Efficacy of .303's

[Zoney]

note to self: pay more attention to Butcher, maybe take a few lessons, wing up with him, buy him a beer, date his sister, avoid fighting him when possible.

[Butcher]

note to self: pay more attention to Butcher, maybe take a few lessons, wing up with him, buy him a beer, date his sister, avoid fighting him when possible.

mm beeer, why avoid a fight? im easy to kill - if someone actually turns 90 degrees lol.

[Babalonian]

And? the whole point of my post  about 303s being quite effective.

He's concuring with you that they are when your target is positively within their lethal/effective range.

Bustr is pointing out that this was a common practice in aireal gunnery during WWII.  In your case, you're waiting for your target to be less than or ~100 meters, which also equates to it's wingspan being X width in comparison to your reticle's width since a recent change made it more historicaly correct (that you can guage distance with your target recticle).  Where in AH we have the benefit of the distance being displayed over our target, in WWII there was no such courtesy, so this was one of the only means they had of guaging distances with their target.  

Prior to a recent patch, this wasn't the case as each gunsight was displaying the recticles at different ratios.

[Butcher]

He's concuring with you that they are when your target is positively within their lethal/effective range.

Bustr is pointing out that this was a common practice in aireal gunnery during WWII.  In your case, you're waiting for your target to be less than or ~100 meters, which also equates to it's wingspan being X width in comparison to your reticle's width since a recent change made it more historicaly correct (that you can guage distance with your target recticle).  Where in AH we have the benefit of the distance being displayed over our target, in WWII there was no such courtesy, so this was one of the only means they had of guaging distances with their target.  

Prior to a recent patch, this wasn't the case as each gunsight was displaying the recticles at different ratios.

Ahh I don't actually use the gun sight to determine my distance thus why I was confused, I get close enough and scream "RAMMING SPEED" then open up. 90% of time I do not even see my gun sight let alone aim from it, with Track IR my biggest problem is snapping back into original view, I pretty much get used to looking 360 degrees every 2 seconds, and using deflection/snapshots as my usual way to aim. As for the screenshot, I was actually looking OVER my gunsight and didn't even see it, usually just get so close I can't miss.

[bustr]

Babs,

Thank you but, most air to air gunnery in this game is played by the point, shoot and oops method. Much of WW2 gunnery was the same.

That was the reason the British and Germans published for their fighter pilots those two comic books that are longer on illustrations then technical information. The K14, GGS and development of the german EZ42 was the result that most pilots could not judge distance or defelction in the heat of the moment very well. Just like in this game. No matter how good the comic books were designed for being the easiest to visualy learn the concepts they illuded about 80% in practical application other than dead 6 inside of 250 yards.

I doubt anyone but me knows or cares the diameter of the main ring in Butcher's screen capture of the Mk2 based on it's relationship to his cons wing span. Sadly making it second nature is part of knowing if your defelction hold off has any chance of producing hit sprites. It is a reproducable formula.

I've offered my histroic gunsights along with the two gunnery manuals along with all the information I know about using the gunsights, reticles, and their relationships to convergence and timing. It still comes down to simply handing most an AimBot(active K14) while about 20% or less are born naturals. Exactly the same as was found in WW2.

Hey Babs you think I should even offer up my low "G" lead point and click compensated Historic gunsight pack? It's the closest I've ever gotten to a static point and click gunsight for 200-400 yards. You still have to judge elevation over or under coalt in turns. Remember the one I gave to semp to test and he said it made him feel like he was cheating? Wonder if he is still using it.....

I've posted a how to build them and what the Mil line below the center dot is for the compensation line was about twice now since last year. No one seemed interested. Guess Hitech will have to introduce an active K14 to get their attention. Reading puts them to sleep.

[Zoney]

mm beeer, why avoid a fight? im easy to kill - if someone actually turns 90 degrees lol.

So.............ya didn't say nothing about your sister..................so, there is a chance then.

[Butcher]

So.............ya didn't say nothing about your sister..................so, there is a chance then.

My sister was in a def lepard video in the 80s and married some roadie she met, I keep asking her what video but she won't tell, funny i had to find out from my dad.

if you watch any music vids, just look for a bubble headed blonde, yep thats her.

[Crash Orange]

The British Army used .303's from WW1 through to Korea and Malaya. The No4 Mk1 and SMLE rifles are recognised as phenomenally accurate and with strong hitting power,

Compared to what? Hitting power vs. a human body is not hitting power vs. aluminum or steel. And they are not "phenomenally accurate" compared to other battle rifles. They're decently accurate and far more accurate than most soldiers, but not target rifles. The biggest advantage the Lee-Enfields had over the other bolt-action battle rifles of the day is that the bolt is easier to manipulate, which makes for a higher ROF and also more accurate shooting since the rifle will move less as the firer works the bolt. The higher magazine capacity was a plus as well. But for pure target shooting a good K98 or Springfield '03 will beat a SMLE or No. 4 Mk1, if only just. And the Mauser will bruise your shoulder noticeably more than the .303. 

(And I know this from personal experience - I own a No.4 Mk1, a K98, a 7.7mm Type 99 Arisaka, and a Mosin-Nagant, just to name WW2 battle rifles, and I've shot many others owned by friends.)

The biggest advantage British riflemen had in both world wars was not their rifle, but their training.

As to comparing it to a .50, fuhgettaboutdit. Try firing a Barrett in .50 BMG sometime. The recoil isn't horrible but that's because the rifle weighs a ton and has several integral recoil-reducing devices. But the power compared to any .30 is just enormous. Even a single shot will blow big hunks of metal off a target a .303 will just put a little .303 hole in. Ordinary .50 ball (lead) ammo will go through 1" of mild steel like a knife through butter. Even AP .303 won't do that. .50 AP will go right through steel targets that a .303 or 7.62 NATO won't even dent.

There is no doubt that the .303 was inadequate in terms of aerial combat, nevertheless if it would punch holes in 1/4 inch thick hardened steel helmets at range,

Nobody, but nobody, has ever issued a 1/4" thick steel helmet, it would weigh 20 pounds. Not even 1/16". The German M1935 and its successors had a maximum thickness of about 1.2mm. Any rifle round will go right through any WW2 helmet.

it would shred aluminium skinned airframes, their control cables, fuel tanks, coolant tanks and the organic lump of hair and skin driving it.

Enough of them would, sure - but it would take a lot fewer .50s or cannons to do the same damage. And most fighters were armored in some critical locations - and as noted above the .303 is much, much worse at penetrating any kind of armor than a .50 BMG. That's why cockpit hits with any .30 are so much more effective from above, there's no armor or bulletproof glass on top of the cockpit.

I just feel that the community is entrenched in the notion that the rounds were weak.

Weak compared to what is the question. Compared to other small arms, no. Compared to a .50 or 20mm, yes, weak.

The point about convergence is, that the rounds had not run out of steam by 200 yards, or 400 yards, in truth they were almost certainly still in the acceleration phase at 200 yards.

Nonsense. Others have posted the relevant figures.

[caldera]

Reading puts them to sleep.

You are right about that.  I usually start to nod off after the first two hundred words in your novels - err posts. 

[Charge]

"Nobody, but nobody, has ever issued a 1/4" thick steel helmet, it would weigh 20 pounds. Not even 1/16". The German M1935 and its successors had a maximum thickness of about 1.2mm. Any rifle round will go right through any WW2 helmet."

http://www.militaryheadgear.com/items/5332

 

-C+

[danny76]

Compared to what?Hitting power vs. a human body is not hitting power vs. aluminum or steel. And they are not "phenomenally accurate" compared to other battle rifles. They're decently accurate and far more accurate than most soldiers, but not target rifles. The biggest advantage the Lee-Enfields had over the other bolt-action battle rifles of the day is that the bolt is easier to manipulate, which makes for a higher ROF and also more accurate shooting since the rifle will move less as the firer works the bolt. The higher magazine capacity was a plus as well. But for pure target shooting a good K98 or Springfield '03 will beat a SMLE or No. 4 Mk1, if only just. And the Mauser will bruise your shoulder noticeably more than the .303. 

Compared to equivalent weapons, bullets hit human bodies with the same power they hit aircraft, just do more damage relatively to flesh.

(And I know this from personal experience - I own a No.4 Mk1, a K98, a 7.7mm Type 99 Arisaka, and a Mosin-Nagant, just to name WW2 battle rifles, and I've shot many others owned by friends.)

The biggest advantage British riflemen had in both world wars was not their rifle, but their training.

As to comparing it to a .50, fuhgettaboutdit. Try firing a Barrett in .50 BMG sometime. The recoil isn't horrible but that's because the rifle weighs a ton and has several integral recoil-reducing devices. But the power compared to any .30 is just enormous. Even a single shot will blow big hunks of metal off a target a .303 will just put a little .303 hole in. Ordinary .50 ball (lead) ammo will go through 1" of mild steel like a knife through butter. Even AP .303 won't do that. .50 AP will go right through steel targets that a .303 or 7.62 NATO won't even dent.

Don't remember comparing it to a .50 cal

Nobody, but nobody, has ever issued a 1/4" thick steel helmet, it would weigh 20 pounds. Not even 1/16". The German M1935 and its successors had a maximum thickness of about 1.2mm. Any rifle round will go right through any WW2 helmet.

See Krupp frontal plate, was issued, and was in widespread use.

Enough of them would, sure - but it would take a lot fewer .50s or cannons to do the same damage. And most fighters were armored in some critical locations - and as noted above the .303 is much, much worse at penetrating any kind of armor than a .50 BMG. That's why cockpit hits with any .30 are so much more effective from above, there's no armor or bulletproof glass on top of the cockpit.

I understand this, but a piece of perspex is hardly going to slow a .303 from trepanning your pilot either. why say .50 cal? I never mentioned .50 cal or a comparison with them, a 16" shell would do more damage as well but i didn't mention that either. refer to the title of the thread, all I was saying was that I would think concentrated bursts of .303's would do more damage.

Weak compared to what is the question. Compared to other small arms, no. Compared to a .50 or 20mm, yes, weak.

Nonsense. Others have posted the relevant figures.

[Karnak]

In AH when shooting buildings, which use a different system in AH than when shooting aircraft, the Browning .303 does 0.295lbs of damage per hit.  The Browning .50 does 1.17lbs of damage per hit.  The Hispano Mk II does 4.06lbs of damage per hit.

[SmokinLoon]

Another point is that if you have even half of your bullets striking the target you are doing amazingly well.  You can't just calculate the weight of rounds impacting by multiplying rof by the number of guns and say that this is the damage that will be done.

Also, the 303 was among the weakest of the main battle rifle calibers used by any army during the war.  The op's experience of thinking of it as incredibly powerful is likely due to lack of experience with other types.

There is also ample source material around regarding the ineffectiveness of the 303 during the Bob, particularly against bombers, which are much easier to put concentrated fire on than a maneuvering fighter.

Among the "weakest" in WWII???  With all due respect you has sorely missed the mark with that statement.   

Line up the .303 British, .30-06, 7.62x54R, 6.5 and 7.7 Jap, 8mm Mauser, 6.5 Carcano, 7.5mm French, 7.35 Belgian, 8mm Mannlicher, etc etc etc, and you will find two things: The 6.5 Carcano and the 6.5mm Jap bring up the rear and the rest of them are all within spit distance of each other in terms of "bullet weight/velocity and terminal performance".  The .303 British fired a .310 caliber bullet of 174gr at approx 2400 fps out of an Enfield rifle.  At distances in which other calibers such as the .30-06 and 7.62x 54R Russian surpass it in regards to ballistic performance is well beyond what the human eye can comprehend so that is besides the point, really.  Also, research showed that flesh wounds caused by the .303 British was the worst among the full powered rifle calibers thanks to a bullet that had a rearward center of gravity though it was not a design characteristic goal when the projectile was introduced. 

Vs aircraft, the gap is even more narrow.  The differences are do narrow I'm willing to bet that no one can tell the differences between one .30 caliber MG and the next in AH.  In the real world in that application it isn't any different either.           

[bustr]

At close distances inside of 300 the rate of fire and numbers of rounds that will probably hit favor the .303's destructive power on smaller less armored fighters pre mid-war. The sheer area of and size of bombers in the game requires a high number of rounds in any damage area to do more than punch holes or cause leaks.

Excerpts From:
WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER ARMAMENT EFFECTIVENESS
by:Tony Williams
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

It is also worth pointing out that most successful attacks in WW2 took place at fairly short ranges at which different projectile ballistics would not have had a major effect on destructiveness. During 1940 the RAF rapidly dropped the harmonisation distance for their fighter guns from 370 to 230m, and were annoyed that the narrow gun bays in the Spitfire's wing prevented them from harmonising the 20mm cannon down to their preferred distance of 180m (at which they did most ammunition effectiveness testing). Although successful attacks at longer ranges were possible, particularly against large, stable targets like heavy bombers (as the Luftwaffe discovered), it seems probable that the great majority of shoot-downs took place between 100 and 300m. This is often not appreciated by players of combat sims, who think that the ability to score routinely at ranges of 1,000m or more in their games reflects WW2 reality – it doesn't!

180m = 200yd
230m = 250yd
370m = 400yd
--------------------------------

Later in the same article, this .50 cal pricipel is the same more poignantly with the .303:

3. The shorter flight time of the .50 bullets, plus the larger number fired for a given weight of armament, greatly improves the hit probability of this armament by comparison with the slower-firing cannon, making shoot-downs more likely.

The first part of this criticism is undoubtedly correct, but the second part does not follow. The relative lack of effectiveness of the .50 bullets mean that it is necessary (on average) to score many more hits to shoot down a plane than with cannon armament. These two factors probably more or less cancel each other out.

As has already been observed, hit probability is also affected by many other things apart from gun performance: the quality of the gunsights, the location of the guns, the stability of the aircraft as the gun platform, and above all, pilot skill. These cannot be taken into account in a study of this type – there are just too many variables.