAF and USN were never faced with that task, which I suspect was major factor in their retention of the .50 as the weapon of choice on their single engine fighters.

zjtins · May 8, 2013

View attachment 232921 View attachment 232922 View attachment 232921 View attachment 232922

Thanks for the table. It shows nicely indeed how the 20mm would pierce the armor plates with 500-900 ft/sec less speed than .50.

But that is not the whole story, look at the right column which include angles (from the second to last column). The numbers are quite even. Now take that and rate or fire for an aircraft and the numbers swing in favor of more .50s than less 20mm gun on an A/C.

Separate issue also found this from Knight of the Skies Knights of the Skies: Armour Protection for British Fighting Aeroplanes Michael C Fox, p133
of interest
1 it was done at 600 yards which later they knew was not what a fighter should strive for
2. in section V they state no point in using the .50 cal.. However nowhere does it even mention it being tested. If this were the basis of 20mm vs .50 choice they never even tested the .50 cal based on an assumption.

tomo pauk · May 8, 2013

zjtins said:
...
But that is not the whole story, look at the right column which include angles (from the second to last column). The numbers are quite even. Now take that and rate or fire for an aircraft and the numbers swing in favor of more .50s than less 20mm gun on an A/C.
...

Maybe you should take a long good look at the table - the angled steel plates are the 1st (1/2in face hardened plate, inclined at 30 deg) and second one (3/4in Homogeneous plate, inclined at 30 deg). The 'old' 20mm comfortably outscores (= needs much less velocity to pierce) the .50 there, as it does when hitting the 1in Homogeneous plate.
You can also note that they did not bothered with .50 to pierce the 1-1/4 in Homogenous plate.

zjtins · May 9, 2013

How many planes in WWII and Korea carried 1 1/4" of armor? None I know of. Most armor seems to be around 9-15mm or around the .5 inch plates.
My point is these tests do not show the 20mm AP as 2x or 3x better than .50 cal API. Am I saying they correlates directly to planes being shot down.... no. But its does support the notion that a slower rate (or aircraft rate of fire) with what appears only a slightly more capable round is not 3x better than a greater rate (or aircraft rate) with a slightly less capable round. Again this ignores HE vs AP also but we don't seem to have data on what actually brought planes for mixed ammo types.

Shortround6 · May 9, 2013

"slightly more capable round" ?

ROFLMAO

I guess the .50 Browning was a slightly more capable round than the .30-06 too

zjtins · May 10, 2013

Glad your are laughing
Just found ADA800394. May 1947 Airplane Vulnerability and Overall Armament Effectiveness

Will take a while to pull the info into .png's but one figure shows:

Compares Armament for Multiple Attack Fixed gun fighter (limited to 1000 lbs of guns and ammo 100 rounds typical) - Time required for 50% probability of a kill of a B-25 at 500 Yards.

And to take out both engines and pilots.

time in sec for 50% probability
.50 APIT M2 3.2sec
.50 API ME 2.2sec
20mm INC M2 1.8sec
20mm HEI M2 4.0sec
20mm INC M3 1.6sec
30mm HE MK108 0.4sec
30mm HE MK103 1.3sec
37mm HE M10 2.2sec
37mm HE M9 4.7sec
75MM 4.1 sec

not sure of what the 20mm INC means it's photocopied to PDF so I cant search.

more to come

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

Staff Sergeant

Banned

Banned

Captain

Banned

The Pop-Tart Whisperer

Staff Sergeant

Banned

Banned

Major General

Banned

Captain

Banned

Attachments

Creator of Interesting Threads

Banned

Banned

Creator of Interesting Threads

Banned

Major General

Banned

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads