Would the Madsen's 11.35mm round be a better option for the early WWII fighters?

[stoxm73]

The Madsen 11.35mm round weights 70-80% more than a regular rifle round, indicating it can accommodate more incendiary charge. Theologically, this gives a better chance to smoke the opponents. On the other hand, since this round has almost identical length to 30-06, it should be compatible with multiple automatic mechanism.

Although Madsen offered a machine gun that has a ROF 1200 RPM, but was seldom seen in service.

Will a pair of these be a better option for fighters such as P-36/Buffalo than their original guns?

 

[Hardrada55]

My sources say 11.35x62 Madsen had a 305 grain bullet fired at 2475 fps. 900 to 1000 rpm. Though I've also seen a muzzle velocity of 850 mps quoted. Just from looking at pictures of the bullet, it is short and fat. I worry that the 11.35x62 Madsen's bullet has a poor sectional density and will thus lose velocity relatively quickly in comparison with other cartridges. If so, effective range will be short. Probably a very effective short range incendiary cartridge.

 

[PAT303]

Madsen guns were trialled to be used in the Spitfire, your adding another cartridge to the supply chain when the Vickers 0.5 was already in service.

 

[Shortround6]

The 11.35x62 Madsen was just a bit bigger and a bit slower firing than the smaller Madsen guns. But much smaller in size/weight than the .5 in Vickers and the .50 cal Browning.

The existing Browning's may have to be scaled? The 11.35x62 is very close in length to the 30-06 but it is fatter. the 30-06 (and the 7.9mm Mauser, etc) used a cartridge case of 12mm diameter or very close to it. The 11.35x62 used a case over 15mm in diameter and bit under 16mmdepending on source and rounding off. The bigger case has close to 50% more area pushing back on the bolt face and the bolt needs to be larger and stronger than the small bolt/locking system for the smaller gun.
You can't use existing .303/30-06 guns and parts (or at least major ones)

The Madsen machine guns themselves were a bit strange. The bolt did not go back and forth but was pivoted at the rear and the forward end went up and down. This limits the ability of the gun to ram ammunition into the chamber and it may(?) give problems with extraction.

The 11.35x62 Madsen gun seems to have fired a bit slower than the rifle caliber guns 900-1050rpm? and that may well be unsynchronized.

The British were never going to stick .5in Vickers guns in a fighter wing. That was the whole point of adopting the Browning in the first place. They didn't want any Vickers gun were the pilot or crew could not reach it in flight to at least give it a good whack with a gloved fist. The Vickers was darn near unbreakable but the possible number of jams was a bit over 2 dozen and while most could be cleared with a good tug or push on the cocking lever (with the already mentioned whack) that was not satisfactory for remote mounting. And they knew that in the 1920s.
In 1930/40 the British were working on the de Wilde/Dixon incendiary ammunition which was much more effective than the incendiary ammunition used up until that time.

If the British had the manufacturing capability (they didn't ?) to make an different gun a scaled down big Browning to take the 12.7 X 81 cartridge would have been interesting.
Sort of a British version of the Japanese Ho-103 12.7mm machine gun.

 

[elbmc1969]

The Madsen 11.35mm round weights 70-80% more than a regular rifle round, indicating it can accommodate more incendiary charge. Theologically, this gives a better chance to smoke the opponents. On the other hand, since this round has almost identical length to 30-06, it should be compatible with multiple automatic mechanism.

Although Madsen offered a machine gun that has a ROF 1200 RPM, but was seldom seen in service.

Will a pair of these be a better option for fighters such as P-36/Buffalo than their original guns?

One of the two cowling mounts in the P-36 (well, Hawk 75) could accomodate an 11.35mm Madsen. The Argentines mounted a locally-modifed version that apparently had an impressive RoF.

And, of course, you could mount two sizes of Madsen autocannon in underwing pods on the Hawk 75, if you didn't care about performance.

 

[Steve Hnz]

I've long thought this would have been the ideal armament in the early war years for the RAF, but they seemed utterly wed to their rifle calibre weapons. Mistake IMHO.

If the British had the manufacturing capability (they didn't ?) to make an different gun a scaled down big Browning to take the 12.7 X 81 cartridge would have been interesting.
Sort of a British version of the Japanese Ho-103 12.7mm machine gun.

 

[PAT303]

I've long thought this would have been the ideal armament in the early war years for the RAF, but they seemed utterly wed to their rifle calibre weapons. Mistake IMHO.

The thousands of Luftwaffe pilots and crew members that lost their lives over southern England in 1940 would disagree with you.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

I've long thought this would have been the ideal armament in the early war years for the RAF, but they seemed utterly wed to their rifle calibre weapons. Mistake IMHO.

The RAF adopted the 20mm cannon as the standard fighter armament for future aircraft, in the late 1930's. It just took until 1941 to get them running reliably.
Skipping the interim step of heavy machine guns was logical, in hindsight

 

[Shortround6]

The RAF adopted the 20mm cannon as the standard fighter armament for future aircraft, in the late 1930's. It just took until 1941 to get them running reliably.
Skipping the interim step of heavy machine guns was logical, in hindsight

You are quite right.
The British signed the deal with Hispano in the late 30s.
They broke ground on the factory in 1938.
The first ceremonial gun was fired Jan 1939.

You could have made a .5in Vickers caliber Browning aircraft machine gun but it probably wouldn't have shown up before late 1940 or 41. and what do you want to give up to get it?
Bren guns?
Besa tank guns?
Vickers K guns?
some of the .303 Brownings?
British manufacturing resources were stretched thin as it was.
RR came up something a bit late trying to overcome a shortage of US Browning .50s but by the time they got even part way there the US shortage had disappeared.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

I think an argument could be made that perhaps the British should have selected the Oerlikon FFL as a basis for development, and it MAY have been available and reliable before the Hispano.
But the Hispano is what they had, and they developed it into arguably the best 20mm auto cannon of the conflict, in the Mk.V variation.
They just would have REALLY appreciated them about a year earlier

 

[Shortround6]

I think an argument could be made that perhaps the British should have selected the Oerlikon FFL as a basis for development, and it MAY have been available and reliable before the Hispano.
But the Hispano is what they had, and they developed it into arguably the best 20mm auto cannon of the conflict, in the Mk.V variation.
They just would have REALLY appreciated them about a year earlier

Perhaps you are already well aware of this article.

ANOTHER MISSED OPPORTUNITY: THE OERLIKON FFL CANNON

However go through it and look at some of the dates.

During the 1930s, Oerlikon radically modified the gun by replacing the reciprocating sleeve with a skeletonised yoke, to create the FFL. The weight was reduced from 43 to 34 kg (later reduced further to 30 kg) and the reduced inertia enabled the rate of fire to be increased to 490-500 rpm. This was the form in which the gun was adopted by the Japanese as the Type 99-2 in 1939 (the Type 99-1 being the Oerlikon FF).

the British had seen the Hispano gun fire in 1936 and were in negotiations in 1937. The deed of partnership was recorded in Jan 1938. First guns were being assembled in Dec 1938 with land having been purchased, buildings erected and machinery purchased all in 1938. The Hispano gun was firing at over 600rpm. In fact the British guns actually fired a bit slower than the French guns which claimed a rate of fire of up to 700rpm.

The Japanese made various modifications to the gun but the first significant one came with the introduction of a belt feed in the Model 4:

in 1938-39 both guns were feed by drums.

. The next, and last, Japanese improvement was a significant reworking of the mechanism to increase the rate of fire, in the Model 5. .................. The net effect was an increase in the rate of fire to 675-750 rpm,.................. This was an impressive performance, but the gun was too late to see action.

Probably could have been improved sooner but then so could the Hispano.

During the 1930s the performance of the ammunition was increased. The shell weight of around 128g remained the same, but muzzle velocity was increased from 675-700 to 750 m/s.

This rather depends on when the ammunition was improved. If done in 1935-37 it might have made some difference in the decision. if done (completed) in 1938 it was too late, the decision had already been made.

We also have claimed rates of fire, claimed velocities (from advertisements?) and not very well documented reliability (from anybody).

As an illustration of the latter FN was claiming their version of the Browning .50cal ( or 13.2mm version) was good for 1050rpm or higher in1939-40.
It took the US until the 2nd part of 1944 to achieve that despite have 3 different design teams in different factories working on it starting in 1941-42. Well over a dozed different designs/modifications. Some would reach the desired rate of fire, they just broke lots of parts and jammed often. Some were so bad that testing was stopped for the sake of the safety of crew/s testing the guns. (rounds were firing when not seated in the chamber). Were the Americans that bad or did FN over claim in 1939-40?

 

[elbmc1969]

If the British had the manufacturing capability (they didn't ?) to make an different gun a scaled down big Browning to take the 12.7 X 81 cartridge would have been interesting.
Sort of a British version of the Japanese Ho-103 12.7mm machine gun.

There was no aircraft-suitable .50 Browning when the design of the Spitfire and Hurricane began. The first, abortive, program ended in 1937. That gun could only feed from the right, which was a serious problem.

 

[elbmc1969]

The thousands of Luftwaffe pilots and crew members that lost their lives over southern England in 1940 would disagree with you.

Logic ... dying ... horrible death ...

 

[Shortround6]

There was no aircraft-suitable .50 Browning when the design of the Spitfire and Hurricane began. The first, abortive, program ended in 1937. That gun could only feed from the right, which was a serious problem.

There is some debate about that.

The US may have been working on left and right feeds in 1920s.
The .50 cal went through the following early models.

model 1918 (the cartridge had not reached final form yet)
model 1921, standardized with variations for ground, air and naval use.
.50 cal T1, both left and right feeds and both air and water cooled.
.50 cal T2 intermediate development stage, no details.
.50 cal M1, a standardized T2 for cavalry and infantry without modification but not placed into production.
.50 cal M2. standardized in 1933. included water cooled, heavy barrel and aircraft barrel. all receivers could be adapted to any role with the right parts.
.50 cal T21, work stared in 1940 on this, a high speed version with Colt and Springfield.

Perhaps this is error but it looks like they had been working on the left and right feed before 1933?

From page 8 of volume III of "The Machine Gun" by George Chinn.

Italian Breda-SAFAT was basically a copy of the Browning (but without license?) in mid 30s (first used in the CR 32 but the CR 32 was not designed for the Breda-SAFAT.
Vickers supplied the cartridge design for the 12.7mm Breda SAFAT.

While there may not have been an out of box .5in-.50cal gun available when the design work of the Spitfire and Hurricane began. It would appear that the above mentioned guns were available when the Spitfire and Hurricane entered production.
Vickers had started working on the 12.7x81R cartridge for export in 1923 so Vickers cannot be said to be ignorant of at least some of what was going on.

 

[Steve Hnz]

What he said.
There was no attempt made to develop a .5 aircraft machine gun by the RAF hence they stayed with .303s. "IF", someone had decided back at the time the specs for the Hurricane & Spitfire were issued they should be armed with 4 or 6 fifties, then I've little doubt that it would have been achieved by the time these aircraft entered service. Not with the Vickers gun obviously but a developed .5 Vickers/Browning, which Britain already had the manufacturing rights for in the .303 version, an enlarged version of that manufactured instead of the .303. might have given the RAF better firepower & knock down a couple of years before the 20mm Hispano was ready for squadron service & maybe a combo of Hispano & .5 Vickers/ Browning would have been more effective than the Hispano/.303 browning combo in Spitfire Mk Vs, a pity they had to wait for the E wing to get a comparable albeit slightly better combo with the .5 Brown

There is some debate about that.

The US may have been working on left and right feeds in 1920s.
The .50 cal went through the following early models.

model 1918 (the cartridge had not reached final form yet)
model 1921, standardized with variations for ground, air and naval use.
.50 cal T1, both left and right feeds and both air and water cooled.
.50 cal T2 intermediate development stage, no details.
.50 cal M1, a standardized T2 for cavalry and infantry without modification but not placed into production.
.50 cal M2. standardized in 1933. included water cooled, heavy barrel and aircraft barrel. all receivers could be adapted to any role with the right parts.
.50 cal T21, work stared in 1940 on this, a high speed version with Colt and Springfield.

Perhaps this is error but it looks like they had been working on the left and right feed before 1933?

From page 8 of volume III of "The Machine Gun" by George Chinn.

Italian Breda-SAFAT was basically a copy of the Browning (but without license?) in mid 30s (first used in the CR 32 but the CR 32 was not designed for the Breda-SAFAT.
Vickers supplied the cartridge design for the 12.7mm Breda SAFAT.

While there may not have been an out of box .5in-.50cal gun available when the design work of the Spitfire and Hurricane began. It would appear that the above mentioned guns were available when the Spitfire and Hurricane entered production.
Vickers had started working on the 12.7x81R cartridge for export in 1923 so Vickers cannot be said to be ignorant of at least some of what was going on.

ing.

 

[Steve Hnz]

Maybe there would have been more Luftwaffe casualties & fewer RAF ones with a earlier more effective armament, who knows, it's all speculation anyway.

The thousands of Luftwaffe pilots and crew members that lost their lives over southern England in 1940 would disagree with you.

 

[PAT303]

Maybe there would have been more Luftwaffe casualties & fewer RAF ones with a earlier more effective armament, who knows, it's all speculation anyway.

The trouble was the sighting arrangments not just the guns, post BoB analysis by both the RAF and Luftwaffe showed that less than 2% of pilots hit the plane they were shooting at, I had a document that showed damage from downed German aircraft, about 85% of the hits were from directly astern meaning very few pilots had mastered deflection shooting, in 1940 bigger guns would have just meant missing with bigger bullets. The RAF were right to stick with the .303, what they could have done is harmonised the guns to a point of aim at 200m instead of of the Dowding spread that they started with, also more tracer de wilde and AP instead of ball and lastly finger four formation instead of Vicks or line astern.

 

[elbmc1969]

I think an argument could be made that perhaps the British should have selected the Oerlikon FFL as a basis for development, and it MAY have been available and reliable before the Hispano.
But the Hispano is what they had, and they developed it into arguably the best 20mm auto cannon of the conflict, in the Mk.V variation.
They just would have REALLY appreciated them about a year earlier

Absolutely would have been. The MG-FF was just a minor modification of the FFL and the French had been using license-built Oerlikons for a long time as the HS-7 and HS-9.

The origins of the HS404 are interesting. Marc Birkigt apparently thought ita performance was inadequate and thought he could do better, but from my reading, he also really, really hated paying licensing fees. Licensing fees were something that other people were supposed to pay to him.

 

[elbmc1969]

There is some debate about that.

The US may have been working on left and right feeds in 1920s.
The .50 cal went through the following early models.

model 1918 (the cartridge had not reached final form yet)
model 1921, standardized with variations for ground, air and naval use.
.50 cal T1, both left and right feeds and both air and water cooled.
.50 cal T2 intermediate development stage, no details.
.50 cal M1, a standardized T2 for cavalry and infantry without modification but not placed into production.
.50 cal M2. standardized in 1933. included water cooled, heavy barrel and aircraft barrel. all receivers could be adapted to any role with the right parts.
.50 cal T21, work stared in 1940 on this, a high speed version with Colt and Springfield.

Perhaps this is error but it looks like they had been working on the left and right feed before 1933?

From page 8 of volume III of "The Machine Gun" by George Chinn.

Italian Breda-SAFAT was basically a copy of the Browning (but without license?) in mid 30s (first used in the CR 32 but the CR 32 was not designed for the Breda-SAFAT.
Vickers supplied the cartridge design for the 12.7mm Breda SAFAT.

While there may not have been an out of box .5in-.50cal gun available when the design work of the Spitfire and Hurricane began. It would appear that the above mentioned guns were available when the Spitfire and Hurricane entered production.
Vickers had started working on the 12.7x81R cartridge for export in 1923 so Vickers cannot be said to be ignorant of at least some of what was going on.

Looking at this again, you're clearly right, but I remember something I was just reading that talked about problems in 1940-41 getting the .50 to work in wing mounts for the first time. Previous mounts were a single .50 and a single .30 in the cowling, unless there's one I've missed (the P-40 being the first single-engined aircraft with a nose-mounted .50, right?).

I agree that they were working on left/right feeds pretty early, but there seem to have been problems.

The big issue was that the aircraft versions had inadequate barrels (and cooling) and were rated for only 75 rounds before needing to cool down for a little while, then 25 round bursts. The barrels were known to crack at 75 rounds and up, so the .50 was far from perfected at the time.

The .30 Browning was a safe choice for the RAF that also had good performance. It had been in service a long time, was known to be reliable, was in mass production, and parts were widely available. The change to cordite caused problems, but those were overcome. In an emergency, they could have used Browning-standard propellant. In any case, no one was going to get fired for choosing the Browning .30.

 

[Shortround6]

The early (very early 1930s) Oerlikon cannon fired at a much lower rate than later guns did, especially the more powerful ones with longer cartridge cases.

This makes it difficult to judge gov. officials who perhaps based over the early cannon. The Early FFS cannon may have fired at 280rpm and the early FFL cannon firing at 350rpm.
I don't know when the faster firing versions showed up but that was one of the big improvements of the HS 404. a much faster rate of fire. It might have started too fast and needed to slowed down a bit for reliability and then increased in speed with more development.