Thread: WWII fighter gun debate

IMO, the Germans were ahead of the curve, if only out of necessity; being pounded day and night by the strategic air forces of the US and Britain (respectively) makes you concentrate on how to most effectively destroy aircraft. It reminds me of the phrase that Samuel Johnson (supposedly) uttered the night before he was to be hanged: "Depend upon it, Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."

However, we must also remember that the two Air Forces (Allied & Axis) had, essentially, different missions, especially during the latter half of the War; the Allies were primarily concerned with destroying smaller and faster fighters, hence their predominate use of faster-firing but smaller-calibre weapons, whereas the Axis was more concerned with destroying much larger and heavily-armored bombers, hence their prediliction towards larger but slower-firing cannon.

As the website points out, however, it is the obvious superiority of a multi-chambered (if not multi-barrelled) weapon, like the MG213C, that presaged modern fighter weapons; if the Germans had been able to field the MG213 any earlier, there would've been a lot more Allied bombers shot down.

P.S. A little off-topic, but the same website has an EXCELLENT discussion of the assault rifle ammunition controversy:
ASSAULT RIFLES AND THEIR AMMUNITION:

Stitch - The Allies meaning Whoom? The Allies in this terminology can only really mean the U.S, Britain, and the USSR - the others being supplied.
The Latter two favoured cannons in conjunction with Machine guns - and in turn not only this, but the additional machine guns that were installed, were often in spaces that the cannon was not so suited to. As the technology and production matured, so did the installations. All Ground attack aircraft of the latter two certainly favoured cannons.

Having said that the .50's were a matured and proven design served the U.S well.

That web site is a good find. I notice a bit of elitism from some of the Soviet observations, especially their "Q" quotient, which is essentially power vs. weight. A high Q is wonderful, but it means squat if the weapon in question is unreliable or has poor longevity.

One thing I believe helped the USA at least is the almost automatic use of Browning .50 caliber weapons for darned near every single installation, offensive and defensive. While not the best weapon, it served well and having one, rather than dozens of designs and calibers, undoubtedly helped the armourers and suppliers. Need ammo? .50 caliber ammo was everywhere; army, navy, marines, on land and sea. I'd not be surprised at all if the total number of rounds expended by the USA in WW2 was 30.06 first followed by .50 BMG, and every other cartridge following those two distantly.

U.S. aircraft cannon research has pretty much ceased with the M61A1 Vulcan. Reliable, extremely fast firing. The author mentioned "slow spin up" a number of times, but no one I knew ever griped about it. With an ungodly high-powered hydraulic pump turning that thing over, when you squeezed the trigger, you got 100 cannon shells in the blink of an eye. I daydream sometimes how a B-17 would have fared defensively given a .50 BMG equivalent, like the GAU-19...

Originally Posted by Chunder

Stitch - The Allies meaning Whoom? The Allies in this terminology can only really mean the U.S, Britain, and the USSR - the others being supplied.
The Latter two favoured cannons in conjunction with Machine guns - and in turn not only this, but the additional machine guns that were installed, were often in spaces that the cannon was not so suited to. As the technology and production matured, so did the installations. All Ground attack aircraft of the latter two certainly favoured cannons.

Having said that the .50's were a matured and proven design served the U.S well.

You are correct, I WAS thinking mostly of the US, though Britain favoured the rifle-calibre .303 machine gun early in the War on the Hurricane & Spitfire. And, yes, the Russians were also early proponents of cannon-armed fighters, which probably explains why they liked the P-39 Airacobra and P-63 Kingcobra so much.

I daydream sometimes how a B-17 would have fared defensively given a .50 BMG equivalent, like the GAU-19...

a fighter guy daydreaming about heavies? the mind reels.

i think an even funnier prospect would have been rolling out a B-36 in the middle of WWII. all the german fighters in the world wouldn't save them if they couldn't fly high enough to intercept...

Originally Posted by Chogy

U.S. aircraft cannon research has pretty much ceased with the M61A1 Vulcan. Reliable, extremely fast firing. The author mentioned "slow spin up" a number of times, but no one I knew ever griped about it. With an ungodly high-powered hydraulic pump turning that thing over, when you squeezed the trigger, you got 100 cannon shells in the blink of an eye. I daydream sometimes how a B-17 would have fared defensively given a .50 BMG equivalent, like the GAU-19...

So, miniguns in the normal .50-cal BMG positions? They would have to carry A LOT more ammunition, since the ROF on a minigun is about 10 times that of an M2.

Originally Posted by astralis

i think an even funnier prospect would have been rolling out a B-36 in the middle of WWII. ...

That is EXACTLY what the B-36 was originally designed for; during the early '40's the US was worried about losing Britain as an airbase, so work was begun on a bomber that was capable of flying all the way to Europe from the US mainland. However, development was fairly slow, and the first example didn't fly until 1946.

Originally Posted by astralis

all the german fighters in the world wouldn't save them if they couldn't fly high enough to intercept...

I think the only German a/c that would've had a shot at hitting a B-36 were the Me 262 and the Me 163 but, even then, they would've been a few thousand feet short.

Originally Posted by Stitch

You are correct, I WAS thinking mostly of the US, though Britain favoured the rifle-calibre .303 machine gun early in the War on the Hurricane & Spitfire. And, yes, the Russians were also early proponents of cannon-armed fighters, which probably explains why they liked the P-39 Airacobra and P-63 Kingcobra so much.

I think that had something to do with their overwhelming need to support ground troops.

US, to some degree UK, wanted air superiority to make life easier for the bombers.

USSR wanted ground attack aircraft. P-39 was a wonderful ground attack aircraft. That 37mm autocannon on the centerline was more accurate than pods hanging off the wings.

Originally Posted by Stitch

So, miniguns in the normal .50-cal BMG positions? They would have to carry A LOT more ammunition, since the ROF on a minigun is about 10 times that of an M2.

I never said it was practical. Just a fun thought experiment. Certainly the B-17 "gunships" didn't do jack for defense, and couldn't keep up due to airframe drag.

One thing I read on the site that I hadn't heard about was the German recoilless rifle set vertically in a fighter that had an "auto triggering" via a photoelectric effect device. The attacking pilot simply swooped below the target at just about any speed, and the system would sense the target and fire the weapon. A really interesting concept and not totally out of place for WW2 technology.

Originally Posted by Stitch

That is EXACTLY what the B-36 was originally designed for; during the early '40's the US was worried about losing Britain as an airbase, so work was begun on a bomber that was capable of flying all the way to Europe from the US mainland. However, development was fairly slow, and the first example didn't fly until 1946.

It was still faster than the other bombers in Europe which combined with the height it flew at made it hard to intercept.

I think the only German a/c that would've had a shot at hitting a B-36 were the Me 262 and the Me 163 but, even then, they would've been a few thousand feet short.

Ta-152 could, and the Do-335 likely could have been modified to do so. The DFS 228 rocket powered high altitude sail plane had a projected ceiling over 70,000'.

Originally Posted by Chogy

One thing I read on the site that I hadn't heard about was the German recoilless rifle set vertically in a fighter that had an "auto triggering" via a photoelectric effect device. The attacking pilot simply swooped below the target at just about any speed, and the system would sense the target and fire the weapon. A really interesting concept and not totally out of place for WW2 technology.

Sounds a little like the Schräge Musik concept from late in the War, only the German pilot had to pull the trigger when he was under the enemy plane.

Originally Posted by gunnut

I think that had something to do with their overwhelming need to support ground troops.

US, to some degree UK, wanted air superiority to make life easier for the bombers.

USSR wanted ground attack aircraft. P-39 was a wonderful ground attack aircraft. That 37mm autocannon on the centerline was more accurate than pods hanging off the wings.

To be fair the U.K did not have an aircraft with the range to support the bombers - until the P-51 came along - and that was of course with the U.S armament. But it's indigenous fighters / GA aircraft (pretty much all of them) Mid to late war had the cannons. They had their share of P40's and 51's however with just the guns. The Armament on the Beufighter/Mosquito/Spitfire/Tempest/Typhoon, later the Seafury, and into the jet age reflect that.

It's an era when there were many different schools of thought relating to armament, given the diverse indigenous production capabilities of air arms with different exposure that probably led to different schools of thought.

Originally Posted by zraver

Ta-152 could, and the Do-335 likely could have been modified to do so. The DFS 228 rocket powered high altitude sail plane had a projected ceiling over 70,000'.

I've always had a soft spot for the Do 335, particularly the upgunned B-2 version with the two Mk 103's in the wing; a little slower than the A-1, but with about twice the firepower.

I remember playing this sim called IL2 Sturmovik, all the kiddi noobs used to wheel above you in their TA-152's, or outrun you in their Do-335's.
I'd slug around in a venerable P-40E shooting down KI-somethings whilst those others where flying in 'no cockpit mode'. Good times!