I like her. All they needed was to shift the cannon forward to improve the center of gravity and use zoom 'n boom tactics.
>>65609693Its problem was no turbosupercharger. The original XP-39 had one installed on the left side of fuselage, but a 1939 USAAC contract specification (that altered the expected altitude and performance of the new fighter) change had it removed.
>>65610243Didn't the P-63 fix everything that was wrong with the P-39?
>>65609693Good enough for the Eastern Front
>>65610718P51 was simply better and the allied had no real use for canon armed planes
>>65610823>allied had no real use for canon armed planesNonsense. Spitfirr cannon preformance was always better, and a post war study by the US came to the same result. What a retarded thing to say
>>65609693>improve the center of gravityThe CG wasn't really too much of an issue for the P-39
>>65609693>If it looks good, it flys goodYeah, for the time, this was a pretty good design. I think it needed more power, mostly, but some better weight distribution would probably help. IDK anything about the wing design, but there is no reason it couldn't have benefited from similar developments of the time. It's a shame it didn't get more development.Cool plane.Good taste. Great post.
>>65610828To be a devil's advocate, the .50 cal was easier to build, maintain and provide ammunition for at the time, so on a big picture scale, it's pretty good.Personally, I'd rather have a 20mm MG-151 with AP/HE, but whatever. The Saber was definitely the last fighter plane the .50 cal was remotely viable in.Also and barely related, but F2-H Banshee is totally bad ass. I think I'll make a thread.
>>65610823>>65610718>P-63Yes it was a refinement of the original design with a laminar flow wing, but powerplant installation just had a two-stage supercharger. It gave comparable performance to the Merlin 61-engined two-stage two speed supercharger P-51B/C/D Mustang though, with better climb rate, and slightly lower performance at altitude.Both these aircraft (new Merlin P-51B, and P-63A) were in development and initiating production during the mid-late 1943 timeframe. (N.B. the P-51 was mostly rejected-ignored by the USAAC—as it was a North American Aviation foreign contract plane for RAF—1940-42, only reluctantly inducted as the modified A-36 dive bomber and a small number of P-51As during that time; the project to build a Merlin 61-powered Mustang was only the result of committed English and American engineers plus a few advocates in USAAF that pushed it along as a high altitude northern Europe single engine bomber escort fighter. That the P-51B even came to exist is a result of wartime expedience and determination)Although jet aircraft—including the P-59 project from Bell itself—were on the horizon by this time, it would have been interesting to see an actual turbosupercharged Allison P-63 and how that would have compared to, for example, the final gen P-38L and P-47M/N turbosupercharged piston-engined USAAF fighters.
>>65610841>>65610862>center of gravityIn late war flight testing the successor P-63 was found to have a superior roll rate to the P-47, P-51 and IJN's N1K2-J(the Soviet Union—recipient of most of the manufactured P-63s—did their own testing and field recommendations back to Bell Aircraft in the U.S. which included moving the cannon forward in fuselage; the A-9 variant had an improved M10 37 mm gun with higher ROF, disintegrating link belt and increased ammunition capacity)
>>65609693>be Sovanon>trained up on I-5 and I-15 before moving on to I-16>now mid-'41, get LaGG-3>water-cooled engine, overweight, numerous defects, questionable flight characteristics>sometime in late '42 get this "Airacobra" from decadent capitalist Amerikanski negro-lynchers>giant fucking cannon with fighter built around it>faster than LaGG>excellent handling compared to previous fighters>crisp, clear radio>relief funnel for pissing on Fascist invaders during combat>heated seats so glorious Bolshevik scrotum no longer freezes during winter missions>this is the fighter that the Amerikanskis DIDN'T want to use>wonder just what they aren't giving us
Though the RAF rejected their contract Airacobra Is (called by one British pilot 'a useless lump of wank') , they found it was able to out-turn the Bf 109E. At lower altitudes in the southwest Pacific islands—and as long as they maintained speed and avoided turning engagements—USAAF pilots were confident in the P-39's superior speed, armament and armor protection; but by later 1942 and Guadalcanal much of the aerial combat was taking place at 15,000 ft or greater altitude. Some USAAF pilots remarked on the P-39's relatively cramped cockpit (that may ? have been a reason the Soviets were relatively more enamored with it).
>>65609693I like her too, it looks more modern than its contemporaries, a bit like an early jet.
>>65613238Tricycle gear and the sleek pointed nose (having engine mid-mounted) are what does it. In that sense, was a futuristic design
>>65610718Still ugly, so no.
>>65611691Kek.
Did the cannon and MGs have seperate triggers? I imagine sending a 37mm everything you want to fire would be annoying as fuck with the relatively small amount of ammo and different bullet trajectories.
>>65615893>cannon and MGsyes and separate charging handles (2 for the .50s and 1 for the 37 mm), the cannon had a separate shell loading handle as wellP-39C—only 20 manufactured—firing its nose cannon, 2 .30 cal and .50 cal guns :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1av0Wg2kXo
>>65611611How is the fore-aft CG location relevant to roll rate?
>>65616917(You) tell us, Dumb Fuck.The previous anon brainlet (surpassing (You) with a higher IQ) made a remark >>65610862 about 'muh weight distribution'.>"muh fore-aft CG location"whatever *the fuck* that is supposed to mean.Explain what the fuck (You)'re even talking-asking about, FUCK TARD. Stupid fuck.Document the "problems" with the P-39's "fore-aft CG location" you dumb fuck brainlet fuck tard. Right here in this topic. Show us how fucking intelligent (You) are. Pussy ass bitch. Document it right now, here.Show us what actually happened in the the 1940s.Prove it with evidence.
Reportedly—from AAF pilot accounts mostly in stateside training units, where by 1943 and later the P-39 was being extensively used for single-engine fighter flight schools—some pilots observed that the Airacobra had a variable center-of-gravity by up to 3 percent, according to the fuel and ammunition load of the aircraft. After firing of the guns' ammunition the weight bias shifted aft. The most-reported and discussed consequence of this was the P-39's tendency to flat spin, an event that was deadly to several Airacobra pilots. As long as trainees and inexperienced pilots were aware of this characteristic of the airplane it was easily mitigated. The P-39 also had about 10 to 15 mph higher landing speed compared to contemporary AAF single engine fighters; again, with proper training this was no problem.
If the aircraft's center of gravity is located at its center and it also features an extended propeller shaft, does this make it easier for the craft to rotate about the yaw axis?
>>65618822checked, the fact that the P-39 / P-63 had an extended drive shaft yes, does increase the mass moment of inertia and relative (e.g. in comparison to single-engine propeller aircraft driven directly from engine) stability along that axis
>>65609693The Sovoks absolutely loved it because the lack of supercharger wasn't important in their low altitude slapfights with the Germoids, it had a big ass cannon and a roomy, ergonomic cockpit with great visibility.
>>65618611I always found landing piss easy in the airacobra compared to contemporary planes like the spitfire of Bf109 thanks to its wide ass extremely stable tricycle gear.
>>65618611>—AI
>>65619664Wrong. Human being.—————
>>65619645thanks chat
>>65619643>roomy, ergonomic cockpitMaybe ? for the average Soviet pilot.(remember all the discussions about postwar Soviet tanks interior space)American pilots thought the P-39 cockpit was cramped>lack of superchargerP-39s had a single stage 1-speed supercharger.As already explained in fp, it lacked the turbosupercharger from original design. Removed by Air Corps and manufacturer decree
>>65610886.50 cal was the ideal air-to-air armament of World War II considering the airframes, speeds and combat distances-scenarios of early-mid 1940s; it's one of the engineering hardware reasons the Allies won.fun fact: a .60 caliber (15.2 mm) anti-tank rifle round that had been largely abandoned for that role after 1942, was trialed in a machine gun chambered for it. This was a reverse-engineered MG151 called the T17 heavy machine gun, and three of them were mounted in the nose of a P-38L late 1945; after the war USAF also tried a necked-down .50 BMG bullet version of the round called .50/60 but eventually settled on the 20 mm T45 (later M39) cannon.https://weaponsman.com/the-american-cal-60-anti-tank-rifle-t1-t1e1/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.60_caliber
>>65620906>T17 heavy machine gunalso to note, you are witness to original research here on /k/:the late great Joe Baugher even mis-construed the .60 cal prototype rig (s/n 44-23601) as a P-38*L* model, when this serial number from his own meticulous website identifies -23601 as near the beginning of the final run of two hundred J-25 model P-38s (the L models start with 44-23769):https://www.aerofiles.com/JBlock-p38j.htmlhttps://www.aircraftinformation.info/JB_AIF/usaf_serials/1944_1.htmlA photograph (by William T. Larkins, the great California aviation historical photographer) of the test rig airplane with three .60 cal guns installed was also mis-captioned in the 1966 monograph Profile Publications No. 106 'P-38J - M Lockheed Lightning' at the top of page 13, and referred to in the text on page 11, as being a "P-38L" (the text on pages 11 and 13 does separately refer to a different armament experiment testbed Lightning, serial 44-24649—that correctly *was* in fact a P-38L-1-LO from the first batch of 300 planes—fitted with eight nose .50 cals and dual .50 pods under each wing). It's possible that Joe Baugher may have himself read the 1966 Profile Publication text in error and not clearly delineated the serial of the .60-cal equipped J-25 Lightning which was within a couple hundred units numerically to the L model production switchover. Pic itself was likely taken in mid-late 1944 at Wright Field based on both the J-25 model Lightning and also the markings, appearance of the airplanes shown in the photo.Blessings and respect to both Joe Baugher r.i.p. and Bill Larkins for the priceless treasure load of information and photographs they have left us and all their superlative work.
>from the first batch of 300 L-model Lightningscorrection* on that as well (see how easy it is to make mistakes...), 44-24649 would have been in the final several hundred of the rather large batch of almost 1,300 P-38L-1-LOs built during latter half of 1944 and early 1945.n.b. of those 1,290 L-1-LO airplanes churned out, two hundred and fifty were converted to F-5E-4 (210) and F-5F-3 (40) photo reconnaissance birds
>>65610886>. The Saber was definitely the last fighter plane the .50 cal was remotely viable in.when re-armed with the M3 browning, it wasnt just viable, it was competitivethe guns were doing some pretty good work against MIGs in korea
>>65620906>.50 cal was the ideal air-to-air armament of World War II considering the airframes, speeds and combat distances-scenarios of early-mid 1940s; it's one of the engineering hardware reasons the Allies won.Worst .50 wank I have heard in years. Every major participant country was facing the challenge to find optimal air to air gun and after doing their homework they went for 20mm. Most of them had .50 cal as secondary where 20mm couldn't fit, yet never claimed the .50 was doing the job better.It would have not shifted victory day if Americans didn't fail their Hispanos, yet it would have brought down the enemy air forces down quicker. We wouldn't even have this discussion if they didn't fail there.The real question is what kind of 20mm was ideal: A light compact gun like ShVAK and Ho-5, which can fit anywhere or full sized Hispano firing heavier rounds at higher velocity or something in between.
>>65621139>textwall video gamer 35-IQ derpcopeby ideal air-to-air armament I was *not solely referring to fighter aircraft* offensive combat firepower you Stupid Illiterate Know-Nothing Dumb Fuck Brainlet. .50 cals were also the ideal bomber aircraft defensive armament:Britain upgraded their post-1942 bombers with twin-.50 cal turrets that replaced many quad .303 dorsal and tail guns on RAF bombers and maritime patrol aircraft in addition to waist guns.B-29 Superfortress, the most advanced and fastest bomber aircraft of the war served on into Korea half a decade later, the original tail armament of one 20 mm M2 cannon even during 1944-45 was mostly removed by not just Boeing the manufacturer in later production but also AAF field crews due to its trajectory differential (and greatly increased mount recoil) from the twin .50s, and the tail cannon was replaced in Korea by a third .50 cal that USAF Superfortress gunners had success with against swept wing MiG-15 jet fighters (that were armed with cannon).^ That is why the .50 M3 was the overall best and most effective aerial armament of World War II, and some parts of Korea to 1953.
>>65621139>The real question is what kind of 20mm was idealthe one that fired the highest High explosives had electric re-cocking and was not slow down by propeller synchronization aka the MG151
>>65621172(different context example) also remember that the Mk 108 (while effective when the shell met its target) 30 mm was essentially a grenade lobber; the more ballistically effective and accurate Mk 103 was also much heavierselecting fighter aircraft offensive armament depended on what the typical or intended target was, for a night fighter, bomber destroyer, interceptor, fighter-bomber (will it mostly be ground strafing or air combat w/ other fighters) etc.
>>6562113950s were ideal for the US because they almost exclusively fought fighters with a few jap seaplanes that would take longer to bring down with a combine fire rate of 5000 rpm for 6 50s you have a lot more chances to hit a fleeing target, you also have a lot more amo
>deciding what aerial armament for fighter aircraft after 1942One thing to broadly remember about the whiplash-fast advancement of aerospace technology in the early 1940s>powerplants>airframes>performanceis that not only were speeds and altitudes, range increasing but also new roles and types of aircraft were replacing the 'bomber' and 'fighter' both land based and carrier-based. New multi-role aircraft such as the P-38 and Mosquito, along with powerful (engine power had doubled in the short couple years between 1939 and 1941-42) new single engine fighter-bombers Fw 190, P-47, Typhoon, and Tempest that could perform more than just one narrow role of 'bombing', 'intercepting' or 'combating enemy fighters'.Armament fits became more custom selected.P-39 and P-38, designed prior to the war already had cannon fitted as part of their main armament; when the war happened, it was found that particularly in the P-39's case that firepower suite made for an effective ground attack role. Air to air combat pilots of the Allies found that four or six .50 caliber guns were their most preferred armament, except for Spitfire/Seafire pilots that had (in beyond-initial Spit variants) a combination of 20 mm and .303 guns.US Navy pilots also preferred six .50s in the Wildcat, Hellcat and Corsair. F6F-5 night fighter variants had twin 20 mm replace two machine guns, the new F7F had four .50s and 20 mm each, and around the end of the war the USN elected that their newer fighters and incoming jets would adopt a four 20 mm main armament as standard. After WWII and into Korea, subsequent variants of even the piston fighters like F8F and post-war Corsairs would be cannon armed.USAAF (USAF after 1948) was slower to adopt cannon than the Navy, apparently due to the existing veteran AF pilots' insistence that six John Moses Browning .50s was proven gospel as offensive armament during World War II and shouldn't be altered; straight wing P-80, F-84 swept wing F-86 all had 'em.
>>65621153.30 in bombers was barely even a deterrence from 1941 onwards. There is no doubt about that. 20mm being removed from B-29 is mostly issue with them being mounted together with .50 cals and even in at that point they were still too unreliable. Squeezing two Hispanos into small rotating mount had it's issues. In that regard smaller 20mm guns like ShVAK and Ho-5 would have been far better, although Soviets and Japanese didn't have the heavy bombers where to fit more than single turrets anyway. Then again if we are talking about B-29 sized aircraft, we shouldn't ignore the axis bomber prototypes and plans with twin and even quad 20mm turrets. British also had their 20mm twin turrets in post-war bombers and of course Soviet B-29 had twin 23mm.>That is why the .50 M3 was the overall best and most effective aerial armament of World War II, and some parts of Korea to 1953.So because .50 replaced outdated .30 in British bombers and a single 20mm where it didn't quite fit. Yeah that checkout.>textwall>replies with a longer one>>65621178Being forced to face quad-engine bombers is another thing. I can see the point of making MK 108 for testing purposes, but mounting a single gun like that in Bf 109 is hardly more than desperation.Japanese 30mm cannons weren't just as powerful and not quite mature yet, though they seem far more practical. Curiously enough both IJN and IJA developed their own 25mm cannons.>>6562118620mm HE was the best thing against fighters. and spraying wildly is not how you hit. Allies gained a clear edge in gunnery practice and gun sight development.
>>65621186>jap seaplanesalso remember that, later in the Pacific war heavily armed long range Consolidated PB4Y-1 Liberator and PB4Y-2 Privateer maritime patrols could bring their considerable .50 cal turret armament to bear on similar size enemy patrol bombers such as Emily, many such cases being splashed
>Amerisharts are starting up the .50 cal is bestest debate againFucking lol.
>>65621189>muh discord brainlet derp textwall $#@m video gamer babbleNothing (You) replied to in my post makes any sense, has relevance at all to reality, engineering or documented history. Nor did you read or comprehend the post replied to, but being ESL that tracks>"so because"This isn't pleddit, nor is it a 'debate' or 'argument'; imputing things that never existed is retard tier>post war bombersB-52 variants all the way up to the H (when they installed M61) were exclusively equipped with four .50 caliber machine guns A-3A tail armament, with the sole exception of just 25 of the early RB-52B production run that had an MD-5 fire control unmanned tail turret with twin M24A-1 20 mms. Yes the most advanced nuclear-equipped jet bomber of the 1950s (and into the 1960s, deployed in Vietnam through early 70s) had .50 cals as primary defensive armament.>30 mmRead and comprehend the post immediately above yours. Many different types of aerial armaments were being considered in the last two years of World War II and decade following due to the super-fast advancement in aviation technology overall, and the expanding (sometimes collapsing, combining, or overlapping) roles for military aircraft types 1944-1950s.You're fucking stupid, or a 13-year-old too young to post on the internet. Go back
>>65621194>muh video games ESL.50 cal were *the best* overall aerial armament 1940-45, and the M3 was sought after as a replacment for Britain's non-cannon guns in fighters and bombers throughout the war.Back to discord with (You)>muh debateIt's the other 13-year-old that thinks this is warthunder discord (or whatever) chatThere's zero """"""debate"""""" occurring itt except for molymeme wannabe not-even-teenagers-yet basement-chained video gamers that can't even wipe their dilating gash
>>65621204>and the M3 was sought after as a replacment for Britain's non-cannon guns in fighters and bombers throughout the warBecause all they had were .30 cals and no domestic weapons suitable for such roles?
>>65621204>.50 cal were *the best* overall aerial armament 1940-45they were only the best for what the US had to face, if they had to fight waves of heavy bombers they would have ditched the 50s for 20mm in a hearth beat the German going for 30mm made the logical choicethere is no best overall because they were not facing the same problems
>>65621212>no domestic(You) tell us?is there an alternate universe-timeline in the room with us rn>Britain in 1942>.303s suck donkey balls>bomber harris losing planes at night due to shitty defensive armament>U.K. already getting Liberator and Flying Fortress maritime bombers from America, that manufactures those planes with M3 .50 cals>Boston Mk IIIs have forward-firing .50s as attack armament>Mustang Mk Is have two .50s and four .30s (.303s only fitted on a sporadic basis after U.K. arrrival)>Mustang Mk IIIs (P-51B/C) have four .50s>Mitchell Mk I/II/III have .50 cals as manufacture by North American>Hellcats Mk I/II have .50s>Corsair Mk I/II/III/IV have .50s>Avenger II/III have .50setc.
>>65621223>waves of muh bombersBomber destroyer air-to-air 'big guns' were found to be ineffective, Germany in facing the day / night raids switched to rockets (and even missiles) for the homeland interceptors as the most effective way to break up bomber formations, and for night fighters the oblique mounted cannon. Japan also adopted this. Aerial guns of any type weren't a 'solution' to heavy bombers no matter what side you were on, you needed AAA, rockets (air-to-air) or missiles (that Germany was well on its way developing in 1943 and later, all types a-2-a, air-to-ground, surface-to-air)Back to video games, brainlet
>>65621229>spewing nonsense interceptors were bringing down more bomber with less interception due to heavier armament the only reason flak took over is because the Luftwaffe was wiped out when the 8th air force changed tactics in the spring of 44 and the lack of fuel
>>65621153>>65621204>>65621226>M3 was sought after as a replacment for Britain's non-cannon guns in fighters and bombers throughout the war>U.K. already getting Liberator and Flying Fortress maritime bombers from America, that manufactures those planes with M3 .50 calsIs this war time M3 in room with us?What is there to debate? US 20s sucked ass. Air force couldn't get their crap gun together, until a over decade after the war. Navy did the right thing.
>>65621223The 30 mm Mk108 was also the most firepower possible crammed in the single through propeller gun mount that had to fit between engine and partially inside cockpit. That said yes 20 mm Hispano and MG151/20 were superior to the .50 cal. Only some more weight, more or less the same bulk, but significantly more devastating as the shell can carry energy in form of explosives.
>>65621226M3's weren't used in WW2 you fucking retard.
>>65621153Bomber defense guns are retarded and they should have been removed from the designs to allow the bombers to fly higher and faster with smaller crews. There's probably an argument for the tail gunner and maybe the nose gunner but certainly not all the other (often mechanically complex and certainly aerodynamically questionable) absurdities the Americans were bolting on their bombers which should have just been flying so high as to make them all-but unassailable.
>>65621389>underage video gamer malding seetheBROWNING MACHINE GUN, AIRCRAFT, CAL. 50, M2is that what you wanted in every fucking post, Brainlet?
>>65621244>Navy decadethat's after World War II <---the specific topic of this threadchecked
>>65621239>blahblahblah video gamer barfspew 'muh air war over nothern uRRRRRope 1944-45' forevah nonsensical irrelevanceNobody fucking goddamn cares. Shut the fuck up and back to WT, shove it up your dilating gashLuftwaffe was switching in that specific timeframe to non-gun armament, because rockets did the job better against heavy bomber formationsWorld War II in Europe ended June 1944. Everything after that was mop-up until Soviet tanks rolled into Berlin
>>65620906>>65621031>The US Air Force (USAF) also considered the T17 as an aircraft gun, as well as a version using the same cartridge but necked down to mount the .50 BMG bullet known as the .50/60. The .50/60 had a very high muzzle velocity, over 4,000 foot per second (1,200 m/s)That's >23,500 fpe.
>>65621139You type all that, and yet America won.
>>65621389AN/M2 could be 7.62, 12.7 or 20.
>>65621658>bomber defense guns>fly so high 'with smaller crews'back to the video gamer retard ^^^that believes 'muh northern europe 1944-45 air war' <---constitutes the total entirety of all wwII air combat.Over northern Europe, the RAF and USAAF heavy bombers were being decimated by Luftwaffe fighters and required not only heavier defensive armament for individual aircraft, but fighter escort to protect against interceptors. U.S. heavy bombers daytime took the high altitude tactic at 25,000 feet or greater. Even at those altitudes the bombers were achieving less optimal target strike results, the high winds over northern Europe were drifting bomb loads miles off of intended targets despite the Norden computing bomb sights. (as a contrast example, medium bombers such as B-26 Marauders were achieving more accurate results striking their at altitudes between 12,000 to 18,000 feet)Over Japan, the wind conditions were even more extreme. B-29 Superfortresses operating from India and China 1944 had early on experienced similar dud results on their targets when they raided from 25 to 30 thousand feet.By early 1945 21st Bomber Command and LeMay had begun a strategy to use the aircraft at much lower altitude using incendiary saturation raids on Japan (that also allowed higher per-aircraft weapon loads), the planes were to be stripped of most armament except tail guns. The already remotely-operated turrets and guns were factory removed on Marietta B-29Bs except for twin .50 tail guns on 315th Wing aircraft AN/APQ-15 radar-directed; 315th B-29Bs also were equipped with AN/APQ-7 Eagle bomb-nav radars in a wing radome between the bomb bays. B-29Bs flew over Japan at altitudes below 10,000 feet for this campaign. The most advanced complex aircraft yet designed & built, in 1945, now being used in a less-defensively-armed lower altitude role when it had been intended and equipped with a pressurized cabin to fly at 25,000 feet/greater altitudes in precision bombing.
>>65621257>firepower energy exposivesWhere in this thread has anyone asserted that .50 cal individual projectiles are somehow 'more destructive' than 20 mm or other cannon?That's not the point or in dispute. (And as already documented, the American AAF pilots clung to .50 cal sixguns into 1950s Korea as the actual armament fit of their F-84, F-80 and F-86 front line fighters) Discussion here itt is 1940—1945 air combat armament.Not every fighter plane of the early 1940s (P-40 / Wildcat / Bf 109 / Airacobra), was capable of fitting a 20 mm cannon inside of its wing. A few of the planes (P-39 / Bf 109) were capable of centerline powerplant cannon fitment, and made use of that configuration. Other—larger and twin engine—fighters such as the Me 262, P-38 Lightning were designed from the outset for nose-mounted heavy armament. F6F Hellcat (already mentioned ^^^above) night fighters had a wing capable of being installed with a pair of 20 mm cannon. All depended on the adaptability of existing design fighter airframes' ability to be installed with cannon.Large transport and bomber defensive armament: American aircraft were all designed for twin .50 cal, Japan and Germany from 1941 onward had a preference for single 20 mm in their medium and large combat aircraft turrets *where possible and feasible*; turreted 20 mm cannon require plenty of recoil mitigation in the gun mount (and in location placement on the airframe itself). H8K2 Emily was one example of a large patrol bomber with 20 mm defensive armament that was respected by its enemy. Luftwaffe medium/heavy bombers after 1942 were re-equipped with 13 mm MGs or cannon where possible and feasible. Using 20 mm Oerlikons as waist gun armament wouldn't have worked in Flying Fortresses, Catalinas or Liberators.
>>65622514That's not an M3, that's an M2. Are you actually 'that' retarded?
>>65622762>(You)18 is the minimum age to post on this site.
>>65622787You're the dumbass who thinks the M3 is a bog standard ANM2 .50cal lmao
>weren't used in WW25th April 1945 https://archive.org/details/tm-9-219-basic-aircraft-machine-guns-cal-50-t-36-and-t-25-e-3-m-3
>>65622816>Retard now trying to pilpul his way out of looking like a moronYeah, M3 Browning, classic WW2 weapon! Just like the IS3!
>>65622813>"""""""thinks that bog standard"""""""(You) not me, 13-year-old video gamer gash dilater that has been BTFO
>>65622822(already addressed) checked ------------------- Refer to ------------------ >>65622514(You) = BLOWN THE FUCK OUT.back to wtDiscord
>>65622823>>65622831Just admit you fucked up and kept writing M3 instead of M2. It's okay to be wrong, just own up to it mate. The M3 helped to give the .50cal a firepower boost to match 20mm cannons, but by that point even more advanced 20mm cannons were being made including revolver cannons, which completely rendered .50 redundant as an aircraft weapon caliber.
>>65622843>"helped give to match 20 mm"Wrong. Nothing to do with 20 mm shells as already explained ^^^above obviously there's zero comparison and the M3 didn't "give a firepower" ESL brainlet (slightly higher ROF doesn't make it "more powerful"). August 1943 is when the M3 began development by General Motors, the war ended *two years later* in 1945 and the M3 was *standardized* >>65622816 in April 1945 with the *M2 being immediatly reclassified as limited standard*. Recoil booster aviation .50 cals were being tested during 1942, 1943, and 1944.(You) are *TOTALLY* BTFO 13-year-old video gamer. Stay out.
>>65622856>Slightly higher ROFIt's a pretty fucking significant boost, 850rpm to 1100rpm basically being 30% more lead downrange per second.Not that it matters, because 20mm cannons hit way fucking harder and were more practical anyways. Even the US navy knew it, it's just that the US 20mm project was deliberately sabotaged in the same way the MG42 clone project was.
>>65622862>30%The assertion in #65622843<-- is : "to match 20 mm""more lead downrange" of .303 from 8-gun Spitfires or 6-.50s Mustangs, doesn't 'match' 20 mm and is of zero significance whatsoever(You) *brainlet* video gamer coping BTFO'd retard discord troon
>>65622856>slightly higher ROF doesn't make it "more powerful"firepower is usually measured in weight of fire, so increasing ROF makes weapons more powerful in generalthe M3 has 1100-1200 RPM compared to 800-900 on the AN/M2, so thats a pretty noticeable 33% increase
>>65622873Grams downrange per gun, measured in grams per minuteRegular M2 firing at 850rpm and 43 gram projectiles: 36550M3 firing at 1100rpm: 47300MG151 firing at 700rpm and 95 gram projectiles: 66500The M3 starts to close the gap between per-gun units of firepower, if we account for the fact we can shove in almost 2 M2's per cannon (even if each gun is less efficient due to no explosive projectiles), we need the M3 to meet up with the firepower potential of the singular cannon.Which gets completely trounced by a single MG213 revolvercannon, while the M3 cannot be developed any further.
>>65622881>noticeableBut not more powerful or effective than a 20 mm gunthat is what # 65622843 <--claims>boost to match 20 mm cannons
>>65622888you said increasing ROF does not make weapons more powerful but thats just wrong since throw-weight is the usual measurement of power
>>65622887>gram>mass of projectileThat's not firepower potential. (Explosive power of the shells themselves, is the measure of that) Read post below (You)>close the gapOn a miniscule scale. In no way is a single .50 cal machine gun (irrespective of 'upgrades'), ever comparable to a 20 mm autocannon
>>65622888Per unit of gun-mass, the M3's got pretty close to 20mm cannons in terms of firepower. That's pretty impressive for a .50cal weapon. Although they didn't see action in WW2 and 20mm's were more powerful anyways. >>65622894I know 20mm cannons were more powerful, are you not paying attention or something? Lmao.
>>65622892>throw weight See post above^. What matters in air-to-air combat autoweapons is HE explosive blast per-shell>weapons more powerfulNot what I posted. (You) asserted that the improved .50 cal would >match 20 mmMy response ___to that specific discrete topic____ of comparing .50 vs. 20 is ***[QUOTE]***>>65622856>slightly higher ROF doesn't make it "more powerful"to match the 20 mm.Obviously, any automatic weapon with a slightly higher rate of fire delivers more "lead down range" but it depends on the context. Is a MAC-11 'more powerful' than a Thompson due to its 1500 rpm fire rate? In the context of air-to-air combat, higher-rate-of-fire machine guns don't "match" 20 mm cannon : >>65622873 <--That is the point.
>>65622899>'20mms were more powerful anyway so here's why ROF is important lmao'brainlet videogamercope checked
>sophistry on the internetjust based on pilot experience, the F-86 did fine in korea against cannon armed MiGsthe fire rate of the .50s was good enough to trade with 37mm cannons
>>65622908>What matters in air-to-air combat autoweapons is HE explosiveAPI was significantly more effective than HE as per US studies, unless that HE is lobbed by Mk108
>>65622913Why are you trying to argue that a lower ROF is better for aircraft, when every fucking nation pushed ROF to it's limits at all times?
>>65622908>Is a MAC-11 'more powerful' than a Thompson due to its 1500 rpm fire rateIf we're shooting at a target where sheer number of projectiles downrange is required to take it down? Ala aircraft? Absolutely.
>>65622966>muh mk 108 derpchecked, this discussion context and (You)r post is .50 cal vs. 20 mm shell-for-shell in World War II air combat, their effects on 1940-1945 airframesAre you making a new assertion that .50 cal projectiles were *more destructive* per-shell during the years 1940-1945 to combat aircraft airframes, than 20 mm projectiles?
>>65622966>API was significantly more effective than HE as per US studies, unless that HE is lobbed by Mk108Keep in mind aircraft fuel tanks aren't armored, when you are throwing 20mm shells at them, you can get away with SAPI, or even just reinforced Incendiary shells.Germany invented a slightly thickened minengeschoss that was loaded up with incendiary material and it fucked up fuel tanks really nicely.
>>65623005>muh sheer number brainletderpNot how any of this works.Did the "sheer number" of .303 shells from an 8-gun Spitfire, surpass the destructive power of a Typhoon's four 20 mms?>>65622999>argue that a lower ROF is betterchecked,where did I "argue" (or even post) that, gaslighter?(You) are the one originally brought up 'muh rof' to begin with18 years is the minimum age to post on this site.
>>65623013>Did the "sheer number" of .303 shells from an 8-gun Spitfire, surpass the destructive power of a Typhoon's four 20 mms?No? But if the Typhoon had 8 M134's it might well have.
>>65623015Actually, lets do the maths for this.4 Hispanos grams per minute: 3360008 M134 grams per minute: 480000A lot closer than I thought, but a fair bit more lead downrange with the miniguns. Probably still best to go with the cannons though.
>>65623031>mathsEw, a foreigner
>>65623032My apologies, I forgot Americans don't know how numbers work.
>>65623035>spray and pray fallacyexcept how many of those 480000 g actually impact the aerial targetMore rounds fired =/= more hitsAccuracy of the aerial artillery, is what matters in terms of effectiveness. not rof
>>65623044No shit, hence I said the 20mm cannons would be the smarter choice.But quantity has a quality of it's own.
>>65622966>API was significantly more effective than HE as per US studies, unless that HE is lobbed by Mk108This was in specific conditions. They fired all over a B-25 from high rear. Guns and ammunition had a matching weight, meaning the amount of .50 cal machine guns might have been impractical for a typical fighter to carry. The only 20mm in the test was 20mm AN/M2, which is by far the heaviest aircraft mounted 20mm gun of the war.What the test proved was already known by Germans, British and probably Japanese as well: 20mm basic HE round alone was not particularly effective against heavier bombers. That's why various different rounds like API, SAPHEI, HEI and incendiary were also used. On Western front Germans recommended to use HEI over minengeschoß. A good HEI round had to have only minimal explosive charge to not dissipate the incendiary effect.Damaging the fuel tanks and bringing incendiary to them didn't work perfectly with any round:>HEI can detonate too early>20mm SAPHEI can overpen>.50 API burns too quickly>any caliber incendiary detonates too earlyI don't know if Soviet and axis nations imagined their .50 cal HE and HEI rounds to be more effective against bombers or if that was only small improvement against fighters.
>>65609693I love its jet powered sibling
>>65624333checked, really just a testbed (to see if the idea of 'jet fighter' would work)Just as WWII ended Bell evolved it into the XP-83 (incidentally planned to be armed with T17 .60 cals in nose) that also went nowhere, plus by 1946 an explosion of new jet projects and designs had emerged
>>65623476>I don't know if Soviet and axis nations imagined their .50 cal HE and HEI rounds to be more effective against bombers or if that was only small improvement against fighters.i bet they didn't analyze or test it at all and just jumped to conclusions like they had done with a lot of things, contact instead of timed fuses for AAA, bomber escorts and speed vs defensive armament being the most egregious examples.
>>65624333peak dieselpunk look
>>65623044>More rounds fired =/= more hitsUnless you're trying to make an argument about muzzle velocity or center mounts vs wing mounts, it's pretty safe to assume that more shots fired equals more hits.
Nothing more fun to see a sperg fighting an entire thread and getting so pissy to the point they preemptively seethe with each reply.
>>65625232between this and the other thread with the half-tracks, its impossible to talk about anything without someone having an autistic rage about something only tangentially related to OP
>>65625232the post immediately preceding (You), zackly
>>65625112>pretty safe to assume>more shots fired equals more hitsmay we see documented example(s) from 1940—2026 air to air combat?
>>65625243>related to OP topic is dead, the P-39 Airacobra (that besides unit and pilot histories mostly from U.S. Army Air Force, doesn't have much to say or show for itself apart from the unique design)fp nailed itIf you might possibly have something relevant to post about the airplane itself don't hesitate
>>65624763early jet and turboprop aircraft are fascinating from a design p.o.v.some rapidly buried as evolutionary dead ends
>>65624761>speedfor the ballistic trajectory of 30 mm Mk 108 shells an Me 262 pilot had to make his approach attitude, marksmanship and fired shots count, the plane was so relatively fast compared to Liberator/Fortress formations that he didn't have more than a couple of secondsLikewise, the Schwalbe was so fast defensive gun crews aboard the bombers could hardly lead or track it
>>65625316Me 262 was a non factor during the important part of the war when Germans could still contest and repel allied strategic bombings.My case is more about the mosquito as an example to extrapolate onto other light and medium bombers at the very least, if not the heavy ones.
