No heavy machine gun for defense?
 

I did search before asking..

Heavy machine gun ever fitted for defense on multiengine aircraft? Germany had a 13mm. I realize it would be much heaver, and the ammunition, and the recoil, and the mounting. But HMG round has more penetrating power than a 7.92mm

Re: No heavy machine gun for defense?
 

Hi Felix

Didn't the He 177 have heavy MG armament?

Ian

Re: No heavy machine gun for defense?
 

the He 177 had a 20mm tail gun.
khorat

Re: No heavy machine gun for defense?
 

Hello
in He 177A-3 and -5 dorsal and ventral positions had MG 131s
He 111H-16 and -20 had a MG 131 at dorsal position, H-20 also at the nose and at the ventral positions.
Do 217 had usually 2 MG 131s plus other MGs
Ju 188s also had 1-2 MG 131s plus other MGs

Juha

Re: No heavy machine gun for defense?
 

I presume the up arming to 13mm HMGs did not noticeably increase survival rates due to Allied fighters also being upgunned to multiple .50 or 20mm?

Re: No heavy machine gun for defense?
 

Probably not, though having a 20mm or two in your tail turret like the He177 had would certainly have made a stern approach 'inadvisable'. The only anecdotal info I recall was when an He177 equipped KG was making high altitude gruppe sized bombing raids on the Eastern Front, the Soviet fighters trying to intercept them were very cautious---not sure if it was due to the 'thicker' defensive fire or just the altitude they had to fly at.

NM

Re: No heavy machine gun for defense?
 

Hello Felix
yes, when Typhoons met Do 217s/KG 2 twice (on 4 Dec 43 and on 4 Jan 44), at both times results were multiple Do 217s shot down (6 and 4) without losses, or with one loss on the later occasion (one Typhoon was lost during return flight after an engine failure, who knows was it a technical failure or because of damage caused by return fire or by Flak, Typhoons also strafed an airfield.)

Juha

Re: No heavy machine gun for defense?
 

Was the He177 considered a fragile aircraft in terms of how much damage it could sustain? I realize that is a wide open question as there is much to consider in a three second burst of quad .303, .50, & 20mm. etc.
But I hope you see what I mean if whether it was known for coming home although receiving numerous penetrations. I presume no self-sealing fuel tanks?

Re: No heavy machine gun for defense?
 

Hello Felix
I wonder why you presume that He 177 didn’t have self-sealing fuel tanks? Already in 1940 all LW main bombers had good self-sealing fuel tanks, in fact for ex USN was very interested in LW self-sealing technology in 1940-41 when they got info on it via GB.

Juha

Re: No heavy machine gun for defense?
 

I read over on axishistory forum that the P-38 which landed intact and was reused on a sortie or three was eventually rendered unserviceable because the gasoline quality used degraded the lining of the self sealing tanks leading to clogged engines. There was a followup statement intimating this was not an issue with own (Axis) aircraft as they did not use self-sealing tanks. Of course, the reference could be regarding Italian aircraft not German.

I am more of a naval reader than aerial.