View the H-War Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-War's March 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-War's March 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-War home page.
From: Kirchubel, Robert F <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: QUERY: Aircraft Guns Date: March 27, 2010 11:05:06 AM EDT To: H-NET Military History Discussion List <H-WAR@H-NET.MSU.EDU> I did not realize that firing solid/exploding shells was the distinguishing feature between aircraft machine guns and cannons? I thought it was more a question of caliber, w/ 20mm usually being the dividing line. Speaking only from my own experiences on tanks, 105mm, 120mm, etc. guns can still fire solid, non-exploding rounds (in this case, usually discarding sabot). Rob Kirchubel ________________________________________ Original Message: From: Horky, Roger Karl <email@example.com> Subject: inquiry: aircraft guns Date: March 26, 2010 11:28:52 AM EDT To: H-NET Military History Discussion List <H-WAR@H-NET.MSU.EDU> I am trying to locate documents in which an air force or naval air arm compares the machine gun (firing solid rounds) to the cannon (firing explosive shells) as an air-to-ground weapon against both soft-skinned and armored targets. My current project is an investigation into why the USAF lagged so far behind other air services in swapping MGs for cannons as standard fighter armament. I have plenty of sources comparing the two in air-to-air combat, and my research indicates that the switch was driven by air-to-air considerations only. I would like to follow this up by investigating whether the gain in air-to-air effectiveness was accompanied by a loss, a gain, or a wash in air-to-ground effectiveness. Roger Horky PhD Student and Teaching Assistant History Department Texas A&M University College Station TX ----- For subscription help, go to: http://www.h-net.org/lists/help/ To change your subscription settings, go to http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=h-war -----