Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: SCTusk on November 09, 2010, 05:41:29 AM
-
Not sure how interesting this might be to anyone else, being unfamiliar with the 50 cals I was suprised at the difference. The data comes from a book by Wing Commander H.R. Allen DFC titled 'Who Won the Battle of Britain', which suggests that but for an Air Ministry oversight both the Spitfire and Hurricane could have been fitted with a battery of four .50 calibre Colts prior to the Battle of Britain. Apparently they were available at the time but as to whether they could have been physically fitted, quite possibly but he doesn't elaborate.
Anyhoo, you might not think there'd be that much difference between a third of an inch and half an inch (the wife says yes and keep using the cream) but check this out: (the comparison assumes 4 x .50 cals carried against 8 .303's)
Calibre Bullet Weight (grains) Muzzle Velocity (fps) Number of Guns (per a/c) Max Rate of Fire (per gun per minute) Total Energy Delivered in 1 minute (ft/ilbs) Relative Range
0.50 (Mk2) 710 2,900 4 850 45,316,384 2
0.303 (MkVII) 174 2,240 8 1,350 21,047,040 1
The author adds "a battery of four 0.5-in Colts would be devastating compared with eight 0.303-in Brownings" and "the former was effective over twice the range of the latter". He also adds "The energy advantage possessed by the Colt battery over the Brownings is sufficient in one minute's firing to lift a locomotive weighing 100 tons to a height of 100 ft. The effect of a hit on an enemy aircraft by a Colt as opposed to a Browning would be seven times more damaging."
He goes on to suggest that if the Air Staff had done their homework and opted for the Colts, the Battle of Britain may have been over so quickly as to not have merited the name or assumed the historical significance which the closeness of the conflict (and apparent near defeat of the RAF) has lent it.
-
He's talking about the US .50cal M2, right? Does he not realize that was ALSO a Browning?
-
Hmm, energy is "delivered" only if it hits some place it can deliver the energy to. If the projectile whips through aircraft it uses only a fraction of its energy and is not much of use so in a away that is also a form of over-penetration. A projectile of less energy may be more better suited for certain uses if it tumbles more easily and is able to release most if not all of its energy on a/c structures and break them rather than just puncturing neat holes in them.
So the actual power delivered to target depends on hit probability i.e. number of guns and ROF vs. the damage per projectile and optimal firing range. In that sense the .303 starts to make sense.
I'd say that against lightly defended German bombers the .303s were very good weapons as you had to go, and could go, close and get a very high percentage of hits and good "energy transfer" to bomber and even if there was only considerably light damage to bombers they often could not get home anyway.
While in numbers wise the .50 looks like a good idea the actual effect it would have had in BoB is debatable, IMO.
-C+
-
As I understand it, the British decided that the HMG was only a stopgap solution and so focused efforts on getting 20mm cannons in service as the next step of fighter primary armament.
-
Several points.
* The Luftwaffe armed ALL of its 1940 combat a/c with 30 cal machine guns: He-111, Do-17, Ju-88, Bf 109, Bf 110, Ju 87 all had them. Presumably because they saw a use for them. Yes, some had the 20mm MG-FF cannon as well, which was a slow ROF and low velocity weapon. However the 7.92mm MG was the *only* armament on its bomber fleet. Everybody seems to forget that and talk as if the RAF was the only air force in the world using 30 cal mgs on their a/c in 1940.
*USAAC fighters in 1940 were not armed "50 caliber MGs" entirely either. The P-40B and P-36 had 4 x 30 cal and only 2 x 50s. Both in service at the time of Pearl Harbor almost a year and a half after the BoB was over.
*The BoB was not fought in 1944. It was fought in 1940. Most air forces fighter planes were armed either entirely or in part with 30 cal machine guns. Check the data for the IJAAF, Reggio Aereonatica and Soviet 1940 era fighters too. They were not armed with multiple batteries of 20mm cannons and heavy MGs.
*Its always easy with 20-20 hindsight to sit back after the fact and wax about how this or that plane, ship, army unit, "could have should have might have wanted to have" X, Y, Z weapon or whatever. History never unfolds like that.
...All that said, yes, its true that they would have been better off with 12.7s. They would not have been the only ones. The heavy round would have done a better job of boring through the self sealing fuel tanks of the LW bombers. The early IJ a/c had no self sealing tanks or crew armor which is why the went up like roman candles when hit by incindiary rounds. Thats what the British planners were looking at in the 1930s, enemy bombers with older style fuel tanks that would ignite when hit.
-
interesting :aok
... if you like this kind of thing ;)
-
SCTusk just comparing the diameter difference doesn't begin to compare the rounds. For example the .22 rimfire and .223 are essentially the same diameter. The .22 and .223 are on the right end. The .303 would be in the center of the picture if it was included. The .50 is on the left.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Rifle_cartridge_comparison.jpg/250px-Rifle_cartridge_comparison.jpg)
-
Not sure how interesting this might be to anyone else, being unfamiliar with the 50 cals I was suprised at the difference. The data comes from a book by Wing Commander H.R. Allen DFC titled 'Who Won the Battle of Britain', which suggests that but for an Air Ministry oversight both the Spitfire and Hurricane could have been fitted with a battery of four .50 calibre Colts prior to the Battle of Britain. Apparently they were available at the time but as to whether they could have been physically fitted, quite possibly but he doesn't elaborate.
Anyhoo, you might not think there'd be that much difference between a third of an inch and half an inch (the wife says yes and keep using the cream) but check this out: (the comparison assumes 4 x .50 cals carried against 8 .303's)
Calibre Bullet Weight (grains) Muzzle Velocity (fps) Number of Guns (per a/c) Max Rate of Fire (per gun per minute) Total Energy Delivered in 1 minute (ft/ilbs) Relative Range
0.50 (Mk2) 710 2,900 4 850 45,316,384 2
0.303 (MkVII) 174 2,240 8 1,350 21,047,040 1
The author adds "a battery of four 0.5-in Colts would be devastating compared with eight 0.303-in Brownings" and "the former was effective over twice the range of the latter". He also adds "The energy advantage possessed by the Colt battery over the Brownings is sufficient in one minute's firing to lift a locomotive weighing 100 tons to a height of 100 ft. The effect of a hit on an enemy aircraft by a Colt as opposed to a Browning would be seven times more damaging."
He goes on to suggest that if the Air Staff had done their homework and opted for the Colts, the Battle of Britain may have been over so quickly as to not have merited the name or assumed the historical significance which the closeness of the conflict (and apparent near defeat of the RAF) has lent it.
Mr Allen seems understate the case for the .303 and slightly overstate the case for the .50. In particular, he bases his data for the 'Colt' on the pre WWI Mk VIII ammunition, instead of the more usual Mk VIIZ/Mk VIII ammunition.
A couple of observations:
The MV for RAF .303 ammunition is either 2465 fps (Mk VII 'De wilde') or 2520 fps (MkVIII), not 2240 fps as stated.
The post WWI manufactured Mk VIIZ rounds and the Mk VIII round both weigh 175 grains, not 174 grains (an admittedly marginal difference).
His RoF figures are based on the 'Star' modification that RAF Brownings received early during the war, upping their RoF from 1150 to 1350 rpm. Some squadrons did not adopt this modification though, preferring the slightly longer trigger time.
The MV on the M2 Browning is typically cited as 2,905 fps, but the weight of the round is more like 670 grains, rather than the 710 cited.
The RAF decided, after trialing two .50s (the M2 and the Vickers) that the advantage they offered was not sufficient over the .303 and instead opted for the 20mm as the next step in aircraft armament for fighters.
As for arguing that "the Battle of Britain may have been over so quickly as to not have merited the name or assumed the historical significance which the closeness of the conflict (and apparent near defeat of the RAF) has lent it", this has a patent edge of silliness to it. Regardless of the armament of the Hurricane and Spitfire, they managed to down close to 2,000 German aircraft in a matter of 12 weeks. Heavier armament may have brought down more bombers, or perhaps not, its hard to argue. 13.2 mm armed Belgian Hurricanes didn't do appreciably better than RAF .303 armed Hurricanes.
-
SCTusk just comparing the diameter difference doesn't begin to compare the rounds. For example the .22 rimfire and .223 are essentially the same diameter. The .22 and .223 are on the right end. The .303 would be in the center of the picture if it was included. The .50 is on the left.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Rifle_cartridge_comparison.jpg/250px-Rifle_cartridge_comparison.jpg)
My guess is , from R-L: .22 .223(as stated) 7.62x39 .30-06, or .308 300win mag?? .50
NOT
-
My guess is , from R-L: .22 .223(as stated) 7.62x39 .30-06, or .308 300win mag?? .50
NOT
R-L: .22LR (rimfire), .223 Remington (5.56 NATO), 7.62x39 Soviet, .308 Winchester (7.62 NATO), .338 Winchester Magnum (note the larger than .308 caliber bullet), and .50 BMG.
-
Weren't the Spit and the Hurri both designed to be "eight-gun fighters"? I thought the whole point was that the Brits had looked at the kind of bombers which interceptors would need to attack, estimated the weight of fire required to knock same down, estimated the likely length of burst which could be put on the target, then figured out how many guns were required. Standard aircraft gun for the Brits at the time was .303, so...
-
While in numbers wise the .50 looks like a good idea the actual effect it would have had in BoB is debatable, IMO.
-C+
Especially since the RAF was using obsolete fighter tactics and formations, it really is debatable whether or not an increased in fire power would have changed anything significantly as the writer suggests.
ack-ack
-
.303 was ment for shooting deer and other large game. But was used on large metal airplanes instead.
.50cal was made to shoot airplanes and lightly armored object, and was used for that.
simple. One is effective for air to air combat, the other is not. :rock
-
"other large game"
http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/He-111/He-111H-KG26-(1H+JA)/images/1-He-111H-KG26-(1H+JA)-WNr5449-shot-down-Scotland-Oct-28-1939-01.jpg
...would look fine on a wall mount but getting it home on the back of the truck might be tricky. ;)
-
.50's do deliver a lot more energy to target, but the biggest single advantage they bring is range.
.303's do fine at 150 - 200 yards, those 8 .303's rip wings off up close at convergence.
.50's do the same thing at double the effective range.
-
Once again, the British were aware of the deficiencies of the .303. However, they were also aware that against large aircraft, as they expected to be facing for an extended time, the .50 was also insufficient. That is why they were focusing on the 20mm as the next step for British aircraft. It is a much more reasonable and realistic discussion to ask why they weren't able to get at least some Hispano armed, Merlin powered, fighters into the mix. Imagining what a Merlin powered Whirlwind would have done to Heinkels and Junkers bombers makes any thought of a quad .50 armed Hurricane or Spitfire pale in comparison. Instead the British had wasted thousands of Merlins on Battles and Defiants forcing the Whirlwind to try to use the unreliable Peregrines.
-
8 .303 can surly get more led down range than 4 .50 cal ? most air combat firing ranges were less than 300yrds where the difference between the .303 and .50 are not that huge.
-
My main theme in the OP was the unexpected (at least for me) difference between the .303 and the .50, I fell into the trap of linear comparison whereas the callibre is a linear measurement of a three dimensional object, or two actually, the projectile and the cartridge. With both being considerably larger in terms of mass and volume in the case of the .50 cal (not merely 20% larger as the linear measurement might suggest) it's no wonder they pack such a punch, or conversely, if you take the author's point (and he flew and fought in the Battle of Britain) the .303's were in many cases ineffective.
As for the outcome of the battle had the Brit fighters been equipped with .50's (had that been possible) I guess it would depend on a review of statistics, e.g. if 50% of the intercepts by the RAF resulted in ineffective but accurate strikes on Luftwaffe a/c, it would be fair to presume that .50 cals might conceivably have doubled the RAF kill tally, unless there was some argument as to why the .50's would have also been ineffective. The author flew his share of sorties, had the opportunity to talk with other pilots at the time (and after the battle) and has come to the conclusion that indeed the provision of .50 cals in the Spit's and Hurricanes would have significantly shortened the battle in favour of the RAF.
There are many other factors brought to light in his book, most of which he uses to support his own personal view that gross mismanagement at the Air Staff level both before and during the battle needlessly cost the RAF hundreds of lives and put the country at risk. One of his more important criticisms (in my view) is the failure to mount a spoiling attack on the gathering Luftwaffe across the channel, and I think it is a fair point. Suprise attacks on newly occupied airfields would have almost certainly cost the Luftwaffe dearly not only in terms of a/c and personel but also important infrastructure. This same tactic was used against the RAF with great success, and but for the switch to the bombing of cities the battle might easily have gone the other way.
Add to this the need for more and better training in gunnery for fighter pilots (which could easily have been provided) better combat tactics (which could easily have been copied from the Luftwaffe as far back as the Spanish Civil War) more use of experienced Battle and Blenheim pilots as replacements instead of using pilots straight out of training units, repositioning of the Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons in the north of the country to the south (replacing them with Blenheims etc which were basically left to rot on southern airfields, taking up valuable space and resources) and the list goes on, much of it difficult to fault. All of his arguments rest on well tested doctrines of warfare, but no doubt there are opposing views worth investigating.
Anyway, a cracking good read and I highly recommend it.
-
My guess is , from R-L: .22 .223(as stated) 7.62x39 .30-06, or .308 300win mag?? .50
NOT
2nd from left is a 338 Win Mag(Slightly large dia than the 7.62 NATO(308Win). I believe your others are accurate. :salute
-
2nd from left is a 338 Win Mag(Slightly large dia. than the 7.62 NATO(308Win). I believe your others are accurate. :salute
Greater mass(weight) with a closely equal co-efficiency of drag equals greater sustained down range velocity even if muzzle velocity is similar or as in the 30 calibers vs 50 calibers, slightly higher muzzle velocity with a lighter bullet. We see this highly exaggerated with the .17 HMR's 20 grain bullet and 22-250's 65 grain vs 30+ caliber 150 to 180 gr slug hunting rounds. @50-75 yds & no wind that little .17 is hell on "Whistle Pigs" but out to 125-150 that light bullet drops drastically and has little energy to knock a dirt clod over and kill the "Squeaker"(Ground Squirrel). The 30 cal will go through the dirt clod, a 1" branch, & still kill the "Squeaker". If you shoot an elk with that .17, he'll think a mosquito bit him(sarcasm intended), but that 180 gr 30 cal will break bones & explode vital organs/brains. No surprises hear really. The .50 cal browning is still used today in heavy armored personnel carriers, and the Barret M82 Semi Auto/M107 Bolt type rifles with accurate kills > 1 mile. Some firearms experts say the .50 caliber browning in a modern designed projectile is in a "Sweet-Spot" where ballistic co-efficiencies are nearly perfect. Oh, did I say I love guns? :D No argument intended to be started here, just IMO.
http://www.military.com/pics/SoldierTech_AS50-1.jpg
-
They were testing the 20 mil in the BoB, - one Hurricane was armed with 4 Hizoos, and I belive a Spitfire squadron (At Rochford?) was armed with the later layout of 4x .303 and 2x 20mm.
A year later you are looking at the Hurricane II and SpitV with that layout as a standard.
I pilot I knew flow both P51C's (4x50 cal) and Spit V's, - his opinion stepping from the Spit into the P-51 was that it was a downstep in firepower.
His squadmate had the outboard .303's removed from his SpitV. In a "Stuka Party" one of his Hispanos jammed,- it did not however stop him from peppering down a Stuka with only 2 x .303. It was later in the war and the ammo was better. Much of BoB ammo was surplus ball rounds, and squadron leaders almost had a brawl when the DeWilde first came around. Now, the quantity of available .303 rounds as well as the guns being quite reliable may also added to the air ministries decision.
-
Didn't Dowding also dictate that fighters should open up at long ranges when attacking the bomber formations and basically keep the trigger pressed when making the pass? That's why I have a tough time using the BoB as an example of how the .303 wasn't sufficient enough. There are other variables that can be factored in that make the .303 appear as though it was an obsolete weapon and ineffective during the BoB.
ack-ack
-
Didn't Dowding also dictate that fighters should open up at long ranges when attacking the bomber formations (?)
ack-ack
That's mentioned in the book ack, one of many self imposed tactical issues the RAF was struggling with during the battle. The following RAF pilot 'kill' figures are taken from the book mentioned in the OP, and refer to the percentage of pilots from the total number involved in the battle in reference to 'whole' kill claims (the author ignores the 'half' claims due to the fact that multiple 'half' claims could be awarded for the destruction of a single aircraft) :
Pilots with single 'whole' kill - 15%
Pilots with two 'whole' kills - 12%
Pilots with four 'whole' kills - 7%
Additionally, only 17 pilots could claim more than ten kills - 10 British, 2 New Zealanders, 1 Australian, 1 Canadian, 1 South African, 1 Pole and 1 Czech. As far as I can tell, these more successful pilots were all known either for their excellent marksmanship or their habit of closing to very close range before firing.
I think what the author intended is to illuminate the generally poor performance of the average RAF pilot during the battle (in the most respectable terms - basically suggesting they were 'lambs to the slaughter' through no fault of their own) and one of the elements where improvements could have been made was the selection of armament. He suggests that the .50 cals would have brought down many more enemy aircraft due to the greater range and hitting power, as most of the RAF pilots could only manage a snap shot with a small sprinkling of hits. It seems a fair point, although it could be argued that more/better gunnery training and sensible tactics might have made an even greater difference.
-
I understood that Douglas Bader always preferred the bank of eight 0.303s and claimed they were more effective against fighters, especially at the more usual closer range. I thought I read somewhere that the early war R.A.F. philosophy was to attack the enemy aircrew, but I can't find where I read that now, not in 'Bag the Hun'. :frown:
There is an excellent article regarding this issue on Anthony G Williams' website:- http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/CannonMGs.htm
It also covers 0.50 cals as well as 0.303 and 20-mm.
For AH fighting I find the eight machine guns a lot more challenging & rewarding to use than Hispanos, but it seems often the case that the most interesting armament is fitted to the less interesting aircraft, and vice versa.
-
He's talking about the US .50cal M2, right? Does he not realize that was ALSO a Browning?
correct me if i'm wrong, the UK and US version of the .50 cal are the same
Avanti
-
There is an excellent article regarding this issue on Anthony G Williams' website:- http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/CannonMGs.htm
Thanks for that link nrshida, an interesting read :)
correct me if i'm wrong, the UK and US version of the .50 cal are the same
Avanti
I think this is one of those common language things where the .303 Brownings were referred to simply as 'Brownings' so that the .50's lost the manufacturer's name in general reference. I'd imagine that any manufactured in Britain would have been made under license, doubtful that they'd modify something that already worked so well.
-
Well the fact is that not many pilots are capable of making long range shots or leading properly even at slight angle differences so it is best to get close if speed difference and weakness of defensive armament allow, and many of the British pilots were very inexperienced as they were pressed to service with very little training. So Bader was right in many ways, but only in that strategic situation.
When the Brits started operating e.g. over France the armament needed to be heavily destructive as any slightly damaged German plane lost over France could be salvaged and pilots would return to duty right away. Also the pilots were veterans at that stage and had experience in aircombat gunnery and could use cannon armament from longer ranges more efficiently.
50Cal is, in a way, a jack of all trades in this sense as it could fit both strategic uses without outright excelling in either.
-C+
-
loll @ Charge's signature.
Well, after thinking about all those lovely 303s firing in parallel I couldn't resist:-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,300308.0.html
-
When I was in highschool (*I am not a Criminal was heard at that time.*) I read a book about the creation of the Hurricane. In it was a memorable part where Sydney Camm had to convince the Air Ministry to the usefulness of 8 .303 as the aircrafts armement. I think they thought 4 was 2 too many. So they rolled it out to a firing range and piled up a number of surplus wings and open fired.
This being in the late 1930's you can imagine what kinds of wings from the era they were. Anyway the wings got shredded better than Camm and company envisioned on paper. This test was a real world first for them along with the Ministry. The Ministry was impressed and supposedly 8 .303 were indelably stamped into the Air Ministrys brains from that point on as the bleeding edge of air to air armament.
Unlike later in that war and up to today, in the 1930's no one was going to give up a front line aircraft's monitary investment to a gunnery test. If they had rolled out a blenhiem, spit and a Hurri 500-400 yards away and opened fire for a few seconds. The 50cal may have been the gun of choice in the BoB.
We and the author are second guessing the BoB and it's methodoligies with the comfortable benifit of being almost a century removed. Granted he was there and his observations by trial of fire became reality into the rest of the war. At the time they did what they had to with what they had. The best two wheapons they brought to the table was making do with what they had brilliently and learning from thier mistakes.
-
At the time they did what they had to with what they had. The best two wheapons they brought to the table was making do with what they had brilliently and learning from thier mistakes.
I'm not convinced. If you pay someone to do a job, confer Knighthoods and other privileges on them and add their names to the pages of history, you should at least expect that they would make reasonable decisions in the course of their duty. People died. Lots of 'em, and good ones too. Imagine if it cost you $14.95 per life in AH. Imagine the frustration of fighting your way through an overwhelming fighter screen to open fire on a Ju88 from 400 yards (because that's what you were told was best) and all you got for several 2 second poorly aimed bursts (you've had no effective gunnery training yet) was a slight trail of glycol from one of the engines and a sudden fire in your cockpit and a mortal wound as the 109's finally caught up with you. Would you pay $14.95 for that?
Now imagine it was real. I can only think that some of those guys must have died weeping with frustration, considering that what they were attempting was the protection of their families, friends and homeland from an aggressive and ruthless attack by a horde of well armed, well trained and seriously clever thugs. It does seem to me at least that too many of 'our' guys (apologies to descendants of the other team, nobody holds children responsible for their father's actions) died feeling abandoned to the wolves by a military system still bogged down in it's own inertia, and surely enough people paid with their lives during WW1 under the same foul stink of bovine leadership to at least fight the next war with a modicum of professionalism and common sense evident at the staff level.
I'm no expert on armament, but I've seen nothing here to disuade me from the belief that .50 cals pack a much bigger punch, that they could have been chosen and fitted to the RAF fighters prior to the battle, and that doing so would have significantly increased the effectiveness of the fighter defences, in turn reducing the number of RAF pilots lost or at least increasing significantly the number of Luftwaffe aircraft shot down. This should have been clear to those in command beforehand but they made bad decisions across the board with this being perhaps one of the lesser sins. To simply shrug and say 'well we won in the end' doesn't do justice to the 'Few' who took an unnessessarily poor state of affairs and made good with it at great personal sacrifice, too many the final one.
:salute The Few
:furious The Air Staff
-
Its nothing but fantasy to think that an air force just says "hey cool" and rearms its fighters with another weapon. The RAF did not use the .50 cal browning at the time. Plain and simple. You have the luxury of looking back with 20-20 hindsight and nitpicking through it all with a fine tooth comb making grand pronouncements of what you thought they should have done differently.
There is not a military battle or campaign in history that you could not look at and find some fault in tactics or equipment or strategy from Marathon to the Second Gulf War.
-
The BoB lasted 4 months. That is a very short time in any 20th century war to create a total change in armament.
By the last third of the period 20mm were being tried in a hand full of spits with the early problems related to that process. The Air Ministry lost it's naivity about the realities of the new age of warfare. Early testing convinced everyone in the 37-38 period that 8 -.303 were sufficient. In the Spanish Civil war most aircraft were using 30. cal setups held over from WW1 mentalities about air combat. So 8 -.303 had some basis via observed combat and was considered superior for the late 30's.
The early air fights from the Phoney War period to Dunkirk did not engage aircraft on any giant scale to change the Air Ministries confidence in 8 - .303. Going from multi plane running skirmishes in late 39, early 40. Then to 500+ aircraft full on air war a few months later. The BoB was a first of its kind in the history of the human race. Short of clarvoyence, they thought they had the best technology possible in the world as crap was dumped on them for only 4 MONTHS. By October both sides already knew the winter weather was going to interfere with the prosicution of the BoB and Operation Sea Lion.
Almost all of WW2 for the allies was one cluster flop after another untill they learned how to prosecute total war and had figured out the wheapons, tactics, and logistics needed to totaly dominate the Axis powers by 1945. The whole damnd thing was a collosal guessing game and learning war one life at a time like every war before it.
I can repeat the following in Swahili if you don't sprekinzy common sense:
At the time they did what they had to with what they had. The best two wheapons they brought to the table was making do with what they had brilliently and learning from thier mistakes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are not the aggressor and you still won the war. The above is the basic process by which you won it. Isreal survives to the present in the face of monumental odds because they proved that statement is a human condition truth.
-
.303 was ment for shooting deer and other large game. But was used on large metal airplanes instead.
.50cal was made to shoot airplanes and lightly armored object, and was used for that.
simple. One is effective for air to air combat, the other is not. :rock
Let me know when you want to test this theory out.
-
Bustr makes the best point so far and I will add to it;
First off the British did not possess a licence to produce the US 12.7mm Browning HB machine gun. It also had no factories to make it even if a licence would have been forthcoming from the Americans.
May 10th 1940 the Germans invade France. By late June its apparent that France is lost, and the Luftwaffe moves its bases closer to Britain. July 1940, its apparent that Britain may face invasion and an air campaign. Lets say at that point the RAF gets all its ducks in a row and decides to go with the 12.7mm, convince the Air Ministry that its needed, and gets govt approval to get the new weapon. OK. Tall order but ok, lets just say...
The British at that point have to go the United States and request several thousand 12.7mm machine guns and @ 1 million rounds of ammo. First off, the US Congress has to approve it, which takes time to do. They also might have said no. The USA was not at war with Germany at the time and only certain war materials were being shipped to Britain. Lets say they said yes. Next you need to put an order in with Browning, and have the guns produced. Next gather them up, ship them to the east coast, load them into a convoy (more like several convoys) and sail it to Britain. At the same time you need to redesign the Hurricane and Spitfire, neither of which is designed to take 12.7mms. When the guns arrive in Britain, you send them to the factories producing or refitting the fighters and install them and then start sending the new fighters to front line units.
...and do it all before August 1940 when Eagle Day is launched and hope that there was no delay in fighter production. Unlikely is an understatement.
-
Also bear in mind that the lend-lease agreement did not pass before AFTER the BoB, and only with marginal votes. It might not have passed before the British victory. There was simply no ground that the RAF could have mustered .50's as a standard armament before the BoB, be it politics, speed of the system, design, availability, economy, or practical application.
By the time the .50 was available to the RAF with some sense, they were diving into the Hispano, which is a far better weapon.
-
There was simply no ground that the RAF could have mustered .50's as a standard armament before the BoB, be it politics, speed of the system, design, availability, economy, or practical application.
By the time the .50 was available to the RAF with some sense, they were diving into the Hispano, which is a far better weapon.
I can only tell you that the author suggests that the decision to adopt the .50 cals could have been made when the two aircraft were still in the planning stage (1933) which would have allowed ample time. As someone else already mentioned the .303's were made under license in any case based on the Colt .30 cal, and the .50 cal Colt must have been visible to them at the time. F.W. Hill, a ballistics expert, was consulted and recommended a battery of 2 .303 cals for the purpose of destroying bombers with a 2 second burst. The author presumes that Hill had little knowledge of the rapid progress being made in the design of bombers at the time, and based his findings on aircraft from an earlier period. I suppose the Few should thank the Air Staff for going with eight Brownings and not two as Hill suggested.
I can repeat the following in Swahili if you don't sprekinzy common sense:
bustr I spent a couple of years in Kenya and Uganda so yes, I do have a smattering of Swahili as it happens. Unafikiri mimi ni mjinga? Makini wakati wa kupiga kuruka. Inaweza kuwa wasp.
-
SCTusk,
Why would they decided that? The author ignores the reasons that decision was not made and instead pretends it wasn't even considered. It was considered and dismissed.
They decided that the 20mm cannon was the next step in fighter armament due to the .50 being an inadequate increase over the .303. I would not be surprised at all if they had expected aircraft armed with 20mm cannons to be in widespread service before 1940.
If they had been attacking bombers the entire war, the USAAF would have found the .50 inadequate and been pushed to go to larger guns. The rare times we did face large, well protected aircraft they did the job, but not as rapidly as desirable. We also never found ourselves attacking a raid of 1000+ H8K2s or Ju290s.
-
I can understand using swahili to not be moderated for finely saketing the line between things civil. Being angry over something that happened almost a century ago is very African.
Wasp ni nzuri ya kula. Mimi alizaliwa Morrocco.
-
It's an interesting technical discussion but I'm sure at the time during the Battle of Britain any deficiencies of rifle-calibre armament would have been a very small detail and a low priority. I expect the shortage of pilots and aircraft was a much bigger concern. The mood in Britain would have been more of fighting for survival I think. There was at least one documented case of a Hurricane pilot deliberately ramming a German aircraft (Flight Sergeant Raymond Holmes). Another pilot aborted his bail out and returned to the seat of his burning Hurricane to shoot at a Bf110 that had flown in front of him (Flight Lieutenant James Nicholson), just as an indication of the mood of the hour.
If you read about the development of the Bf109, there came a point where they discovered the Hurricane and Spitfire was using a battery of eight machine guns and realised the armament of the 109 was too light. Thus in this context eight machine guns was considered heavy armament.
The BoB was really the first time a purely air battle was waged, and the first time the aircraft from the different factions met in anger. The capabilities of each influenced the next generation of development and so on. Perhaps had the British employed the 50 cal from the start then the Hispano would have never been employed? We could conjecture endlessly...
-
When did the Air Ministry make their decision about the 20mm?
ack-ack
-
I think they'd decided before the BoB that the 20-mm was needed, but the development was protracted.
-
There was at least one documented case of a Hurricane pilot deliberately ramming a German aircraft (Flight Sergeant Raymond Holmes).
:bolt:
-
I think there's an expression that covers this.... 'don't shoot the messenger'. The author, one of 'The Few', was also a student of military history. Initially I had no opinion on the issues he covers, I was mainly suprised at the difference between the .303's and the .50 cals, but on finishing the book I think the general thrust of his work is valid. No harm done if after some interesting discussion we arrive at different conclusions.
Anyway I'm sure everyone would agree that he's entitled to his opinion.
-
Yeah Tusk, not trying to shoot you down at all, very interesting discussion. I'm not allowed a real gun so my shooting interest is confined to AH.
303 fans unite!:-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,300308.0/topicseen.html
-
Never understood the Spitfire package of .303's with 20mm's? They don't seem to complement each other as the .50's and 20mm's do. Did Spitfire pilots fire all guns at once or use cannon's only with .303's in reserve if cannon's ran out?
-
Never understood the Spitfire package of .303's with 20mm's? They don't seem to complement each other as the .50's and 20mm's do
As a spit dweeb IMO they do work nice, you have the hitting power and range of 2 20mms. Get in closer and you have a set of 4 303s to chew wings,pilot or tail off. Ive noticed my flights in any 2x50cal armed spits I never bother with the 50s, they may pack more of a punch, but for the snapshots and quick manuvering fights (which I tend to get into a lot) 2 guns just dosent cut it. Even with the 2x20s for those quick passes I can get a good ammout of lead to the point of contact with those 4x303s. Isnt the hardest hitter but it pushes more lead toward target, increasing my chances of hitting pilot, engine, fuel, ect. and softens them up more for when I get a good bead for those 20s. So in short I find the 303s better to pepper with before nailing down a few 20mm bursts to finish off the target. Just my opinion on the way I fly. As for your second question, Believe the most ammount of lead downrange is what they were going for. What I would do if it was real.
-
I think they'd decided before the BoB that the 20-mm was needed, but the development was protracted.
Thanks. Was wondering because I found some concept drawings of some pre-war planes, like the Supermarine Type 327 with proposed multiple 20mm cannons. Even though the Supermarine Type 327 and others like the Type 325 were only concept designs but they do show that at least British aircraft designers were already thinking of the benefits of the firepower of cannons over the .303 machine gun.
ack-ack
-
Never understood the Spitfire package of .303's with 20mm's? They don't seem to complement each other as the .50's and 20mm's do. Did Spitfire pilots fire all guns at once or use cannon's only with .303's in reserve if cannon's ran out?
Easy.
1) The cannons are new and have in past installations on the Spitfire Mk Ib and Mk IIb had severe jamming problems, so a backup gun needs to be carried.
2) The .303 is in widespread service and plenty of ammo is in stock with the RAF.
3) The aircraft already has the mounting points for the .303 guns.
4) The .50 is not in service, nor are there stocks of ammo for it. In addition it would be an additional weapon for logistics to support.
In the actual event, the new method of mounting the Hispano 20mm cannon in a Spitfire's wings introduced with the Spitfire Mk Vb resolved the jamming problem. Some pilots went as far as to remove the four .303s to increase maneuverability.
-
"Never understood the Spitfire package of .303's with 20mm's?"
I recall hearing an anecdote in Youtube about the outboard .303s in Spitfire that they were not much use due to wide separation and thus narrow area of convergence and also due severe wing flexing during maneuvers which made those guns to miss the target for yards. Of course if you get to shoot from a steady loading you only have the convergence problem to deal with. All in all the gun setting used in P51, P47 and Hurricane was considered better providing the mounting point for such gun package was adequately rigid.
-C+
-
Tap your fingers on the hull of a WW2 fighter. Then take a .303 rifle and shoot through a barrel. Even a .22 mag will shoot through it. So will it do through the crew section of a BoB-era German bomber.
Tap your fingers on the barrel. Very much thicker than the skin on an aircraft.
Try not to shoot yourself with a .303 since it will lead to very much injury or death.
Then you have the "evil" .303 DeWilde ammo.
Then there is the factor of plenty of ammo in stock.
Bottom line: It all boils down into logistics. The .303's of the RAF, being inferior to the .50 and the 20mil were THERE. The result was the fastest killing of LW planes (at least bombers) recorded. Some 1200+ DESTROYED in a matter of weeks, with no shadow of doubt. The scrapyard number still rests relatively little explored. The casualties well exceed the numbers of those who were in the "destroyed" category as well.
This the RAF did with the .303......what could they have done with all the Hurricanes armed like the IIC and the Spits like the VC or VIX...but that was just not the case at the time. They had .303.