A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Gun, machine gun and/or cannon?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 23rd 04, 02:42 PM
ArtKramr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Subject: Gun, machine gun and/or cannon?
From: "The Enlightenment"
Date: 8/22/2004 10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



Only 3 hits were required to brring down a 4 engined heavy bomber and even a
P47 couldn't survive more than a hit or two. (which made the Me 109 so
deady if it got to within 200m)
http://www.luft46.com/armament/mk108.html


During our training in WW II the number of hits to bring down any plane was a
point of important study for us. Bringing down a heavy bomber with three hits
regardless of where it was hit is in itself an unreasonable concept. Studies
showed that an ME 109 would have to put almost 75 hits into a B-17 to bring it
down. The most vulnerable enemy fighter was the Jap zero (after the JU 87) and
it needed 12 hite to bring it down.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Ads
  #12  
Old August 23rd 04, 03:44 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Gun, machine gun and/or cannon?
From: "The Enlightenment"
Date: 8/22/2004 10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



Only 3 hits were required to brring down a 4 engined heavy bomber and

even a
P47 couldn't survive more than a hit or two. (which made the Me 109 so
deady if it got to within 200m)

http://www.luft46.com/armament/mk108.html


During our training in WW II the number of hits to bring down any plane

was a
point of important study for us. Bringing down a heavy bomber with three

hits
regardless of where it was hit is in itself an unreasonable concept.

Studies
showed that an ME 109 would have to put almost 75 hits into a B-17 to

bring it
down. The most vulnerable enemy fighter was the Jap zero (after the JU

87) and
it needed 12 hite to bring it down.


That kinda dependson what its hit with and where its hit doesnt it !

The German jet fighters carried a 30mm cannon with rather more
stopping power than the .50 calibre machine guns carried
by US aircraft.

Keith





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #13  
Old August 23rd 04, 03:48 PM
ArtKramr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Subject: Gun, machine gun and/or cannon?
From: "Keith Willshaw"
Date: 8/23/2004 7:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Gun, machine gun and/or cannon?
From: "The Enlightenment"

Date: 8/22/2004 10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



Only 3 hits were required to brring down a 4 engined heavy bomber and

even a
P47 couldn't survive more than a hit or two. (which made the Me 109 so
deady if it got to within 200m)

http://www.luft46.com/armament/mk108.html


During our training in WW II the number of hits to bring down any plane

was a
point of important study for us. Bringing down a heavy bomber with three

hits
regardless of where it was hit is in itself an unreasonable concept.

Studies
showed that an ME 109 would have to put almost 75 hits into a B-17 to

bring it
down. The most vulnerable enemy fighter was the Jap zero (after the JU

87) and
it needed 12 hite to bring it down.


That kinda dependson what its hit with and where its hit doesnt it !

The German jet fighters carried a 30mm cannon with rather more
stopping power than the .50 calibre machine guns carried
by US aircraft.

Keith





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---



Y'think maybe the guys doing the surveys of battle damage were aware of that?
I'll bet they might have been. If you know it, I guess they may have known it
as well. Y'think so?





Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

  #14  
Old August 23rd 04, 04:58 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Gun, machine gun and/or cannon?



Y'think maybe the guys doing the surveys of battle damage were aware of

that?

I'm sure they were. It was after all the reason the germans
uprated the cannon fit.

I'll bet they might have been. If you know it, I guess they may have known

it
as well. Y'think so?


Sure. Doesnt alter the fact that a 30mm cannon can blow a hole
the size of your fist in a B-17 and its not going to take
too many of those before its in deep ****.

Based on the damage done to downed B-17's the Luftwaffe estimated
that it took an average of 20 hits from the 20mm cannon to destroy a
B-17 but as few as 3 hits from the 30mm.

see

http://www.afa.org/magazine/1993/0993Against.asp

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #15  
Old August 23rd 04, 06:03 PM
ArtKramr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Subject: Gun, machine gun and/or cannon?
From: "Keith Willshaw"
Date: 8/23/2004 8:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Gun, machine gun and/or cannon?



Y'think maybe the guys doing the surveys of battle damage were aware of

that?

I'm sure they were. It was after all the reason the germans
uprated the cannon fit.

I'll bet they might have been. If you know it, I guess they may have known

it
as well. Y'think so?


Sure. Doesnt alter the fact that a 30mm cannon can blow a hole
the size of your fist in a B-17 and its not going to take
too many of those before its in deep ****.

Based on the damage done to downed B-17's the Luftwaffe estimated
that it took an average of 20 hits from the 20mm cannon to destroy a
B-17 but as few as 3 hits from the 30mm.

see

http://www.afa.org/magazine/1993/0993Against.asp

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---


We took more hits than that on Willie the Wolf and I am still here to tell
about it.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

  #16  
Old August 23rd 04, 06:42 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Gun, machine gun and/or cannon?
From: "Keith Willshaw"
Date: 8/23/2004 8:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Gun, machine gun and/or cannon?



Y'think maybe the guys doing the surveys of battle damage were aware of

that?

I'm sure they were. It was after all the reason the germans
uprated the cannon fit.

I'll bet they might have been. If you know it, I guess they may have

known
it
as well. Y'think so?


Sure. Doesnt alter the fact that a 30mm cannon can blow a hole
the size of your fist in a B-17 and its not going to take
too many of those before its in deep ****.

Based on the damage done to downed B-17's the Luftwaffe estimated
that it took an average of 20 hits from the 20mm cannon to destroy a
B-17 but as few as 3 hits from the 30mm.

see

http://www.afa.org/magazine/1993/0993Against.asp

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via

Encryption
=---


We took more hits than that on Willie the Wolf and I am still here to tell
about it.


Well, you have told us a lot of other crap that we have not bought into,
either, so what's new? How many 30mm hits did you take? Heck, you have also
told us your unit *never* missed its assigned target, which is of course
patently false, as *no* unit could honestly make that claim during WWII
(proven by the fact that your unit was NOT recognized as having the best
bombing accuracy amongst B-26 units in the ETO, and the one that *was*
acknowledged having around five or so of their assigned targets that they
did not hit).

Brooks



Arthur Kramer



  #17  
Old September 24th 04, 08:51 PM
tony.anquetil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

yes
caliber strictly less than 20 mm is machine gun
above 20 mm, this is a gun

Ctenos (reply w/o spam) a écrit dans le message :
...
Is there a consistent basis for this designation in aircraft armament?




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ultralight Club Bylaws - Warning Long Post MrHabilis Home Built 0 June 11th 04 05:07 PM
Democracy Expires Grantland Military Aviation 14 March 8th 04 04:54 AM
Titor's Time Machine... USAF Missile Box??? Jason Strong Military Aviation 8 November 28th 03 12:51 AM
marlin aerial machine gun spad? old hoodoo Military Aviation 0 August 10th 03 09:06 PM
Machine Tool Co. Bankruptcy Sends Ripple Through JSF Program huuto Military Aviation 3 July 29th 03 05:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.