Thumpalumpacus
Major
That would have roughly the same effect on .303s, correct? Granted how weight affects ballistics.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Tracers were removed as the war progressed, as the tracers actually resulted in poorer accuracy due to the optical illusion they created (the 'cut back' effect).
See the video "Why WWII Bombers Eliminated Tracers in their Ammo Belt Mixes" from the WWII US Bombers channel on YouTube, which cites the wartime documentation on the subject. (In the description box for the video there is a link to a Google Drive from which the documents shown can be downloaded.)
and this rather depends on one's definition of mass produced. Yes their is a defense between even a few hundred a year and tool room samples.
1940..........................5155 guns
1941......................49,479 guns
1942...................347,492 guns
1943...................641.638 guns
1944...................677,011 guns
1945...................239,821 guns
This is for ALL .50 cal guns, Air, sea and ground, including the water cooled AA guns. It was possible to build a water cooled gun on an AN/M2 receiver if you had all the extra parts. Most of the differences were in the barrel and barrel and barrel jacket. The rate of fire was dependent on the spring/s and buffer (?).
And the M8 API was not a very good incendiary, it did work somewhat as an indicator if the shooter was hitting because it often gave a flash on impact. All you had was little bit between the AP core and the Jacket. Advantage was that as the war went on over 80% of the belt was API. total amount of incendiary wasn't too bad compared to guns with 30-40% of the ammo being incendiary and rest AP and some tracers mixed in.
Late war you had some new incendiary on a trial basis. Dragondog's father may have used some some and it was pretty scary stuff, for the guys firing it.
That would have roughly the same effect on .303s, correct? Granted how weight affects ballistics.
It was a WW II .50 cal bullet.A WW2 vintage round or a modern round? To the best of my knowledge, the US didn't adopt a 'explosive-tipped' .50 round until the mid 1980s (and even then, by acquiring a foreign developed round).
Standard .50 cal rounds at the beginning of the war were the M2 ball, M2 AP and M1 tracer. Typical belting was 2 ball - 2 AP - 1 tracer
A new M1 incendiary round was introduced during 1942, as was the M2 tracer. These largely replaced the M2 ball and the M1 tracer in belt configurations. The M10 tracer was introduced a little later than these, although I can't find an exact date of service entry at the moment, and rapidly replaced the M1 tracer.
In 1943 the M8 AP-Incendiary and M20 AP-Incendiary-Tracer were developed, with both introduced sometime around very late 1943 or early 1944 (EDIT: Tony Williams gives "Spring 1944" for M8 service entry). These basically replaced everything else except for M2 AP. Standard belt configurations were typically comprised of AP, API and API-T, although it seems that incendiary rounds were more favoured in the PTO (possibly because of a lack of armour on Japanese aircraft).
There was also the M23 Incendiary round, which didn't enter service until just before VE Day.
It's not me that was making the argument, it was the RAF.
The visual effect would be the same, however, the video mentioned only discusses the .50-cal armament of U.S. bombers.
Nice shot of the Millenium Falcon!I would yes and sitting upright in a natural position with four .303's in front of me in a well designed turret with excellent visibility and wide angles of fire would in my opinion be better than two .50's in a not so well designed mount with limited visibility and traverse, it's still going to be extremely difficult to hit a fighter in either but for me the Lancaster turret with four guns loaded with lots of tracer would definitely be the pick of the two .
View attachment 708913
View attachment 708914
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.Are you saying that American bomber gunners didn't have tracers in belt? I've been under the impression that they did load tracer, perhaps not the 1:5 ratio that American fighters normally did. Did British bombers use that 1:5 ratio as you suggest? Direct answers to both questions would be appreciated.
So in February 1945 after six years of war and after gyro gunsights were developed they abandoned tracer ammunition, that's your argument?.Except that the tracer had poor ballistics and tumbled (Basil Dickens ORS). It was discontinued in February 1945. From the 6-Group end of war "Historical Review No 6 RCAF Heavy Bomber Group European Theatre. Appendix to the 6-Group ORB
View attachment 708922
Jim
You need to first hit the target for any of that to be relevant.Okay! So this is the definitive source on the debate between the 303 and the 50 caliber turrets. Harris's Depatch on War Operations 1942-1945.
Jim
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.So in February 1945 after six years of war and after gyro gunsights were developed they abandoned tracer ammunition, that's your argument?.
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.
Don't get cocky, kid.Nice shot of the Millenium Falcon!
Nice shot of the Millenium Falcon!
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 airYes, but not a lot. As mentioned above, KB.865 was one of the first to be equipped with that, and it was first operational with dad and crew, 1-March-1945. Below, KB.865. It's the a/c in the foreground. Note the more forward position of the turret. Photo CND Image Library, Yarmouth Nova Scotia, June-1945
View attachment 708920
It was a WW II .50 cal bullet.
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?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
I have disassembled an explosive-tipped .50 cal bullet. They definitely existed but I don't know their designation. Your .50 cal versus the .303 pea-shooter argument is not convincing.
It was a WW II .50 cal bullet.