Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: raymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET (Raymond Man)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: WWII fighter armaourment was Re: Us Fighter Designations
Message-ID: <1990Aug28.030423.20866@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 28 Aug 90 03:04:23 GMT
References: <1990Aug10.010748.29824@cbnews.att.com> <1990Aug15.031847.25309@cbnews.att.com> <1990Aug22.025006.15437@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: University of Arizona at Tucson
Lines: 23
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: raymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET (Raymond Man)

I believe it was Adolf Galland who talked about the pros and cons
of carrying Cannons vs MGs. In addition to increase drag and weight and
lowering performance, Cannons jam quit often and the vibration was bad
for the engine and airframe. But Cannons out-range the MGs on the
Fortress and were very effective. So it was a matter of wether the pilot
was more likely to attack bomber formations or dog-fight with the escorts.

In terms of mass deliver rate, which is important for improving the chance
of hitting a figther with short bursts in a dog-fight, MGs are actually better. 
At the Battle of Britain, the Spits and Hurricanes had something 
like 10 lb/s from their MGs. Later in the War, the rate was doubled to 20 lb/s
with 8 MGs.

While a single cannon shell can blast a fighter out of the sky, it takes a
pretty good shot to do it with only a few rounds.

Just call me `Man'. 
"And why take ye thought for "    --   Matt. 6:28
raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu