Yanks and their MG's

[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?

[flyingbullseye]

Originally Posted by whatnot

So was it the high rate of fire, smaller weight, logistics of the ammo, the lack of bombers to shoot down

You basically answered your own question. BTW, there are 20+threads that are 20+ pagers dealing with this topic here and the ubizoo.

Flyingbullseye

[IceFire]

Essentially all of those reasons are while the .50cal stayed on as the primary weapon in the USAAF and USAF arsenal until and during most of Korea. The US Navy was starting to switch to 20mm cannons midway through World War II but the lack of a reliable 20mm prevented most of that switch until post war.

With the USAAF - Having the .50cal around meant that the ammo supply logistics were simple (same basic rounds could often be used in airplanes or mounted on jeeps or in emplacements on the ground, etc.). There was also quite a bit of debate around how effective, in the hands of an average pilot, a bank of rapid firing machine guns were versus cannons.

In-game some of that newbie advantage is negated by having a point dispersion like some aces preferred rather than a wider kill box that helped newbies.

[bf-110]

.50 Cal rapid fire??

I like the 50 Cal,its very strong,probably the strongest non explosive shells.
They use that MG till today.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by bf-110

.50 Cal rapid fire??

I like the 50 Cal,its very strong,probably the strongest non explosive shells.
They use that MG till today.

Well 800 rounds per minute (ish) is fairly fast yes? The M3 .50cal that they used in Korea was over 1000 rpm I believe. Not that many other weapons used during World War II have a vastly higher rate of fire.

[baronWastelan]

If I had been a P-38 pilot in WWII, I would have asked to have the 20mm removed and replaced w/ 2 50 cal's.

[Erkki]

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?

You have no idea what you have just unleashed, have you.

[whatnot]

Originally Posted by Erkki

You have no idea what you have just unleashed, have you.

Nope, I didn't know that this topic that has puzzled me for the past few days had already been locked into a pandoras box in the forums.

[David603]

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.

[whatnot]

Originally Posted by David603

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.

Wasn't the later Hispano's like Mk V. used in Tempest pretty realiable already? And what kind of failure rates are we talking about with Hispano? Did it jam every 10th belt or what and what made the RAF to go that direction instead of sticking with the MG. So why did it take until mid 50's or whatever to mount them?

And what about the cannons on Russia and Germany used? One would assume that the technology and production blueprints would have been either handed over through reversed lend/lease or captured as the US pushed deeper into germany. Were VYa-23's and ShVAK's just as unrealiable as Hispano's?