6 of them. Yet when they attacked the airfield and the destroyer it was like they had 37mm cannons and/or rockets for all the damage they did.
What are they doing? Why do they come here?
Some kind of instinct, memory, what they used to do.
They appear to be ammunition fires. The "destroyer" looks like an old armored cruiser or such in the movie.
In the well-known historical attack on the "destroyer", the 332nd flew P-47s armed with 8x.50 machine guns, and apparently some of these managed to be fired into an open hatch, according to the pilot. An explosion resulted, which suggests some munitions were detonated. The "destroyer" was not sunk, but badly damaged and run aground to avoid sinking. She never sailed again.
I put "destroyer" in quotes because she was a destroyer when commissioned before the First World War, but had been reclassified since. She was very small for a destroyer by Second World War standards, and much smaller than the ship depicted in the film.
Live long and prosper.
Hmm, the older planes looked like P-40s. But I see what might have happened. But I always gave the Germans more credit for FLAK fire than that movie did.
share
They were P-40s. He was speaking of reality as opposed to this fantasy.
TNSTAAFL
IT wasn't till the late 50s that the US planes, interceptors, had anything bigger than a .50 cal while the Germans and Soviets had cannons, some of them large like the 37mm, 30mm, 25mm etc on their planes
IT wasn't till the late 50s that the US planes, interceptors, had anything bigger than a .50 cal while the Germans and Soviets had cannons, some of them large like the 37mm, 30mm, 25mm etc on their planes
You got me on the P-38, but the rest of those cannon equipped planes were made for ground attack. The Aircobra P-39 was designed for ground attack but since the USAAF was wedded to the moronic Douhet theory, it tried to make the P-39 into an interceptor. Compare that to the 4 30mm cannons on the ME-262 or the standard 20mms on most Zeroes, Oscars, FWs and ME-109s. The trouble was that the cannons were usually shot through the hollow crankshaft geared off of an inline engine on a single seat fighter, not from the wings. The pilot gondola on a P-38 was perfect for heavier weapons since there were no props in front of it.
The RAF was even worse, until they finally put 20s on their planes, all they had were .303 cals. which were useless against any sort of armor. Like the .303s on the Lancaster heavies couldn't stop the JU 88 night fighters head on.
I agree the US was behind in aircraft armament. We had the .50 Browning, sometimes the .30 Browning (usually in a flex mount), and sometimes a 37mm gun (there were two, both Browning designs) or, rarely, the 20mm Hispano built under license (by Oldsmobile IIRC).
To make a long story short, the factors you bring up were important in general, but not so important for the USAAF nor for the USN. That's because the USAAF mainly fought against German fighters or Japanese fighters, while the USN mainly fought against Japanese fighters and bombers. All of these were reasonably vulnerable to the .50 Browning. The Japanese aircraft were especially vulnerable because almost none of them had armor or self-sealing fuel tanks. Heavier, slower-firing cannons would have been no advantage for knocking down Zeros, Vals, Kates, and Betties. The Bf-109 had a liquid cooled engine, and only needed the radiators punctured.
Mustang pilots complained some when armed with only 4 .50 guns over Europe, but found six guns to be ample. Wildcat pilots in the Pacific, on the other hand, found 4 guns to be adequate on the F4F-3 and complained about the extra weight with the move to six guns on the F4F-4. The later F4F-8 (built by GM as the FM-2) returned to four gun armament and finished out the war so armed.
If the US had to confront large numbers of aircraft as tough as the B-17 and B-24, then it would have been very different. But the nature of her fighter war was mainly bomber escort or defending task forces against vulnerable Japanese aircraft. The .50 Browning was adequate for these needs.
Live long and prosper.
The Fifties had/have their virtues, but seriously wouldn't have been better on some of the heavy bombers to have a single 20mm rather that twin 50s in the turrets. The B-29s had a single 20mm in the rear that was remotely fired. Also the Navy & Marine Corps were more willing to work with ground troops and provide close in support with dive bombers and fighter strafing and rocket attacks than the USAAF. Our men in Europe feared our own planes more than the Luftwaffe while in the Pacific the air & ground guys got along much better. The cannons were definitely a big plus for ground support because even a 20mm shell in the right spot could knock a tank out, or at least disable it, or penetrate simple field defenses. Look what the Nazis did with 37mms in their slow Ju 87, they knocked 1000s of Red tanks out, including the JS-1 heavies
shareIn some cases, yes. In 1943, the Germans woke up their night fighters to help confront B-17 raids to Schweinfurt and such. These types sometimes used their heavy cannon armament and outranged the defensive armament of the B-17s. In those cases, something like the 20mm Hispano would have been clearly superior to the Browning as defensive armament. When Mustangs started escorting the B-17s a few months later, they inflicted heavy losses on these night fighters and largely put an end to this practice, so that window of time was brief.
Otherwise, I'm not sure the extra weight would have been worth it. The B-17 was laden with a lot of armament and carried only a modest bomb load, typically 4000-5000 pounds. Swapping even heavier armament for a further reduced average bomb load might have been a poor compromise.
Live long and prosper.
Maybe you are right about the heavies, they were overloaded as it is. Mainly the cannons would be best for ground attacks. But you have to admit, like the ME-262, all it took was one or two hits and it was all she wrote for one of our heavies.
shareAgreed. The Me-262 had extremely heavy armament for it's day, firing about 14 kg of HE projectiles per second. That's enormous for that time, and still superior to many fighters today. The first fighter to best it was the Hawker Hunter, which had four 30mm cannons that fired much faster. Virtually nothing has bested the Hunter.
The weakness of the Me-262's armament, the MK 108, was the very low muzzle velocity.
Live long and prosper.
But if even one 30mm shell detonated inside a heavy, it was almost a sure kill. The Luftwaffe figured their jets would only get one pass at the bomber formations and they wanted to make that one count. But think what that would have been like as a ground attack plane. It would have shredded the poor sods below. Yes the cannon was low velocity, it opened the breach before the charge was all burned out. It had to be or the recoil would have ripped the plane apart.
What are they doing? Why do they come here?
Some kind of instinct, memory, what they used to do.
I don't know if one hit would bring down a B-17, on average. But I am sure that it would have taken a much shorter burst on target with 4x30mm guns than with six or even eight .50 Brownings.
But getting the MK 108 on target with the low muzzle velocity is more problematic, unless you got close.
My favorite German aircraft gun of that period was the MG 213, the first revolver cannon. It just missed the war, but was the most influential design, being the basis for most post-war revolver designs like the ADEN and DEFA and the (Pontiac-built) M39, and many others.
Compared to the MK 108, the MG 213 had much greater rates of fire and muzzle velocities, making it more suitable for high-speed combat. That's why there are many guns like the MG 213 mounted on fighters today, and none really like the MK 108. Nobody wants ballistics inferior to the .30 carbine on a jet fighter.
Live long and prosper.
.50 Cal guns on a fighter plane in WW2 was absolutely devastating. The OP doesn't seem to realize this. They could blast any fighter out of the sky with a short burst, and they could rake ground targets like trains and transport columns to pieces. They could take out armored cars and certainly capable of tearing the deck of an old destroyer to shreds. There are even accounts of lightly armored Japanese tanks being taken out from .50 Cal fire.
share.50 Cal guns on a fighter plane in WW2 was absolutely devastating. The OP doesn't seem to realize this. They could blast any fighter out of the sky with a short burst, and they could rake ground targets like trains and transport columns to pieces. They could take out armored cars and certainly capable of tearing the deck of an old destroyer to shreds. There are even accounts of lightly armored Japanese tanks being taken out from .50 Cal fire.
Your last point is well taken. As I understood it the .50 guns were also lethal at ground attack as well. I know that some B-25s late in the war were equipped with 4 .50 cal guns in the nose, and were used primarily in ground attack or close tactical support.
I also tend to think a P-51 with 6 .50 guns was far superior to anything the Germans had (discounting 262). I think (hypothetically) that P-51s, in suffient numbers, could have taken on heavies pretty well.
Its also important to look at the air war over Europe in proper context. In mid 43, things were going pretty badly for the "heavies". But by 1944 and 45, the Americans were producing so many top notch aircraft, that the situation became untenable for the Germans, regardless of what they flew or how they were armed.
I also tend to think a P-51 with 6 .50 guns was far superior to anything the Germans had (discounting 262). I think (hypothetically) that P-51s, in suffient numbers, could have taken on heavies pretty well.
Its also important to look at the air war over Europe in proper context. In mid 43, things were going pretty badly for the "heavies". But by 1944 and 45, the Americans were producing so many top notch aircraft, that the situation became untenable for the Germans, regardless of what they flew or how they were armed.
But if even one 30mm shell detonated inside a heavy, it was almost a sure kill.
Yeah the Forts were pretty tough, But if a 30mm exploded in the cockpit or a fuel tank, it would be sayonara for even a B 17
shareThe OP has a point: the Cannon shell from the Mk108 30mm cannon was made to put a lot of 'boom' in a small package but it had terrible ballistic performance. A pilot had to close to very close range and very little deflection to get a hit (and that is bad when you're facing a Fort or a Lib...) but if a couple of hits are scored chances are the target is going down....
shareI think the ME 262 needed all that fire power because it often got just one high speed pass at its target. In some ways it was actually too fast to be great at killing P-51s, which the Germans finally agreed that its role would be.
6 .50 Cal guns is still incredibly devastating armament for a WW2 fighter. It gave the plane the ability to be a highly effective ground attack plane.
I'm curious about the Hawker Hunter. Was it deployed in number before the end of the war? Was it a fighter or a ground attack plane. I've heard of the plane, I just don't know how much action it saw.
The P-47 had eight .50s.
TNSTAAFL
I'm curious about the Hawker Hunter. Was it deployed in number before the end of the war? Was it a fighter or a ground attack plane. I've heard of the plane, I just don't know how much action it saw.
The Hunter was a post-war British fighter of the 1950s and 1960s. I mentioned it above because of its very heavy armament, perhaps the most firepower ever fitted to a fighter, or close to it. By then, the cannons were firing much faster ing WW2, so most manufacturers fitted fewer of them. Two 30mm guns was common, and some carried just one, but the Hunter carried four.than dur
I have to add that everybody I've spoken to who's flown the Hunter just loves the damned thing.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
I'm curious about the Hawker Hunter. Was it deployed in number before the end of the war? Was it a fighter or a ground attack plane. I've heard of the plane, I just don't know how much action it saw.
Thanks, that's what I thought. Allied WW 2 jet aircraft are very little known because they were too late to see any significant action, and were hopelessly obsolete within a few years. I assume none of the Allied jet fighters were very good, because all the Allies were anxious to get their hands on Me-262s and all other jet/rocketry technology in the final days of the war.
shareI assume none of the Allied jet fighters were very good, because all the Allies were anxious to get their hands on Me-262s and all other jet/rocketry technology in the final days of the war.
Interesting, thanks.
shareThe RAF was even worse, until they finally put 20s on their planes, all they had were .303 cals. which were useless against any sort of armor. Like the .303s on the Lancaster heavies couldn't stop the JU 88 night fighters head on.
I agree, great Dawn of the Dead reference, my fave movie!
share