Quote:

It's a matter of preference & opinions vary. I don't think there's a definitive answer. The .50 cal MGs were certainly effective but one well placed cannon shell could bring down an aircraft. The F-86 with its 6 x .50 cals was at a disadvantage compared with the standard cannon armament of the MiG 15. Some think the excellent F-86 would have been an even better fighter fitted with cannon.

PS. Quote:

Yes. In fact one article I've read quotes the figure at 175. http://www.pumaslog.addr.com/typhoon.htm

This is also interesting.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/angels_eight/127day07.html

Agreed. Once again I acknowledge the Typhoon and tempest as King of the ground attack. 

I was just saying that: e.g. If a fighter with 6 x .50 cal had some ammo left or couldn't find a fight in the air, there was a method that he could use to make his .50's effective in knocking a German tank (the bouncing off the road surface - I mentioned before). Whereas cannons would not be of as much use in that particular instance, with the heavy armour of the Panthers, Tigers etc.

Of course the cannon being far more powerful a weapon, packing a huge punch, would have been for more effective on other ground targets such as convoys, trains, radar etc etc. Not to mention planes on the ground.

I, for me only, just prefer the longer firing time and the greater chance of a hit with the 6 x .50's. 

I look at it this way. If you get a hit with one of your, say 60 x 20mm rounds you may destroy the plane or knock it out of the fight. But the chances are far less of a hit than if you have 20 seconds and 2400 rounds of .50 cal.
Firstly there are some explosive rounds that can do damage to hydraulics, electricals, cables and surfaces. There are AP rounds that can hole engine blocks and armour and props etc.
Even though 2 or 3 or 4 of these types of hits won't knock a plane out. Gees, maybe 50 such hits might not do it, but there's a good chance the opponents plane is going to be harder to handle, lack power etc. It will loose advantages it may have and make the rest of the job far easier. This of course can be done with the higher number of rounds.
If you don't get a hit woth your 60 canon rounds, that's it. You have to go home. 

That's my reasoning. At least, in Sim, I notice, if I get a few bad hits which effect the handling or power of my plane, I am nowhere near as effective. In most cases I am just easy prey for the other bloke or blokes. That's the root of my reasoning. I know it's not founded on 'real' experience, but it holds water for me. 

  Its true that during the Korean War, and even late in the Second World War, the 50 cal. MG was hard pressed to bring down a jet aircraft.  But bear in mind that jets are built more sturdy than prop aircraft.  Jets also lacked the fliud coolant system of the inline engined prop aircraft, giving jets one less vulnerable spot to be targeted.  Air combat in jets took place at higher altitudes where the oxygen is thin, this lessened the chance of fire which is the typical killer of aircraft since World War 1.
  But during the Second World War, espically against the lightly armored Japanese aircraft the 50 cal. MG excelled.
  The 50 cal. MG is such an effective weapon that it is still in use in the U.S. military, more then 60 years after it was first adopted.

Quote:

Well the British Special Forces are still using the same .50 cal off the back of the pinkies (110 Land Rovers). A good weapon, but sometimes a tad twitchy).

Ozzy

Quote:

Arent the real pink SAS landies phased out... i've seen photos of private ones with all the weapons (disabled of course) and stuff on it driving around england

Quote:


The FJ-2 Fury and the F-86H had a 4 x 20mm cannon loadout.
I saw a program, Battle Stations I think, recently about the F-86. The first F-86 pilot to down a Mig 15 used up almost his full .50 cal load to do so.
During WW2, the .50 cal was the supreme fighter weapon, but it was far less effective in Korea due I'm sure to the reasons already given in this thread by Denisch.

Quote:


It was me!!!!

Will

Quote:


Nope, true blue Brit.

Will