General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
RE: Aviation Defense
Posted by:
kurt
()
Date: April 29, 2001 05:26PM
<HTML>Small caliber guns (less than 8mm) like the MG-42 were designed primarily for infantry use, and were relatively inneffective when used against heavier targets.
Several studies were made by various air forces during the war, and small caliber weapons consitently were shown to have insufficient range or hitting power for effective use against aircraft, either by fighters or bombers. As the war progressed both bombers and fighter moved to either larger calibers, cannon, or both.
The Bdu found the 20mm machine gun cannons to have insufficient hitting power, even in multiple double mounts, and rushed both quad mounts and a new 37mm machine gun cannnon into production, both of which were failures.
Looking to the Pacific, and what was mounted on US task forces to defend themselves at close range against lightly armoured Japanese aircraft, and it is incredible what an awesome amount of firepower was needed - everything from 5 inchers on down, by the hundreds, even thousands. But basically anything below a 40mm machine gun cannon was considered to light to matter, and was rarely used. Against heavier armoured allied aircraft this would be even truer.
Essentially, the idea of defending a puny U-boat by firepower alone against aircraft was foolhardy. Diving deep into the sea was the only real protection.
A MG-42 was an awesome infantry weapon, but in the context of anti-aircraft defence, it was a popgun.
Machine guns and other light arms were on subs mostly as leftovers from the days of boarding surface ships. They might be pressed into AA use if needed. Whether the MG-42 got distributed I do not know. Either way it would not make a difference. </HTML>
Several studies were made by various air forces during the war, and small caliber weapons consitently were shown to have insufficient range or hitting power for effective use against aircraft, either by fighters or bombers. As the war progressed both bombers and fighter moved to either larger calibers, cannon, or both.
The Bdu found the 20mm machine gun cannons to have insufficient hitting power, even in multiple double mounts, and rushed both quad mounts and a new 37mm machine gun cannnon into production, both of which were failures.
Looking to the Pacific, and what was mounted on US task forces to defend themselves at close range against lightly armoured Japanese aircraft, and it is incredible what an awesome amount of firepower was needed - everything from 5 inchers on down, by the hundreds, even thousands. But basically anything below a 40mm machine gun cannon was considered to light to matter, and was rarely used. Against heavier armoured allied aircraft this would be even truer.
Essentially, the idea of defending a puny U-boat by firepower alone against aircraft was foolhardy. Diving deep into the sea was the only real protection.
A MG-42 was an awesome infantry weapon, but in the context of anti-aircraft defence, it was a popgun.
Machine guns and other light arms were on subs mostly as leftovers from the days of boarding surface ships. They might be pressed into AA use if needed. Whether the MG-42 got distributed I do not know. Either way it would not make a difference. </HTML>
| Subject | Written By | Posted |
|---|---|---|
Aviation Defense
|
Frank Blazich | 04/27/2001 12:41AM |
|
RE: Aviation Defense
|
Rainer Kolbicz | 04/27/2001 06:27AM |
|
RE: Aviation Defense
|
Marc Haldimann | 04/27/2001 07:32AM |
|
RE: Aviation Defense
|
John Griffiths | 04/27/2001 08:23AM |
|
RE: Aviation Defense
|
Rainer Kolbicz | 04/27/2001 12:05PM |
|
RE: Aviation Defense
|
Marc Haldimann | 04/27/2001 12:55PM |
|
RE: Aviation Defense
|
John griffiths | 04/27/2001 05:32PM |
|
RE: Aviation Defense
|
Marc Haldimann | 04/28/2001 10:55AM |
|
RE: Aviation Defense
|
kpp | 04/27/2001 01:54PM |
|
RE: Aviation Defense
|
kurt | 04/29/2001 05:26PM |