Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- FN apparently developed a HE shell for the 13.2mm variant of the MG. Not sure how good such a thing is, I suspect the lower sectional density of a HE shell vs. a solid bullet and the relatively small caliber might mean the ballistics of these shells could be pretty bad?
Define "waffling about". The British had a signed license agreement in 1937 (?) and a factory under construction in 1938 and the first ceremonial production gun fired in Jan 1939.So this waffling about took some time, and it wasn't until mid-war when they got all the issues sorted out and the belt-fed Hispano deployed in numbers.
Part of the problem was the lousy ammunition, During the BoB around 3 guns out of eight were being fed ball ammo which was pretty much infantry gun ammo, lead core, light tip, copper jacket or alloy. Didn't penetrate for crap and deflected easily. Two guns out of 8 had AP with steel cores. Depending supply either one or two guns had the good De Wilde ammo.with well known issues in needing a huge number of hits to down an enemy plane, particularly multi-engine ones
I would be a bit leery of enterer production, the British needs high hundreds or thousands of guns per month. Not one hundred per month. How many did FN actually make?FN slightly improved version of the M2 in didn't really enter production until 1939 or so.
This brings up one of my own pet peeves with this FN "program". The FN company, licensed by Colt, had a ready go 1050rpm gun in 1939 and yet it took the US until late 1944 to come up with a 1100-1200 rpm version? And I mean the US as three different companies (two in addition to Colt) were trying to get the guns to fire that fast at an acceptable to US military rate of jams and parts breakage. There were at least 15 different model numbers of prototype guns. Now the US did make things harder by insisting for several years that the "new guns" should be able to be make from old guns using a parts kit. They had to give up on that. What changes did FN make? or what was their jam/ malfunction, parts breakage rate per 1000 rounds? And somehow this FN development never made it back to Colt?The FN version of the Browning has, per wikipedia, a RoF of 1080 ("standard" and up to 1500 rpm. Providing up to twice the volume of fire in a gun that is even slightly lighter than the Browning AN/M2. Not sure if this 1500 rpm is correct, and what would the barrel wear for such a thing be? But if it's true, then that's pretty impressive.
HE round:FN apparently developed a HE shell for the 13.2mm variant of the MG. Not sure how good such a thing is,
The FN company, licensed by Colt, had a ready go 1050rpm gun in 1939 and yet it took the US until late 1944 to come up with a 1100-1200 rpm version? And I mean the US as three different companies (two in addition to Colt) were trying to get the guns to fire that fast at an acceptable to US military rate of jams and parts breakage. There were at least 15 different model numbers of prototype guns. Now the US did make things harder by insisting for several years that the "new guns" should be able to be make from old guns using a parts kit. They had to give up on that.
What changes did FN make? or what was their jam/ malfunction, parts breakage rate per 1000 rounds?
And somehow this FN development never made it back to Colt?
Define "waffling about". The British had a signed license agreement in 1937 (?) and a factory under construction in 1938 and the first ceremonial production gun fired in Jan 1939.
Actual production took a bit longer but you can see the overlap on the FN gun.
Now the whole (or large part) of the 13.2mm ammo argument assumes the British (and Americans, they were suppling a fair quantity of the ammo to the British even in 1940) can supply the desired types and quantities of the 13.2mm ammo when they could not supply the existing .303 guns, the Vickers .5in guns and American .50 cal guns with high performance ammo (high performance means better than ball ammo)
I would be a bit leery of enterer production, the British needs high hundreds or thousands of guns per month. Not one hundred per month. How many did FN actually make?
I don't think that there was a huge difference between the 0.5 M2 being made fully effective and the 20mm. The 20mm was the better long term solution and any effort fixing the 0.5 would have lengthened the time taken needed on the 20mm. So in the long term I think they made the right choice.
HOWEVER..... A more advanced version of the 20mm Oerlikon (the FFS) was developed in the mid-to-late 1930s which weighed only 39 kg and fired at 470 m/s.
And this requires the British to sign the deal before the deal for the Hispano is sighed (and may stop the British from ever getting Hispano guns with a license, Marc Birkigt, was not happy with the British and felt they could not be trusted after a British company reneged on a deal to build Hispano engines in England). Buy and build land before doing so for the Hispano factory, and get the guns and ammo into production in late 1939 or early 1940.I would assume that whichever HMG was chosen, the Brits would require the design to be manufactured on British soil, precisely to guard against such eventualities.
The Whirlwind and Typhoon did happen, both armed with 4 x 20mm then came the Beaufighter and Mosquito. The Hurricane and Spitfire started to be fitted with 20mm cannon in 1940 and it was standard fitment on the Mk II Hurricane and Mk V Spitfire in 1941. In 1941 the USA and Germany were still using "pop gun" rifle calibre ammunition and the USA was still having issues with the 50 cal operation during high G manoeuvers in 1943. The RAF downed a lot of planes in the Battle of Britain with their pop guns. My thought is you have just watched a well known Youtube video.
Sorry yes, you are right.Thank you for the reply
That would probably be 470 rd/min, not m/s?
The RAF didn't get very far with improvements to the .303, except for the addition to the gun of open-bolt firing, which was successful in preventing the ammo blowing up through overheating. I think that the standard cordite propellant was more sensitive to that than the nitro powder used by other nations (the British had a long-term preference for cordite because its performance was more consistent in hot climates in places like Africa and India. However, by the end of WW2 they were changing over to nitro generally).The RAF was casting about for alternatives to the .303 Browning in the 1937-1940 period. There were a range of weird and wonderful armaments considered for the Spitfire:
- Browning Mk II in both very high rate of fire (more than 1400 rpm) and ultra high velocity versions.
- Aerial version of the Hotchkiss M1929 in 13.2x99 Long. I don't have much information on this weapon, but it apparently had performance similar to the Japanese Type 93 naval machine gun (weight just under 22 kg, RoF about 450 rnds/minute, muzzle velocity about 795 m/sec)
- Madsen light machine gun in 6.5mm, 8mm, 11.35mm. Rof was meant to be anywhere from 1000 to 1400 rpm, installed weight about 1 kg per gun more than the standard .303
- Madsen cannon in 23mm. Weight about 53-55 kg, RoF of 360 to 420 rpm, muzzle velocity about 720m/sec. Belt fed, reportedly with 100 rounds per gun.
- Vickers 12.7mm
- Vickers 25.4mm. This was a bit of an oddball, seemingly based on a Vickers naval AA gun. Muzzle velocity of 910-920m/sec but RoF of only about 100 or 120 rpm, and fed by a 30 round drum. Plus it weighed just over 127 kg per gun. Seems like it might have made a good aerial anti-tank gun, with the right ammunition.
- Oerlikon FF 20mm
- COW 37mm cannon
- Vickers 37mm cannon
- American Armament Co 37mm cannon. I think this is the same cannon as on the P-39.
- Hispano 20mm cannon.
- Hispano 23mm. I think this was the HS 404 re-chambered for the same ammo as the 23mm Madsen. Installed weight was 89 kg per gun, and feed was a 60 round drum.
Wasn't aerial gunnery a concern in the lead up to WW2, and the early war years?
That is, it took a lot more bullets to get a hit.