British .303 vs 50 Cal M2

[pbehn]

Im not so sure about rockets being effective against aircraft/bomber formations. Didnt the Luftwaffe try that on US day bomber sorties? From what i've read it wasn't all that successful or even practical. A bit haphazard with mixed results. Not to mention aircraft loaded up with rockets and heavy canon were meat on the table for escorting fighters.

The 6 pounder is a gun, the RP-3 (3inch diameter) rocket is sometimes called a 60ib rocket (explosive) or 25ib rocket (armour piercing).

 

[Glider]

I was trying to say that the Mosquito with the 6pd would have been an interesting option. It was accurate, had a good rate of fire (for a gun of its type), almost certainly a one hit kill depending on how lucky the target crew were and it had a limited impact on the Mosquito's performance.

 

[Ascent]

I believe one MK XVIII got a kill with the 57mm. Can't remember what it was, think probably a single engine fighter but very much a lucky shot.

 

[Smokey Stover]

Exactly. 6 pdr or rocket, the odds of even getting the gunsight on a fast moving airborne target would be hard enough for a ww2 a/c nevermind actually hitting the thing. I would have thought bomber gunners poor to non existent kill rates was proof enough of that, and they were only using .50's.

 

[Glider]

Exactly. 6 pdr or rocket, the odds of even getting the gunsight on a fast moving airborne target would be hard enough for a ww2 a/c nevermind actually hitting the thing. I would have thought bomber gunners poor to non existent kill rates was proof enough of that, and they were only using .50's.

I'm sorry but I don't think you understand what I am trying to say. The 6pd in the Mosquito was very accurate capable of hitting a coasters bridge or main AA guns at a closing speed of approx. 300mph. Obviously they would be pretty useless against a small fast fighter, but against a large B17 type bomber they stood a good chance of a hit and downing the bomber with one hit.
A B17 is a lot bigger than an AA gun and a coasters bridge, the closing speed would be around 100 mph and this would all be to the advantage of the attacking aircraft.

 

[yulzari]

For an HE round the 6 pounder could have been built around the 75mm case/shell as was done for tanks. Not a rebore, as sometimes stated, but a new barrel and the chamber made for the French/US case. So now you are firing a 3 inch semi automatic gun at a destroyer. Despite claims of a ROF at 3s seconds per round period film demonstrates other claims of just under one round per second are more representative. Now add a proximity fuse and you get a plausible bomber downing capability. The down side is that you have a large twin engined aeroplane with a heavy load (gun/loader) at the mercy of escorting single engined fighter and a larger target for the bombers defence guns.

The 75mm swapped velocity of flight for weight of shell with the end result being little difference in the forces involved at the firing end. As said above, what the 3" rocket projectile brought was flexibility, even if the accuracy was appalling.

BTW just to mention. The B25 75mm gun was hand loaded which is hard enough on the ground never mind in a small space moving in 3 dimensions with huge gravity issues. Worse than a tank. Reloading 20mm cannon drums in a night fighter Beaufighter was bad enough.

 

[fastmongrel]

Now add a proximity fuse

Good idea but not happening in WWII unfortunately. The smallest workable Proximity fuses in WWII were for the 3.7"/90mm AA guns anything smaller and there was no room for a decent HE payload. It was the 50s before Proximity fuses got small enough for a 3 inch.

 

[Glider]

I know its getting to the realms of fantasy but anyone thought of putting a proximity fuse on the rockets?

 

[fastmongrel]

I know its getting to the realms of fantasy but anyone thought of putting a proximity fuse on the rockets?

The 3 inch Z battery AA rockets had an early Photo-Electric proximity fuse but it didnt work too well apparently. It worked okay on a sunny day when fired away from the Sun but it didnt work when fired on a cloudy day or towards the sun.

3" Z Battery

 

[Greyman]

Despite claims of a ROF at 3s seconds per round period film demonstrates other claims of just under one round per second are more representative.

I'm always wary of using films for that sort of thing, as you don't know the speed/frame rate at which the footage was captured or played back (or copied/recopied in the intervening decades).

British tests say the 6pdr ROF on automatic 'is slightly more than one round per second' - but that it was worse in every way compared to semi-automatic fire.

An aimed shot could be fired at 1.1 to 1.5 second intervals on semi-automatic. Accuracy was most impressive - in good weather reasonable results could be expected against a medium tank-sized target from ranges up to 1200 to 1300 yards(!).

 

[Smokey Stover]

For an HE round the 6 pounder could have been built around the 75mm case/shell as was done for tanks. Not a rebore, as sometimes stated, but a new barrel and the chamber made for the French/US case. So now you are firing a 3 inch semi automatic gun at a destroyer. Despite claims of a ROF at 3s seconds per round period film demonstrates other claims of just under one round per second are more representative. Now add a proximity fuse and you get a plausible bomber downing capability. The down side is that you have a large twin engined aeroplane with a heavy load (gun/loader) at the mercy of escorting single engined fighter and a larger target for the bombers defence guns.

The 75mm swapped velocity of flight for weight of shell with the end result being little difference in the forces involved at the firing end. As said above, what the 3" rocket projectile brought was flexibility, even if the accuracy was appalling.

BTW just to mention. The B25 75mm gun was hand loaded which is hard enough on the ground never mind in a small space moving in 3 dimensions with huge gravity issues. Worse than a tank. Reloading 20mm cannon drums in a night fighter Beaufighter was bad enough.

Well said.

 

[Smokey Stover]

I'm always wary of using films for that sort of thing, as you don't know the speed/frame rate at which the footage was captured or played back (or copied/recopied in the intervening decades).

British tests say the 6pdr ROF on automatic 'is slightly more than one round per second' - but that it was worse in every way compared to semi-automatic fire.

An aimed shot could be fired at 1.1 to 1.5 second intervals on semi-automatic. Accuracy was most impressive - in good weather reasonable results could be expected against a medium tank-sized target from ranges up to 1200 to 1300 yards(!).

Then why have i heard claims from ex ww2 mossie pilots that the six pounder version, even with small calibre bullets to use as a means of sighting/gauging accuracy, were absolutely rubbish. The recoil alone (The six pounder kicked like a mule) often sent the shell off to the left or right of target and to make more than one firing pass was basically suicide. So they had one go and maybe 4-6 rounds to get it right and hit their targets. A lot of mossie pilots preferred the cannon/machine gun + underwing rocket version. And thought the molins cannon to be too much. Not to mention firing the gun repeatedly often caused structural damage that although minor to begin with could prove fatal if missed by ground crew and left to deteriorate.

 

[Greyman]

Then why have i heard claims ...

I'd have to have a look at those accounts myself to comment. At Boscome Down all pilots found the setup quite suitable.

Using the .303s to aim instead of a carefully harmonised gunsight seems incorrect.

 

[Greyman]

Some final assessments from the A&AEE:

The aircraft is eminently suitable for low attack work and is an ideal gun platform for the Tsetse installation. The chief features which lead to this conclusion are as follows:-

1. The good stability and manoeuvrability of the aircraft.
2. The speed with which attacks can be made stimulates confidence in the pilot.
3. The aircraft attitude during low attack is such that the pilot does not have to worry about his position relative to the ground.
4. The throw-off at the time of firing is so slight that maintenance of aim is simple.
5. The extremely good forward view from the aircraft gives the maximum opportunity for small targets to be picked up and held in the sight.
6. The rudder control is sufficiently sensitive to enable quick lateral sighting corrections. When the rudder controls are used as intended there is no tendency to overcorrection.

 

[fastmongrel]

Then why have i heard claims from ex ww2 mossie pilots that the six pounder version, even with small calibre bullets to use as a means of sighting/gauging accuracy, were absolutely rubbish.

Personal recollections have proved many times over to be faulty. I remember on another forum a WWII veteran who repeatedly swore blind that his regiments Churchill tanks had Meadows flat12 engines even though all records show that they were never fitted and indeed could not have been fitted as they would not have matched up to the transmission. He had almost certainly got his Churchill tank mixed up with the Covenanter tank which was fitted with the Meadows flat12 and was the main training tank used in Britain 1941 to 44.

 

[Glider]

Then why have i heard claims from ex ww2 mossie pilots that the six pounder version, even with small calibre bullets to use as a means of sighting/gauging accuracy, were absolutely rubbish. The recoil alone (The six pounder kicked like a mule) often sent the shell off to the left or right of target and to make more than one firing pass was basically suicide. So they had one go and maybe 4-6 rounds to get it right and hit their targets. A lot of mossie pilots preferred the cannon/machine gun + underwing rocket version. And thought the molins cannon to be too much. Not to mention firing the gun repeatedly often caused structural damage that although minor to begin with could prove fatal if missed by ground crew and left to deteriorate.

All I can add to this posting are the comments from the father of my son's girlfriend. He served in the German navy on the flak boats off Norway and they hated the accuracy of the big gun Mosquito as he called them. If you were on a flak island or the bridge you just hoped that the pilot wanted to shoot at the other target. It seemed personal, that they were aiming at you not just the ship.

This might be of interest. It also covers the shooting down of a Ju88 with the 57mm

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX-IxiZyGRk

 

[Walrus]

Do some research before posting and you will find that most RAF pilots in Aug/Sept 1940 had very poor shooting skills.

My bad
RAF pilots were incompetent and couldn't hit a flying barn door at 5 yards.
The Battle of Britain was a resounding victory for the superior numbers of the Luftwaffe.
Operation Sea Lion was able to go ahead and I'm writing this in German.

All Hail the Thousand Year Reich


There are many factors to consider before you roundly criticise ALL RAF pilots of being unable to shoot
You need to do some serious rethinking

 

[tomo pauk]

This is getting hillaroius quickly.

 

[fastmongrel]

My bad
RAF pilots were incompetent and couldn't hit a flying barn door at 5 yards.
The Battle of Britain was a resounding victory for the superior numbers of the Luftwaffe.
Operation Sea Lion was able to go ahead and I'm writing this in German.

All Hail the Thousand Year Reich


There are many factors to consider before you roundly criticise ALL RAF pilots of being unable to shoot
You need to do some serious rethinking

I am going to assume you dont have English as a first language and Google translate has let you down so I am posting my original post on this topic over which you have got your whiskers all twisted. I have highlighted the relevant section.

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.

Many RAF pilots in 1940 couldnt hit the proverbial Barn door even if they had been holding the Barn door handle. Its not insulting or derogatory its an easily provable fact.

 

[MycroftHolmes]

Many RAF pilots in 1940 couldnt hit the proverbial Barn door even if they had been holding the Barn door handle. Its not insulting or derogatory its an easily provable fact.

Proof for this absurd statement? There's no evidence that German and American pilots were any better marksmen than British. RAF standards were simply higher than in other air-forces, so it's a case of RAF pilot gets 10% hits and the RAF are like "That's not good enough"; Luftwaffe or USAAF/USN pilot gets 10% hits and it's "That's fine, no need to worry".