Why no heavier RAF machine gun calibres? (1 Viewer)

[Clayton Magnet]

Was a four .50 cal manned rear turret ever tried before the B-52? It would be a beast.

Here's the M45 Quadmount for scale.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfLEq2PrgME

The He 177 had a 4x 13mm machine gun rear turret, but I have no idea how many actually made it into service

 

[PAT303]

The Browning M2 indeed did strike a good balance between punching weight and firing duration.
However, it was a decidedly poor option when total weight of installation was considered, especially for fighter aircraft. Just about any of the major 20mm auto cannons used in the conflict provided a more efficient balance between destructive potential, and aircraft performance penalty due to the weight of the installation.

But of course, only the Ma Deuce had the magical ability to saw an aircrafts wings off, or destroy a Tiger tank from below.

The Americans considered a single Hispano to be equal to three .50's in regards to effectiveness which has to be considered also. Personally I'm thinking the Mauser was a better option than the Hispano due to weight and size and maybe the British should have gone that way but then again the Luftwaffe all but ditched the FF/M after the BoB for the MG 151/20 so jumping straight from the .303 to the 20mm was the better overall strategy.

 

[MIflyer]

Another question is why did not the US upscale the .50 cal to 20MM like the Japanese. The experts said it would not work but forgot to tell the Japanese, who in their ignorance did it.

 

[Barrett]

No, for a start each .303 was good for around 1150-1200 RPM where's the .50 cal was if we are being honest good for about 450 RPM so we are talking 150-160 .303's per second to 15 .50 cals, also remember they were lower velocity rounds not M2's. You also have to take into account both the .50's would most likely jam in combat and didn't have specialised ammunition, the first incendiary rounds for the .50 we upscaled de wilde .303 rounds. In 1940 the .50 cal wasn't even close to being a developed aerial weapon and in my opinion 300 de wilde AP and ball rounds from eight .303's, 2 second bursts are the quoted figure for an effective hit on the target would be far more effective than what two .30's or two .50's or four 8mm's could do.

The .50 cal. Browning has been called "The Gun That Won the War" because it gave the Allies global air superiority.

Available online: The Machine Gun Bible remains the late Col. George Chinn's three-volume 1950s series. He cited the early Browning M2 .50 cal. at about 550 rpm. Army-Navy ordnance sources state that aircraft guns were boosted to around 800 rpm to produce a denser pattern.

Sidebar:
Seven years ago I wrote an article about the Douglas SBD titled "The Plane that Won the War."
WOW did the B-17 fanboys get cranky!

 

[PAT303]

The .50 cal. Browning has been called "The Gun That Won the War" because it gave the Allies global air superiority.

American's are very good at writing non bias factual accounts of WW2, it's a credit to them.

 

[SaparotRob]

The .50 cal. Browning has been called "The Gun That Won the War" because it gave the Allies global air superiority.

Available online: The Machine Gun Bible remains the late Col. George Chinn's three-volume 1950s series. He cited the early Browning M2 .50 cal. at about 550 rpm. Army-Navy ordnance sources state that aircraft guns were boosted to around 800 rpm to produce a denser pattern.

Sidebar:
Seven years ago I wrote an article about the Douglas SBD titled "The Plane that Won the War."
WOW did the B-17 fanboys get cranky!

Yes we did.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

The .50 cal. Browning has been called "The Gun That Won the War" because it gave the Allies global air superiority.

The .50 cal Browning specifically gave the allies global air superiority? For such a wonder weapon, its a wonder why it was replaced so quickly as a fighter armament.

 

[MIflyer]

I recall reading that Belgium's Hurricanes had four .50's rather than eight .303. If the guns were not available, where did those come from?

One .30 and one .50 was standard armament for US fighters throughout the 1930's.

The RAF was in a big hurry to replace the four .303 in Spit IX with two .50 before Normandy, when they realized that the Spits were actually going to have to fulfill a ground attack role, because they had far too few real fighter bombers and even the ones they did have the pilots were scared to cross the channel with them.

 

[tomo pauk]

The .50 cal. Browning has been called "The Gun That Won the War" because it gave the Allies global air superiority.

It was probably called only by the Americans as such.
The .303 Browning won the war, since it was instrumental in giving the Luftwaffe the 1st taste of defeat.

Sidebar:
Seven years ago I wrote an article about the Douglas SBD titled "The Plane that Won the War."

War was being won (or lost) in Europe and in North Atlantic. SBDs played almost no role there.

 

[Just Schmidt]

It's true, though. Even the soviets left the .50 in the (other) plane that won the war.

 

[PAT303]

even the ones they did have the pilots were scared to cross the channel with them.

RAF pilots were scared to cross the channel?, thats a new one.

 

[PAT303]

I recall reading that Belgium's Hurricanes had four .50's rather than eight .303. If the guns were not available, where did those come from?

From what I know it was the FN13.2mm guns that were to fitted not .50's.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I recall reading that Belgium's Hurricanes had four .50's rather than eight .303. If the guns were not available, where did those come from?

Domestic production.

Sources vary, but somewhere between 3 and 5 Belgian Hurricanes were armed with the F.N. Browning M.1939. This was an improved version of the M2 Browning (lightened and higher RoF) chambered in 13.2x99 Hotchkiss. The cartridges were very similar, although the Belgians did have a dedicated HE round.

The Belgians ordered 100 Hurricanes, of which 80 were supposed to be locally built licensed production versions, armed with the HMG.

I find a bit of disagreement about the arrangement though - most sources say 2*13.2mms per wing. However, some same 1*.303 and 1*13.2mm and some say 2*.303s and 1*13.2mm.

 

[Shortround6]

This was an improved version of the M2 Browning (lightened and higher RoF) chambered in 13.2x99 Hotchkiss.

according to some figures, most of the weight came out of the barrel. This helps (but not entirely) the rate of fire. It does not help the number of rounds that can be shot before overheating/barrel damage occurs.
The US had resorted at some point in production, to chrome plated barrels and then stellite inserts near the breech. The US also used a lot of barrels.

 

[MIflyer]

RAF pilots were scared to cross the channel?, thats a new one.

The Typhoon's engine was not very reliable. Were that not bad enough, it was almost impossible to ditch the aircraft and survive. This was due to the wing, not the big airscoop, because the Tempest could ditch quite nicely. So if a Tiffie was over France and the engine started acting up, there was a difficult decision for the pilot. Should he come down in France and risk being captured or killed, or risk crossing the channel, where a ditching meant almost certain death?

I think the first fighters to operate off airstrips in Normandy were Typhoons.

In contrast, pilot's flying the Tiffie's predecessor, the Whirlwind, would cross the Channel even with one turnin' and one burnin', despite the fact the props could not be feathered.

 

[PAT303]

The Typhoon's engine was not very reliable. Were that not bad enough, it was almost impossible to ditch the aircraft and survive. This was due to the wing, not the big airscoop, because the Tempest could ditch quite nicely. So if a Tiffie was over France and the engine started acting up, there was a difficult decision for the pilot. Should he come down in France and risk being captured or killed, or risk crossing the channel, where a ditching meant almost certain death?

I think the first fighters to operate off airstrips in Normandy were Typhoons.

In contrast, pilot's flying the Tiffie's predecessor, the Whirlwind, would cross the Channel even with one turnin' and one burnin', despite the fact the props could not be feathered.

I've never read or heard of RAF pilots being scared to cross the channel regardless of what plane they flew.

 

[MIflyer]

I've never read or heard of RAF pilots being scared to cross the channel regardless of what plane they flew.

There is not a lot been written by Typhoon pilots, but I suggest 'Tempest Pilot" by Sqdrn Ldr CJ Sheddan. After washing out of combat flying in Spitfires he got sent to be a delivery pilot. He found people terrified of the Typhoon, to the point that some advised him to fly straight in approaches to minimize the time at low altitude. He got to like the Typhoon and as a result went to combat flying and he described his experiences, including making the difficult decision to cross the channel with a failing engine. He survived the ditching because he had so much time in the Typhoon and figured out a way to land on the water that would avoid it diving under the water right away.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

It's true, though. Even the soviets left the .50 in the (other) plane that won the war.

The Soviets used a .50 because it was significantly lighter and simpler than their domestic 20mm, and lightweight and simple were absolutely critical to their early fighters ability to perform.
The .50 cal started to disappear once their aircraft could mount exclusively 20mm cannons.
Worthy to note, was that their .50 cal was better than the Browning M2. Being both lighter, and with a higher rate of fire

 

[bf109xxl]

The Soviets used a .50 because it was significantly lighter and simpler than their domestic 20mm, and lightweight and simple were absolutely critical to their early fighters ability to perform.

0.50 ~30 kg
12.7 ´mm UB 21.2(UBK)-24.2(BS) kg
B-20 28 kg
UB-20 (tested in 1941) was not more sophisticated than 0.50.
The Soviet used 0.50 just because it was already manufactured and supplied, moreover it had sufficient performance - it was not significantly worse than the UB.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

0.50 ~30 kg
12.7 ´mm UB 21.2(UBK)-24.2(BS) kg
B-20 28 kg
UB-20 (tested in 1941) was not more sophisticated than 0.50.
The Soviet used 0.50 just because it was already manufactured and supplied, moreover it had sufficient performance - it was not significantly worse than the UB.

The domestic Soviet 20mm I was referring to, was the ShVAK, which was 42kg, and complex and expensive.
The B-20 didn't enter service in any significant numbers until late 1944, but in my opinion, was probably the best aircraft gun of the war