WWII aircraft armament machine guns and cannon

[Pumpkin]

I doubt P-47 pilots were the only ones that underestimated targets range.

I would think my chances at hitting my target with a 50BMG would be better than with a lower velocity, slower firing cannon round at misjudged ranges.

[44 AMP]

"(1) The duration of fire is not a decisive factor in determining the outcome of a combat."

Seems to me that running out of ammo before the enemy does would be a decisive factor that certainly could affect the outcome of a combat.



It may be considered a personal failing, but I always have issues accepting the conclusions based on statistical study as holy writ. Particularly when terms are used that have multiple definitions and there is not enough context to be certain which definition is being used by the author.

IN this case, "duration of fire" means what, exactly? The length of a burst? In seconds? In rounds fired?? Or is it the amount of firing time the aircraft has? How much ammo the aircraft carries? This, among other things, leaves me a bit skeptical.

The report goes on to break down several factors into percentages and averages, based on 111 studied combats (involving P-47s I assume).

I don't question the math, only its application in making conclusions, and presenting those conclusions as hard and fast "happens every time" facts.

I do agree that the most common reasons pilots miss is "faulty aim", which is pilot error. But we always knew that. Every miss is shooter error, in one way, or another. I'm just unsure if the percentages given accurately reflect overall reality or just the small sample that was studied and analyzed.

Now I'm curious what part the gunsights played in missing targets due to pilot error. The P40s in the early months of the war had simple ring and post gunsites, replaced with reflector gun sites as the war went on, other fighter designs had them from the drawing board up. These sights do function as a form of rangefinder, and lead calculator, but using them correctly is a pilot function, and a training issue. But if the pilot misses, its still "pilot error".

[davidsog]

IN this case, "duration of fire" means what, exactly?

They are saying holding down the trigger for a long time to "spray and pray" does not work.

The most common duration of fire was .3 seconds and the average duration of fire was .94 seconds.

A typical fighter pilot thinks he shooting at 300 yards but it is actually 600 yards.

He fires 5-6 one second on average or more commonly .3 second bursts. The aircraft oscillation cause his cone of fire to be all over the place with most of his bullets missing the target. Comes back to the Squadron and complains the firing pattern is not concentrated enough.

He closes to 200 yards and breaks off the attack. 2/3rds of the enemy aircraft attacked escape undamaged.

Pilots that wait and close to an actual distance of 250 yards before open firing are almost certain to get a kill. Oswald Boelcke, Eric Hartmann, Richard Bong, and every successful gunfight pilot says the exact same thing. Get in close before firing and when you think you are close, get closer.

That is from gun camera footage analysis.

[2damnold4this]

My only issue with the "Buckingham" is the MOD's emphasis on separating British weapons from the American adaptation, specifically "Browning" in the adaptation of the .5 inch M2.

According to your link on 0.303 incendiaries, the British were calling their incendiary 0.303 rounds "Buckingham" up until 1923 when they started using the "B" after the method the incendiary was added. They didn't adopt the 0.303 version of the Browning until the 1930s but they were calling 0.303 incendiary bullets that used Buckham's method of adding an incendiary "B" rounds for many years before.

Your link on the 0.50 Browning rounds specifically calls the round "Cartridge S.A. Incendiary .50 inch Browning B Mark IIz" . And says it was a British designed bullet based on the incendiary 0.303 B Mk VII. Why would they say Browning and "B" if the "B" meant Browning?

[2damnold4this]

I would think my chances at hitting my target with a 50BMG would be better than with a lower velocity, slower firing cannon round at misjudged ranges.

I was thinking the same thing.

[44 AMP]

A typical fighter pilot thinks he shooting at 300 yards but it is actually 600 yards.

While this sounds like terrible performance on the part of our pilots, there are other factors involved that most people who aren't combat pilots don't think about.

Consider this, if your plane is doing 300mph, it will travel 300 yards in about two seconds. If your plane is doing 400mph, it will travel that same 300 yards in about 1.5 seconds.

So, if the closure rate between you and your enemy is 300mph, and you open fire at 600, two seconds later you are at 300 and if no one moves two seconds after that you collide.

Consider two fighters going head on, each doing a "mere" 300mph. That's a closure rate of 600mph, and at that speed, there is only barely over 2 seconds between 600yards apart and impact. And don't forget the amount of time needed for your aircraft to move enough to avoid striking the enemy aircraft.

The time needed between getting close enough for a successful attack and needing to break off to avoid collision depends on the aircraft speeds and angle of attack. Stern attacks give you the most time, head on the least, and beam attacks are in the middle, somewhere.

The greatest aces had the eyesight, reflexes and concentration to learn to use them effectively, and repeatedly.

The guys who didn't, scored lower, if at all, and some never survived their first mistake. Also remember that for every expert ace, there were squadrons worth of guys who never got anywhere near that good.

even the great aces started out as green pilots They just learned their OJT better and usually quicker than most.

[Pumpkin]

I seem to remember reading something about some B-52 success against I’m thinking Mig 17’s. Maybe it was B-50’s and Mig 15’s?
Had to do with the closing speed of the Mig and the velocity of the tail mounted guns.

I could be out in left field, it happens sometimes.

[Pumpkin]

I have read about an F-11 Tiger shooting itself down!
Beautiful plane by the way.

[105kw]

I have heard, that the B-52s during Linebacker in 1972, had some success holding off Mig-21s.
The NVAF used Mig-21s because they could get a missle shot off without getting into gun range. The idea was good, but it didn't work out in the field. They ended up in .50 range for the tail gunners.

[RC20]

Now I'm curious what part the gunsights played in missing targets due to pilot error. The P40s in the early months of the war had simple ring and post gunsites, replaced with reflector gun sites as the war went on, other fighter designs had them from the drawing board up. These sights do function as a form of rangefinder, and lead calculator, but using them correctly is a pilot function, and a training issue. But if the pilot misses, its still "pilot error".

I find myself scratching my head trying to figure out what the point is (pun intended)

The issue was lots of new pilots and the training (or lack of the ability to train at all)

Shooting at a towed target was an artificial one off in regards to combat and aircraft positioning. The best ones were those who snuck up behind and close and blasted the target (ie no escape zone). Because it was a no deflection shot.

The only way to train for combat was combat. Some had a natural flair for deflection and most had to learn it.

So no, not pilot error. Bong went back the US and went into training to improve his poor shooting (note that does not mean the same things as he was not successful, getting close was a way to be a success). But you missed (he) chances if he could shoot better (or calculate the angles and learn how to use the tools)

As for bursts, the more you had duration wise the more shooting you could do, short ones vs long bursts aside.

Ergo, often in the Battle of Britain they reported running out of ammo. Lowe duration (amount) as well as all those guns taking up wing space in a small aircraft and to top it off, the 303 was a crappy gun to have to try to use.

More time in seconds of shooting the more effective you could be per mission (assumes you have at least a 50 caliber gun).

Weird stuff like the Brits had a so called explosive round in 303 and you could not make the same in 50 cal (choose not to).

20 mm was not slow firing. 750 RPM. But it took up a lot more room. New guys better off with 50 cal and your shooters better off with 20 mm (not that they had a choice).

But as huge numbers of US fighter pilots got into combat, the Japanese and Germans were trailing off as their best pilots were steadily getting killed off.

Some Axis pilots with high shoot-down counts (often exaggerated).

US pilots, 1,2, 3, 5 but it added up

[RC20]

They ended up in .50 range for the tail gunners.

And why was that not 20 mm cannons?

[Pumpkin]

“The only way to train for combat was combat. Some had a natural flair for deflection and most had to learn it.” Good point!

So how many of the best German fighter pilots fought in the Spanish Civil War?
What better practice for a 109 pilot than a pesky I-16.

Japanese pilots had similar post Pearl Harbor proving ground in China.
Maybe not with a certain group of P-40’s

This combat experience had to put them at a deadly advantage.

[Pumpkin]

Deleted

[105kw]

The Japanese were in China from, I think 1937 on.
Both the Imperial Army and Navy used it as a testing ground.
They fought the Russians on the border too.
The Flying Tigers did not go into combat until just before Christmas 1941.
So yes the Japanese did have very experienced aircrew going into WW2, just like the Germans did with the Spanish Civil War.

[44 AMP]

Ergo, often in the Battle of Britain they reported running out of ammo. Lowe duration (amount) as well as all those guns taking up wing space in a small aircraft and to top it off, the 303 was a crappy gun to have to try to use.

The Battle of Britain Spitfires and Hurricanes carried enough ammo for about 20 seconds of firing time. Green pilots everywhere tend to shoot themselves dry frequently. "The Few" of RAF fighter command saved Britain, and became national heroes. Because of that, the errors, flaws, and failures have been largely under reported, glossed over, or even outright ignored by historical accounts written afterwards. Also, don't forget the influence of propaganda (and pride) influencing what has been written.

The .303s in RAF fighters wings were NOT "crappy guns". They were excellent guns mechanically, being a variant of the Browning 1917 machine gun, made by Colt for the RAF, and any lack of effectiveness needs to be laid at the feet of RAF command and their decisions, not the gun, or the cartridge.

Aircraft development in all aspects, increased in pace as the war went on, and many things that were "state of the art" before the war began were obsolescent a year later, and became more so every year afterwards. Many, many things were used well after their day had passed, simply because it was what they had.

In defense of the rifle caliber (.30/8mm) machine gun armed fighters, one must take into account the overall historical background of the time, and specifically aircraft design, construction and performance, which changed radically over a rather short period of time. Each level of development needs to be looked at in its own, and avoiding assessing blame where it does not belong.

The RAF used the .303 because it was literally the best working thing they had available at the time.

All metal fighter aircraft showed up as prototypes in the mid 1930s, and began reaching squadron service from 1937 on, different nations and aircraft designs at different times over the next couple years.

The German Kondor Legion got a big "leg up" in combat skills during the Spanish Civil War, being able to test their latest aircraft designs and getting pilots trained using them in combat. This provided a (small) core of experienced men who passed on what they learned to the Luftwaffe as much as they could in the years just prior to the start of WWII in Europe.

The Soviet Union had a similar pool of experienced airmen after the end of the Spanish Civil War, but squandered the opportunity to use that experience due to their political ideology.

Britain never had that, France never had that to work with the way the Germans did, and the Russians wasted.

Everything was rifle caliber machine gun armed (with a tiny number of exceptions) when the war began in September 1939. Germany began fielding small numbers of cannon armed 109s in late 39, increasing production from then on.

Look at the actual amount of air combat during the first 6 months of the war. Air combat in Poland was over in just under three weeks. In the 6 months after that, there were a handful of small raids against Germany by the French and British during the "Phony War".

Then, on April 9th Germany launched their attack on Norway (committing only a portion of the Luftwaffe) and combat was essentially over in a month.

On May 10th 1940, the attack on France and the Low Countries, opening the "big show" for real. By the last week of May, the BEF had been cut off, and pushed back to Dunkirk. Surviving RAF fighter forces retreated to England.

France fell on June 25th. One month, two weeks and one day after the opening of the German offensive.

The opening phase of the Battle of Britian began July 10th.

While I'm sure there were people in the RAF that recognized they would need something more than .303 machineguns, there simply wasn't time for anything significant to be done in the time they had.

[davidsog]

Your link on the 0.50 Browning rounds specifically calls the round "Cartridge S.A. Incendiary .50 inch Browning B Mark IIz" . And says it was a British designed bullet based on the incendiary 0.303 B Mk VII. Why would they say Browning and "B" if the "B" meant Browning?

Good point. I think you are right on this one.

I would think my chances at hitting my target with a 50BMG would be better than with a lower velocity, slower firing cannon round at misjudged ranges.

That is literally the entire conundrum they were faced with during WWII. Machinegun's had a better chance to land a hit. However, bring down an aircraft is much more than just hitting it as you can see in the Vulnerability Study conducted by the RAE as well as the 8th USAAF Fighter Command After Action Review.

So, the basic problem is Machineguns need a LOT of hits to shoot down an aircraft while Cannon need only a few or in the case of the MK108..one.

Pick your poison. The post war winner is cannon according to todays Fighter Designs.

[davidsog]

The Battle of Britain Spitfires and Hurricanes carried enough ammo for about 20 seconds of firing time. Green pilots everywhere tend to shoot themselves dry frequently. "The Few" of RAF fighter command saved Britain, and became national heroes. Because of that, the errors, flaws, and failures have been largely under reported, glossed over, or even outright ignored by historical accounts written afterwards. Also, don't forget the influence of propaganda (and pride) influencing what has been written.

Good round up, 44AMP. Mitchel had some difficulty in arming the Spitfire. Technology and Military theory was changing rapidly as the prototype went from drawing board to production. It was originally envisioned as having Two vickers .303 in a retractable pod under each wing. That was changed to 8 .303 Brownings in the Production Mk I. Most of that had to do with the fact the RAE shot up some WWI aircraft stricken off charge in 1934 with explosive and incendiary .303 Brownings. At 400 yards it made them scrap quickly. Had the Germans flown wood, steel tube, and fabric aircraft...it would have been a very good armament set up.

As 44AMP points out, technology was changing rapidly. Both the RAF and the Luftwaffe had many "theorist" and fighter pilots who resisted such things as enclosed Cockpits, Monoplanes, etc. The argument was a Monoplane would never be able to dogfight as well as a Biplane and enclosing the pilot isolated him from being able to feel the wind to judge is position in the flight envelope. Most nations simply ignored most of the input from their pilots. Japan for example made a huge strategic mistake in putting their Pilots in charge of Fighter Adoption. They developed aircraft that could do great aerobatics and were masters of what we call today "The Two Circle Fight". It lost them the air war.

Silly notions to us today but were serious topics back then.

Further complicate this with many Air Forces in the world ascribing to Post WWI Air Combat theories that believed the Bomber would rule and Fighters were obsolete except to "Pursue" bombers. Level Bombing was the Nuclear Threat of its day in the 1920's until it was put into practice in WWII. The prevalent theories believed bombing a city with a given amount of bombers would be the end off all life. They envisioned fleets of fast bombers destroying an entire countries populace in a few hours. Armageddon.

It wasn't until those theories were put into practice that proved you can put a lot more bombs on a city and not destroy it. Fighters proved to be absolutely the tip of spear for gaining air superiority and there wasn't a single Fast Level bomber that could not be intercepted. In fact, the Most useful about Level Bombing was it forced the enemy to send their fighters up so your fighters could destroy them. Level bombing went from being the main effort to being bait in the Ambush.

[Jim Watson]

5) Pilots' estimates of range were nearly twice the actual range.
6) The average pilot under-estimates the range by 29%.

How do you have it both ways?

Long ago I read a British sailor to have said that with the Yank quad .50 on a MGB you have a chance of at least one gun firing.

Anectote Alert:

The Germans got a lot of their fuel and chemicals by gasification and liquefaction of coal. Forty years later I was on an engineering project testing coal gasification as a substitute for natural gas which was projected to get much more expensive. (It hasn't.)
Our project manager travelled to look at existing installations abroad, including Germany. He showed some familiarity with the geography so his guide asked him if he had been to Germany before.
He replied "Not closer than 25000 feet."
He had been a bombardier on a B24 flying out of Italy.

[44 AMP]

Further complicate this with many Air Forces in the world ascribing to Post WWI Air Combat theories that believed the Bomber would rule and Fighters were obsolete except to "Pursue" bombers.

"The bomber will always get through" was a phrase used by Stanley Baldwin in a 1932 speech "A Fear for the Future" given to the British Parliament.

As late as 1932, he was probably correct. Half a dozen years later, fighter tech had advanced to the point where the bomber alone, wouldn't always get through. WWII proved that sufficiently escorted bomber will always get through, but the effort needed is quite expensive in all ways.

In the 1920s and into the early 30s, the best bombers were nearly as fast as the best fighters, and faster than older fighter designs, and a single machinegun was an adequate defense for each different arc, but by the mid 30s that was beginning to change, and the fighters of 1939-40 were so much more advanced than the fighters of a decade earlier that was no longer true.

[4V50 Gary]

105kw is correct. Following the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, the Japanese invaded China in 1937. The Japanese pilots fought the poorly equipped and trained KMT (KuoMinTang) Air Force. It was supposed to have been trained by the Italians, but the Americans learned it was all pufferry and Madame Chiang Kai Shek was shocked by their air force's small numbers and unpreparedness. The Japanese were blooded further against the Soviets in 1939 in the Battles of Khalkhin Gol.

[davidsog]

5) Pilots' estimates of range were nearly twice the actual range.

The data had range estimates nearly twice the actual range.

6) The average pilot under-estimates the range by 29%.

The AVERAGE of those estimates was off by 29%.

If your data ranges from 200% to the "29% on average"...it means the majority of your pilots are overestimating the range and firing at a longer distance than they actually are at. There is no declaration all the pilots are firing at 200% of the actual distance.

It is two different statements so yes, you can have it both ways.

[davidsog]

105kw is correct. Following the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, the Japanese invaded China in 1937. The Japanese pilots fought the poorly equipped and trained KMT (KuoMinTang) Air Force. It was supposed to have been trained by the Italians, but the Americans learned it was all pufferry and Madame Chiang Kai Shek was shocked. The Japanese were blooded further against the Soviets in 1939 in the Battles of Khalkhin Gol.

Fortunately for the Allies, the Japanese gained that experience. It caused them to draw completely the wrong conclusions about the nature of aerial warfare and lose the air war.

[Pumpkin]

With all the projectiles flying around, you might think that friendly/unintended fire might have occurred.
And by unintended I mean a totally different plane in the enemies formation.

Edit: And not by misidentification, just plain old missing the intended target.

[44 AMP]

With all the projectiles flying around, you might think that friendly/unintended fire might have occurred.

A lot of B-17s and B-24s came back from missions with .50 caliber holes in them. OR even larger holes from .50 BMG brass!!

[Pumpkin]

I believe that!

And to your last point, if an empty 50 case could do surface damage (or more) what about the business end of the 50?