Author Topic: Lancaster tail gun ammo ammount seems odd  (Read 1071 times)

Offline mora

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
Lancaster tail gun ammo ammount seems odd
« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2003, 08:14:42 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kweassa
I'd also like to know why the 109G-2 still only has 150 rounds.
 



AFAIK there never was over 150 rounds in a 109. In fact Finns used only 120 or so rounds because the cannon was prone to jamming with full ammo.

Offline sling322

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3510
Lancaster tail gun ammo ammount seems odd
« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2003, 10:59:15 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by vorticon
ammo amounts seem a bit weird because if they had there real ammo amounts the planes would be a lot better...


Ummm...yeah...ok.  HTC just arbitrarily puts a number in with no research to back it up.  Just so the planes dont get too good.

:rolleyes:

Offline sling322

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3510
Lancaster tail gun ammo ammount seems odd
« Reply #17 on: April 05, 2003, 11:00:36 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by DarkHawk
The idea ammo would be for the plane and not by the gun for a bomber since ammo could be passed between gun positions as needed.  so if each gun had 2000 rounds and the buff had 10 guns then total ammo would be 20,000 rounds
JMO

DarkHawk  :rolleyes:


Well that could be true on a B-17 or a B-26, but our Lanc has .303s in all other turrets except for the tail gun which has .50 cals.  You cant very well pass ammo around to a different gun if the ammo wont fit.

Offline AdmRose

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 624
      • http://www.geocities.com/cmdrrose/index.html
Lancaster tail gun ammo ammount seems odd
« Reply #18 on: April 06, 2003, 11:01:15 PM »
A .50 can fire .30 ammo, I just REALLY wouldn't recommend it :)

Offline BenDover

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5803
Lancaster tail gun ammo ammount seems odd
« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2003, 01:53:16 AM »
I bet you'd have more chance of hitting your own plane than the enemy

Offline frank3

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9352
Lancaster tail gun ammo ammount seems odd
« Reply #20 on: April 08, 2003, 11:53:25 AM »
Maybe the .50 held less ammo cause there where not only exploding, but also fire trail bullets, they indicate the way you're shooting. but they didn't have any powder I think.

Offline Tony Williams

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 725
      • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Lancaster tail gun ammo ammount seems odd
« Reply #21 on: April 08, 2003, 08:28:44 PM »
The US never used HE bullets in the .50 - only incendiary, AP or API.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

Offline BenDover

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5803
Lancaster tail gun ammo ammount seems odd
« Reply #22 on: April 09, 2003, 01:54:09 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by frank3
Maybe the .50 held less ammo cause there where not only exploding, but also fire trail bullets, they indicate the way you're shooting. but they didn't have any powder I think.



Those are tracers

Offline frank3

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9352
Lancaster tail gun ammo ammount seems odd
« Reply #23 on: April 09, 2003, 02:06:11 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by BenDover
Those are tracers


that's the word I was looking for!

tnx Ben :rolleyes:

Offline bigsky

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 964
Lancaster tail gun ammo ammount seems odd
« Reply #24 on: April 11, 2003, 12:34:14 AM »
bodi, lighten up i was talking about the ones ive seen and carried. i wasnt around in ww2 so im not sure EXACTLY what was around then. your post is a prime example of why people dont like to post on the BBS. you just could have pointed out my mistake without being a total prettythanghole. but theres alot of that on the BBS. i dont blame you, manners and home training seems to be highly perked these days.
"I am moist like bacon"

Offline bigsky

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 964
Lancaster tail gun ammo ammount seems odd
« Reply #25 on: April 12, 2003, 04:35:01 AM »
kdavis it wasnt you that my reply was aimed at but bodhi. from what ive seen of this guys posts on a lot of topics he just likes to to slam people. maybe he got a big stick up his butt when he bent down to change the tires on his house. but who knows he could be one of those high strung inbreads. or both. i reload myself and know that you need to be correct on powder weights if you like your face. my fav rifle is my winchester mod.70 .300 win mag, its never had a factory shell in it, unless at the factory. but that is an easy one. i give them all the shake test 2-3 times before they go in the box. since i dont do compresed loads with slow burn powder there is just enough airspace to shake and make shure there is powder in them that to me is the biggest mistake in reloding you can make. if you fail to put powder in the shell when you fire it, the primer will send the bullet halfway down the barrel and on the next shot trouble begins.
"I am moist like bacon"