Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnot
One thing I've found curious the deeper I've gone studying the fighter development from 1930's forwards is that why did the US stick with 50 cals as their weapon of choice on fighters for so long?
I'm no über-guru in the topic, but during WW2 for example the only cannon I find is the hispano in P-38. Then even going to the jet age P-80 and F-86 both had MG's until F-86 H model.
So was it the high rate of fire, smaller weight, logistics of the ammo, the lack of bombers to shoot down or didn't they just get the advantages of a bigger caliber until later?
|
The simple answer is that the USAAF and USN wanted the 20mm, but US built Hispano cannon were very unreliable. Consequently, they had to stick with .50cals. Given a general lack of bomber opposition, .50cals proved sufficient, and even up until the end of the war US Hispano cannon remained unreliable.
After WWII, the USAAF was quite happy with its .50cals, but the USN still wanted 20mm, and they finally had a reliable version of the Hispano.
Rate of fire between a M2 .50cal and a 20mm Hispano cannon are very close, and most estimates of the firepower of a Hispano cannon give around 3-3.5 times as much power for the same firing time as an M2 MG, so the 4 20mm of a Tempest or Spitfire Mk.21-24 have an equivalent firepower to between 12 and 14 .50cal MGs. Even an E Wing Spitfire with 2x20mm and 2x.50cal has firepower equivalent to 8-9 .50cal MGs.