As you point out it depends on your target. It also depends on how good a shot you are. The RAF 8 gun fighters (8 x .303 Brownings) didn't fare too badly in the BoB. The type of ammo & harmonisation is also important. I believe most pilots opted for a spread at optimum range for a better chance of hitting the target. The light ammo would not penetrate armour. I've read accounts by some of the aces that they would have preferred a couple of cannon.

For air to air combat I think I would go for a combination of 4 x MG + 2 x 20 mm Cannon as on the Spitfire "B" wing. Maybe use the MGs with tracer for sighting & finish off with the heavy stuff. Cannon ammo is naturally heavier & less can be carried. Typically, 1 x 20 mm cannon or 1 x .50 MG could be fitted in place of 2 x .303 MGs.

I agree with Hagar about the British "B" wing being a good choice. The mix of .30 cal and 20mm makes a very effective loadout. As a testimony to this, top British Ace "Johnnie" Johnson scored the vast majority of his 38 victories with this armament.
However, the "E" wing with 2 x .50cal and 2 x 20mm put out a full 10lbs of ammo more per 3 second burst than the "B" wing loadout and from a combat flight sim point of veiw, this is my favorite loadout and so my vote here goes to the "E" wing.

Personally my vote goes with the 2x50s and 2x20mm combination. The Spitfire E wing was devestating in its power, sure you had to carry a slightly heavier load, but when you hit something with this, he wasn't going to make it home. Armour or no. Its like the difference between shooting someone with a .22 Martine and shooting them with a 44 Magnum! Even if you only clip him its going to make a hell of a mess.

Ozzy

Well I personally like the 12 .303 machine guns of the Hurricane MkIIB. But that option ain't there. So I would say 4 .303 and 2 20mm. If not then 4 .303 and 2 40mm (as on the Hurricane MkIID) cause if one of those 40mm rounds hits you then there is no way you will stay air borne for long.

The table I've been using for most of my loadout info has something like 50 planes and even more 'options' for different combinations of guns.
I couldn't possibly include every variation or combination, so I had to go with the 'most commonly' or "most often" used configurations.

I have included the option for 4 x cannon (in different sizes) that Ivan refers to, as I see that this optioon was indeed used on a number of Russian planes and variants. Also I believe the Me262 had the same option, in one particular version (2 x 30mm & 2 x 20mm) as well as the 4 x 30 mm.

However, Woody's preferred 12 x .30 cal was only used on one plane, as was the 40mm cannon (in any combo). So it is unfortunate that not everyones personal preference is included.
So as I said, we have to settle for the 'most used' variations. That doesn't mean, of course, that we can't talk about whatever we like. This is a Prof. Brensec thread after all. God only knows where we'll end up...........

My vote went for the 6 x .50 cal of the US planes (most of). It proved to be a very effective combo in every theatre, against every foe.
Initially the fighters were limited to 1200 - 1500 (or so) rounds which gave up to 20 seconds of fire (based on the average .50 cal rate of 75 rpm). But that fire was considerably hard hitting at a 'weight of fire' of 3.64 kg of lead per second (8 lbs), and in the beginning, your .30's didn't have the explosive round.

Of course, after a couple of years, you had fighters with 400 and 500 rounds per gun, which increased the firing time considerably (e.g. the Corsair with 2400 rounds gave 32 seconds of firing time). Numerous planes (especially the likes of 'sitting ducks' such as Vals and Kates and Stukas in Europe) could be shot down in one 'sortie'.

Some US pilots had the 'authority' or 'prestige' to have there own preference of 'round configs' put together, i.e. explosive, armour piercing, tracer (leaving out the incendiary and the 'slug' options). Some liked the incendiary because the Jap planes, with no self sealing tanks, would go up in flames after a single hit in the tank, if an incendiary went within 10 ft of the wing (You see this fuel vapour-trail pouring out in CFS2 often). Even a tracer would ignite it.

Although a hit from a cannon can do enough damage sometimes to knock another fighter out completely, with just one hit, you could rarely carry more than 50 or 60 rounds in the earlier years. This only increased to about 100 or so per gun in the latter years.
One exception to this is the FW190, in which they managed to fit nearly 700 rounds for two cannon.
That coupled with 2 x 13mm Mg's with 900 odd rounds, gave it a very long 'firing time'. It's really the only one I can see that has anything like those loads.
But then there are only 2 x MG's. Not much chance of a hit over the 6 the American planes had. And again, only two cannon.  

Just as a matter of interest, I'll just divert to the 'ground attack' role for a moment.

The Russian fighter role throughout most of the entire campaign was that of either low level air to air or (maybe more so) the 'interdiction role' and troop support.

Support of ground troops was the main order of the day at most times. Hence, I imagine, the Russian preference for cannon.
Up to the Panzer MkIV, the fighter could knock out tanks with their cannon, especially the 37mm used in the P400 (P39 Airocobra - US) and the 20mm of the Yak 1,3,7 & 9 and the La 5 and 7.
There is one German pilot creditted with knocking out 500 tanks in a period of three years! My God! He was also shot down no less than 30 times.
Obviously, the 'frontline' location of most of the fighting must have made it possible for him to either handle his plane back to his own lines and bail out, or to walk back at night after bailing out over German territory. Whichever, it demonstrates the Russian need for fighters to be capable of knocking tanks by the dozen. Hence, the cannons.

My vote for the 6 x .50 cals is also supported by the American pilots discovering (mainly P47's and P51's) that they could 'bounce' the heavier .50's off the hard road surfaces and throw the rounds up under the tank, into the soft belly, where there was no armour (or little).
Even the King Tiger was vulnerable to this. The Tank may not be destroyed (although the inside wiring, instrumentation, gun components etc would be a mess), the crew would be in a terrible mess with a dozen or so AP and Tracer rounds bouncing around inside.

Just an account of the added advantage over the cannon, even the 37mm and 40 mm that couldn't penetrate anything from the Panther onwards. Obviously the cannon rounds would penetrate the road surface or explode before the entered the belly on the tank, if this tactic was used.
So, given this, if it's true enough, what good were the cannon against tanks after the MkIV? Not much, I imagine.

Although, as some are giving a preference for a 'comination' that isn't possible or not included as a 'standard' option, I think my IDEAL loadout would be 6 x .50's and 2 x 20 mm. Probably only possible on the large wing and huge frame of the P47, it would be formidable. (Maybe pop two of the .50's on the nose ).

Quote:


it was mister Rudel, a highly decorated german tank-killer who kicked some russian a$$es with his Ju-87 (stuka). but i don't like him that much,because he was a true nazi.

being shot down was no real problem,there were a lot of german pilots who were captured by russians,but many of them managed to escape and flee behind friendly lines.

my ultimate killer machine:

4*MG 151
2*MK 108

...for converting bombers into swiss chesse within seconds.