WW2 aviation ammo

[Clean32]

Well this is my first post. somehow i ended up reading a thread that had a bit of a debate over the RAF .303 and the american .50, accuracy and power etc. its seems that all the posters are quite misinformed. so i joined and now can not locate that thread so here goes.

THe debate was in essence that the RAF were "stupid" ( strong word from the ignorant) for not taking up with the american .50 round rather than the .303 as they did.

The RAF held some quite major trials in the early and mid 30s and came to some quite solid conclusions.
further developments just before and early in the war increased this advantage.
Mixed armament to cover the shortcomings of both systems.

mixed ammunition was both an advantage and a disadvantage.

1930s aviation ammo
.50 american
Ball solid lead projectile
AP a sinders fluke inside a solid lead projectile
insedurary a solid lead projectile coated in phosphorus, the friction of the projectile traveling down the barrel ignited the phosphorus, this round left a smoke trail. unfortunately the phosphorus coating would burn and change the shape of the projectile, destroying accuracy and had a very limited effective range of about 300 yards.

Tracer, this round had a hollow base with a phosphorus insert wich was ignited by the popelant. IE so you could trace or follow the round. if you were the target you would not see the round until it had passed you.

British .303

Ball
Tracer,
incedurary
AP all as above
.303 'de Wilde, many rounds have been called this, deliberately so to create some confusion. this round often called an incendiary was in reality an explosive round. easy to ID as it looks like the projectile was cut off at the nose and had the tip drilled out. also it didn't have a copper jackett.

Now back to the beginning. The RAF had decided that with the speed of modern aircraft, that the opportunity to actually shoot at you enemy would be measured in seconds. thay used 1.5 seconds as there Standard, from that they looked for weight of shot/ energy of shot vers weight of armament and ammo. Vickers modified the lewis Gun to this end which actually out performed on paper the latter adopted browning. however trial showed that the browning was more reliable than the vickers. NB vickers had already made a lot of Vickers K, that's how the SAS got them. So in short a 1.5 second burst from 6 browning .303 Ball sent more energy down range than the equivalent total weight ( guns and ammo) of 4 .50 machine guns could send down range. so that was pre war thinking and shows itself in the speck for both the hurricane and spitfire.

This was not unknown to the germans or the americans for that matter. the ME109 with initially a 20mm cannon and two machine guns, the P40 originally with 2 .50 and 2 .30 p36 120mm? and 2 .30 etc

the problem of mixed armament is it is nearly impossible to create a merge of shot. with the cannon projectiles eather shooting high and then lower than the machine gun rounds.

Accuracy
It is interesting to note that the germans retrospectively rubber mounted there Me109 machine guns so as to diminish there accuracy or grouping. the P51 held good grouping with good ammo. the hurricane with .303 was not as good, but this was regarded as an advantage. the spitfire was quite poor early in the war with all six machine guns not able to hold a 3 yard group at 200 yards

 

[tomo pauk]

Well this is my first post. somehow i ended up reading a thread that had a bit of a debate over the RAF .303 and the american .50, accuracy and power etc. its seems that all the posters are quite misinformed. so i joined and now can not locate that thread so here goes.

THe debate was in essence that the RAF were "stupid" ( strong word from the ignorant) for not taking up with the american .50 round rather than the .303 as they did.

The RAF held some quite major trials in the early and mid 30s and came to some quite solid conclusions.
further developments just before and early in the war increased this advantage.
Mixed armament to cover the shortcomings of both systems.

All the posters are quite misinformed? Arrogance does not make the posts better, whether here or anywhere. Neither does bad spelling, inventing of new words, or inventing of gun and/or rocket calibers, let alone new versions of historical aircraft (Spitfire with 6 Brownings?).

mixed ammunition was both an advantage and a disadvantage.

1930s aviation ammo
.50 american
Ball solid lead projectile
AP a sinders fluke inside a solid lead projectile
insedurary a solid lead projectile coated in phosphorus, the friction of the projectile traveling down the barrel ignited the phosphorus, this round left a smoke trail. unfortunately the phosphorus coating would burn and change the shape of the projectile, destroying accuracy and had a very limited effective range of about 300 yards.

Tracer, this round had a hollow base with a phosphorus insert wich was ignited by the popelant. IE so you could trace or follow the round. if you were the target you would not see the round until it had passed you.

Sinders fluke? insedurary?

British .303
Ball
Tracer,
incedurary
AP all as above
.303 'de Wilde, many rounds have been called this, deliberately so to create some confusion. this round often called an incendiary was in reality an explosive round. easy to ID as it looks like the projectile was cut off at the nose and had the tip drilled out. also it didn't have a copper jackett.

incendurary?
Deliberately to create confusion - among whom?

Now back to the beginning. The RAF had decided that with the speed of modern aircraft, that the opportunity to actually shoot at you enemy would be measured in seconds. thay used 1.5 seconds as there Standard, from that they looked for weight of shot/ energy of shot vers weight of armament and ammo. Vickers modified the lewis Gun to this end which actually out performed on paper the latter adopted browning. however trial showed that the browning was more reliable than the vickers. NB vickers had already made a lot of Vickers K, that's how the SAS got them. So in short a 1.5 second burst from 6 browning .303 Ball sent more energy down range than the equivalent total weight ( guns and ammo) of 4 .50 machine guns could send down range. so that was pre war thinking and shows itself in the speck for both the hurricane and spitfire.

Speck? Source for the comparison?

This was not unknown to the germans or the americans for that matter. the ME109 with initially a 20mm cannon and two machine guns, the P40 originally with 2 .50 and 2 .30 p36 120mm? and 2 .30 etc

Initially, Me 109 was armed with 2 machine guns. P-36 carried no 20mm armament, not one or any number, let alone 120mm.

the problem of mixed armament is it is nearly impossible to create a merge of shot. with the cannon projectiles eather shooting high and then lower than the machine gun rounds.

Hispano + 0.50 BMG were very good in this, some other combinations were not.

Accuracy
It is interesting to note that the germans retrospectively rubber mounted there Me109 machine guns so as to diminish there accuracy or grouping. the P51 held good grouping with good ammo. the hurricane with .303 was not as good, but this was regarded as an advantage. the spitfire was quite poor early in the war with all six machine guns not able to hold a 3 yard group at 200 yards

Sources. especially for the Me 109 going with less accurate fire?

 

[tyrodtom]

Clean32 there's so much nonsense in your post , it's hard to address it all.
And the various spelling mistakes makes it hard to understand just what you're trying to say.

Nobody made, or would have made, incendiary rounds by coating the outside with phosphorus.
Can you imagine the hazards there would be just in storing and handling ammo made in such a way ?

As for tracer rounds only being observable from the rear ??
Obviously whoever suggested that has never seen a tracer round fired, or even seen a picture of one.

Vickers never modified the Lewis to get the Vickers VGO, they're completely different guns.
Just because they're both gas operated and use a pan magazine, ( but not the same pan magazine), doesn't make them related.

 

[GrauGeist]

Damn...there's so much wrong going on in the OP, I just won't flatter it with a reply, save for the P-36 reference.
The P-36 was initially armed with a combination if .30 and .50 MGs, the Hawk 75 export had various MG calibers at the request of those governments (7.5mm, 7.7mm, 12.7mm, etc.) but only ONE was ever fitted with cannon, and that was the XP-36F, which had one Madsen 23mm cannon fitted under each wing in a pod. It never went beyond the testing stage because of the performance penalty imposed by the weight/drag and that airframe was reverted to a P-39A.

In regards to a 120mm - there was no such thing on any aircraft during the war. The largest caliber ever flown, was the Italian's Piaggio P.108A which was equipped with a 102mm cannon (up from a 90mm), five were produced, none ever saw combat. The Germans tested an 8.8cm cannon in a Ju88, but that wasn't used.
The Germans, Americans both used a 75mm cannon in their ground attack aircraft and from there, the caliber gets smaller...not larger.

A little knowledge goes a long way...

 

[Clean32]

All the posters are quite misinformed? Arrogance does not make the posts better, whether here or anywhere. Neither does bad spelling, inventing of new words, or inventing of gun and/or rocket calibers, let alone new versions of historical aircraft (Spitfire with 6 Brownings?).



Sinders fluke? insedurary?



incendiary?
Deliberately to create confusion - among whom?



Speck? Source for the comparison?



Initially, Me 109 was armed with 2 machine guns. P-36 carried no 20mm armament, not one or any number, let alone 120mm.



Hispano + 0.50 BMG were very good in this, some other combinations were not.



Sources. especially for the Me 109 going with less accurate fire?

i was pointing out that 6 browning .303 as produced for the RAF produced more energy of shot than 4 .5 brownings in a 1.5 second burst. given the difference is weight of both guns and ammo and rate of fire. i did not state that as you say a spitfire with 6 brownings. i was trying to clear up why the british stuck with the .303 round rather than change to the .50.

Sinderd Fluke. think of it as a very hard steel dart inside a lead bullet.

as the explosive round was changed to the british developed round ( ball in nose of projectile. the naming was not changed for security reasons. a bit like why a Tank is called a Tank in ww1

my bad typo, p36 should be 12mm not 120mm argentina, finland and the dutch all had P36s with mixed armament.

Hispano. some thing i would not have thought about if you had not pointed it out. nor have i ever read any thing about it. do you have a link to more information please

 

[Clean32]

Clean32 there's so much nonsense in your post , it's hard to address it all.
And the various spelling mistakes makes it hard to understand just what you're trying to say.

Nobody made, or would have made, incendiary rounds by coating the outside with phosphorus.
Can you imagine the hazards there would be just in storing and handling ammo made in such a way ?

As for tracer rounds only being observable from the rear ??
Obviously whoever suggested that has never seen a tracer round fired, or even seen a picture of one.

Vickers never modified the Lewis to get the Vickers VGO, they're completely different guns.
Just because they're both gas operated and use a pan magazine, ( but not the same pan magazine), doesn't make them related.

i admit my spelling is bad, you can hang me on that if you wish. but then im playing the ball and not the man!

Incendiary rounds i am referring to had a band of phopurs around the projectile which was covered by the casing.

Tracer rounds of the day had a hollow to the back of the projectile where the phosphorus was inserted. i think i remember reading that the burn time of the phosphorus was limited and only burnt for 3-400 yards but it did leave a smoke trail.


you are quite correct! the vickers K is not a development of the lewis its a development of the Zbrojovka Brno or more correctly a development of a french development of the Zbrojovka Brno as opposed to the ben gun being a direct development of the Zbrojovka Brno. resulting in two totally different weapons

 

[Greyman]

The subterfuge of the .303-inch Mk.VI Incendiary round was the fact that it was called the 'de Wilde' bullet. The real 'de Wilde' round was a Belgian invention which was known to all and wasn't particularly effective. When the British redesigned the bullet they kept the 'de Wilde' name so as to not let other countries know they had anything new.

While the Mk.VI Incendiary had a violent action on striking the target, it was indeed better described as an incendiary and not an explosive round. The filling composition, S.R.365, was a 1:1 mix of barium nitrate and a magnesium/aluminum alloy ... very little 'lifting' power in an explosion and absolutely not what you want for blasting anything.

 

[Greyman]

Tracers didn't use phosphorous, those were incendiary rounds. Broadly speaking, phosphorous incendiary rounds functioned by burning out of a 'weep hole' in the side of the bullet (British Mk.IV round, German PmK round, French Mle 1929 round). The trouble is many contemporary sources and veteran accounts call incendiary rounds that burn in flight 'tracers' or 'incendiary-tracers', so a lot of confusion comes from that.

Tracers use (for the most part) a firework-type composition in the rear of bullet, like strontium nitrate, barium peroxide, barium nitrate, or several others.

 

[tyrodtom]

The .303 tracer Mk VII T, approved in 1916 had a tracer burn of 800 yards.
The .303 tracer G Mk II, approved in 1939 had a burn range of 1000 yards.
The .303 tracer G Mk III, approved later with a brighter burn, had a burn range of 800 yards.

 

[Shortround6]

i admit my spelling is bad, you can hang me on that if you wish. but then im playing the ball and not the man!

Incendiary rounds i am referring to had a band of phopurs around the projectile which was covered by the casing.

Tracer rounds of the day had a hollow to the back of the projectile where the phosphorus was inserted. i think i remember reading that the burn time of the phosphorus was limited and only burnt for 3-400 yards but it did leave a smoke trail.


you are quite correct! the vickers K is not a development of the lewis its a development of the Zbrojovka Brno or more correctly a development of a french development of the Zbrojovka Brno as opposed to the ben gun being a direct development of the Zbrojovka Brno. resulting in two totally different weapons

In reverse order. The Vickers K gun was a modification of the Vickers- Berthier LMG which can trace it's lineage back to 1910/11. Vickers purchased the license rights for the 1922 model in 1925, Not sure where the Zbrojovka Brno enters the story. In fact the Berthier may have influenced the ZB series of guns as the Bethier was one of the guns tested in Czechoslovakia in 1921/22.

Mr.Buckingham demonstrating his ammunition at Hythe

Picture and caption from .303 inch Incendiary - British Military Small Arms Ammo

a very good site with good descriptions of the different rounds.

 

[Shortround6]

Well this is my first post.

1930s aviation ammo
.50 american
Ball solid lead projectile
AP a sinders fluke inside a solid lead projectile
insedurary a solid lead projectile coated in phosphorus, the friction of the projectile traveling down the barrel ignited the phosphorus, this round left a smoke trail. unfortunately the phosphorus coating would burn and change the shape of the projectile, destroying accuracy and had a very limited effective range of about 300 yards.
Tracer, this round had a hollow base with a phosphorus insert wich was ignited by the popelant. IE so you could trace or follow the round. if you were the target you would not see the round until it had passed you.

there was NEVER a US .50 bullet with a solid lead projectile or solid lead core. The BALL ammo always used a steel core with a bit of lead at the tip. The steel core was either identical
to the AP or very close. Ball ammo used "soft' steel cores. AP ammo used a hardened core.

Pictures are for the M2 but the M1 bullets were close, The US had NO incendiary ammunition in service in the 1930s for the .50 caliber.

British .303

Ball
Tracer,
incedurary
AP all as above
.303 'de Wilde, many rounds have been called this, deliberately so to create some confusion. this round often called an incendiary was in reality an explosive round. easy to ID as it looks like the projectile was cut off at the nose and had the tip drilled out. also it didn't have a copper jackett.

this has been covered by others.

Now back to the beginning. The RAF had decided that with the speed of modern aircraft, that the opportunity to actually shoot at you enemy would be measured in seconds. thay used 1.5 seconds as there Standard, from that they looked for weight of shot/ energy of shot vers weight of armament and ammo. Vickers modified the lewis Gun to this end which actually out performed on paper the latter adopted browning. however trial showed that the browning was more reliable than the vickers. NB vickers had already made a lot of Vickers K, that's how the SAS got them. So in short a 1.5 second burst from 6 browning .303 Ball sent more energy down range than the equivalent total weight ( guns and ammo) of 4 .50 machine guns could send down range. so that was pre war thinking and shows itself in the speck for both the hurricane and spitfire.

As has been mentioned already the Lewis gun had nothing to do with anything. The Vickers K gun was never intended to be a fixed forward firing gun, it was always intended to be a flexible gun for defensive gunners. the adoption of power turrets that mounted Brownings is what resulted in a surplus of Vickers K guns,

Your math is also a bit off. 6 guns firing at 1200rpm (20 rps) is 180 bullets in 1.5 seconds. with all guns firing AP at 174 grains per bullet that is 4.74lbs worth of bullets.
four .50 cal guns firing at 600rpm (10 rps) is 60 bullets in 1.5 seconds. With a bullet weight of 750 grains (1930s ammo used slightly heavier bullets than 1941 US M2 ammo) that is 6.42lbs worth of bullets. Velocity of the .303 was 2440fps and velocity of the 1930s .50 cal ammo was 2500fps (not the 2800fps of the later ammo) call it the same so the energy per grain (or pound) of bullet weight is the same. Six guns doesn't even come close. in fact eight guns is 5.96lbs in 1.5 seconds.

the spitfire was quite poor early in the war with all six machine guns not able to hold a 3 yard group at 200 yards

Any Spitfire flying with six guns has a serious gun shortage/maintenance problem in it's squadron. As has been mentioned by others ALL Spitfires initially carried eight .303s in combat.
Any "six" Spitfire had two 20mm and four .303s

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And knowing is half the battle...

 

[pbehn]

The British didn't stick with the 0.303 any longer than it took to get 20mm cannon working. 4x 20mm cannon was the standard for all fighters from early 1941, only the Spitfire continued with a mix due to heating issues.

 

[Greyman]

I see the gun heating thing pop up from time to time in regard to why the 4 x 20mm Spitfire wasn't used, but all of the official reasoning points squarely at the extra weight and loss of performance, particularly at altitude.

 

[Clean32]

In reverse order. The Vickers K gun was a modification of the Vickers- Berthier LMG which can trace it's lineage back to 1910/11. Vickers purchased the license rights for the 1922 model in 1925, Not sure where the Zbrojovka Brno enters the story. In fact the Berthier may have influenced the ZB series of guns as the Bethier was one of the guns tested in Czechoslovakia in 1921/22.

View attachment 535793
Mr.Buckingham demonstrating his ammunition at Hythe

Picture and caption from .303 inch Incendiary - British Military Small Arms Ammo

a very good site with good descriptions of the different rounds.

thanks for that link, very interesting

 

[Clean32]

In reverse order. The Vickers K gun was a modification of the Vickers- Berthier LMG which can trace it's lineage back to 1910/11. Vickers purchased the license rights for the 1922 model in 1925, Not sure where the Zbrojovka Brno enters the story. In fact the Berthier may have influenced the ZB series of guns as the Bethier was one of the guns tested in Czechoslovakia in 1921/22.

View attachment 535793
Mr.Buckingham demonstrating his ammunition at Hythe

Picture and caption from .303 inch Incendiary - British Military Small Arms Ammo

a very good site with good descriptions of the different rounds.

OK even more confused, i have been looking at that link. Now i grew up with boxes of air force surplus .303 ammo, but i can see no rounds that look like we had. the projectile was solid, pointed but the tip ad about a 1/16 hole drilled back into the projectile about 3/8 deep. any idear what this was. Oh and the charge was spaghetti

 

[pbehn]

I see the gun heating thing pop up from time to time in regard to why the 4 x 20mm Spitfire wasn't used, but all of the official reasoning points squarely at the extra weight and loss of performance, particularly at altitude.

No it doesn't, the Hurricane Mk II carried four cannon and that needed every ounce of performance. Some Spitfires had 4 cannon and 4 x 0.303 but they were used in the Med at lower altitudes. What area of performance was the Mk XIV Spitfire short in?

 

[Clean32]

Your math is also a bit off. 6 guns firing at 1200rpm (20 rps) is 180 bullets in 1.5 seconds. with all guns firing AP at 174 grains per bullet that is 4.74lbs worth of bullets.
four .50 cal guns firing at 600rpm (10 rps) is 60 bullets in 1.5 seconds. With a bullet weight of 750 grains (1930s ammo used slightly heavier bullets than 1941 US M2 ammo) that is 6.42lbs worth of bullets. Velocity of the .303 was 2440fps and velocity of the 1930s .50 cal ammo was 2500fps (not the 2800fps of the later ammo) call it the same so the energy per grain (or pound) of bullet weight is the same. Six guns doesn't even come close. in fact eight guns is 5.96lbs in 1.5 seconds.

Its not my maths, its what i read, while there is no fault in your maths, and i agree with you. It actually raises more questions. Barrel lengths, projectile weight and charge. IE what round did they use for testing in the mid 30s? as you said the .50 projectile got lighter, so did the .303 (well it got lighter then a bit heavier again) and as i posted and as i recall. it was energy of shot vers weight of armament and ammo.

did the RAF actually use the same .303 rounds as the infantry? ie is Ball Ball.

so as i said it raises more questions?

 

[pbehn]

Its not my maths, its what i read, while there is no fault in your maths, and i agree with you. It actually raises more questions. Barrel lengths, projectile weight and charge. IE what round did they use for testing in the mid 30s? as you said the .50 projectile got lighter, so did the .303 (well it got lighter then a bit heavier again) and as i posted and as i recall. it was energy of shot vers weight of armament and ammo.

did the RAF actually use the same .303 rounds as the infantry? ie is Ball Ball.

so as i said it raises more questions?

Both the guns and the ammunition changed over time. The RAF switching to 20mm cannon was a logical decision at the time. The USA adopting the 0.5" was also a logical decision at the time, but they were slightly different times and slightly different issues.

 

[Clean32]

Both the guns and the ammunition changed over time. The RAF switching to 20mm cannon was a logical decision at the time. The USA adopting the 0.5" was also a logical decision at the time, but they were slightly different times and slightly different issues.

so true, i guess we will never know. as everything got bigger and stronger faster and heavier we end up with an A10