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.

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

Lets face it Roger, the Hispano definately came under the chocolate oven glove list of toys........

Mark

Sorry about the nationality error, Smoke, got confused, mate. 

The Hurricane, as we know, was quickly assigned more to the 'intercept' role, while the Spit was your fighter, as such.

The Hurricanes that were assigned to bomber intercept, was that the 8 x .30 cal version or the 4 x 20 mm, or both?

I know that the Hurricane was responsible for more kills during the BoB than the Spit. Was this due to the increased numbers or the fact that more of the kills were bombers, or both.
It would be interesting to see some figures regarding the amount and type of planes shot down by Hurricanes and Spits and further, which variant of each plane (armament wise) was responsible for which kills etc.

It would be a very interesting table indeed. Can one of our brilliant researchers come up with something? I've had a quick look, but I'm on AOL time restriction till the end of my billing cycle (two more days) due to 'overuse' (Bastards! ).

Quote:


The Hurricane far outnumbered the Spitfire at the start of the Battle of Britain. The Hurricanes of this time had the 8 x 30 cal armament.
Hurricanes accounted for about two thirds of the German aircraft lost during the battle with the Spitfire and other aircraft plus ground fire accounting for the rest.
Hurricanes were far easier to construct and easier to repair. They were very stable gun platforms and could out turn the main opponent, the BF-109 E.
People think that the Hurricane only took on the bombers but that is not true.
Fighter commands only VC was won by a Hurricane pilot.
I still firmly believe that the Spitfire was a far better fighter aircraft than the Hurricane, but the Hurricane won the Battle of Britain and so almost certainly saved England.

Quote:


Sorry if it came accross as if I was trying to correct what you said there Prof old pal I just typed out a few facts about the BoB period Hurricane to try to answer some of your questions.
I think the Hurricane was more associated with bomber intercepts because there were just more of them around and it was more likely that the bombers would encounter the Hurricane.
The 4 x 20mm MkIIc version did not turn up until after the battle although I remember reading somewhere that  the first victory scored by a cannon armed Hurricane was during the of the BoB. Whatever, they were not around in any numbers if at all.

Well the poll is closed but I have to go with 8 .30s  . My favored tactic is getting really close in (where this config thrives) and "sawing" away with the storm of bullets (In CFS 1 2 and 3 of course) . But I keep in mind this configs is useless at long range. And both the Spit and Hurri have there merits so quit with the comparing!

Quote:


What's that, mate? 

Quote:


So it's a more elaborate version of the 'Minigun'.

Still just 6 barrels or more?

Where are they going to store ammo for a gun that will fire 1 million rounds per min.

I x .50 cal round projectile weighs 10.5 grams without the shell so we'll say approx 20 grams completete (I imagine being a minigun they'd just be in a 'bucket', so no belt or anything) but that equals around 20,000 kilograms per 1 million rounds - THAT"S 20 TONNES!

How the heel are they going to feed the bloody thing.

20 Tons per minute. That's ridiculous! 

COMMENTS?

Quote:


Sorry Chomp, if it seems that the never ending saga of the Spit versus the Hurricane seems to annoy some people.
But there are some people who like to keep talking about these things. We don't think that even after 60 or more years, the subject is explored completely.

If that were the case, why don't we all just forget everything about WWII, BoB, Pacific etc. It's all been said by someone! Why don't we just throw our Sims away and do something that's "interesting" and hasn't been done before.

It happens (and I understand that you probably aren't aware of this) that a few people tried to have a thread closed down (some actually asked Mods to lock it) because we were talking about this very same thing.

I suggested to them that every time a new member comes here and wants to discuss this subject, are we going to embarrass and 'howl him down' because WE (the very ELITE US) have already been through that? So no-one else is alowed to take up our valuable time with 'second-hand subjects'. It's all second hand to someone.

It was only last week and the tread ended up going for about 4 or 5 pages, and still pops up from time to time.
http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=cafe;action=display;num=10...

This is a Living Forum. It has to be able to 'regenerate' for the new people who come and re-cover the subjects and interesting areas covered by the older members.
We can't decide that any subject is "old hat" just because one or two or even the majority have had their say. Otherwise the Forum dies a little everytime a subject is discussed and considered 'done with'.

How long would it take for it to die because no-one was 'allowed' to bring up the things that someone or a few were 'sick of'.
(Only sujects of a controversial matter or those likely to cause ill feeling and damage the Forum should be closed, locked or 'critisised as being 'unsuitable).

With respect. mate. Hawk and I, and everyone else who wants to, including yourself, will rehash the Spit/Hurri/BoB subjects until the cows come home. (Unless of course, a Mod considers it has become too heated)

Isn't this what all those wonderful Spit and Hurri pilots fought and died for. Just so I could say this without being censored? 

Quote:


I know a pistol round is about .50 cents for a .38.
A .50 cal rifle round would be dearer.

But then the military wouldn't pay that much.
But it still makes alot of money.  

PS This thread has duplicated and it seems that some posts are missing on the other one. I'm not sure if either is complete.

can a Mod have a look at fixing this, please. 

I have to go to bed now, but I'll be back on tomorrow. Actually in about 8 hrs. I'm on dayshifht tomorrow. Very slow, plenty time for SimV.

When I come back on, I want to see some answers as to where they are going to put 20 tonnes of ammo for one minutes firing of this new gun.

Even on the ground it's going to be a major hassle.

The only application that would make any sense to me, is a large Ship. At least they could store the ammo.

I'm going to do research tomorrow on how many .50 cal rounds were manufactured during WWII (I've seen the figure in a site somewhere).
And I'm going to work out how many MINUTES it would take for this gun to spend all of WWII's ammo (.50 cal anyway) 

A worthwhile exercise, I think......................yeah! 

Quote:

Well said Tempest. I know nothing of this Metal Storm you speak of, in fact I know very little about guns in general. Most rates of fire are quoted in units the gun itself could not possibly cope with or carry ammo for. One million rounds per minute is one way of comparing it with other weapons.

I stumbled on this while poking around. Thought it might interest some of you. http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14afdu.html
It's an official comparison of the Spitfire Mk XIV with contemporary aircraft dated 15 June 1944. Here's what they say about it compared with the Mustang Mk III (P-51B/C I think).

Quote:

Since the poll opened again, we have another vote for the 4 x 20mm.
That puts that option and the 6 x .50's 'Neck and neck'.

I can't find anything specific on this new gun on the Net yet. So I can't really comment. But I'll keep looking.

I've been continuing with my studies on the different methods used to calculate (as best as possible given all the different factors) the 'effectiveness' of each type of gun and each type of ammo. It's very involved and there is really no way to come up with a difinitive 'number' to class their effectiveness by.

I've just come across an interesting comment. I'm still trying to find something to back it up, because it's a new one on me, and upsets my applecart a bit.

This fellow says that 'tracer' rounds during WWII usually, due to their makeup, followed a different trajectory.
How could this be? That would make them pretty useless for their major purpose.
Although they did have a 'deterrent' value. Also particular types (especially in the Pacific) had the advantage of being able to set fire to ammo and fuel.

I'll keep you posted.   

Honestly, I really think they have more than enough ways to destroy anything that a 'fast firing' gun could.

I mean all their ordinance, i.e. missiles (air to air, SAMs and air to ground), GB's, Harms etc all have very impressive hit ratios. They've got the 'Gunships' to rip people up on the ground. What do they need the thing for anyway?

If you ask me it would be a waste of time and money for such a thing, as it would have no specific purpose that couldn't be taken care of, reliably, by something they already have. 

Quote:


GAU-8 Avenger

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/gau-8.htm

That's one extremely deadly and accurate weapon.

It will penetrate just under 3" armour at 500 metres.

(This is what I mean. Why do they need they other thing?) 

Quote:


Well I'll be buggered! Aussie eh? Well That doesn't surprise me, really. We've been responsible for hundreds of modern inventions in the last 100 years or so. 

The article also answers my question with regard to it's purpose. It says it would offer a "defensive curtain" against missiles etc.
Well at least there is a reason for it other than to waste money and kill more people quicker.

Defensive stuff is OK. 

I was very surprised to read that the tests showed that the Spit IVX had a tighter turning circle than the Mustang MkIII (P51D).

The Sims certainly do not reflect this. Even in the 1% planes. I have found that the Spits, all of them, have a rather wide circle when compared to the P51 B & D, Hurri (Of course - which would be my choice for the tightest) and even the American Navy F4F anf F6F.

I fight a turning dogfight almost all the time. I can judge the right place to put rounds so that a turning enemy will run into them. I'm far better in that area than in any other part of dogfighting. So, consequently, the tight turn is what I look for. It's how I attack when I can and it's how I like to escape. (That's why the P51d shortcoming which is the great bleed off of speed when you turn too tightly, never suited me).

Anyhow..........................

Extremely interesting, Hagar.

I know the plane being discussed is the Spit 14, I just got my X's and V's around the wrong way..............lol.

Although I did have in my mind the P51D, especially as the test date given was Feb '44.

Your last quotes about the P51 B/C and D are interesting to me, to say the least.
I've always considered the B to be a better all round fighter. I know it was faster in it's original form. I know it handles better than the D. It has the same manoeuvrability as the D without that terrible 'bleed off' of speed in a tight turn.
I will always use it in preference to a D model. 

It's strange that they always have the P51B in the Sims, with 6 x .50's, which I've always known is wrong. Even the avhistory 1% planes have the 6 guns (I'm quite sure at least).
The funny thing is they still only represent the 4 gun ammo load of around 1800 instead of the 2400 of the D model. I think something's gone awry somewhere! 

I also don't know why the B didn't have the 6 guns fitted. It would seem to be the same wing as the D and the weight wouldn't be a factor, not with the power available in that plane. Mystery to me! 

Of course the D was the choice of the day because of it's range, which the B didn't have, although it was a little more than the Spit 14.

I just don't see this tight turning circle that everyone talks of when referring to the Spit (any model), to me they seem not to turn as tight as most of the planes of the time (except the P47 which was pretty useless turning wise, and the FW190, which, with all it's advantages, IMO, didn't turn very tightly either.

Of course all this is based on my own Sim experience, which is really all anyone here has as a 'personal' guide for their opinions. I do use the 1% fighters in all the models available and I think that the 'relative' differences in turn, roll, climb, speed etc are all much the same when compared to the 'default planes' in CFS1 & 2. They are just less responsive, or 'touchy' on the stick, which I believe is the more realistic representation.
Only a WWII pilot (or someone with a good amount of experience in warbird flying of different types) could really argue one way or another, an they are all over 75 - 80 years old and their experience is 60 years old. 

As I've said, my dogfight is a turning fight, if I've got anything to do with setting the pace and the scene. This being the case, I would defeat "myself" flying a P47, Spit, Fw190, P38, Me109G and even a P51b if I was in a Hurricane. I would out-turn 'myself' every time..........lol.

Quote:

That's a pity. My link now seems to be dead so I can't check  this out. ???
I'm sure it was mentioned in the article that many P-51B/C Mustangs were retro-fitted with the 6 x .50 cal layout of the later P-51D.

Quote:

This goes back to my old argument that what you get in the sim is not necessarily too realistic. Performance of a particular type is restricted by the M$ flight model, compounded by the skill & knowledge (or lack of it) of the FS flight dynamics gurus. The most reliable information available for WWII aircraft must be based on official reports of the period. All new aircraft (new types & modifications to existing types) were carefully evaluated by experienced service test pilots at the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (AAEE) before being accepted for RAF & FAA service. The AAEE was originally based at RAF Martlesham Heath & later moved to RAF Boscombe Down. This was the home of the famous & much respected Empire Test Pilot's School (ETPS). The restrictions on these former secret reports have since been lifted making a source of valuable material available to researchers.

Quote:


Thanks for that link Hagar pal, some interesting reading there.

I'm sure it was just the later D model and the H (pacific long range model) that had the tank behind the pilot. I'm certain this was not included in early D's or in the B/C model.
I only have two P-51's that are not D models for CFS2. One is a Mustang MkII (Alison) and the other a Mustang Mk III. The MkII is a bit twitchy and the MkIII I'm sure has the flight model from a D because it flys just the same and stalls out in a tight turn. Shame because it would be nice to know what a correct flight model was like.

I think we have the makings of a good hour or so of conversation about the P51B and D models...............lol  (Noooooooo.........shut up Steve!  )

I have a version of the CFS2 P51B. It is a RCAF version. I don't have my Sim here at work.

I have a 1% P51B which is a British version.
In both, the flight config is completely different from it's B counterpart. I find the B a much nicer plane to fly. It's not as 'twitchy' or I call it 'sensitive' or 'touchy' on the stick, like the D model and it certainly doesn't have the bleed-off in a tight turn. It actually holds speed well untill you turn quite sharply, and even then it's only the sort of drop you would normally expect.

I don't know where the normal CFS2 RCAF one came from (try a search with P51 RCAF) but the 1%, like all mine, is from avhistory. It's a really good plane. I think you would find it a very pleasant plane to fly if you like the Spit.
The best I can compare it to is: the manoeuvrability and power (more!) of the Spit, but a turn 'approaching' that of the Hurricane. It also has the 'smooth action' of the Hurricane too. (I think the Hurri is 'smoother to fly' anyway - I always thought it was probably a weight thing. 

  I don't have the figures in front of me, but wasn't the Spitfire XIV lighter than the P-51B?  Also didn't the Spitfire XIV have a greater wing area that the P-51B?  If so, wouldn't that account for the facts in Hagar's last post?

You're right Hagar, the flight models in the CFS (and FS) planes are simply an interpretation of a particular designer's ideas of how that plane would (or would have) performed.
I suppose, if the same person designed ALL the planes, there might be a little bit of sense to be made from it all, but, as you contuinlually remind us , there really can't be when those that design these planes have probbaly never flown them.

M$ do claim that the models were based on 'advice' from the likes of Foss and Sakai, but did they ever fly a Spit, or a P51B? In one case, Sakai, I'm sure he didn't. In the second, Foss, I doubt he did (being Navy). 

So all we have to compare are the Sim models. None of us will ever get to compare both these, or any other warbirds. If any of us get to fly one, let alone compare two or more, we will be blessed beyond anyones dreams.  8) 8)

So, yes, you're right, the Sim models aren't really a good representation. Even the 1% planes, which claim to be 'accurate representations' are, at best, simlilar in some areas. 

I suppose I do get to making the assumption that the models are a reasonable representation, because all the Spit models and all the Mustang models would appear to behave much the same. But then, I suppose the same 'basic' config is used over and over.