Reply to thread

It meets no technical standards whatsoever and there is no combat data presented to back it up unless the plural of "anecdote" is "data".


There are *long* reports on battle damage assessment conducted by all powers during the war and plenty in the English language.

They were produced for a reason and corroborated by detailed analytical models and actual live firings. 


"Heavy and well-protected:" defensive armament and/or armor.  The cannon is a much needed asset in rear-quarter attacks on heavy aircraft

with defensive MG since the MG will tend to have a range boost in that engagement geometry. The RAF spent its early years facing that threat, the Germans spent the middle and late years and the Russians had to deal with that threat for the entire war. The US encountered that that in specific environments and specific theatres and employed cannon in those situations.


Most of the Russian aircraft MG production had been diverted to IL-2 and the Russian medium bombers which with the diversion of Luftwaffe

fighters to the west could and did operate more extensively as the war progressed.


The .50 M2 quote is silly since its masks the big improvements in ROF, accuracy and destructive power in ammo types that were introduced during the war.


Back
Top Bottom