Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
My take on the Browning v Hispano is the Berezin B-20 now that was how to build an aircraft cannon, as light as the Browning with approximately the same ROF and almost the Hispanos power.
And maybe half the longevity, as Shortround noted. That might've been fine for the VVS' purposes but I'd rather have a slightly heavier gun if it meant it didn't burn out in the middle of a dogfight.
There seems to be quite a bit of confusion about the American .50 cal gun/ammo and its effectiveness and efficiency, which are not the same thing.
The .50 cal Browning had a lot of things going for it and many good qualities, however many of these came with a price.
Reliability = Heavy
Durable = Heavy
High velocity = Heavy
The Russian 12.7mm machine gun may have been reliable but it was not durable. The receiver and internal action parts had a life 1/2 to 1/4 that of the Browning.
The German MG 131 was about 55% as powerful per round and could be lighter because of that. The Japanese and Italian 12.7mm machine guns were also much less powerful per round. These Axis rounds ( and the British .5 in) used lighter bullets at lower velocities. They could use shorter/lighter barrels and shorter, lighter receivers. Some of these guns could fire faster than the Browning ( and some synchronized much better) but they did not have the penetration power, the smashing power of the American and Soviet 12.7mm guns and they had longer flight times which made deflection shooting harder or shorter ranged ( or both).
The Japanese Navy and the Luftwaffe both used a rather low powered 20mm cannon at the start of the war. Measured by kinetic energy they were about 30% more powerful than the .50 but had the huge advantage of exploding shells. However the guns were slow firing, roughly 2/3rds the cycle rate of the .50 once the .50 got to 750-850rpm, had limited ammo capacity and fired their shells about 2/3rds as fast which again limits the effective range for air to air gunnery. They did weigh about the same, if not a bit lighter, than the .50 Browning though.
Both the Japanese and the Germans introduced newer, more powerful 20mm guns but they gained weight. The Hispano started heavy (designed for durability) but was the most powerful of the common airborne 20mm guns of the war.
Comparing the Hispano to the .50 cal in the air to air role means forgetting a lot of the advantages of the .50 in the ground role. At 600yds at sea level the Hispano shell arrives about 1/10 of a second behind the .50 cal bullet. It takes the .50 cal about .7 seconds to cover the 600yds. At 1000yds the difference has grown to 4/10ths of a second. The .50 does have definite advantage over the Hispano (and every other WW II 20mm aircraft gun) but it doesn't show up vs the Hispano until you are on the fringes of practical air to air ranges, the advantage does show up at more moderate ranges vs the slower 20mm types.
If the Hispano and Browning had a life of say 10,000 rds then a life of 5,000 rds is fine. How many aircraft guns wore out before the aircraft became a hole in the ground or the armourer pulled it out and replaced it. If the gun wore out during a flight then the armourer should have been reassigned to latrine duty.
Also, wasn't the 37mm cannon the USAAF's preferred weapon for bomber interceptors?
The XP-67 was designed as a long range bomber interceptor, and was to have 6 x 37mm cannon!
Gidday, Wuzak - watch the game? You almost had me eating crow over those radial engines...
No, I did not.
At the time of the Korean War the Navy F9F was using four slow firing and apparently problematic M-3 Cannon whereas the AF F-86 was using six very fast firing M-3 machine guns. My analysis on probability of hit verses effectiveness of projectile indicated that, for two to three second burst, both packages are comparable in effectiveness, with the F9F having an advantage at long ranges but the F-86 was more effective at closer combat.Doubtless the USAAF recognised its limitations in roles beyiond that in which they were typically using it, and maybe by the time of Korea they should have gone the Navy way and got the cannon right, but it certainly got the job done during WWII.
That's the shortest I think I've ever heard. Your Dad was right, that's close company. I could be mistaken about this, but I believe my Dad's Hellcat was zeroed at 300 yards.The polish pilots zeroed thier 303's to 100yds as as my father said, "you needed to get right up the Niemcy's ass!" to hope to do any lasting and immediate damage.
I can definitely believe that.When he flew Thunderbolts (and the Mustang with the 354th) he was overwhelmed by the destructive power of the .5. one of his combat reports states that a half second burst and the 190 disintegrated in front of him...!
The polish pilots zeroed thier 303's to 100yds as as my father said, "you needed to get right up the Niemcy's ass!" to hope to do any lasting and immediate damage.
When he flew Thunderbolts (and the Mustang with the 354th) he was overwhelmed by the destructive power of the .5. one of his combat reports states that a half second burst and the 190 disintegrated in front of him...!
What do the P-38 pilots say about it?
When/how did they use the 20mm vs the .50?
What results were achieved?