Small Scale Military Headquarters

Something I've always been curious about is why in WWII and Korea the US relied on .50 caliber MGs to arm it's fighters instead of cannon or a cannon/mg mixed armament. Besides the P-39 and P-38 of course. Pretty much every other nation used cannons of various sizes along with smaller MG to arm their fighters. Could the reason be that the MG had a much higher rate of fire and thus more chance of hits compared to the slower firing cannon of the time? Did the US consider 20mm to be overkill?

The F-86 was also MG armed in Korea while other countries fitted cannon to theirs. Many US aircraft in the 50's were cannon armed until some fools decided the day of close in combat was over and designed the Phantom without a gun. But we all know how that theory turned out.

I think the 50 cal was reliable and easier to make than the cannons. The 50 cal slug is also a LARGE slug.

Machine guns also tended to have better range and a faster rate of fire than a cannon, traits that could be advantageous in a dogfight. To be effective with cannon, you have to move in close, whereas you can start shooting further away with a machine gun. Cannon, however, have the greater "stopping power" with only several well aimed shots (if even that) needed to take out a fighter

yes the US preferred the faster firing, more reliable .50 cal. Plus they didn't have a good cannon to use anyway. The .50 cal was a good gun with a big slug but the shells didn't explode, unlike cannon shells.

They felt that the punch of 6-8 .50 cals was sufficient for their needs, which it was, as they were not combating large, well armoured bombers.

The germans on the otherhand found their 20mm cannons lacking in sufficient stopping power and were switching to all .30mm cannons by war's end. Their 20mm was a good gun but it took too many hits to bring down a bomber.

Also the axis didn't have the big hoursepower mind set like we Americans do. The axis were into smaller lighter flyers and could not haul around the wieght of those big 50 cals so they went with less guns with heavier hitting potincial. Except for maybe the Fw-190.

Thanks for the info! Weren't the post-war, single barreled 20mm cannon used in many aircraft based on German WWII designs?

You got me on that one. I don't know.

Lol. I'll have to check Wiki when I get the chance.

Rowsdower wrote:Thanks for the info! Weren't the post-war, single barreled 20mm cannon used in many aircraft based on German WWII designs?

Everything is basied on German designs lol.

Moth wrote:

Rowsdower wrote:Thanks for the info! Weren't the post-war, single barreled 20mm cannon used in many aircraft based on German WWII designs?

Everything is basied on German designs lol.

Quoted for truth.

And STILL they lost the war.....fancy that.

Not getting too much into it, but up against the whole world, no one has a chance.
It was known from the start that Germany would not win if it fought against Russia and America together.

Moth wrote:Not getting too much into it, but up against the whole world, no one has a chance.
It was known from the start that Germany would not win if it fought against Russia and America together.

The mighty Luftwaffe can't even bring down the small and struggling Royal Air Force when they had the numerical and technical superiority during the Battle of Britain.

So no. It's not just about the numbers game. Maybe they're just not as good as most people think they are today....or maybe the Allies are just plain better

And I don't think there were American troops at the gates of Moscow, and at the streets of Stalingrad....

To set a few things straight...

As for the Battle of Britain, the British were within days of running out of planes and pilots by the time the battle "officially" ended in late October 1940, despite their valliant efforts. The Germans at that time had and maintained numerical superiority as well as overall superior pilot training. What saved the British was the decision by the German high command to switch to bombing London and other civilian targets at night in October of 1940 (in reprisal for RAF bombing raids on Berlin). This spared the RAF bases and factories in England's midlands from the attacks they had been sustaining previously and thus saved England's war-effort.

However, the question of who won World War II and why actually comes down to the ability to supply one's army. The Americans (and the Russians) had vast amounts of resources and industrial potential that they could bring to bear in fighting the war, which the Germans did not. So what ultimately counted in battle was numerical strength, not necessairly ability.

There are plenty of studies and books written over the years which show clear evidence that the average German unit was better trained, had more competent leadership at the junior level and had generally better equipment than the average American unit, let alone the Russians. The average US and British units going up against similar strength German units seldom prevailed, with the exception of the elite paratrooper divisions like the 101st, 82nd or British 6th. This is part of the reason why it took the allied forces so long to break out of the Normandy bocage country between June and August 1944 - and they were partly up against only 2nd rate German troops!

In a fight, however, it came down to the fact that the Americans and Russians could throw many more men, tanks, and planes into a battle than could the Germans. They also had better intelligence. The bulk of WWII thus was essentially the wearing-down of the German war machine, which once weakened and cut off (as it was by the summer of 1944) topled.

*** *** ***

One of the best analyses of the Battle of Britain can be found in the classic book, The Battle of Britain by Richard Hough and Denis Richards. The appendicies (which even include a day-by-day account of the battle) are particularly helpful for understanding the technicalities of this conflict.

For a comparative study on the abilities of US and German units in WWII (particularly in the Normandy campaign), Overlord by Max Hastings is an excellent read

Now, what was the topic of this thread

Very well said Tman.

You guys are forgeting 2 of the main reasons. Goering was the the leader of the Luft. and Hitler was a madman. Goering was a good ace pilot in WW1 but a leader in modern warfare(air)HMMMM. Hitler was a corporal runner in WW1. He was a dumb ass . He hated Jews and thought the Arians were the master race and should rule the world. The world thought differently and took care of business. But they did make cool planes and tanks

tmanthegreat wrote:To set a few things straight...

As for the Battle of Britain, the British were within days of running out of planes and pilots by the time the battle "officially" ended in late October 1940, despite their valliant efforts. The Germans at that time had and maintained numerical superiority as well as overall superior pilot training. What saved the British was the decision by the German high command to switch to bombing London and other civilian targets at night in October of 1940 (in reprisal for RAF bombing raids on Berlin). This spared the RAF bases and factories in England's midlands from the attacks they had been sustaining previously and thus saved England's war-effort.

However, the question of who won World War II and why actually comes down to the ability to supply one's army. The Americans (and the Russians) had vast amounts of resources and industrial potential that they could bring to bear in fighting the war, which the Germans did not. So what ultimately counted in battle was numerical strength, not necessairly ability.

There are plenty of studies and books written over the years which show clear evidence that the average German unit was better trained, had more competent leadership at the junior level and had generally better equipment than the average American unit, let alone the Russians. The average US and British units going up against similar strength German units seldom prevailed, with the exception of the elite paratrooper divisions like the 101st, 82nd or British 6th. This is part of the reason why it took the allied forces so long to break out of the Normandy bocage country between June and August 1944 - and they were partly up against only 2nd rate German troops!

In a fight, however, it came down to the fact that the Americans and Russians could throw many more men, tanks, and planes into a battle than could the Germans. They also had better intelligence. The bulk of WWII thus was essentially the wearing-down of the German war machine, which once weakened and cut off (as it was by the summer of 1944) topled.

*** *** ***

One of the best analyses of the Battle of Britain can be found in the classic book, The Battle of Britain by Richard Hough and Denis Richards. The appendicies (which even include a day-by-day account of the battle) are particularly helpful for understanding the technicalities of this conflict.

For a comparative study on the abilities of US and German units in WWII (particularly in the Normandy campaign), Overlord by Max Hastings is an excellent read

Now, what was the topic of this thread

Actually....

You missed my point entirely. When the Allies was reeling back early in the war, they didn't have vast amounts of resources to fall back on. And yet Germany failed to deliver the knock out blow time and time again.

Where was Britain's vast amount of supplies and numerical superiority during the Battle of Britain? Where was Russia's vast amount of supplies as they were being pushed back during the summer-fall of 1941? The factories that ultimately produced the war material they needed was still being rail-roaded to the Urals.

There were no endless hordes of T-34s back then. Like the British, they stopped the Germans with nothing but skill, sheer guts, and bravery.

There were no endless supplies of Spitfires in 1940. There were no limitless supplies of RAF pilots. Yet, they stopped the Germans cold. Why couldn't Germany defeat them? It's certainly not because they are hordes and hordes of Spitfires to shoot down German bombers, or hordes and hordes of T-34s to stop the Panzer's advance.

And it doesn’t really matter if the Germans switched from bombing airfields to bombing cities. They still outnumbered the RAF, but the RAF held their ground, and achieved a 2-1 kill ratio against them. If what you say is true that the Allies only won because they have more stuff.....then shouldn’t the Germans have won early in the war? Plus, they’re far more superior, right?

It's kinda insulting to the memory of the Allied soldiers who faced down and stopped Germany cold to say that they only won because they have more stuff.

If the Germans are so better trained and better equipped.....then why couldn't they brush aside a few American divisions that were either inexperienced, or was resting and refitting with hardly any supplies, in the Ardennes in 1944?

I love the story of how the mighty Kampfgruppe Piper’s advance, armed with the mighty Kingtiger tanks, was frustrated and slowed down immensely by a handful of inexperienced American combat engineers.

And as for the Allies facing 2nd-rate German troops during the Bocage fighting....er...

The 21st Panzer Division, the 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler, the 2nd SS Division Das Reich, the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend, the 9th SS Panzer Division Hohenstaufen, the 10th SS Panzer Division Frundsberg, the 101st (501st) SS S.Pz.Abt, the 102nd SS S.Pz.Abt., the S.Pz.Abt 503, are 2nd-rate German units to you?

I'm sure I missed other veteran German units that fought during the Normandy/France campaigns, but those are all I could remember right now.

It’s just sad to see that it’s the German soldiers and Germany’s war effort that is celebrated and admired now by modelers, military enthusiasts, and amateur historians.

The Germans were good, but not THAT good. If they were, let’s see....

Their superior pilots would have shot down and decimated the Royal Air Force as planned, invade England, and end the last vestige of resistance in the West.

Then they could have turned their full attention to the East. If the German panzers and heer are so superior, they would have easily brushed aside Soviet resistance, all the way to Moscow, and maybe end the war then.

All of this could have happened when America wasn’t even in the war. But no, it didn’t happen that way.

They suffered heavily through the Battle of Britain, because the RAF pilots, with their Spitfires and Hurricanes are equal, and sometimes better than their German pilots and BF-109 counterparts. They are a hell of a lot better than the “destroyer” ME-110s, that was supposed to protect their bombers.

So no, Germany wasn’t superior then.

And after initial stunning success over the surprised and unprepared Soviet army, the Germans was slowed down enough by the ferocity of the Soviet defenses that they didn’t achieve their goals by winter of 1941.

Again, I'll stick to my guns, though you have certainly raised some points in my argument! (Intellectual debates like this are the sort of stuff we should be doing on this forum, not discussing silly toys )

I am not trying to be an apologist for the Germans, save that the standard rhetoric of the popular notion that the Allies steamrolled from Normandy to Berlin is not entirely accurate from a historical perspective. They fought a ficerely determined enemy, that, while beset with command and supply problems, still gave them one heck of a fight before being finally collapsing. If the allies were really in such top shape, why did it take them 3 months to break out of Normandy?

Also remember that in the Ardennes offensive, the Germans did punch a large hole in the allied lines - those units that held out (ie the 101st 82nd AB) were largely the elites among allied units; others survived by sheer luck. What stalled the Germans was again, lack of supplies. The Germans never had the supplies (particularly fuel) needed to fully execute the Ardennes offensive as they would have liked. Their plans rested on capturing allied fuel dumps, which they were unable to achieve in part due to allied resistance and in part due to their own lack of sufficient fuel reserves.

I also never said that there were endless hordes of allied fighting machines early in the war, just that the allies ultimately had the greater resource potential to supply their war effort than did the Germans. That was true even of the British in the Battle of Britain (whose factories in the midlands had remained largely out of reach of the German planes) and especially moreso when the Germans switch tactics and stopped directly attacking the RAF.

The Germans also did almost get to Moscow in late 1941, but again over-extended themselves along long, teneous supply lines, which the Russians were able to exploit. Further, while the Russian war effort was not at full speed in 1941-42, they could bring many more troops to bear than the Germans and had the advantage of fighting on their own territory.

It is important to remember that historical narratives are not - ever - objective and history is never one-sided. Many of the allied histories are, naturally, written from the point of view of the victors and sometimes tend to gloss over the harder campaigns. Other sources take a more critical approach and it is important to take what these have to say into account as well in order to build a picture of the complete narrative.

That's all I'm going to say here on this topic - lets move on

It is a known fact that the Brits were almost on there knees in the Battle of Britain. They needed a miricle.The RAF bombed Berlin by mistake Hitler and Georing got mad and diceded to bomb London and other English cities in retaleation. So they bypassed the RAF squadrons to bomb the cities this was the miracale. The RAF was saved and you know the rest of the story.
The Ruskies moved there factories out of harms way . No easy task but did so anyway. Kicked production into high gear and came back with a vengence with the muderous commissars riding shot gun.

BTW T-man you know I love you but the siily toys are the reason for this web page. Yes they rule and... Uh Ohh the wife is walking into the room...............

Oh my what have I started!

pickelhaube wrote:BTW T-man you know I love you but the siily toys are the reason for this web page. Yes they rule and... Uh Ohh the wife is walking into the room...............

....

Do you and T-man want to tell us something?

GooglyDoogly wrote:

pickelhaube wrote:BTW T-man you know I love you but the siily toys are the reason for this web page. Yes they rule and... Uh Ohh the wife is walking into the room...............

....

Do you and T-man want to tell us something?

I'm flattered, but don't lean that way

Easy there Googly your avatar is not what you would call masculine. T-man thanks I don't lean that way myself The wife would not like it. It is bad enough that I play with toys. But they are toys of distruction.

lets get this stright they are pre-built models....at least that is what I told the G/F If my G/F know they where toys I would never hear the end of it.