Fighter guns - preference

[ozzy72]

Further to my wanderings through the armaments of different Fighters and countries. I have included the main choices of the major players in the air battles of WWII.
Obviously the 8 x .50's of the P47 are preferable to the 6 on most other US fighters, but having the 8 included would totally negate the inclusion of the more standard 6, which no-one would vote for given the opportunity for 8.
The same story applies to 4 x .50's and 2 x 20 mm cannon (also used in only one plane, I think). Much preferable to the 6 x .50's or the 2 x 50's & 2 x 20 mm cannon, but the latter two would not be chosen by anyone (or few) given the choice of the former.

Besides, the rarity of the two choices (8 x 50 OR 4 x 50 & 2 x 20mm) I don't believe constitutes the 'usual' choices open to those that would decide these things from '39 - '45.

So which of the above would you consider your best bet, when taking into account the usual limitations that were placed on the number of rounds that could be carried because of room available for each gun etc.

I know some will say "it depends if you're dog fighting or ground attacking etc" - good point!  ;D  But they're Fighters, so we'll stick to air combat (against other Fighters or maybe Fighter/bombers).
You can use your rockets and bombs on the ground.........lol

To make it more interesting, a basic rule of thumb, which may not have been considered in these decisions at the time but now plays a major part in the comparisons made with regard to which was more effective overall, is the weight (or amount) of lead thrown each second by each type of gun. It's actually not a very oft studied area of combat aviation, surprisingly.

But then I would always take into account how much 'firing time' I had also. A trade-off, if ever there was one!  ;D

Go for it, and we'll see if we agree with the designers and decision makers of the day.

Of course, feel free to justify your choices (or rejections) in anyway you like. IT"S YOUR PLANE, YOUR LIFE AND YOUR DECISION, TODAY AT LEAST....................

[Hagar]

As you point out it depends on your target. It also depends on how good a shot you are. The RAF 8 gun fighters (8 x .303 Brownings) didn't fare too badly in the BoB. The type of ammo & harmonisation is also important. I believe most pilots opted for a spread at optimum range for a better chance of hitting the target. The light ammo would not penetrate armour. I've read accounts by some of the aces that they would have preferred a couple of cannon.

For air to air combat I think I would go for a combination of 4 x MG + 2 x 20 mm Cannon as on the Spitfire "B" wing. Maybe use the MGs with tracer for sighting & finish off with the heavy stuff. Cannon ammo is naturally heavier & less can be carried. Typically, 1 x 20 mm cannon or 1 x .50 MG could be fitted in place of 2 x .303 MGs.

[Ivan]

For strafing
Il-2M3:

• 2xShKas 7.62mm
• UBT 12.7mm MG (firing backwards)
• 2xNS-37cannon
• Rocket packs
• load of armor

Air to air...
FW-190D-11:

• 2xMK 108 (30 mm)
• 2xMG 151/20 (20 mm)

[HawkerTempest5]

I agree with Hagar about the British "B" wing being a good choice. The mix of .30 cal and 20mm makes a very effective loadout. As a testimony to this, top British Ace "Johnnie" Johnson scored the vast majority of his 38 victories with this armament.
However, the "E" wing with 2 x .50cal and 2 x 20mm put out a full 10lbs of ammo more per 3 second burst than the "B" wing loadout and from a combat flight sim point of veiw, this is my favorite loadout and so my vote here goes to the "E" wing.

[denishc]

 Professor B., I believe that some years ago I read the same book that you are referancing from, "Combat Development in World War Two:  Fighter Aircraft" by Alfred Price.  It was an interesting read.
 Anyway, I'm going with the six 50 cals. for two reasons.
 First of all six 50s were more than adequate to deal with any aircraft they were facing at that time.
 Secondly is firing time or rather duration.  Due to size and weight differences between the 50 cal round and the 20mm round an aircraft could carry more of the 50 cal rounds than it could 20 mm rounds.  More rounds available ment a longer firing period increasing the chance of a kill.      

[ozzy72]

Personally my vote goes with the 2x50s and 2x20mm combination. The Spitfire E wing was devestating in its power, sure you had to carry a slightly heavier load, but when you hit something with this, he wasn't going to make it home. Armour or no. Its like the difference between shooting someone with a .22 Martine and shooting them with a 44 Magnum! Even if you only clip him its going to make a hell of a mess.

Ozzy

[Fozzer]

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).

[Woodlouse2002]

Well I personally like the 12 .303 machine guns of the Hurricane MkIIB. But that option ain't there. So I would say 4 .303 and 2 20mm. If not then 4 .303 and 2 40mm (as on the Hurricane MkIID) cause if one of those 40mm rounds hits you then there is no way you will stay air borne for long.

[ozzy72]

I would just like to refute the following statement by Fozzer

I chuff around in my Cessna 152

I've witnessed him turning and burning in a Corsair in the LAX region.......

Ozzy

[Professor Brensec]

The table I've been using for most of my loadout info has something like 50 planes and even more 'options' for different combinations of guns.
I couldn't possibly include every variation or combination, so I had to go with the 'most commonly' or "most often" used configurations.

I have included the option for 4 x cannon (in different sizes) that Ivan refers to, as I see that this optioon was indeed used on a number of Russian planes and variants. Also I believe the Me262 had the same option, in one particular version (2 x 30mm & 2 x 20mm) as well as the 4 x 30 mm.

However, Woody's preferred 12 x .30 cal was only used on one plane, as was the 40mm cannon (in any combo). So it is unfortunate that not everyones personal preference is included.
So as I said, we have to settle for the 'most used' variations. That doesn't mean, of course, that we can't talk about whatever we like. This is a Prof. Brensec thread after all. God only knows where we'll end up...........

My vote went for the 6 x .50 cal of the US planes (most of). It proved to be a very effective combo in every theatre, against every foe.
Initially the fighters were limited to 1200 - 1500 (or so) rounds which gave up to 20 seconds of fire (based on the average .50 cal rate of 75 rpm). But that fire was considerably hard hitting at a 'weight of fire' of 3.64 kg of lead per second (8 lbs), and in the beginning, your .30's didn't have the explosive round.

Of course, after a couple of years, you had fighters with 400 and 500 rounds per gun, which increased the firing time considerably (e.g. the Corsair with 2400 rounds gave 32 seconds of firing time). Numerous planes (especially the likes of 'sitting ducks' such as Vals and Kates and Stukas in Europe) could be shot down in one 'sortie'.

Some US pilots had the 'authority' or 'prestige' to have there own preference of 'round configs' put together, i.e. explosive, armour piercing, tracer (leaving out the incendiary and the 'slug' options). Some liked the incendiary because the Jap planes, with no self sealing tanks, would go up in flames after a single hit in the tank, if an incendiary went within 10 ft of the wing (You see this fuel vapour-trail pouring out in CFS2 often). Even a tracer would ignite it.

Although a hit from a cannon can do enough damage sometimes to knock another fighter out completely, with just one hit, you could rarely carry more than 50 or 60 rounds in the earlier years. This only increased to about 100 or so per gun in the latter years.
One exception to this is the FW190, in which they managed to fit nearly 700 rounds for two cannon.
That coupled with 2 x 13mm Mg's with 900 odd rounds, gave it a very long 'firing time'. It's really the only one I can see that has anything like those loads.
But then there are only 2 x MG's. Not much chance of a hit over the 6 the American planes had. And again, only two cannon.

[Professor Brensec]

Just a question.

I chose to keep the results hidden untill we had a good number of votes, so that no-one would be influenced (subconsciously) by the 'winning' combo.

Also I thought if the result is going to be a surprise, it might generate some interest.

iIm wondering now if people would just prefer to see the results as the votes are made.

It's up to everyone. Just say so.  ;D

[Professor Brensec]

Just as a matter of interest, I'll just divert to the 'ground attack' role for a moment.

The Russian fighter role throughout most of the entire campaign was that of either low level air to air or (maybe more so) the 'interdiction role' and troop support.

Support of ground troops was the main order of the day at most times. Hence, I imagine, the Russian preference for cannon.
Up to the Panzer MkIV, the fighter could knock out tanks with their cannon, especially the 37mm used in the P400 (P39 Airocobra - US) and the 20mm of the Yak 1,3,7 & 9 and the La 5 and 7.
There is one German pilot creditted with knocking out 500 tanks in a period of three years! My God! He was also shot down no less than 30 times.
Obviously, the 'frontline' location of most of the fighting must have made it possible for him to either handle his plane back to his own lines and bail out, or to walk back at night after bailing out over German territory. Whichever, it demonstrates the Russian need for fighters to be capable of knocking tanks by the dozen. Hence, the cannons.

My vote for the 6 x .50 cals is also supported by the American pilots discovering (mainly P47's and P51's) that they could 'bounce' the heavier .50's off the hard road surfaces and throw the rounds up under the tank, into the soft belly, where there was no armour (or little).
Even the King Tiger was vulnerable to this. The Tank may not be destroyed (although the inside wiring, instrumentation, gun components etc would be a mess), the crew would be in a terrible mess with a dozen or so AP and Tracer rounds bouncing around inside.

Just an account of the added advantage over the cannon, even the 37mm and 40 mm that couldn't penetrate anything from the Panther onwards. Obviously the cannon rounds would penetrate the road surface or explode before the entered the belly on the tank, if this tactic was used.
So, given this, if it's true enough, what good were the cannon against tanks after the MkIV? Not much, I imagine.

Although, as some are giving a preference for a 'comination' that isn't possible or not included as a 'standard' option, I think my IDEAL loadout would be 6 x .50's and 2 x 20 mm. Probably only possible on the large wing and huge frame of the P47, it would be formidable. (Maybe pop two of the .50's on the nose ).

[Hagar]

Just as a matter of interest, I'll just divert to the 'ground attack' role for a moment.

The Hawker Typhoon IB was regarded by many as the most effective ground attack aircraft in the (Western) European theatre. The regular armament of 4 x 20 mm cannon could be supplemented by 8 x 60-lb. rocket projectiles or 2 x 1,000-lb. bombs.

Just in time, it was realized that the fighter had truly outstanding performance at low altitude. So, from the spring of 1942, 'Tiffies' began dealing with the Fw190s that had been eluding Spitfires during tip-and-run attacks on southern England.

Next they switched to the attack, becoming the first fighters to carry two 1,000lb bombs under their wings. Airfields and communications were prime Continental targets, with up to 150 railway locomotives destroyed each month by mid-1943.

However, it is for ground attack with rockets that Typhoons are best remembered. Before D-Day they destroyed vital German radar stations; afterwards, adopting their famous 'cab rank' technique, they maintained standing patrols over the battle area, from which they could be called in by radio for a line-astern attack on any targets that were notified by ground controllers. Altogether, 3,330 Typhoons were built.

On a single day - Aug. 5, 1944 - these aircraft destroyed 135 enemy tanks.

PS. I believe Woody's Hurricane Mk IID "Tankbuster" fitted with 2 x 40 mm cannon was used for the same purpose, mainly in North Africa & Burma.

[ATI_7500]

There is one German pilot creditted with knocking out 500 tanks in a period of three years! My God! He was also shot down no less than 30 times.
Obviously, the 'frontline' location of most of the fighting must have made it possible for him to either handle his plane back to his own lines and bail out, or to walk back at night after bailing out over German territory. Whichever, it demonstrates the Russian need for fighters to be capable of knocking tanks by the dozen. Hence, the cannons.

it was mister Rudel, a highly decorated german tank-killer who kicked some russian a$$es with his Ju-87 (stuka). but i don't like him that much,because he was a true nazi.

being shot down was no real problem,there were a lot of german pilots who were captured by russians,but many of them managed to escape and flee behind friendly lines.

my ultimate killer machine:

4*MG 151
2*MK 108

...for converting bombers into swiss chesse within seconds.

[Professor Brensec]

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.   Just a bit of extra justification for my choice...........

Of course, the bombs and especially rockets of the Typhoon and Tempests were devastating. My poiint was, as far as 20mm canon were concerned, after the MkIV Panzer they were no match for the Panther and Tiger armour.
Of course the Hurricanes in Nth Africa and Burma were up against early German or alternatively, Japanese tanks. Very different from the 1944-45 German stuff Tanks.

The 135 tanks destoted in one day would have to be the 'Falaise Pocket', wouldn't it?  ;D