[Rob Philips]

Thanks, Juha. Very well researched article, which is what we expect if Tony Williams is the source. Curiously, fire power or firing power is not defined in this article, and not expressed in the tables given. However, when discussed, the type 3 in my post, projectile weight times firing rate, is intended. Two other expressions are mentioned, the Q and the M factor. Both consider the weight of the weapon as well, and therefore express the efficiency of the weapon. My proposal to include kinetic energy and pattern density cannot be found in these pages. I believe that this article represents the visions of gun manufacturers, whilst I am looking for user visions too. Users mounted multiple guns in flying gun platforms. The difference is between firing range data, and aerial combat data, technological data versus tactical data.

There is one remark in these pages, that points into the direction that I would like to go. It is a remark made by Adolf Galland, stating that the Me.109 armament of two machine guns and one cannon was not good enough for the average pilot. Why? Not because the projected weight was insufficient, but because the pattern was not dense enough. A denser pattern would have led to more results achieved by aviators with average marksman skills.

Regards,

Rob