Hi,
Originally posted by Tony Williams
The 23x115 ammo fired by the MiG was a low-velocity round (690 m/s, the same as the N-37's 37x155), not at all the same as the much more powerful 23x152B fired by the WW2 VYa-23. Two 23mm guns were used in the MiG-15; initially they had the NS-23 (550-700 rpm), but the MiG-15bis had the NR-23 (850-950 rpm). The N-37 fired at 400 rpm.
That would have been the major cause, but note that I said that MiGs got back after receiving up to 50 hits. MiG pilots also reported seeing the .50 bullets deflected off their planes. This may sound odd, but the metal skinning of the jets was much tougher than WW2 prop planes, and the bullets would often strike at a very fine angle so could be deflected without penetrating. When you look at the back view of a MiG, you'll see what mean.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
ah ok, i thought the weapon was similar to the WWII gun. And of course if the surface of the jets gave a much better protection itself, to a point where the .50cal simply can get through it, they turn to be obsolet!
Hi Grendel,
if there would have been a real need, they could have used the british Hispano II. Of course this would have needed sources and energy. Iam pretty sure they thought its not this big effort worth it.
"If you read the articles available on for example Emmanuel Gustin's and Tony's web pages or the Flying Guns: World War II book you'll find excellent expnalation how such a nation was not able to introduce the 20mm cannon in big numbers because technical problems. Another reason was of
What point there is if you can hit the enemy plane, but can't kill it?"
As i wrote many times before, where Tony William also agreed, vs the common US oponets in WWII, the .50cal catrige had a satisfying probability to damages the planes. As the result, the more bulltes provide a similar killprobability, like the much more powerfull but less numberus cannon rounds.
As i also wrote many times, vs more tough targets the advantage turn fast toward the cannons!
That the surface of the Korean planes was much tougher than the WWII planes was new to me, so of course i agree that the cannons was the more effective weapon.
Hi Karnak,
"Why do you keep repeating this debunked argument? It has been demostrated to be absolutely false, yet you keep repeating it? Do you actually read what others have said? You keep talking about RoF of the instalation like there are bullets flying out randomly in sphere, thus crediting RoF with a direct coralation to chance to hit."
With a hitprobability of maybe 5%(Luftwaffe say 2% while attacking straint flying Bomber by a average pilot), you dont think we can call this flying out randomly in sphere??
"[The gun instalations produce a bullet stream. This is true of both the .50s and the 20mm cannons. Both have a high enough RoF to stop the target from being able to fly between the shots with the possible exception of near 90 degree crossing shots, which in WWII resulted in less than 1% of shoot downs.
Therefore your main claim to the superiority of the .50 is that in less than 1% of cases it will hit and the 20mm will miss. TO hold that sub 1% as the deciding issue when all of the other strengths of the 20mm have been covered is ridiculous.
If a shot will hit with a six pack of .50s it will almost certainly hit with a two pack of Hispanos, and do more damage at the same time."
Maybe you should read what other write!!!
I never wrote the 20mm will fail in general, i told that the more hits of a higher ROF cause a similar result, as long as the smaler round have a good probability to hit a critical area.
If the planes plating get increased (or a much more tough surface) over a special point, what minimize the probability to get to a critical area, of course the killprobability decrease dramatically in relation to the 20mm´s.
But it looks like in WWII most oponets of the USA simply wasnt that tough. At least i never did read that the US pilots did cry for the Spit armament, at least not while fighting fighters(the main target of the US fighters).
Even the brits didnt introduce the 20mm in their P40´s and P51´s.
This is what Thony Williams wrote:
"As I've said, the USAAF's preference for the .50 was the right military decision at the time, because it did an adequate job and the targets it was firing at were generally not as tough as other air-forces faced. And that decision brought lots of production, logistical, maintenance and training benefits. "
and
"In a way, the USAAF was lucky because the .50 proved well suited to their particular needs. If they had had tougher opponents to deal with, they would have been in a right mess."
The germans had the bad luck to be in a situation that even the 20mm´s wasnt good enough.
The USAAF made the right decision in WWII, but failed to introduce the needed 20mm´s, vs the now much more tough planes in Korea.
After the infos Thony did offer, its a mystery for me that they didnt use at least the HispanoV (2 -3 of them) in the F86.
Edit:
Hi indy007,
"If I've got a radar gunsight, and you've got the Mk1 eyeball, in a dogfight with 1000mph closure rates, I've got an extreme advantage over you, cannons or not."
Good info!
Edit end:
Greetings, Knegel
