View Single Post
  #9  
Old March 9th 04, 10:14 PM
Tony Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(pendell) wrote in message . com...

Question for the group at large ...

... did it have anything to do with the fact that the Germans were
gunning for B-17s and such, and therefore needed a weapon that had a
low rate of fire and less accuracy but a heavy punch? Whereas the
Americans, whose fighters mostly did escort over europe, needed a
weapon with better accuracy and a higher rof?


Not really. The Luftwaffe adopted the 20mm version of the MG 151
(rather than the original high-velocity 15mm version) long before they
had the USAAF to worry about. To deal with the B-17, they found 20mm
wasn't adequate and went up to 30mm. The Russians also went for 20mm
guns rather than 12.7mm as the war progressed, and they never had
heavy bombers to worry about.

A good 20mm cannon simply had a better power-to-weight ratio than a
..50 cal HMG because it was the smallest calibre to carry a useful HE
charge. So you got more destructiveness for a given armament weight.

The USAAF stuck with the .50 simply because that's pretty well all
they had; fortunately, it proved good enough.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/