Your armament?

[Glider]

If he could catch it with that lot. The 30mm Aden would do it.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Im sure a Fw-190 would catch it.

 

[Glider]

Carrying 2 Vulcans and an Aden?. Even money on the recoil taking the wings off.

 

[carpenoctem1689]

Does anyone put thought into ammo carriage on the fighters designed to carry these? mini guns fire FAST, and the ammo supply normally carried would be depleted very, very quickly, making the design effective for about three seconds until the ammo is gone.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

miniguns were suggested for use on american bombers that normally carried several tons of ammo- rate of fire's not a problem!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Not true. As he said a mini gun is out of ammo after seconds of sustained fire. You would have to have a hell of of a lot of ammo and it is not like feeding a belt of 7.62 into a machine gun. It takes time to reload.

 

[plan_D]

I'll put an ejection seat in my Fw-190D-9 ...just in case the Vulcans do rip the wings off.

 

[carpenoctem1689]

and if you look at my post you would have seen the magical word of fightes, i realise bombers could carry more ammo than a fighter, and were a better potential mount, but still somewhat unrealistic, due to the fact it doesnt do any good to knock one plane down quickly but be out of ammo, id rather have slower firing weapons, while less effective, just as ranged, powerful, and have a longer firing life.

 

[MacArther]

ooo, what about 40mm automatic grenade launchers (like the ones used on US Humvee roofs and the like)

 

[carpenoctem1689]

what about them? the arc fromt he 40mm shell would be too hard to aim at a fighter, incoming on the bomber, and wouldnt be able to be easily aimed at bombers, and wouldnt be able to carry whole lot of ammunition. Yes if the 40mm shell hit the bomber, it would most likely go down with just one hit, but i think the idea infeasible.

 

[Erich]

why not just go with the WW 2: 5cm Bk 5 cannon ?

well proven on ZG Me 410's when the silly thing would not jam. personally you really do not need anything bigger than 2cm quick firing weapons to do the job

 

[Glider]

Or even the 57 on the Mossie. They did manage to shoot down an 88 with it.

 

[carpenoctem1689]

I agree with the arguement about rapid fire 2cm weapons. you dont need something bigger, the 2cm could shoot far, and had a good punch, and was rapid firing. The best all around gun/weapon available for use against bombers and fighters. 3cm and even 5cm id suggest for special anti-bomber, inetercept squadrons id set up, but those would of limited use against anything but slow, unescorted bombers, so they could take aim.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

and if you look at my post you would have seen the magical word of fightes, i realise bombers could carry more ammo than a fighter, and were a better potential mount, but still somewhat unrealistic, due to the fact it doesnt do any good to knock one plane down quickly but be out of ammo, id rather have slower firing weapons, while less effective, just as ranged, powerful, and have a longer firing life.

And if you look at my post it was not meant for yours! I was meaning my post for Lancs about how he said rates of fire were not a problem.

ooo, what about 40mm automatic grenade launchers (like the ones used on US Humvee roofs and the like)

Would not work, the Mark 19 lobs its rounds more than it shoots them in a straight distance. You could never really aim the Mark 19 and accuratly hit an aircraft in flight. It is really fun to shoot though. We have some in our unit, too bad thought that I can not mount one in my helicopter for ground supression fire!

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Yes i would have put my guns on the inner part of the wing nearest the fuesalge because it allowed good ammo carriage, and a more concentrated cone of fire, without having all of the guns mounted right in the nose, which i really dont like, i prefer a balanced distribution to be honest. It also made it so that the aircraft didnt need any blisters on the wings, and it improved roll rate.

Very good points there carpenoctem.

Cheers for the info Parmigiano.

Also thanks to Lunatic for the B20 info, I was thinking it would be a Yank 20mm for some reason!

The DShK was also better than the M2HB, wonder if they were similar?

However I do believe that a .50 would be ideal as a defensive weapon on a bomber. The 0.50 was accurate at long range a fact which I think everyone will agree to

.

Yes also wouldn't be as heavy and hard to aim as a minigun or 20mm, I'd have the B20 or DShK there.

I wonder though there if a single short-barreled Hispano or even Mk108 would be good for fighters that came in tooo close?


On the miniguns thing, they would require less firing time to down an aircraft, so using the same ammo?

Or even the 57 on the Mossie. They did manage to shoot down an 88 with it.

Nice bit of info there Glider! 8)

I agree with the arguement about rapid fire 2cm weapons. you dont need something bigger, the 2cm could shoot far, and had a good punch, and was rapid firing.

Yes against all ground/air targets, it's either that or the .50 B20.

bad thought that I can not mount one in my helicopter for ground supression fire!

Well, you could try?...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeah I wish.

 

[MacArther]

DerAdlerIstGelandet, do you know (off subject slightly) if your country still uses the F-105(/6) or the F4 Phantom? If so, I think I might be joining your airforce!!!

 

[plan_D]

Adler is in the U.S Army ...

 

[MacArther]

DOH!! my bad big time!!!

 

[Nonskimmer]

About five squadrons in the German Luftwaffe fly the F-4F.