Was .303 the smallest calibre mg used in WW2 aircraft? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Personally I don't think it's makes any difference what guns you had, the waist gunners in American bombers were trying to hit a fighter closing in at 350 plus miles an hour while traveling at 200 plus miles an hour with a pindle mounted .50, do you really think they had any chance of accurately tracking ranging and leading a fighter enough to make one gun better than another?, same for rear seat gunners in torpedo/dive bombers, I believe loading lots of tracer would be a better deterrent than the size of the bullets.
Agree completely, especially since the objective is to save the bomber/crew and not necessarily shoot down fighters.
 
Not sure if they started leaving ball gunners at home very late in war.

I don't have exact figures, but I've read from several sources that many B-17s had the ball-turrets replaced by an H2X dome for blind bombing. My assumption, and that's all it is, is that these were generally squadron leaders due to the bomb-on-command doctrine used mid-war and beyond.
 
I don't have exact figures, but I've read from several sources that many B-17s had the ball-turrets replaced by an H2X dome for blind bombing. My assumption, and that's all it is, is that these were generally squadron leaders due to the bomb-on-command doctrine used mid-war and beyond.
Late model B-24s dispensed with the ball turret, and tail turret. Replaced with manual guns.
 
Brits didn't have 50 cal turrets or cannon turrets for a combination of reasons. I think what Harris said quoted above is basically nonsense. (As In I'm sure he did say that but it doesn't tally with the air ministry files). There was a big supply issue early on with 50s and the cannon turrets were so heavy it necessitated reducing the bomb load to the level where it was calculated that you'd need to fly more planes over the target and you'd end up with the same aircrew losses anyway. I'm not 100 percent sure I agree with all the reasoning but that was how it was discussed at the time.
Also remember bomber command found out very early on that bombers cannot fly into defended airspace unescorted, the whole myth surrounding the .303 .50 cal argument and US bombers being able to defend themselves because of the bigger guns is just that, a myth. You also need to take into account the different environments the planes were used in, the RAF bombed at night so the ranges were very short, no more than a few hundred meters at best, 4 .303's throwing out hundreds' of rounds per second at a night fighter barely 100 meters away is a very effective deterrent.
 
On the other hand you had the Navy PB4Y-2 Privateers that had 12 .50 cal machine guns
640px-PB4Y-2_Privateer_VP-23_in_flight.jpg

The waist mounts were power operated and were sighted with MK 9 reflector sights. There was no belly turret.
The planes also flew alone or in very small groups.

Different tactical situations required different solutions.
The Japanese interceptors were not as well armed as some of the German interceptors and often were not flying in large numbers.

But that plane has 6 powered twin mounts. An early B-17 had two powered mounts and early B-24s had three, Both got to 4 powered mounts later but it took a while for the B-17 to get there, Things got a lot better with the Cheyenne mount (and added transparent windows for the radio operator and waist gunners). The Cheyenne mounting was not only powered if had much more traverse and elevation and had a better sight. Increasing the effeteness of gun stations and gunners helped.

The USAAC took a while to get anything approaching effective defensive armament into the bombers.

Now one video says the tail gunners were not supposed to fire until the enemy fighters got to within 600yds range. The Gunners had about 10 seconds to fire at a plane approaching from the rear before it passed the B-17. A bit depends on the exact speed of the bombers and the fighters. A fighter that approached from the front, passed overhead and exited to rear was only in range for a few seconds.
 
Last edited:
I think what Harris said quoted above is basically nonsense ... it doesn't tally with the air ministry files.

Would you be able to elaborate on this any? I find the opposite to be true -- the memos, minutes of meetings, cables, etc. re: bomber armament support what Harris wrote in his despatches (quoted above).

"A combination of reasons" certainly, but I think for the most part everything could be summed up by what Harris said.

Simply put -- I think if they had gone to the Rose Brothers sooner they would have had .5-inch Browning turrets sooner.
 
On the other hand you had the Navy PB4Y-2 Privateers that had 12 .50 cal machine gunsView attachment 692268
The waist mounts were power operated and were sighted with MK 9 reflector sights. There was no belly turret.
The planes also flew alone or in very small groups.

Different tactical situations required different solutions.
The Japanese interceptors were not as well armed as some of the German interceptors and often were not flying in large numbers.

I'm sure it was a great addition to Navy patrol squadrons, but that thing looks like a flying tumor.
 
Now one video says the tail gunners were not supposed to fire until the enemy fighters got to within 600yds range.
The bullet drop at that range is approx 5 feet with about 3/4 of a second flight time before it gets there so a fighter closing in doing approx 300 mph will fly approx 300 plus feet not allowing for the bombers speed in that time so all the gunner has to do to hit the target is compute in his head the lead and windage aiming point all within the 10 seconds it takes before the fighter zooms by and he will score a kill with his hand held pindle mounted .50, while also wearing a heated suit in minus 40 degree temps inside a hollow alloy tube at 20,000ft, Pffff, what's so hard about that.
 
"The Machine Gun-History, Evolution, and Development of Manual, Automatic, and Airborne Repeating Weapons" by George M. Chinn, Lieutenant Colonel, prepared for the Bureau of Ordnance, Department of the Navy, 1951 in Volume 1, Part IV Aircraft and Airborne Weapons lists several 6.5mm Japanese, Danish and Italian aircraft weapons. Most of these were probably only WW1 or interwar developments, but the Hotchkiss clip-fed Japanese Type 3 in 6.5x50mm is listed as a 1943 development (p.351).

The smallest (weakest) aircraft MG listed was the WW1 Italian Villar Perosa/FIAT M1915 in 9mm Glisenti pistol cartridge, a weaker Italian version of the 9mm Parabellum.
 
True. Tracers were/are to follow your shots and point out targets for others, while hopefully not giving away your position. Good example is WW2, Okinawa when US Marines using America's first fielded night vision scopes on converted M1 carbines, changing a 5lb rifle into a 34lb weapon system that originally could see up to 70 yards in the dark. Marines armed with these systems would fire tracers which the machine gun crews would use as point of references to lay down fire. Together, they accounted for a large percentage of small arms casualties inflicted on the Japanese.
 
It may be an error. Or an act of desperation.

Something is off. Picture of a type 3 (?) machinegun.
View attachment 692292
Forget the hot set up in 1943, this thing was lukewarm in 1923.
Designation is off, date is off, caliber is off. Something is off.
The Taisho 14 was based on the M1914 Hotchkiss and chambered for 6.5x50mm Arisaka ammunition and it was equipoed with Anti-Aircraft sights.

Perhaps one of the most ineffective AA weapons used during the war, too...
 
The bullet drop at that range is approx 5 feet with about 3/4 of a second flight time before it gets there so a fighter closing in doing approx 300 mph will fly approx 300 plus feet not allowing for the bombers speed in that time so all the gunner has to do to hit the target is compute in his head the lead and windage aiming point all within the 10 seconds it takes before the fighter zooms by and he will score a kill with his hand held pindle mounted .50, while also wearing a heated suit in minus 40 degree temps inside a hollow alloy tube at 20,000ft, Pffff, what's so hard about that.
Side gunner is a different story than tail gunner.

Don't worry about the drop. with proper adjustment of the sight and allowing the bullets to cross the line of sight
unsung.jpg

you can rig it so the bullet is never more than 1-2 feet from the sight line out to 500-600yds.
How big is the plane?
You are correct, the problem is figuring out the lead.
The really big problem with with the waist .50s was the 2nd shot didn't go where the first one did and by the time you get to shot #5 any hope of the round going into the same town as the 1st is pure chance.
 
The Taisho 14 was based on the M1914 Hotchkiss and chambered for 6.5x50mm Arisaka ammunition and it was equipoed with Anti-Aircraft sights.

Perhaps one of the most ineffective AA weapons used during the war, too...
Worse than a BAR with 40-rd mags? (Never issued to my knowledge)
How about the Zero and the Kate that were downed by a soldier and a marine using 1903s (whether they were 1903A3s isn't specified but I contend the open rear sight of the former is better for offhand anti-aircraft shooting than the peep sight of the latter)
If, we really want to get froggy, we could debate the merits of employing the 1911 in the role of anti-aircraft artillery and the story of Owen Baggett shooting down a Zero while hanging in a parachute. I have to point out that although a .45acp has been known to stop tanks in their tracks (pun intended) I would think the lack of a proximity fuse would make it a poor choice as an anti-aircraft gun.

Hope you enjoyed!
 
Would you be able to elaborate on this any? I find the opposite to be true -- the memos, minutes of meetings, cables, etc. re: bomber armament support what Harris wrote in his despatches (quoted above).

"A combination of reasons" certainly, but I think for the most part everything could be summed up by what Harris said.

Simply put -- I think if they had gone to the Rose Brothers sooner they would have had .5-inch Browning turrets sooner.
I dont see how Harri`s remarks summed up anything, he basically says words to the effect of: "we could have had it all very differently but basically the Air Ministry and the turret people just sort of didnt really bother themselves".

This isnt true.

What IS useful about the quote however, is that it does tell us what Harris at least wanted it to be known about the topic. The fact Harris said it or wrote it
doesnt convey any bonding to "truth" about it, it simply means he said it. I think he`s just throwing muck onto other people here, probably as
he had some level of responsibility on the subject too - and knew it.
 
Last edited:
Following this thread turret drift, I am old enough to have spoken with several RAF Bomber Command ex air gunners. They fell into two principal classes. One preferred to not fire for fear of giving their location away and to direct the pilot to corkscrew. The other was to want as much tracer as possible to throw in the general direction of the night fighter to put him off and make him break off and find someone else. A few only wanted the 0,5" Rose turret if it were in combination with Village Inn airborne gun laying radar to make the increased firepower effective. Otherwise they fell into the two main classes and those in the second preferred the 0,303" x4 as it could put more tracer rounds out.

Of course thIs contributes nothing to the OP. Apologies.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back