Favorite gun armament of WWII aircraft

[krieghund]

There's nothing like jumping in a Spit MkI and defending Pearl on dec 7th. When you hit the Japs its like a 12 gauge in full bore on the skeet range...nothing but dust.

I use it in MS CFS II but don't dogfight the zeros.


Loose the dogs!!!

[HoHun]

Hi Fokker,

>In World War two however, fighters would mostly engage at ranges below 300 meters.

Quoting "No Guts, No Glory":

"Contrary to much that has been published, the Fighter Pilots [in Korea] who shot down an occassional Mig or two, got them around 122-366 meters just like they did in Europe and the Southwest Pacific during World War II."

In fact, it's interesting to note that while the permissible deflection increases (approximately) linearly with muzzle velocity, the target "area" (actually, the two-dimensional angle) decreases with the square of the range.

That's one reason the "search for high velocity" did not result in an operational high-velocity aircraft gun - firing range was not as important as destructiveness in actual combat. After all, it was relatively easy to get closer to a target in air combat (unless, as "No Guts, No Glory" points out, one's aircraft was seriously outperformed and one had to take "desparation shots").

The other reason high velocity was of limited value was that high-velocity guns suffered from barrel vibrations that increased the size of the pattern considerably. Instead of hitting the aim point accurately, high-velocity guns would shower the general area of the target with projectiles, which made it difficult to achieve the concentration of fire necessary to actually knock down the target.

Thus the 122 - 366 meter figure m provided by "Boots" Blesse.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Fokker D21]

Mr Williams, I think your book "Flying Guns of WW2" is clarifying and well written. I love to read books wich are written based on decent historical research.

Especially stories that contradict populair belief have my intrest. For instance the USA failing in every attempt to get a 20 mm gun in service. Or the Soviets having the most efficient guns but not being able to take full advantage of them because of the limited guns per fighter. And there are many others.

I took the challenge to come up with a gun power formula of my own (see my website) based on kinetic and chemical damage. I also took the liberty to redo your calculations a little bit more accurate and fore more guns. Please let me know what you think of it.

One thing is interesting tough. The end result is very close to your formula.
To make the cartridge power figures more accurate, I multiplied your cartridge power values with the factor 3, otherwise all rifle calibre machine guns would get the figure 1.

[Fokker D21]

I have a question. Does anyone know how many rounds the wing root MG 17's in the Focke Wulf Fw 190 A1 had. No German manual or document I found gives any information about this. Furthermore there is some contradicting info on the amount of ammo for the engine mounted MG 17's which is sometimes 850 and othertimes 900 rounds per gun. And last but not least is it the A5 version that switched the 60 rounds drums for the outboard MG FF/M's for 90 rounds?

[Tony Williams]

Originally Posted by Fokker D21

Mr Williams, I think your book "Flying Guns of WW2" is clarifying and well written. I love to read books wich are written based on decent historical research.

Especially stories that contradict populair belief have my intrest. For instance the USA failing in every attempt to get a 20 mm gun in service. Or the Soviets having the most efficient guns but not being able to take full advantage of them because of the limited guns per fighter. And there are many others.

I took the challenge to come up with a gun power formula of my own (see my website) based on kinetic and chemical damage. I also took the liberty to redo your calculations a little bit more accurate and fore more guns. Please let me know what you think of it.

One thing is interesting tough. The end result is very close to your formula.
To make the cartridge power figures more accurate, I multiplied your cartridge power values with the factor 3, otherwise all rifle calibre machine guns would get the figure 1.

I'm pleased you enjoyed the book (if anyone's interested, it has sold out but the publishers are printing another 500 this month - with a few minor amendments, I hope).

It's always possible to amend the factors in any firepower formula (Henning made some suggestions which are included at the end of the article on my website). However, the variables involved are so huge in terms of exactly where the bullet or shell hits and the path it takes, that there is a limit to the degree of precision which it is worth having. And as you point out, at the end of the day the gun comparison results turn out to be much the same.

[Denniss]

The A-5/A-6 manual lists 900 rounds 7.92 mm as maximum for the engine MG 17.

[KrazyKraut]

Sorry to revive this thread but I have to voice my opinion

When I think perfect armament I somehow always end up at the longnosed 190s:

D-9: Perfect multi-role armament with a bias towards anti-fighter work. 2 20mm and 2 13mm placed reasonably close together and close to the ReVi-sight. Not as unforgiving as the 109s all-centered armament, though. No wing mounted cannons that jam, no flexing, no adverse effect on roll-rates.

Another option that'd be interesting is to replace the 13mm MGs with a third MG151 firing through the spinner: That would reduce drag a bit (no bumps on the cowling) and make aiming more predictable as all guns would have roughly the same trajectory. Also you can't argue with a good engine cannon (assuming you can make one that is reliable), at least in theory it seems like the best place for a gun overall. I think they tried that armament on one of the Doras too.

D-13(???): Good allround armament, this time biased towards intercepting bombers: The centerline 30mm inflicts serious damage and the two 20mm do their part and provide more than self-defense against fighters.