World War 2 Aircraft Armament

One thing I often consider is the thought behind how aircraft were armed during the war. For example the Me-262 interceptor I feel would have been a much better fighter if equipped with the light and faster firing MG151/20s, as opposed to its more powerful but slow firing Mk108 which were used to increase hitting power against durable bombers. What are some aircraft you guys think could've been much better managed on armament available at the time? Some more to consider are the British Spitfires and Hurricanes which had poor .303 only wing configurations through the BoB, save a small number with the unreliable Hispano Mk1 at the very end.
 
Instead of.the .303s what if the British had utilized .50s? Might the Hurricanes and Spitfires been able to be fitted with them?
 
I've often thought the Westland Whirlwind was poorly served by its four 20mm cannons and its 60 rounds per gun. At 600 RPM (10 rounds per second) you've got a total of six seconds of ammunition. And those long barrels must have caused a lot of drag. I can understand why they experimented with alternative armaments, including twelve 0.303 machine guns.

scan0004.jpg


Myself, I would have gone for six 50 calibre guns and lots of ammunition. That alone is a lot of concentrated firepower.

If you want to keep the 4 x 20mm cannons, then belt fed more ammunition, likely from behind and under the pilot.
 
If you want to keep the 4 x 20mm cannons, then belt fed more ammunition, likely from behind and under the pilot.

Yes, that would be the best solution. Unfortunately it took until 1941 to come up with a Hispano installation that was belt-fed. Exactly why this should be the case is a matter for the Air Ministry to disclose from their bench in hell, especially since IIRC work on it had been done before the war.
 
For example the Me-262 interceptor I feel would have been a much better fighter if equipped with the light and faster firing MG151/20s, as opposed to its more powerful but slow firing Mk108 which were used to increase hitting power against durable bombers.
The Me-262's fast closing rate and slow firing 30 mm guns were not suitable for bomber interception. What the 262 needed was an air brake to temporarily slow down (like the deceleron on the 1948 Northrop F-89 Scorpion) allowing for fast escape, giving time to fire not cannons, but stand-off weapons like the Ruhrstahl X-4, as see on the FW-190 below.

x4-13.jpg
 
The Me-262's fast closing rate and slow firing 30 mm guns were not suitable for bomber interception. What the 262 needed was an air brake to temporarily slow down (like the deceleron on the 1948 Northrop F-89 Scorpion) allowing for fast escape, giving time to fire not cannons, but stand-off weapons like the Ruhrstahl X-4, as see on the FW-190 below.

x4-13.jpg

The MK-108 had a much higher ROF than most other 30mm cannons, namely 650 rpm, compared to the heavier 30mm MK-101 with 230 rpm. Compare this ROF to the M2 .50 cal Browning: 450 rpm, making the MK-108 of the Me-262 a faster weapopn than the US build much less potent peashooter.

More important, the duty to shoot down heavily constructed and protected daybombers of the USAAF required a heavy shell to hit a target with the abillity to do serious damage, which is done better by the larger 30mm shell, than the much less powerful 20mm shell. An interceptor needed to bring down a heavy bomber with a few hits, demanding the heavier cannon for this, where the lesser 20mm would require the entire magazine to be unloaded on a single target to bring it down. (In order to bring down a B-17-G/H, it was calculated the aircraft would needed to be hit by at least 40 - 60 20mm rounds normally to bring it down, while as few as 3 to 5 30mm shells would do the same job nicely as well, due to the larger explosive power of the shell, rupturing larger parts of the target, when striking home. It was known as few as 2-3 30mm shells could tear off a wing of a B-17 G/H.
 
Last edited:
An interceptor needed to bring down a heavy bomber with a few hits, demanding the heavier cannon for this, where the lesser 20mm would require the entire magazine to be unloaded on a single target to bring it down. (In order to bring down a B-17-G/H, it was calculated the aircraft would needed to be hit by at least 40 - 60 20mm rounds normally to bring it down, while as few as 3 to 5 30mm shells would do the same job nicely as well, due to the larger explosive power of the shell, rupturing larger parts of the target, when striking home. It was known as few as 2-3 30mm shells could tear off a wing of a B-17 G/H.

This high hitting power the Germans wanted, coupled with the large rocket payload capable of devastating a bomber, made the Me-262 a lethal bomber interceptor. However these guns were very hard to aim against a small nimble target such as a P-51, because they were made to destroy large slow bombers and fired shells with low muzzle velocity of 540m/s, as opposed to the MG151/20s 785m/s, which is part of why as a true fighter they were not as successful as the earlier FW-190 fighter, which had very heavy armament including but not limited to four MG 151/20 or two MG 151/20 and two MG FF/M, and even Kurt Tank's final configuration the Ta-152 carried a 30mm Mk108 but it was accompanied by a pair of MG 151/20 to use against small agile targets.
 
Thanks for the answer. With the limited ammo for the 20mm at the time, do others think a mixed bag of guns might be best?

Are you thinking of 1939 or the later period of the war, say 1944 or so? Because in the earlier part of the war the cannon was fed by a drum, meaning capacity was a low 60 rounds. But by the later period of the war they had devised a system to feed the Hispano cannon from a belt, increasing capacity twofold, which was why the C-wing loadout which featured four Hispano cannon became popular over the mixed B Hispano/.303 wing and clearly superior to the A .303 only wing configuration. After the E wing load with an AN/M2 was tried, eventually the British returned to an all cannon wing configuration as standard.
 
This high hitting power the Germans wanted, coupled with the large rocket payload capable of devastating a bomber, made the Me-262 a lethal bomber interceptor. However these guns were very hard to aim against a small nimble target such as a P-51, because they were made to destroy large slow bombers and fired shells with low muzzle velocity of 540m/s, as opposed to the MG151/20s 785m/s, which is part of why as a true fighter they were not as successful as the earlier FW-190 fighter, which had very heavy armament including but not limited to four MG 151/20 or two MG 151/20 and two MG FF/M, and even Kurt Tank's final configuration the Ta-152 carried a 30mm Mk108 but it was accompanied by a pair of MG 151/20 to use against small agile targets.

The Me-262 was indeed designed to destroy bombers, Why do you want to deviate from its task by letting it hunt nimble single engined fighters, which would also negate the advantages of the jetfighter (Speed) in the first place? Just have it doing its job and ignore the escorting fighters, which could be handled with other aircraft, more equipped for a dogfight in twisting and turning confrontations, which the ME-262 could never perform.
 
Firstly, reference to the B-17G/H seems so wrong. The B-17G was indeed the ultimate bomber version, but the B-17H carried a lifeboat in the search and rescue role.

While the M2HB version of the Colt .50 could fire at 450 rpm, the AN/M2 aircraft version had a rate of 750-850 rpg.

In 1937, the army had a test, and decided they wanted an M2 with a faster rate of fire. Colt jumped into action. By the time the army sorted the paperwork and established 1200 rpm as what they were looking for, contracts at the ready, Colt was there with the T-21. Only it failed. In 1942, High Standard got into the act with the T22, ever so much closer, but no cigar. Frigidaire had nothing better to do but try another version. They got up to T27 before someone detected a primary failure in a helical spring's performance. Thank goodness some Frenchman years ago had created the Belleville washer, which replaced the coil spring, and in April 1945, the 1200 rpm M3 machine gun was born.Have a cigar.
The MK-108 had a much higher ROF than most other 30mm cannons, namely 650 rpm, compared to the heavier 30mm MK-101 with 230 rpm. Compare this ROF to the M2 .50 cal Browning: 450 rpm, making the MK-108 of the Me-262 a faster weapopn than the US build much less potent peashooter.

More important, the duty to shoot down heavily constructed and protected daybombers of the USAAF required a heavy shell to hit a target with the abillity to do serious damage, which is done better by the larger 30mm shell, than the much less powerful 20mm shell. An interceptor needed to bring down a heavy bomber with a few hits, demanding the heavier cannon for this, where the lesser 20mm would require the entire magazine to be unloaded on a single target to bring it down. (In order to bring down a B-17-G/H, it was calculated the aircraft would needed to be hit by at least 40 - 60 20mm rounds normally to bring it down, while as few as 3 to 5 30mm shells would do the same job nicely as well, due to the larger explosive power of the shell, rupturing larger parts of the target, when striking home. It was known as few as 2-3 30mm shells could tear off a wing of a B-17 G/H.
 
Are you thinking of 1939 or the later period of the war, say 1944 or so? Because in the earlier part of the war the cannon was fed by a drum, meaning capacity was a low 60 rounds. But by the later period of the war they had devised a system to feed the Hispano cannon from a belt, increasing capacity twofold, which was why the C-wing loadout which featured four Hispano cannon became popular over the mixed B Hispano/.303 wing and clearly superior to the A .303 only wing configuration. After the E wing load with an AN/M2 was tried, eventually the British returned to an all cannon wing configuration as standard.

My first post was in relation to BoB RAF planes. I did know that later in the War all sides had higher ammo capacity for 20mm. Thanks for the reply anyways.
 
My opinion some early Italian planes were woefully underarmed. Nimble as hell but should at least of had some 12.5mm if not a 20mm to have stopping power.
 
My opinion some early Italian planes were woefully underarmed. Nimble as hell but should at least of had some 12.5mm if not a 20mm to have stopping power.

Many of the Italian aircraft were equipped with 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT machine gun, which was more or less a copied M2
 
Just have it doing its job and ignore the escorting fighters, which could be handled with other aircraft, more equipped for a dogfight in twisting and turning confrontations, which the ME-262 could never perform.

There are many reasons for an Me-262 to have the ability to combat light fighters. Not the least of which was the American doctrine of sending their fighters far ahead of the bombers to sweep the skies. The Me-262 could be caught by fighters while climbing to intercept in a low energy state. The Me-262 could in fact be pursued on close footing by late model P-51D-20 fighters if the Mustang were on war emergency power. The Me-262 had famously unreliable Jumo 004 engines, and if there were to malfunction even just the smallest amount the aircraft would not be able to out-speed Allied fighters.
 
IIRC the Breda-SAFAT was associated with the Vickers 0.5" HMG.

The Breda-SAFAT in its original 7.7 state was an M1919 derived gun. The 12.7 model was essentially that scaled up. The M2 is essentially an M1919 scaled up. Thus the Breda-SAFAT 12.7 is like an M2
 
Top