British .303 vs 50 Cal M2

[swampyankee]

Other than Lend Lease, the RAF seems to have kept the 20mm or 303 to the end of the War. Was the M2 ever consider for the later Hawker fighters?

The RAF looked at 0.5 in MG before WWII, but found the advantages of this bore insufficient compensation for heavier weight and lower rate of fire (RAFHS 08). I suspect this similar to at least part of the reason for the USAAF staying with the 0.5 in until it was found insufficient during Korea: the 0.5 in was successful in WWII, and the 20 mm was heavier with a lower rate of fire. No doubt, the failure of US industry to make the 20 mm aircraft gun successfully was a further discouragement.

 

[fastmongrel]

Theres also the fact that many RAF pilots in 1940 could have been flying aircraft armed with Laser equipped Sharks and they still wouldnt have shot anything down.

 

[Shortround6]

We have been over this more than once. By Korea the .50 cal was the M-3 and firing at 1200rpm or close. A roughly 50% increase over the mid to late war guns and a 100 % increase over the pre-war guns. The main round had also changed from the M8API to the M-23 Incendiary'

The M-23 was a much lighter bullet with a MV of 3400fps and carried 5.8 grams of incendiary material compared to the 2.2 grams in the M2 incediary and the 1 gram in the M8 API.

It still wasn't enough but the AIr Force did NOT go into Korea with WW II armament thinking it was good enough.

 

[swampyankee]

We have been over this more than once. By Korea the .50 cal was the M-3 and firing at 1200rpm or close. A roughly 50% increase over the mid to late war guns and a 100 % increase over the pre-war guns. The main round had also changed from the M8API to the M-23 Incendiary'

The M-23 was a much lighter bullet with a MV of 3400fps and carried 5.8 grams of incendiary material compared to the 2.2 grams in the M2 incediary and the 1 gram in the M8 API.

It still wasn't enough but the AIr Force did NOT go into Korea with WW II armament thinking it was good enough.

But they did go into Korea with 0.5 in guns, albeit improved, on the basis they'd be good enough, even though everyone else had concluded they weren't

 

[swampyankee]

Theres also the fact that many RAF pilots in 1940 could have been flying aircraft armed with Laser equipped Sharks and they still wouldnt have shot anything down.

And those flying with the German, Japanese, American, etc. air forces.

 

[buffnut453]

I thought the Germans actually developed laser-equipped sharks...and they were absolute world-beaters. They could fly for 12,000 miles on a thimble-full of the distilled fat left over from cooking bratwurst. The lasers were gyro-stabilized and calculated environmental offsets to a level that was an order of magnitude better than the Norden bomb sight...plus they could burn through any armour AND used skin-friction dielectric cells to generate the necessary power, thus enabling the equipment to be installed in an aircraft.

In fact, the only thing in the German inventory that was better than the laser-equipped sharks was the Fw-187.

Yeah..I know. Coat time. AGAIN!!!

 

[swampyankee]

I thought the Germans actually developed laser-equipped sharks...and they were absolute world-beaters. They could fly for 12,000 miles on a thimble-full of the distilled fat left over from cooking bratwurst. The lasers were gyro-stabilized and calculated environmental offsets to a level that was an order of magnitude better than the Norden bomb sight...plus they could burn through any armour AND used skin-friction dielectric cells to generate the necessary power, thus enabling the equipment to be installed in an aircraft.

In fact, the only thing in the German inventory that was better than the laser-equipped sharks was the Fw-187.

Yeah..I know. Coat time. AGAIN!!!

Their experten were so good, they only needed one shot to shoot down two airplanes (three on the Eastern Front)

 

[J.A.W.]

We have been over this more than once. By Korea the .50 cal was the M-3 and firing at 1200rpm or close. A roughly 50% increase over the mid to late war guns and a 100 % increase over the pre-war guns. The main round had also changed from the M8API to the M-23 Incendiary'

The M-23 was a much lighter bullet with a MV of 3400fps and carried 5.8 grams of incendiary material compared to the 2.2 grams in the M2 incediary and the 1 gram in the M8 API.

It still wasn't enough but the AIr Force did NOT go into Korea with WW II armament thinking it was good enough.

Were these upgraded 50cal HMG's only fitted to the gleaming new F-86's or was there a retro-fit program
in-theatre to extend this advantage - to the older types doing A2G, as well?

I recall reading memoire by dual WW 2/Korea US fighter pilots where they'd remarked on both the number of rounds
the improved 6-gun fit could project, & the ++ amount of hits the more robustly constucted fighter-jet MiGs, took to down.

 

[parsifal]

I found this which may be of interst:

Sorting Out the "E" – American Armament for the Spitfire Mk. IX/XVI — Variants & Technology | Spitfire Mk. IX | Spitfire Mk. XVI

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Excellent article, thank you!
Makes me wonder though, was the Mk.5 Hispano ever fit to the Spitfire? Seems like it would have made more sense than fitting M2 machine guns in the cannon bay.

 

[Walrus]

Theres also the fact that many RAF pilots in 1940 could have been flying aircraft armed with Laser equipped Sharks and they still wouldnt have shot anything down.

I'm sure that most RAF pilots in 1940 were more accurate than your wild disrespectful shooting off of the mouth.

 

[pbehn]

I found this which may be of interst:

Sorting Out the "E" – American Armament for the Spitfire Mk. IX/XVI — Variants & Technology | Spitfire Mk. IX | Spitfire Mk. XVI

Interesting comment to the article posted by ex forum member Edgar Brooks, Rest in peace Edgar.

Papers, in the National Archive, at Kew, give a few answers to the queries. The XVI, as a Mark no., did not exist until August, 1944, when it was realised that separate listings, for spares, etc., were needed, and the Air Ministry finally unbent, and acceded to the requests for a new Mark. Since other Marks had been introduced into production, in the meantime, it explains the wide gulf between the numbers. It's also the reason why it's impossible to find mention of the XVI any earlier; L.F.IX was the usual designation, whatever the engine.
All low-back aircraft had to have the "E" armament, since the planned fuel tanks, behind the pilot, entailed the relocation of the compressed-air bottles, which went into the no.3 Browning's compartment; at the same time the extra fuel meant longer flight times, so three oxygen bottles became necessary, two of which went into the no.4 gun compartments.
Another reason for the delay in the introduction of the XVI/low-back XIV was the reluctance of the Air Ministry to replace 4 x .303″ with 2 x .5″; it was found that, from the rear, the .5″ had no extra penetrative power over the .303″, and the general (lack of) shooting ability, by the average pilot, meant that the hosepipe effect of four guns, in a deflection shot, had a better chance of disabling the enemy pilot.
The arrival of the gyro gunsight changed all that, since the pilots' aim improved beyond all measure, so the A.M. finally went for the "E" wing. There was a further delay to the low-backs, though, since the electrical boxes, for the G.G.S., had to be installed before the fuel tanks, otherwise the tanks would need removal, for the sight to go in. All of this is the reason why the low-backs did not see service until 1945.

 

[Walrus]

AFAIK there was a strategic decision made by the Ministry of Defence to standardise munitions to .303 calibre.
Presumably this was to help ease of production and logistics.

x2 0.50 Brownings were equipped in some bomber turrets to improve defensive fire, replacing x4 .303 mgs
RAF Mustangs were armed with x4 0.50 mgs (except the MkI which were armed with 20mm cannon iirc) and IIRC some Spitfire wings included 0.5s with 20mm cannon

 

[pbehn]

Excellent article, thank you!
Makes me wonder though, was the Mk.5 Hispano ever fit to the Spitfire? Seems like it would have made more sense than fitting M2 machine guns in the cannon bay.

In addition to the article posted by Parsival, there were many issues with Spitfire wings firstly it was so thin it was difficult to heat the outer guns and Cannon were a bit of a problem when cold.

Also this from the History of War website.
"The "e" wing was a further development of the Universal. It could carry either four 20mm cannon or two 20mm cannon and two 0.5in Browning machine guns. This time the cannon took the outer position and the machine guns the inner. This was partly because it gave more room for machine gun ammunition and partly because the bombs were carried below the inner gun positions, and there had been some problems reported when both cannon and bombs were on the same part of the wing. The "e" wing appeared in the second half of 1944."

 

[Shortround6]

I would recommend this site for information about the British use/manufacture/purchase of .50 cal ammo along with every other British round of under 20mm.
.50 inch Browning - British Military Small Arms Ammo
British Military Small Arms Ammo

 

[David Fred]

Were Browning M2 50s ever considered as armament for British planes? The RAF seems to have settled on .303 rifle or 20 mm cannon for armament. Reading Korda's
With Wings Like Eagles, Korda credits Dowding for insisting on eight .303 minimum for the Hurricane and Spitfire. A Hurricane armed with 4 or 6 M2s would have been formidable in bringing down Heinkels.

The E wing Spitfires, notably the Mk XIVe which appeared 2Q1944, and the Mk IXe which appeared in 4Q1943 had on had on M2 and one 20mm Hispano per Wing were produced, but I don't know in what quantities. Source: Fighter Aircraft Performance Of WW2- A Comparative Study by Erik Pilawskii

 

[Clayton Magnet]

besides using wikipedia, what was the difference in weight between a Mk.5 Hispano and M2 Browning?

 

[Glider]

Excellent article, thank you!
Makes me wonder though, was the Mk.5 Hispano ever fit to the Spitfire? Seems like it would have made more sense than fitting M2 machine guns in the cannon bay.

The fittings for the Mk V 20mm were exactly the same as the Mk II 20mm so they certainly could be fitted and the Seafire was normally equipped with the Mk V

 

[David Fred]

besides using wikipedia, what was the difference in weight between a Mk.5 Hispano and M2 Browning?

I have another book, the "bible of WW2 aircraft armament, called "Flying Guns, WW II" by Anthony G.Williams, and Dr. Emmanuel Gustin.
On Page 331 of Appendix 6, it states the Browning M2, using a 12.7 x 99 cartridge weighed 29 kilos. The 20mm Hispano II weighed 50 kilos, and the Hispano V, both using the 20 x110 cartridge, weighed 42 kilos. All are empty weights.
For comparison, the 30mm Mk 108 used on the Me-262, besides having the ballistics characteristics of a bowling ball, and very limited ammo, weighed 60 kilos.

 

[Greyman]

besides using wikipedia, what was the difference in weight between a Mk.5 Hispano and M2 Browning?

Figures and references from an RAE report concerning aircraft gun armament during the war:

Weight of gun complete
Hispano II (109 lb) - A.P. 1641F
Hispano V (75 lb) - A.P. 1641F
Browning M2 (53 lb) - Colt Handbook Section IIIB

EDIT: more detailed information for the Browning from:

TM 9-225 (1942)
Browning .50 M2 Aircraft (fixed) - 61.4 lb

A.P. 1641L (1949)
M.G.532 or M2 (fixed) / No.1, Mk.II - 64 to 68 lb