Anything can shoot down anything if you pop up within range. KI43's in China shot down P47's P38's and even B24's
British .303 vs 50 Cal M2
- Thread starter pinehilljoe
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yes, but i'm from Finland, and I never heard or read about such cases. In addition, Finnish i-153 planes were used for reconnaisance purposes, and no longer in the summer of 1944 when the Germans had FW-190 planes here.
Last edited:
I have the date as 30th May 1943, and two FW190s from JG26 flying out of Siverskaya. The FWs had engaged some LaGG-3s and IL-2s over the Gulf of Finland and were returning when they were bounced by the Fins. Depending on the source, either both or one of the FW190s went down after one pass. The Finnish I-153s claimed an La-5 and two LaGG-3s in the area. Since the Fins didn't have any FW190s of their own it is understandable that they might mistake an FW190 for an La-5, though hard to imagine how they could mistake a radial-engined FW for an inline-engined LaGG-3. The Russians reported several LaGG-3s but no La-5s lost in the area that day.
I have an FW190-A4 "White 8" wknr 5802, flown by Lt. Reck of 7/JG26 shot down by a Finnish aircraft over the Gulf of Finland on that date. No identity for the second FW190 found.
Hakans Aviation Page mentions the Finnish I-153s as being "....re-armed, having four 7.70mm Browning M.39 machine guns, in place of the original Soviet ShKAS 7.62mm guns...." Regarding the P-39 victory, Hakans says: "....On 29 July a group of five I-153s from 1/TLeLv 16 led by luutnantti H. Härmälä clashed with two Soviet Airacobras from 773 IAP over Korpiselkä. During the ensuing combat between 19:10 and 19:15 one Airacobra was claimed as a damaged by kersantti Rinkineva (IT-31) at Loimola. Ten days later in a POW interrogation it was learnt that the Soviet aircraft had crashed and Rinkineva got a confirmed victory....."
The pre-War RAF got what it was given by the civil servants of Whitehall, who sometimes listened to the experts, but often didn't. The MoD tried many trials of different armament to replace the old Vickers .303. The .303 Colt-Browning Star machinegun used in the Hurricane and Spitfire was actually meant as a stop-gap until a suitable cannon could be developed. Even then, Ralph Sorley came up with a formula that insisted a minimum of eight .303 MGs were required. The MoD had tried the Vickers 25mm, the Oerlikon 20mm FFL, the 37mm COW gun, and even considered an air-cooled version of the Vickers .5, but none met their criteria for throwing a certain poundage of HE at a target in a two-second burst. The RAF could have had an air-cooled version of the Vickers .5 with SAPI and HE rounds in operation long before 1939.
The RAF and MoD did test an early version of the Browning .50, but were not impressed because it did not offer a big enough HE loading. The RAF's fighters were intended as interceptors for killing bombers, and the fashionable thinking of the day (thanks to the French) was that cannon were the way to go. The same thinking saddled the P-39 with the 37mm Oldsmobile M4 cannon.
The MoD developed an unbreakable fixation with the French Hispano 20mm, ignoring all other tried-and-tested options, despite the gathering clouds of War. Hawkers made a pre-War version of the Hurricane for Belgium which carried four .52 FN-Brownings, but the RAF ignored the option. In the Summer of 1940, when the RAF realised they probably needed more punch for the average pilot to knock down a Heinkel 111 with one burst, the Hispano was still a piece of junk. It had unreliable feed from a small magazine, an HE round that was just as likely not to explode on hitting an enemy as it was to explode in the barrel, and no incendiary round nor tracer. They finally got a semi-decent version in the Hispano II in the Hurricane IIC in 1941, by which time the large fleets of Luftwaffe bombers they were intended for were heading off to Russia. Though the Hispano got better with time, it wasn't really good until the MkV appeared. By then, the Browning .50 had long since been perfected.
One reason the RAF and MoD resisted the Browning .50 was Ralph Sorley's formula, and that stated that six .50 Brownings were the very minimum required, with a preference for eight! That is why in 1940 the MoD wasted time asking for versions of the P-40 (and later the P-51) with the capability to carry Hispano cannon, insisted the F4F-4 had to carry six .50s, and is thought to be one of the reasons the P-47 got eight .50s. Once a thought becomes entrenched in the mind of civil servants, it is very hard to change.
The .5 vickers was considered along with the .5 browning, both were deemed too heavy for the power they possessed, the reason the 20mm was the first choice. The .5 vickers had an effective AP round that could penetrate 18mm of armour at 100m but no effective explosive/incendiary round, same for the browning. Both ended up with ammunition copied from scaled up MkVII Dixon .303 rounds, for the vickers that was 1943. The .303's if loaded with appropriate ammunition and zeroed into a convergence at say 250 yards would be effective, unfortunately the widespread use of ball ammunition which is designed to tumble on impact doesn't make for good target penetration.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 854
- Feb 16, 2013
The .50 Browning was perfected just as it became obsolescent as an air to air weapon
buffnut453
Captain
Interesting criticisms given that the move to 20mm cannon was clearly the right choice given that every postwar fighter, with the exception of the F-86, moved to cannon armament. Yes, there were teething troubles but thus is the case with any new technology being adopted by any military.
As to the 50cal argument, as has been posted several times, the 1939-vintage version of the US 50cal was a very poor relative of the gun that matured into such a successful weapon by the end of 1942. The rate of fire of the earlier version was relatively low and there were numerous issues with reliability, particularly in wing installations. Also bear in mind that a change to 50cals would necessitate replacing the entire logistics chain from .303 to 50cal bullets and all the supporting infrastructure (tools, belts, boxes etc). That's no small undertaking to make and it would be a brave person to order such a change in 1939 given the perilous political situation with Germany.
For all your griping about "civil servants", in reality the RAF leadership had a pretty good idea of the situation and, IMHO, made exactly the right calls. Yes, it would have been preferable to get cannon armament online sooner but, in the interim, the tried and trusted .303 did well enough through the first few years of WW2.
Shortround6
Major General
Such is the nature of Air to air combat. One might say the 20mm Hispano was perfected just as it became obsolescent as an air to air weapon.
The lighter, faster firing versions of the Hispano going into service just as the revolver cannon was being developed. Granted it took a while in peacetime to get the revolver guns sorted out. The US navy MK 12 might be the last Hispano derivative and they may have pushed a bit further than should (1000-1200rpm with a bit bigger case)
and going backwards, several 7.5-8mm machine guns were perfected just as the world was moving to 12.7-13.2mm machine guns.
And the modern 20-30mm cannon were perfected just as effective, somewhat reliable air to air missiles were introduced (another long torturous road).
The funny rating was not meant to be derogatory, just a quick way of saying that the whole situation was funny in a strange way.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 854
- Feb 16, 2013
In no way did I take it as an insult, I fully agree. Perhaps it has all gone full circle now, with the GSh-30-1 auto cannon maybe nudging out the bigger, heavier revolver cannons? Maybe not, but that Russian cannon is pretty impressive for what it is.
The .50 Browning was a fine weapon, but it wasn't the war winner that the History Channel makes it out to be. It was effective enough, but its weight penalty somewhat negated its performance. Sure the Mk.II Hispano was a heavy weight as well, but had much better downrange effect relative to its size.
The .50 Browning was a fine weapon, but it wasn't the war winner that the History Channel makes it out to be. It was effective enough, but its weight penalty somewhat negated its performance. Sure the Mk.II Hispano was a heavy weight as well, but had much better downrange effect relative to its size.
Barrett
Senior Airman
IMO four .50s represented the optimum WW II fighter armament. I've crunched the numbers, using the P-51B/C and 51D as baselines. The 50% increase in D firepower only yielded 10% increase in lethality (credited kills among probables and damaged.) The FM-2 "Wilder Wildcat" reverted to the F4F-3's four-gun armament after the dash four's six (done at RN request, I believe). Some F4F-4 aces I knew said they kept the two outboards as "get me home insurance," including Joe Foss, Swede Vejtasa and George Wrenn.
True for air to air combat perhaps, but a 10% increase in kills/damaged is huge for a marginal increase in cost and weight. For attacking ground targets which the P-51 was also used for the more the better.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
Four 0.50" M2 being the best choice is not something that the USN or USMC believed during WW2; the USN rated the 20 mm Hispano (when it worked) as roughly three times as effective as the 0.50" M2. The FM-2, the hotrod Wildcat, was also not being used significantly in fighter-fighter combat in the ETO. Indeed, I suspect had the US been able to reliably produce the 20 mm, the 0.50" would not have been specified on any post-war fighter.
Shortround6
Major General
End of the war/post war the Navy went for the 20mm cannon exclusively.
I don't believe any NEW navy fighter was "ordered" after Oct or Nov of 1944 with .50 cal guns. Older fighters were certainly delivered after that date with .50 cal guns. The McDonnell FH-1 Phantom may have been the last fighter design to use the .50 cal for the Navy.
The Army developed a split personality. Fighters got .50s. Bomber destroyers/night fighters/all weather fighters got 20mm guns.
I don't believe any NEW navy fighter was "ordered" after Oct or Nov of 1944 with .50 cal guns. Older fighters were certainly delivered after that date with .50 cal guns. The McDonnell FH-1 Phantom may have been the last fighter design to use the .50 cal for the Navy.
The Army developed a split personality. Fighters got .50s. Bomber destroyers/night fighters/all weather fighters got 20mm guns.
I've since found the event in Donald Caldwell's The JG26 War Diary Volume Two 1943-1945, on page 91. Caldwell says the two pilots were a Hauptman Kelch and a Leutnant Reck, with Kelch making it back to Silverskiya in one piece. So, not two FW190s lost to two I-153s armed only with Browning .303s, but one definitely was.
(my bold)
Hello,
Is the bolded remark equally worth for non-American air forces/services?
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
4 x .50s would be less than adequate for downing a B17 or HE177.
I'd be happy with 4x .303 and 2x 20mm, I'd load the .303's with tracer/incendiary and use them to get the right deflection/lead angle, a quick flick of the thumb as soon as I saw the ''flash'' of a hit and the SAPI's would be on their way, all hypothetical of course but that would be my choice.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
