How would you have armed the P38 if you were to use it as it was used historically? (1 Viewer)

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

The British did have trouble with the Hispano shells exploding too soon but that was in 1940-41 and the problem was corrected later in the war.

This is what makes comparing these guns rather difficult. Many guns (and their ammo) did not stay static during the 6 years of war but the guns evolved as did their ammo so a late war gun and ammo combination gave rather different results than the "same" gun at the beginning of the war.

The American .50 got a big boost with the introduction of the M 8 API round. A combination round that combined both an AP core and a small quantity of incendiary material. Before it's introduction the Americans had to used mixed belts. Fighters used about 50/50 AP rounds and incendiary rounds with what ever percentage of tracer was in vogue at the time/place. Bombers used a much higher percentage of tracer. The AP just poked holes and the incendiary wouldn't penetrate. this M8 round was used in the big air battles over Germany in 1944 and is part of the reason that 4-6gun Mustangs did so well. If they had used the early mixed belts they would probably still have won but the margin might not have been quite the same.
this is something to consider when people make the argument that Four .50s worked just fine over Germany in 1944 so they should have worked just fine in 1940.
 
Last edited:
I read in an issue of Air and Space a number of years ago an article about the BOB. I wish I had latched onto and kept the issue. There was a lot of good info. One statement they made was that it took 379 (?) hits from the 303 to bring down a German bomber. This was a calculation by the boffins before the war and the justification for the eight gun fighter. Does anyone remember that number and can verify that it is accurate? It may have been 179 but my memory says 379. This article also went into detail about how much easier it was to repair a Hurricane that had been damaged than a Spitfire, with the labor and materials that were handy.

Anyway, if those calculations were correct or even if the British believed them to be correct, it is no wonder they wanted six guns in the Wildcat. Of course the British improved the performance of the 303 bullet during the war, (DeWilde bullet?)
 
Was it really a case of the incendiary rounds not penetrating fuel tanks and lines, and AP only making holes? Wasn't more a case of doing a job with one round instead of two?

The incendiary rounds may have penetrate fuel tanks and fuel lines but they may not have penetrated armor that well. The basic difference between M1 "ball" ammo and M2 AP was that the steel core of the M2 was of hardened steel vs the soft steel of the ball round.

Here is a description of the M1 incendiary by Tony Williams " There was also a .50 M1 incendiary, which was a scaled-up and simplified version of the British Dixon ("De Wilde") .303. This consisted of four elements: the bullet jacket which enclosed the whole bullet except for the base; a hollow steel sleeve fitting inside the jacket for the central helf of its length; the incendiary mixture which filled all of the nose, plus the inside of the steel sleeve; and a base plug, usually of lead"

A soft steel core that is hollow isn't going to penetrate what a solid hardened core will. The M8 round used a hardened core but the incendiary material (less than 1/2 the M1) was in front of the core. While perhaps giving up little in the way of penetration it did give a bullet that was useful against most of the targets/material in an aircraft. Please note that the incendiary material was unlikely to penetrate a piece of armor or heavy structure with the core.

AP rounds are only going to poke holes. Granted they can cause leaks which something else can ignite.
 
Anyway, if those calculations were correct or even if the British believed them to be correct, it is no wonder they wanted six guns in the Wildcat. Of course the British improved the performance of the 303 bullet during the war, (DeWilde bullet?)

And I as keep saying, in 1939 and early 1940 the .50 cycled at 600rpms not the 800-850 rpm that it cycled at in 1942. so you needed over 5 guns to equal the the rate of fire of 4 of the later guns. Since you can't mount 5 1/2 guns that meant 6 guns. Apparently the 6 gun specification was over taken by improved gun performance.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back