Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: brady on January 04, 2001, 04:17:00 PM
-
The Ho-103 was basically a copy of the browning 50cal MG , but not an exact copy, it was lighter had a higher rate of fire a slightly lower M/V and it fired HEI rounds as opposed to your basic ball ammo of the 50 cal MG.The Ho-103 load out would most likely of consisted of 1 AP/tracer round followed by several of the HEI rounds and another AP/tracer....and so on. At this point a question arises (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)oes HTC factor in the explosive potential of HEI rounds on aircraft?, and do they do it for the weapons that fired them in all calibers? All of the Japanese Aircraft MG's fired a similar mix of rounds even the One's in our Zeros MG's (see bellow)
And does not the destructive potential of these rounds ,and the Higher rate of fire, make for a potentially more destructive weapon in the Ho-105, when compared to the US 50cal MG?
Ho-103: 900rpm,796M/S, wgt 22Kg
50cal: 750rpm,870M/S, Wgt. 30Kg
MG 131: 900rpm, 730M/S, Wgt 17Kg
Type 3:800rpm, 2,590fps, Wgt.66lbs
Type 2:900rpm,2,460fps, Wgt.37.5lbs
The type 3 is basically a 50cal MG although it fires a HEI round, the type 2 is basically a MG 131 firing the same type of ammo, also of note is the fact that the type 2 fires an active tracer(see bellow)which contains an explosive element.
Note: Italian 12.7mm ammo was of similar design.
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwCwcBAJLnKlURsgSepxK*goB9J!lyZBwMdKRtmBblJXgOF7kQN0try98NvYzRrP)
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwCwcBAJPnJ1b06kQwPZTMOEIbCDcxUmMCHpSThXHYICeKeEvaHme8NcsTemGYg!)
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwCwcMYIXWuhMjvj6WrMO!bfkPYlGUh5TdvlxZPy8Qt7!5QgGz8yp6MRgtLmLnn0)
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwCwcDUJZ3UeMbcnfkDNCvRDP81Llb59tVVlcCnh*wLdoynheqFzN0XrpshXSLv7)
Brady
(Please see bellow)
------------------
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwCwcPsI127zdfQrpnUcxlA3JwdurswdyuKkL2b1oC9IifgHlGH10m2*!jtTQ!E7)
[This message has been edited by brady (edited 01-04-2001).]
-
Type 2 & 3 MG's:
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwCwcOMINm6NTaIu3*d95fIvOZUAfe7H7Tg3GtStNeVt1KRnJR3Dlx*5VYCAl3LG)
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwCwcGcJAnqe6GoY58kDdjLtikO*SMoB9Mo5Q57YN3sGjPWQj*dAisdnWzqb4Z97)
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwCwcJMIF2dAieOg71BIIrsA0f9eLIJ!54j8014a536hZB6O7RNUnWR3Js5mjOId)
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwCwcBoJKXOFvZPzr4uwj4HqT3uleTl551!Xx3Mqvj5yGQX6YXl8*Jw0CoIqGZs5)
Brady
------------------
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwCwcPsI127zdfQrpnUcxlA3JwdurswdyuKkL2b1oC9IifgHlGH10m2*!jtTQ!E7)
[This message has been edited by brady (edited 01-04-2001).]
-
An interesting question, not easy to answer. The .50 fired significantly heavier projectiles than the Ho-103 (47g v c.37g) and with its higher muzzle velocity had a longer effective range and better armour penetration.
.50/12.7 calibre was very marginal for HE content to be worthwhile, which is why the US didn't bother with it, sticking with API. 20mm is generally reckoned to be the minimum for effective HE, particularly if you want to combine it with decent AP performance.
Having said that, I like the Ho-103. It is a good blend of compactness and hitting power. There's nothing wrong with the .50 M2 but it's a bit close in size and weight to a 20mm.
One thing I have learned about aircraft damage is that random effects are considerable; some aircraft survived massive damage, others were brought down by pinsalamanders (I have just read an account by a British infantry officer in N Africa, 1942, who got fed up with a Bf 109 stooging around him at low speed and altitude and fired a shot at it with his revolver. He hit the cooling system and the Messerschmitt didn't get back to base).
Tony Williams
Author: Rapid Fire - The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces.
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/ (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/)
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams:
(I have just read an account by a British infantry officer in N Africa, 1942, who got fed up with a Bf 109 stooging around him at low speed and altitude and fired a shot at it with his revolver. He hit the cooling system and the Messerschmitt didn't get back to base).
Tony Williams
Author: Rapid Fire - The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces.
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/ (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/)
Tony,
Not the dreaded "one ping kill"?!?!?!?
...and from a clearly OVERMODELED Allied Opportunist handgun?!?!?!?!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Brady, what book are you pulling these scans from ?
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Mr. Williams said:
.50/12.7 caliber was very marginal for HE content to be worthwhile, which is why the US didn't bother with it, sticking with API. 20mm is generally reckoned to be the minimum for effective HE, particularly if you want to combine it with decent AP performance.
Ok, if the HE content was not "worthwhile" in this size of round then why did so many countries produce ammo for their guns in this caliber range?
A seemingly obvious answer might be that they wanted a lighter weapon, with lighter ammo, and since they found the hitting power of M2 50cal MG attractive, they decided to make up for their lack of kinetic energy in the round by giving it some potential energy to take with it.
Also as I understand it the Japanese idea behind what they wanted their aircraft cannons/MG's to do was a little different than the US theory. The Japanese wanted to "defeat the aircraft" as opposed to the US idea of kill the pilot destroy the Powerplant and the internal workings of the plane. Hence the US 50cal MG and it's ammo, punch hole's in the skin and punch hole's in ever thing in its path till it exit's the other side.The Japanese however were after the Plane, Blow great chunks of it away ,control surfaces, wings, set the plane on fire...
Vermillion, They are from TM-1985-5 Vol. I & II, Japanese explosive ordnance.
TM 9-2200, Small arms, light field mortars,and 20-MM aircraft guns
These can be found in a Federal Library, as I understand it they are in every congressionally district. The ones I have access to are In the Oregon Military Museum.Also their is a place where u can purchase Micro film of the Books I found it on the Net by doing a search for TM-1985-5.
This is the 5th book in the series , they cover all the countries in WW2.
Brady
------------------
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwCwcPsI127zdfQrpnUcxlA3JwdurswdyuKkL2b1oC9IifgHlGH10m2*!jtTQ!E7)
[This message has been edited by brady (edited 01-05-2001).]
-
I have a couple of the manuals in this series including the one you've scanned. I sure would like to get the rest of them though.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
Originally posted by brady:
Mr. Williams said:
.50/12.7 caliber was very marginal for HE content to be worthwhile, which is why the US didn't bother with it, sticking with API. 20mm is generally reckoned to be the minimum for effective HE, particularly if you want to combine it with decent AP performance.
Ok, if the HE content was not "worthwhile" in this size of round then why did so many countries produce ammo for their guns in this caliber range?
A seemingly obvious answer might be that they wanted a lighter weapon, with lighter ammo, and since they found the hitting power of M2 50cal MG attractive, they decided to make up for their lack of kinetic energy in the round by giving it some potential energy to take with it.
Also as I understand it the Japanese idea behind what they wanted their aircraft cannons/MG's to do was a little different than the US theory. The Japanese wanted to "defeat the aircraft" as opposed to the US idea of kill the pilot destroy the Powerplant and the internal workings of the plane. Hence the US 50cal MG and it's ammo, punch hole's in the skin and punch hole's in ever thing in its path till it exit's the other side.The Japanese however were after the Plane, Blow great chunks of it away ,control surfaces, wings, set the plane on fire...
I didn't say it wasn't worthwhile - just marginal. You have to remember as well that the two nations who produced guns in this calibre - Japan and Italy - were very late in providing decent protection to their aircraft. No doubt the HE 12.7mm would have been very effective against their own aircraft, but I can't see most US planes being very impressed.
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm)
-
Mr. Willams said:
I didn't say it wasn't worthwhile - just marginal. You have to remember as well that the two nations who produced guns in this caliber - Japan and Italy - were very late in providing decent protection to their aircraft. No doubt the HE 12.7mm would have been very effective against their own aircraft, but I can't see most US planes being very impressed.
Irrespective of how well or poorly protected the aircraft of japan or Italy were or were not is I think kind of beside the point at hand. the effectiveness of their ammo on the "plane" is the question at hand, and I would think that the proprieties that would make their ammo effective against their aircraft would also make them effective against those of other nations,after all their ammo was tailored to attack the weakest element of the aircraft. The plane it's self, destroy the planes ability to fly, or be controlled and U have won the battle. punching lots of hole in a control surface with 50call ammo would have marginal effect, punching holes in the engine, pilot or fuel/cooling sys would.Blowing away the control surfaces with HEI rounds or setting on fire various parts of the plane would be effective, detonating HEI rounds on the armored seat of a US plane would not ne effective. So the moral to the story is both are effective in their own right.
Brady
------------------
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwCwcPsI127zdfQrpnUcxlA3JwdurswdyuKkL2b1oC9IifgHlGH10m2*!jtTQ!E7)
[This message has been edited by brady (edited 01-08-2001).]
-
Originally posted by brady:
The plane it's self, destroy the planes ability to fly, or be controlled and U have won the battle. punching lots of hole in a control surface with 50call ammo would have marginal effect, punching holes in the engine, pilot or fuel/cooling sys would.Blowing away the control surfaces with HEI rounds or setting on fire various parts of the plane would be effective, detonating HEI rounds on the armored seat of a US plane would not ne effective. So the moral to the story is both are effective in their own right.
Brady
You're right in principle, the only point at issue was whether the little 12.7mm bullet could carry enough HE to blow off anything very much. Once you go for HE effect as the main destructive mechanism (as the Germans did with the M-Geschoss) then you're rapidly pushed into going for bigger shells as the gains are disproportionately greater.
I don't know how much HE the 12.7mm carried but most conventional HE shells had around 10% of their weight for HE, which would make the 12.7 around 3.7g. Compare that with 18-20g for the 20mm M-Geschoss or 85g for the 30mm. Note that the MG 151 first came out in 15mm, offering the advantage of very high muzzle velocity (and it was available with M-Geschoss), but this was rapidly dropped in favour of the lower-velocity 20mm version to get more HE punch.
To knock down a tough aircraft with 12.7mm HE (and the US planes were much tougher than Japanese ones, at least until late in the war) you'd need either to score many hits in much the same place, or get very lucky. I am not a noted supported of US weapons design but I think they got it right, in that API gave the best destructive mix in the HMG class.
In the postwar period Raufoss have developed 12.7mm Multipurpose (APHEI) projectiles which are very effective, but that kind of technology wasn't available in WW2.
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm)
-
German 13mm HE rounds and US .50 AP/I carried about 1g of HE or Incendiary compound. I very much doubt that any 12.7mm round carried much more than 1g of HE.
Hooligan
-
Hooligan, which 50cal round are u referring to,cal .50 M1 , or M23 round?. Their being a considerable difference in the volume of incendiary material contained within them.
Brady
------------------
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwCwcDEJznXbXfCxAJfgD0a7w1sDVrWuMP28UBOabRCH339Yvya3KrR2Q8UMjrBJ)
[This message has been edited by brady (edited 01-09-2001).]
-
Brady:
The most common .50 round used in A/A during 1943 and later was the M8 AP/I. It contained 1.04g of incendiary compound.
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by Hooligan:
Brady:
The most common .50 round used in A/A during 1943 and later was the M8 AP/I. It contained 1.04g of incendiary compound.
Hooligan
This was really a conventional bullet with an AP core and some incendiary material in the tip. I am assuming that a purpose-designed hollow shell in 12.7mm would be able to contain more HE (although I'm away from my sources at the moment).
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm)
-
AGW:
The Germans were, to put it mildly, rather serious about HE, and since they only managed to get about 1g of PETN in their 13mm HE rounds I am assuming that nobody else did much better.
However, you clearly know a lot more about this than I do and I am looking forward to hearing what you dig up when you get access to your sources.
Hooligan
-
Lets put this into perspective.
Now to use some rough numbers I worked up real quick.
Lethality (effectiveness) is roughly proportional to applied energy.
At the muzzle, the applied energy for one solid round of MG ammunition is:
12 kJ Type I 12.7mm (Japanese)
9 kJ MG131 13mm (German)
Assuming one gram of TNT, your total energy is approximately 4.1 kJ/gram. PETN or other high order explosives deviate from TNT in energy production by within 10%, so for a rough number lets assume TNT. So your talking about adding to the total effectiveness approximately:
4.1 kJ/shell
Now at first your gonna say "WOW! A 30%-50% increase in lethality.
But unfortunately (and there's always a "But") it doesn't work that way. Only a small fraction of that total explosive energy gets applied to the total due to the nature of how explosive forces and shockwaves work. How much, I still haven't gotten a handle on myself and maybe Tony or someone else can comment. But I would say less than 20% of the total explosive force would be applicable (a total wild bellybutton guess on my part).
So now your talking less than 0.8 kJ/shell increase in lethality.
This comes out to be about a total 6%-8% increase in effectiveness per shell and thats before you consider issues such as fuzing, less actual applied Kinetic energy due to it having less mass (HE versus AP), and many others.
So are we really talking about alot of difference?
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Vermillion I'm pretty sure you can't just add the energies like that. 20% is probably VERY generous.
-
I believe the orginal intentions of these shells were for starting fires...that is easily enough explosive to destory fuel lines, fuel tanks, and/or sever other critical line (at least easier then ball or AP, AP/I aside.) The damage model in AH really isn't quite complex enough for them to have much effect.
- Jig
Btw I hope some day I can shoot a tracer stream into a leaking fuel stream and catch that plane on fire (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by Hooligan:
AGW:
The Germans were, to put it mildly, rather serious about HE, and since they only managed to get about 1g of PETN in their 13mm HE rounds I am assuming that nobody else did much better.
However, you clearly know a lot more about this than I do and I am looking forward to hearing what you dig up when you get access to your sources.
Hooligan
I've checked what sources I have (my best one is unfortunately with someone else at the moment) and I have to admit that you're right. The best figure I can get for the MG 131 is 1.3g, although that is a tracer round so there would be more space for HE if that were omitted. The only reference I can find to the Italian 12.7mm is 0.8g.
What I have discovered is that that filling weight is the statistic least often quoted!
Tony Williams
Author: Rapid Fire - The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces.
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/ (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/)
-
This Question on the weight of filling has proven to be a bit vexing,my sources give empty weight of the projectiles. At this point we are left with "best guess" , a look at the comparative volume of the "fuseless" HEI round for the H0-103, would suggest that it could carry at least 1 gram of explosive, the other Japanese rounds being more comparable to the MG 131 , and the US .50 cal would contain amounts approximately equal to and slightly greater than respectively.
Now in terms of the destructive power of the round on target, Vermillion did some nice number crunching and this helps to better illuminate, a cloudy issue.
I think after all is said and done it could be safely said that the HEI round bring something to the party that the basic ball round does not, the ability to NOT make a nice clean hole in the target, to not just put a hole in the fuel tank but to set it on fire,...
so the Ho-103 at a normal combat range of 300, 400meters, spewing a steady stream of HEI rounds with a few AP rounds thrown in for color (they being the tracers), is going to deal out death at 900rpm, I ask u gentlemen if your target was another aircraft what gun would u want to have in your plane?
Brady
------------------
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwCwcDEJznXbXfCxAJfgD0a7w1sDVrWuMP28UBOabRCH339Yvya3KrR2Q8UMjrBJ)
[This message has been edited by brady (edited 01-10-2001).]
-
I believe that in the 12.7mm range armor penetration is very important. AP/I is probably the best ammo for these guns and the .50 is probably a better choice due to its better penetration and ballistics.
Hooligan
-
Funked, thats what I'm saying.
Even if you "generous" and give it 20%, it still doesn't make enough difference for us to argue the fact for Aces High.
Hmmm.. I think I just thought of a way to at least find a ball park number for what percentage of that explosive value to use for rough comparisons. If I figure it out, I'll pass it on.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
A visual aid (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
(http://www.jg54.org/gallery/mg131heit.jpg)
Sorry, couldn't find a ma-103 at Aberdeen.
[This message has been edited by Manx (edited 01-12-2001).]
-
Nice pic Manx, i wish my photos turned out a little better from when i was their (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif).
The Ho-103 HEI(fuseless) round is a full 2inches in length,the 13mm MG 131 round is around 1 37/64 inches without the fuse, obviously the H0-103 has the bigger bang in this size range, do to the larger HEI capacity of the round, when compared to the US or German rounds in this range.
Brady
------------------
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwCwcDEJznXbXfCxAJfgD0a7w1sDVrWuMP28UBOabRCH339Yvya3KrR2Q8UMjrBJ)
[This message has been edited by brady (edited 01-12-2001).]
-
I have now heard from Ted Bradstreet, who almost certainly knows more about Japanese aircraft guns and ammunition than anyone else (certainly a lot more than I do!).
He has information on the naval rounds, and quotes 2.8g HE for the 13mm Type 2 (basically the same as the MG 131), although only 1.5g for the (13.2mm) 13mm Type 3.
Based on this, he suggests 2.5-3g for the Ho-103.
Tony Williams
Author: Rapid Fire - The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces.
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/ (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/)
-
TY, Mr. Williams (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Brady
------------------
(http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nHwCwcDEJznXbXfCxAJfgD0a7w1sDVrWuMP28UBOabRCH339Yvya3KrR2Q8UMjrBJ)
[This message has been edited by brady (edited 01-14-2001).]
-
That picture is a lot more help than you might think. Volume of the cylinder is Pie R^2 H. Now all you need is the specific gravity of your HE and you will have the amount carried by that round. Assuming that the cross section shown is right down the middle you know the diameter is 13mm then using ratio's you can determine the i.d. of the cylinder and it's height.
Also Vermillion, remember this there are reports of Migs returning to base with MANY .50 cal holes all over the place, but I don't think that many Sabers made it back with an equal number of holes.
While ball ammo has certain benefits in the armor piercing area it is somewhat limited when hitting non-armor protected areas like any place but the cockpit.
Your 20% WAG might be a little conservative. If ball ammo were so great then aircraft would still be using it today.
It's pretty easy to see how a very rapid increase of pressure in small-enclosed volume like a wing tank can cause catastrophic failure. Try putting an ounce of alcohol into a 1-gallon metal gas can when the air temp is around freezing. Then close the lid and start adding heat. By the way you might want to stand WAY back!
Now take another can and shoot it with ball ammo. Let me know which one makes a bigger hole.
Spritle
-
Ball ammo isn't that good. That's why nobody used it much by war's end.
In general HE causes a big hole and lots of damage near the surface. AP/I or APHE penetrates deep into the aircraft and potentially hits a vulnerable component (like an ammo box). Both types of rounds have their advantages, which is better depends a lot on the target characteristics.
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by Spritle:
It's pretty easy to see how a very rapid increase of pressure in small-enclosed volume like a wing tank can cause catastrophic failure. Try putting an ounce of alcohol into a 1-gallon metal gas can when the air temp is around freezing. Then close the lid and start adding heat. By the way you might want to stand WAY back!
Now take another can and shoot it with ball ammo. Let me know which one makes a bigger hole.
Spritle
LOL! That reminds me of when a friend of mine left a can of green beans in the fire. You would have thought it was HE. I'm just glad all we were around to hear was the explosion. If we would have been standing there it could have been deadly. A little heat and a little expansion. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) Also a similar effect is a safety slug. We shot a plastic milk jug filled with water with a 12 gage. You can imagine the result. Then we fired a .45 automatic pistol round at another jug filled with water. The rounds were safety slugs that on impact split into several fragments and release several BB sized pellets. The effect of the .45 round was the same as the 12 gauge. The safety slug was far more efficient in its energy delivery than a ball slug. Now if even that little .45 cal round had some HE inside the effect would be even more dramatic.
-
Originally posted by Hooligan:
In general HE causes a big hole and lots of damage near the surface. AP/I or APHE penetrates deep into the aircraft and potentially hits a vulnerable component (like an ammo box). Both types of rounds have their advantages, which is better depends a lot on the target characteristics.
Hooligan
It's really a question of armament philosophy. The USAAF mainly chose a battery of high-velocity .50 HMGs for their fighters. This meant that they destroyed aircraft by riddling them with AP bullets which in many cases would go straight through.
The Luftwaffe was in the opposite camp. They chose a small number of lower-velocity cannon (latterly 30mm) firing high-capacity HE shells fuzed to detonate within the aircraft structure, causing structural failure.
Both systems worked, but they had different targets. The USAAF was generally only engaging enemy fighters, the Luftwaffe had to deal with heavy, well-armoured bombers.
The best all-round compromise in WW2 was probably the RAF's fit of four powerful, high-velocity 20mm cannon, loaded alternately with HE/I and SAP/I. These weighed little more than six .50s (less for the Mk V version) but had about twice the destructive effect.
In Korea, the USAF stuck to .50s and found the MiGs hard to shoot down. They switched to 20mm shortly afterwards.
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm)
[This message has been edited by Tony Williams (edited 01-16-2001).]
-
Tony,
I think you meant to say well armed bombers. As I understand it bombers carried very little armour, but they did have lots of guns.
As a rule of thumb only things that carry liquids need armour i.e. radiators, heat exchangers, people....
Spritle
-
Originally posted by Spritle:
Tony,
I think you meant to say well armed bombers. As I understand it bombers carried very little armour, but they did have lots of guns.
As a rule of thumb only things that carry liquids need armour i.e. radiators, heat exchangers, people....
Spritle
Perhaps I should have said "very tough bombers". The B-17 could take an appalling amount of damage and still keep flying.
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm)