Favorites and their achilles heels!

[drgondog]

Hello
one British test report with info on .303, .5 and 20mm, found by Kurfürst, can be seen here http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...-15964-14.html (Best armed fighter) message #199.



IIRC the .5 B. Mk. II incendiary ammo is the older design, not US Mk. 8, which IIRC was a copy of Soviet 12,7mm AP/I.

Juha

Thanks for finding the link Juha. Interesting summary on the tests ~ 30% penetrate the 109 armor of ~ 22mm/.8 inches of laminates duraluminum when a.) above the full fuel tank from 5 degrees deflection at 200 yards, or b) through fuselage, fuel tank and back armor when not impeded by fuel.

and ".303 completely ineffective" when compared to the .50 in the same tests.

[renrich]

As stated in Lundstrom, the Zeke had two 7.7 MM MGs firing through the engine cowling. The pilots of the Wildcats found that if the Zeke was out of 20 MM ammo they were relatively safe as long as the Zeke was on their tail. The 7.7 ( similar to the 303) just could not do enough damage to disable or kill the pilot of the Wildcat. It was called the "pin cushion" tactic. The Japanese changed those 7.7s later to 12.7s.

Besides muzzle energy the 50 BMG had a much superior ballistic coefficient and sectional density to the 30 cal which translates to much better downrange velocity, flatter trajectory and better penetration.

I do suspect that the 8-303s in the Brit fighters during the early going( through the BOB) may have been as good a choice as any because: the 50 BMG s were not available and until the RAF had the time to spend on gunnery training most of the pilots were not good enough gunners to take advantage of the lethality of the 50 BMG.

[Tante Ju]

Besides muzzle energy the 50 BMG had a much superior ballistic coefficient and sectional density to the 30 cal which translates to much better downrange velocity, flatter trajectory and better penetration.

I do not think it is issue with aircraft board gun - these fire 2-300 meter maximum.. long range performance is interest of sniper rifle, and anti material machinegun, for which 50 BMG was original designed.. hence weight was less an issue, but I doubt in aircraft configuration, better ballistic was as noteworthy as greater bulk a disadvantage..

[Readie]

I do suspect that the 8-303s in the Brit fighters during the early going( through the BOB) may have been as good a choice as any because: the 50 BMG s were not available and until the RAF had the time to spend on gunnery training most of the pilots were not good enough gunners to take advantage of the lethality of the 50 BMG.

The RAF had pilots who were crack shots (Stanford Tuck) and the vectoring of the 8x .303's proved good enough in the BoB.
That's not to say that having 8 x .50 would be better or 4 x 20mm cannons or a mix of .50 and 20mm. Whatever.
The RAF had what it had in the early WW2 years and pilots adapted.
We didn't do a bad job with the .303 eh...
John

[renrich]

Tante Ju, you are misinformed. The USN during a full deflection gunnery run opened fire at around 1000 feet. Many times pilots would fire at ranges longer than that. However, at 300 yards the much superior ballistic properties of the 50 BMG over the 303 or US 30 cal paid off as the BC of the 50 BMG enabled it to arrive at the target sooner going faster and that higher velocity plus the much better SD gave the projectile more penetration. When the target is going 300 mph at almost right angles to the attacker a split second can make the difference between hits in the cockpit area or engine compartment versus further back on the aft fuselage.

Obviously the RAF had good gunners among their pilots but the fact is that many of the pilots in the BOB barely had any time at all in a fighter and their gunnery skills must not have been very much to write home about, through no fault of their own. Actually though, I believe on average the most effective fighter pilots in the BOB on both sides were the Poles.

I would wager that if the USN and Marine pilots of 1940 were flying the Hurricanes and Spitfires they would have opted for 4-50 BMGs rather than eight puny 303s.

[Readie]

I would wager that if the USN and Marine pilots of 1940 were flying the Hurricanes and Spitfires they would have opted for 4-50 BMGs rather than eight puny 303s.

With the greatest respect to your countrymen renrich. They had zero combat experience in 1940. The Poles, French & British / Commonwealth volunteers had had a vertical learning curve in those early months of WW2.
Experience counts for more than a difference in firepower....
John

[pbfoot]

Tante Ju, you are misinformed. The USN during a full deflection gunnery run opened fire at around 1000 feet. Many times pilots would fire at ranges longer than that. However, at 300 yards the much superior ballistic properties of the 50 BMG over the 303 or US 30 cal paid off as the BC of the 50 BMG enabled it to arrive at the target sooner going faster and that higher velocity plus the much better SD gave the projectile more penetration. When the target is going 300 mph at almost right angles to the attacker a split second can make the difference between hits in the cockpit area or engine compartment versus further back on the aft fuselage.

Obviously the RAF had good gunners among their pilots but the fact is that many of the pilots in the BOB barely had any time at all in a fighter and their gunnery skills must not have been very much to write home about, through no fault of their own. Actually though, I believe on average the most effective fighter pilots in the BOB on both sides were the Poles.

I would wager that if the USN and Marine pilots of 1940 were flying the Hurricanes and Spitfires they would have opted for 4-50 BMGs rather than eight puny 303s.

You've got one statement from some guy named Linwell or something but nothing else to back it up

[pinsog]

I see "throw weight per second" of a battery of either machine guns, cannon, or both, thrown around on this forum alot. I would like to suggest that total "throw weight per second" isnt the end-all be-all of aircraft armament. Saying that 3 or 4 .303 rounds are equal to 1 .50 round because they weigh the same is ignoring how much power the large individual round has.
For instance:
1. Would you rather shoot a Tiger tank in the side from 100 yards with 17 pounds of .303, 17 pounds of .50, or a 17 pounder antitank gun?
2. Would you rather shoot an elephant in the forehead with one ounce, 435 grains, of #9 birdshot from a 20 gauge shotgun, or a 400 grain slug from a .416 Rigby?

I would suggest that "throw weight per second" doesn't mean a whole lot unless the caliber of the weapons is very close.

[renrich]

Both in Linnekin "80 Knots to Mach Two" and Lundstrom, "The First Team" is described in detail the overhead, high side, flat side and low side, full deflection gunnery runs the USN used in 1940 through 1945-47 when Linnekin was going through training. Linnekin is a retired USN Captain, graduate of the USNA with the class of 1944, a graduate of the USN Test Pilot School and has a degree in aeronautical engineering. Lundstrom is a highly acclaimed historian who has specialised on the Pacific War.

From Lundstrom, page 452, "In terms of actual flying hours the the Navy's aviation program in the mid 1930s probably offered the the most comprehensive training schedule of all the world's air forces." " The 1935 syllabus, for example, outlined a one year course involving 465 hours of ground school and 300 flight hours."

In 1939 the new syllabus specified , because of the enormous expansion of naval flight training, 26 weeks of flight school and 207 flight hours. The pilots practised fixed and free gunnery during their training but once they were awarded their wings they went to The Advanced Carrier Training Groups for more flying hours, approx. 70 to 150 flight hours which included some gunnery. Once assigned to a duty squadron they had to refine gunnery skills and learned practical tactics.

If one is ignorant of the writings of these authors which describe exactly the same kind of gunnery skills which were taught the USN and Marine pilots prior to and during and after WW2 then I suggest that you read up and judge for yourself how legitimate the information is. The facts are that the USN trained pilots with little or no combat experience prior to the war went out to the Pacific in a fighter judged inferior to the Zeke and more than held their own. The record suggests that other Allied fighter pilots during the same period, against the well trained IJN pilots did not do nearly as well. "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

[pbfoot]

Sounds like you seern Field of Dreams far to often "if you build it they will come " I have high regard for the "cactus Aie Force" and they did a magnificent job and do not dispute the valour shown by those men but do not believe for a moment that they were anymore capable then any other Air Power during the same period save the USSR which I admit knowing little about . None of the local libraries carry either of these books and I have no intention of buying them but as I realize that these books are your bible and no doubt a little biased just as books up here are biased , I refuse to believe that the country that produced 5 of the top 10 allied pilots during WW1 would have so quickly forgotten about aerial gunnery .

[Juha]

IMHO Lundstrom's First Team books are excellent. I own a copy of Linnekin's book but I haven't have time to read it yet.

Juha

[pinsog]

I refuse to believe that the country that produced 5 of the top 10 allied pilots during WW1 would have so quickly forgotten about aerial gunnery .[/QUOTE]

Why would that suprise you? It was 20+ years since WW1 and there had been a great depression so all of Europe including Britain was broke. By the time of the Berlin airlift, the greatest manufacturing entity the world had ever seen, the United States, had exactly 16 tanks in all of Europe. When the Korean war broke out, the U.S. army was reclaiming tanks used for decoration in front of schools and sending them to be rebuilt then shipped to Korea. We had completely disarmed in less than 5 years.

[Glider]

If you want to compare the RAF training with the USAAF training the following may be of interest
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...ww2-26347.html (RAF Pilot Training in WW2)

As for USN WW2 training it as in four stages

College 35 hours to weed out those who would never make it

Primary 11 - 14 weeks on Stearmans 90 - 100 hours

Intermediate 14 - 18 weeks on Texans 160 hours

They were then commisioned and moved to

OTU 8 weeks on a combat type 100 hours

It shold be noted that gunnery was limited in this period as they had to deck qualify and that takes time and flight hours. This may seem harsh but its the nature of carrier combat that there was normally plenty of time in the squadrons before combat was reached. Naval warefare consists of a lot of waiting followed by short bursts of activity. It was very rare for a newly qualified pilot would be posted straight to combat.

[bobbysocks]

I see "throw weight per second" of a battery of either machine guns, cannon, or both, thrown around on this forum alot. I would like to suggest that total "throw weight per second" isnt the end-all be-all of aircraft armament. Saying that 3 or 4 .303 rounds are equal to 1 .50 round because they weigh the same is ignoring how much power the large individual round has.
For instance:
1. Would you rather shoot a Tiger tank in the side from 100 yards with 17 pounds of .303, 17 pounds of .50, or a 17 pounder antitank gun?
2. Would you rather shoot an elephant in the forehead with one ounce, 435 grains, of #9 birdshot from a 20 gauge shotgun, or a 400 grain slug from a .416 Rigby?

I would suggest that "throw weight per second" doesn't mean a whole lot unless the caliber of the weapons is very close.

i agree with that wholeheartedly. it doesnt matter how much lead you spray if its not going to do much when it gets there. the larger .5 and 20mm had way better range...and if like in the case of the 109 where it was a straight line shot could be brought to bear on longer range targets. haveheard the story about an allied pilot who thought he out ran a couple 109s....just as he was feeling good about things he plane got shreaded by cannon fire.

i am not saying the 303 was a POS....the uk was very successful with it during the BoB and early part of the war. it was what they had and what they had to play with. they were plentyful in units, parts, and men qualified to service them. but we are comparing apples to bowling balls here....a debate between brit 303 vs us 30-06 is way different from either of those 2 rounds vs a 50 cal...and you would get the same answers.

they went from stearmans to AT6s without a jump to a something like a bt13? that's interesting. what was there training for advanced fighter training?

[pbfoot]

Advanced fighter trainer was Hurricane for BCATP