Yanks and their MG's

[Friendly_flyer]

The wikipedia entry on the Hispano autocanon touches on the problem. The American showed interest in the British Hispano early on, but it appears the US manufacturers wanted to redesign the chamber somewhat. The result was that the weapon became prone to misfire. The USAF and particularly the USN had planned to phase out the .50 by mid war, but the American Hispano was delayed. Not until introduction of electrical firing post-war, did the US version become reliable enough for use in planes.

If the Americans had solved the design problems (or not redesigned the Hispano in the first place), Mustangs and Thunderbolts would have flown with 20mm Hispano canons rather than MGs. Luckily, the Americans could fall back on the .50, which gave adequate, but not great, firepower.

[whatnot]

Originally Posted by Friendly_flyer

The wikipedia entry on the Hispano autocanon touches on the problem. The American showed interest in the British Hispano early on, but it appears the US manufacturers wanted to redesign the chamber somewhat. The result was that the weapon became prone to misfire.

I wonder what drove them to 'improve' an already working design resulting US not having a cannon until 50's. But well, it worked out of ok concerning the outcome but would have been great to see / fly cannon packed late war fighters for US.

Anyone has any idea on the rate of failure the american models of Hispano's had?

[Buren]

I suggest everyone to read this excellent article:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/CannonMGs.htm

[whatnot]

Originally Posted by Buren

I suggest everyone to read this excellent article:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/CannonMGs.htm

Excellent read and a comprehensive answer to my question. Thanks Buren!

[Friendly_flyer]

The troubled history of the American Hispano (from the same author):

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/US404.htm

[KnightFandragon]

Originally Posted by Buren

I suggest everyone to read this excellent article:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/CannonMGs.htm

lolz, I read the part about the Russian guns carrying less explosives and such. That is displayed very well in IL2.....Ive flown the IL2M3 w/ those big 57mm wing cannons and also the LA5's and it became very obvious quickly that the Russian guns were simply not even remotly close to as powerful as the German/Allied guns. In game i also flew a Mig FS jet and had to unload basically all my ammo into 1 B17 to take it out. Also w/ the LA I ran out of ammo firing at 4 HE111s b/c the guns wuoldnt shoot em down. As for the British..or is it a French 20mm? the Hispano in the Spitfire, like 4-8 rounds downs a fighter and like 10-12 or so will down a HE111. As for the large caliber 50+mms I flew the Me262 UA w/ that 50mm and the Il2M3 w/ the 57mms and w/ the 262 it takes 1 or 2 rounds in the wing to kill big bombers, the Il2 its quite a few more. Im sure in RL it played out different but in game yeah....Russian cannons are kinda junky.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by KnightFandragon

lolz, I read the part about the Russian guns carrying less explosives and such. That is displayed very well in IL2.....Ive flown the IL2M3 w/ those big 57mm wing cannons and also the LA5's and it became very obvious quickly that the Russian guns were simply not even remotly close to as powerful as the German/Allied guns. In game i also flew a Mig FS jet and had to unload basically all my ammo into 1 B17 to take it out. Also w/ the LA I ran out of ammo firing at 4 HE111s b/c the guns wuoldnt shoot em down. As for the British..or is it a French 20mm? the Hispano in the Spitfire, like 4-8 rounds downs a fighter and like 10-12 or so will down a HE111. As for the large caliber 50+mms I flew the Me262 UA w/ that 50mm and the Il2M3 w/ the 57mms and w/ the 262 it takes 1 or 2 rounds in the wing to kill big bombers, the Il2 its quite a few more. Im sure in RL it played out different but in game yeah....Russian cannons are kinda junky.

How good is your aim? The MiG-9 actually has very good cannons that do significant damage to the target aircraft. Several hits should be enough to finish off a B-17.

The Russians actually get quit a bit for their weaponry and there are a few other factors to consider that aren't strictly played out in the numbers.

The ShVAK 20mm cannon if we compare with the Hispano II fires at a higher rate (800 rounds per minute versus 600 rpm) and has a smaller round (20x99 versus 20x110) which means having a bigger ammo supply on the relatively small Russian fighters. Also if memory serves the ShVAK 20mm was very reliable through most of the war, even in dusty or dirty conditions whereas the Hispano had problems for years and it wasn't until later that the Mark II was made reliable.

Also the Russians have the best heavy machine gun with the Berezin UB 12.7mm.

I look at the three main cannons like this: The MG151/20 is a refined weapon with a very sophisticated high explosive MINE round. The Hispano is like a sledgehammer which fires the heaviest round at very high velocities. The ShVAK is more of a scalpel with high refire rate and good ballistics. Both ShVAK and MG151 can be fired through a propeller hub whereas the Hispano I don't think was ever fired from a synchronized installation.

[janpitor]

Yes, the Shvak has higher rate, but it is also true that you need more hits to down a target.

[Blackdog_kt]

So, it pretty much balances out in the long run as far as DPS (damage per second) goes, if we could assign a way to measure it.

I think that there's more to aerial gunnery than having the one round that does massive damage to a target with one hit. The mk108 does this, but i never use it unless i go against bombers. There are other things to consider, like for example ease of aiming, and i don't mean pure balistics (in which the 108 is still inferior to other lighter guns).

A gun with a high ammo supply and high rate of fire is easier to aim every single time, simply because you can afford to keep the trigger pressed a few more seconds and correct your aim by looking at the tracers. In this way, Russian guns with their high rate of fire could be easier to aim and score hits, compared to slow firing German heavy cannons.

On the other hand, having only fast firing light guns (like for example .303s) is very easy to take and correct aim, but commits you to a tracking shot, with all the dangers it brings due to target fixation.

I think that the "sweet spot" lies somewhere in the middle: a gun that fires projectiles big and powerful enough to cripple or outright destroy a fighter in less than 10 hits, while still being of low enough caliber to maintain a high ammo supply and high rate of fire to assist in aiming/correcting your shot. If the ballistics are good, it gets even better and that's why i like the MG151s a lot...it's like they are the golden middle ground.