Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The 50 BMG "skidding off" of aircraft fuselages??? Now I admit that this was 1960 and maybe the projectile was different. I believe that our ammo was just normal ball (full metal jacketed) and I fired the new M60(7.62 Nato, comparable to the 303 British) and the 50 BMG at old vehicles on the range at Fort Hood. The difference in the two rounds was spectacular. On old half tracks and 2.5 ton trucks the 50 tears big gaping holes and will go all the way the body work from one side to the other. No way a WW 2 AC has heavier body skin than a truck.
agreed for a payload discussion
Do not confuse ferry range with operational radius. Operational radius is the distance the plane can fly AFTER dropping the tanks AND engaging in COMBAT for XX number of minutes. Even if the P-38 could carry the 300 gallon tanks on a real mission they might mean it could go in further than it could get out. The advent of the "J" with 410 gallons internal fuel instead of 300 went a long way in extending the operational radius.
Hello
one British test report with info on .303, .5 and 20mm, found by Kurfürst, can be seen here http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-armed-fighter-15964-14.html message #199.
IIRC the .5 B. Mk. II incendiary ammo is the older design, not US Mk. 8, which IIRC was a copy of Soviet 12,7mm AP/I.
Juha
Besides muzzle energy the 50 BMG had a much superior ballistic coefficient and sectional density to the 30 cal which translates to much better downrange velocity, flatter trajectory and better penetration.
I do suspect that the 8-303s in the Brit fighters during the early going( through the BOB) may have been as good a choice as any because: the 50 BMG s were not available and until the RAF had the time to spend on gunnery training most of the pilots were not good enough gunners to take advantage of the lethality of the 50 BMG.
I would wager that if the USN and Marine pilots of 1940 were flying the Hurricanes and Spitfires they would have opted for 4-50 BMGs rather than eight puny 303s.
You've got one statement from some guy named Linwell or something but nothing else to back it upTante Ju, you are misinformed. The USN during a full deflection gunnery run opened fire at around 1000 feet. Many times pilots would fire at ranges longer than that. However, at 300 yards the much superior ballistic properties of the 50 BMG over the 303 or US 30 cal paid off as the BC of the 50 BMG enabled it to arrive at the target sooner going faster and that higher velocity plus the much better SD gave the projectile more penetration. When the target is going 300 mph at almost right angles to the attacker a split second can make the difference between hits in the cockpit area or engine compartment versus further back on the aft fuselage.
Obviously the RAF had good gunners among their pilots but the fact is that many of the pilots in the BOB barely had any time at all in a fighter and their gunnery skills must not have been very much to write home about, through no fault of their own. Actually though, I believe on average the most effective fighter pilots in the BOB on both sides were the Poles.
I would wager that if the USN and Marine pilots of 1940 were flying the Hurricanes and Spitfires they would have opted for 4-50 BMGs rather than eight puny 303s.
I see "throw weight per second" of a battery of either machine guns, cannon, or both, thrown around on this forum alot. I would like to suggest that total "throw weight per second" isnt the end-all be-all of aircraft armament. Saying that 3 or 4 .303 rounds are equal to 1 .50 round because they weigh the same is ignoring how much power the large individual round has.
For instance:
1. Would you rather shoot a Tiger tank in the side from 100 yards with 17 pounds of .303, 17 pounds of .50, or a 17 pounder antitank gun?
2. Would you rather shoot an elephant in the forehead with one ounce, 435 grains, of #9 birdshot from a 20 gauge shotgun, or a 400 grain slug from a .416 Rigby?
I would suggest that "throw weight per second" doesn't mean a whole lot unless the caliber of the weapons is very close.