Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thanks Glider for the aircraft gun penetration tests, they are dated July 1942 so pretty much destroys the "myth" that the .303" had similar penetration to the 0.50".
The tests actually show the 0.50" has about the same penetration as the 20mm! Which may be how the earlier myth somehow got twisted with the Spitfire .303" -> 0.5" changeover.
Actually one of the faults with the Zero was it had low velocity 20mm (60-100 rounds) and 7.7mm (500-680 rounds) until mid '43. 7.7mm(.303") may work vs Me109's but were quite useless vs P-38 and Corsairs!
Hello Pat303,
I was really trying to point out that when your projectile detonates as it clearly did at plate 3 and 4, I would not expect it to penetrate much further and for it to yaw would be pretty reasonable. That is why I commented that this wasn't really a good example of anything.
If you were REALLY trying to see what kind of anti-armor performance this round had, you would be using simple AP rounds instead of API rounds.
The ammunition differences are something I was already aware of. It is one of the things one has to keep track of when calculating disposable loads. The earlier rounds for the .50 cal BMG are a bit heavier than the later rounds.
IIRC, the early war stuff averages about 5.0 ounces while the later ones are about 4.8 ounces.
- Ivan.
While I agree 100% about the HMG vs. LMG issue, I don't think we should push the pendulum too far the other way either. If you were at close enough range LMG's could definitely do serious damage, as in removing wings, tails, killing pilots etc. I can't say for sure about P-38s or Corsairs but plenty of pretty tough P-40s, P-39s and Wildcats, not to mention SBDs and TBFs were shot down with just the light machine guns on Zeros and Ki-43s (and Ki-27s). The main difference in terms of how HMGs were used compared to LMGs was that HMGs could kill with fewer rounds and from farther away (if you could hit the target which was always a big "if").
No doubt, but was Darwin worse than Malta or the forward bases in the Western Desert?
No doubt, but was Darwin worse than Malta or the forward bases in the Western Desert?
Hello Schweik,
I remember reading that when the Wildcat fought A6M2, they figured that one on one, the Wildcat really had no chance, but in many versus many, it was a reasonably sound tactic for the Wildcats to ignore the Zero that was on their tail and just concentrate on killing the ones chasing their squadron mates.
The principle was that unless the Zero on your tail hit your oil coolers, they really could not do much damage to you.
Of course they could in time, but the point was that they would never live long enough to get that time assuming your squadron mates were doing their part.
- Ivan.
In 1939-40 a large proportion of aircraft ammunition was cup and core just like the ammunition in the video, the same ammunition used in the RAF tests. One thing that is very noticeable in these types of discussions is people talk about guns and ammunition that wasn't in service at the time, the M2 Browning with it's higher rate of fire, higher velocity and improved ammunition didn't become standard until 1941, there wasn't a standard .50 AP incendiary round until late 1943. In 1940 the difference in performance between four unreliable slow firing .50 with non specific ammunition compared to eight reliable fast firing .303's with developed and reliable tracer AP and incendiary ammunition was a no brainer, remember also that engines at the time only had just over 1000 HP to play with.
In 1939-40 a large proportion of aircraft ammunition was cup and core just like the ammunition in the video, the same ammunition used in the RAF tests.
One thing that is very noticeable in these types of discussions is people talk about guns and ammunition that wasn't in service at the time, the M2 Browning with it's higher rate of fire, higher velocity and improved ammunition didn't become standard until 1941, there wasn't a standard .50 AP incendiary round until late 1943.
In 1940 the difference in performance between four unreliable slow firing .50 with non specific ammunition compared to eight reliable fast firing .303's with developed and reliable tracer AP and incendiary ammunition was a no brainer, remember also that engines at the time only had just over 1000 HP to play with.
No doubt, but was Darwin worse than Malta or the forward bases in the Western Desert?
Perhaps, but lets not forget, quite a few Wildcats (and various other American planes) were shot down by Zeros (and Ki-43s). So maybe not the wisest tactic...
So what you are telling us is that the armament package of 8 x .303 on a Hurricane / Spitfire in 1940 was superior to 4 x .50 cal in a F4F-3 Wildcat? I can't say I agree with this.
I see this more as a matter of the philosophy and preferences of each air service, but that would get into a much longer discussion.
Higher rate of fire? Certainly.
Higher velocity? Doubtful, especially at typical aerial engagement distances.
The video was a good demonstration that everything yaws, but with that in mind, a .303 also yaws and doesn't have nearly the same momentum to tear through as much structure.
True in a practical sense but definitely untrue in a bar bet sense, it also depends on what you mean by a WIldcatThe BoB was over before the first Wildcat ever flew.
From "Spitfire VC vs A6M2/3 Zero-sen: Darwin 1943" - Published 2019
Unless they hit something important, all a 50 M2 will do, is punch a small hole in one side of an aircraft as it goes in and another on the way out. That is the difference with the 20mm, it explodes which generates shrapnel and lot of damage inside the aircraft. You would have to be very lucky to be hit by a 20mm and suffer no damage.1 round, 50 bmg into a 55 gallon barrel of water. Imagine if that is a fuel tank on an airplane. Just punching through armor doesn't tell the whole story of the superiority of the 50 bmg over any 30 caliber bullet.
30 caliber bullets just poke a small hole.
But look at a diagram of most any aircraft, especially single engine fighters and notice how difficult it is to NOT hit something unless you are shooting at the wingtip or tail. Also, a 50 may only make a .50 inch hole going in, but as it tumbles it will tear a much larger hole going out. A 50 also is much more likely to damage or destroy heavy internal structure such as wing spars etc. than a 30. 20 mm are great if you have enough power to carry them and their ammo. Early Zeros and 109's had 60 round drums, enough for a few seconds of firing. What about the Whirlwind also had 60 round drums. It would have been better off with either 4 50's and 400 rounds per gun or 8 30's and 500-600 rounds per gun. Every fight I ever read about the Whirlwind said "I opened fire, got hits, ran out of bullets"Unless they hit something important, all a 50 M2 will do, is punch a small hole in one side of an aircraft as it goes in and another on the way out. That is the difference with the 20mm, it explodes which generates shrapnel and lot of damage inside the aircraft. You would have to be very lucky to be hit by a 20mm and suffer no damage.
There is a reason that all airforces switched to 20mm guns (as a minimum) when they could once they started fighting well protected bombers.
A lot of people talk down the Japanese 20mm and the early German 20mm FF cannon but I would much rather have them than an early 0.50.
But look at a diagram of most any aircraft, especially single engine fighters and notice how difficult it is to NOT hit something unless you are shooting at the wingtip or tail. Also, a 50 may only make a .50 inch hole going in, but as it tumbles it will tear a much larger hole going out. A 50 also is much more likely to damage or destroy heavy internal structure such as wing spars etc. than a 30. 20 mm are great if you have enough power to carry them and their ammo. Early Zeros and 109's had 60 round drums, enough for a few seconds of firing. What about the Whirlwind also had 60 round drums. It would have been better off with either 4 50's and 400 rounds per gun or 8 30's and 500-600 rounds per gun. Every fight I ever read about the Whirlwind said "I opened fire, got hits, ran out of bullets"
I agree with what your saying. I've said in other threads that the Whirlwind should have had 8 30's in the nose with 30 seconds of ammo instead of the 4 20mm. 8 30's that concentrated would be like a mini gun.In the 1930s or even 1940 the question isn't if a single .50 bullet is more powerful but if it is four times more powerful.
.50 cal ammo is about 5 times heavier than rcmg ammo.
The gun was about 3 times heavier.
The .50 fired about 1/2 as fast.
The four .50s in an early Wildcat/Martlet fired, at best, 40 rounds a Second.
The eight .303s in the British planes fired 150-160 rounds per second and the installation weighed less.
Four .303 rounds hitting in fraction of a second won't burst a drum but the amount of damage they can do compared to single .50 hit isn't a little thing.
I agree with parts of this as well. But if I'm repelling an attack on my carrier, I would much prefer and F4F-3 with 4 50's and 400 rounds per gun than 2 20mm with 60 rounds per gun. (I know 20mm were never put on the Wildcat)True to a point but a 1940 0.50 isn't a patch on the M2 version so ensure you compare like for like. I believe nearly all early 20mm had 60 round drums the exception being the Russians who often don't get the credit for some very formidable weapons.
109E, Spitfires, Hurricanes, Whirlwinds, P38's, Zero's all of them initially had 60 round magazines and they were far more formidable for it.
If you want to compare the M2 version of the 0.50 then either magazines had increased in size or belt fed weapons had been introduced, so that argument goes out of the window. If you want to compare real life reports. How many times have you read The instrument panel was wrecked, I will bet a penny to a pound it wasn't because of a 20mm, as that would have almost certainly killed the pilot.