Instances of pilots omitting tracer ammunition?

[Venomstick121]

Good point! That always shows up in the comic books, and most of the time in the box art.

I am sorry if that was a stupid question, i am not saying the large flashes like the art above but I was talking about if you were a ball gunner for example couldn't you see the flashes of guns behind you?

 

[Shortround6]

I am sorry if that was a stupid question, i am not saying the large flashes like the art above but I was talking about if you were a ball gunner for example couldn't you see the flashes of guns behind you?

Ok I am still not getting it?
Seeing the flashes of the fighters shooting at you is one thing if you are a bomber gunner. You are not supposed to be looking forward anyway
for a fighter pilot trying to aim his own guns and forgetting to look over his shoulder for planes coming up behind him, having tracers flash by is a good clue that he should stop aiming/shooting at the plane ahead of him and make a violet maneuver to throw off the aim of the plane behind him that is shooting at him.
In a lot of instances it was the the target pilot was just flying along in formation scanning part of the sky and the enemy got into his blind spot (behind and little below).

There was a body of thinking in WW I and into the 30s that thought that having a rear gunner to spot such things was a good idea.
Trouble was that the planes that carried a rear gunner were usually slower in speed, slower to climb and didn't turn as well so they were shot down in larger numbers in spite of the better vison.

 

[Greyman]

Couldn't you tell if they were firing because of the muzzle flash?

No, this is more of a movie / video game thing. Certain guns or installations would definitely have noticeable flash in dark conditions, but not really in daylight.

A much more reliable indicator would be smoke streaming or puffing from guns firing.

A segment in this video demonstrates several things I've been talking about in this thread -- starting at 0:10


View: https://youtu.be/mNRbAO9CUhE?si=V3f9akscTAb_AeNC&t=10

Note:

• rounds from the Bf 109 with smoke phosphorous smoke trails (PmK or Phosphor mit Kern) bullets -- these are similar to British Mk.IV incendiaries
• rounds from the Bf 109 with less obvious smoke but emitting a flame from the base (SmK L'spur or Spitzgeschoß mit Kern Leuchtspur) bullets -- these are similar to British Mk.II tracers
• absence of any tracers from the Spitfire when it fires at the Ju 88
• visible smoke belching from the Spitfire's guns when it fires

 

[Venomstick121]

No, this is more of a movie / video game thing. Certain guns or installations would definitely have noticeable flash in dark conditions, but not really in daylight.

A much more reliable indicator would be smoke streaming or puffing from guns firing.

A segment in this video demonstrates several things I've been talking about in this thread -- starting at 0:10


View: https://youtu.be/mNRbAO9CUhE?si=V3f9akscTAb_AeNC&t=10

Note:

• rounds from the Bf 109 with smoke phosphorous smoke trails (PmK or Phosphor mit Kern) bullets -- these are similar to British Mk.IV incendiaries
• rounds from the Bf 109 with less obvious smoke but emitting a flame from the base (SmK L'spur or Spitzgeschoß mit Kern Leuchtspur) bullets -- these are similar to British Mk.II tracers
• absence of any tracers from the Spitfire when it fires at the Ju 88
• visible smoke belching from the Spitfire's guns when it fires

Thank you so much for the information!

 

[muskeg13]

I have no source but remember reading that some USAAF aces, mostly in the Pacific, omitted tracers because they believed tracers alerted their prey that they were being shot at and the U.S. pilot wanted to get as close as possible to an unsuspecting opponent. I believe Bong in particular may have instructed his ground crew to do this as he always claimed to be a poor shot and preferred to shove his guns into the other guy's cockpit before pulling the trigger. There's also the argument that the ballistics of tracers and ball ammo changed as the trace material burned creating different trajectories as the projectile got lighter. I've witnessed this myself at 600 and 800 yards when 5.56 M249 SAW tracers get quite erratic and have nearly zero penetrative power.

 

[PAT303]

absence of any tracers from the Spitfire when it fires at the Ju 88

Most likely because they weren't available, like the MkV's over Darwin, Malta Spitfires had limited 20mm ammunition available, the RAAF even though they had supply issue's dumped lots of 20mm ammunition because it was out of spec, the supply was from a brand new factory set up in Sydney NSW and quality control was poor, over Malta, don't quote me on this but I believe the 20mm ammunition was American manufactured? at one point and it was also dumped for the same reason. Like a lot of things there's more than one reason why things were done, the biggest factor on the increased hit rate of fighters v fighters I believe was the better gun sights which allowed the omittance of tracers, reading lots of pilot reports tracers were a catch twenty two, they allowed attacking pilots a visual fall of shot but many pilots also talk off breaking away after watching tracers zoom passed their cockpits alerting them of being under attack, the war progressed very fast and with it technology but tracers have never gone away.

 

[Greyman]

Most likely because they weren't available ...

I'm sticking with 'most likely because they weren't meant to be supplied / used in the first place'.

Every word from official sources on fixed gun fighter gunnery said 'don't use tracers for aiming'.

Gunnery Sub Committee rulings on ammunition proportions for; fixed gun fighters, air-to-air combat, by day, never included any of the several marks of tracer rounds in RAF service.
Not in the first paper in January 1939 -- through to the last paper in May 1945. They're only ever mentioned to warn against their use.

 

[PAT303]

There was by my count 5 different marks of Tracer ammunition for the Hispano alone, they wouldn't have made them if they didn't use them

 

[Greyman]

They did, just not for fixed-gun, air-to-air, day fighting.

 

[PAT303]

So the hours of gun camera footage from WW2 showing air to air combat with tracers clearly visible is not convincing enough?

 

[MikeMeech]

There was by my count 5 different marks of Tracer ammunition for the Hispano alone, they wouldn't have made them if they didn't use them

Hi
Tracer or Incendiary? 'British Aircraft Armament Volume 2' page 70, by R Wallace Clarke lists the following under Projectile Identification:

On page 68 of the same source it mentions that from mid-1942 the "belts being made up equally of HE/I and SAP/I".

Mike

 

[Greyman]

So the hours of gun camera footage from WW2 showing air to air combat with tracers clearly visible is not convincing enough?

Other air forces' use of tracer rounds does not convince me, no.

Tracer or Incendiary? 'British Aircraft Armament Volume 2' page 70, by R Wallace Clarke lists the following under Projectile Identification:
On page 68 of the same source it mentions that from mid-1942 the "belts being made up equally of HE/I and SAP/I".

By my count there were three tracer rounds (technically four, I suppose). Text straight from an Air Ministry summary;

20-mm Tracer Mk.Iz - Long range tracer for air to ground and ground to air use. Not used in air to air fighting.
20-mm A.P. Tracer Mk.Iz (day) - Primarily developed as a ranging tracer for air to air attack. Used on armour piercing body for maximum target effect.
20-mm A.P Tracer Mk.Iz (night) - Similar to AP/T Mark.Iz but incorporated trace suitable for night use.
20-mm A.P. TM.75 - Design similar to A.P. Mk.IVz with long range tracer filling. Never used in British installations owing to faulty gun functioning.​

The two AP/T 'ranging tracer' types were developed for 20-mm guns in turrets.

re: proportions;
- in March '41 the approved proportions were 50% Ball, 50% HE/I
- with the introduction of the SAP/I round this was revised in October '42 to 50% SAP/I, 50% HE/I
- it remained in this proportion until the final bulletin (that I've come across) in May '45

EDIT: actually one interesting caveat in the May '45 paper is that in jet vs. jet combat 100% SAP/I should be used