50. Vs. Cannons

[DoLbY]

I know more then likely this topic as been brought up in the past. I just joined the forums yesterday so I haven't seen it if it has. I apologize if has but this has been lingering in my mind for quite some time.


What is more effective against A/C?


True, the cannon causes good damage, and 30MM+ will definetly ruin a pilots day if it hits in the cockpit


Reason why I ask this question is I was going over some film in both my pony and cannon plane (P38). I hit the pilot several times in both planes and I noticed PW seem to be almost instant when I am using 50s.


So I noticed it kind of has a wierd balance; True cannons do cause good damage and the 50s can when hitting at right spot, but it seems 50s do more damage to pilot.


(if that confused anyone, sorry, I'm half away drunk on nightquill due to flu)

[SteveBailey]

Originally posted by DoLbY
I). I hit the pilot several times in both planes and I noticed PW seem to be almost instant when I am using 50s.


So I noticed it kind of has a wierd balance; True cannons do cause good damage and the 50s can when hitting at right spot, but it seems 50s do more damage to pilot.


(if that confused anyone, sorry, I'm half away drunk on nightquill due to flu)

nightquill?

There are so many different varaibles between shooting gun solutions that this is hard to address.
Let's just start with this one: Were the targets in the film the same kind of plane? Some planes protect their pilots better than others.

[Ghosth]

50's will take more hits in the same area to cause a major structural failure.
However, on the flip side you have a LOT more of them to throw, and you can afford to take more tracking and deflection shots. 50's will also hit a lot farther out than its feasible to shoot cannons.

Cannons if your close only take 2 - 20 hits in one spot to rip something off. So kills tend to be faster, a few fewer assists than .50's. However cannons have a lot more drop in their trajectory, so its harder to hit with them. Especially farther out or in a deflection shot.

Both are fully capable of knocking planes down.

Cannons were designed more for taking down larger bombers.

6 or more 50's are much easier to hit with.

Btw I don't consider the p38 with its single 20mm a cannon bird.

Nik, F4u-1c, Tiffy, even the la's with their twin cannons will all rip a target to shreds in a heartbeat if they are on target.

I guess the only real way to test this would be to do side by side tests.

Say a Pony and a 4 or 2 cannon bird side by side on runway. With sights on 2 more parked (identical) planes. Turn film on, on mark both start shooting at the same point of their respective plane. Then compare timing for the cannon bird vs the MG bird.

As to the pilot wound issue. .50's are perhaps more likely to get through armor and cause a Pilot wound. Cannon rounds if they get into the cockpit are going to kill you dead. Not cause a pilot wound.

[Kweassa]

Given real life conditions, 20mms are proven to be more efficient. Despite differing opinions and a raging argument, my impression is the proponents of the 20mm argument got the definate upperhand than the advocates of the 50cals.

 In AH, where people shoot more accurately, from further out, against planes with a much simplified damage depiction, it comes down to a matter of taste. Many veterans make good use of 50cals, whereas others are cannon gunners par excellence.

 Personally, given a choice between multiple(4~8) 50cals vs. one or more cannons, I'd go for the cannons.

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by Ghosth
50's will also hit a lot farther out than its feasible to shoot cannons.

Doing some testing with the Mk108 (German 30mm) in the game on the Bf-110G2, set the 30mm to a 650 convergence.  Put a target at 650 and note the pattern.  Take a P-38 and set the .50 cal to 650 convergence.  Repeat with another target at 650.  The two patterns are almost identical and hit the target practically center-mass where the convergence and target are at the same range.

If you're saying the .50's hit easier at 1.3K with a convergence of 650--maybe as the cannon drops more over the same range set at the same convergence.  But, as someone who consistently has his convergence set at 300 or less for all the different weapons systems, I think it is all too easy for folks flying cannon planes to snipe at you when they're 600-800 meters off your six.  If the ballistics are that much worse, it should be a waste of ammo to take those types of long range tracking shots...

Just my opinion...

[DoLbY]

Thanks for the replies so far. I don't know if this has really anything to do with more PW shots but I have my guns set all on the same range ((400 in all the planes I fly)); It seems to do more damage as one round from each gun  rather then several rounds from one gun.

[Oleg]

With .50 cal you have bigger chances to cause PW because of:
1) more guns x faster rate of fire = more bullets in same time = more chances to hit pilot;
2) 1 x 0.50 must be enough to PW, 1 x 20mm in pilot = PK i believe;
3) 20mm is HE, it cause more damage to skin and airframe, 12mm is AP and more likely to hit fuel/engine/pilot; there are no fragments from cannon's round in AH, afaik.

[Masherbrum]

Cannons weren't exactly reliable in WWII.

[Nilsen]

For me the cannons are the way to go. I often land my K4, g14 without having used a single mg round and only used the 30mm

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
Cannons weren't exactly reliable in WWII.

Evidence?  Or are you just spreading FUD?

The 20mm cannons on the Spitfire had one stoppage in 2500 rounds fired.  I understand the German cannons were more reliable thabn the Spitfire's.

That doesn't sound worse than what I've heard of machineguns having.

Particularly the P-51B had serious stoppage issues on its machine guns.

[Denniss]

The early 20 mm Hispanos used in Spit IB had issues but later version proved to be fine.

The germans usually were very reliable maybe except the MK 108 that had some small issues if firing from within turning with several G's.

[Gibbage]

.50's are good for taking out SYSTEMS with its AP ammo.  Pilot is a system.  So is an engine, fuel tank, and other systems.  Cannon's are good for taking our structure's like wings, flaps and other large area's with its HE ammo.  Im not very sure how AH does its DM, but thats how it is in real life.  A 6 pack of .50's is better for killing a pilot.  There are stories of a 20MM HE shell exploding INSIDE the cockpit in front of the cockpit, and he flew back to base with flash burns and some shrapnal wounds.  A .50 cal hitting a body is not very surviveable.  Also, with multiple .50's firing at a high ROF, you have a higher chance of hitting.

I think for fighter vs fighter combat, 6x .50's are VERY effective if your a good aim.  I would go with that then 1 or 2 20MM and a few light HMG armorment that the standard WWII fighter (109, Spitfire, A6M, and Yak).  8x is even better

[AquaShrimp]

U.S. 20mm cannons were unreliable.

The U.S. Hispanos were not built to the specifications that the British Hispanos were.  Also, cannons in the F4U-1C would freeze due to using the wrong type of lubricant.

[Shuckins]

The initial trajectories of a M2 .50 caliber Browning and a 20 millimeter Hispano-Suiza were virtually identical, ranging from 870 mps for the M2 to 840-880 mps for the Hispano (depending on model).

That's roughly 3000 fps.  Bullet drop would be identical as well, at least over the first 300 yards of range.  Beyond that, bullet weight and ballistic coefficient begin to play a part.  The Browning round would have a better long range trajectory because its form is more streamlined, yielding a better ballistic coefficient.  The 20 millimeter made up for this deficiency by yielding more destructive power against the structure of an enemy aircraft.

In combat, most of the more experienced fighter pilots seldom fired at long range, preferring to get as close as possible, within 200 yards most of the time, before opening fire.   At that range, trajectory would not be an issue with either type of armament.  The fifty caliber was a better choice for the younger, greener pilots because they tended to take longer shots and their aim not as good.

For that reason, the USAAC preferred the .50 caliber to the 20 millimeter.  The U.S. Navy, which tended to have older, more experienced pilots would have liked to make a change to 20 millimeter, but tended to follow the Army's lead.

Regards, Shuckins

[Gibbage]

Originally posted by Shuckins
The initial trajectories of a M2 .50 caliber Browning and a 20 millimeter Hispano-Suiza were virtually identical, ranging from 870 mps for the M2 to 840-880 mps for the Hispano (depending on model).

Please correct me if im wrong, but most Hispano's in WWII had a ROF around 650-750RPM.  Only the later Hispano V's had a ROF near 850?  And only the Hawlker Tempest V Mk 2 (~800 produced) used them?  Also, the MG-151/20 had a ROF of around 750RPM.  The ShVAK also had a RPM of 700-800RPM.  So most WWII 20MM's fired in the rang of 750RPM, not 850, giving the .50 cal a ROF advantage, like I stated above.  Also, the Hispano V's had a short berral, lower MV, and differant ballistics then the M2 .50 cal.