Quote:
Originally Posted by Robo.
I'd very happily swap my eight .303 for two nose mounted MG 17s with 60 seconds of fire.  I fly both RAF and LW and the stopping power and accuracy of the nose mounted mgs is great and suits me well. You can shoot long range and you can keep the thumb on the trigger for much longer. The effect is suprisingly strong when you hit well - works against 109s and RAF fighters as well - fire, PKs, important parts falling off etc... Flying for the RAF, you might have more guns but unless you get your target on the convergence range, you're wasting your 14 seconds of fire. Now getting a good 109 pilot to convergence range is a bit of a problem on its own, but even against the bombers, the MG17s are very effective and you can snipe from very long distance. Works great, trajectory is nice as it should be. Just my 0.02, YMMW of course...
Whoever said in this thread that the armament was an advantage on LW side was right - nose mounted mgs + cannons = hell of a punch. Good shot will be succesful with anything, but I admit the MG17 are a great weapon when used right, as a RAF pilot I fear not the Oerlikon cannons, but long range MG 17. |
Was it Adolf Galland who likened the 109 to lining up a well fitted shotgun to the shoulder while with the British fighters it felt like trying to aim the weapon at arms length? Apparently when the Merlin was first mooted some thought was given to making it an inverted vee-12, and making allowances for an engine-mounted cannon, same as the DB and Jumo series - just imagine the Hurricane and Spitfire roaring in to the attack with a couple of .303s blazing away on the nose and a working Hispano firing through the propeller hub...and maybe a couple of Hispanos in the wings?
Just for interest
this is Emmanual Gustin's page on WW2 aircraft gun ballistics.