Daidalos Team's Room -QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS ONLY - For 4.11

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by Ernst

Ok. I am complaining about the P-40 being loaded with .50 AP but effectiviness of the .50 itself.

Discuss with the specialist, not with me:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Bye.

It may appear that this low score of the .50 M2 is in disagreement with the satisfactory experience the USAAF had with this weapon. The answer to this apparent contradiction is that the .50 M2 proved very effective against fighters and (not too sturdy) bombers, if installed in sufficient numbers. Six or eight guns were specified as standard armament, resulting in a destructive power total of 360 or 480, at the cost of a rather high installed weight. Most American fighters were sufficiently powerful to have a high performance despite this weight penalty. Incidentally, the mediocre efficiency score of the .50 M2 is not only an effect of the low chemical content of its projectiles. Even if only the kinetic energy were considered, the efficiency of this gun would remain inferior to that of the UBS, B-20, ShVAK or Hispano, although better than that of the MK 108 or MG-FFM. To sum up, the preferred US armament fit was effective for its purpose, but not very efficient by comparison with cannon.

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..."