wuzak
Captain
They would be welcome to handle the few Zeros the Luftwaffe had in time for the BoB!
Wildcat during the Battle of Britain (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter pinehilljoe
- Start date
They would be welcome to handle the few Zeros the Luftwaffe had in time for the BoB!
1941 is very different to 1939 and those 1941 guns still needed years of development, the .303's lacked the punch of the bigger rounds but the guns and ammunition were a proven reliable system.
There is nothing apparent about it, the average BoB pilot on both sides couldn't hit the preverbal broad side of a barn even if they were standing inside it, having .50's with no tracer or De Wilde flash ammunition or AP that worked or guns themselves that worked is not going to improve that situation.
Don't laugh, the RAAF wanted to buy A5M planes before WW2 to use as interim aircraft until British and American models became available.
Admiral Beez
Major
Put an inline engine like in the HS-powered A5M3 and the RAAN might have a good fighter.
Mitsubishi A5M3: a carrier-based Hisso-powered "Claude"
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
There was AP ammunition. Perhaps not as good as later ammunition but it was tested (or rated) to penetrate 1/2 in (12.7mm) at 1000 yds.
"Cartridge S.A. Armour Piercing .50 inch Browning W Mark Iz"
There was tracer.
Cartridge S.S. Tracer .50 inch Browning G Mark Iz
It had a red trace that lasted to to 2000yds.
All of this ammunition was american pattern and supplied either from the US government though a shell company or by Remington under direct contract to the British.
There was also an incendiary round.
Cartridge S.A. Incendiary .50 inch Browning B Mark Iz however this may not have shown up until 1941 and in very small numbers. No examples seem to have survived for collectors.
This was, unlike the others, a British designed and loaded round. There was an earlier American sourced incendiary but the British did not consider it bore safe (possible to ignite in the gun barrel) and was little used.
basically any American aircraft showing up in 1940 with .50 cal guns had ball, AP and tracer available. Just not the Ball, AP anda tracer used by the Americans or in some cases the British in later years.
SOurce British Military Small Arms Ammo
The .50 cal tracer was not daytime tracer and could not be clearly seen in broad daylight, the incendiary didn't work and the American's reversed engineered the De Wilde .303 round to get something that was usable, the AP was tail heavy and tumble as soon as it struck anything, when hitting on oblique angles such as aircraft rear fuselages it tumble immediately. In 1940 aircraft mounted 50BMG's and it's specialised ammunition didn't work, period.
The idea of using 8 x .30cal that I objected to was using them in the F4F in place of the 4 x .50cal that were there.
Glider
Major
Yet despite all this the UK believed that the 4 x 0.5 in 1940/1 was a considerable improvement on the 8 x 303.
The French asked for their Wildcat order to be converted to 6 x LMG but the British didn't.
The French asked for their Wildcat order to be converted to 6 x LMG but the British didn't.
Attachments
buffnut453
Captain
Well, the only Martlets in British service in 1940 were the 81 ex-French machines plus another 10 ex-Belgian contract machines that were taken over by Britain. The French machines had been modified to use 6 x 7.5mm machine guns that were to be fitted in France. After taking over the order, the Brits reinstated the 50 cal armament. It's likely that conversion work was done in the UK by Blackburn's (typically, aircraft delivered from the US were bought without armament, which was fitted in-country).
Perhaps, in the conversion process in the UK, Blackburn was able to come up with a wing gun installation that worked? Regardless, we're still talking about less than 100 aircraft...so suggesting that it's a "considerable improvement" is perhaps stretching things a little in the 1940 timeframe?
Glider
Major
To be honest, no I don't think it's a stretch. I once spent a day in the NA concentrating on the Wildcat because at the time there was a lot of talk about the UK wanting to increase the firepower to six x 0.5. I found a lot of positive comments about the 4 x 0.5 although there were some negative comments about the installation of the 6 x 0.5. The only comments I found about the comparison with the standard 8 x 303 was that the 4 x 0.5 was along the lines that it was a positive improvement.
buffnut453
Captain
You may be right...but that all depends on those 4 x 50cals working under combat conditions. Per Lundstrom, the USN didn't get them working properly in Wildcats until the back end of 1942. How many actual engagements did the FAA's Martlets participate in during 1940? And how many were manoeuvering engagements?
Glider
Major
Clearly I don't know but, I do know they really didn't like the installation of the 6 x 0.5 in the Wildcat. If I remember correctly the guns would often rust and rearming took a heck of a lot of time. I will try and dig out some of my notes over the weekend.
I have always been of the opinion that the RAF much preferred a larger number of mgs. They believed that the larger number of .303s would do more damage to the airframe. Prewar testing also showed that engines were very vulnerable to even a few strikes. The much larger number of projectiles leads to a greater probability of being on target and getting a critical hit. A small study of downed aircraft early in the war showed that most were downed by hits that were fatal to the engine.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
<Edited, overtaken by conversation>
Last edited:
