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

[syscom3]

Doesnt the 50 cal have a longer sustained rate of fire?

[Glider]

To be honest I don't know but the ideal burst for any fighter pilot was 2 seconds so I don't really know how important that was.

At the end the M2 was more accurate at long range as the gun ballistics were better but the 20mm carried 8-10 times the explosive so was far more effective when it hit. As the M2 wasn't 8-10 times more accurate the advantage was definately with the 20mm.

[Jank]

The 20mm did not carry "8-10 times the explosive" compred to the .50 BMG because the .50 BMG bulets had no explosive. Ball, armor piercing and incindiary. Thats it.

[Glider]

Let me rephrase that to Incendary material.

[Jabberwocky]

A 20mm Hispano HEI (High Explosive Incidenary) round carries about 10 1/2 grams of explosive material.

A 12.7 M8 API (Armour Piercing Incidenary) carries about 0.85 grams of incidenary material.

So a Hispano HEI round carries about 12 time the amount of chemical material that a .50 cal round does.

Obviously, the 20mm HEI round is going to have significantly more blast/overpressure, fragmentation and ingintion effects than the smaller M2 round.

Standard belting for the Hispano from 1942 was a 50/50 mix of AP ball and HEI. I'm not sure about the M2 belting, but I think that it was something like API-AP-API-AP-Tracer.

[wmaxt]

The tracer round had a different trajectory than other .50 pounds.

As for loadout, often in the Pacific P-38 groups used no tracer rounds and their kill count went up. The count went up because they relied on the gun site rather than the tracer for more accurate aiming and the lack of a tracer (no warning for the target) allowed a second try if the first didn't connect.

wmaxt

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by CurzonDax

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.
:{)

The .50's of today are the same one from 60 years ago. They have just been overhauled. We have several .50's in my unit and they were manufactured in 1942.

Originally Posted by syscom3

I dont think the Germans had armed their fighters with a full compliment of six heavy MG like the US did.

Depends on the fighter you are talking about:

Dornier Do-335B-2
Two 20mm MG 151/20 machine guns above the nose
Two 30mm Mk 103 cannon mounted in the wings.
One 30mm Mk 103 cannon firing through the propellor hub.

Fw 190A-3
Two 7.92mm MG 17 machine guns above engine.
Two 20mm Mg 151/20 cannon mounted in wing root.
Two 20mm MG/FF cannon in outer wings.

He 219A-2/R1
Two 20mm MG 151/20 Cannon in wing roots.
Two or Four 20mm MG 151/20 Cannon in belly tray.
Two 30mm Mk 108 cannon in Shräge Musik mount.

He 219A-7/R1
Two 30mm Mk 108 Cannon in wing roots.
Two 20mm MG 151/20 Cannon in belly tray.
Two 30mm Mk 103 Cannon in belly tray.
Two 30mm Mk 108 cannon in Shräge Musik mount.
Ammunition: 100 rounds per gun

He 219A-7/R2
Two 30mm Mk 108 Cannon in wing roots.
Two 20mm MG 151/20 Cannon in belly tray.
Two 30mm Mk 108 Cannon in belly tray.
Two 30mm Mk 108 cannon in Shräge Musik mount.
Ammunition: 100 rounds per gun

Bf-110G

Armament:
Nose: Fixed firing forward
Two 30mm Mk 108 Cannon with 135 rounds per gun
Two 20mm MG 151 Cannon with 300 rounds(port) and 350 rounds(starboard)
And
Two 20mm MG 151 Cannon in Shrage Musik Installation (Firing Obliquely forward)
Or
Two 7.92mm MG 81 in rear cockpit

Optional:
Waffenwanne 151Z ventral tray housing two forward firing 20mm MG 151 cannon

[102first_hussars]

Originally Posted by MacArther

I know that other nations, like Germany and Japan changed caliburs late in the war, but why was America the only one favoring the high calibur machine gun rounds from the get go? As for the rebuttle that Germany and Britain used 20mm, that is not a machine gun. That is a cannon.

Well Canada still uses the 50.cal as a platform machinegun and Ill tell you that weapon is a bastard to carry in the feild, **** that thing weighs close to 100lbs, personally I wouldnt have even gone with the lighter 30.cal.

But the Brits and Canadians used 50.cals in our bombers and spits, and in some cases we mounted them oon our shermans.

[syscom3]

The german fighters looked like they got plenty of cannon, but not 12.7mm MG

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by 102first_hussars

[
Well Canada still uses the 50.cal as a platform machinegun and Ill tell you that weapon is a bastard to carry in the feild, sh*t that thing weighs close to 100lbs, personally I wouldnt have even gone with the lighter 30.cal.

It weighs more than that. In order for a unit to carry it on foot, you have to break it down into 3 parts. The Barrel, the Reciever Assy, and the Tripod Assy. It takes 3 people to carry the .50. That is why in the US, it is only a crew served weapon and is mounted on Tanks, Helicopters, and Vehicles now adays.

Originally Posted by syscom3

The german fighters looked like they got plenty of cannon, but not 12.7mm MG

For MG's they did not have 12.7mm anyhow. They used 7.7mm and 13mm mostly.

[102first_hussars]

It weighs more than that. In order for a unit to carry it on foot, you have to break it down into 3 parts. The Barrel, the Reciever Assy, and the Tripod Assy. It takes 3 people to carry the .50. That is why in the US, it is only a crew served weapon and is mounted on Tanks, Helicopters, and Vehicles now adays.

We cant use it on vehicles and whatnot (we used too) since we are sooo commited to the U.N. its actually illegal to use it on vehichles because that means we would usually be shooting at people, (they want us to use it against vehichles)

I can sorta see why because if you by any chance survive a shot by a 50.cal youre a vegitable for the rest of your life, were phasing the weapon out and chances are when the U.S comes out with a new HBHMG well get that one.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No we mount the .50 on the vehicles. We abide the Geneva Convention also, just like Canada. We are only supposed to use it against hard targets, not soft targets like soldiers. However if you read up on the Geneva Convention. Personell in the Vehicles are fair game, because you are not directly shooting at them.

[Jabberwocky]

As the USA is not currently a signatory to the 1977 protocols of the Geneva convention, I am not sure if it abides by all the provisions of the convention. It does generally follow the accepted 'rules of war' but recently there have been several official complaints put foward by the International Red-Cross. As far as I am aware it is a signatory to Conditions I-IV of the 1949 Convention Conference, as well as the eariler 1906 and 1923 Conventions. However, as it is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court, I don't think that actions can be brought against it even if it does violate agreements it is signed to.

Certainly the US used .50 calibre weapons in anti-personnel roles in the Vietnam canflict. Whether this has changed more recently, I don't know.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

What you have been hearing about recently is about the CIA not about the Military. As a member of the US Army I am trained on the Geneva Convention Laws and am ordered to abide by the laws of the Geneva Convention.

[Jank]

Who says it's against the geneva convention to shoot people with the .50 BMG?

Even in WWII, it wasn't comsidered an atrocious thing to strafe troops with the .50 BMG.