The Ugly Truth: Cannons better than .50cal?

With a "late war" exception, a surviving pilot could get another plane faster than training a new pilot. Armor protects pilots, NOT airplanes.

I support the use of Jeremy Clarksons as a unit of power.

The US intended to switch to a 20mm standard battery for all fighters, back in the late 1930s, and started desperately looking for an "off the shelf" 20mm cannon they could adopt. The .50 was retained as a stop-gap, but the plan was to cut in 20mm armament as soon as possible. Even into the very end of the war. However, the US had major problems with reliability in US produced Hispano-Suiza 20mm cannon. The reason was primarily that the US ordnance types insisted stubbornly that the chamber dimensions the original designers provided were too shallow. Even when the British (who provided the specs) and US ammunition manufacturers said, "Hey, you cut the chambers 1/16th of an inch - 2mm - too deep!" Note that the British produced guns worked fine with both US and British made ammunition, as did other Hispano-Suiza guns built elsewhere. The US produced guns with the proper chambers produced for Britain to Britian's demand that they use the chamber dimensions the British provided, worked. But US guns, built to the US altered chamber dimensions, had reliability issues with everybody's ammo. But US Ordnance types never admitted that they had created the problem they claimed was an inherent design fault.

One Japanese ace on TakeLeon's channel says he would have much preferred 6 American .50 cals over the Japanese 20mm cannons (he was flying with a late-war Shiden Kai), mainly due to their slow muzzle velocity, massive bullet drop and low rate of fire. You had to get really close with them for any effective fire, which could be pretty much suicidal against a fomation of B-29s. Edit: Just double-checked, it was Minoru Honda. That interview is definitely worth a watch, as are the ones with Saburo Sakai, Tomokazu Kasai and others.

Imagine asking Bismarck what he wants for dinner and he goes into a 1hr rant about how tacos are different from burgers just to tell you he isn't hungry

Whatever the answer is, you don’t want to be hit by a concentrated burst of either...unless you’re in a TU-2 with Gaijin’s 2014 damage model. Still salty

"The Germans didn't have a lot of guns on their planes" FW190: Am I a joke to you?

One advantage to consider of the .50 cals is that because they were often the only primary armament, aiming with tracers was relatively easy compared to mixing smaller MGs and heavier caliber cannons.

It's almost like you're saying each air force chose the weapon that suited their actual operational needs and requirements... who knew such a thing could happen.

I was in hospital with a USMC Corsair driver for a week. He had the -1C with 4 20mm canon. I asked him if they worked well. He said he only ever saw one Japanese aircraft, he was returning from patrol and it was going the other way at low level, so he let it pass then rolled over and pulled a half loop behind it. He got it lined up and opened fire and the Betty just disintegrated in a ball of flame. He said he didn't even fire ten rounds per gun. He went on to be a physics professor at several top schools, retiring from Stanford. When I met him he was 82 and was in for knee replacement surgery. The next day they wheeled him off and he came back a couple of hours later with a line of staples right down the front of his knee. A few hours later they came back with a Zimmer frame. He objected and they came back with crutches. He stood up and took one step. He looked thoughtful for a moment then handed them one of the crutches. "OK, let's go." And he walked round the whole floor. Maybe a 100 yard walk within four hours of knee replacement. He went home a few days later and I asked the teaching nurse if that was unusual, she said the aim was to get him standing on the first day, and able to walk to the wheelchair before they released him. Now that was a man and a Marine.

I agree with the overall premise that cannons were better for armored slow bombers, and 50's for small light fast fighters. However, I also thought you'd touch on the respective gun platforms themselves. The design philosophy behind the BF-109 was to keep the weight in the fuselage and the wings light and thin. Once you've made that choice, a single cannon, firing through the prop hub makes a lot more sense. (I realized they ultimately put a pair in the wings as well but this was a later adaptation.)

This is an excellent example of how to tell history - by explaining conditions and influences. This helped you arrive and a good answer to the controversy: it depends. I also liked your "Ugly Truths" title. This could be a whole category of episodes dealing with controversies in military aviation history. BTW, another thing I like about your channel are your applications to war games. The games are great tools for illustrating your points - in this case, how they do not mimic the real world sometimes. Thank you for another great episode.

50 cal exist US: I think we're gonna use this for everything.

Bismark: I’m told it’s difficult to fly without the tail, but that might just be a rumor. Horten brothers: It’s fine.

I was always fascinated by the fact that they figured out a way to fire bullets through a prop without harming prop I wonder how many props was destroyed before they got it right

I read that a Japanese aviator said that his Shiden-Kai fighter was a battle worthy replacement of the Zero. He said that he wished it had six heavy machine guns instead of four slow firing canons that lacked range and was like lobing softballs: you couldn't hit anything unless you were within a hundred yards.

53:38 "The US way of thinking of using more guns." Yes, you have understood the US perfectly.

Meanwhile in Britain: “I sell .30 cal and .30 cal accessories.”

So what did we learn? The P-47 Thunderbolt was tough as nails and the answer is like cowbell. I need more guns.

Hi, it's very detailed research. Thank you! For some time I was looking for an aswer to the question why US didn't use more Oerlikons on planes. There was some versions of P-51 and F4 (Corsair) but rather limited. However they use hell lots of them on every free space on their ships. Logistic reason is briliant - almost all planes using the same weaponry... wow, one projectile for all. A dream of quartermasters! Looking a bit forward, second reason is extrem conservatism of higher ranks... we've got superuniversal weapon, wr do not want any new gun! So they flown to Korea with F-86 armed with obsolete gun...