But Tony, you don't have anything but anecdotes to say the F-86's armament wasn't effective to any significant degree v. all other factors; the key info that would demonstrate that is not in evidence, so why are anecdotes no good for other points?

I agree anecdotes aren't conclusive, which is why I don't think your basic statement can be made with the certainty you have. But, the Panther sdns had real problems with their guns in November 1950, all three air groups in several combats. OTOH it was really cold. The AF didn't have as many gun problems, part was perhaps institutional adaptation to cold (or high altitude) combat on a regular basis (oiling practice, heater functioning, etc.) in WWII.

Joe

Bojan, AFAIK the F-86D didn't have guns - it had a retractable tray under the nose with 24 2.75" Mighty Mouse rockets - probably making it the most underarmed fighter aircraft of all time.

He may be referring to the F-86K which was the monkey model sold to NATO and others.

You beat me to it, RETAC21! But only because I went to check it in my books!

The F-86K had 4x20mm cannon which might explain why Bojan found a different rate of fire than for the .50 cal armed Sabres.

Hojutsuka

J-Aircraft is a neat site.

These are also interesting. Same subject:

http://www.warbirdforum.com/hayabusa.htm

http://www.warbirdforum.com/jaafmgs.htm

These articles also tend to indicate that one 12.7 was swapped for a 7.7 MG mainly due to the lower rate of fire of the 12.7.

Francillon quotes 716 Ki-43 I built between April 1941-Feb 1943.

Dunns article quotes 700 produced yet he mentions aircraft with serial numbers: 725, 804, 805, 808, and 810. Even taking the 13 prototypes mentioned in Fracillon's book this still deosn't add up.

I would suspect that either the production records discovered at the end of WW2 were incomplete, or the guys examining the surviving airframes couldn't tell the difference between a Ki-43 I and a Ki-43 II. Also, I have not seen a breakdown for the number of each Ki-43 variant produced (a,b,&c).

The article claimed that nobody even knows what order they were built in. The example they were looking at had the ability for the guns to be swapped. That'll make it harder to figure out what's what.

So Formerblue, your appaling statements don't stop to strikes...

No you don't. You cannot add the output of the guns together for rate of fire. Do you not understand that? The rate of fire per gun dicates when the second round leaves the barrels. If I take 100 men with muskets, assume they can reload in 1 minute, that would be 100rpm right? Wrong. That would be 100 rounds in the first second and no rounds for the next 59 seconds. With the speed of aircraft that matters.


So formeblue, you rate a Hisso gun like an roman catapult? your consideration should had been subscrived by all the men that partecipated at BoB: insthead, all complained the ineffectiveness of 303 .< Sure it had been instersting if some british A/C had 4 M2s but it hadn't happended. effectively, you lack a lot about a conctact with real experiences or?

The 8" (203mm) 55Cal Mk 16 as installed in the USS Des Moines throws a 335lb (152kg) round. The rate of fire of the 8" was 7 rpm and it had 9 of them. So by your figuring that would be 63 rpm with 152kg rounds. Why not just go with that instead? We can take the figures for the USS Wisconsin's 16" (406mm) 9 cannon instead if you like. I believe there were rounds for that in the 2000lb category. Rate of fire would be (3 rounds per gun X 9) 27rpm tossing one ton rounds. Range is about 24 miles so all problems solved right?


this show a lot your ignorance about the item from you.
If you care, look at the word "equilibrium". In WWII there were examples like the molins gun (hehe Tony?) that were a substantial failure, simply becasue "the equilibrium issue". When as example KI 44 were fitted with 2 40mm guns they were found overall quite inferior compared to the 4x20mm solution
Etc.etc.etc.



9 16" would be even better. Followed by the 9 8" and then the 12 6". Dipping down to the Atlanta classe's 16 5" wouldn't be as good as there is no way to catch that throw weight of the Wisconsin.


Toc-toc, is there anyone inside your head, Former?
your unability to understund simple things quite heavily cleared by the real world war experiences should had been quite simple to understund. Perhaps in your chase not, since you are not even believing in the evolution theory and think that God in person created M2 browings?


Korea didn't see use of the Quad-fifty then? Everybody that I spoke with was wrong when they saw them?


Do you are aware of the furhter 50 years of history or ?

You want to see a 12.7mm gatling?
http://www.gdatp.com/products/lethality/gau19/gau19a1.htm
But then I guess they don't exist.

Even too easy predict this silly manner to do Former. Do you are aware that my father was an air man in a Mi-24 regiment? Believe me , i don't need proof that 12,7mm gatling exists.




But you evade the point, however my dear. WHY maxom mount weren't updated with super-M2 with super rapid fire huh? Why inshtead ( a fact too hard to accept for you, i gues) insthead those stupid of Israelis were fitting 2 20mm on their Maxom (see TC-20 if i am not wrong)

Rate of fire matters. Speed of traverse matters. Sights matter. Reliability matters. Mobility matters.

Also the equilibrium is important. Tell me, why not sobstitute 4 M2 of maxom mount with a 5,56mm gatling? come on, there is 10,000 rpm vs 2,200, not?

Or also a 0,05mm gatling with 200 barrels that fires 500,000 RPM?

Excuse me, but you must get a look to such incredible weapons, right?




Gewing,


AFAIK You are forgetting two basic facts.

1-The US was, in WWII, usually shooting at FIGHTERS. These were not as hard to kill as bombers.


The higer rate of fire, while it doesn't put any more weight of shells on target, makes it MUCH easier to hit a fleeting target.

2-So if your 2x20mm guns have 1/3 the chance to hit...

3-Though this may be an oversimplification, I believe it IS a valid point.

4-IMO, Though the US should have introduced something like the M-3 years earlier, and gone to 4-6 of them with more ammo instead of 6-8 m-2.



1-agree, i didn't even stated different. But the problem is that some "needings" see at the word B-17, are worthing more efforts to have a real all round weapon. And incidentally this was the case of british, italians, russians, germans, japs. Only the US hadn't such problems: do you can imagine why?

2- with a more than doulbe heavier round, with 10 times chemical load, at far longer range. Just remenber, also 303 bornings had a lot of PK of hiting something, but even 12 of them weren't enough if compared to 20mm quad

3-yes i believe it could be an oversimpl.

4-fully agree. just think that russian UBT had 1000 RPM, the german MG 131 with just 17 kg weight, reached 900 even if with a lighter shell. Just a little example.



The fact that the USA wasn't able to get the 20mm Hispano working properly during WW2 is well recorded (see: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/US404.htm ). There is no doubt that the US made an effort to solve the problems, first (without, it seems, much success) in late WW2, resulting in the M3, and then in the late 1940s with the development of the M24 and further work to the M3. There appears to be conflicting evidence about how successful these later improvements were, but it is important to bear in mind that aircraft guns were 'highly tuned' (to use automative terminology) and even the best were never 100% reliable, so individual anecdotes about guns jamming don't mean much. In particular, it was not uncommon for the stress of high-G manoeuvring to cause the belt feeds to jam - something which still afflicted the F-8U Crusader in Vietnam.



Incidentally, in WW2, the Japanese and Italian 12.7mm guns were ballistically less powerful than the US and Russian .50s, but did benefit from HE shells which (sometimes) helped to restore the balance a bit.

To turn to AAA use: the .5" BMG was ballistically superior to the WW2 20mm Oerlikon because the proectiles were a much more aerodynamic shape. It therefore had a longer absolute range. However, the .5" relied almost entirely on kinetic energy to do the damage and that fell off steadily with range, whereas the 20mm inflicted much of its damage through the chemical energy of the explosives, which did not fall off at all with range. So the effective range of the 20mm was probably greater, particularly since it needed a small fraction of the number of hits to inflict equivalent damage. However, in all cases with manually-aimed AAA (whatever sights were used) the effective range was limited more by the skill of the gunner than anything else.

I do not doubt that the quad .5", with its power-operated mount, was well able to shoot down aircraft at close range. However, I think that twin 20mm in the same mounting would have been even more effective, and the USN certainly seemed to agree when you look at the speed with which they replaced their .5 mountings with the 20mm Oerlikon during WW2.



All holy words.

tony, do you have some datas about HE 12,7mm rounds? I though they were effective in a very limited mode becasue the useful payload, and perhaps just good for shot down early , light, A/Cs of WWII-late 30s

I agree that there isn't hard, conclusive evidence one way or the other, but that's rather in the nature of the beast because so many other variables can affect the issue. One pilot might have great success with the .50, others might not - but pilot skill will probably have a lot to do with that.

Individual anecdotes mean nothing because just about anything can happen in warfare, but when successive anecdotes start to add up to a pattern, that's when you need to take notice. Thanks for the info about the naval guns, that definitely forms an interesting pattern.

My argument, remember, is not that the .50 was ineffective, but that a good 20mm armament of the same total weight would have done better: in other words, the F-86's armament was sub-optimal for Korea (just as the MiG-15's was, although for entirely opposite reasons). My evidence for that is partly to do with the comments I quoted a few pages back. This is not inconsistent: the Russian pilot quoted MiGs returning with up to 40-50 .50 cal holes in them (and presumably not more, otherwise he would have said so), the statistics showed that an average of over 1,000 rounds were fired per kill, which at the German WW2 figure of up to 5% hits, means 50 hits...

My case is also based on the combined WW2 experience of the relative effectiveness of different aircraft guns, particularly from the German side who analysed the issue with their usual thoroughness and had the benefit of a choice of HMGs and cannon, so they acquired plenty of experience with both. The Russians also had a good choice of weapons (including a 12.7mm which - on paper at least - was a superior HMG to the Browning M2), and the calibre of their aircraft guns also increased with war experience. The outcome of all that is distilled here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

While this is based on WW2 armament, the calculations of relative effectiveness were still valid in Korea: if anything the results would be even more emphasised there, as the jets appeared to be tougher and harder to shoot down than prop planes so the destructive power of the guns became more important.

In other words, the fact that the anecdotal evidence I quoted indicates that the .5 left something to be desired in killing power does not surprise me, because that's exactly what I would expect from the calculations of relative effectiveness, based on the WW2 experience of most air forces. The USAAF really was unique among all of them in sticking with the HMG, and they did so for a variety of reasons: their 20mm sucked, other gun projects failed, the .50 was good enough against fighters, and it saved a huge amount of bother in production, logistics, training and ammo to stick to one proven gun. For those reasons, I have no criticism of the USAAF for sticking with the .50 in WW2. However, they don't seemed to have absorbed the lessons of the conflict learned by other air forces. Perhaps it was a case of "we won, so the guns must be OK"? I'm reminded of the NATO small arms cartridge selection exercise of around 1950...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

The Italians developed 12.7mm HE shells before the war, the Japanese bought them to try, liked them and ended up copying the ammo with some of their own variations (like unfuzed shells with a thin metal cap over impact-detonated HE - quite exciting when you drop one by mistake...). The Russians also had 12.7mm HE, and the Germans had the 13mm MG 131 also with HE shells. So the USA (+ allies using their guns) was unique in using 12.7mm calibre aircraft guns which did not use HE.

Having said that, 12.7mm was definitely a marginal calibre for HE shells: they mostly only held around 1 gram of HE (IIRC around 3g was the maximum). Fuzing was often a problem with all shells early in the war, with detonation on impact being common (rather than a fraction of a second later when the shell had penetrated the aircraft). However, for the air forces mentioned to have tried them and stuck with them implies that they found them worth having.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

marginal caliber, expecially i suppose, if the round weight 35 gr insthead of 48.
i have for M2 energy about 16000J, this could be rougly 60% more than vickers standard HMG.

Some sparse question then:

-if 12,7 had 1 (or 3?) gr. of HE, what was the 20mm load?
-the 40mm shells of WWII had proxy fuses? this is confusing becasue the 127 was the minimum caliber for them, some said.
-if the 12,7mm "vickers" had so low energy, how can be translated in AP power compared to 7,7 or 12,7 browings? i though that the AP of Breda or similar HMGs cannot be much better than LMG calibers.
-if the russians had both high power HMGs and HE rounds, now their HMG overall could be said as the most complete of the WWII: shame that they had usually just two for aircraft

[quote]So Formerblue, your appaling statements don't stop to strikes...
So formeblue, you rate a Hisso gun like an roman catapult? your consideration should had been subscrived by all the men that partecipated at BoB: insthead, all complained the ineffectiveness of 303 .< Sure it had been instersting if some british A/C had 4 M2s but it hadn't happended. effectively, you lack a lot about a conctact with real experiences or?[/quote]

You still don't get it. You cannot add the total RPM of each gun for a grand rpm. It doesn't work. The Mig-15 had 3 cannon. Do you add those dissimilar calibers together too?

[quote]this show a lot your ignorance about the item from you. [/quote]

No, it shows you don't understand that weight of explosive powder is not the grand end all of everything. Mobility matters. Weight matters. Rate of fire matters.

[quote]If you care, look at the word "equilibrium". In WWII there were examples like the molins gun (hehe Tony?) that were a substantial failure, simply becasue "the equilibrium issue". When as example KI 44 were fitted with 2 40mm guns they were found overall quite inferior compared to the 4x20mm solution
Etc.etc.etc. [/quote]

Aw, so you've finally glommed onto the issue of weight. Baby steps.


[quote]Toc-toc, is there anyone inside your head, Former?[/quote]

I would certainly hope there isn't anyone inside my head. People are rather large to be inside ones head. They tend to leave messes also.

[quote]your unability to understund simple things quite heavily cleared by the real world war experiences should had been quite simple to understund.[/quote]

Does this mean you've been in either the Mig-15 or F-86 in real life? Firing at the other?

[quote] Perhaps in your chase not, since you are not even believing in the evolution theory and think that God in person created M2 browings? [/quote]
Not God, Moses. John Moses Browning. You were close though.

[quote]Do you are aware of the furhter 50 years of history or ?[/quote]

53 if we're really counting. I'll take it that you do then understand they were used in Korea.

[quote]Even too easy predict this silly manner to do Former. Do you are aware that my father was an air man in a Mi-24 regiment?[/quote]

Did he get a medal? What does your father having been a member of a Mi-24 regiment have to do with anything? Or did you just remember that 12.7 Gatlings exist?

[quote] Believe me , i don't need proof that 12,7mm gatling exists. [/quote]

Then why did you mention the lack in your previous post? Are you bipolar? Two headed like Zaphod?

[quote]But you evade the point,[/quote]

This is actually the odd part. I was completely unaware that you had a point. Other than not able to understand that you cannot simply add rates of fire of weapons together to develop the "grand unified rate of fire." You still don't get it.

[quote] however my dear. WHY maxom mount weren't updated with super-M2 with super rapid fire huh? Why inshtead ( a fact too hard to accept for you, i gues) insthead those stupid of Israelis were fitting 2 20mm on their Maxom (see TC-20 if i am not wrong)[/quote]

Why weren't B-17s updated to 20mm? Why weren't P-51s given M61s? Why weren't Yak-9s given IR missiles? Guess.

[quote]Also the equilibrium is important. Tell me, why not sobstitute 4 M2 of maxom mount with a 5,56mm gatling? come on, there is 10,000 rpm vs 2,200, not?[/quote]

I'll assume this is your lack of English and I'll not fault that. I think the word you are looking for is weight. Not balance. But I don't think the spelling error is translation. You've repeatedly called it the "maxom." Are you unaware of the actual mount? It was developed by the W. L. Maxon company.

[quote]Or also a 0,05mm gatling with 200 barrels that fires 500,000 RPM?[/quote]

Why don't you build this beast and let us see? I for one would be interested in seeing this.

[quote]Excuse me, but you must get a look to such incredible weapons, right?[/quote]

Waiting for the video.

Why doesn't it work? Genuine question!

Look up at my musket example.

If your really serious I'll actually explain it. First, simply for example, we'll take the muskets.

100 men line up. 100 muskets. 1 round per minute each. That isn't 100 rpm. As I said it's 100 rounds immediately and 59 seconds with no firing. If we're firing at a stationary target it doesn't matter. If we're firing at a moving target it will. A jet moves at 600+ mph. I explained in an earlier thread on how fast the F-86 moves. 7 plane lengths per second I think. I'd have to do that math. The F-86 will have moved a plane length before the 37mm fires again if you just calculate the rate for it. If you add the cannon together the shot gets there in time. But it doesn't. It's late. You can't add the rates. For hit probability you have to calculate it for each cannon individually. You can't add them together.

Do the math on the 37mm and you'll see what I mean. 450 rpm.

The US investigated explosive bullets between 1940 and 1942 but abandoned the effort in favor of work on API rounds.

US Ordnance regarded tracer as having too little penetration to get a good incendiary effect and AP as lacking lethality. Their desired solution was Armor Piercing Incendiary (API), where the AP capability brought the incendiary mixture deeper into aircraft and fuel tanks.

First they developed the M1 Incendiary round and then they had the M8 API round in test during 1943. The ground forces went to 4 M8 rounds to 1 Tracer round. Continued development led to a tracer version, the M20 API-T round, being ready for service test by June 1944.

The M20 was very popular with its users: air, AAA, and ground. It was difficult to manufacture and the ammunition deteriorated rapidly in storage, but demand for the M20 was often greater than supply, so this was not an issue. The M20 was ballistically matched to the M8, so it enabled all API load outs.

The Ordnance guys viewed this as the peak of 12.7mm ammunition development.

Interestingly enough, one of the reasons the Ordnance Corps cites for abandoning their .50 squeeze bore project was that the .35 projectile was too small to carry a worthwhile incendiary load, though there were lots of problems with it not related to getting an API round.

Typically around 10 g (Hispano) but almost double that for the German M-Geschoss, and 25 g for the MX-Geschoss.

No, the prox fuzes small enough for 40mm didn't come around until some time after the war.

See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Vickers.html

Indeed. They also had a very good API bullet for the 12.7mm, which actually inspired the development of the US M8 API.

One of the reasons for the adequacy of the US .5 M2 in WW2 is that the US fighters were generally bigger and more powerful than their opponents, so could afford to carry a large battery of guns: making up in quantity what they lacked in destructive quality.

TW

To Joe - P.S. to my post on US Korean War experience:

I forgot to add that another piece of evidence in support of my contention that the performance of the .5" in Korea was less than satisfactory was the existence of the Gun-Val project, in which experimental 20mm-armed Sabres were trialled, followed by the adoption of the 20mm for all future USAF planes. I mean, why bother if they were happy with the .5"?

Not conclusive by itself but it all adds up...

TW

Some additional historical notes:

The first of the WW2 bullets for the .50 was the M1 AP, in service since 1929. The design of this bullet had been strongly influenced by that of the 13mm Mauser M1918 anti-tank rifle of WW1. This was replaced in production by a modified design, the M2 AP, in 1941.

The .50 M1 incendiary was developed from the British .303 B Mk VI, popularly if inaccurately known as the 'De Wilde'. It entered service in 1942.

The .50 M8 API was developed in 1943 as a result of a study of the Russian 12.7mm B-32 API, which had the same basic design (steel AP core with incendiary material in the tip).

Various .50 HE and AP-HE bullets were designed and tested as follows:

- T1 HE tested at Aberdeen Proving Ground, 1939 (it was a copy of the British WW1 Pomeroy design). Tests were successful and in 1940 the USAAF requested that it be adopted as soon as possible. This was also recommended by the Ordnance Cttee in August 1940 but this was not done (it isn't clear in my source why not).

- HE De Wilde-Kaufmann (Swiss inventors) tested in 1940 but although quite effective was rejected on safety grounds as it detonated in a hot barrel (a disadvantage of the Browning's closed-bolt design).

- Both Picantinny and Frankford Arsenals tested .50 HE of various designs in 1941. These were not satisfactory.

In 1942 it was decided to concentrate on the M1 incendiary bullet instead of HE. That didn't stop experimentation, however.

- Shovic HE bullet, tested in 1943. This was an M1 incendiary with an HE mixture added, but performance was unsatisfactory (premature detonation)

- Hunter HE bullet, tested 1943 but unsatisfactory

- Frankford Arsenal designed another HE round (FAT1) in 1943. Effectiveness was very satisfactory but it cooked-off in a hot barrel.

- Frankford Arsenal then developed an HEI bullet, known as the T34, tested in 1944. Performed well, but failed the cook-off test.

- Remington HE bullet tested in 1944.

To sum up, a lot of effort went into designing .50 HE bullets throughout the war, but they were defeated mainly by the design of the Browning MG, which fired from a closed bolt rather than the open bolt which was more common in MGs. A small point of interest: the British .303 Brownings were redesigned to fire from an open bolt after experience of cordite detonation in hot barrels.

TW

Tony I think in general we've talked past each other on this, because it's a multiway. I mentioned GUNVAL in my very first post on the thread I believe, so yes I'm aware of it.

My points in summary once again were:
-whatever the Germans did, the USAF itself studied comparative calibers and had .50 the best (fighter caliber) as of April 1951, "Effectiveness of Fighter Weapons", I leafed through researching something else, I have to go back and copy it and post it. This was among the weapons that existed then, the T-160/M39 of GUNVAL didn't. That's the post WWII "theory" side, since that was early to incorporate Korea. Illustrating there was room for debate on that point, not that it proves the Germans wrong.
-the 40-50 rounds is still one quote, and if you look up a lot of things the Russian pilots recalled in the '90's (Pepelyaev has since passed away) they don't jibe with their own records sometimes, let alone US ones, the implicit point of comparison being what they think they did to the USAF, which is very different from what USAF records say. Yes, Pepelyaev said that, however Naboka's "..Natovskiy Sokolov..." which is a dry day by day transcription of 64th Fighter Corps records (for just part of the war unfortunately) doesn't mention a lot of cases like that. In any case the frequency is really key, because as we agree, *some* cases don't mean much. F-86's survived cannon hits >1/2 the time, more like 2/3, so I really think it's important to know that % for MiG's, not that some plane had 40 holes or one guy said it was common, when the best source leaves doubt it was very common, because after all it's easier for 6 extremely fast firing M3's to punch 40 holes very fast, really depends how common.
-the quote from your co-author specifically said it's reasonable to conclude the F-86 should have been designed with 20mm, that's not the same as saying once a later much more capable gun came along several years later it should be tried, I agreed with latter, questioned former, to split hairs, but I did say that from the start.

Joe

The US never built nor fielded an adequate LMG. Therefore folks like you have spent years defending and inadequate weapon by pointing to the 'organization', 'equipment', 'tactics' etc., rather than admitting that much of it was driven by the lack of an effective LMG, rather than the fact that the BAR/M1 mix was superior.

While granting that the M1 was almost certainly the standout rifle of the war (and wishing our blokes had them), the BAR left a lot to be desired in its role as the support weapon in an infantry squad.

Never met a BAR gunner that was unhappy with the weapon. Army, Marine, WW2, Korea. I specifically ask them about it and how well it worked. Never a negative. The only "non-positive" that I've ever heard was from a Marine BAR gunner. He mentioned that Tarawa and Saipan were worse than Iwo for him. Flamethrowers were extensively used on Iwo. So the BAR didn't work as well as flame for digging out the Japanese. That's the complaint.

I'll take his word over yours. Why, pray tell, do we never see negative comments from the forces that actually used it? Maybe they knew it? How it worked? Just because it didn't fit your tactics doesn't mean it didn't work. Now, which of the following are correct?

1) Your military didn't have a SAW in WW2.
2) Your military now has a SAW.
3) US had a SAW in WW2
4) Complaints were made when the BAR was dropped for the squad version of the M14.
5) US again has a SAW

Kind of telling isn't it?

My military has had, since 1916, LMGs in their infantry sections. Just because you finally got LMGs, that does not make them a SAW. The Brits, who went the SAW route, have in recent times put LMGs back into their infantry sections.

That's kind of telling.

I see what you're getting at now although I'm not sure what the relevance is. You're still putting 100 rounds a minute down range as far as the recipient is concerned. Sure, there will be 'gaps' from the point of view of a crossing target. If it really bugged you, you could make each gun slightly out of synch with the others (or have your men fire their muskets at .66 second intervals) to cover the gaps. Six M3s firing at 1200 RPM asynchronously could put one round downrange every 0.008 seconds which is as near a continuous stream as makes no difference. A target crossing at 600 kmh would have covered 1.33 metres in that time. of course, in reality it's impossible that the guns would be perfectly synchronised.

A problem of perhaps more significance is that some guns take time to spin up to their maximum RPM. This is one reason why some countries stuck with revolver cannon rather than moving to gatlings - the revolver has less mass to spin up resulting in a faster spntaneous rate of fire. This is very important when engaging fast crossing targets.

Can't really see how you can equate the M249 to a the BAR. You're comparing a gun with a fixed barrel and 20 round mag firing to a gun with detachable barrels and a 200 round belt. Conceptually the Minimi is an LMG, not a heavy barrelled rifle.

First-hand reports are valuable but should also be taken with some caution. In particular, when soldiers have learned to trust their lives to their weapon and it doesn't let them down, they understandably grow very fond of it and will often hear no criticism. That's OK and is as it should be: it's important that troops should have faith in their weapons. But it tells you nothing about how that weapon compares with another weapon which those troops never got the chance to try.

The BAR and Bren both performed very well throughout their careers, and were loved by their users. Both were reliable and accurate. But to sum up the plus points of each:

Bren: quick-change barrel, bigger magazine, top-mounted magazine for quick change = higher sustained rate of fire.

BAR: a few pounds lighter.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

What you need is the Meroka:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNSpain_2cm-120_Meroka.htm

it was originally proposed back in the 50s for airborne use, but due to vagaries and differing priorities, it ended up as a CIWS.

It's completely irrelevant, since FB himself postulated the 1 second exposure time. so all he has to do to get from rpm to pure rounds-on-target is divide it by 60 (not divide it by number of guns).
Besides, it's easy enough to 'prove' the exact opposite. Using the postulated 1 second exposure 100 rounds in a minute would result in 98 rounds not fired or wasted, while the 1 shot option has a genuine chance of downing the enemy*. So many guns with low rof is better that one high rof weapon.

* To elaborate still further: If we give the pilot a 50% to hit with the 'continous' gun and 25% with the 'volley' guns, he would -on average- need 50 passes to down a mig with one high rof .50 and 4 with the gun-battery.

All except 1&3 are true (unless it's a trick question).

That's a good question, it certainly would have been a good thing. And I see no reason why they couldn't be.

No, our F-86D were ex-USAF - I will ask a friend to look at manual again. IIRC it could happen that some of Sabres rebuilt to a recce version had guns (IF-86D, not to be confused with real recce version RF-86D) got guns, as radar was removed...
On the other hand it could happen that manuel covers also other model on the D airframe (F-86K, just like F-84 manuel covers both F-84G and F-84F, despite the fact that F-84F was newer used by Yugoslavia)...

No, you are right, they were F-86Ds

"Yugoslavia-Jugoslavensko Ratno Vazduhplovstvo
In 1961, the Yugoslavian air force, the Jugoslovensko Ratno Vazduhoplovstvo, obtained 130 F-86Ds. Deliveries of US combat aircraft to what was obstensibly a Communist country caused a lot of political controversy in the USA. For a time, these F-86Ds served in Yugoslavia alongside the Soviet-supplied MiG-21, one of the few situations where Western and Soviet-bloc aircraft served side-by-side. They were finally taken out of service about 1980. "

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_6.html

I wonder if they came fitted with guns or if they were a local mod.

As a sidenote, HE ammo was developed for the 13.2 mm Hotchkiss before the war, but it doesn't seem to have ever entered service (fields manuals don't mention it).

Tactics, not features per se.
F-51s had an infernal combustion engine. No radar. No missiles. Couldn't go supersonic. F-15 (just reverse the numbers...) has jets, radar, missiles, goes supersonic.
Both are air superiority fighters. Tactics.

Squad were formed around the BAR. LMG support was from the belt fed M1919. BREN tried to do both. Minimi is more akin to the BAR's role than the M1919's role. M60 was developed for the latter. M14A1 to perform SAW role. M14A1 didn't work. They ended up trying to fill the SAW role with the M60. Nyet. If they weren't so pissed at Eugene maybe they could have purchased the 63.

----
BREN would have been a better weapon with belt feed.

BREN had a quick change barrel. 30 round magazines. Which of the following is true:

1) Your forces now provide soldiers with automatic weapons that have 30 round clips.
2) That weapon does not have a quick change barrel.

----

Somebody (Lev?) denied that the US forces had a SAW in WW2. Which of the following is true:
1) BARs were issued to Squads.
2) BARs are Automatic.
3) BARs are a Weapon.

-----

We started with AAA. Thence to F-86s and Migs. Now we're going to do infantry support weapons. Have we missed any of the recurring threads?

Sustained fire is a better term.

BAR goes with the squad. The M1919s aren't the most portable of weapons. The weapon needs to be able to fire on the move. Which is why most BARs quickly lost the bipod (which they were charged for when the weapon was turned in - 26th ID gunner). M1919s are stationary support weapons for the most part. That is really the point of the SAW though. Portable sustained fire.

I was aware of Navy use of the Stoner. There is a well known picture of a guy in a mud wallow with one. Kind of looks like Charlie Sheen... He has the large box magazine. Keeps the muck out of it I'd think.

M14A1 was too light for the role. "Problems in accuracy and control ..." Adding a bipod, pistol grip, and muzzle stabilizer doesn't really add much to the M14. Too light for full auto in .308. The BAR was able to provide sustained fire support for M1903s and M1s. The M14 has about the same ability as the BAR (less the weight issue). When the M1 was replaced with the M14 they needed to develop a weapon that had sustained fire capability in excess of the M14. None was forthcoming. The Stoner 63 had that ability versus the M16 though. They should have just made BARs in .308 in the '50s.


Oddly enough the M1928A1 qualifies. I have a picture around here of a squad in Germany. The bulk of the squad are using M1 Carbines and one soldier is providing sustained fire capability with his M1928.

We can backdate the concept. Squad with Trapdoors getting support from a Winchester 1873....


Forgot your 17lb question. Why, after years of failure, do the Brits consider the fielding of a tank with a flat glacis and a 77mm cannon to be a success when the rest of the world was using sloped armor and the cannon bar had been raised to 88mm+?

77mm armed Shermans wasn't what was needed. 90mm armed M26s was. Centurions on your side.

Yes, to airborne. That was the first issue, IIRC. Parachute squad TOE called for a .30 MG, no BAR. That got ignored a lot.


The M14A1 having an advantage over the BAR was moot, because the BAR was dead by then. The A1 was an improvement, but did not go far enough towards making the M14 controllable on full auto. You're right about the M15 being a non-starter.

I have a heavy-Match barrelled M1A (approximate weight of M15) fitted with E2 (M14A1) stock, bipod, and large scope. It is naturally not full-auto, but is heavy enough that it could possibly be marginally controllable if it was FA - but only with the bipod on something solid. The straight-line stock combined with a folding front handgrip that horses the gun down tight on the bipod, there is zippo muzzle jump.

You still don't get it. You cannot add the total RPM of each gun for a grand rpm. It doesn't work. The Mig-15 had 3 cannon. Do you add those dissimilar calibers together too?
No, it shows you don't understand that weight of explosive powder is not the grand end all of everything. Mobility matters. Weight matters. Rate of fire matters.

it seems that you cannot understund the valor of the term "equilibrium". how mobility you mention, when your M 2 weights almost as a light model 20mm?
when the RoF of a MG 151 is almost the same ? if the english engeeneers thinked like you, why bothers to leave 8-12 mg to have 4 hisso?? leave 10000 rpms for 2400, they must been crazy!!


Does this mean you've been in either the Mig-15 or F-86 in real life? Firing at the other?

no, and you?


Why weren't B-17s updated to 20mm? Why weren't P-51s given M61s? Why weren't Yak-9s given IR missiles? Guess.[/B]

????? perhaps that they hadn't invented yet, or for industrial reasons? but what's your point? how do yuo explain that B 36 were equipped with 16x20mm? or the Tu-4 ,copy of the superfortress, armed with 23mm? the avro lincoln with 20mm?
so you are so brilliant, why do not add to mustang also amraam?
more seriousely, i am pretty sure that crews of B 17s could had been happy to have hisso or mg 151 insthead of m2hbs. naturally, it cannot be there 12 of them.
for sure, the evolution of tecnology shown this was the case.

about the 40mm he shells, i would ask to Tony or someone, this issue: what kind of fuse had US 40mm wwii bofors?

Minor detail, the aircraft guns were not M2HBs. They were M2s, later M3s, with 36" barrels and slightly poorer ballistics to the M2HB's 48" barrel. Similarly, the watercooled .50s used on ships and some Army AA were short-barrelled.

Afaik, the WW2 Bofors were contact fused. You couldn't get a proximity fuse into a 40mm shell in those days.

Yes, though I think they called the fuse 'point detonating' - there was also a self-destruct feature incorporated for obvious reasons.

Are you sure about that KS? I'm away from my sources, but my understanding is that the only short-barrelled .50s in WW2 were the aircraft ones.



Correct. Curiously, the RN 2 pdr AA (40mm) used time-fuzed HE when it first came out in WW1 and for a couple of decades thereafter, but the WW2 HV loading used contact fuzes. Evidently they decided that a direct hit stood a better chance of bringing a plane down. Reminds me of the late-WW2 German research which demonstrated the same when using large-calibre Flak against heavy bombers.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Tony, did it have an automatic fuse setter? I can't imagine manually setting the time fuse for a 2 pdr; it would seriously impact the rate of fire.

Hojutsuka

Water cooled .50s came in both barrel links depending on the vintage.

The M1921 series had 36 inch barrels.

The M2 water cooled started with a 36 inch barrel and then went to a 45 inch long barrel. There were conversion kits to extend the short water jackets. This consisted of a jacket extension that screwed into the front of the short jacket. After the switch to 45 inch barrels new guns came with long water jackets.

There were also 36 inch barrels for the early M2HBs, original pre W2 vintage short heavy barrels are very rare. They were used until supplies were exhausted.

Here is a short water jacket:

http://209.165.152.119/photos/photom2tripodmount.jpg

Here is a long water jacket:

http://209.165.152.119/photos/photom2pedestalmount.jpg

Compare the length of the jackets in front of the hose fittings.

I found these pictures, over at NavWeaps.com, of army quad .50 mounts on board the USS Lexington CV 16, in 1945. Note that instead of the regular M2HB guns, it is equiped with M2 Aircraft guns. (I know that due to parts commonality the navy used the AC guns on PT and other small craft.) What I find strange is that this is on a carrier in 1945, and not 1942. Much has been said about the USN leaving .50s behind and going with 20mm and 40mm AA batteries. Haze Gray, etc., make no mention of ships being equiped with these. Has anyone got more info about the use of quad .50s on USN ships late in WW2? Was this just done on one ship, or was it more wide spread.







FWIW, I remember the pictures of the Yorktown wreck sitting on the bottom with her water cooled .50s still pointed towards the sky.

I don't know if you could call it "widespread", but several USN ships, mostly BBs and CVs, carried Maxson mounts with .50s in 1944-5. Some work was done substituting 20mm for the .50s to make a quad 20mm. IIRC Pennsylvania received one of those.

Possibly the 'de-emphasis' of the AA Artillery in the Army freed up a lot of Maxson mounts coming off the production lines. They were usually mounted in areas where Bofors wouldn't fit, or were too heavy for the stucture.

In any case there were a lot of 'non-standard" mounts late in the war. Many captains wanted all the AA barrels they could get on their ships, and didn't particularly worry about caliber or commonality.

Well, an Essex class carrier would have had no problem coming up with enough ammo, gas, and barrels to keep one of those puppies running.

never mind

Perhaps that explains the non-standard use of the aircraft rather than HB guns in the mounting: they had them available.

Barrel heating would have restricted those guns to very short bursts, with long gaps in between - they didn't even have the benefit of a fast cooling airstream which the aircraft-mounted guns enjoyed.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Thanks for that, Bob. That explains why the WW2 standard is always quoted as the 45 inch barrel.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

As I mention in a post earlier in this thread, the USN mounted the quad 50 on a small number of Essex class carriers as a test project. Each carrier was to get 6 mounts.