WWII fighter gun debate

[zraver]

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!

The P-40 is often depicted as a lumbering beast, able to take a lot of punishment but none to agile and piloted by noobs... In fact it could turn inside any of the leading European fighters- Spitfire, Hurricane or the Me-109. American pilots in the pacific early on flew into combat confident they could out dogfight the Japanese... big and deadly surprise... The Zero and even more so the Oscar sacrificed everything for agility.

[Chunder]

Yep, In Il2 330 Kph was the magic number, it would just out turn the spit at that. Infact, If I came down from a dive, we could retain the energy and exit. However, if we dived, and extended and there was someone nearby, we'd wait until that number and crank it. In one dogfight an internet colleague and me bounced a variety of of predominantly 109's, 190's and spits. I just made it out, my colleugue had to bail after engine caught fire.

We shot down 13 enemy in that engagement.
"WTF CHEATERS P40 POS, IMPOSSIBLE"

And she was a lumbering beast. I was the joke of the virtual squadron with that as my preferred steed. Climbing to altitude you'd want to have a coffee machine next to you :) I found my home in the virtual 'desert harassers' . They were good times coming home and logging in to that.

[zraver]

Yep, In Il2 330 Kph was the magic number, it would just out turn the spit at that. Infact, If I came down from a dive, we could retain the energy and exit. However, if we dived, and extended and there was someone nearby, we'd wait until that number and crank it. In one dogfight an internet colleague and me bounced a variety of of predominantly 109's, 190's and spits. I just made it out, my colleugue had to bail after engine caught fire.

We shot down 13 enemy in that engagement.
"WTF CHEATERS P40 POS, IMPOSSIBLE"

And she was a lumbering beast. I was the joke of the virtual squadron with that as my preferred steed. Climbing to altitude you'd want to have a coffee machine next to you :) I found my home in the virtual 'desert harassers' . They were good times coming home and logging in to that.

In "Fire In The Skies: The Air War In The South Pacific" There is an account of a flight of American fighters happening upon a lone Japanese oscar (likely piloted by an ace). The Japanese pilot was slower and with weapons that couldn't really hurt the allied fighters but was so agile and the Japanese pilot was so good the entire flight used up its ammunition without scoring a hit.

Bits of of WWII aviation trivia, 1. Charles Lindbergh was likely an ace in WWII. He was a factory rep for Lockheed and was sent to the South Pacific. He went on combat patrols (unofficially). 2. He also always returned with more fuel and his plane seemed to have more performance. Eventually the guys he flew with asked him how and so he went in and turned up the manifold pressure making the engines were more powerful and efficient. 3. The Brewster F2A had the highest win loss ratio of any allied fighter.

[Stitch]

Bits of of WWII aviation trivia, 1. Charles Lindbergh was likely an ace in WWII. He was a factory rep for Lockheed and was sent to the South Pacific. He went on combat patrols (unofficially).

Yeah, he flew a few patrols with one of the Pacific P-38 aces, Tommy McGuire, and supposedly shot down a few Japanese planes, but he couldn't be credited for them because he was a civilian (and he wasn't supposed to taking part in any combat with the Japanese).

BTW, the plane he was flying that "returned with more fuel" was also a P-38.

[Chogy]

I was reading a bit about early WW2 British efforts in aerial gunnery, and there was a period around 1940 where they recognized the .303 cartridge as being far too light, but decided the answer was to simply add more of them. As a result, both Hurricane and early Typhoon variants were fitted with no less than twelve .303 Brownings. The volume of fire was impressive, at least.

Although unarmed for its first flights, P5212 later carried an armament of 12 .303 in (7.7 mm) Brownings, set in groups of six in each outer wing panel; this was the armament fitted to the first 110 Typhoons, known as the Typhoon IA.

Assuming 1,400 RPM for each gun, the combined fire would be 16,800 RPM, or 280 rounds per second. A Vulcan Cannon tops out at 100 RPS. Thus I think the volume of fire from the 12 Browning configuration was probably the highest ever fielded on an aircraft.

[Albany Rifles]

A lot of the American experience with aerial cannons was not very successful. I think the best use of the 37mm from the P-39s was when they got yanked out of P-39s and mounted on PT boats in the Solomons.

For the USAAF and USN the .50 caliber made a ton of sense. It was reliable, easy to maintain, packed a punch and simplified logistics. Considering the fact the US going to take the war to the enemy it also meant we were able to place more on the bombers with less weight and more ammo.

[zraver]

I was reading a bit about early WW2 British efforts in aerial gunnery, and there was a period around 1940 where they recognized the .303 cartridge as being far too light, but decided the answer was to simply add more of them. As a result, both Hurricane and early Typhoon variants were fitted with no less than twelve .303 Brownings. The volume of fire was impressive, at least.



Assuming 1,400 RPM for each gun, the combined fire would be 16,800 RPM, or 280 rounds per second. A Vulcan Cannon tops out at 100 RPS. Thus I think the volume of fire from the 12 Browning configuration was probably the highest ever fielded on an aircraft.

Browning 303Mk II 1150rpm so a total of 13800rpm= 230rps @ 4300gr total weight of lead= .614lb a second

Weight of fire for non-exploding shells probably goes to the YB-40 escort version of the B-17 mounting 18, 50 caliber HMG for a total of 9900rpm/ 165rps @ 116605.5gr total weight of lead= 16.5lbs a second

[Chogy]

Ah but the YB-40 guns were not all pointed forward. I like this guy:

B-25H Gunship

The -H also mounted four fixed forward-firing .50 (12.7 mm) machine guns in the nose, four more fixed ones in forward-firing cheek blisters, two more in the top turret, one each in a pair of new waist positions, and a final pair in a new tail gunner's position. Company promotional material bragged the B-25H could "bring to bear 10 machine guns coming and four going, in addition to the 75 mm cannon, a brace of eight rockets and 3,000 lb (1,360 kg) of bombs.

Weight of fire is excellent, but so is the number of projectiles that can improve the chances of a hit. I wouldn't be surprised if someone, somewhere, didn't experiment with an automatic shotgun/cannon... something 30mm or larger, sabots surrounding a core of individual projectiles, that would spread into a destructive pattern. Very short ranged it would be, but you're going to get hits.

Bird hunters use shotguns, not machine guns. ;)

[Chunder]

When I wasn't flying the P40E, I often flew that thing in IL2.

Yeah, she'd win most head to head engagements if the wing roots held up!

[Albany Rifles]

Ah but the YB-40 guns were not all pointed forward. I like this guy:

B-25H Gunship

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29538[/ATTACH]


Weight of fire is excellent, but so is the number of projectiles that can improve the chances of a hit. I wouldn't be surprised if someone, somewhere, didn't experiment with an automatic shotgun/cannon... something 30mm or larger, sabots surrounding a core of individual projectiles, that would spread into a destructive pattern. Very short ranged it would be, but you're going to get hits.

Bird hunters use shotguns, not machine guns. ;)

The ultimate in ground attack prior to the A-10. (Though the Spad gave it a run for its money).

While it was an awesome ship killer it only had about a 2000 lb bomb load. Not enough to go downtown to Berlin!

[Gun Boat]

I started going through the aircraft on IL2 to see what seemed the best gun package.

I went through nearly every flyable aircraft and in the quick mission game mode and came to the conclusion that the ME-262 seems to have the best package.

4 x 30mm firing from the nose. Whether it be bomber interception or tackling other fighters. 1 shot from all four cannons can usually bring down a bomber and easily destroy a fighter. Plus the fact that they are all on the centre line of the aircraft makes it alot easier to aim and put all four rounds on target. No need to worry about convergence. I have that problem with P-47. Devasting armement but trying to get all 8 guns to strike at once is alot harder for me.

I wonder how that translates into real life. One thing for sure is that even a single hit with a 30mm shell is going to 'mission kill' a fighter.

[redco]

I was reading a bit about early WW2 British efforts in aerial gunnery, and there was a period around 1940 where they recognized the .303 cartridge as being far too light, but decided the answer was to simply add more of them. As a result, both Hurricane and early Typhoon variants were fitted with no less than twelve .303 Brownings. The volume of fire was impressive, at least.

By 1939 the British had decided that the .303 was too light to deal with the new generation of bombers coming into service, and therefore decided that the 20mm Hispano cannon was the weapon needed, but unfortunately they had problems with the feeding mechanism of the guns when fitted in a flexable wing and this caused their widespread introduction on the Spitfire and Hurricane to be delayed until mid-1941, though a small number were used unsuccessfully during the Battle Of Britain.

[1979]

For shooting down another fighter , two .30 caliber MG was always enough.

[TopHatter]

A lot of the American experience with aerial cannons was not very successful. I think the best use of the 37mm from the P-39s was when they got yanked out of P-39s and mounted on PT boats in the Solomons.

In that theater, sure. But the Soviets absolutely loved the P-39/37mm combination.

[junoth1001]

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.

"In 1934 this Neanderthal period of fighter armament gave way to a more sophisticated age. At an Air Ministry conference in July, it was shown that, in the second or two a fighter pilot could expect to keep a Bomber in his sights, he would require six or preferably eight guns, firing at 1,000 rounds a minute, to destroy it. The propounder of this disturbing thesis was Squadron Leader Ralph Sorley of the Supply and Research Department - and he had the full backing of his chief, Dowding.

Early plans for the new Hawker monoplane fighter had called for two Vickers guns in the fuselage and two more guns in the wings. After the :w Air Ministry requirement Carnm took his design a stage further to corporate the unprecedented armament of eight machine-guns in the wings, all of them beyond the mallet reach of the pilot and therefore needing to be reliable. This became possible with the completion of negotiations between BSA in Britain and Colt in America for the manufacture of the magnificent Browning machine-gun, bored out from .3 to .303 inches. Besides being reliable, the Browning was extremely economical in weight and size, the complete battery of eight guns, accessories and over 2,500 rounds of ammunition weighing little are than 400 pounds.

Hough Richard, & Richards Dennis Battle of Britain Pen&Sword, London, 2010, PP36-7"

There is a bit of expasion on the story,

"A key advocate of the need to shift to an eight-gun fighter was Squadron Leader Ralph Sorley of the Ministry's Operational Requirements Branch. Not overburdened by modesty, Sorley wrote after the war about the influen¬tial role he had played in changing orthodox thinking on fighter weaponry, thereby paving the way for the Spitfire. 'As the individual who was (I think without controversy) responsible for the original eight-gun fighter,' he began a Times article in 1957, before going on to explain how, in 1933, 'my whole waking hours were devoted to one problem: what fighter could be evolved which would stand the highest chance of defeating the fast bomber.' In his account, Sorley told how, in his quest for the answer, he had made a visit 'in great secrecy' to the Hispano-Suiza cannon factory in the 'bowels of a fort near Paris' to watch an impressive 2O-mm gun in action. He had also arranged for tests of the new Browning .303 gun on ranges at Shoeburyness, firing short bursts from eight guns at a range of 400 yards. 'After much arithmetic and burning of midnight oil, I reached the answer of eight guns as being the number required to give a lethal dose in two seconds of fire.'37 In another record, Sorley said that the 2O-mm cannon were highly attractive in terms of lethality, but were unreliable in the air because of their super sensitivity. 'Thev were in continuous trouble with stoppages. The broad conclusion was the Hispano gun would not fire successfully unless the mounting was enormously solid.' He admitted that the choice between cannon and machine guns was 'something of a nightmare. It was a choice on which the whole conception ex the aeroplane would depend.' But the trials with the .303 Browning, he said proved 'sufficiently convincing and satisfying to enable eight guns to can-day.'38 Sorley, who confessed to 'becoming a fanatic' over this issue,3 been heavily influenced in his support for wing-mounted multi-gun installation by a series of articles in the French aeronautical magazine Les AILES ('Wings') in 1934. These articles dismissed the idea of inevitable bombe-eminence, but warned that a new breed of modern fighter would need the right weaponry to be effective. 'The single-seater fighter should be able to fire as many rounds as possible during the time favourable for attack, which can only be accurate at close range,' declared one piece.40

McKinstry Leo., Spitfire – Portrait of a Legend, John Murray, London, 2007 P110


At the start of WWII, Fighter Command of the RAF had the job of defending against enemy bombers. However, as things turned out, they went up against enemy fighters!

It is worth pointing out that during the battle of Britian, Fighter Command as the result of it's expereince, started fitting Spitfires of 92sqn with 20mm cannons. However, due to the unrelibility of the weapons, they were withdrawn and the Sqdn was allocated old eight gun versions.