Slitherine

It just feels wrong when a torpedo plane can inflict 2 hits on a destroyer (and sink it) using just machine guns.
I'd rather lose this offensive capability.

I have to agree with you concerning machine guns sinking vessels. But I keep in mind, that the damage done by machine guns may be the "straw that broke the camels back".

it would have to be a very lucky shot to have much if any effect on most destroyers, but could i guess happen

Man sollte dabei aber nie vergessen, dass es keine Maschinengewehre, sondern eherr Maschinenkanonen, denn die Munition war eine andere bei Flieger wie bei der Infantrie. Diese Mini Kanonen konnten ja auch Panzer vernichten

Man sollte dabei aber nie vergessen, dass es keine Maschinengewehre, sondern eherr Maschinenkanonen, denn die Munition war eine andere bei Flieger wie bei der Infantrie. Diese Mini Kanonen konnten ja auch Panzer vernichten

roughly translates to

But you should never forget that there was no machine guns , but eherr automatic cannons , because the ammunition in another flyer as in the infantry . This mini cannons could indeed destroy tanks

I see, so it should be possible to sink a destroyer with only 1-strength left.
I can live with that.

There is always the chance of setting off the torpedoes or depth charges with a lucky burst. Remember, an F4F Wildcat with a single lucky bomb hit to the depth charge racks sank the Japanese destroyer Kisaragi during the 1st attempt to invade Wake island.

The issue with that is, the Kate's and Val's only had 7.7mm machine guns and not the 20mm cannons like the Zero had. IMO, the Zero would have a better odds of destroying a 1-2 ship than the others. Maybe some of the later model bombers/torpedo planes had 20mm, but not the earlier variants.

If I recall the Kate(and the Tenzen for that matter) didn't even have forward MGs(some of the B5N1s did but not the B5N2).

WWII44 wrote:If I recall the Kate(and the Tenzen for that matter) didn't even have forward MGs(some of the B5N1s did but not the B5N2).

Correct.