alt-92

If you've found the posts in question, maybe it's a good idea to get the URLs from those posts (the post ID is under the timestamp) and the thread itself and send those to one of the Admins to have a look? It is possible that very occasionally the posts don't get attached to the thread in the database (I've seen weirder hick-ups with database stuff, and we do have that 500 error popping up still).

I'd say wibble it - just that little bit

I believe the worst avoidable accident still is the Tenerife one.

Radiator housing/bottom cowling actually, so it might not be quite as noticable.

The point being nobody asks those questions about a bomber that was equally riddled with holes but did not make it back. The suggestion seems to be that .303s can't possibly down a He.111, and losses including crashes on UK soil rather preclude that.

Looks like he's limited ordering to UK only, the listings are only visible on .co.uk and not on any other tld that Ebay has.

I would be a bit wary of personal anecdotes. They are best backed up by solid data and documentation. They did the sums, and decided on cannon armament for good reasons. And it's not exactly a new discussion either. https://www.quora.com/When-mounted-on-fighters-during-World-War-2-how-did-the-50-caliber-machine-gun-compare-to-the-303 I do want to show you the difference in rounds used. A 20mm HE shell is not only going to punch a hole, it'll also blow things apart. The Germans introduced a 20mm Minengeschoss (explosive shell) mid-1940 on the MG-FF/M, and that had a relatively low muzzle velocity and lower rate of fire than the Allied armament. Hispano Mk.II 20mm: 600–850 rounds/min, 840–880 m/s muzzle velocity. M2 .50 caliber: 550–1,300 rounds/min, ~900m/s muzzle velocity. So, .50 and 20mm are comparable in RoF and velocity, but packing a much bigger punch. Swap 2-3 M2 .50s for 1 20mm cannon and you're doing more damage.

Not surprising, it's one of those click-baiting Hoo-raaah stan accounts.

Chris does his research and does not take first-person anecdotal information for granted. Gut feelings are nice, but evidence in test reports and analysis of results are better.

Some more gasoline on an open fire:

Again. The ones that do not make it 'home' you will not read or hear about. Survivorship bias. As said, the 20mm cannon development in the US took quite a circuitous route, from the M2/ M3 to a Colt Mk.12 and eventually a M39 (based on the Mauser MGs) intended for the Sabre that was just a little too late to see action. MiG-15s used 23mm NRs & a single 37mm (makes sense as a bomber interceptor), with the 30mm variant only introduced on the MiG-19 so outside Korean War scope. The .50 was not in use in the UK (well, barely). So then logistics comes into play. If you decide to take a stop-gap measure by introducing that .50 you also have to adapt not only the aircraft itself (as the .303 browning is smaller and lighter) but also you have to arrange for a separate ammunition flow. And since the intent was always to use the Hispano 20mm, the eventual use of the .50 in the E-wing Spits is mostly because by that time there was plenty of supply around (and it nicely got rid of extra weight in the outer wings).

Mostly because they could not get their M1 variant of the Hispano Suiza 404 (itself a further development to replace the Oerlikon-based variants) to work properly, delaying the introduction. Similar issues with early versions of the HS.404 in UK service were the reason why the Mk.Ib trial with 19 Sqn was such a bad experience. The US armed forces then reworked the British Mk.II Hispano into the AN-M2* but that also proved problematic, one of the reasons the P-38 had a recocking mechanism in the cockpit for dealing with misfires. It should also be noted that autocannon were pretty rife in the late 1930s, especially with the French. They had those long-barreled 20mms as defensive armament on the LeO 451 and the intended armament of the SNCASE 1000 ground attack aircraft was 4x HS.404s. Then there's the Danish 20 and 23mm Madsens, used by both the Danish AF and Dutch LVA. Well, the ones that don't return tend not to get much notice, do they anyways: https://web.archive.org/web/20171030102939/http://quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm The original idea the USN had was getting sufficient boom on target, and three 50cal M2 Brownings could be replaced for less weight overall by one cannon for equal firepower. *AN prefix here means Army/Navy, so both services would use the same weapons systems.

Curt is generally a good egg. It is however a 2nd hand trader (mostly), so expect some prices to be a bit elevated. Postage inside EU (DHL mostly) is reasonable, don't know how well that translates to ordering from the UK. I've not had problems ordering kits there, but then I have a home advantage (close enough that he has delivered orders in person).

The suggestion though is not to have the question not raised at all, rather to have it not clutter a thread on a completely different subject matter. I quite fancy a good discussion on cannon armament personally, so if Pat feels so inclined, have at it in a new thread.

Just anecdotal, but nonetheless, flying the Spit or Mustang in DCS requires regular retrimming when under different engine loads. And even max trim on the rudder is not enough to prevent the nose from swinging out on take-off, so that is certainly the moment to use the pedals.