>.30 caliber guns in aircraftThis is so cringe. Why was it done past WW1?
Because aircraft remained little more than paper kites up until about 1942.
>>61564213Because having twelve guns is cool and the Mk.IIB is sexo.
>>61564213>Roasts Luftwaffe so hard they never fully recovered>bUt WhAt aBoUt XyZ!?!?!?!?LolLmao
>>61564213You can store a lot of bullets.
>>61564213some little bullets hitting > one big bullet missing
Brits couldn't make aircraft guns worth a damn until late model Hispanos, so they coped by having multiple small calibre guns. The US had a marginal advantage with the .50 Browning but also couldn't make a good cannon. Soviets and Krauts got it right with high calibre nose guns, albeit Soviet guns were garbage due to other reasons
>>61564213Modern fighter jets use 20-25mm rotary autocannons / Gatling guns.WW1 was 1-4x Lewis guns on a fighter.WW2 was 6-8x 12.7mm .50cal HMG, and sometimes 1-2x 20mm cannon.Modern is 1x 20mm/25mm rotary autocannonKind of impressive how things change and how much they don't.
>>61564288That's not a P-51
>>61564457>Soviets and Krauts got it right with high calibre nose gunsThey really didn't. And the Soviets didn't do anything right. German autocannons were also jamtastic like the allies, however the germans were mostly shooting ducks in formation while the allies were trying to intercept the German defensive fighters that were attacking their long range bombers.
>>61564213>proceeds to win the battle of Britain
>>61564474The Hurricane/Spitfire roasted the luftwaffe until the never fully recovered The P-51 roasted them until they no longer existed
>>61564213>shits all over the luftwaffe anyway Based bongs
>>61564213Have you ever seen planes from the interwar era?
>>61565010What the fuck is that looney toons shit
>>61564474Learn history retard
>>61565013The P-26 Peashooter.
>>61564917Between those, the P-47 broke their backs
>>61565053See>>61565037
>>61565013If you think that's bad, wait until you see it in color.
>>61564213Play some warbird sims and you figure it out pretty quick.Warbrids generally carry fuck all ammo and cannons get even less, if your pilots aren't amazing it's likely they will run out of cannon ammo without landing a single hit.While MGs do much less damage they were the better option for pilots that had minimal training before being forced into combat.
>>61564213The brits licensed the 30 cal browning and were already tooled up for it. They didn't want to shut everything down at the start of the war to retool for the 50. Some less than ideal guns now is preferable over a better gun later and no guns now.
>>61564467>WW2 was 6-8x 12.7mm .50cal HMG, and sometimes 1-2x 20mm cannonLook up the spitfire or hurricane and tell me again about the 6x .50cals they all had. Retard.>12.7mmEuro trash.
>>61564467Kind of impressive how you got almost all of that wrong.>>61565166Dont tell him that forward machine guns on WW1 Biplanes only came in around 1917 (1914-1918). Before that it was a pistol or a rear gunner.
>>61565013Inspiration.
>>61565010
>>61565013I think it's actually the plane they drew for some of their skits.
>>61565063Gorgeous. Did I mention I attend UCLA?
>>61564474the half canvas skin hurricane was the main defender of britain during the german air raidstornado/typhoon and spitfire production just started to ramp up
>>61565192> forward machine guns on WW1 Biplanes only came in around 1917Meanwhile, in 1915...
>>61565241bullpup airplane
>>61565063RETVRN TO TRADITION
>>61564474>america sits with a thumb up their arse through the war>Wait until Germany is on its knees>turn up at the end>Look guys, we saved Europe!
>>61565409How about you take care of your own fucking continent and stop asking America to help you?
>>61565166>Look up the spitfire or hurricane and tell me again about the 6x .50cals they all had. Retard.Brits have always been noguns.
>>61564213Because functioning 20mm cannons hadn't been produced yet, and the benefit of transitioning to .50 in the interim was still debatable. Technology progressed rapidly from the onset of the war, and a lot of the designs from the start were built for a hypothetical conflict that didn't manifest. Faster, more well armed and armored aircraft were a new threat that had to be developed against, the same with tanks.
>>61565409>42>43>44>45Real last minute.
I like the Hurricane, especially with the early-war black/white underside. One of my favorites in old flight sims since it had plenty of ammo and the cockpit was easy to read.
>>61565934that livery has swag
>>61565303That paint job really shows off how nice of a butthole the viper has. Never noticed before
>>61565192>Before that it was a pistol or a rear gunner.kino
Is there a more kino/pulp aestetic than 1930s Carrier Aviation
>>61565409You're welcome.
>>61564482>German autocannons were also jamtastic like the alliesLol, no.>however the germans were mostly shooting ducks in formationYup, all those great bomber formation in North Africa or over the various battlefields, right? Idiot.
>>61565757>muh .50cal>still inferior to even just decent twin 20mmLMAO
>>61564213All I know is that I loved flying planes with 8 x .303 in deathmatch in IL-2 sturmovik
>>61565662We'd have been fine without your help, it's just that we'd be speaking German now and be a bit less diverse.
Pink Spit is best Spit
>>61564213>He doesn't know
>>61565934I've always liked it more than the spit, desu. It might not have the performance to match later airframes, but prop fighters haven't been relevant for 70 years anyways so who cares.
>>61566204>Yup, all those great bomber formation in North Africa or over the various battlefields, right? Idiot.well, yeah? at least by Western Desert campaign levels
>>61566345It's the early war allure for me, a plane that had to shoulder a big burden and keep going. Even as friendly and enemy planes evolved rapidly. Also Spitfires are gorgeous, but they became less so in my eyes as the variants progressed. The Hurricane didn't suffer from that as much.
>>61566161>>61565241>>61565063When you hit the ground, tell 'em Nathan Zachary sent you!
>>61565303>makes a hideous plane look decent Blue and yellow is such a good color scheme
>>61564241>Because aircraft remained little more than paper kites up until about 1942.Grumman would like to have a word with you
>>61566279>actually defeat is goodthe european mindset
>>61565075>While MGs do much less damage they were the better option for pilots that had minimal training before being forced into combat.True for .50cals but not .30cals which require the pilot to get within melee distance for the bullets to hit the aircraft before getting deflected by the wind.
>>61564213Hurricane, P-40, or F4F, which workhorse was the most underappreciated?
>>61567093This baby gets no respect at all
If I was in world war 2 they'd call me Spitfire
>>61567152if I were in WWII they'd call me brummbär (i'm a fatass)
>>61566279Look at what Russia is now. That's what you'd have been if Germany won.
>>61566161Looks like it could easily be altered to be a seaplane which would be quite handy for a carrier plane.
>>61567132Because it flew for the wrong force
>>6156421312 of them. 12
>>61565010i like the landing gear, it looks like two cat feet :3
>>61564213needs higher rate of fire
>>61564474And precisely how many P-51s were in the Battle of Britain anon?
>>61564443Against canvas planes? Sure. Against metal planes? No.
>>61566557Based Crimson Skies enjoyer
>>61566340We must go bigger
>>61565934The Hurricane is a beautiful machine
>>61567065Absolute nonsense, guns were typically set to converge at 750 feet even shorter no matter the caliber.
>>61568826Wong, all that thin gauge aluminium skin provides zero defense.Usually, the only actual armor on planes were the back of the seat, around the fuel tanks and bullet-proof windscreens. Supplementary "armor" would be the engine and self sealing fuel tanks. The Luftwaffe did not have any of that shit apart during the Battle of Britain from the engine, which itself would die if shot at by .303. Even if they did have that armor, using 50 cal would not had made much difference.
>>61566299Want
>>61565010>>61568235Imagine a USA vs USSR war in the 1930s.>Monoplane fighters like those posted>Open-cockpit bombers >Armored cars, fast light tanks, mediums/heavies covered with MGs>Variety of wacky experimental infantry weapons and equipment
>causes you to get so distracted with its ugliness that you crash
>>61564213Because they're smarter than you.>>61566939Even metal aircraft then could be shattered by a bank of rifle-calibre bullets.>>61564457>Brits couldn't make aircraft guns worth a damn until late model HispanosHispanos weren't necessary until the middle of the war. Rifle-calibre machine guns were all-around the best option for the early war.>>61564474And P-51s didn't break the Luftwaffe; Hurricanes, Spitfires, and P-47 Thunderbolts did>>61565013Reminder that the IJN were still flying this thing at Coral Sea.>>61565844You're responding to bait, but it's a fact that America sat out more than the first third of the war, and consequently had the chance to fight without a lot of early-war stuffIf the US had joined in 39, you would be looking at a US Army that still relied on Springfield 03s, still operated the P-36 Hawk, and had a tank corps mostly made up of M3 Stuarts.
>>61566204>what is the Battle of Britain>>61567093the Hurricane has plenty of BoB fansearly P-40s were shit, later marks were inferior to the Spitfiremy personal pick is the F4F: Americans blame its technical shortcomings vs the A6M Zero for the failures of 1942, when in fact both aircraft had differing strengths and weaknesses, and the F4F's main problem was inexperienced pilots
>>61572474Imagine a thousand bomber raid against Leningrad.
>>61577193>thousand bomber raidthe USAAF didn't even have 1,000 combat aircraft of all types in 1939and the B-18 was their most numerous bomber
>>61573003Booba aircraft
>>61567093beaufighter>>61568826the buffalo was all-metal. didn't help.30 cal was effective early war because there were still a lot of combat planes without self-sealing fuel tanks and lacking armor. mor boolits mean more holes.once planes got better guns got bigger.
>>61577246You're thinking of the Mitsubishi G4M (it was named after a nurse named Betty because of its prominent gun blisters)
>>61565409>allied victory>"saving" EuropeFuck off.
>>61570744>Wong, all that thin gauge aluminium skin provides zero defenseActually there were explosive bullets for 7.62 and 12.7 calibers and Soviet Trials demonstrated they were very effective against canvas planes, ripping huge holes in wings and controls surfaces, threating aerodynamic stability. Against aluminum skins there were barely effective.But use of such bullets was very limited >>61570744>only actual armor on planes were the back of the seat, around the fuel tanks and bullet-proof windscreens.Major target for 7.62 caliber was pilot, because 7.62 were to weak to damage airframe. Pilots armor absolutely ruined air 7.62 guns performance.Second best target for 7.62 was fuel tanks, but it requireed special bullet desing, ball bullets don't ignite tanks, API 7.62 rounds barely ignite tanks too. Brits had effective de Wilde inciendary (just invented wundervaffen technology) but it was in low supply and they only loaded 1-2 machine guns out of 8 with this bullet.
>>61573003
>>61577408>7.62 were to weak to damage airframeIf they were totally unarmoured like the Dornier Do-17, massed banks of machine-guns could still damage controls, which is the real killer.Few Luftwaffe bomber pilots were killed by aircraft fire, and German bombers all had self-sealing fuel tanks, but the Do-17 was still regarded as an easy kill by the machine-gun-armed Hurricanes. Why? Because eight .303s can still shred control equipment and wing or fuselage structure.>>61570744>all that thin gauge aluminium skin provides zero defenseIt resisted structural damage and held the aircraft together better, which is why (metal-skinned) Spitfires in the BoB which suffered damage had better survival rates than (wooden) Hurricanes.But rifle-calibre machine-guns were still capable of chopping down even metal aircraft, such as the Do-17, if massed like on the Hurricane. Although some bombers survived with over 100 bullet holes, eight Browning Mk IIs spat around 140 .303 bullets a second, so it was calculated that all it would take was 1 or 2 seconds taking the full brunt of a Hurricane's armament to wreck any contemporaneous bomber.
>>61565063>>61566161Soul, perchance even kino.
say hello to my little 20mm friend
>>61577600judging by radiators and round canopy isnt that E-1 or E-3? So it doesnt have a propeller hub cannon
>>61577632what does the muzzle of an autocannon inside the propeller tell you about the presence of a gun there?
>>61577713thats how it looks like without the cannon. Its like that in every 109E
>>61577713>>61577831109s didn't have Motorkanone until the F variant thoughEs were intended to have one but it didn't work. So wing-mounted cannons were installed instead.
>>61577928there were some Es with cannons but we talk about something like 20 machines. That probably all lost their cannons because they had so many issues
>>61564213Have two guns, one jams, only have one. Have eight guns, one jams, keep dumping.
>>61565303>>61565303I am going to BUST holy shit my dick
>>61565303The olive and black from the Pursuit squadrons looks so damn good. I would love to see an F-15 painted up like this.>>61574743Big credit for mentioning the P-36. I feel like that thing gets totally forgotten, sadly.
>>61572474>Fast light tanksMe thinks Christie and the American firms that were putting Soviet factories in place wouldn't continue to do so in the face of warThough I'm sure the Nazi Germany would be willing to give the Soviets a hand in exchange for oil
>>61564467The 25mm rotary autocannon is peak. Maybe lasers will replace them one day.
>>61564213In the British case for several reasons:-to make use of existing stocks of .303 ammunition -the British preferred wing mounts for guns, because synchronizing them to fire through the prop arc resulted in a loss of fire rate, and mounting them in the engine block (firing through the prop hub) led to complications with heat and engine design-but guns in a wing-mount have their own difficulties - you're limited by the space of the wing and wings will flex and warp in flight, which can lead to feed and jamming issues. Using a battery of smaller guns was the stopgap while the British worked out a way to get a reliable 20mm cannon wing mount.-most aircraft in the inter-war period were far more lightly armed - usually with around 2 .30 cal guns - and also far less survivable. Combat experience would lead to a rush to put in self-sealing fuel tanks, redundant hydraulic lines, etc. but these were usually not a feature on earlier inter-war aircraft because of the performance penalty they imposed.
>>61582569all those are good reasons but they generally post-date the decision for the Hurricane's armament, which was very simple and boiled down to:1) what do we have loads of? .303 machine guns2) how many .303 bullets does it take to shatter the structure of a bomber, guaranteed? about 300 roundsand3) how many guns can we mount to shoot as many rounds into as many bombers as we can in as short a time as possible?considerations about where to place them sort of came afterwards.it was a ground-up thought process that has a kind of brute elegance to it, IMHO.
>>61578934werent phantoms technically in that?
