Does the plane help the gun or does the gun help the plane?? What's your opinion?

[DingHao2]

???

[funkedup]

If you are talking about fighters, the plane exists in order to get the gun within firing parameters which will allow the enemy to be destroyed.  

Without me, my rifle is useless.  Without my rifle, I am useless.  

[DingHao2]

Let me specify: fighters...does a good gun make a good fighter and a bad gun a bad fighter, or is a fighter independent of it's gun quality?

(think hispano, 30mm tater guns, yak's 37mm tater gun...)

[LtHans]

The plane comes first.  You can't kill anything if you can't get into firing position.

Hans.

[Hooligan]

There are a lot of fighter characteristics that are important (guns, speed, climb, roll rate, etc...).  A fighter with incredible guns that can only go 100mph would only be a target in the MA.  However, guns (like speed) are one of the more important characteristics IMO.

Hooligan

[Urchin]

Depends really.  I think good guns can turn an average plane into a good plane (i.e. the Chog, N1K2).  I don't think poor guns can turn a good plane into a bad plane (i.e. La7).  Actually, I think the plane is generally more important than the guns- you can have the most firepower ever fixed onto a plane (a good example would be the 190A8), but if the plane is an unmanueverable POS (like the 190A8) you aren't ever going to hit anything with them.

[SKurj]

guns don't kill planes...

planes kill planes!!


SKurj

[AN]

Well, when I start to get frustrated because I can't get enough lead in a plane to bring it down before the other guy's friend(s) show up, I start flying a plane with big guns so I can get some kills.

The obvious choices are F4u-1C, N1K, or Tiffie (there are others, but these are the *big three*).  Since I can't fly the F4 or George worth a crap, I always choose the Tiffie in that situation, because no matter how good the guns are on the other two planes, I always die before I get a chance to use them.

But if I want to put a high priority on *staying alive* in the MA while getting easy kills, the Tiffie is only my 2nd choice.  The 190D is the plane I consider to be the 'best' in the arena (well, except for the Tempest), although its guns are only 'adequate'.

Did that answer the question?

...


What was the question again?  

anRky

[Toad]

Planes evolve to suit a mission, n'est pas?

Design, engine, gun package, etc. are all roughed out on the drawing boards with a mission in mind. Ground attack, escort, air superiority, etc.

Then, depending on how it all turns out they may be modified from the original design to improve their mission capability, new technology might be added as it becomes available or, if it's a bust, perhaps the plane's mission is changed.

I don't think it's an "either/or" proposition.

You take your shot on the initial design and go from there.

[Kweassa]

Gen. Yeager said..

 "It's the man, not the machine"

 But what I wonder is what he would have said, if the situaton in Europe was opposite. Surely, the Luftwaffe had enough skilled men at the beginning. In cold truth, (well, the one I figure anyway), it was not personal conflicts which crushed the LW to its needs, but the undeniable overwhelming inferiority in strategic conditions.
 
 In my opinion, the opposite fact applies as much. Machinery is an objective element in battle, while the "Man" is a subjective, ever swaying one. Good machines enable good pilots to extend their limits and abilities to the utmost possibility, where inferior machines limit the pilot's skills.

 Thus, an intelligent, skilled pilot has to figure out how to use a inferior machine in such a creative and strict way, while a pilot with better machines can do it with much less effort.

 Therefore, I go with "guns help the plane".