Thats bull right there. Its known that as g's increases so does the object that g's are put on and weight increases. So from what you say, in a turn, a pilot experiences a red out or black out for some other reason other than blood being forced or pulled away from the brain? I think science argues with you..... So infact, with all those extra guns and ammo in the wings, you need a stronger wing to hold it, and more reinforcement to keep the guns firing strait and such..more weight, even more change when g's applied. From what your saying, when a plane turns, it should not ever slow down, because the g's are by no way acting upon the plane? I think this is deafeted mans rambling. I think everyone has agreed that 20mm wins the fight. Especially for damage, and thats what this thread was about.
"The Luftwaffe was disappointed with the performance of its 20 and 30mm. America never modified its M2 Browning." Oh my god, he's REALLY clueless America heavily modified the M2 Browning into the vastly improved M3 Browning - after WW2. During WW2, the USAAF (who had wanted to replace the M2 with a 15 mm MG151 copy) wasted their time quarreling over this with the Navy who preferred cannon (and got them into service in penny-packet numbers with the F6F, F4U, F7F, F8F etc.) The USAF went into the Korean war with their vastly improved M3 Browning, which quickly turned out to be totally inadequate. Project Gunval, consisting of a unit with a few, experimentally cannon-armed Sabres, got combat results so much superior to those of the MG-armed Sabres that the USAF switched over to cannon-only fighters as quickly as possible, and never looked back. The Luftwaffe didn't rest on its laurels but continously improved their armament. There was nothing wrong with the MG151/20, but the late-war MG213 was so much better that it defines the technology of fighter cannon even today. DEFA, Aden, Mauser, even the modern Swedish and Russian cannon all follow the MG213 pattern today. Thanks again masked stranger.
You are putting words in my mouth. Find the place I say that pilots do not black out because of g-force and quote it. You can't! Nowhere do I say that pilots do not black out because of g-force! In fact, I do not even mention g-forces at all! You make me laugh. It is 20mm cannon that need reinforcement when they are added to a plane: "The Kawasaki designers had forseen this problem. The Japanese Ho-5 20 millimeter cannon wasn't available at the time, but the Japanese obtained 800 Mauser MG-151/20 20 millimeter cannon from Germany in August 1943, and modified 388 Ki-61-I airframes on the production line to carry the German weapons in place of the two 12.7 millimeter wing guns. The cannon had to be mounted on their sides to fit into a wing, with an underwing blister for the breech, and some reinforcements were added to the wing to absorb the increased recoil." -from http://www.vectorsite.net/avhien.html So reinforcement needed to be added once they put 20mm cannon on a Ki-61. They wouldn't need reinforcement if they stuck with their 12mm now would they? And you are correct, the increased g-forces would make the weight disadvantage of a 20mm more prevalent. Again, you are putting words in my mouth. NEVER in this thread did g-forces come up until now. Now you are putting words into everybody's mouths. Apparently you don't need anybody to agree with you because you think that everybody should agree with you. You will never think you are wrong even in the face of overwhelming evidence. The M3 was not heavily modified at all. It had only a higher rate of fire and could be operated remotely-that's all. According to you, the M2/3 Browning was "totally inadequate." In fact, the Browning is so "inadequate" that is has remained in service for over 80 years from its introduction and a more suitable successor has not been found. I believe I already addressed this issue: It is you who are bringing in the wild claims for me to refute. All I have to do is a little quick research and draw a logical conclusion. It makes my job easier. A trademark sign of one's defeat in an argument is that they speak blasphemy. It shows that they have had their only arguments shot down and that they need to lie in order to keep their case going. And here allsop has blasphemed not once... twice... three... or even four times! Allsop has used a combination of misquoting and irrational conclusions based on bad information five times in two posts. I can't tell you, the reader, what to think, and I don't try like allsop does. All I do is put the good argument and solid information out there so you can make the most logical conclusion yourself.
lmao allsop always called squirl his best budy budy when he agreaded with him on ki, and said how much of a avianics genious squirl was. now squirl disagress, and allsops implying every thing ecept that hes a retard. rotfl!!!!!!!
Not even, we have been having this arugement and so I brought it to an open court to see what others thought. So far 20mm remains in the lead. I just dont understand why the mans sheer will not to loose an arguement has led him to change the topic from damage, to ballistics, to effieciency, to weight. And so far, the only thing the 50 cal has an advantage in is ballistics, which I never argued. The question was which round does more damage, and its been settled that it takes atleast 6x50cal to do the same damage as 1x20mm excluding "extraordinary hapenings". In short, 20mm Is more effeciant per unit, as 1x20mm is equal to that of atleast 6x12mm. It is more effeciant in the respects that less guns must be made. It is more combat effeciant as instead of needing a '2second burst' or 'a shearing wall of lead' a 20mm needs just a much smaller cluster of hits to have a plane destroyed, so In general is a better option. Here is my proof to back in final....In late war, the fw190 is no longer the fastest thing in the skys, and is prityy easily escaped from if the oponent is on simular or greater state. But all it takes is a quick burst of cannon "less than 20 hits on a fighter typically, even less more often" while in a plane say, such as the ki61b, you are only offered 4x50caliber and so if the enemy runs, or has a greater angle so you cant get a deflection shot, you typicly need 40-80x12mm from d2-3. So, that means while your trying to get all those hits in on target, the enemny could run away, and most planes can make a good running getaway from a ki....So it could be said that with these birds in late war, the 190 is a much better weapon as you dont need to be near so accurate or concentrated, or glued to the enemy, you need but a really good snap shot and hes in flames.....
>some reinforcements were added to the wing to absorb the increased recoil Empty weight Ki-61-Ia (12.7 mm): 2628 kg Emply weight Ki-61-Ic (20 mm): 2630 kg "Reinforcements against recoil" usually consist of minor strength increases in key parts to avoid sympathetic oscillations. The weight advantage of 2 x MG151/20 over a M2 Browning battery of equal firepower and ammunition supply is 280 kg. The Ki-61-Ic certainly didn't gain nowhere near 280 kg in reinforcements by replacing just one pair of 12.7 mm MGs with 20 mm cannon. >The M3 was not heavily modified at all. It had only a higher rate of fire and could be operated remotely-that's all. Despite similar external appearance, creating the M3 involved both designing special ammunition and serious metallurgical changes of the gun, brought about by an advance in material sciences. It increased the - heavily modified - M3's rate of fire by 50%, which is a considerable advance. >According to you, the M2/3 Browning was "totally inadequate." No. According to Project Gunval results, the M3 Browning was totally inadequate. This is evident from the USAF decision to switch over to cannon during the Korean War. It's not like they continued to use the M3 for over 80 years from its introduction in their fighters. >In fact, the Browning is so "inadequate" that is has remained in service for over 80 years from its introduction Sure - in Army service, mounted on ground vehicles Fighters use heavy revolver cannon following the MG213 pattern (all of the world except the USA) or the Gatling pattern (USA). Even the Vietnam War Crusader, often called "The last Gunfighter", was fitted with MG213-based 20 mm cannon. >It can be said that they were attempting to make their 20 and 30mm's into scaled-up 12mm's. The Luftwaffe had the 15 mm MG151, which was superior to the 12.7 mm Browning in every respect. (The USAAF actually wanted to replace the M2 Browning with a copy of the MG151 in 0.60" calibre.) However, the Luftwaffe considered the MG151 totally inadequate and replaced it with 20 mm cannon immediately. The last thing they wanted was a scaled-up 12.7 mm MG. ----Pritty much, despite any "ballistic" advantages a 12mm or 50cal might have over a hevier cannon round, is lost in real tactics. Just like the bolt action rifle, although much more accurate and powerfull than the submachine gun, the advantages were lost in that you could make 1 man a powerfull force by laying out fire. For the mg vs cannon its the same. I mean, otherwise we whould have m2/m3 brownings in sets of "great numberes" and the back up dogfighting weapon on current jets. But thats not the case, most jets now use 20mm or 30mm or something between. Why? Because even though it may not have the longer distance or "perfect" flight path, it does alot more damage in alot less units. Its like the submachine gun and the rifle, the man with the submachine gun can lay out fire like say maybe 10 men "or more" laying out fire through a bolt action rifle, this is the case with 20mm. You need less guns, less ammo, and either way, it does significantly more damage.
Yes, less guns need to be made, but gun-for-gun a 20mm gun requires more materials and workmanship than a 12mm gun. 12mm interior barrel cross-section: 36pi square mm. 20mm interior barrel cross-section: 100pi square mm. A 20mm gun needs a barrel that uses almost 3 times the materials of a 12mm-and a 20mm needs even more materials than this if you add the factor that a 20mm barrel needs to be longer than a 12mm barrel. You say that a superior aspect of the 20mm is that you need to build less guns. This statement is true. However, building 20mm guns is like building a large Suburban SUV, and 12mm like building a light pickup truck. You can build more light pickup trucks with the same amount of materials than you can Suburban SUV's. I don't know where you got your numbers, but mine are accurate: Ki-61-Ib empty weight- 4,872 lb Ki-61-I-KAIc empty weight- 5,798 lb -from http://www.wwiitech.net/main/japan/aircraft/ki-61/ Please let this resolve the issue of your belief that a 20mm battery weighs less than a 12mm battery: Ki-61-Ib Wing Loading: 30.2 lb./sq. ft Ki-61-I-KAIc Wing Loading: 35.1 lb./sq. ft.; Ki-61-Ib Power Loading: 5.53 lb./hp Ki-61-I-KAIc Power Loading: 6.48 lb./hp -from http://www.wwiitech.net/main/japan/aircraft/ki-61/ ...Where the Ki-61-Ib is armed with 4x12mm MG and the Ki-61-I-KAIc is armed with 2x20mm cannon and 2x12mm MG. The two planes had the same engine and the same wing. The only differences were that the Ki-61-I-KAIc was about 8 inches longer and had its wings strengthened both to allow for the recoil of the Ho-5 cannon and to allow for bombs or drop tanks to be carried. You make it sound like the 20mm needs less firing time becaue its round does more damage and needs less rounds, yet you fail to consider that the 12mm would need less firing time because of its higher rate of fire. You always make examples that 10x20mm would bring down a fighter but 10x12mm would not. In the time it takes for a 20mm cannon to deliver the necessary amount of rounds to be fatal, the 12mm would have done so as well. What happens if one 20mm shot misses? One 12mm shot missing would be no big deal, as a 12mm gun would need to miss 6x12mm shots in order to experience the same drawback as missing 1x20mm shot. With the accuracy 12mm's have, missing a shot is far less likely than with a 20mm gun. This compounds to give the 12mm an unprecedented advantage. Here is another interesting fact, it shows that while 20mm rounds had more momentum, the lower drag and higher velocity of 12mm allowed them to be effective at the same range of 20mm. M2 Effective range-2000 meters. MG 151/20 Effective range- ~2000 meters. And you said the US Navy favored cannon? This quote was taken verbatim from http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-fi.html : (The US Navy estimated that the 20mm cannon was the equivalent of three .50s, reducing to 2.5 at long range.) Before you try, here are some things you can not refute: -12mm had better ballistics: -Flat trajectory. -More accurate. -Higher velocity. -12mm had a higher rate of fire. My statement about the Luftwaffe and post-war guns that you said was incorrect is actually right on: I will prove it to you: -The late WW2 and post-war 20mm had better ballistics: -Flat trajectory. -More accurate. -Higher velocity. -The late WW2 and post-war 20mm had a higher rate of fire. Seeing what I said about WW2 12mm and what I just said about Jet Age 20mm, what gun do you think they based their modern 20mm off of?
I will destroy youre Idea that post war 20mm and 30mm was "scaling" up to 12mm right now. 20mm and 30mm offered explosive shells, nothing like that of any 12mm. As far as a 20mm gun needing more material, so what? You need more 12mm's to get the job done anyway so instead of argueing material consumption, think time, it takes less time to build 1x20mm cannon than say 2 or more 50cal units. So whith that statement debunked, lets move on. Your idea of ballistics if off, because the only way the 50's will truely shine in ballistics, is on a still target from a very good distance away, othewise the accuracy difference in normal combat range from 12mm to 20mm is minimal and isnt big enough that a pilot couldnt use 20mm effectivly. Hell, the biggest gun on FH that is offered in fighters and buffs is the 37mm, and it flies longer than most anything else, and only takes 1 hit even from that distance to smite an enemy. Try doing that with a 50cal. The only way your and as far as a deflection shot and flight path is concerned, thats ridiculous. How do you think hunters can use different weapons and so can marksman? They know the weapon and its flight path so can aim to how the gun will fire, not be a foolish yankee in a p47 spraying like mad reaching for a hit. Then, for time, think about it, if your being shot at, are you going to stay so you can continued to be shot at? I think not, so as the enemy moves, your "concentrated" 50's are no longer concentrated so even if your still landing hits, your just putting small holes in the plane with only small chances of true internal damage. While if you get a few good 20mm hits the explosive rounds can do alot of damamge by themselfs "just 1" and criple the aircraft from the inside at minimum. So once again, the only advantage to 50's is on a still target, that is far enough away you cant aim 20mm with pinpoint accuracy. Debunked. Everything you need to make the 50cal a good weapon requires a brain dead target. Now doubt the weapon is effective, but it needs numbers. And I will say it again.....THIS THREAD IS ABOUT DAMAGE AND EFFECTIVENESS. Have you ever watched those nice black and white A2A movies they have on the history channel and what not? You see a cam play footage of a f6f or something coming up on a zeke, and rounds miss like crazy! I mean, I was to buisy looking in the background to see what the guy was aiming at to realize the zeke was his actuall target. While watching euro theater tapes, you see even though there are considerable misses, you may only see something like 8-12 hits and an entire wing is off of a hurriane or something of the sort... Finally, I think anyone would agree, your idea of accuracy is horribly off. Ask the people that like to fly 109g2, or any gold or red plane that features 20mm and ask them if they have probloms landing a good strand of hits! Even though most planes have less than 500 rounds of 20mm, they often get many more kills than anything packing 50's. Why? Because the pilots DONT MISS they do HIT THEIR TARGET and the 20mm does MORE DAMAGE in the TIME THEY CAN TAKE THE SHOT. Therefor less of a chance of the con getting away.... I see said the blind man to the deaf man.......
>You can build more light pickup trucks with the same amount of materials than you can Suburban SUV's You need 232 kg of steel manufactured to high precision to build 8 12.7 mm guns, or 84 kg of steel manufactured to the same high precision to build 2 20 mm cannon with roughly the same firepower. Advantage: Cannon. > The only differences were that the Ki-61-I-KAIc was about 8 inches longer and had its wings strengthened both to allow for the recoil of the Ho-5 cannon and to allow for bombs or drop tanks to be carried. The complete redesign of the wings was good for the Ki-61, but not required for the installation of the MG151/20. Quoting David Donald's "Fighters": "Instead, later examples of the Ki-61Ia and Ki-61b were factory-equipped with imported Mauser MG151/20 mounted in the wings, two of these machine cannon replaced the usual machine guns. Later, when the Japanese Ho-5 20 mm cannon were available, Takeo Doi used the opportunity to strengthen and redesign the wing structure." Look at the Me 109E-1 (4 x 7.92 mm, empty equipped: 2029 kg) vs. E-3 (2 x 7.92 mm + 2 x 20 mm, empty equipped: 2053 kg) for a more realistic comparison. > In the time it takes for a 20mm cannon to deliver the necessary amount of rounds to be fatal, the 12mm would have done so as well. The truth is: 1 x MG151/20 has a firepower of 1270 kW. 1 x 12.7 mm has a firepower of merely 284 kW. The 12.7 mm machine gun takes ca. 4.5 times the time of the 20 mm to "do as well", which means it does far worse. >(The US Navy estimated that the 20mm cannon was the equivalent of three .50s, reducing to 2.5 at long range.) They were comparing them to the Hispano II which they meant to get (and finally got) as replacement for the Browning M2. As the firepower table shows, the Hispano II has 3.76 times the firepower of the M2, so the Navy's estimate was good enough. >Originally Posted by squirl >It can be said that they were attempting to make their 20 and 30mm's into scaled-up 12mm's. It can also be said that they were attempting to make their Fw 190s into scaled-up Zeros. (Obviously, pretty stupid things "can be said".)
Look at who first argued material consumption, that's right, you. I was only responding to the invalid point you brought up. Allsop's vision of WW2 were some German marksmen in their 190's landing 100% of their 20mm rounds, and Americans flying their planes and firing ammo like Rambo and his hip-held .30 cal machine gun (allsop remembers the Rambo scenes where jungle foliage is shredded by MG spray). Pappy Boyington, Richard Bong, and many American aces often tell of their "shooting 40" on towed targets during their training. By "shooting 40" they mean landing 40% of their rounds on the target. http://scores.wbfree.net/cgi-bin/wbstat.cgi?tod=040820&showplayer=magila Look at magila/allsop's gun accuracy. (The plane he flew is the 190 as you can see in the upper right hand corner-his 20mm machine.) http://scores.wbfree.net/cgi-bin/wbstat.cgi?tod=040820&showplayer=altoid Look at my accuracy. I fly the Ki-61-Ib, which has nothing other than 12mm. Allsop your claim is DEBUNKED! I bet you thought that you were the only one who could say that word. Debunked! Debunked! Debunked! Once you open fire upon a still or otherwise target with 12mm, there are already so many rounds in the air and much more coming at a high rate of fire that evasion is hopeless. And with the 12mm's higher velocity, the time to the target is much less too. With 20mm on the other hand, by the time they hear the first hit, they can evade and avoid concentrated fire because of the slow ROF of 20mm. The odds of escape from a type-kill situation are much smaller when you have a P-51 on your tail than with a 190. I remember once olglry got me in a type-kill situation. In the first 1/10th of a second, his concentrated fire had destroyed my elevator and rudder,and had destroyed my entire tail section before that second was out. That ammounted to about 30-40 12mm before I could respond. Yesterday, Frog almost type-killed me twice in the same sortie. I escaped, do you know why? I heard the loud "tink" and saw I had a hole in my hstab and evaded violently to avoid his Tempest. I succeeded. I took only 1x20mm. About 10 minutes later, I was typing to futuro when I heard another "tink" and my flaps became stuck. Again I evaded and watched his 20mm tracers fly harmlessly by. I got 2x20mm in that incident. Here it comes.... DEEEEEEEEBUNKED! Yes, I have seen these gun cam videos, some even colorized on the History Channel. They show an F6F come in behind a turning A6M, the F6F corrects its aim and tears off the A6M's wing with a salvo of 12mm igniting its fuel tank and you get to watch the spectacular sight of a flaming A6M spiraling to earth. About the "rounds miss like crazy," again you are mistaken. If you can see it, it is not a round at all. The rounds that are missing the target are tracer rounds that have nowhere near the ballistics or velocity of regular rounds. What you don't see are the bullets that move too fast for sight and tear the wing off in a short burst with a spectacular fuel explosion. Many European gun cam videos show in first-person a Luftwaffe fighter positioned directly below and behind an American heavy bomber. You can actually see the pilot direct his fire at the gunners and engines with his nose MG, then spray the wing into oblivion from less than 200 yards-where no gun, not even 20mm will miss, with his cannon. In regards to the nose cannon in 109, many pilots complain about how hard it is to aim. It might have been alt-m or someone else, but they found that they could not hit anything with the nose cannon in the 109. I only find it useful if i can get within d1.5 or less when deflection does not matter much. Da Dubunker is on a roll! Wrong again allsop. MG 151/20 energy- 331.8 kw Browning M2 energy- 223.3 kw -from http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html Which means it takes 1.5 times as much time to "do as well," according to your logic. With 4x.50 cal M2, and F4F-3 has a firing power of about 920 kw. A 190 A-4 light has 663.6 kw with its 2x20mm MG 151/20. Like I said a long time ago, 12mm operates on Firing Power, not to be confused with "firepower." Firing power is measured in kiloWatts. Any caliber of cannon operates off of Weight of Fire. Weight of fire is measured in kiloGrams/second. 12mm guns tend to have a superior Firing Power and 20mm guns a superior Weight of Fire. This is explained in the fact that velocity is the most influential factor in Energy, and 12mm guns have high velocity. Weight of Fire gets exponentially larger the larger the caliber. Even though less rounds are being put out a second, cannon usually have a higher Weight of Fire due to the principle that a 20mm round has in excess of 4 times the mass of a 10mm round. And for the record, there were explosive 12mm rounds, they were just deemed impractical. You hear that? An HE round was deemed impractical.
Do you realize that most of your "sources" are from geocities? You know what that is? Personal oppinion websites made by people that just have the time to post their 2cents. Not a true resource. Ive never seen rambo...but im sure the movie sucks, I know germans didnt land everyshot, but they didnt need to, if you listended, youd know that the reason the german military used the 20mm is so that a single pilot only had to hit a few randomly placed rounds to bring something down.....and It worked VERY well untill the U.S. kept feeding more and more planes and pilots than germany could shoot down. My accuracy is off due to using planes such as the Machi 202 and needed to just keep pounding ammo at them to get a kill. But as far as personal accuracy between us, I also didnt RESET my reccord every time it took a turn twords looking bad. Notice I also reached a much higher streak, and got many more kills flying my 190's than the ki61. -----Sorry I dont reset my record so I can look unbeatable... Just because you type alot is no way to make a "scientific" arguement as all of those reaction times are by CHANCE. As far as having "a mass amount of 12mm still flying in the air" It doesnt matter, soon as the target starts to move your rounds are not "pouring out with pinpoint accuracy" they are spreading by inches if not feet across the target, and with 12mm not being explosive, it doesnt do "on average" near as much damage as 20mm. But If this is your challenge, I offer you mine.....You fly ki43 for a process of 10 kills. And only the ki43 "Im sure 109g2 will be your more likely choice, but I cant stop you from cheating" And I will fly 190a4 lite when it rolls.......ki43 offers 2x50cal. 190a4 lite offers 2x20mm....That would compaire which is more effective. Its funny that you have become so upset over a loosing battle on your behalf that you make personal insults upon my record. But as I said, I no longer reset my record becuase I wish to hide the shame of he real constant life of flying a 12mm jap plane.
You said it best. The more I have to respond to your claims, the farther and farther this gets from the original topic. It stayed strictly on damage and effectiveness, but as you began to lose ground there, you strayed into topics that have nothing to do with:
"Generally speaking, 50 caliber guns were more reliable than larger caliber guns. This is one of the reasons why the Browning M2, has remained in service for more than 80 years in the US military. The only advantage 20mm has over 12mm is that it does more damage per hit. The ballistics of 12mm are better, and that is the entirety of the comparison between the combat effectiveness of the two." Posted By squirl. I belive that is what started this into the direction outside damage......But as far as im concerned this thread is closed, the question has been answeared, if your still weary, look at the poll.
As far as I remember the US Navy pilots that flew the Hellcats etc (2400 rds of .50 ammo) had problems with severe gun-jamming. They'd be able to expend maybe 1200 or more rounds, but after some turning their guns would jam, and because of the high-velocity, muzzle energy and thus temperature the barrels tended to bend slightly, often causing a jam as well. High G-turns were a no-no for the setup of the .50's ammo magazines... <Z>
I dont want this arugement to rage on, but I dont want 20mm to go with a reputation as an unaccurate beast. -for example, the accuracy of wing mounted guns is in the region of just 5 - 6 mil, while fuselage or wing root mounted guns have an accuracy of 1 - 2 mil. (The lower the muzzle velocity, the more accurate!) The P-47's or P-51's wing-mounted Brownings therefore spray all over the sky, while the Fw 190's wing root cannon create a tight and accurate pattern. (Like the P-38's nose guns - there's a reason it was considered an outstanding gun platform by allied pilots (6 mil dispersion means the hit pattern area is 9 times as large as that of a gun with 2 mil dispersion!) German cannon are superior in this regard not due to calibre, but due to their electrical synchronization system which made it possible to fire through the popeller arc with just a minor loss of rate of fire, unlike the Allied mechanical systems which dramatically reduced it.
I can continue to cite information, but this thread shows that preference can override technical superiority. I use 12mm because of the technical superiority I have uncovered in my research. Others, including allsop, use the 20mm out of preference. Can't we agree that if you like using a certain caliber of gun, you will get it to work for you?
Everything is about personall preference I just didnt want anyone thinking the mg151 or anything would fire a 20mm shell but then you would feer it curving so much that it actually hits your own plane Just saying that even though the gun itself might be more accurate, the farther those 50's are spread throught the wings, the more inaccurate they become. But its all about preference......I guess.
Finally, since this site has way to much to ever post. Im offering it to everyone so you can go look at basicly all WW2 munitions and make your own conclusions. http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm I wont say who the data proves to be the champion but everyone can take a look, its good stuff.
so.... you're saying that the 12mm is modeled to be more effective because it can penetrate wing spars and stuff better than 20mm? the point you're missing is that the armor on these airplanes only changes the metal from thickness of soda can to thickness of tin can. in other words, knife through butter either way. the heavy duty armor is found around engines and cockpits, not so much in the wings. this means that if a 20mm explodes inside the wings, it's really going to do something to the wing spars, especially if one explodes near the ammo belts. Just my 2ยข
allsop dies two years ago. he was that guy in WA who got killed trying to take horsecock up his ass, so he can't reply to you
