Browning says demand for M2 is booming

[shep854]

20 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

Well, let's take a look at the almost holy bible of US WW2 fighters.

 

 

 

I recant, I recant. 

 

You're good.  I have no doubt my turn is coming. 🤪

[bojan]

21 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

...FromImy IL2 days (And this seemed to be confirmed in Black Cross Red Star) at least some of the IIBs, got 2x20mm and 2x12.7, pretty much what the later Spitfire IX got in British service. Maybe that was a naval aviation  thing, I know Boris Safonovs kite was configured like that.

Most got 4 x 20mm ShVAK, some mix with 12.7 UB and ShVAK, some (few) only 4 x 12.7 UBK. Basically what was available. 4 x ShVAK was most common.

Quote

I think it was obsolete in 1940 tbh.

Not for fighter-fighter combat, as armor was still rare on fighters. but by 1941. it was, and by 1942. it was just awful.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

Most got 4 x 20mm ShVAK, some mix with 12.7 UB and ShVAK, some (few) only 4 x 12.7 UBK. Basically what was available. 4 x ShVAK was most common.

Not for fighter-fighter combat, as armor was still rare on fighters. but by 1941. it was, and by 1942. it was just awful.

 

The senior British fighters had armour fitted after the battle of France, which probably explains why the Luftwaffe moved rapidly to 13mms.Me109E i think had armour in France, but pilots reputedly removed the head armour. There is a story Galland removed his, had a run in with a spitfire shell in 1941, then put it back...

[Ol Paint]

On 10/21/2025 at 1:15 AM, rmgill said:

Izzat the one the M48 and M60 tankers HATED like a wet fart sack? 

I believe that was the M73 and M219 coax .30cal guns.  I recall a comment somewhere that said the M219 was 3x as bad as the M73.

This seems to be a decent article summarizing the weapon:

Quote

https://smallarmsreview.com/the-m73-m219-machine-gun-mamas-ugly-baby/

In retrospect, those functioning and durability problems should have been looked at more closely as they were indicative of a number of inherent design flaws. The most serious of these were:

• The quick release plungers that separated the receiver from the barrel jacket were too loose in their mounting. This allowed the receiver to shake and bounce during firing and affected the headspace causing case separations and other malfunctions. The resultant “spongy breech” plagued the design to its end.
• The feed rammer fingers couldn’t hold the round or fired case reliably, especially with the receiver shaking madly during firing. This resulted in round or fired case control being lost, causing jams.
• The spring-loaded gripping pads on the ejector were not reliable, resulting in failures to eject. The fixed ejector at the bottom of the receiver would not allow the weapon to function upside down or on either side as ejected cases would not clear the receiver. Functioning in all orientations is a standard requirement for all U.S. Small Arms.
• The use of two firing pins that were not on the same axis invited light strikes and other reliability problems.
• There were too many parts in the weapon – a total of 305. Simple designs generally have 200 parts or less.

In 1963 a new booster was sent out into the field for installation on all weapons. The stated purpose was to “…provide increased gun recoil velocity for improved ammunition compatibility.” With this we are led to believe that the problem with the gun was the ammunition, all along. The new muzzle booster would push the recoiling parts even harder, making the gun run even faster. This was hardly the recipe for increased reliability. Mama had an ugly baby, but nobody wanted to tell her.

There's more in the article.

Doug

Edited October 23, 2025 by Ol Paint
Added M73 article