Why was the US the only nation to rely on the 50

Glider · 12-07-2005, 12:22 AM

A still believe that if the USA had been forced to take on a plane such as the B17 or B29 the 0.5 would have been found badly lacking. All forces that faced these planes went up to 30mm guns and the 0.5 would ave lacked the punch.
The 0.5 was only effective because of the planes it had to fact i.e. single engined planes, mainly pre war twins, and highly inflammable Jap bombers. Even B25's and B26's wold have proved a handful.

syscom3 · 12-07-2005, 12:25 AM

The .50 had plenty of kinetic energy to deal with heavy bombers.

Glider · 12-07-2005, 12:32 AM

Then why did all the airforces that faced them had to go up the 30mm cannons?

Gemhorse · 12-07-2005, 02:19 AM

One point also, the British were indeed interested in arming-up with .50's, about the time after the Lancaster came on stream, but by then the US was into the War, and their demand delayed a serious introduction earlier...The British .303's had a high rate of fire, a ''good spray'', but they eventually had .50's in Spitfires [with cannon] and Lancasters got two of them in their rear-turrets later on too....The earlier variants of Mustangs that the RAF got were eventually fully up-graded from .30 cal to .50's too......

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-07-2005, 03:11 AM

While I somewhat agree about .50 cal, the 20mm and 30mm were better suited for heavy bombers such as the B-17.

CurzonDax · 12-07-2005, 02:04 PM

But I think the bottom line is this, logistics and supply. Its great weapon, but not the best, and it will do the job well, not great but well. Look at Pratt & Whitney. The did build kickin engines but again supply and demand. Also the .50 has a higher cyclic reate than many cannons of its time and it has withstood the test of time, the fifties of today are not much more different than thier ones 60 years ago. Also to fire one is like to have the hand of the Goddess in your hands. Also I bet that B-17 armourors liked to carry a fifty around to install much better than a cannon!

:{)

syscom3 · 12-07-2005, 02:37 PM

I dont think the Germans had armed their fighters with a full compliment of six heavy MG like the US did. remember, that when the war began for the US in 1941, there were two fighters that were designed from the outset to handle high flying "enemy" bombers. The P38 with its concentrated firepower which acted like a buzz saw, and the P47, which had eight .50's which would have ripped apart its opponant, just from the ammount of lead flying through the air.

Glider · 12-07-2005, 04:25 PM

As a defensive weapon for bombers I have always believed that the .50 was more or less an ideal weapon. It had range, accuracy and you could put twins in a turret giving you a good rate of fire. 20mm in a turret would be too heavy.
However as you will have noted to take on a Heavy Bomber I believe that you needed something bigger.

carpenoctem1689 · 12-07-2005, 04:48 PM

The 12.7mm was perfect for bomber defense, because like stated above, it was lighter then cannons, had a great fire rate, good range and decent enough power to deal with interceptors. The 12.7mm, unless concentrated, or used in high numbers (six to eight) wasnt the best anti-bomber weapon, because youd have to get in close enough to be in the enemies defensive range, and you couldnt bring him down too quickly. But cannon arent as effective against fighters because they have a slower rate of fire, and that decreases the chance of hitting a small, fast aircraft. So they tended to go overboard with 12.7mm (p-47 had eight, some say adequate, i say a little too much) or go with all cannon (Tempest, some spitfires and hurricanes, typhoon) or my favorite, mix up two cannon, two machine guns. The 12.7mm was perfect fopr defense, and adaptable to attack.

syscom3 · 12-07-2005, 07:25 PM

The problem with mixed armorment is the different trajectories the shell would have. I think some P38 pilots disliked the 20mm because of that.

I always did think the B17/B24/B29 should have have a pair of 20mm or 30mm cannons.

Off topic, but the B52's had a .50's for the tail gunner, untill the advent of the vulcan cannon.

lesofprimus · 12-07-2005, 07:43 PM

Yes syscom, Ive heard the same thing from some Vets, concerning the 20mm trajectory compared to the .50's...

Then again, Ive also heard that some loved the 20mm for the extra puch it carried.... You can never make everyone happy all the time....

(except the Sturmgruppen pilots)

CurzonDax · 12-07-2005, 09:08 PM

There is also the cyclic rate. One of the reasons why the P-47 and the Lightning could plow the field was the higher cyclic rate of the .50 compared to the cannons of its contemporaries. Yes the rounds were smaller and the range was shorter in the .50 but more bullets were flying downrange than a cannon.

:{)

Jank · 12-07-2005, 09:51 PM

The range of the .50BMG was not shoretr than any of the 20mm rounds used in the war.

The .50 had a flater trajectory due mostly to its high sectional density, ballistic coefficient and velocity.

Jabberwocky · 12-07-2005, 10:47 PM

Lunatic posted a very good giude to the ballistic properties of various aerial weapons of WW2.

http://members.cox.net/rg_lunatic/gunpage/

and Rings PRO page also has an excellent technical comparison between the various fighter armaments, if his service privider ever fixes the bloody hosting problems it has been having!

Glider · 12-07-2005, 11:48 PM

All guns are different and there was a significant difference between the best and worst of any calibre. However if we are comparing the USA M2 .50 against the standard British Hispano II the cyclic rate was similar.

M2 13.5 rds per second
20mm 10 rds per second

slower certainly but the 20mm was quick enough for the job.