Here is the well known image used to illustrate survivor bias as describe by Abraham Wald. Planes hit in the marked spots would often still be able to return home. There is no data recorded for the unmarked spots because the planes hit in those areas didn't return so hits in those places were not recorded.
But it's not survivor bias I'm discussing here but how ineffective WW2 era fighter armament was. This graphic illustrates how aircraft could absorb hits, frequently multiple hits, in various locations and still be able to return home. It's was difficult to achieve precise accurate firing in the split second afforded in WW2 aerial combat. For the Allies, the British using a mix of .303 MMG and 20 mm cannon and the Americans using .50 caliber HMGs showed the difficulties in achieving reliable kills in a single pass. It was very difficult for most pilots to achieve accurate firing on the enemy airplane's kill spot in a split-second. This meant enemy aircraft often surviving with a few holes drilled in non essential places. Hence we read about after action reports that would be listing confirmed, probable and damaged with many more E/A in the latter two categories.
This Youtube video I've linked to here shows the RAF test firing the German MK 108 cannon on aircraft targets. The level of damage produced by single hits is significant.
What's most compelling about this video is it describes catastrophic damaged produced by single hits. Even in areas on the plane that would have been able to absorb hits from smaller caliber, less explosive munitions. This is why I'm suggesting that a weapon of this type would have been the best possible weapon for Allied fighter planes using the existing 1940s technology. Because one hit would very likely destroy an enemy fighter plane. Two hits would be a dead certainty.
During a typical WW2 aerial combat over Germany a Mustang pilot squeezes off a quick burst at a FW 190. The U.S. pilot doesn't lead the Focke-Wulf adequately during the split-second he has to aim and shoot. Consequently a couple of .50 API rounds drill through the 190's vertical stabilizer doing no serious damage. If the Mustang was equipped with two wing mounted 30 mm cannons firing shells that are carrying 85 grams/3 ounces of RDX then just one hit would blow off the 190s' vertical stabilizer taking the rudder with it. An exaggeration? Please refer to the RAF's video posted here showing the testing of these shells.
Those 30 mm shells had an explosive power greater then a WW2 U.S hand grenade. Where can a hand grenade be detonated on a fighter plane that wouldn't destroy it? A hit on the rear fuselage would blow off the tail. On the inner wing it would open a hole in the fuel tank the size of a dinner plate and ignite the fuel. The cockpit area would kill the pilot. I believe the use of munitions with that level of explosive power was approaching as close to one shoot, one hit, one kill for Allied fighters as was possible without the post war development of guided air to air missiles.
Also, a clarification. I'm not advocating the MK 108 cannon the Germans developed. That was specifically designed to attack the large, unmaneuvering bomber formations of the Allied, mainly American, daytime bomber offensive. Hence the low muzzle velocity of the MK 108. Not very useful for attacking fighters.
It's the high explosive 30 mm shell that is the hidden gem here.
Could the Allies have developed a similar weapon? A 30 mm round with a similar explosive power as the German 30mm/99mm "mineshell"? But designed with a larger case to increase the muzzle velocity? What would be ideal is a gun that can fire about 10 rounds a second with a muzzle velocity nearing 900ms/3000fts. Firing a 30mm round carrying 85grams/3 ounces of RDX. And made small enough to fit in the wings of Spitfires and Mustangs. Thunderbolts and in the nose of Lightnings. Even if the firing time is reduced to 10 seconds or so due to the size of the rounds in the available magazine space the effectiveness of each fighter well makes up for that.
If somebody had thought of it could it have been feasibly done with mid-war Allied technology?
Last edited:
