12lb (combat) overboost was permitted by the time of the BofB and, IIRC, the code for a squadron climb to altitude using 12lb boost was 'Buster'.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
12lb (combat) overboost was permitted by the time of the BofB and, IIRC, the code for a squadron climb to altitude using 12lb boost was 'Buster'.Although they all got CS props for the battle of Britain the issue of time to climb still remained. In October 1940 the LW were sending Bf109s across the Channel at 30,000 ft to bomb London, at high altitude with limited power weight is a big issue.
To give a more direct comparison, the gun to look at is the Rheinmetall MK 103. This fired 30 x 184B ammo which was a close match in size and power for the Russian 30 x 165. But the MK 103 at 141 kg was three times heavier than the GSh-301 and only fired at one quarter of the rate (c. 400 rpm). Which means that the GSh-301 is twelve times better than the MK 103 in its destructive power per weight ratio. How much of the GSh's advantage is down to better design or better materials I don't know, but this suggests it wouldn't be easy to make anything like the GSh-301 in WW2.The Gsh-30-1 is an impressive achievement, in its simplicity and compact size. For me, the WWII equivalent to the Gsh-30-1 is the Berezin B-20.
I am slightly suspicious of this report - I suspect that the RN was familiar with the Vickers which made the testers view it more favourably.The RN compared the Vickers .5in and the Browning .5in during comparative trials for a quad .5in naval AA mounting. The Vickers gun was chosen because it was more reliable:
"
The .5-inch Vickers gun is therefore recommended for the Naval service in preference to the Browning gun." (Small Arms Review V15N4 (Jan 2012), Volume 15)
- Greater reliability
- Wear and failure of parts – if any – are to minor parts that can be readily replaced.
- Care and maintenance is easier to the inexpert, on account of its less complicated recoil and buffer mechanisms.
- The mechanism and functioning of the gun requires less special or expert knowledge to obtain a good, reliable performance, and is more readily understood by the average seaman, who already receives training in the similar mechanism of the .303-inch gun.
- Readily converted to right or left gun.
- From a general technical point of view, it is the opinion that the fundamental principle of the mechanism and the action of the Vickers gun is superior to that of the Browning, and is more certain in its action generally.
In its original .303 form the Vickers had a reputation for being just about unbreakable but prone to stoppages for a variety or reasons. I understand that a standard item of gunners' equipment was a mallet, which the gunner used to whack the beast to keep it functioning... In the aircraft version this was just about possible for cowling-mounted synchronised guns, but the Vickers could never be wing-mounted as the gun wasn't reliable enough and needed to be within the pilot's reach.
In the late 1930s into 1940 there wasnt a reliable 50cal to get off the shelf.
Weight was of great importance, the total weight of all guns and ammunition.
Which still would have made more sense than the often repeated "what-if" suggestion that the RAF should have armed their fighters with 'Merican 50 Cals.I warming up to the suggestion of the 20mm Oerlikon FFL. That could have been ready and deployed in time, and provide a formidable punch.
I dont know how much pilot input had to do with things ut I have heard two WW2 aces on was Geoffrey Wellum compare their "pea shooters" to a German 20mm cannon round, if you had been hit by a cannon shell or seen a colleague get hit by one, you wanted cannon yourself, yesterday if possible.Which still would have made more sense than the often repeated "what-if" suggestion that the RAF should have armed their fighters with 'Merican 50 Cals.
Quite frankly, armed with hindsight, the FFL would have been a better option than the HS.404. But the Hispano did eventually evolved into one of, if not the best, aircraft cannons on the war, in the Mk.V guise.
I think it should be remembered that Germany replaced the 20mm FF cannon with almost indecent haste. They wouldn't have done that without a reasonWhich still would have made more sense than the often repeated "what-if" suggestion that the RAF should have armed their fighters with 'Merican 50 Cals.
Quite frankly, armed with hindsight, the FFL would have been a better option than the HS.404. But the Hispano did eventually evolved into one of, if not the best, aircraft cannons on the war, in the Mk.V guise.
They had reasons.I think it should be remembered that Germany replaced the 20mm FF cannon with almost indecent haste. They wouldn't have done that without a reason
I think it should be remembered that Germany replaced the 20mm FF cannon with almost indecent haste.
Problem with the Oerlikon FFL is that you need to lay it over on it's side in a wing mount, like the Hispano. Apparently the Oerlikon had less trouble with this than the Hispano did.
Next issue was the ammo capacity. They were drum fed and they were advertising different sized drums. Larger drums means a bigger bulge on the wing. Both the Germans and the Japanese did develop belt feeds it took several years after 1940 for them to show up. The Oerlikon's were not belt feed ready.
There was certainly a lot interest, but I don't know if it was a finished product or if many of those countries were beta testers
The Germans also took a bit a detour with the MG 151/15. Very high velocity making it easy to hit with. But 15mm projectiles didn't hit that hard (compared to 20mm) the Germans went back to the 20mm shells. It also took quite a while to replace the 20mm FF cannon type.
The MG FF/M used lighter shells fired at higher velocity and used different springs (and perhaps breech block weight) to balance the firing. The basic gun hung around for years, perhaps in part because the MG 151 wasn't that easy to make (British thought it took more machining than a Hispano gun) and it took a long time to change the production lines over.
I don't know, we don't have many reports from German sources about the reliability/problems of the German guns, especially in English.So the problem was actually not present for the FFL?
I think it should be remembered that Germany replaced the 20mm FF cannon with almost indecent haste. They wouldn't have done that without a reason
[/I]The MG FF/M used lighter shells fired at higher velocity and used different springs (and perhaps breech block weight) to balance the firing. The basic gun hung around for years, perhaps in part because the MG 151 wasn't that easy to make (British thought it took more machining than a Hispano gun) and it took a long time to change the production lines over.
Probably from Mr. Williams website although uncredited.
From the left.
1. the early Oerlikon FF ammo or Becker cannon ammo
2. The Japanese FF ammo
3. The German MG FF ammo. MG FF/M uses the same case, projectiles may be different.
4. German MG 151/20 ammo. Same projectiles as the MG FF/M.
Skip 2 and go to the tall ones.
7. the Oerlikon FFS ammo. Can use the same projectiles as the #2
Skip 2, really tall ones
10. Oerlikon FFL ammo, same projectiles.
11, Hispano ammo, also can use the same projectiles.
The Oerlikon guns used a heavy breech block (and yoke) slamming back and forth and maybe that worked, or that the since the gun was opening up with pressure in the chamber the cartridge came out with a bit more force.
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.
Even holding fire until 300yds would have been a significant improvement. Gun camera footage of training showed some pilots opening fire at 900yds or beyond.holding fire until 150 yards or less would have ten times the impact on lethality as any minor difference in solid ammo.