Testing Effectiveness of Incendiary Bullets

[elbmc1969]

Has anyone seen actual test results for the effectiveness of incendiary bullets? I'm hoping for at least firing at aircraft ground targets with armor, fuel, etc. Firing range info, lab tests, that sort of thing don't count. I'm wondering if anyone actually tested whether incendiaries penetrated enough to set important things in fire, how effective they were against fuel tanks, whether they really were significantly more effective against fuel tanks and engines than AP (much less HE) ammunition, whether oil coolers were vulnerable to incendiaries, etc.

Thanks in advance!

 

[fubar57]

Might be something here. Scroll down to Section 5 and beyond...https://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/FM23-65C2(02).pdf

 

[Greyman]

The British tested this sort of thing all the time. I'd be surprised if they were alone in that regard.

The majority of the time it seems like replica targets were used -- where they would 'build', say, and He 111 wing and petrol tank out of the same materials and test rounds that way. It wasn't a large majority though, and actual aircraft targets were very common. It was very rare for them to use a simple setup like you see in a YouTube video or something ...

Were you looking for information on a specific round?

.303 B. Mk.VII incendiary functioning against an He 111 wing

 

[elbmc1969]

The British tested this sort of thing all the time. I'd be surprised if they were alone in that regard.

The majority of the time it seems like replica targets were used -- where they would 'build', say, and He 111 wing and petrol tank out of the same materials and test rounds that way. It wasn't a large majority though, and actual aircraft targets were very common. It was very rare for them to use a simple setup like you see in a YouTube video or something ...

Were you looking for information on a specific round?



View attachment 552244

.303 B. Mk.VII incendiary functioning against an He 111 wing

No specific rounds. I was just wondering if there was empirical evidence behind them.

What is going on in that photo? I can't make out what's supposed to be the wing, etc. What's the source?

It seems to be testing against a full cutaway, which is different from testing the actual ability to set a fuel tank ablaze with varying amounts of fuel in it.

 

[Greyman]

It's from a report from the Incendiary Projectiles Committee testing the functioning of .303 incendiary ammunition on actual wing targets vs. replica wing targets. Nothing going up in flames but I thought the photo of a 'de Wilde' round in action was pretty neat.

Quick sketch of what's in the photo:

Statistical, representative, tests take hundreds of rounds and very soon your authentic Heinkel 111 you're using for a target isn't all that representative of a real Heinkel anymore. Making sure replica targets behaved properly was an important task.

In the Henkel's case -- statistical result based on firing single (269) shots of B.Mk.VI vs. Heinkel tanks was a 14.3% chance of a lethal fire. If only rounds below the petrol level were counted (219), the chance of a lethal fire was 1.1%.

But, as several reports point out in their own conclusions; "ground level trials are not truly representative."

 

[elbmc1969]

So, the area you have outlined in red is a void space. That's the box structure in the photos. In front of it is the fuel tank, which seems to be open air in the test.

 

[Greyman]

Correct.