Voss,
His point(s) are incorrect - that's what I'm saying:
"The point is there wasn't much on enemy aircraft that an M2 .50cal couldn't punch a hole through..."
From one of his own sources...
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-ar.html...which he apparently didn't take the time to read thoroughly or he just quoted the parts that supported his argument and ignored the parts that didn't work for him:
"The Spitfire F Mk.21, a late war model, was considered protected against German 20mm AP rounds in a 20 degrees cone from the rear, and against 13 mm rounds from the front. The US Navy expected fighters to carry armour able to stop a .50 rounds at 200 yards. Early in the war the relatively slow projectiles of the Type 99-1 cannon were often stopped by the armour of the F4F. Protection against US .50 rounds was the required standard for German fighters. Indeed it would not have made much sense for most German aircraft to carry armour that would not stop the .50 at combat distances, for this was the standard weapon of the USAAF, the enemy that was most often met in daylight combat."
The whole point here - anything really critical is going to have some armor protection by 1944. The Fw 190D-9 and post 1942 Fw 190As even had armored cowl rings to cover vs. frontal MG hits in a ~20 degree total arc.
Going back a little, regarding his comment about 'only U.S. and (maybe) British aircraft using FH armor plate for protection' (gee, think the guy flies mainly U.S. and British aircraft in FA?)(URL for this quote same as listed above):
"How effective was the armour? It's thickness varied from 8 mm to about 13 mm. The armour was certainly effective against rifle-calibre machineguns, but these weapons were increasingly replaced by far more powerful medium-calibre machineguns or by cannon. The American .50 AP M2 round, a projectile with a high muzzle velocity, was expected to penetrate 1 inch (24.5 mm) at 100 yards (91 mm) and the AP-I M8 round still 7/8 inch. However, such armour penetration figures are traditionally measured against a homogeneous "standard" plate, while the armour plate fitted to aircraft would be face-hardened plate of good quality, to achieve maximal protection for minimal weight. Also important was that before it could hit the armour, the projectile had to pass through the aircraft skin and maybe structural members, which would deflect it or slow it down and was likely to cause tumbling, which would considerable reduce armour penetration. In this way relatively thin plates could greatly increase the protection. Equipment in the aft fuselage could be carefully arrange so that the bullet would have to pass it first, before it could hit the pilot. Finally, typical firing distances were of the order of 300 yards. Most airforces seem to have felt that the armour of their fighters offered substantial protection against .50 and even 20 mm rounds."
Even if he's trying to prove an (unbiased) point about how .50 BMG should be more effective vs. U.S. aircraft in FA, he never gives us any FA gun data. If he doesn't like the fact that the .50 BMG isn't super effective vs. an F6F for example, he's going to have to play 'X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter' if he can't handle it. Of all the fighter aircraft in WW2, USN aircraft are going to be able to handle .50 BMG fire better than anything else. Sturdier construction head to toe, tougher material all over including the skin of the wings and fuselage. An F6F *should* be able to absorb a large volume of .50 BMG API hits, barring a critical hit (which with the F6F, being radial engined, your only real critical hit is going to be to penetrate the pilot's protection and kill or incap him).
Don't get me wrong here - unless you've wasted a fair amount of time researching stuff like this when you come across a page like that it looks pretty damn convincing. But that's the danger of the internet when it comes to research: *anyone* can put up a detailed looking web page to support his own agenda.
Also, don't get me wrong about .50 BMGs - they are great guns. But some people can't get their head/ego/errant version of history around the fact that one mid-late war 2cm HEI or APHE or APHEI (mid-late war is when you started to see high pressure explosive warheads made to break spars and support with near hits, and use casing fragmentation to damage nearby fragile components, as opposed to early war 'big charge but non-optimized effect' MG FF Minengeschoß rounds) has a much better chance of bringing down an aircraft than 4 or more .50 BMG API hits. the .50 BMG API hits *need* to score a critical hit. Good HE based cannon rounds *create* their own critical hits.
In fighter vs. fighter combat, it can 'wash' sometimes. Put 50+ close range .50 BMG API hits on a fighter: the fighter is so small and so tightly packed with important stuff that you are almost guranteed a critical hit or three. But when it comes to snap shots and limited time on target (more and more common late in WW2 when your fighters were all becoming much faster, so the average exposure to a burst with anything but a tracking shot was becoming lower) a good cannon round has a far better chance of scoring/creating a fatal hit with 1 or 2 hits.
If a F6F engine took 4 .50 BMG API rounds you are going to lose a cylinder or two, start leaking oil, your 'critical hit' would be causing a fuel fire (not likely). Time to head back to the CV.
Take 1 2cm APHE hit and there's a chance the engine is wrecked if the round detonantes near the center of the engine. Also a chance of fragment damage to the cockpit and pilot. Etc., etc., etc.
Me, I'd say don't get hit by anything... 8)
Mike/wulfie
