Quote:
Originally Posted by ElAurens
Apparently you did not read this paragraph for comprehension, though I suspect that English is not your native language, so I do understand that we may have a language barrier as well, so I will repeat the important part:
"The answer to this apparent contadiction is that the .50 M2 proved very effectivie against fighters..."
|
I read but in IL2 actually the .50 are more effective than 20mm and this is not the case. Few hits of .50 are doing much damage. I personally hit two 30 mm shells in a spitfire and she continued to fly normally.
A snapshot of cannons do not disable a plane or rip wings easily now. Another day i take a snapshot of .50 and ripped my wings. Next mission, a snapshot from more than 400m and my engine out.
So the .50 was effective but should be less effective than cannos and actually they are more effective than 20mm since they are disabling engines and taking controls too easy. I think it is necessary a good tracking shot at point blank range to .50 be really effective, acctualy single snapshot are too efective frequently.
The conclusion is: .50 are less efective than cannos, period.
p.s.: easy to use "ad hominen" argument when you are lacking of it.