WW2 British .303 guns-just boring trivia.
Thread Starter
WW2 British .303 guns-just boring trivia.
Hello over there: just finished playing the UbiSoft 'Pacific Fighters' (Quick Combat).
I have only flown transports, but enjoy this amazingly graphic computer game and always am curious about machine gun bullets and 23 or 37 mm cannon rounds.
Also have the dvd "Battle of Britain", was just thinking about it and suddenly a question came to mind.
Despite the fact that the Spitfires and under-appreciated Hurricanes had either six or eight guns per plane, were the shells a good bit longer with much more gunpowder than those loaded into the Lee-Enfield rifles? Curious about the impact force of "rifle-caliber" bullets, and could not picture about six or so rifles, even if flown at high speed, able to tear into the wing tanks or engines on a Ju-88, Do-17, Me-110 or He-111 with much damage caused. But maybe many rounds had incendiaries?
Have seen gun-camera footage from a P-47 firing at ground targets-the impacts of those eight 50 caliber bullets in one small area looks like a serious explosion, despite the grainy old black and white film .
I have only flown transports, but enjoy this amazingly graphic computer game and always am curious about machine gun bullets and 23 or 37 mm cannon rounds.
Also have the dvd "Battle of Britain", was just thinking about it and suddenly a question came to mind.
Despite the fact that the Spitfires and under-appreciated Hurricanes had either six or eight guns per plane, were the shells a good bit longer with much more gunpowder than those loaded into the Lee-Enfield rifles? Curious about the impact force of "rifle-caliber" bullets, and could not picture about six or so rifles, even if flown at high speed, able to tear into the wing tanks or engines on a Ju-88, Do-17, Me-110 or He-111 with much damage caused. But maybe many rounds had incendiaries?
Have seen gun-camera footage from a P-47 firing at ground targets-the impacts of those eight 50 caliber bullets in one small area looks like a serious explosion, despite the grainy old black and white film .
Last edited by Ignition Override; 27th Oct 2005 at 06:28.
Champagne anyone...?
Despite the fact that the Spitfires and under-appreciated Hurricanes had either six or eight guns per plane, were the shells a good bit longer with much more gunpowder than those loaded into the Lee-Enfield rifles? Was wondering about the impact force of "rifle-caliber" bullets, and could not picture about six or so rifles, even if flown at high speed, able to tear into the wing tanks or engines on a Ju-88, Do-17, Me-110 or He-111 with much damage caused. But maybe many rounds had incendiaries?
The ammunition used for these Colt manufactured Browning MG’s was identical to the standard issue .303 ammo used in the Lee-Enfield rifles, Bren and Lewis LMG’s and Vickers MG’s.
Hi there
With regard to the .0303s and other guns;just a few points.
The .303 round fired in the aircraft used some DeWilde incendiary rounds,which were not used in ground-fired weapons.Some .303 rounds are not interchangeable between firearms,eg; the Lee Enfield used a .303 ball round which could be fired in the Bren but had a lower powder charge than the official Bren round,the Ball Mk VIIZ,which could not physically be loaded into the Enfield rifle,because the cartridge was slightly different. Also, it was a fact that many German bombers limped home,despite having been riddled with .303. The weight of fire is what really matters and the German combination of 7.92 (fired at a faster rate than the British guns) and the 20mm Oerlikon shells was much more effective. Rifle-calibre bullets punch small holes in aircraft and often fail to penetrate even light armour or destroy system piping, structures and engines,whereas it takes very few cannon rounds to wreck an aircraft. Quite why the designers didn't go for the Browning 0.5-inch,even when the Belgians were using them in their Hurricanes,is beyond me. The fact that the Germans had a working cannon arrangement, along with the French, is a black mark against the British designers,for not having such for their pilots. Conversely, all sides were guilty of allowing their bombers to go out against their enemies,with only rifle-calibre guns,often in single mounts particularly the Blenheim, the early Ju88,etc.
regards
TDD
With regard to the .0303s and other guns;just a few points.
The .303 round fired in the aircraft used some DeWilde incendiary rounds,which were not used in ground-fired weapons.Some .303 rounds are not interchangeable between firearms,eg; the Lee Enfield used a .303 ball round which could be fired in the Bren but had a lower powder charge than the official Bren round,the Ball Mk VIIZ,which could not physically be loaded into the Enfield rifle,because the cartridge was slightly different. Also, it was a fact that many German bombers limped home,despite having been riddled with .303. The weight of fire is what really matters and the German combination of 7.92 (fired at a faster rate than the British guns) and the 20mm Oerlikon shells was much more effective. Rifle-calibre bullets punch small holes in aircraft and often fail to penetrate even light armour or destroy system piping, structures and engines,whereas it takes very few cannon rounds to wreck an aircraft. Quite why the designers didn't go for the Browning 0.5-inch,even when the Belgians were using them in their Hurricanes,is beyond me. The fact that the Germans had a working cannon arrangement, along with the French, is a black mark against the British designers,for not having such for their pilots. Conversely, all sides were guilty of allowing their bombers to go out against their enemies,with only rifle-calibre guns,often in single mounts particularly the Blenheim, the early Ju88,etc.
regards
TDD
Combine Operations
Join Date: May 2005
Location: U.K.
Posts: 687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It needed many more hits with bullets to shoot down an aircraft than it did with cannon shells. I believe cannon eventually replaced the machine guns, at least on the Spitfire.
An excellent reference book on these aircraft, and those on the other side, is "Fighter", by Len Deighton.
An excellent reference book on these aircraft, and those on the other side, is "Fighter", by Len Deighton.
And the Hunter's 4 x 30mm Aden cannons put more bang into the target than the Phantom's much-vaunted 20mm Vulcan cannon fired for the same length of time!
It must be true - a QWI told me!
It must be true - a QWI told me!
I understand that Douglas Bader was very much against the use of cannon during the BoB. He reckoned that it would encourage pilots to shoot from longer range, and miss, instead of getting in close as you had to with the Brownings.
I'matightbastard
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That article only briefly mentions harmonisation.
Eight guns you may have and cannons not, but if they are all directed to the same point in space, then their efficiency is improved dramatically
Eight guns you may have and cannons not, but if they are all directed to the same point in space, then their efficiency is improved dramatically
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you'll find that the 303 VIIz is dimensionally identical to the conventional ball rounds, fitting Lee Enfield, BREN etc. it WAS a higher power loading and marked ( with a black tip, and painted primer canneleur ? from memory ) not for use in the No 4 etc, an ‘Air service’ round and commonly used in the water cooled Vickers, along with the later VIIIz, an indirect fire round.
I wouldn’t dismiss these rifle calibre rounds too casually, remember eight of them, at 1200 rpm each, especially with the guns synchronized to 250 – 300 yds, the concentration of fire at closer ranges would do an awful lot of damage.
PA-28
I wouldn’t dismiss these rifle calibre rounds too casually, remember eight of them, at 1200 rpm each, especially with the guns synchronized to 250 – 300 yds, the concentration of fire at closer ranges would do an awful lot of damage.
PA-28
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite why the designers didn't go for the Browning 0.5-inch,even when the Belgians were using them in their Hurricanes,is beyond me.
"Quite why the designers didn't go for the Browning 0.5-inch,even when the Belgians were using them in their Hurricanes,is beyond me".
Good point. And quite why the UK never went for his designs until long after he died (1926 I think) is one of life's enduring mysteries. Even then, it was almost by default due to his long association with Fabrique Nationale des Armes de Guerre (have I got that right?). Having said that, most 20th century small arms work on his principle of delayed blowback. Everything else is cosmetics/ergonomics. I read once that the US Army trials plan for their "LMG" in the early 1900s called for a 10,000 round demo and they would assess stoppages. Browning himself spent a day firing over 20,000 rounds from one BAR, then in darkness field-stripped it, cleaned it, assembled it and carried on firing. No stoppages. (A hundred years later, can the SA80/LSW do that?). The Bren was good (30 years later), but the first thing you had to master was the Immediate Action due to continuous stoppages. (Gun stops, cock gun, mag off etc). The only criticism of any of his designs was the "Hi-Power 9mm" (around 1924 when he was getting on a bit) and still in service in the UK. The double action was and still is "an ingenious solution to a non-existent problem". But he was an engineer, not a soldier. And a very fine one.
Good point. And quite why the UK never went for his designs until long after he died (1926 I think) is one of life's enduring mysteries. Even then, it was almost by default due to his long association with Fabrique Nationale des Armes de Guerre (have I got that right?). Having said that, most 20th century small arms work on his principle of delayed blowback. Everything else is cosmetics/ergonomics. I read once that the US Army trials plan for their "LMG" in the early 1900s called for a 10,000 round demo and they would assess stoppages. Browning himself spent a day firing over 20,000 rounds from one BAR, then in darkness field-stripped it, cleaned it, assembled it and carried on firing. No stoppages. (A hundred years later, can the SA80/LSW do that?). The Bren was good (30 years later), but the first thing you had to master was the Immediate Action due to continuous stoppages. (Gun stops, cock gun, mag off etc). The only criticism of any of his designs was the "Hi-Power 9mm" (around 1924 when he was getting on a bit) and still in service in the UK. The double action was and still is "an ingenious solution to a non-existent problem". But he was an engineer, not a soldier. And a very fine one.
PA-28
Interested to know where you get a cyclic rate of 1200rpm, I suspect that to be a bit generous. Current day GPMG (piston operated) is 650-900 dependendant on gas regulator setting with an optimum of 750 rpm. The main limitation is the spring being able to fully compress under the the effect of the gasses far enough rearwards to eject the spent round and exert itself again with enough force to collect the next round to feed into the breech and strike the firing pin hard enough to cause the round to expend. This is especially prevelant using a delayed action blowback theory as I understand the .303 Browning to be. Curent Rifle and LSW (locking spline piston delayed blowback) also is around the 750rpm figure and even mechanical (chain) gun is still around the 625 rpm (Apache, although I fully realise that 30mm ammunition is far harder to shift around). To increase the cyclic rate, you would need to introduce more barrels (Dillon mini-gun M134) or start getting really clever with caseless rounds and computer generated firing sequences.
What I do not know is this.....When a BoB Pilot operated the trigger, did all 6/8 guns fire at the same time or was there a delay in the electrical circuit introduced to each gun. If this was the case, a collective cyclic rate of all 6/8 guns of 1200rpm would be believable. As has been said before, the collective effect of lots of .303 is greater than the single effect of a higher calibre weapon. I am sure a very clever man in the Wartime RAF mathematically proved this.
Interested to know where you get a cyclic rate of 1200rpm, I suspect that to be a bit generous. Current day GPMG (piston operated) is 650-900 dependendant on gas regulator setting with an optimum of 750 rpm. The main limitation is the spring being able to fully compress under the the effect of the gasses far enough rearwards to eject the spent round and exert itself again with enough force to collect the next round to feed into the breech and strike the firing pin hard enough to cause the round to expend. This is especially prevelant using a delayed action blowback theory as I understand the .303 Browning to be. Curent Rifle and LSW (locking spline piston delayed blowback) also is around the 750rpm figure and even mechanical (chain) gun is still around the 625 rpm (Apache, although I fully realise that 30mm ammunition is far harder to shift around). To increase the cyclic rate, you would need to introduce more barrels (Dillon mini-gun M134) or start getting really clever with caseless rounds and computer generated firing sequences.
What I do not know is this.....When a BoB Pilot operated the trigger, did all 6/8 guns fire at the same time or was there a delay in the electrical circuit introduced to each gun. If this was the case, a collective cyclic rate of all 6/8 guns of 1200rpm would be believable. As has been said before, the collective effect of lots of .303 is greater than the single effect of a higher calibre weapon. I am sure a very clever man in the Wartime RAF mathematically proved this.
Thread Starter
Thanks a bunch for the info. I saw a wonderful comparison, (on the US "History Channel"?) using a static test, whereby several rounds fired from a Spitfire-type .303 into whatever fuselage, then a few shells from a cannon of an Me-109. The .303s might have been fired as single shots, and this must have been unrealistic, but because of the very slow rate, there was no comparison, unless, as stated by you all, the multiple .303 rounds at a normal rate of fire converged at the right distance. The purpose was to check results up close with the television camera, and the film quality was good.
Hell, as for shooting REAL guns, nowadays, so much land has been bought up around this city and the countryside (real estate speculators), that there is no place outside where you can shoot a basic .22 rifle at a cantaloupe or orange floating down a small river
. Inside rifle ranges, we can choose between various, exciting, paper targets (but can rent a few pistols in there, and cheap) 
.
Some Soviet rounds (23mm?) were fired, on a very different program, from whatever type of ground or aircraft gun at a 90 degree angle into the outside skin, just below the canopy of a Soviet Su-25 "Frogfoot". What a superb flying machine! The rounds were fired from about 20 feet away, and possibly due to the armour around the c0ckp1t, the bursts looked something like a very tiny paper bag of flour thrown against a brick wall. I wish we could drop some (lots) inflight
. I could not see from the faded old Soviet film that there were any metal fragments.
Hell, as for shooting REAL guns, nowadays, so much land has been bought up around this city and the countryside (real estate speculators), that there is no place outside where you can shoot a basic .22 rifle at a cantaloupe or orange floating down a small river
. Inside rifle ranges, we can choose between various, exciting, paper targets (but can rent a few pistols in there, and cheap) .Some Soviet rounds (23mm?) were fired, on a very different program, from whatever type of ground or aircraft gun at a 90 degree angle into the outside skin, just below the canopy of a Soviet Su-25 "Frogfoot". What a superb flying machine! The rounds were fired from about 20 feet away, and possibly due to the armour around the c0ckp1t, the bursts looked something like a very tiny paper bag of flour thrown against a brick wall. I wish we could drop some (lots) inflight
. I could not see from the faded old Soviet film that there were any metal fragments.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 24th Oct 2005 at 06:43.
Bee Beaumont's autobiography "Flying to the limits" contains a discussion of the effects of harmonisation.
Would it surprise modern front line pilots to learn that, even in WW2, ministry folks / theorists thought that adjusting the machine gun pattern to spread rounds across a large area was more effective than that proven by the pilots, which was to harmonise on a point in space and thereby improve the chances of a kill ?
Would it surprise modern front line pilots to learn that, even in WW2, ministry folks / theorists thought that adjusting the machine gun pattern to spread rounds across a large area was more effective than that proven by the pilots, which was to harmonise on a point in space and thereby improve the chances of a kill ?
Quote - "The Hi-Power 9mm" (around 1924 when he was getting on a bit) and still in service in the UK. The double action was and still is "an ingenious solution to a non-existent problem"
-----------------------------------------------------
The Browning Hi-Power, as issued during the war, is not double-action. First round must be cocked then all the rest are automatic.
FN much later, around the 80's I think, did revamp it to double-action but I don't think it was a commercial success.
-----------------------------------------------------
The Browning Hi-Power, as issued during the war, is not double-action. First round must be cocked then all the rest are automatic.
FN much later, around the 80's I think, did revamp it to double-action but I don't think it was a commercial success.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sloppy Link :-
I’ve had a chance to check up on some sources , including Len Deightons excellent ‘Fighter’, it looks like 1200 per minute per gun is correct, which as you point out is a fair bit higher than the 160 rps(econd) quoted in the earlier link in this thread. Guns optimised for the air combat role will not necessarily mimic those for the ground combat role, The .303 Browning M2 was hoping to put as many rounds into a target in the shortest possible time, the manual deflection shooting required at the time being a skill of the highest order. 300 rounds per gun also must have meant there would have been little chance to ‘walk’ tracer onto a target, a series of short , in fact very short bursts., with only 15 seconds of fire engaging four of five targets, and shooting them down, on a single sortie must have been close to the then prevailing limits. Hence the move to cannon rounds, if a single projectile could bring down the target , by virtue of its explosive capability then the attractions would have been obvious. Having said that 20 mm (Hispano and Oerliken) seems to be about as small a calibre as ammunition manufacturing can produce a viable explosive cannon round, and reliability issues plagued the early cannon deployments.
I’m sure all guns fired simultaneously, this link to a copy of the Pilots Notes Spitfire IIA details no selector switches, although I believe there were ammunition gauges provided per gun.
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Im...pit2Manual.pdf
Just to set things straight the .303 vii and viiz loadings were standard issue across all weapons including No 4 BREN etc., although you probably wouldn’t want to run it through a Lee Metford too often.
Clearly by the end of hostilities the Allied armaments industry wasn’t entirely satisfied with the performance of the Hispanos etc, the post war development of the Mauser MG213C revolver cannon design lead to the ADEN / DEFA series, and a move to 30 mm calibre yields a much more effective terminal effect. The introduction of radar gun laying and HUDs allow much more accurate placement of the relatively heavier and potentially slower moving projectiles. If you compare the case capacities of the 30mm ADEN and the ‘milk bottle’ rounds from the GAU-8 you can clearly see which designer was going for armour piercing effect, velocity squared, 750 m/s against 1000+ m/s. ( Having said that a 303 is ‘only’ 750 m/s)
Nerd mode off.
I’ve had a chance to check up on some sources , including Len Deightons excellent ‘Fighter’, it looks like 1200 per minute per gun is correct, which as you point out is a fair bit higher than the 160 rps(econd) quoted in the earlier link in this thread. Guns optimised for the air combat role will not necessarily mimic those for the ground combat role, The .303 Browning M2 was hoping to put as many rounds into a target in the shortest possible time, the manual deflection shooting required at the time being a skill of the highest order. 300 rounds per gun also must have meant there would have been little chance to ‘walk’ tracer onto a target, a series of short , in fact very short bursts., with only 15 seconds of fire engaging four of five targets, and shooting them down, on a single sortie must have been close to the then prevailing limits. Hence the move to cannon rounds, if a single projectile could bring down the target , by virtue of its explosive capability then the attractions would have been obvious. Having said that 20 mm (Hispano and Oerliken) seems to be about as small a calibre as ammunition manufacturing can produce a viable explosive cannon round, and reliability issues plagued the early cannon deployments.
I’m sure all guns fired simultaneously, this link to a copy of the Pilots Notes Spitfire IIA details no selector switches, although I believe there were ammunition gauges provided per gun.
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Im...pit2Manual.pdf
Just to set things straight the .303 vii and viiz loadings were standard issue across all weapons including No 4 BREN etc., although you probably wouldn’t want to run it through a Lee Metford too often.
Clearly by the end of hostilities the Allied armaments industry wasn’t entirely satisfied with the performance of the Hispanos etc, the post war development of the Mauser MG213C revolver cannon design lead to the ADEN / DEFA series, and a move to 30 mm calibre yields a much more effective terminal effect. The introduction of radar gun laying and HUDs allow much more accurate placement of the relatively heavier and potentially slower moving projectiles. If you compare the case capacities of the 30mm ADEN and the ‘milk bottle’ rounds from the GAU-8 you can clearly see which designer was going for armour piercing effect, velocity squared, 750 m/s against 1000+ m/s. ( Having said that a 303 is ‘only’ 750 m/s)
Nerd mode off.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Somerset
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify the different marks of .303 ammunition. PA28 is correct, Mk VII and Mk VIIz were interchangeable, the difference between them was that the former was loaded with cordite as a propellant, the latter with a nitrocellulose-based powder (which is what the "z" suffix means). During WW2, most British-manufactured ammo was Mk VII, the USA supplied Mk VIIz which was issued to the RAF (amongst others). The Mk VIIIz was a special long-range round for the Vickers MMG. It was no more "powerful" than the MkVII, but had a boat-tailed bullet which had superior ballistic performance - giving an effective range of over 4,000 yards. Mk VIIIz can be used in rifles, and in fact some of the surplus ammo available in the UK not long ago was Yugoslavian MkVIIIz. I have never put any through a rifle, but did have the privilege of putting 100 rounds of it through a Vickers in 2002.
As for Spitfire/Hurricane armament - I thought the cyclic rate was nearer 1000 per min, which was not uncommon for an a/c gun; the Vickers K observers' gun had a cyclic rate of 1050. The decision to equip fighters with 8 guns was arrived at based on a mixture of assumptions and simple mathematics. It was estimated in the 1930s that with the speed of modern aircraft a fighter would only be able to hold an enemy aircraft in its sights for a couple of seconds (I forget the exact figure). It had been calculated that it would take a certain number of bullets to cause fatal damage to a bomber. Using these numbers plus the known rate of fire of the gun it was possible to calculate the number of guns that would be required for fighters to shoot down bombers.
OK, I'll put away my anorak now.
As for Spitfire/Hurricane armament - I thought the cyclic rate was nearer 1000 per min, which was not uncommon for an a/c gun; the Vickers K observers' gun had a cyclic rate of 1050. The decision to equip fighters with 8 guns was arrived at based on a mixture of assumptions and simple mathematics. It was estimated in the 1930s that with the speed of modern aircraft a fighter would only be able to hold an enemy aircraft in its sights for a couple of seconds (I forget the exact figure). It had been calculated that it would take a certain number of bullets to cause fatal damage to a bomber. Using these numbers plus the known rate of fire of the gun it was possible to calculate the number of guns that would be required for fighters to shoot down bombers.
OK, I'll put away my anorak now.