That's interesting, so in theory we could expect il-2 rear gun rounds to be deflected by a 109s screen, particularly armoured.
By armored you mean a 40+ mm thick bulletproof glass ? Yes, that can stop machine gun rounds. Frankly, that is the reason it was installed there. Could a standard plexiglas do so, no.
So, it is unlikely that pilots 'took one to the face' as I suggested. I stand corrected.
Right, use sophism ad absurdum. That certainly makes it all the better ...
So what happens at a higher angle? 7.62mm fmj is more than enough to stop a truck with steel skin. Then again what do I know, I was only a machine gunner on a truck in Iraq for three years.
For a machine gunner you seem to know little about ballistics and consequences of angling of any armor. Bullet has highest penetration when striking plate at 90 degree angle, but when it hits at low angles (10, 15, 20, 30 ... degrees) ability to penetrate is decreased and bullet may simply ricochet of the target.
The shkas in the gunner seat has a pretty high rate of fire. Something like 1800rpm that's almost twice as much as current NATO lmg which people still think is fast. All you need is one of those bullets to get through the flimsy aluminum skin and break a rubber coolant/oil hose or sever an electrical line.
And a gunner with a precision of laser guided missile. But you know, its different to sit in front of pc with a mouse in your hand and sit in a cramped rear position of an world war 2 aircraft. Those machine guns were hand operated and except for rate of fire you have to take into account humans reaction (to a moving target, to the ability of squeeze the trigger quick enough, to judge and take proper deflection). There is a reason bomber crews had massively blown out of proportion claiming rate. And that counts even for far more modern B-17 gunner positions.
Huge cannons were used because you could put a large explosive charge inside the projectile. Then you could hit places on a plane that normally wouldn't care about rifle fire like fuselage and wing parts that didn't have sensitive parts inside. Then you didn't have to be accurate enough to hit engines, radiators or pilots. All you had to do is hit something at all and your exploding cannon rounds would rip large holes and send shrapnel throughout.
Huge cannons were used because machine guns became inefficient when aircraft turned from fabric skin to all-metal designs in 1930s.
But who am I to disagree with a machine gunner who had his time in Iraq. You know what ?
I will bring here authority, Mr. Richard L. Dunn, who conducted research in national security operations and was trusted by US Government so I assume that should mean something to you.
From his book :
On September 22, 1937 Petty Officer Tadashi Torakuma of the 13th Kokutai was returning to his based after an attack on Nanking, China. His Type 96 carrier fighter (also known as A5M, Allied code name "Claude") was attacked by a Chinese Curtiss Hawk and hit with twenty-one .50 caliber and .30 caliber bullets. most of the bullets that struck his fighters slim fuselage did so at a small angle and ricocheted off. Few penetrated skin. Torakuma then engage Chinese fighter and shot it down. Later Allied research would confirm that fire from the rear or other low angle of an aluminum monocoque airframe often resulted in bullets failing to penetrate the structure and those that penetrated yawed, tumbled or lost velocity. Aircraft with thicker fuselage cross sections were more likely to be penetrated from direct stern attack then those with narrow cross section and a low angle of incidence to fire directly from astern. Though hardly invulnerable fighters built with latest construction techniques were far less vulnerable than their fabric covered predecessors.
(...)
In addition to Torakuma's combat there were other incidents from which the Japanese Navy concluded modern fighters could stand up well against current aircraft armament.
(...)
On August 14, eighteen Type 96 bombers (G3M, also known as "Nell") of Kanoya Air Group made the long over water trip. their formations were broken up by bad weather and then intercepted by twenty-seven Curtiss Hawk fighters of the Chinese Air Force 4th Group. Three bombers were lost. Two went down over China and a third limped back to Formosa but ditched off shore. Another bomber successfully returned to Formosa on one engine after surviving 74 bullet hits.
(..)
Pages 31 and 32, Chapter II
German bombers suffering fifty or more .303 hits were able to return to base. Examples of Heinkel 111 bombers returning to base with over 200 bullet hits were recorded. The same can be said of the Do 17. In an incident somewhat reminiscent of the encounter with a Do 17P over France in November 1939 a Do 17Z of II/KG 2 was badly shot up at the beginning of the BoB on July 11, 1930. Despite receiving 220 hits including some in the engines and fuel tank the Dornier returned to base with three wounded crewmen where it belly landed due to inoperative landing gear. (...)
After the Battle of Britain tests were conducted against an He 111 wing and fuel tank with 20 mm Hispano rounds. Unlike .303 rounds which was virtually ineffective against German medium bomber fuel tanks, the 20 mm rounds of various types were highly effective. Most hits caused unsealed leaks and some resulted in catastrophic damage to the tank. during the battle, however, only a single Spitfire squadron was experimentally armed with 20 mm cannon.
Chapter II
Early in the war British conducted tests with their own .303 caliber rounds and German 7.92 mm against one of their Blenheim bombers equipped with armor. Fired from 200 yards through the bomber structure (.028-inch aluminum alloy skin, almost same as on He-111) at an angle of 60 degrees against 4 mm armor plate the majority of the shots were deflected by the aircraft's structure (skin mainly) and of those hitting the armor only a few penetrated (British rounds proved to be somewhat superior to the German in the test).
Page 35, Chapter II
Interesting example can be combat over Europe in 1939 and 1940. First German plane to be shot down by the RAF over Europe was Dornier Do 17P which fell in flames on October 30, 1939. Days later three RAF Hurricanes of No. 1 Squadron attacked another Do 17P recce plane of 4(F)/122 at 25,000 feet over France. Bursts from the Hurricanes combined twenty-four guns punctured the fuselage and tail surfaces and disabled one of the engines of Do 17. Two crewman bailed out but aircraft did not burn or fall of the sky. The Hurricane piloted by P/O Cyril Palmer closed in on the riddled Dornier in order to observe what appeared to be a doomed plane and its possibly dead pilot. Sergeant Arno Frankenberger eased off the throttle of the Dorniers remaining engine and fired his fixed 7.92 mm MG 15 at Palmer. Scoring 34 hits he managed to hit the Hurricanes windshield, disabled the hydraulics and damaged the cooling system. Palmer rode his aircraft down to a crash landing.
After additional attacks from Palmer companions disabled his remaining engine Frankenberger brought Dornier in for a belly landing. Though badly damaged, aircraft landed safely.
Page 34, Chapter II
A report was issued in the months following Hawaii operation, which compiled the experiences and advice's. According to the report 7.7 mm rounds produced poor results in attacking grounded aircraft. On the other hand Zeros 20 mm cannon were deemed highly effective although the ammunition supply was low (same as in German MG FF - 60 rounds). Further evidence of the weakness of rifle caliber fire was that some Zeros or other aircraft returned to their carriers with .30 rounds embedded in the cylinder of their engines having done no serious damage.
Page 47, Chapter III
Specific sources:
- Sterling, "Inspection of German Bomber (Dornier 17) forced down in France, and information on German fighter (Me 109), U.S. Military Attache report - Paris, 1939.
- British Air Ministry, "Vulnerability of German Aircraft", (Letter S. 2029, November 1940)
- "Battle Lessons Investigating Committee, "Air Operation Lessons of the Sea Battle off Hawaii", Yokosuka Kaigun Kokutai (1942)
What I mean is not that aircraft should be immune to rifle caliber machine guns but that their effectiveness was limited, there is a reason why Germans provided their fighters with 20 mm cannons, British after BoB concluded that huge batteries of .303 are not effective and should be replaced by two Hispano cannons, Soviets eventually replaced in all their fighters Shkas mg's with at least a single Berezin. Add to that type of machine gun and how is it operated, and you should see that getting a sighting position behind the gun was not easy as well as good aiming.
