Fighter guns - preference

[Hagar]

[quote]Hagar, I wasn't suggesting for a minute that the planes with the 6 x .50 cals were the ultimate 'ground attack' instrument, nor anything close. Just saying that, as welol as being highly effective in air to air combat the 6 x .50's were also of good use on the ground.

[ozzy72]

I'm with Hagar on this one, the Tempest and Typhoon were beasts in ground attack. There were no other planes to rival them, Smoke2much was recently talking to an ex-Typhoon pilot and has a wealth of stories.
The Germans did use a 40mm cannon on some planes on the Eastern Front for tank busting if I remember correctly, and they were devestating in action, but too few in number to make a significant difference.
If you want tank busting, then lets face it the A-10 is king

Ozzy

[ozzy72]

Agreed. Once again I acknowledge the Typhoon and tempest as King of the ground attack.  ;D

I was just saying that: e.g. If a fighter with 6 x .50 cal had some ammo left or couldn't find a fight in the air, there was a method that he could use to make his .50's effective in knocking a German tank (the bouncing off the road surface - I mentioned before). Whereas cannons would not be of as much use in that particular instance, with the heavy armour of the Panthers, Tigers etc.

Of course the cannon being far more powerful a weapon, packing a huge punch, would have been for more effective on other ground targets such as convoys, trains, radar etc etc. Not to mention planes on the ground.

I, for me only, just prefer the longer firing time and the greater chance of a hit with the 6 x .50's.  ;D

I look at it this way. If you get a hit with one of your, say 60 x 20mm rounds you may destroy the plane or knock it out of the fight. But the chances are far less of a hit than if you have 20 seconds and 2400 rounds of .50 cal.
Firstly there are some explosive rounds that can do damage to hydraulics, electricals, cables and surfaces. There are AP rounds that can hole engine blocks and armour and props etc.
Even though 2 or 3 or 4 of these types of hits won't knock a plane out. Gees, maybe 50 such hits might not do it, but there's a good chance the opponents plane is going to be harder to handle, lack power etc. It will loose advantages it may have and make the rest of the job far easier. This of course can be done with the higher number of rounds.
If you don't get a hit woth your 60 canon rounds, that's it. You have to go home.  ;)

That's my reasoning. At least, in Sim, I notice, if I get a few bad hits which effect the handling or power of my plane, I am nowhere near as effective. In most cases I am just easy prey for the other bloke or blokes. That's the root of my reasoning. I know it's not founded on 'real' experience, but it holds water for me.  ;D

[HawkerTempest5]

I must agree about the Typhoon being king of the mud movers, but as far as the Tempest goes, it never used rockets in anger as they caused problems with airflow over it's wing. Tempests remained in the air to air role throughout their service in WW2 (although later versions post war did carry rockets) and their ground attack capability was limited to strafing with their 4x 20mm cannons. The Tempest is most famous for it's use as an interceptor against the V-1.
After D-Day Second Tactical Air Force put many of it's fighters to use in the ground attack role. A great many Spitfires spent most of their life in support of the ground war. Mk IXe ML407, the famous Grace Spitfire, spent just about all it's life with the RAF (although it was hardly ever flown by an English Pilot!) dive bombing and strafing ground targets and is credited with the distruction of a great many loco's trucks and even a couple of tanks.

[denishc]

 Its true that during the Korean War, and even late in the Second World War, the 50 cal. MG was hard pressed to bring down a jet aircraft.  But bear in mind that jets are built more sturdy than prop aircraft.  Jets also lacked the fliud coolant system of the inline engined prop aircraft, giving jets one less vulnerable spot to be targeted.  Air combat in jets took place at higher altitudes where the oxygen is thin, this lessened the chance of fire which is the typical killer of aircraft since World War 1.
 But during the Second World War, espically against the lightly armored Japanese aircraft the 50 cal. MG excelled.
 The 50 cal. MG is such an effective weapon that it is still in use in the U.S. military, more then 60 years after it was first adopted.

[Felix/FFDS]

Interesting - I saw this on Discovery Channel last night.  Also a 'head to head'  comparison between the F-86 (6x50cal) and Mig 15 (2x23mm, 1x37mm).

In the hands of the Russian pilots, the Mig15 was deadly.  The F-86 the better "overall" of the two.

There was ia very interesting program on BBC radio a week or so ago comparing the versatility of the Spitfire with the ME109.
Regarding firepower, the ME109 with it's big cannons completely outclassed the Spitfire in inflicting the most damage.
The Spitfire was more aerobatic, of the two, providing it didn't suffer fuel starvation to it's carburettor during prolonged inverted flight or negative G manoeuvres.
The ME 109 had a fuel injected engine so didn't suffer from this problem.
Overall, both English and German pilots who tried out both planes agreed they were well matched and it was totally up to the expertise of the pilots who would survive the dog-fight... ...!

Otherwise, I know nothing about fighter planes, which is why I chuff around in my Cessna 152... ...!
LOL...!

Cheers all... ...!
Paul.
(England).

[ozzy72]

The 50 cal. MG is such an effective weapon that it is still in use in the U.S. military, more then 60 years after it was first adopted.

Well the British Special Forces are still using the same .50 cal off the back of the pinkies (110 Land Rovers). A good weapon, but sometimes a tad twitchy).

Ozzy

[Professor Brensec]

I asked earlier if it was thought that I should reveal the results of the poll, but I thaough later that it would effectively end the poll also, so I didn't bother.

Seeing as we have over 20 votes and much comment has been made (although I imagine there could well be more (as I mentioned, this is not a very well researched area of aircraft combat etc), I will reveal the result.

It seems the 6 x .50's have the thimbs up, albiet only by one vote (this may reflect the US majority on the forum, as most US planes used this combo to great effect.

However the next, and almost equally, preferred was the 4 x 20mm canon.
The 8 x .30's (although the winner in the BoB), would seem to be favoured by only one voter, I expect by some 'ever-loyal'  Bob historian...........lol
(It wouldn't seem to be Woody or Hawk, as there comments indicate another prefrerence).

Back to the discussion. I recall a comment regarding the lesser success of the 6 x .50's on the F86 against the canon on the MiG 15. The Commonwealth Aircraft Corp variant (and I believe Canadian variants) of the F86, solved this by adding canon instead og the Mg's.  ;D

[Ivan]

Well the British Special Forces are still using the same .50 cal off the back of the pinkies (110 Land Rovers). A good weapon, but sometimes a tad twitchy).

Ozzy

Arent the real pink SAS landies phased out... i've seen photos of private ones with all the weapons (disabled of course) and stuff on it driving around england

[Woodlouse2002]

Arent the real pink SAS landies phased out... i've seen photos of private ones with all the weapons (disabled of course) and stuff on it driving around england

Although the original Pink Panther land rovers are no longer used by the SAS, they still call there armed land rovers "pinkies". Although i'm sure that they use the GPMG more than the .50cal now. Simply because you can double 'em up and have a double barreled machine gun hanging off the back. Although there is also alot of other ordinance you can use instead, including M19 grenade launchers, Milan anti tank rockets and the trusty .50 cal.

[HawkerTempest5]

[quote]
Back to the discussion. I recall a comment regarding the lesser success of the 6 x .50's on the F86 against the canon on the MiG 15. The Commonwealth Aircraft Corp variant (and I believe Canadian variants) of the F86, solved this by adding canon instead og the Mg's.

[Professor Brensec]

All the reasons for the difficulty in the .50 cal being less effective on the Jets given by Denishc are quite valid.

I'm sure that the fact that a jet engine has fewer moving parts and is very simple in design and constuction than the internal combustion engine, was another reason to add, as they would be far less prone to damage causing failure.

[Smoke2much]

[quote]The 8 x .30's (although the winner in the BoB), would seem to be favoured by only one voter, I expect by some 'ever-loyal'

[Professor Brensec]

It was me!!!!

Will

I see. American and all, eh?

[Smoke2much]

[quote]

I see. American and all, eh?