You must log in or register to comment.

krattalak t1_j5zg6ab wrote

This is true of most WWII fighters to one degree or another. The p-51 mustang had 21 seconds of ammo. 380 rounds for the inboard guns, 270 rounds for the outboard guns. The Browning AN/M2 fired @ 750-850 rounds/min.


Minuted t1_j60o7o0 wrote

Honestly it seems like quite a lot if you sit and count out 20 seconds. Obviously up there in the heat of battle I'd imagine it didn't feel quite so generous, but I'd guess even a second or two of gunfire would do a lot of damage to anything in its way.

>A three-second burst from eight .303s produced 13 pounds of projectiles downrange while the 109’s combined cannon/MG battery yielded 18 pounds. But undoubtedly far less than 10 percent of all rounds fired connected with a target, which is why so few pilots became aces.

I guess you have to keep in mind the distances they would be firing from, and in a dog-fight the movement necessitating the huge amount of ammunition to increase the chances of a single hit.

I'm trying to find out how many rounds per second they'd put out, but still, 20 seconds of something that can put out nearly 5 pounds (2.2 kilos) of metal at supersonic speeds per second... I'm seeing about 20 rounds per second from each .303 gun, with eight guns on a Spitfire, so 160 rounds per second. Though there's a lot of variation across different types of aircraft and model.

I'd be morbidly curious about how much damage you could do if you could line up a Spitfire (or any WWII fighter) and unload all 20 seconds of ammunition onto a test target, if the guns could sustain 20 seconds. Even if not you could fire in burst rounds and see a similar effect.

My main point was that 20 seconds seems like a long time given just how much these guns put out but I ended up rambling. 20 seconds of watching a sunset is a lot different to 20 seconds of noise and fury.


dddxdxcccvvvvvvv t1_j60roti wrote

Roald Dhal writes very vividly about his ww2 flying experiences in going solo.


kelldricked t1_j60ufru wrote

20 seconds of shooting and fury is probaly longer since your so full of adrenilin that you percieve it a lot slower.


tminus7700 t1_j621s1g wrote

> But undoubtedly far less than 10 percent of all rounds fired connected with a target

I've heard far, far less than that.

>The number of bullets fired per kill varies based on the source from 5k to 50k.


WesternOne9990 t1_j623m3q wrote

Yeah I’d hedge my bets on the far end of the estimates even.


Rexel450 t1_j69c67h wrote

> I'm trying to find out how many rounds per second they'd put out

P51P-51 Mustang armed with six Browning M2 .50 in machine guns, each firing at the exact equal rate, 13 rds a second, 800 rounds per minute: 1880 rds, (400 rds each inboard, 270 rds each outboard)


Shutterstormphoto t1_j64tqdz wrote

I’d imagine you shoot for less than a second at a time. It’s pretty hard to line someone up for a long time since they’re trying to dodge. Even a 1s arc would cover a lot of ground if you’re pulling the stick. Strafing runs in movies often are less than 10s too.


Jericho_Falling t1_j67sv40 wrote

Here’s footage showing a captured German 30mm cannon firing Minengeschoß rounds at British aircraft, obviously the power is far higher than smaller calibers but even a few well placed .30cal shots would be more than enough to cripple control surfaces


Robocop613 t1_j60ldlh wrote

I feel like I've been lied to by every single game that included WWII fighter planes in them :|


HobgoblinKhanate1 t1_j60lqaa wrote

Now we need a WW2 dogfight sim where you fly to the front for two hours and have 20 seconds of shooting then fly back


Cetun t1_j61u7ny wrote

Microsoft combat flight simulator WWII series

IL-2 sturmovik


krattalak t1_j60v56l wrote

That is 100% WWIIOnline. I am not kidding.


The_Thunder_Child t1_j61b51x wrote

Pretty brave of you to assume I even make it to the front. Normally get bounced by some dickwad flying CAP over the airbase I spawned at.


Landlubber77 t1_j5zkrmu wrote

Top Gun Maverick did a great job showing just how quickly an F-14 runs out of ammo for its Vulcan cannon. You're not gonna be up there all day blasting away, you're gonna get a few good squirts and hope it did the trick. Fucker shoots like 6,000 rounds per minute and an F-14 typically carries like 600.


Lost_And_Found66 t1_j5zo989 wrote

A few good squirts and hope it does the trick is the story of my life.


Daintylittlesole t1_j61ck7l wrote

Ahhh yes a few good squirts often does the trick 🤷🏽‍♀️


Landlubber77 t1_j61deww wrote

"True dat, homie."

-- Window, awkwardly trying to relate to teenage window daughter, thinking she's talking about Windex


RedSonGamble t1_j61bi99 wrote

Why don’t they just not fire so many bullets that fast


yasunadiver t1_j61m86o wrote

You may only get a brief chance to actually get a good shot on an adversary and basically the more rounds you can put downrange in that fleeting moment the better odds you have of hitting.


Landlubber77 t1_j61c8sh wrote

I don't know, maybe it has something to do with the tracer rounds which help show where they're firing. Like it has to be that rate of fire to accurately show where the rounds are going? Or maybe something to do with the mechanism and having to fire that fast to have enough force to withstand the fact that the thing firing the rounds is traveling 1500 miles per hour, as is the thing it's firing at? It's also important to keep in mind I have no fucking idea what I'm talking about.


nuxi t1_j61h1m1 wrote

Slower rate of fire puts more space between each bullet which results in a gap that the enemy aircraft can safely pass through. The goal is to basically make a box of bullets in front of the enemy plane that is tight enough that the enemy plane has to hit one and large enough that the enemy plane can't avoid passing through it. Decisions like rate of fire are an attempt to balance these factors.


nuxi t1_j61jc0w wrote

If it helps to imagine it, think back to this scene from Captain America: Civil War. The impacts keep ending up all around our hero but never actually hitting him. Each time he passes across the minigun's line of fire, there is no bullet because of how slow the rate of fire is. Far, far slower than a real minigun fires.

Compare that to The Matrix where the minigun is depicted as firing so rapidly that not even an Agent can dodge it. This is a much more realistic depiction of the firing speed. (Althugh the rate of fire depicted varies considerably within the clip)

Bonus: In the Captain America clip you can see the minigun spin up to a speed much faster than it is actually depicted as firing.


whiffitgood t1_j62n98q wrote

wow, I haven't watched any marvel movies in a while. that was really shitty


ThisCouldBeYourName t1_j5zg4jd wrote

Modern day F16s and F15s have about 5 seconds worth for fire time


lamplighter10 t1_j5zi39k wrote

If you’re close enough to have to go to guns, it’ll be over fast


Bob_Juan_Santos t1_j60t81d wrote

if you're that close, you're doing something wrong.

they invented and worked out the kinks on guided missiles for a reason.


Business-Emu-6923 t1_j611zls wrote

Too close for missiles, I’m switching to guns.


Jwestie15 t1_j6248wj wrote

Well I was on my ACT upgrade Standard 4vX The AWACS guy was out to lunch And I couldn’t get no decs

But I knew that they were hostile But I couldn't take the chance So I flipped the switch to outboard And said, "Boys, it's time to dance"

And they asked me, "Where ya goin'?" As I started to diverge Said "I had enough of this shit, man I'm goin' to the merge"


odiervr t1_j61luxp wrote

Really depends on the rules of engagement, but least we digress ....


Jwestie15 t1_j624g0n wrote

Well sorta, alot of the time you would have to visually verifying with mk1 eyeball that what your launching on is actually hostile and not a transceiver error or something. Lots of stuff to go wrong in BVR without an AWACs


NFTY_GIFTY t1_j5zlyle wrote

My wife had always called me the "Spitfire", still trying to figure out why.


Middcore t1_j5zvo0m wrote

The picture with the article is a Hawker Hurricane, not a Spitfire. Pretty much the same situation, though. True of all fighter aircraft in this era.


[deleted] t1_j60fhke wrote



nackavich t1_j61lian wrote

Still THE most realistic movie depicting dogfights and aerial combat.

A lot of other films still use it's footage to this day - there's been a few modern movies (Hurricane and another I can't remember) which also used it's footage.

Not to mention the phenomenal cast!


odiervr t1_j61matn wrote

Dunkirk did a great job too.


nackavich t1_j61om55 wrote

Yeah Dunkirk was excellent, especially the way the Spitfire scenes felt so long and drawn out, yet when viewed from another perspective the action was over in an instant, which is something veteran pilots mentioned.


odiervr t1_j61pfs7 wrote

Also, the way he meticulously tracked his fuel. That is literally how it's done. Time and decisions become a function of fuel qty.


IAmAHat_AMAA t1_j633y1k wrote

The way he shoots down the Stuka was dumb as hell though


Flying_Dustbin t1_j61qfek wrote

I went to see Midway in theaters and it was hilarious how they made the Dauntless perform in some flight scenes. I know dogfighting sometimes happened with them (EX: Stanley “Swede” Vejtasa) but c’mon.

I’d throw Pearl Harbor in there too.


The_Thunder_Child t1_j61avnq wrote

Most of them think dog fighting is flying in almost straight lines while jinking slightly from side to side. There's rarely any turn fighting, booming and zooming, thach weave.........


CareerMicDrop t1_j601dtw wrote

Every movie is wildly inaccurate. Especially when it comes to guns. Dudes with a 10 round clip still lighting up bad guys 20 shots later. A sniper a mile way puts his cross hairs on the target. I’m sorry. You just adjusted for wind. Rain. Temp. Humidity. Altitude. Distance. The speed of the target. The spin of the earth on its axis. And yet your bullet goes straight at the target a mile away dead.


TroubleInMyMind t1_j60l0h0 wrote

Sound is always what gets me in movies. People just firing off guns in enclosed spaces with no ear pro constantly.


GoGaslightYerself t1_j602ssc wrote

> Every movie is wildly inaccurate.

Ya mean to tell me you can't get 23,573 rounds out of a seven-shot 1911 magazine without reloading? Who knew?!?

What I like best -- and this is in like every movie ever produced -- is how the bad guys never actually load their firearms until they get really mad and then it's SNICK-SNICK as they cycle the slides on their pistols or load their shotgun/rifle. The rest of the time, they're running around with unloaded guns! So realistic!


Minuted t1_j60owug wrote

It's more of an editing thing but my favourite is the "gun noise" they sometimes put in when someone holds up a gun. Not reloading or cocking a hammer or anything, just holding up a gun.

I love Doctor Who but this is pretty egregious. Movies do it too, though I can't think of any as bad as this example. It's a revolver and I'm guessing it's an automatic cycling noise? I don't know it makes no sense.


milkysway1 t1_j63igeu wrote

If a gun clicked as much as they do in movies just from moving around, there's no way I'd feel safe actually firing it.


fvb955cd t1_j64uaf7 wrote

Don't forget that dropping it down a flight of stairs will kill 30 people


CareerMicDrop t1_j60htwb wrote

I can’t stand the unnecessary cocking of firearms. You just cocked it again. Ejecting an unspent round. Just for the sound effect. Stop unnecessary cocking in movies!!! Now! Unles by cocking you mean…..


heisdeadjim_au t1_j61ansl wrote

This always bugged me. Why do they always manually move the slide when it is locked back on an empty magazine?

Dump the mag, replace it, hit the slide release, you're in battery.


RedDemocracy t1_j63fe50 wrote

Some guns don’t have slide releases, or it’s a matter of preferences/comfort. I’ve hot small hands and weak fingers, and I don’t think I’ve ever successfully hit the slide release on my Star BM, but it’s smooth as a dream on my Jericho.


ixamnis t1_j64d9l5 wrote

I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?"


Business-Emu-6923 t1_j612iq8 wrote

Ok, my one bit of fighter plane knowledge.

The Harrier VTOL can hover, but only for like 30 seconds. While hovering the outlet ducts have to be cooled with water, and the plane only carries enough in its tanks for 30s of hovering. Movies, however…


kombatunit t1_j60ikic wrote

Which is why realistic flights sims suck for my non-aiming ass :)


Jahnknob t1_j60rg1p wrote

Like every single bullet shooting gun in any movie.


refreshing_username t1_j5zjypw wrote

Protagonist power grants hefty clip size bonuses.


OGyuckmouth t1_j60kztm wrote

And the ability to hit bad guys with a pistol at a distance that they can't get him with rifles lol. That and like hiding behind drywall could really protect you from bullets


Shirojam t1_j6115n2 wrote

Video games like Ace combat, war thunder also is inaccurate on ammo count. Though low ammo count would make the games not as fun


mrbeanIV t1_j617ezl wrote

Ace combat sure but war thunder ammo counts are almost always correct.


Gabagool1987 t1_j62cn5e wrote

Yes they fired in short bursts. Movies as a whole rarely gets gunfire right


bstowers t1_j60g8fh wrote

Wait, the entertainment industry's depiction of war was wildly inaccurate about something?

I'm finding this really hard to believe.


sixty6006 t1_j62oc6o wrote

I found a trail of 20mm shells and links in a forest once when I was metal detecting. Fired from a spitfire while shooting at training targets out in the sea. Those things are big!


RandomBilly91 t1_j5zkyuw wrote

Depends on the versions. It could be a lot higher with lower caliber weapons, but they were overall quite ineffective.

A spifire mk XXIV ( last version), had around 800 shells, with a total fire rate of 2800 rounds/min


RicksterA2 t1_j60ysx0 wrote

Funny how the story references Spitfires and the photo is of a Hawker Hurricane...


RedSonGamble t1_j61bmyj wrote

Back then seems like a better option would just be a dude in the back with a machine gun.