Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

WW2 Plane with most Firepower?

Discussion in 'Aircraft' started by Pride_of_Lenin, Mar 7, 2015.

  1. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,418
    Likes Received:
    2,211
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    No, it never flew. IIRC a full-scale mock-up was under construction, but I don't know if it was completed.
     
  2. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,468
    Likes Received:
    261
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    I always liked the Bristol Beaufighter from the first time I read about it, long ago......4 20mm and 6 .303, plus 8 rockets...I can't find the exact rockets used, I'm finding different types......plus torpedo and bombs could be carried......wiki says it was the heaviest fighter armament at the time, only exceeded by the later marks of the B25 where all guns were not forward firing?......If it's on the list, sorry..I don't see it......also, I liked the way it looked.... it looked ''super mean''......we are discussing dedicated, long term combat use of the aircraft, correct??
    ok, I found the Mk21 had 4 20mm, 4 12.7 mm. and 8 .5in rockets.....I'm not sure if the 4 20mm and 6 .303 MK could carry rockets.... can anyone help on this?....so many variants....
    is this fighters only, fighter bombers, gunships, bombers, dedicated use or mock ups?? forward firing only or all around guns? guns, rockets, and bombs? my point being, is this question too general for some posters???
     
  3. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    1,003
    Looks like it could have rockets under the wings as well as having .303 MG in the wing, at least one model had a dorsal turret and an "Observer's position .303"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Beaufighter#Specifications_.28Beaufighter_TF_X.29

    At the time it entered service 39/40 it was quite well armed compared to its contemporaries.

    That's why I said it the way I did:
     
  4. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,468
    Likes Received:
    261
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    RT--roger that ....and thanks....so many articles and so many variants..it can be confusing to me..I see they removed the co-pilot for one, I think...but the 'main' variant had the 4 20mm plus 6 .303....
     
  5. Poppy

    Poppy grasshopper

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    7,629
    Likes Received:
    783
    Not sure, but thinking the main type Beau was the Mk X.
    Which had 4 20mm Hispano 60 round drums (later belt), 1 303 Vickers K in observers position, 6 Browning .303's- 2 in left wing and 4 in right, one torpedo or 8 rockets or 2 1,000 lb bombs.
     
  6. Pride_of_Lenin

    Pride_of_Lenin New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    2
    The Beaufighter MK X could have the following armament:

    4x 20mm Hispano cannons
    6x 12.7mm Browning machine gun
    1x Turret 7.7mm Browning machine gun
    8x RP-3 rockets (76mm)

    847.9mm total
     
  7. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Location:
    Michigan
    There was an experimental mod for the P-38 that carried 2 gun pods with 6 50 cals each from what I recall. The P-38 could also carry a pretty massive bomb load for a fighter not sure what it's max rocket load was though. Also not sure which other fighters might have been able to use the gun pods.

    Didn't some carry something heavier than 50's as well? There was also a B-24 variant from what I recall but I don't think it flew any combat missions.

    How do you want to count the Baku? Is it a munition or a plane?
     
  8. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,418
    Likes Received:
    2,211
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    I know of the Douglas DGP-1 gun pod, but that only carried two .50s per pod and not 6. From photos, it looks to have gone on the hardpoint for the rocket launcher, so, it would be more guns, but no rockets. The gun pod could have been fitted to probably any US a.c with a suitable hard point, other photos show it on a SBD, A-26, P-51, SB2C, and F8F Bearcat.

    The Max rocket load for the P-38 was 10 5-inch rockets(on two "christmas tree" launchers). The initial work was for 14(7 to a wing), but this proved to be overly complicated and expensive. As each rocket had it's own launch point and necessary wiring. The "Christmas tree" launcher just needed one hard point for it's five rockets.
     
  9. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Location:
    Michigan
    This site mentions a gun pod for the twin mustang with 8 50 cals
    http://www.airvectors.net/avp51_3.html
    It could be what I was remembering I think my original source was a book on P-38's though. Here's an image but it only shows 3 guns:
    http://www.boeingimages.com/archive/P-82-Twin-Mustang-Gun-Pod-2F3XC5FSTYC.html
    I'll see if I can find the reference. Not sure that they made much sense for US fighters in WW2 though. Possibly for a night fighter where you only get one pass.
     
  10. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    495
    Location:
    London UK
    Do RPs count as fire power? If air to ground munitoions count then I nominate a B29 with a nuclear weapon ;)

    An Me 262 wiith 4 x 30mm Mk108 cannons and 24 R4M air to air missiles probably puts out a heavier weight of fire than kg per seconds any other aircraft mentioned
     
  11. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,418
    Likes Received:
    2,211
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    The image is of the XP-82's 8*.50 cal gun pod. You can see clearly see the 3 left and bottom 2 guns, but the 3 right guns are obscured.

    Nice find though, I had forgotten about the P-82's gun pod.
     
  12. mac_bolan00

    mac_bolan00 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    20
    no one's mentioned the p-61 black widow: 4 x 20mm cannon, 4 x 0.50 cal mg, 1,500 lbs bombs or rockets.
     
  13. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    I think the ground attack variant of the H2 219, that never entered service, would also be a contender, the 8 cannon night fighter version had overabundant firepower, but never carried rockets.

    My vote goes to the 262, it not only has a huge firepower but also the speed and manoeuvrability to bring it to bear effectively.

    I hope nobody takes this comparison method seriously, the "one shot" calculation criteria totally ignores things as relative effectiveness of samall caliber rounds, rate of fire, muzzle velocity, accuracy, ammo load, etc.
     
    Pride_of_Lenin and bronk7 like this.
  14. Pride_of_Lenin

    Pride_of_Lenin New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    2
    The P-61 Black Widow could mount the following in combat:

    4x 20mm guns (Hispano cannons)
    4x 12.7mm guns (.50 cal)
    6x 127mm rockets

    892.8mm total

    The He 219 could have the following:

    6x 20mm guns (forward facing)
    2x 30mm guns (Schrage Musik)

    180mm in total

    The Me-262 is the leader in firepower so far, especially the 24x rocket version.
     
  15. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Location:
    Michigan
    mm of the projectiles multiplied by the number of guns is a wierd and almost useless metric.
     
  16. Pride_of_Lenin

    Pride_of_Lenin New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    2
    This whole site is mostly just discussion and speculation, and that's what this thread is for, discussion and speculation.
    Just because it does not matter in conventional warfare or was not really thought about anywhere before, does not mean it is useless. Based on your logic, the 'alternate history' forum is also almost useless. But practicality is something that doesn't always need to be present in any topic.

    The measurement of firepower in 1 shot of all guns can be useful when you consider that a lot of planes were downed not because of a continuous machine gun with a plentiful supply of ammunition, but because of one quick burst of all guns at the pilot of a plane. Although different calibers, types of bullets, and rockets travel at different speeds, at short range this does not matter so much, and can even benefit the accuracy, increasing the field of fire.

    Of course, you are completely entitled to your own opinion, and if you think this topic is useless, that's fine with me.
     
  17. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Location:
    Michigan
    I'd agree on that point. Although other measures are probably more useful. The problem is the measure you proposed i.e. the sum of the bullet diameters is a very poor (i.e. essentially useless) measure of that. This is true even if you are only comparing non explosive rounds it becomes even worse if you compare explosive rounds and completely rediculous if you compare non explosive rounds to explosive ones.

    *** edit to add ***

    Perhaps a bit more information will help. If you measure of effectiveness for weapons (i.e. firepower) is the number of parallel lines broken by the weapon in question then round diameter would indeed be a useful metric. As an example if you were comparing .30 caliber guns to .50 caliber guns the equality point would be 5:3 or ~1.67

    I submit a more realistic measure (but then only for non explosive rounds vs unarmored targets) is the area of the holes produced. This would yield a ratio of ~11:4 or ~2.78.

    Note how far apart they are.

    Now if you want a more detailed analysis you can go to the site mentioned in this thread. I can't seem to get to it right now or I'd link it directly and quote some of the relevant parts:
    http://www.ww2f.com/topic/3140-ww2-aircraft-gun-effectiveness/
    One of the major points was that once you get in the 20mm+ range the inclusion of explosives shells ups the damage potential dramatically.
     
  18. mac_bolan00

    mac_bolan00 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    20
    so if we limit it to air-to-air weaponry, rockets seem to give a fighter an inordinate boost in firepower rating. flight 666, a b-17 fitted for reconnaisance, had 19 .50 caliber mg's or 240 mm combined (however, only one .50 cal was on the pilot's line of sight.)
     
  19. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,468
    Likes Received:
    261
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    I thought we were talking ground attack or forward firing?

    but they are all not firing in the same direction, ..so how effective are they for defense/offense? we want to know the hardest hitting, excluding bombs, correct? most fire power!....if you ask me, that's not powerful ....the power is dissipated by the spread ...but if you are looking for the most 'guns', sure
     
  20. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,418
    Likes Received:
    2,211
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    I think you mean "Old 666".
     

Share This Page