Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
That would have roughly the same effect on .303s, correct? Granted how weight affects ballistics.
Out of the Big Three WW2 bombers (B-17, B-24, Lancaster), was the Flying Fortress the most redundant?
- Thread starter spicmart
- Start date
That would have roughly the same effect on .303s, correct? Granted how weight affects ballistics.
Jabberwocky
Tech Sergeant
Thank you. That's what I get for going by memory.
After a little extra research, I found that BeauOrd didn't get an AN/M2 into a production aircraft until 1940.
Do you have an online source for those numbers by the way? - I am still trying to rebuild my archives after my PC set itself alight a few years back.
Pilots opinions on the M8 seems to be highly mixed. Some swear by it as a game changer in terms of effectiveness on target. Others seemed to have preferred vanilla AP and/or ball and noted the the ballistics on the M8 were slightly different. Similar story with the M20 - some pilots thought the tracer was a great help in aiming, others didn't like it because they felt the tracer/smoke altered a target they were being shot at.
Likely the M23.
This had a different design to the previous incendiary rounds. The M8 and M20 round had small amounts of incendiary material packed into the nose, with a hardened steel armour piercing core behind this. Somewhere around 2-2.4% of the round by weight.
The M23 was basically all incendiary material, packed into a soft steel liner. It had about four times more volume of incendiary material than the M8 and double that of the M1 incendiary. It was also a much higher velocity projectile (circa 600 ft/minute higher than the M8 or M20).
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,356
- Jan 31, 2021
The visual effect would be the same, however, the video mentioned only discusses the .50-cal armament of U.S. bombers.
manta22
Banned
It was a WW II .50 cal bullet.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
At that point, Brit bombers loading tracers would suffer the same disadvantage, it seems to me, especially with a lower weight of shot.
Greg Boeser
1st Lieutenant
Nice shot of the Millenium Falcon!
No they all had tracers but with four guns @ 1150 RPM each the volume going out would have been greatly increased making sight correction easier. I also don't think single pintle mounted .50's in the nose of pre G model B17's or in the waist were worth a damn, even on a solid mount like an armored vehicle or ship the spread was enormous.
So in February 1945 after six years of war and after gyro gunsights were developed they abandoned tracer ammunition, that's your argument?.
You need to first hit the target for any of that to be relevant.
No. completely out of context. My argument was, according to the senior British Scientist (Basil Dickens) working in the Operational Research Research section of Bomber Command. That's my argument.
Harris said rather than use their gunsights, gunners were hose-piping all over the sky. Also, gunners were most often using their guns during the corkscrew manoeuvre. And Tracer was completely useless FRP during that.
Pat: I am sourcing wartime and immediate post war documents by senior officers and scientists who served during that time. Where is your "source" material from?
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
While I agree with you that the -17's nose armament was crummy, you're not really addressing the issue of tracer fall-off that
33k in the air mentioned above, which would affect British as well as American tracers, and perhaps moreso due to lighter throw-weight. You still haven't addressed the issue of lighter rounds having less punch, either. Lotsa hopscotching here.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Don't get cocky, kid.
Okay: Here is the Basil Dickens Reference:
And here is what he said on Tracer:
Pat303: you are entitled to your opinions. on the effectiveness of tracer. Personally, I'm paying more attention to the Scientist whose team actually studied its effectiveness.
Jim
And here is what he said on Tracer:
Pat303: you are entitled to your opinions. on the effectiveness of tracer. Personally, I'm paying more attention to the Scientist whose team actually studied its effectiveness.
Jim
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,356
- Jan 31, 2021
Hey, that's the ship that made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs!
Glider
Major
First of all, a lovely photo. Again you are correct, it was only a few but it does show that if we had taken daylight raids seriousl,y there was a fairly easy option to improve the defence of the Lancaster. At night there was less urgency as the combat ranges were so much shorter as few fighters would continue an attack once they started to be hit by return fire. The one advantage of quad .303 is that there were a lot a bullets in the air
Last edited:
Jabberwocky
Tech Sergeant
Well, as the US never adopted a high explosive round for the M2 during WW2, I can think of a couple of alternatives:
You've been misinformed about what it was, or misidentified or misremembered the round
It was an experimental round. There were three, at least, high explosive rounds for the M2 that were developed during the war, but none were adopted for service. They are VERY distinctive compared to a standard M2 round, with a copper nose with a flat front and a steel body. They're also very rare and valued by collectors.
It wasn't an M2 round, but a round from a different gun. A number of other nations (Italy, Japan and Germany to start with) developed true HE rounds for their aerial heavy machine guns. The Belgians developed an HE round for their version of the Browning, which came in 13.2mm.
To the best of my knowledge, the only high explosive tipped round that the US has adopted for regular service in .50 is the Mark 211 from Nammo. Even then, it's mostly for specialty anti-materiel rifles.
So why then was the Chief of Bomber Command so insistent on getting 50 caliber rear turret then? I guess he wasn't as knowledgeable on this subject as as you? And at night here was less urgency? I presume you think that Bomber crews found solace that there was less urgency?
The salvation of daylight operations was fighter cover, not the GM250.
I give up! Where is Flyboy when I need him!
Explosive tip .50 cal were not introduced until after WW2…
Not if it was explosive. Incendiary yes, but not explosive. Why? Because they were not introduced during WW2…
Don't take me wrong here. My personal opinion is the .50 cal is a better weapon/round than the .303, but fact is an explosive M2 round was not introduced during the Second World War.
Having said that, an aircraft's armament is largely based on its intended target. If you are attacking bombers you want a larger round, hence why the German's largely armed their fighters with 20 mm and 30 mm cannons as the war progressed. If your intended target is a fighter aircraft, a .303 is sufficient. If it wasn't, it would not have been used so widely.
Having said that, an aircraft's armament is largely based on its intended target. If you are attacking bombers you want a larger round, hence why the German's largely armed their fighters with 20 mm and 30 mm cannons as the war progressed. If your intended target is a fighter aircraft, a .303 is sufficient. If it wasn't, it would not have been used so widely.
