PDA

View Full Version : Why all ways the USAF in ww2?



XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 01:38 AM
the comfiguration of 8,6 .50 browning machineguns
Like the p47s,p51s,Corsairs,p40s
Like is not that affective like 2 heavy machineguns and 1 cannon like in the bf 109 or the FW 190 2 machineguns and cannons

so why the the Americans put the same weapon x 6 or 8 times thanks

Comments

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 01:38 AM
the comfiguration of 8,6 .50 browning machineguns
Like the p47s,p51s,Corsairs,p40s
Like is not that affective like 2 heavy machineguns and 1 cannon like in the bf 109 or the FW 190 2 machineguns and cannons

so why the the Americans put the same weapon x 6 or 8 times thanks

Comments

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 01:49 AM
reliabilty for jams weight effectiveness against all targets ground sea and air thats why

p38 and p39 had cannon as well along with the b25j a26


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 01:49 AM
Because they work.

Da Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
This Won The War
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 01:50 AM
Though I don't know why the U.S. stuck with the Browning M2/M3 throughout WWII, I'll offer up a couple of guesses:

-Logistics: One weapon means one ammo caliber and one set of spare parts to ship and keep track of.

-Ballistics: One weapon type makes harmonizing fire much easier. Different caliber weapons would have different ballistic arcs and muzzle velocities, making convergence more difficult to set, and accurate only at one specific g load for the aircraft shooting.

-Damage: It's not the most powerful air-to-air gun, but it's got good ballistics and armor penetration capabilities. It wouldn't be my first choice for knocking down 4 engined bombers, but the U.S. didn't have to do that very often during the war. Against fighter targets, the weapon did well.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 02:56 AM
They worked fine, and were plenty of FP for the job the US planes were called upon to do. By wars end the 20 mm cannon was becoming available on more and more types.

Agreed that they would have been too light against a B-17, but heck, the AAF did not face planes like that.

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 03:07 AM
also the US rotated pilots regularly so they were well trained and keen ... but had limited combat experience often only a handful of actual missions where they saw live action.

the LW on the other hand had a few highly trained "experten" and the rest of the squadron as backup

multiple small guns like the USAAF used were more suited to a situation where pilots had limited experience, while the the big cannons really only suited talented and very experienced marksmen like the LW experten

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 05:10 AM
Machineguns were used, I think, because they did the job, and when they didn't the numerical advantage would save them.

A machinegun won't always kill a tank or reliably shoot down a heavily armoured plane, but I am sure it'll do enough damage to anything in the air, and most things on the ground. Dont forget the rockets and bombs.

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 07:35 AM
Because Americans like guns. Lots of them. If two will do then eight will do better.

I have three guns....one for me, one for my dog and one just in case.

<center>http://banners.wunderground.com/banner/gizmotimetemp_both/language/www/US/TX/Dallas.gif </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 07:41 AM
Juego wrote:
- so why the the Americans put the same weapon x 6 or
- 8 times thanks
-

Whenever someone posts this question the first place they should be directed to is Emmanuel Gustin's website dedicated to <a href=http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-in.html>The WWII Fighter Gun Debate</a>.

Terrific site with oodles of info on airborne armament in the WWII period. Goes directly to each nations design choices in selecting armament.


<center>
Read the <a href=http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm>IL2 FAQ</a>
Got Nimrod? Try the unofficial <A HREF=http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=4870c2bc08acb0f130e5e3396d08d595>OT forum</A>

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 07:48 AM
Fieldmarschall Rommel pointed out, that his greatest admiration of the Americans lay in their ability to use standardized (spare)parts.

Or something like that...

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 08:07 AM
jeez could you imgine a p-47 with 8 50's and cannon gun pods! OMFG! lol

<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="LIGHT BLUE">~My at last i'm in compliance, Umm well Sorta Sig~
<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1053396877.jpg
<CENTER>Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml
<CENTER> <FONT COLOR="RED">

<center> http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/post-2-1057134794.gif
<CENTER> <FONT COLOR="RED"> Gibbage you rock Man!

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 08:09 AM
They can kill Tiger tanks...

++ 88.IAP_Manuc ++

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 08:11 AM
VVS-Manuc wrote:
- They can kill Tiger tanks...


Convergence is the key /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 11:31 AM
Can they kill Panthers or buffalos? Poor animals...

<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez2.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 03:57 PM
because US CAL.50 ammunition is from another dimension and can therefore kill Tiger tanks

-poor Tigers ROFL /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Gliederungen/AbzeichenGeschwader/9JG52-1.JPG

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 04:46 PM
Wound't that be something, or mayby two cannon pods on each wing. Four 50's on each wing, a rear gunner and laser gydid missils. lol

XyZspineZyX
07-10-2003, 07:58 PM
Hispano-Suiza 20mm cannon were test fitted to various USAAF and USAAC aircraft. The results were such that they didn't find favor.

Why did England put 8 .303 mgs in the Hurri? It was a rifle caliber bullet, for Pete's sake.

The answer to both questions is: Because that's what they decided on.