HMGs firing shells?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads
14,466
4,733
Apr 3, 2008
Fairly spread among Axis nations was the practice of producing and using exploding ammo for their heavy machine guns. Did it really improved the firepower of a fighter or bomber (vs. the usual ammo used), to justify the investments? Granted, in most cases the 20 mm stuff will not fit where an HMG will.
The 13 mm HMGs of Belgian and French production also fired explosive ammo.
 
I have read somewhere that the US experimented with an explosive round for the .50 but found it wasnt worth the effort, the tiny amount of explosive made a barely noticeable difference yet cost about 10 times more to make than API round.

I have seen sectioned Italian .50 rounds and with the fuse there is about as much explosive as a party popper. MG131 projectile was roughly the same size as a Browning round and the MG131 HE round had a grand total of 1.34 grams of explosive.

FG127Breda.jpg


from left to right, Ball (aluminium tip), API, API-T and HEI-T.
 
Last edited:
Tomo,

Today we fly with a mix of AP and HEI. I think that would have been good back then as well because you don't know which part of the target your rounds will impact prior to launching on the mission. And when strafing an airborne target you want him to go down ASAP with as few rounds expended as possible!

Cheers,
Biff
 
Biff does the USAF still used the 50 cal in their planes??
 
The question of whether HE rounds were worthwhile in 0.50 or similar sized ammunition is a reasonable one.

Possibly there are two issues to consider:

- the type of structure in the target (for example, would HEI ammunition be more effective against a self sealing fuel tank?);
- the relative contributions of the kinetic energy and the chemical energy of the explosive (if any) contained in the projectile. The US 0.5 round had a high muzzle velocity and it is reasonable to suppose that a small amount of explosive wouldn't add a worthwhile effect. For the MG 131 round which has a much lower muzzle velocity the explosive probably adds a relatively greater effect. It is noteworthy that the Germans replaced the MG 17s installed in many fighters (Bf 109, FW 190, Me 410) with MG 131s and avoided deleting the fuselage armament on the FW 190 as delivered, even when four 20 mm cannon were fitted.
 
What type target are you shooting at?
Airframes are mostly aluminum sheet metal. Unless they hit engine, fuel tank or structural member solid projectiles tend to pass through without doing a lot of damage.

Does the projectile contain a useful size HE burster? Assuming the fuze works properly airframe damage is directly proportional to HE burster size. So don't use HE shells unless you are willing to spend resources required to design and mass produce effective exploding projectiles.
 
Biff does the USAF still used the 50 cal in their planes??

TheDab,

The only fighter attack aircraft that I know of that carrys a .50 cal is the A-29B. And these planes are going to be turned over to Afghanistan eventually. Would be cool to fly! Sort of a modern version of WW2 fighter...

Cheers,
Biff
 
TheDab,

The only fighter attack aircraft that I know of that carrys a .50 cal is the A-29B. And these planes are going to be turned over to Afghanistan eventually. Would be cool to fly! Sort of a modern version of WW2 fighter...

Cheers,
Biff

If I am not mistaken these are not really USAF assets, but rather are in holding for foreign application. I mean yes, they are in the US, and they are at a USAF base flown by US pilots, however they were specifically purchased for transfer to Afghanistan.

T!
 
If I am not mistaken these are not really USAF assets, but rather are in holding for foreign application. I mean yes, they are in the US, and they are at a USAF base flown by US pilots, however they were specifically purchased for transfer to Afghanistan.

T!
They were spec'd and purchased by the USAF for a total of 100 aircraft and are currently in service with the 81st FS at Moody. Only 20 will be transferred to the AAF at the end of 2015.

Regardless, they are USAF assets.
 
Extensive testing by the British at Woolwich in 1942 concluded that the only advantage (over British ammunition) the exploding ammunition had was the psychological effect on those under fire.
 
What was the caliber of the ammo tested in the UK? Were the tests also performed on aircraft, the most likely targets of MG 131 or Breda 12.7 mm?
 
They were spec'd and purchased by the USAF for a total of 100 aircraft and are currently in service with the 81st FS at Moody. Only 20 will be transferred to the AAF at the end of 2015.

Regardless, they are USAF assets.

We may have different definitions of assets. The aircraft are currently owned by the USAF, and are being flown by the USAF as part of the training of Afghani forces and before the aircraft are turned over to Afghanistan. This, in my mind, does not make them USAF assets, but rather they are, as I said, in holding before transfer to the AAF.

My understanding, and I readily admit I have no first hand contact with this specific project so this is just what I have read, is that to date the only deliveries have been the assets destined for Afghanistan or transfer to foreign governments. Further, the original plan of 100 units, some of them for the USAF, was trimmed down (because of budget issues) to only the units being provided to Afghanistan.

So the question becomes, have other aircraft than the 20 going to the AAF been received? Are there currently funded plans to purchase, with delivery dates, aircraft beyond those 20? Is there a plan to field a combat USAF unit based on these aircraft?

T!
 
Last edited:
Think of the USAF as the "lienholder" on the title.

So much like an auto dealership, the USAF purchases the aircraft from the factory and retains ownership until such time, as the new owner takes delivery.

As far the rest of the A-29Bs, it might be quite possible that the 81st FS may remain active with additional aircraft for training and joint exercises.
 
BiffF15. I always liked the looks of the OV-10s...then again I like the Cessna O-2 Skymaster's looks too. I cant say how they flew tho...lol. like the embraer another plane I thought might be fun to fly is the Pilatus pc7. its 100 mph slower but also about half the weight.....would like to wring one of these out too.

Pilatus_PC-7_2008-06-KLu_0001_800.jpg
 
BiffF15. I always liked the looks of the OV-10s...then again I like the Cessna O-2 Skymaster's looks too. I cant say how they flew tho...lol. like the embraer another plane I thought might be fun to fly is the Pilatus pc7. its 100 mph slower but also about half the weight.....would like to wring one of these out too.
The COIN aircraft that I'd love to run through it's paces, is the AT-802U...it looks like it would be a real hoot. It's not terribly fast, but since it's actually a crop-duster, you know it can do some tricks...

AT-802U.jpg
 
What was the caliber of the ammo tested in the UK? Were the tests also performed on aircraft, the most likely targets of MG 131 or Breda 12.7 mm?

Most data is on 7.7mm and 12.7mm rounds. Some 20mm data and a little bit of 6.5mm and 13.2mm information. The basic tests all seem to be done in Africa, but the extensive testing done in Britain.

Judging by the description of targets I don't think it was actual aircraft - targets were sheets of duralumin, armour plate, petrol tins and german self-sealing tanks.
 
Sounds interesting. Is the test report avalable on-line?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back