Were smaller cal weapons REALLY this bad?

[Motherland]

He was lucky

That's it right there.

I used to have a quote on here from Heinz Knoke, Staffelkapitaen of 5.JG11 and 33 kill ace, where he shredded a Thunderbolt with a short, single burst of fire from his 109. I can't find it now though. It's from his book "I Flew for the Fuehrer". Really good book.

[Noir]

His book, Thunderbolt!, is a good read. 

I guess I'll have to read it someday, everytime I hear about that I get a different version 

I hope it exists a French translation but working my English can't be bad either 

[Halo46]

I guess I'll have to read it someday, everytime I hear about that I get a different version 

I hope it exists a French translation but working my English can't be bad either 

Lol, I know what you mean, that's the way it is with war stories. Not sure if the book is in translation. Look for Robert S. Johnson, he was the pilot, the Bantam copy I have was written by Martin Caidin. There are some photographs floating around the webisphere of the plane after landing as well. 

[Simaril]

Scorepages.
Expanded Stats
Player vs Plane. Select Player & Plane
It's nto displayed correctly by default, but when I switch view to "user mode"  in Opera, all tables are shown

Interesting how the topic of discussion changed from "It did TOO happen" to "How did you check that?"

[Widewing]

we have like 10 threads covering this in here.

EDIT : I've been looking for one, couldn't find it.
you say  lucky that the 190 was out of 20mm (no cannon impacts were found on the P47 afterwards IIRC), that illustrates the 7mm efficiency.

Johnson's P-47 took no less than twenty two 20mm hits prior to his later encounter with the 190 while limping home. Moreover, his Jug took many more than 200 7.92mm hits. They merely stopped counting at 200.

I posted a series of photos of this P-47 elsewhere. Was probably lost when they rolled back the BBS.

My regards,

Widewing

[Cajunn]

we have like 10 threads covering this in here.

EDIT : I've been looking for one, couldn't find it.
you say  lucky that the 190 was out of 20mm (no cannon impacts were found on the P47 afterwards IIRC), that illustrates the 7mm efficiency.

 

Wasn't the topic smaller cal weapons?
I said nothing about Cannons!

[Noir]

 

Wasn't the topic smaller cal weapons?
I said nothing about Cannons!

lol sorry about the thread hijack, and I was wrong on top of it  .

[Tony Williams]

This is true, but for future readers I'll note that the .303s in the Spitfire and Hurricane Mk. I were designed for the purpose of using the same ammunition as the standard infantry rifle of the time, and therefor would be standard ball rounds.

From "The Battle of Britain: armament of the competing fighters": http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm

"Comparative British tests of British .303" and German 7.92 mm incendiary ammunition against the self-sealing wing tanks in the Blenheim, also fired from 200 yards (180m) astern, revealed that the .303" B. Mk IV incendiary tracer (based on the First World War Buckingham design � it was ignited on firing and burned on its way to the target) and the 7.92 mm were about equal, each setting the tanks alight with about one in ten shots fired. The B. Mk VI 'De Wilde' incendiary (named after the original Belgian inventor but in fact completely redesigned by Major Dixon), which contained 0.5 grams of SR 365 (a composition including barium nitrate which ignited on impact with the target) was twice as effective as these, scoring one in five.

The 'De Wilde' bullets were first issued in June 1940 and tested operationally in the air battles over Dunkirk. Their improved effectiveness, coupled with the fact that the flash on impact indicated that the shooting was on target, was much appreciated by the fighter pilots. It was at first in short supply, and the initial RAF fighter loading was three guns loaded with ball, two with AP, two with Mk IV incendiary tracer and one with Mk VI incendiary. Another source for the Battle of Britain armament gives four guns with ball, two with AP and two with incendiaries (presumably Mk VI) with four of the last 25 rounds being tracer (presumably Mk IV incendiary/tracer) to tell the pilot he was running out of ammunition. It is not clear why ball was used at all; presumably there was a shortage of the more effective loadings. (By 1942 the standard loading for fixed .303s was half loaded with AP and half with incendiary.)"

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

[Sincraft]

Johnson's P-47 took no less than twenty two 20mm hits prior to his later encounter with the 190 while limping home. Moreover, his Jug took many more than 200 7.92mm hits. They merely stopped counting at 200.

I posted a series of photos of this P-47 elsewhere. Was probably lost when they rolled back the BBS.

My regards,

Widewing

Interesting! 

[Sincraft]

First, define "point blank"

Second, how much MG ammo did you have when you ran out of cannon?

Third, of all the shots you fired, how many hit?

If you have 2x 50cal or equivelant (MG131, 12.7mm, etc) and have a lot of ammo left, you are NOT out of the fight. The more manuverable your plane is, the more lethal you still are. 2x 50cals are more than enough to bring a plane down (especially if nose mounted!) IF you land a good solid burst on target. I'm not talking a glancing snapshot as he ducks and dodges your BnZ. It takes a solid burst, but it's quite effective.

If you're lucky it takes just a single ping (to the cockpit), but generally don't bet on that.

In summation, "You missed him."

By point blank I mean, sitting exactly at conv spraying 2 second bursts at times with planes not moving seemingly afk flying home.   I've also had instances where I've hit with deflection shots with the bb's and utterly destroy a plane.  Most of the time however, I note that the small cal weapons seem to be very ineffective or worthless at best.  With the lag in this game and prediction code/ I would think that it's pretty useless for most unless the guy IS flying straight AND doesn't move when he hears that ping AND you are hitting a critical control surface and not just seat armor.

[Krusty]

And what, exactly, was your convergence, and which guns were fired? (if this isn't the original situation)

[EDIT]

I ask because these solid-bullet guns lose impact force the further down-range they are. They should never be fired with intent to kill outside 300 yards (only intent to spook/scare a target into turning)

[Coolguy0730]

I just use the .303s on the Spits as a spook when Im at like 600, then when they turn, I take them out with my Cannons. It works 70% of the time.

[spit16nooby]

I killed a b-17 with .303s from 600 out.  I also used a ton of ammunition but I had my convergence at 650 and they all converged on the wing root setting it on fire and knocking out 1 engine.

[AirFlyer]

I've taken off F4U's wings with my Zero's cowling guns (7.7mm and 13.1mm) with only about 200 rounds or so. You just need to get in at about 200 Yrds or less and keep the fire at the same area.

[Tony Williams]

I killed a b-17 with .303s from 600 out.  I also used a ton of ammunition but I had my convergence at 650 and they all converged on the wing root setting it on fire and knocking out 1 engine.

In the RL BoB, the RAF found that their original convergence range of 400 yards was much too far for their fire to be fully effective even against the Luftwaffe's twin-engined bombers (which were nowhere near as tough as a B-17). They reduced the convergence range to 250 yards accordingly. Even at that, they were desperate to get the much more effective 20mm Hispano into service, because too many bombers were getting home even when riddled with .303-sized holes.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website