Cannons

[Devil 505]

Because cannon rounds are measured in millimeters. Damn metric system.
 - 'murica! 


 

[Elfie]

The common belief that the US found the .50 adequate and didn't bother with cannons is completely wrong. Even pre-war the USAAF wanted cannon armed planes; the P-38 and P-39 were both designed with cannon armament. However, the Americans had real problems making their cannons work properly. The Oldsmobile cannon in the P-39 often could only get a shot or two off before jamming, and the US 20 mm Hispano development was a complete debacle of incompetence, institutional bickering and Anglophobia. So when war came the USAAF had to resign any hopes of cannon armed fighters and focus on the only reliable gun they had: The Browning M2. It was overweight (weighed almost as much as a 20 mm MG 151), but it was reliable and packed a good punch for the size of its round.

I haven't seen you in so long I thought you might have died or fell off the ends of the earth.   

[GScholz]

I've been around.

[RotBaron]

The last time Americans traded cannon fire with the Redcoats was during the war of 1812...

Yes, that's what I was referring to. And it was a joke; I think both sides at the time had light 6lb'r and the big gun was a 16lb'r. Although somewhere I seem to recall some French help in the way I mentioned...

[Wolfala]

Read up


http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/CannonMGs.htm

[GScholz]

Williams' site is excellent. Highly recommended read.

[GScholz]

Yes, that's what I was referring to. And it was a joke; I think both sides at the time had light 6lb'r and the big gun was a 16lb'r. Although somewhere I seem to recall some French help in the way I mentioned...

Oh... I thought you meant the revolutionary war. The one you won.

[Rob52240]

Oh... I thought you meant the revolutionary war. The one you won.

We didn't win it so much as we stuck it out long enough for the King to say screw it, they ain't worth the expense.

[GScholz]

That's the definition of winning. Or as Ho Chi Minh said it: "You will kill ten of us, we will kill one of you, but in the end, you will tire of it first." Oppressing a hostile population has never worked in the long run, and never will. You won your freedom, and in doing so inspired many other peoples to fight for theirs.

[Rob52240]

That's the definition of winning. Or as Ho Chi Minh said it: "You will kill ten of us, we will kill one of you, but in the end, you will tire of it first." Oppressing a hostile population has never worked in the long run, and never will. You won your freedom, and in doing so inspired many other peoples to fight for theirs.

Yes but unfortunately only to have a huge portion of our population embracing authoritarianism these days.  Demanding more restrictions and less freedom all in the name of feeling safe. 
Frequently they claim it's for the purpose of making sure everyone gets an equal piece of the pie regardless of what they contributed (if anything) to actually make the pie.  Just as often it's done for the purpose of "saving the environment" even though most of these folks believe that activism is the same as taking action except activism deserves more merit.

And less often, for the sake of protecting their sense of tradition.

Too many Americans take for granted what the founders fought hard and sacrificed for because they'd rather be a stooge for their favorite aspiring dictators.  All because since they know what's best for everyone else they feel entitled to impose their will upon everyone else.

[GScholz]

Oh, I'm not going to touch that one... 

[Swoop]

Although they may have been lent to us by Napoleon, don't recall exactly.

LOL LOL LOL.   

[Elfie]

Oh, I'm not going to touch that one... 

The temptation is strong in this one....




 

[morfiend]

Why did colonial planes not have cannons?.

  This might have the answer you're looking for Zack....


   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vziD7-_Bn9A

   If not,well watch to the end and you'll find a clue!


   

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

From what i understand two major reasons americans didn't see cannons used was wing bending (weak engines to pull ammo into chambers), and the firing pins were too short.


Wings bending and the G load on the ammo belt ment the engines that pulled the ammo in were too weak, when the ammo did chamber, the pins would not connect. HOW every other nation got over this issues before the americas,WHY it was never solved untill after wwII is..beyond me.


But..all in all we still had the .50's being pumped out all over the world, so i guess the direct need was not that much needed. Probably one of the major reasons jets like the f86 had machine guns and not cannon.