# British bomber weapons.



## elmilitaro (May 18, 2005)

Why did almost all Brirish Bombers have .303 caliber machine guns instead of the .50 caliber machine gun on U.S. Bombers.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 18, 2005)

Because the Brits had some sort of .303 fetish I guess


----------



## trackend (May 18, 2005)

standardisation of ammunition manufacture


----------



## BombTaxi (May 18, 2005)

Another reason was that there was no need for a larger calibre on night bombers. It was unlikely that a gunner would see an enemy nightfighter, and even if he did, he would only get a fleeting burst. So there was no point putting bigger guns in, as they would see little use. And like trackend said, it also made life easier for the RAF in terms of munitions mangement.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 19, 2005)

yes when our bombers were being designed, .50cals were rare but we had enough .303s and ammo to supply the army several times over, we had always used the .303 and we don't like change, she was a good weapon, so why bother??


----------



## elmilitaro (May 24, 2005)

But wouldn't the .50 caliber pack a more powerful punch than the .303 caliber.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 25, 2005)

The punch of the defensive armament on heavy bombers was of relatively little import. In a nightfighting situation, it was far more likely that a gunner wouldnt hit a nightfighter, even if he saw it and got a chance to open fire on it. Rather, his fire would hopefully encourage the nightfighter to break off it's attack. So, there was little point upgrading the weapons. Such an upgrade would also have necessitated a massive field replacement scheme to replace turrets on all aircraft already operational...and new these new mounts would have to be designed, tested and manufactured and installed...the RAF simply didnt have the time, resources, or inclination to do so.


----------



## mosquitoman (May 25, 2005)

Some Lancasters got Martin turrets with 2x .50s


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 25, 2005)

yes very late in the war, and they were plagued with problems, many crews hated them and prefered the .303s, i mean even the oil that was supposed to keep the .50cals working froze, even at 20,000ft


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Aug 15, 2005)

Don't forget the .303 fired much faster! 1k rpm vs 600 IIRC?


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Aug 22, 2005)

The problem with oil freezing was almost certainly a maintenance problem. They were likely over oiled. In Paul Tibbets' book Return of the Enola Gay, he mentions that early on they had a lot of problems with crews oiling way too much. His instructions were to clean the guns thoroughly using hot soapy water with a hot water rinse. Upon drying they were instructed to very lightly oil everything with a barely oiled rag or even their own hands which they lightly oiled. I remember him stating to add just enough oil for the metal to slightly blue. From then on out he states that gun seizures were a thing of the past!


----------



## Glider (Aug 23, 2005)

I think its also worht mentioning that the ranges involved in night fighting were very short and at that range the 303 could still do a lot of damage.

.50 would have been best for day fighting where ranges were longer.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Aug 23, 2005)

Bang on there Glider, I've read a bit on this out of interest and yes, for nightfighting the 303 had more than enough power/range.

The only time I've heard of gunners being outranged was with a 50cal in daylight!

The Ju290/390 was best there.

Also the point I made about 'spray and pray' made it easier for a 303 to actually hit a target.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 23, 2005)

The other side of things is that at a mile the .303 lost a larger percentage of its energy than a .50 making it a little less dangerous. In daylite you can see the other aircraft in your formation and avoid shooting at them. At night you couldn't see the other aircraft in your formation and the reduced range/effectiveness would help with friendly fire situations a little.

wmaxt


----------



## Glider (Aug 23, 2005)

WM. I don't want to dissapoint you but at night only a fool would try flying in a formation at night, the accident rate would be huge.
Also a 303 firing at a mile would be lucky to penetrate the skin of an aircraft let alone do any damage. The ranges I had in mind would be around 50 to 100 yards at night.


----------



## Gemhorse (Aug 31, 2005)

Interesting....it's always niggled me about Bomber Command's lengthy use of the .303's, so I've dug into some books and come-up with these historic details........

First of all, the British hydraulic turret was one of the most outstanding design successes of the bomber war, although tragically it was fitted with the quite inadequate .303's... The last hopes of equipping Bomber Command with .5's, as C-in-C Harris had demanded for so long, vanished when America entered the War and her own needs eclipsed British hopes of .5 imports from American factories...

Early production batches of the Browning .303 guns were supplied from America until BSA and Vickers got licence-production going, these guns being officially adopted as standard bomber armament in 1937, mainly because of their rapid rate of fire...

During May 1944, mention in Roy Chadwick's book indicates they were testing a Lancaster III with a special Bristol turret mounting two 20mm cannons. Successful handling and gun trials resulted in orders for 250 designated Lancaster IV's, which would be built by Vickers-Armstrong. In turn that led to further trials with remotely controlled 20mm cannons in dorsal and ventral barbettes...I believe all this development went into the Avro Lincoln in view of anticipated PTO duties with the 'Tiger Force....

In 1944, some Lancasters were belatedly fitted with Rose twin .5 rear turrets, and they were large enough to house two gunners!....
1 Group were the main users.... 
A handful of Lancasters were even equipped with gun-laying radar about this time......

Of all my reading though, it would be a mistake to believe the .303's were useless in the bombers; they were deadly to nightfighters, particuarly within the 600 yd range when the 'corkscrew' manoeuvre was initiated. The gunners' alertness was the successful prerequisite to survival on operations...
Constant weaving to allow them to see as much around them also helped, but with the Luftwaffe's introduction of ''schrage muzik', most aircrew [that survived] weren't even aware until after the War that the Germans were employing this method of creeping underneath to blast them with the upward-firing cannons......

Gemhorse


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 2, 2005)

The .303's were lethal, no doubt, I have info on planes destroyed by .303's somewhere...

The Shrage Musik wouldn't be a problem to a B17's waist gun, but then you'd have no radar, which would you prefer?

Does anyone have info on rifle-calibre weapons shooting down planes?

In particular the MG34/MG42.


----------



## Glider (Sep 3, 2005)

Good comments Gem. 
I believe that we also had a version of the ROSE turret that had its own tracking but we were not allowed to use it in case the technology fell into German hands. If this is trye (and I admit to finding it difficult to back this up) then it could have saved a lot of lives.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 3, 2005)

Great Aircraft of WW2 has an entire section on this subject, very good and inexpensive book.


----------



## elmilitaro (Sep 7, 2005)

Where can you find it at , because I'm interested in it by the way you write it it must have preety good information.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 10, 2005)

It is great, but I can't find it on the 'net.

I'll get the ISBN No shall I?


Its available in handbook form or large.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 11, 2005)

Glider said:


> WM. I don't want to dissapoint you but at night only a fool would try flying in a formation at night, the accident rate would be huge.
> Also a 303 firing at a mile would be lucky to penetrate the skin of an aircraft let alone do any damage. The ranges I had in mind would be around 50 to 100 yards at night.



Are you really telling me they sent 1,000 planes 1 at a time? Some type of formations were normal wheather in weather, fog, or at night. I'm not talking daylite style formations, but at a minimum they were in squadron groupings. Most if not all will be in range of the .50 cal wepons.

That was EXACTLY my point. A .50 will still inflict considerable damage at a mile. 

wmaxt


----------



## Glider (Sep 11, 2005)

WM They didn't fly formations at night. The planes were given a route and a flight-plan to ensure that the maximum number of aircraft were over the target at roughly the same time to try and swamp the defences but they didn't fly formation. 
This is why you hear about bombers being in the bomber stream, and the importance of the night fighters getting into the Bomber Stream. When our countermeasures were effective in stopping the ground radars vectoring the fighters onto individual fighters, Ground control tried to vector the fighters into the stream so they could use their own radars to find the bombers.
If it was a very large raid then they would be timed to arrive in waves or groups but it wasn't in formation. The number crunchers worked out the chances of mid air collisions and found then to be acceptably low, and people took their chances. Crude I agree, but effective and it worked.

Also the point about a .50 at a mile is missing the argument. An aircraft gunner will not see another plane at night at anything like a mile so the damage it would cause at that distance is irrelevant. Camouflaged planes, flying at night, over blacked out countryside, often on moon free nights with cloud around simply will not see each other at a mile unless there were exceptional circumstances.

A gunner was lucky to see an opposing fighter at anything over 100 yards and at that range there is a good argument for saying that the 303 was as useful as the .50. In fact, a number of people would probably say that a gunner was lucky to see a fighter at night at any range. This is why I was talking of ranges of 50 to 100 yards.

Hope this helps


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 12, 2005)

Glider said:


> WM They didn't fly formations at night. The planes were given a route and a flight-plan to ensure that the maximum number of aircraft were over the target at roughly the same time to try and swamp the defences but they didn't fly formation.
> This is why you hear about bombers being in the bomber stream, and the importance of the night fighters getting into the Bomber Stream. When our countermeasures were effective in stopping the ground radars vectoring the fighters onto individual fighters, Ground control tried to vector the fighters into the stream so they could use their own radars to find the bombers.
> If it was a very large raid then they would be timed to arrive in waves or groups but it wasn't in formation. The number crunchers worked out the chances of mid air collisions and found then to be acceptably low, and people took their chances. Crude I agree, but effective and it worked.
> 
> ...



I can't say I'm the best versed in Brittish nite tactics but every account I've read has mentioned a formation and or visual sightings of other aircraft in their group. 

Wheather you call it a groupe or a formation its the same thing. I was never even hinting at a defensive box type formation ( even daylite raids in defensive boxes were called "bomber streams") but having a groupe within a mile radius is still a formation and there is no other way to coordinate 1,000 aircraft to a single target and back to 30 bases+/-. I know the AAF flew night formations as far as Japan, that's more than 4,000mi.

My point is that yes 50/100 yards is the effective AIMING range the bullet flies further. At night you can't see friendlies so the .50 would be a killer to other aircraft in the Groupe.

wmaxt


----------



## Glider (Sep 12, 2005)

WM. We will have to differ. I am very confident about the approach to organising a night bombing operation during WW2, which I explained in my previous posting and it didn't involve flying in formation. 
The crews were given the course to follow, hights, times over the targets and various checkpoints. The crews made their own flightplans based on the information given at the briefing, but once they were in the air, they were on their own.

As for the range my point is clear in that you wouldn't see another plane and wouldn't know if it was there or not. If you did see another bomber you still wouldn't know which unit it came from, a Lancaster outline from one unit is the same outline as any other unit.
The argument in the RAF for rearming the Bombers with .50 was more to do with the extra penetration of the .50 compared to the .303 theoretically increasing the chances of shooting down the Nightfighter. As for hitting other friendly planes, it would be lousy rotten luck if it happened to you. Its still a big sky with a lot of space. Even if it did, even a Lanc took a number of hits from the 30mm to go down. You would be really unlucky if a stray .50 did any serious damage.


----------



## Erich (Sep 12, 2005)

Glider I am not sure in what book this is in but Prices ? or some other there is a profile view of the RAF bomber formation shall we call it in flight with Mossie nf's and jammers also in flight above and behind. what is given is distances in the amount of feet or ? between the bombers as well as the RAF nf's. Are you familiar with this diagram ??
this may help to clarify

E ~


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 13, 2005)

Sorry for interrupting.

Here you are elmilitaro:

ISBN 1-86147-047-9


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 13, 2005)

Erich said:


> Glider I am not sure in what book this is in but Prices ? or some other there is a profile view of the RAF bomber formation shall we call it in flight with Mossie nf's and jammers also in flight above and behind. what is given is distances in the amount of feet or ? between the bombers as well as the RAF nf's. Are you familiar with this diagram ??
> this may help to clarify
> 
> E ~



Thanks Eric, but I think he may just be spoofing me to see how far I'll go with this.  

wmaxt


----------



## Erich (Sep 13, 2005)

friend, personally I want a pic or scan of that profile. I've seen it before and it indicates the formation of heavies with the Mossies....I'm still looking

E `


----------



## Glider (Sep 13, 2005)

I don't go in for spoofing. If I am incorrect I will be more than happy to acknowledge the fact as everyone learns on this site. I have done in the past and will no doubt do so again, in this or another thread.
The crux of the debate is this. To fly in formation you need in my mind to know where the other planes are in the formation. The position I have is that at night over occupied land which is blacked out, on a night without a moon you cannot see the other planes. If you cannot see the other planes then you cannot be in formation. If someone can explain how you can fly in formation, without radar, without visibility of the other aircraft, without accurate navigation aids such as exist today, plus cloud, with planes of different performance then I will happily agree. But without that explanation, then flying in formation is simply not possible. 

With that truth in mind, all the planners could do as per the previous post, is to give the navigators the route, heights, windspeeds, timings and other navigational data to get them to the target and other way ponts at the time and altitude you want them to be there. As a result the planners know roughly where the bombers SHOULD be at a particular time and plan the support around that assumption.

As for the british escorting nightfighters. I have just finished reading the book Nightfighter where the planning of the nightfighter support is described and it matches the above.
The nightfighters were given patrol points along the route of the Bomber Stream to try and stop the German nightfighters from getting into the stream. As you would expect special attention was given to the German Beacons where the German fighters may gather and airfields. The orders were very clear, that the patrol areas were to be maintained if at all possible as to leave them would leave gaps in the cover. After a time they could free range presumably once the stream had past. 
I haven't seen the diagram or profile so cannot comment, but my sources are sound and logical.

I suspect that the debate is about the definition of formation. As explained above, in my view for aircraft to be in a formation they have to be able to see the other planes in the formation. To fly at a set height on a course that has been given, is in my mind at least, is not to fly in a formation, it is to fly in a stream. 

Feel free to comment, but please don't just accuse me of just spoofing. The points are logical and laid out.


----------



## Erich (Sep 14, 2005)

do you have "confound and destroy", Glider ? i do believe that the pic/profile is in that particular volume. Sadly I do not own a copy.........I should. will keep looking


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 14, 2005)

Glider, If I steped on your toes, I appoligize.

My understanding of the definition of a formation includes a group of aircraft (more than 1) from the same point of origin to the same destination on the same basic route, speed and roughly the same altitude. Lastly there is some order to their flying positions in relation to other aircraft in the group.

Two fighters in a combat spread that could be up to a mile is still a formation.

A group or a wave is still an ordered assembly of aircraft, therefor a formation. When its not ordered it is usualy reffered to as a Gaggle.

A bomber stream is defined as a number (greater than one) of groups/waves following the roughly the same path to a given target. B-17/B-24 in tight formations but many formations following eachother are also called bomber streams because they would fly by a single point for an hour or more.

At night in WWII the technical knowledge and equipment (transponders) that could handle 1,000+ individual planes did not exist. Another thing is that to bomb a target, a bomber must drop it's load every 8 seconds to be done in 3.5 hours. The accounts I've read mention exaust flames, shadows etc to identify aircraft in the group. Without groupings to the planes its an impossible situation to manage.

I'd like to see Eric's diagram it will be interesting as I have nothing solid to back ststements up, just stuff I've read and no longer have access to.

wmaxt


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 15, 2005)

Glider said:


> WM. We will have to differ. I am very confident about the approach to organising a night bombing operation during WW2, which I explained in my previous posting and it didn't involve flying in formation.



While I think there was more than individual missions, my research indicates that they were more individual than I could imagine. The pressure must have been enormous knowing someone else had to be in the same place you were every 8 seconds or so.  

wmaxt


----------

