Big gun reloaded [Archive] - The Great Planes and warbirds Community

Groggy

18th July 2006, 17:05

quote:Originally posted by GregP

Hi Tony,

I followed your link. VERY good information and I suspect atht most of the people who disagree have a "pet" gun. In the U.S.A., we tend to revere the Browning 50, and it WAS very effective as employed.

This in no way makes it equal to the Soviet 50s.

The British like the .303, but it is a very mediocre weapon when the energy and effectiveness is considered.

Still, these weapons were effective as employed at the time they were employed.

I have a lot of reading to do with your data and look forward to it!

Thanks!
quote:Originally posted by GregP

Hi Tony,

The British like the .303, but it is a very mediocre weapon when the energy and effectiveness is considered.

Thanks!

Hi Greg,
The .303 was loathed by one and all,The few people of my fathers generation that I heard make any comment on the weapon said it was almost worse than nothing.I read some time ago that the Browning .5 factories were tooled up in the States to provide the weapon for the RAF but after Pearl Harbor the supply was swithched to meet American needs. Even this weapon was marginal for bomber defence based on A Galland s comments.

Tony Williams

18th July 2006, 18:07

quote:Originally posted by GregP

I have a lot of reading to do with your data and look forward to it!

Thanks!

You're welcome Greg - enjoy!

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Tony Williams

18th July 2006, 18:10

quote:Originally posted by Groggy
The .303 was loathed by one and all,The few people of my fathers generation that I heard make any comment on the weapon said it was almost worse than nothing.I read some time ago that the Browning .5 factories were tooled up in the States to provide the weapon for the RAF but after Pearl Harbor the supply was swithched to meet American needs. Even this weapon was marginal for bomber defence based on A Galland s comments.

I suspect that the poor opinion of the Browning came later, once the 20mm Hispano was in service (devastatingly more effective) or when RAF bombers were still trying to fight off armoured Luftwaffe fighters with it, later in the war. At the time of the BoB - the .303's finest hour - the battery of eight carried by the Spitfire and Hurricane represented considerable firepower.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Lightning

19th July 2006, 01:31

Hi GregP,

Quoting you:
quote:In the U.S.A., we tend to revere the Browning 50, and it WAS very effective as employed.

This in no way makes it equal to the Soviet 50s.

Out of curiosity, why do you say this? As 50-cals go, the Browning is beloved throughout the American military. To my knowledge (without researching the subject), the Browning "fifty" is the longest-serving weapon still in use in our arsenal. I think it dates back to the late 1920s or so!

The 50 cal machine guns used by the American fighter planes of WWII were very adequately effective to their task. They weren't the most effective of all the aerial guns used in the war, but they were, in my opinion, the most effective aerial machine guns.

Although the 20mm aerial cannon was a more potent weapon and eventually supplanted the 50 cal in American fighters, it was an indication of the gun's worth that the 50 cal was the weapon used on US fighters well into the 1950s. Why would the Soviet .50 be a better gun?

Regards,
Lightning

Red Admiral

19th July 2006, 05:33

Why was the Soviet UB 12.7mm better?

Heavier round with over twice as much HEI content.

Faster rate of fire at 17rps vs. 13prs

Lower weight

There really isn't much to compare between the UB and M2, the UB is simply better at shooting things down,

ChrisMcD

19th July 2006, 06:21

Why did the Brits stick with the .303?

As I understand it, the problem was reliability and access to licenses.

When the RAF calculated the amount of kinetic engergy needed to shoot down a bomber in the very brief time that it would be in a fighters sights they realised that the guns would have to be situated away from the pilot and therefore very jam proof.

Apparently the Browning won all the trials in the mid 30's (they made the choice just a bit too early). But, I would suspect that the decision to stick with .303 was due to all the available tooling for barrels and ammunition. I can well believe that the .5 would be a vastly better choice.

Also, do not forget that it took ages to make the Hispano a reliable wing gun. d
Due to it's design as an engine mounted weapon it was very flimsy and fussy about ammunition feeds when mounted in a wing. Having said that the Brits did make a meal of getting the ammunition feeds sorted.

Tony Williams

19th July 2006, 09:27

Actually the British approach to armament was very logical, they were just unfortunate with the timing.

The RAF extensively tested the .50 Browning and .50 Vickers, as the well as the 20mm Oerlikon, during the period from the mid-1920s to the early 1930s. The conclusions they came to were as follows: that the .50 wasn't worth it against the relatively frail and unarmoured aircraft of the time, because all it did was make slightly bigger holes, at the cost of a much bigger, heavier and slower-firing gun. And that the 20mm guns were very effective, but not really needed at the time plus they were too heavy and slow-firing.

In the mid-1930s, with planes getting stronger (although still unarmoured) they followed a two-track approach: to increase the number of .303 guns carried in order to provide adequate destructiveness in the medium term, while hunting for a good 20mm cannon for the longer term (they rejected the .50 as "neither fish nor fowl", in that it lacked the light weight and high RoF of the .303, and also the destructiveness of a cannon). They actually decided on the Hispano in 1936, and kicked off the "cannon fighter" programme even earlier (the spec which led to the four-cannon Whirlwind being issued in October 1935).

The problems were mainly associated with the difficulties in dealing with Hispano-Suiza (who wished to maintain control of HS 404 production), then redesigning the gun to British (non-metric) specs, then getting a British factory built, then sorting out all of the inevitable bugs which affected the gun (let alone the ones which affected the wing mountings). The Whirlwind was also delayed, just to make matters worse. So the RAF - which was desperate to get the cannon - only got it in a workable form just after it was really needed in the Battle of Britain.

Later in the war the RAF did use some .50s, but showed no interest in setting up a production line AFAIK and seem always to have regarded them as a temporary stand-by in situations where the Hispano wouldn't fit or had other problems.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

GregP

19th July 2006, 13:32

The Soviet 50s were better than the Brownings, but we built the Brownings in enormous numbers, and used them effectively. I stated that the Brownings were revered by the US Military, didn't I?

If we had mass-produced the Soviet 50s, we would have been better off and would have shot down more planes.

That in no way detracts from the success of the Browning 50s employed by WW2 fighters.

Lightning

21st July 2006, 02:00

Hi Red Admiral,

Quotin you:
quote: Why was the Soviet UB 12.7mm better?

Heavier round with over twice as much HEI content.

Most of the M2 rounds fired by US aircraft in WWII were "ball" i.e. not incendiary or tracer. Later in the war, tracers were used much less. Are you saying the UB fired explosive bullets? If not, I can't see where "HEI" (if this refers to tracers) adds that much to the destructive power.

quote:Faster rate of fire at 17rps vs. 13prs

Lower weight
Agreed.

quote:There really isn't much to compare between the UB and M2, the UB is simply better at shooting things down,

As to there being not much to compare, I agree. The "better at shooting things down" part is strictly a statement of your oppinion, to which you are perfectly entitled.

To shoot something down, you have to hit it. This is where range, accuracy, average velocity, and, last but not least, reliability come into the picture. These qualities also have to be considered in any comparison.

You may be right--I don't know, but the longevity, in multiple applications, of the M2 (85 years!) gives me what I consider legitimate reason to believe that it was/is the better gun when all is considered.

Regards,
Lightning

Red Admiral

21st July 2006, 04:12

If i remember the M2 had more problems than other similar guns with accuracy. Figures of +-0.5m @ 1000m come to mind with this being "more than normal"

quote:You may be right--I don't know, but the longevity, in multiple applications, of the M2 (85 years!) gives me what I consider legitimate reason to believe that it was/is the better gun when all is considered.

But then again, you are American and not Russian.

Ricky

21st July 2006, 17:39

The survival of the M2 as opposed to the UB might be more linked to the policies of the nation's armed forces rather than to the gun performance (though the M2 is a damn good gun). IIRC the M2 was designed as an infantry heavy mg, and adapted for use in planes during WW2, but remains primarily used as a land-based gun. The UB (correct me if I'm wrong!) was an aircraft gun, and was not adapted into a land-based gun. All nations effectively gave up on machine-gun armed planes after WW2 anyway - though America clung on for longer than most.

Lightning

21st July 2006, 21:45

Hi Red Admiral,

Quoting you:

quote:If i remember the M2 had more problems than other similar guns with accuracy. Figures of +-0.5m @ 1000m come to mind with this being "more than normal"

I have never heard this. I do know, however, that the M2 with scope sight was a [u]very</u> accurate sniper "rifle" out to well over 1000 yards. A version of it was also used as a "spotting rifle for the 106mm recoiless rifle. It was very accurate out to the effective range of the 106. I have trained on both the M2 (not the sniper version) and the 106mm recoiless, and I was very impressed by the accuracy of the 50 cal.

quote:But then again, you are American and not Russian.

But if you were having the same discussion with a Russian, you could make the same comment in the form of "But then again, you are Russian and not American." :)

Regards,
Lightning

Lightning

21st July 2006, 22:44

Hi Greg,

Quoting you:
quote:The Soviet 50s were better than the Brownings, but we built the Brownings in enormous numbers, and used them effectively. I stated that the Brownings were revered by the US Military, didn't I?
The Browning 50 cal came into being in 1921. It was used with distinction throughout WWII, the Korean War, Viet Nam, both Gulf wars, and in every conflict in between--even unto the present day!

The M2 is, and has been, the primary heavy machine gun of the NATO forces. It is also used by the forces of numerous non-NATO countries.

The aerial version of the M2 was not retired after WWII but went on to equip all early USAF jet fighters:

F-80
F-84
F-86 (Did quite well against the Mig-15)
F-94

It was even used in the tail-gun position of the B-52!

The US Navy, even though it went over to the 20mm for the most part after WWII, entered the jet age with the 50 cal--It was used on the North American FJ1 "Fury."

In all these years, if a better 50 cal design waould have been available, why didn't the US, the UN, and NATO transition to it?

Other weapons, ranging from small arms to artillery, have been continually replaced by newer designs in order to keep up with evolving technology.

Since the M2 was introduced in 1921, the standard US battle rifle has gone from the 30 cal M1903 Springfield to the 30 cal M1 Garand to the 7.62mm M14 to the 5.56mm M16.

The standard light/med machine gun has gone from the water-cooled 30 cal to the air-cooled 30 cal to the 7.62mm M60. The M60 also replaced the 30 cal Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) of WWII and Korean War fame.

The only other weapon in the US arsenal that has anywhere near the longevity of the M2 is the venerable M1911 45 cal pistol, and even it has been replaced by the 9mm Barreta.

This all serves to amply demonstrate that the US doesn't hold onto old, outdated designs just because they are beloved or because they have already been produced in large numbers. Had the US military considered the M2 (or the 50 cal in general) lacking in any important way, they would have, as they did in the foregoing examples, gone over to a better design had one been viable.

I'm sure that, in a side-by-side comparison of the M2 and the UB, there will be points of performance in which the UB is superior to the M2, but the opposite is also true. Vertually no weapon (except for the most specialized of purposes) is completely superior, in every respect, to its competing counterparts; there are always trade-offs. When all these are taken into consideration, it is my oppinion that the M2 would be the weapon of choice.

Regards,
Lightning

Kutscha

21st July 2006, 23:28

F-80
F-84
F-86 (Did quite well against the Mig-15)
F-94

Didn't these a/c use the M3, an improved M2.

The high kill to loss ratio so often seen against the MiG15 is a myth being in the 3-5:1 ratio in reality.

The USN had F6Fs and F4Us with 20mm cannon in WW2. The USN was much more receptive (progresive??) than the USAAF when it came to the type of guns in their a/c.

The FJ-1 was very quickly replaced with the FJ-2 with 20mm. The F9F and F2H had 20mm from the get go.

Tony Williams

22nd July 2006, 00:03

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Most of the M2 rounds fired by US aircraft in WWII were "ball" i.e. not incendiary or tracer. Later in the war, tracers were used much less. Are you saying the UB fired explosive bullets? If not, I can't see where "HEI" (if this refers to tracers) adds that much to the destructive power.
I believe that the USAAF normally used a mix of incendiary and AP (with about 20% tracer) until 1944 when the M8 API came into service and replaced those types for most purposes (it was still in service in Korea). Interestingly, the M8 was inspired by a Soviet 12.7 mm B32 API bullet, which filled the gap between the blunt penetrating core and the tip of the jacket with incendiary material - only the BB32 held twice as much. The Soviets did use HE bullets in 12.7mm calibre (as did the Japanese, the Italians and - in 13mm - the Germans) but I don't know what the typical belt mixes were.

quote:To shoot something down, you have to hit it. This is where range, accuracy, average velocity, and, last but not least, reliability come into the picture. These qualities also have to be considered in any comparison.
Very true. Ballistically, there was nothing to choose between the .50 and the Russian 12.7mm - they were equally powerful. The Berezin's higher efficiency score results from a combination of small advantages - lighter weight, faster RoF, more effective ammo -multiplied together. I have no information about its reliability, although Russian guns were generally well designed, rugged and reliable.

I think it's worth pointing out that in terms of automatic gun design during this period, the Russians and the Germans were way ahead of the rest of the world - the Russians had established a technical school in the 1920s specifically dealing with automatic gun design, and that paid off in terms of world-leading weapons. In contrast, the USA ignored the subject for decades and relied on slightly modifying John Browning's designs - which fortunately were usually very good. The US efforts to design - and even make - aircraft guns to replace the Browning just before and during WW2 all ended in unmitigated disaster. US gun design didn't recover from this trough until the M61 Vulcan of the 1950s.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Tony Williams

22nd July 2006, 00:10

quote:Originally posted by Red Admiral

If i remember the M2 had more problems than other similar guns with accuracy. Figures of +-0.5m @ 1000m come to mind with this being "more than normal"
You are right that the Browning was less accurate than most MGs, due to its short-recoil design which meant that the barrel had to be able to move to and fro rather than being fixed. Short-recoil designs can be accurate if all of the tolerances are kept tight, but in military weapons tight tolerances mean lower reliability (more esaily gummed up with dirt), and also lower rates of fire, so the Browning aircraft guns in particular were deliberately made pretty sloppy.

The .303 Brownings in RAF serice had a dispersion of 10 mils - that is, a three feet circle in 100 yards (they could get 75% of the rounds into 1.5 feet). The only figure I've seen for the .50 Browning is 8 mils (4 mils for the 75% figure). These figures are among the worst for WW2 aircraft guns. However, given the other factors affecting the accuracy of aircraft guns in combat (aircraft movement, aim wander etc) that probably didn't matter too much.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Ricky

22nd July 2006, 01:26

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

In all these years, if a better 50 cal design waould have been available, why didn't the US, the UN, and NATO transition to it?

Well, the obvious reason is that the 'better gun' was the property of Soviet Russia - I'm not sure that Uncle Joe would have been keen to give NATO the plans...:D[:p]

Kutscha

22nd July 2006, 01:57

The Soviets offered the T-34 to the Americans but it was rejected. With American inginuity and expertise, it would have been improved and most certainly have been better than the Sherman.

GregP

22nd July 2006, 02:00

The kill ratio against MiGs was a myth?

The U.S.A. knows how many Sabres went to Korea by tail number and we know how many came back by tail number. The only real question is how may MiGs were shot down.

Interesting that the former Soviet Union won't release loss documents but claims that the MiGs flown by Soviet pilots were "better" against the Sabres.

It's always nice to be able to make a claim that isn't verifiable. Makes for good press, none of the members of which of which fly fighters in combat.

Your statement may or may not be true, but we ARE sure the Sabre was MUCH better in actual combat when bullets were flying. The MiG 15 is pretty good early jet fighter and it MIGHT be the case that if the planes had been reversed, the kill ratio would have been about the same. But ... it didn't happen that way and we can't be sure about it. All we really know is that a MiG-15 meeting a Sabre in Korea was pretty much at an enormous disadvantage when it came to getting home intact.

I say that knowing the MiG quite well personally, having assembled one in the 1990 - 1996 timeframe. I had a friend who bought a MiG-15 UTI (a 2-seat trainer version). We put it together and got it running. It is well made and rugged.

That didn't stop the Sabres from shooting it down in large numbers with 50-caliber machine guns.

Tony Williams

22nd July 2006, 17:57

As flying machines, the MiG-15 and F-86 used in the early stage of Korea were closely matched: the F-86 was better low down, the MiG better high up. The later models of the F-86, with the all-flying tail, had a definite edge.

The armament of neither plane was satisfactory. The MiG's armament was designed with heavy bombers in mind; one hit from its 37mm cannon (or maybe three to five from the 23mm) meant that the F-86 probably wouldn't get back. But the muzzle velocities and total rate of fire were low, making hits difficult. The guns had different trajectories, which didn't help either.

The F-86's armament was at the opposite end of the spectrum, with a fairly high velocity and a very high total rate of fire, but each hit wasn't likely to do much damage. On average, it took over 1,000 rounds of .50 to bring down each MiG. Judging by German WW2 analyses, which showed that only 2-5% of ammo fired hit the target, that means 20-50 hits. That is supported by the fact that some MiGs reportedly got back to base with up to 50 bullet holes in them (but not more).

While some pilots were happy with the .50s, the USAF was sufficiently concerned to set up Project GunVal, which sent F-86s armed with 20mm cannon into action in Korea. The results were such that every subsequent gun-armed USAF fighter has carried 20mm cannon.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

montanamotor

22nd July 2006, 19:16

Hi, folks,

The captions below are taken from the Warbirdforum.com-webside, to give you an impression of how US-Marine-fighters were loaded up with ammo during the early days of the Pacific Campaign.

And don’t you dare start discussing the qualities of the Brewster F2A (Buffalo) here. I am a great fan of this plane... :D:D

In short: It may not have been an overly successful fighter plane. But in the hands of a capable and well trained pilot, it wasn’t a “flying coffin”, either... A good flying aircraft, insufficiently equipped and badly deployed, that's the way I see it. I’ll start another thread on the Brewster later.

About the composition of ammo-belts for the .50 caliber M2-guns, read as follows (In the early days, pilots could choose the composition of ammo at their will).

Quotes:

“My plane was a F2A-3, Bureau Number 01553, loaded with 1300 rounds of .50 cal. Ammunition, one ball, 2 armor piercing.”

“My airplane was an F2A-3, Bureau number 01562. My guns were loaded with 2 tracers, 2 armor piercing, 1 ball and 1 incendiary every six rounds.

It is my belief that the use of incendiary bullets greatly increases the effectiveness of attack against Japanese air craft.”

Unquote.

I hope this can be of assistance for you.

Source: http://www.warbirdforum.com/vmf221.htm

Cheers!

Montanamotor

Lightning

25th July 2006, 00:33

Hi Ricky,

Quoting you:
quote:Well, the obvious reason is that the 'better gun' was the property of Soviet Russia - I'm not sure that Uncle Joe would have been keen to give NATO the plans...

Since when does a military super power worry about copyrights, export licenses, or the refusal of an adversary to share its designs?

"Uncle Joe" was one of the all-time worst offenders in this regard. Industrial, as well as military, espionage was one of his specialties. Cases in point:

Many of the British classified processes in the building of their military aircraft were stollen by Soviet "business men" who visited British aircraft factories in the late '30s and early '40s. I specifically remember one instance where such a "visitor" wore a sticky substance on his shoe soles to pick up particles of a classified metal from the floor of a manufacturing area in a British factory.

The Russian TU-4 bomber was an exact copy of the American B-29. I don't think Boeing provided the plans for the Superfortress to Tupolev.

A-bomb and H-bomb secrets and technology in the late '40s? 'Nough said about that.

Even in the relatively recent past, the Soviets were using clandestine methods to learn about and duplicate US silent-running techniques for their submarines. Then there was the not-so-clandestine purchase of silent waterscrew technology from Toshiba--One reason why I will never again buy a Toshiba-made product.

Do I fault Uncle Joe and his successors? Certainly not! We were doing the same thing! But it is not realistic to say that if the US wanted to manufacture and deploy something as simple as a Russian machine gun design, they would have been prevented from doing so simply because Uncle Joe refused to give over the plans. All that would have been required would have been one working example which would have been very easy to come by as was the case with the B-29.

Regards,
Lightning

Tony Williams

25th July 2006, 01:05

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Do I fault Uncle Joe and his successors? Certainly not! We were doing the same thing! But it is not realistic to say that if the US wanted to manufacture and deploy something as simple as a Russian machine gun design, they would have been prevented from doing so simply because Uncle Joe refused to give over the plans. All that would have been required would have been one working example which would have been very easy to come by as was the case with the B-29.
In principle you are correct, but in practice I doubt that it would have been that simple. To give two examples:

1. The US tried to copy the German MG 42 machine gun from captured examples. So they converted them to .30-06. This is a longer cartridge than the 7.92x57 but the armament 'experts' given the job didn't allow enough for that, so the two examples made never worked properly and the whole idea was shelved.

2. The US also acquired some Mauser 15mm MG 151 aircraft guns, and converted them to their own .60 cartridge (15.2mm). After much development work they eventually made 300 examples of this gun, designated T17, but they were never used.

Then of course there was the Hispano fiasco....Lightning, the US automatic weapon design capabilities in WW2 were beyond a joke. Thank your lucky stars that John Browning's .50 was available, with 20 years of development behind it to ensure that it worked properly.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

GregP

25th July 2006, 01:38

There is a lesson in there Tony.

If you have a great gun captured from the enemy, don't "convert it." Copy their gun AND their ammunition and put it into service. It has already been proven or you would not have been interested in a copy in the first place!

Tony Williams

25th July 2006, 01:47

That would certainly avoid some of the problems, but they did that with the Hispano...

The problem would be that any gun they bought would probably have been designed using the metric system, and this did not easily convert to the usual fractions of an inch used in US manufacturing. Then there are issues to do with the precise composition of the materials used, the hardening techniques used for the steel etc, not just for the gun but also for the operating springs (the Japanese had a lot of trouble copying German MGs for that reason).

It isn't as simple as it sounds...

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Lightning

25th July 2006, 01:47

Hi Tony,

Quoting you:
quote:Then of course there was the Hispano fiasco....Lightning, the US automatic weapon design capabilities in WW2 were beyond a joke. Thank your lucky stars that John Browning's .50 was available, with 20 years of development behind it to ensure that it worked properly.

Point well taken, Tony, but we are talking about a period of time extending well beyond WWII. US armament designers and manufacturers were quickly making up for lost time in all areas of arms developement.

Also, I certainly don't doubt the examples you cite, but in those cases, there were changes in cartridge size as well as projectile caliber. Would the conversion to another 50 cal round offered the same problems? Who knows? Was it ever even tried in the case of the 50 cal? I don't think so. And with a weapon as great as the M2, it is quite possible that the effort to use the Russian design was not considered worth the effort.

In your personal oppinion, do you think, all things considered, that the Russian UB was a superior weapon to the M2?

In any event, whether the effort would have been successful or not, it certainly would not have depended on the Russians sharing of their plans.

Regards,
Lightning

Tony Williams

25th July 2006, 01:49

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

In your personal oppinion, do you think, all things considered, that the Russian UB was a superior weapon to the M2?
As far as I know it was - but as I've said, I have no reliability data for the UB, so I can't be certain.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Lightning

25th July 2006, 02:02

Hi Kutscha,
Quoting you:
quote:F-80
F-84
F-86 (Did quite well against the Mig-15)
F-94

Didn't these a/c use the M3, an improved M2.

The F-80 and F-94A/B all used the M2.

The early F-84s used the M2.

The early-to-mid variants of the F-86 used the M2.

Later variants of some M-2 equipped fighters used the M3, but then the M3 was merely a purpose-designed M2 and was therefore the same basic design.

As to the FJ1 Navy fighter, it makes no difference how short its career with the Navy was. The point that was being made was that the Navy was still thinking in terms of 50 cal viability as late as the beginning of naval jet operations which was quite a while after war's end.

Regards,
Lightning

JoeB

25th July 2006, 03:27

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

F-80
F-84
F-86 (Did quite well against the Mig-15)
F-94

Didn't these a/c use the M3, an improved M2.

The high kill to loss ratio so often seen against the MiG15 is a myth being in the 3-5:1 ratio in reality.

Yes all those aircraft in actual combat in Korea used the M3, I disagree with Lightning on that. Some F-80A's and B's with M2's were still in the FEAF in 1950 but those used in combat in Korea were either new or kit converted C's w/ M3. Only F-84A's not sent to Far East used M2's. All operational versions of F-86 and 94 used the M3. M3's were also refitted to the tail turrets of some B-29's in 1952. The main M2 users were B-29's otherwise, F-51's and .50 armed F4U-4's which were were still common in Korea alongside 20mm armed -4B's and -5N/P variants.

The F-86 overall kill ratio in Korea was around 6.5:1. 319 Soviet MiG-15 combat losses ("Krasnye d'yavoli na 38-i paralleli" by German and Seidov, gives that number and describes over 290 cases individually, leaving out some described in other Russian works), 224 Chinese (official PLAAF figure for MiG-15 combat losses, quoted in "Red Wings Over the Yalu" by Zhang among other places), probably around 50 North Korean (the 1953 defector No Gum-Sok said 100 NK MiG's were lost to all causes, and his autiobiography describes several combat losses just in his own unit in its first weeks of combat in late '51 early '52). So total around 600, overwhelming % downed by F-86's.

The official total of F-86's lost in air combat is 78. Counting up each incident in original US records (and considering known MiG claims) I got around 85-90. Higher numbers one sometimes sees are simply not supported by the records, secret at the time, and AFAIK no one who claims higher numbers has ever done any direct research in those records. So (600- a few)/~90 ~6.5:1. The F-86's had been credited with ~800, and again the official air combat loss total was 78, ~10:1 claimed. 15:1 sometimes seem is an error.

The ratio v Soviet MiG's alone was around 5:1, assuming the claims of the Soviets, Chinese and NK's (~650, 211, and 44 respectively) were equally accurate. 4:1 would mean the Soviet claims were 12% accurate and Chinese/NK only 4% accurate, and there doesn't seem to be that big a difference looking incident by incident. 3.5:1 would mean the Chinese and NK's didn't down any F-86's and that's not true.

Also two points: first, the F-86's could not ignore some MiG's to focus 100% on others. In fact of course they didn't know the exact identities of their enemies. Second, even 4-5:1 or especially 6.5:1 is a quite high *real* exchange ratio v *enemy fighters*. The ratio's quoted for almost all successful fighters in WWII are also "myths" (based on claims, not real results), and usually including many non-fighter targets. The F-86's downed only a handful of non-MiG-15's in Korea.

So, that long post is WWII related though a little off topic on machine guns: What is a high *real* kill ratio?, which kill ratio we quote in WWII is not a "myth"? which if any WWII fighter had an all-WWII *real fighter v fighter* ratio as high as 6:1?

Joe

montanamotor

25th July 2006, 03:39

Gentlemen:

Well - hit me if you like, but: Did anybody consider the possibility, that the US-Airforce and Navy - after the end of America's huge wartime weaponry-manufacturing efforts by August'45 - were simply using up large left-over stockpiles of WWII-M2-guns and ammo well into the 50ies, before they got some new and better toys...?

If stored properly, a gun and it's ammo may be kept in storage in working order for years, if not decades, I suppose. And I bet that, after WW II became history, someone in the US-treasury added up all that what was left over from the war-efforts manufacturing campaign, and then told his minister of finance that, there was still war-equipment worth billions of dollars back in stock, which hadn't been used up prior to VJ-day.

So: What would such a "minister of finance" then tell his "minister of defense"-colleague, if he would be asked for fresh money for the development of new fighter weapons right after the end of WW II?

"First you'll use up what we already have!" He would have told his colleague. "It's worth billions, and it has won us the Second World War, already. So don't you dare returning back here and ask for fresh money for new guns and ammo again, before your guys have fired the last round from the backstock, and have worn out the last barrel from our WW II-M2's!"

I bet my hat on this. Times may change - politicians don't...

Cheers!

Montanamotor [8D]

GregP

25th July 2006, 05:54

Well Michael Montanamotor, you have hit the nail on the head.

I have stated many times in this forum that I had a friend who bought a 2-seat MiG-15 UTI that we assembled and got it running. A side fact is that his primary income was derived from the sale of automatic weapons. He had a stock of old machine guns taht would knock your socks off, and they were perfectly stored and worked as new when fired.

Some of his inventory included aircraft guns, and these were from the early 1900s through Korean war vintage (he even had a few Maxims!). We once shot a stored German MG42 once, and it functioned perfectly ... except for the occasional misfire due to using WWII ammunition. Neat gun, if heavy, and the tripod is worth more than the MG is today!

My point is simple. The U.S.A. DID have a large number of Browning 50s in stock and we used them until they were obviously shown to be inferior to the point that a change was necessary. In point of fact, there are STILL a large number of Browning 50s around that COULD be used in combat, and they have few equals as a ground weapon.

In an aircraft, the Soviet 50s were better. On the ground, give me a Browning 50 any day of the week. The slower rate of fire is an advantage on the ground since your ammunition lasts longer, and tne Brownings were VERY accurate.

My own MG is a rather decrepit WWII Sten Mk 4, and the cyclic rate of fire is so slow that you can walk the bullet impact point right up to the intended target with considerable ease and hit it ... even with a 20-round magazine. All this with a 6-inch barrel.

We'd probably have a really NEAT Army ground gun about now if there weren't so many M60s around ... but there ARE. As Montanmotor stated, why build new when you can simply requisition from stock?

The stock of available ground weapons is quite large just now, and I doubt we will see mass procurement uinless there is a real jump in effectiveness to be had. To that end, there are many low-volume prototypes being tested, but we still use the items in stock and available until the new ones are shown to be worth the expense.

Come to think of it, that's how the aircraft were assigned to Korea. We used what was on hand until we needed to get better. We needed to do that when the Soviets fielded the MiG-15. When they did, it's amazing how fast Sabres showed up in Korea! :)

Most of the really fast, effective development shows up in wartime since the expense is worth the results. In peacetime (or relative peactime compared with global war), development lags due to the monetary factor ... and the existing weapons are called upon to soldier on longer than originally intended.

Who would have believed in 1945 that the Battleship New Jersey wouild fire more than 10 times the rounds off Viet Nam that were fired in all of WWII ... but it DID, and those rounds were mostly WWII ammunition! Heck, there are people out there still training on the AT-6!

montanamotor

25th July 2006, 07:23

...and with his terminal breath "Machine-gun Greg" admitted that, he was the one who was responsible for the "Valentine's Day Massacre" in Chicago back in the dark and dangerous days of the prohibition... :D

Greg, whenever I'll come over to the States in the future, we must meet and fire a few rounds from your Sten Mk. 4, just for sheer pleasure. Ya' know, it's better to have a Sten, than to have no machine-gun at all...

I'll pay back with a ride in a Dardo two-seater. Cross my hearts!

And now for something completely different. Only just, something rather special came to my mind, which I would very much like to share and discuss with you. Maybe it deserves it's own thread here, anyway. But I'll start it right here where I am now, to fit it into the actual discussion.

To start it over, let's see, what kind of people we have here with us now. We have (examples):

1. Aircraft freaks (everyone around here).

2. Motor maniacs (Red Admiral, me).

3. Artistic armorers (GregP and Tony Williams).

4. Airframe woodpeckers (Romantic Technofreak, me - again - Dogwalker).

5. Performance wizards (GregP, Lightning)

And many, many more people with many, many more skills and memories and special interests than I could even dream of!

What did I leave out? Whom did I not consider as he deserves it, yet? I understand that, everyone reading this wants to be mentioned with his very special skills here. Don't hesitate. Please, show up and tell us what you know best! Your skills are welcome!

What for? Therefore: All those guys mentioned above - together with all those whom I didn't mention yet, but who may still come up with their skills and interests - make up for quite an impressing staff for a (virtual, yet...) air combat group already, don't they?

Hmmm, yes: I know I am leaving this thread far behind now. But did anybody ever consider really forming some kind of (virtual, yet) combat air unit among us (or units - fighter, bomber, scout, reconnaisance, liaison)?

Name? "La Squadra Azzura" - perhaps (salutes to Taglia and Simon). "The Great Planes Unit"? Really good, too. And many more names are conceivable. You name them! I can envision a great sticker with the right motto and emblem for the sleeve of my jacket - or "for a hero's chest" - if you like. Would anybody dare trying to develop a design for such a squadron sticker...? Come on, dare sharing your dreams with us as much as we dare share our's with you!

Any other suggestion for a decent name welcome. It should refer to internationality, friendship, peacefulness - but, of course, mainly to the subjects of our deepest and most-sincere interest: Those Great Planes - piston-powered (mainly), prop-driven (mostly), and as fast/sleek/heavy/strong/unique/enduring/fascinating as anyone of us can dream of.

Suggestions?

No, I am not drunk at all, actually. I fact, I am deadly sober right now. But if you should consider this an option for explaning my thoughts now, you should only wait and see what happens, if I got a proper share of ADI down my intake...

"This is not the end. This is not even the beginning of the end. But it may be the end of the beginning."

QED.

Cheers!

Montanamotormaniacmike

Red Admiral

25th July 2006, 08:00

quote: A side fact is that his primary income was derived from the sale of automatic weapons.

The slight different between USA and Great Britain. The only people with automatic weapons are the armed services. Most people who own guns are either ex-servicemen, farmers or gun-nuts (apart from A G Williams).

quote:2. Motor maniacs (Red Admiral, me).

Its just the engineering side of me, I'm doing MechEng at Bath. Personally I prefer fluid dynamics as there isn't a great deal of interest in big piston engines. Surely I can't be the only person to want to put a Napier Sabre or R-R Crecy into a Bugatti Veyron?

montanamotor

25th July 2006, 08:56

Red Admiral,

you mean, something more like this?

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?p=1&f=23&t=245424&h=0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-aC5B348rA&search=simes

No, not a Bugatti Veyron for shure - but definitely two beautiful pieces of british engineering put together...

Cheers!

Montanamotor

Mark J

25th July 2006, 21:37

That Rover might not be a beauty of English engineering, the V12 is though. Kind of reminds me of the tight fit I had in my little V8 powered sports car, the foot room that is.

Montanamotor, perhaps those of us keen to join the new 'Escadrille', could update our profiles with lists of interests, specialilties, achievments etc.
Personally, I've served with my airforce, am a plane nut like us all, am an ex racing driver, have hunted since a teenager, have a good small arms knowledge, have written a book, presently refuel aircraft for a job, am a father of 2 small boys and I'm currently harrassing the local minister of conservation over their choice of pest control in NZ.
Suppose, within the new 'organisation', I might qualify as a gate guard :D

another project worth looking at ;)

I could have a try at an emblem design......would need a name and definition first

cheers

Tony Williams

25th July 2006, 21:45

A few comments:

quote:Originally posted by GregP

In an aircraft, the Soviet 50s were better. On the ground, give me a Browning 50 any day of the week. The slower rate of fire is an advantage on the ground since your ammunition lasts longer, and tne Brownings were VERY accurate.
The equivalent of the .50 M2HB ground gun in WW2 was of course the DShK-38, which was similarly slow-firing. I don't think that there was much to choose between them, and the DShK is still going strong in many places, although replaced in Russian production.

quote:We'd probably have a really NEAT Army ground gun about now if there weren't so many M60s around ... but there ARE.
The US Army selected the M240 (FN GPMG) to replace the M60 a few years back. AFAIK the only M60's around are with some special units who like the lower weight (although there are probably also a few still hanging around in second-line units).

quote:The stock of available ground weapons is quite large just now, and I doubt we will see mass procurement uinless there is a real jump in effectiveness to be had. To that end, there are many low-volume prototypes being tested, but we still use the items in stock and available until the new ones are shown to be worth the expense.Actually, US hardware is getting worn out at quite a rate at the moment; not only is it being used at many times the peacetime rate, but the dusty grit of Iraq and Afghanistan is not kind to machinery.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

ChrisMcD

25th July 2006, 22:00

Hi Tony,

I still fail to see why the RAF procurement chose a 'moteur cannon' that was deliberatly flimsy and bound to cause problems in a wing mounting.

Then they compound the error by refusing to adopt perfectly functional feeds,such as that offered by Bristol.

AFAIK the Hispano had no particular superiority in velocity or weight of shell. Why did they not simply use one of the American designs or copy the Army and choose Checkoslovak - or Swiss, Swedish or Danish for that matter (ie Brno, Bofors, Oerlikon or Madsen)?

I know that you are the expert in this field, so why did the RAF procuremnt people seem to make such a poor choice, then taken ages to develop it and refused help from their friends (ie the saga over which feed mechanism to use).

Lightning

25th July 2006, 23:53

Hi JoeB,

You wrote:
quote:I disagree with Lightning on that. Some F-80A's and B's with M2's were still in the FEAF in 1950 but those used in combat in Korea were either new or kit converted C's w/ M3. Only F-84A's not sent to Far East used M2's. All operational versions of F-86 and 94 used the M3.

As to the F-80, when it came out operationally, there was no M3. By 1950, the F-80, the F-84, the F-94, and the F-86 had already been under development for some time. Whether they were equipped with the M3 in their later versions is not relevant to my point i.e. that the M2 was initially chosen to be the armament of these fighters as late as the post WWII era.

In the case of the F-86 and F-94, there are ample sources that state that in their early versions they were armed with the M2. If these sources are completely wrong, then I am wrong. Otherwise, we have another case of "duelling references."

In any event, as I have stated elsewhere, the M3 was an improved, faster firing version of the M2 but still the same basic design.

As to Saber vs MIG kill ratio, even around 6-to-1 is a clear advantage, and certainly much better than the afore-mentioned 3.5-to-1 (or did Kutscha mean "a range of 3to5--to--1"? It wasn't quite clear to me.) Anyway, I reiterate my comment that the 50-cal-armed F-86 "Did quite well against the Mig-15."

Regards,
Lightning

Ricky

26th July 2006, 00:01

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Anyway, I reiterate my comment that the 50-cal-armed F-86 "Did quite well against the Mig-15."

Although (just being a pain in the butt) how much of that accomplishment was due to the armament is debateable. I'm sure you could make a case for saying:

"the 50-cal-armed F-86 did quite well against the Mig-15 despite its armament"
;)

Lightning

26th July 2006, 00:22

Hi montanamotor,

The US had a lot of surplus equipment at the end of WWII, to be sure, but they were up-to-speed in developing new combat aircraft. The used what they had, but, at the same time, they were keeping pace, in most cases, with the competition and, in very many cases, ahead of the competition.

That's why we had, and were developing, jet bombers and fighters at the same time that we had surplus F-51s, F-47s, F4Us, B-29s, A/B-26s, etc. Had we been content, as you suggest, to merely use these prop-driven aircraft until they were worn out before we started to modernize our air assets, we would have certainly lost the air war in Korea and beyond.

A super power, which the US already was at the time, doesn't get, and remain, to be a super power by shelving all new innovations so it can use outdated stores merely to save money. That's being penny wise and pound foolish.

Regards,
Lightning

GregP

26th July 2006, 02:47

Good point Lightning. I think we used the surplus until there was a clear advantage in NOT using the surplus or we ran out of surplus, whichever came first.

We used 50s until there was a clear advantage in NOT using 50s. That's when we went to 20mm cannons. Coincidentally, it was about the middle of the time that the Sabre was in Korea that we decided 20mm cannons were a clear advantage. After that, almost every fighter had cannons, and some were even retrotitted into existing planes that formerly had 50s in them. The F-86 went from 56 x 50s to 4 x 20mm and never went back.

JoeB

26th July 2006, 03:11

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

In the case of the F-86 and F-94, there are ample sources that state that in their early versions they were armed with the M2. If these sources are completely wrong, then I am wrong. Otherwise, we have another case of "duelling references."

As to Saber vs MIG kill ratio, even around 6-to-1 is a clear advantage, and certainly much better than the afore-mentioned 3.5-to-1 (or did Kutscha mean "a range of 3to5--to--1"? It wasn't quite clear to me.) Anyway, I reiterate my comment that the 50-cal-armed F-86 "Did quite well against the Mig-15."

The fact you mentioned the F-86's combat performance makes me think the weapon it carried in combat is what's relevant, which was the M3 without exception among machine guns (some F-86's were combat tested with 4*20mm T160's experimentally in 1953), from the oldest F-86's used in Korea (fiscal 1948 F-86A-5-NA's); also the combat weapon of F-80, 84, and 94. But while early F-80's and 84's not used in Korea had M2's (and the F-94 is a minor type, the ones used in Korea had M3) which early versions, production versions, of the F-86 are you sayng ever had the M2?

The M3 was standardized (from T25E3) in April 1945 (per Chinn, "The Machine Gun"), so significantly preceded F-86 production. Of course it was also a Browning .50, closely resembling the M2 externally except for the recoil booster at the muzzle, but again per Chinn "nearly all parts of the M3 differ in detail from those of the M2". M2 v. M3 is also relevant v. statements on the thread about "stockpiles" of WWII mgs used in postwar a/c. The big production of M2 a/c mg's in WWII was used on the big volume of planes produced in WWII; postwar planes had postwar built mg's by and large, not literally "surplus", though not a whole new design. Large numbers of M2HB's made in WWII were used by US ground forces decades after (the ones still used now though were produced later). Maybe that's creating the confusion that literally surplus WWII machine guns were commonly used in jets.

Yes the F-86 had a very high real kill ratio (it's not clear any fighter in WWII had a higher one quoted on the same basis: real, fighter v. fighter). Still, the USAF concluded based on Korean experience that the .50 had become suboptimal for fighter combat, that's a fact. How much the .50 hurt the F-86's combat results is harder to measure; it also doesn't mean the MiG's armament was more effective in fighter-fighter combat, probably less so. But it's reasonable to assume an outfit of 4*high cyclic, high velocity 20mm would have been more effective than the 6*M3 .50(like the T160 20mm, prototype of the M39 revolver cannon, combat tested in F-86's in 1953).

Joe

Kutscha

26th July 2006, 03:36

Lightning, there is a diference between '-' and '.', really.

Tony Williams

26th July 2006, 06:14

quote:Originally posted by ChrisMcD

I still fail to see why the RAF procurement chose a 'moteur cannon' that was deliberatly flimsy and bound to cause problems in a wing mounting.

Then they compound the error by refusing to adopt perfectly functional feeds,such as that offered by Bristol.

AFAIK the Hispano had no particular superiority in velocity or weight of shell. Why did they not simply use one of the American designs or copy the Army and choose Checkoslovak - or Swiss, Swedish or Danish for that matter (ie Brno, Bofors, Oerlikon or Madsen)?

I know that you are the expert in this field, so why did the RAF procuremnt people seem to make such a poor choice, then taken ages to develop it and refused help from their friends (ie the saga over which feed mechanism to use).
The RAF were gripped with a sense of urgency and went shopping for a gun "off the shelf" - they weren't prepared to wait for one to be developed from scratch. There wasn't a great choice in 20mm cannon available at that time. The one the British knew best - they tested it thoroughly - was the Oerlikon FFS, which of course they later adopted in the naval AA version. But this was heavier and slower-firing than the Hispano. The only other obvious candidate was the Madsen (in 20mm or 23mm) but that was again much slower-firing. The HS 404 was clearly ahead of all of the opposition in the mid-1930s as it was a fast-firing, high-velocity weapon which was reasonably light (albeit very long).

There were no comparable US, Czech or Swedish guns at that time.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Tony Williams

26th July 2006, 06:28

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

As to the F-80, when it came out operationally, there was no M3. By 1950, the F-80, the F-84, the F-94, and the F-86 had already been under development for some time. Whether they were equipped with the M3 in their later versions is not relevant to my point i.e. that the M2 was initially chosen to be the armament of these fighters as late as the post WWII era.
The .50 M3 was standardised in April 1945, following which large-scale procurement was started and 2,400 guns had been made by the end of September 1945 (source: Chinn). The M2 was reclassified as 'limited standard' in April 1945.

I know that the initial versions of the F-8F Bearcat were armed with the .50 M3, and that entered service shortly after the war. I have always understood that the M3 was used in all subsequent .50-armed fighters, although I'm open to correction if anyone has a good source which says otherwise. I stress a 'good' source, because the term 'M2' has become so associated with the .50 that when describing the armament of postwar US fighters someone who isn't a gun expert might have automatically put 'M2' after the '.50'. In my experience, very few aircraft experts are also gun experts.

P.S. Oops - hadn't seen Joe's post when I typed this. I agree with him anyway!

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

GregP

26th July 2006, 16:13

Hi,

The 50-caliber (0.50-inch guns; 12.7 mm) were used in aircraft until they weren't ... let it go.

After that, everyone went to 20 mm or larger guns, and then we went to multi-barrel guns like the 20 mm Vulcan. We are still there. What is the big mystery? I don't get it.

After we went to multi-barrel gattling guns, we stayed there. I do not understand the fascination with the gun installed. All that counts is combat effectiveness. If it works, let it go and use it unless you have a better idea and can prove it.

This entire discussion is something that should take place BEFORE an aircraft is produced. After it is operational, the effectiveness is the only importamt statistic. Along those lines, the most effective combat aircraft ever produce anywhere is the McDonnald-Douglas F-15 Eagle.

So far the tally is over 120 kills for zero losses.

Until something better comes along the F-15 is the bad boy of all times, bar none, no arguments to the contrary that make sense. It has missiles but guess, what ... it also has a gun, and the gun works. It is an M61A1 20 mm 6-barrel cannon ... just the same gun intalled in the F-104 Starfighter in very slightly updated fashion.

Surplus guns? No, the best guns available.

The F-22 Raptor also has an M-61A2! Guess what, it is STILL the best weapon for air-to-air combat when missiles fail.

So, the U.S.A. has been usning the M-61 6-barrel MG for 50+ years with unmatched effectiveness ... except in Viet Nam. In that conflict, the F-8 Crusader didn't have the Vulcan (it had 4 x 20 mm cannons) and the Pahntom didn't have ANY gun until late in the conflict. When it DID get a gun, it was an M-61.

Since then, the 6-barrel M-61 has ruled supreme as THE gun in aerial combat, and that cannot be argued as wrong in any way, shape, or form. The record speaks for itself.

Anyone who thinks the M-61 wasn't or isn't effective should see the receiving end of a visit from an AC-130H. It can completely disassemble a large building with only the M-61 as a weapon while orbiting overhead, and there is NO defense. Nothing stands up to an assault from multiple M-61s, not even a battleship or armored bunker.

I could argue that the 20 mm cannon was not fully invented until the Vulcan, and that is why the switch wasn't made, but I will leave that for someone else to justify. All I can say with certainty is that the Vulcan removed all doubt about the 20 mm choice for all time.

Comments?

Ricky

26th July 2006, 17:38

quote:Originally posted by GregP

Since then, the 6-barrel M-61 has ruled supreme as THE gun in aerial combat, and that cannot be argued as wrong in any way, shape, or form. The record speaks for itself.

I don't doubt that the M-61 series are effective & good guns, but this statement is a little overdone. There are many, many more factors involved in why American planes have done well for themselves than what gun they use.

Tony Williams

26th July 2006, 18:19

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

quote:Originally posted by GregP

Since then, the 6-barrel M-61 has ruled supreme as THE gun in aerial combat, and that cannot be argued as wrong in any way, shape, or form. The record speaks for itself.

I don't doubt that the M-61 series are effective & good guns, but this statement is a little overdone. There are many, many more factors involved in why American planes have done well for themselves than what gun they use.

Quite so. I doubt that the record would have been any different whatever gun the US fighters had been equipped with - and how many of the F-15 kills were with the gun rather than missiles anyway?

The fact is that the USAF were dissatisfied with the M61 in the 1960s and started a programme to provide its replacement - the 25mm GAU-7/A. This was a much more powerful weapon, and was designed for the F-15, but the combustible-case technology proved too ambitous and couldn't meet the required standards, so the M61 was retained for want of anything better.

The only reason that the M61A2 is still the US fighter gun is that the great improvement in AAM performance has made the gun far less important, so not worth spending lots of money on. If it were still the primary air-combat weapon, I expect that the USAF would have adopted something like the CHAG in the 1970s or 80s - this was basically a light, three-barrel version of the 30mm GAU-8/A, firing the same powerful ammo.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Lightning

26th July 2006, 19:59

Hi Kutscha,

Quoting you:
quote:Lightning, there is a diference between '-' and '.', really.

Quite right, and I was not criticizing you. I just didn't know for sure whether the "-" was a typo for "." which it could have easily been. The old typo monster has bitten me on more than one occasion, so its no big deal. :)

Regards,
Lightning

Lightning

26th July 2006, 21:03

Hi Tony,

In a previous posting, you wrote:
[quote]The .303 Brownings in RAF serice had a dispersion of 10 mils - that is, a three feet circle in 100 yards (they could get 75% of the rounds into 1.5 feet). The only figure I've seen for the .50 Browning is 8 mils (4 mils for the 75% figure). These figures are among the worst for WW2 aircraft guns.

I've thought about this, and something just doesn't sound right with those numbers. We are talking about the inherent accuracy of the guns in question, not about whether their mountings were stable. Such dipersion as you describe almost certainly was not the result of an inaccurate gun per se.

In the case of the British .303, a dispersion of 3 feet at 100 yards is atrocious. I was able to do much better than that with an inexpensive, off-the-shelf, semi-auto Remington 552 rifle using standard 22 cal long-rifle hollow-point ammunition from the prone, unsupported position and using iron, open sights. The Browning .303 just has to be better at 100 yards. I know the 30 cal air-cooled machine gun (which I have often fired) used by US forces was. A 3-foot dispersion at 100 yards is within the capability of a practiced marksman firing an M1911 pistol in .45 ACP caliber from the standing position!

Turning to the 50 cal M2 (which I have also fired on numerous occasions). An 8 mil dispersion at 1000 meters equates to a circle having a diameter of over 26 feet! Assuming that the dispersion pattern was centered on the target, this would still result in bullet strikes at over 13 feet on either side. Even counting the figure of 75% within 4 mils, this would be mediocre performance.

A good rifle shot, firing an M1 or M14, could put most of his rounds in a 26-foot circle at 1000 meters with iron sights and using "Ketucky windage" and "elbow elevation."

The M2, mounted on a tripod and using a telescopic sight and firing individual shots, can tear a man-sized target to pieces at 1000 meters with few misses. It is a deadly sniper weapon.

[u]Any</u> weapon--rifle, machine gun, or whatever--that has a dispersion of over 26 feet at 1000 meters would be completely worthless for sniper use, even when putting 75% of those shots within 4 mils.

When all is considered, these facts cast serious doubt on the stated 8-mill dispersion stated for the M2.

The sniper's motto, "One shot, one kill", with a weapon having an 8-mil dispersion, would have to be changed to "Five shots, one kill maybe)"

Regards,
Lightning

Tony Williams

26th July 2006, 22:09

Hi Lightning,

Yes, the dispersion figures would have been as mounted in the aircraft. Wings were of course more flexible than fuselages and did not make such rigid mountings.

Incidentally, accuracy in bomber defensive mountings was even worse. The book "Gunner" includes a dispersion chart for the .50s in a B-24. The best figures were achieved for the ball turret, which managed 8.3 mils (the only one under 10 mils). The worst was for the open waist mountings, which managed (wait for it) 35.6 mils! These figures were based on ground firing tests.

Having said that, there is other evidence to suggest that the Brownings weren't all that accurate. The British used tanks with various coaxial MGs including the .30 (not .303) Browning in US tanks, and the 7.92mm Besa. Long ago I recall reading comments from Brit tankers to the effect that while the Besa was highly accurate, the Browning had noticeably more dispersion.

It can be difficult to separate the performance of the gun from that of the ammo. Again, I can't lay hands on the reference, but I recall reading some minimum acceptable performance figures for US .50 MG ammo, and although I can't recall the details I do remember that the acceptable dispersion figures were really poor. Obviously, most ammo would do better than the minimum, but even so I believe that the .50 Barretts generally do not fire standard MG ammo.

I have always been intrigued by that legendary (c. 2,500 yds IIRC) kill by Carlos Hathcock, using an M2 on single-shot. If you consider the size of a man at that distance, the dispersion from even a well-adjusted M2, using MG ammo, would have covered many times that area. However good the shooter was, that shot must have involved one heck of a lot of luck.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

simon

26th July 2006, 23:55

Could the Sniper-M-2s be specially selected or "tuned" weapons using possibly specially matched ammunition to achieve the best accuracy?

montanamotor

27th July 2006, 02:13

Hi,

what kind of ammunition is availlable for any .50-caliber nowadays?

Ball, steel-sleeve, armour piercing, incendiary, HE, tracer? Which specifications? Concerning range, accuracy, penetrative power, explosive power? Is there a proximity fuse-fragmentation-variant?

in which way - construction-wise and performance-wise - do the M2- and M3-guns differ from each other?

Any references?

At the "Technisches Museum " in the german town of Speyer there is an original wreckage of a Ju 87 D Stuka on exhibition, which some years ago was brought up from the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea.

For the spectators, some of the rear gunner's MG 81 Z's original ammo from the wreck was cut in half and the interior of the bullets was exposed to the eyes of the visitors, under a thick glass window. I was amazed of how detailed and varialble the fillings of EACH and EVERY of those small 7,92 mm-bullets were. No simple balls or tracers. There was EVERYTHING to be seen (Allthough, I deeply doubt that there was a proximity-fuse, fragmentation bullet in there, anyway...).

What do you mean to this?

Cheers,

Montanamotor

JoeB

27th July 2006, 02:57

quote:Originally posted by montanamotor

in which way - construction-wise and performance-wise - do the M2- and M3-guns differ from each other?

Any references?

Same ref as quoted before, Chinn "The Machine Gun" (huge multivolume book, kind of fundamental reference on machine guns of all kinds, but you can buy it now on CD-ROM fairly cheap, Google it) what became the M3 was one of several experimental projects by various arsenals and manufacturers to produce a higher cyclic rate weapon from the M2 aircraft type machine gun. In that project T25, they loosened the restraint for parts commonlality with the M2 and came up with a gun that looks similar, only differs in operation by having a (gas effect) recoil booster at the muzzle, but where almost all the parts are also re-engineered, and not common with the M2. To get reliable operation at cyclic rates of 1200+ rpm. At least some applications today still use the M3, for example a single M3 not M2, is the secondary armament of the Avenger multiple Stinger launcher on Humvee chasis.

On references for autocannon in general, and a/c mg's and cannon specifically, of course one also has to keep in mind the various excellent books by Tony Williams.

On M61 I agree that's a quite overblown statement, to say it's the best aircraft gun now. That's highly debateable, but the role played by the gun is not anything like what it was in WWII or the Korean War, obviously. I don't believe F-15's have scored, or attempted, any guns kills. They have (or at least other M61 equipped types like F-14, 16, 18 have) have used their guns for strafing in very close support where bombs are too dangerous to the supported troops or civilians; that's been quite common in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lacking the best air-air gun, which objective stats would strongly suggest the F-15 and F-22 do lack, doesn't diminish their effectiveness measureably.

On dispersion, the optimum dispersion for a sniper weapon might be 0 mil. But that's not necessarily so statistically for auto fire at a target like an airplane where an error in any input of a firing solution or its calculation could have a perfectly steadily aimed 0 mil gun miss with every single round, whereas some dispersion mixes it up and gets some hits. It depends on the accuracy of the fire control system, and how many hits it takes to accomplish the mission (destroy the plane, or for say AA fire from ship, maybe realistically more to make the pilot miss). In WWII, besides being set to converge rather than boresighted straight ahead, US fighter wing guns were sometimes set for deliberate dispersion up and down, especially v the Japanese where the theory was a few hits were enough, and a more dispersed pattern made at least a few hits more likely.

Joe

Tony Williams

27th July 2006, 08:28

quote:Originally posted by montanamotor

Hi,

what kind of ammunition is availlable for any .50-caliber nowadays?

Ball, steel-sleeve, armour piercing, incendiary, HE, tracer? Which specifications? Concerning range, accuracy, penetrative power, explosive power? Is there a proximity fuse-fragmentation-variant?

The late-WW2 pattern M8 API is still very much a standard round, widely made. This penetrates up to 25mm armour at short range, 90 degree impact. More effective is the Raufoss NM140 Multipurpose, which might be described as a SAPHEI, and is now also widely made (in bigger calibres as well - the PGU-28/B, which is the USAF's standard 20mm round, is based on this design). This basically uses a chemical fuze - an incendiary compound in the nose which is ignited by impact and in turn sets off an HE charge further back, once the bullet has penetrated. Penetration isn't as good as the API, but the behind-armour effects are considerably better. Then there is the SLAP APDS, a saboted round with a tunsten flight projectile, which will penetrate 25mm at 1,000 m. The sniper boys load special, low-drag Hornady A-Max or similar target bullets, in much more accurate loadings.

Even in WW1 rifle-calibre aircraft MGs had incendiary and/or explosive bullets, and these were common in WW2.

The smallest calibre proximity fuze in service is for the 40mm Bofors. Anything smaller has too small a lethal radius for such a fuze to be worthwhile.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Tony Williams

27th July 2006, 08:35

quote:Originally posted by JoeB

On dispersion, the optimum dispersion for a sniper weapon might be 0 mil. But that's not necessarily so statistically for auto fire at a target like an airplane where an error in any input of a firing solution or its calculation could have a perfectly steadily aimed 0 mil gun miss with every single round, whereas some dispersion mixes it up and gets some hits.
As a matter of interest, the worst dispersion I know of in postwar fighter jets was for the USN's 20mm MK 12 cannon fitted to many naval planes in the 1950s and 60s, but especially to the F-8U Crusader. This could manage only 12 mils. This is odd since this was just a rechambered and speeded up Hispano, and they could manage 6 mils. Possibly the more powerful cartridge set up some kind of whip effect in the barrel.

Conversely, the most accurate one I know of (although I have to say that I have this data on very few guns) is the M61. Once speeded up to rate, it could manage just over 4 mils, which is reckoned excellent for an aircraft gun. You could get different barrel clamps to widen the dispersion (including one which produced a rectangular dispersion, much wider than it was tall) but I don't know if they saw any use.

These figures are for integral guns - gunpods are very much less accurate.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

montanamotor

27th July 2006, 08:50

Ah,

look what I found on .50-caliber ammunition:

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50_ammo.html

Tony, I don't remember if I got this link from you or if I found it anywhere else on the net, instead.

Anyway: It's good to know people who really know what they are talking about!

Cheers!

Montanamotor

Tony Williams

27th July 2006, 09:34

Good link - I hadn't seen that one.
The Mk 211 is that Raufoss Multipurpose bullet I mentioned.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

montanamotor

27th July 2006, 20:54

And:

http://www.joematlock.com/50_caliber_machine_gun.htm

Cheers,

Montanamotor

Tony Williams

27th July 2006, 23:51

quote:Originally posted by montanamotor

And:

http://www.joematlock.com/50_caliber_machine_gun.htm

Hmm. A couple of comments about those photos. First, the final one headed "Hispano Mk II" is actually the 37mm Russian N-37. Second, the one showing the cartridges has been pinched without permission from this article on my site: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

montanamotor

28th July 2006, 00:16

Tony,

it's good to know that. I had no idea. How could I, anyway?

Sue him. It's your picture!

Cheers,

Montanamotor

Tony Williams

28th July 2006, 06:47

quote:Originally posted by montanamotor

Sue him. It's your picture!Unfortunately I would be unable to demonstrate any financial loss, so I wouldn't get any recompense...

I don't actually mind people using my pics, as long as they ask first and provide a credit and a link to my site.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Ricky

28th July 2006, 18:11

quote:Originally posted by Tony Williams

Even in WW1 rifle-calibre aircraft MGs had incendiary and/or explosive bullets
Any Biggles fan can tell you about 'Buckingham', used for shooting down balloons...:)

Lightning

29th July 2006, 00:24

Hi Tony
Quoting you:
quote:Incidentally, accuracy in bomber defensive mountings was even worse. The book "Gunner" includes a dispersion chart for the .50s in a B-24. The best figures were achieved for the ball turret, which managed 8.3 mils (the only one under 10 mils). The worst was for the open waist mountings, which managed (wait for it) 35.6 mils! These figures were based on ground firing tests.

The inherent accuracy of a weapon is not affected by the instability of its mount and the resulting dispersion of its shots--whether fired individually or on full-automatic fire. Even using a "machine mount," the effect of multiple recoils cannot be completely eliminated.

The turrets in in B-17s and B-24s were power operated, but the gun mounts were in no way comparable to true "machine rests." The waist guns were mounted on swivel mounts and were hand held by the gunners. You just can't attribute the dispersion of fire that you describe--especially when fired in long bursts--to inaccuracy of the weapon itself.

You coud hang an M2 fom a chain, fire a five-second burst at a target at any range, and it wouldn't surprise me if the dispersion was well over 25 or 30 mils! Would that mean that the M2 was that inaccurate? Of course not.

Another example of my point: An expert marksman fires a specified number of shots with each one carefully aimed and under no time constraint. He then fires the same number of shots in a timed exercise. His score will always be significantly better on slow-fire than on rapid-fire.

This is the same shooter firing the same weapon at the same range. He is using the same ammunition. He is firing from the same position (i.e. prone, standing, kneeling, etc.), either supported or unsupported. Does the difference in his two scores mean that the inherent accuracy of the weapon has changed? Again, of course not.

The accuracy of any weapon does change if it is fired repeatedly in a short time to the extent that it becomes seriously overheated. The zero and the dispersion will both suffer. This is abuse of the weapon and doesn't enter into this discussion.

Regards,
Lightning

Lightning

29th July 2006, 01:44

Hi montanamotor,
Quoting you:
quote:Anyway: It's good to know people who really know what they are talking about!

If you are referring to Tony Williams, I agree. Tony definitely knows his field, and, although I don't always agree with him, I value his oppinions and his input to this forum.

As to the author of the article you cited regarding the M2 machine gun, that's a different story entirely! Let's look at some of his statements:

Early in the article, he gives the M2's effective range as "under 400 yards"! Laughable!!! He then states that the "best range" is "under 250 yard"! Completely ridiculous!!!

When expounding on the gun's accuracy, he states that the shots will group in a three-foot circle at 1000 yards. That's only one mil!!! He had just stated that the gun was "somewhat accurate for a distance of 1000 yards." Is one mil only "somewhat accurate"? I'll let you decide on that one.

Later in the article, he gives the M2's maximum effective range as being "2000 meters [not yards] with a tripod mount." Now what is it--"under 400 yards" or "2000 meters"?

And last, but most definitely not least, he, according to Tony Williams, actually plagiarized one of Tony's articles! To add insult to injury, this "author" even misnamed one of the cartridges in the photograph he plagiarized! (Actually, "plagiarize" usually refers to a written passage, so, maybe a better word here would be "steal.")

I personally completely disregard the veracity and accuracy of the article in question. You may accept or reject its value as you see fit.

Returning to the discussion at hand, let me make the following comments:

The sniper schools run by the USMC and the US Army consider normal sniper range as being from 600 to 1000 meters. The M2 has a "normal" (i.e. in the hands of a regular soldier) effective range of between 1800 and 2000 meters. It has a maximum range of about 4.25 miles (not km). The sniper trainees are taught to not fire at less than 300 meters because they might be located by the enemy.

Although it was not used by all snipers because of its weight and bulk, the M2 was the answer to their demand for a weapon accurate out to 1000 to 1200 meters and beyond.

Regards,
Lightning

montanamotor

29th July 2006, 02:25

Lightning,

relax: It's Tony, whom I meant with my statement, of course.

Myself being a bloody amateur on weapons, I cannot decide who's right and who's not by my own judgement. But if two of "us" - both decidedly expers in their area - would state the same thing about the "copyist's" writing, then I'll certainly agree with you, for shure

In fact, that's what this forum is made for, isn't it: Talk about it, and discuss everything for the better, if not best of arguments.

Right?

I enjoy your company, anyway!

Cheers!

Montanamotor

Tony Williams

29th July 2006, 16:46

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi Tony
Quoting you:
quote:Incidentally, accuracy in bomber defensive mountings was even worse. The book "Gunner" includes a dispersion chart for the .50s in a B-24. The best figures were achieved for the ball turret, which managed 8.3 mils (the only one under 10 mils). The worst was for the open waist mountings, which managed (wait for it) 35.6 mils! These figures were based on ground firing tests.

The inherent accuracy of a weapon is not affected by the instability of its mount and the resulting dispersion of its shots--whether fired individually or on full-automatic fire. Even using a "machine mount," the effect of multiple recoils cannot be completely eliminated.
Yes, I agree - that was my point in mentioning the different dispersion figures for guns in different locations.

However, I think that you may be overstating your case by claiming that we should ignore all mounting issues in deciding on accuracy because even a machine mount won't be perfectly steady. In that case, how would we decide how accurate any MG is? I think that we have to look at weapons as they were used, in the mountings to which they were fitted, while acknowledging that some of those mountings (like the B24 waist guns) were so flexible that they seriously degraded the accuracy.

I have given you the explanation for why short-recoil guns like the Browning tend (other things being equal) to be less accurate than gas-operated ones, and it is due to the fact that the barrel is free to move rather than locked to the receiver, and that tolerances tend to be generous in the interests of reliability in adverse conditions. This is supported by the comments I reported from British tank gunners on the superior accuracy of the (gas-operated) Besa over the Browning (incidentally, this wasn't necessarily a criticism - tank MGs tend to be used for suppressive fire, so spreading it around a bit helps!). It is also supported by the figures I have seen for aircraft guns, which put the Browning near the worst for dispersion - but again, that isn't particularly significant IMO given all of the other causes of inaccuracy in aircraft gunnery.

When used for accurate shooting at long range, the .50 ammo is now generally fired by specially-designed rifles rather than the Browning M2. Using such a rifle, a Canadian sniper achieved a kill at around 2,400m a couple of years back in Afghanistan, although around 1,800m is considered a more typical limit (compared with 1,400m for the .338 Lapua and 800m for the 7.62 NATO sniper rifles). The .50 Browning can of course be fired at longer ranges than that (around 7,000m being the ballistic limit at optimum elevation) but that is more for area rather than precision fire.

Edit: to sum up, I would say that the Browning MG's accuracy was (and is) adequate for its purposes, because those purposes did not require precision shooting.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Kutscha

29th July 2006, 20:13

These are the numbers Tony was refering to from Gunner:

B-17

ball turret > dia. 15' - 8.3mils
upper turret > dia. 21' - 11.7mils
chin turret > dia. 23' - 12.9 mils
waist(closed) dia. 26' - 14.3mils
side nose > dia. 34' - 18.7mils
tail turret > dia 45' - 25mils

B-24

ball turret > dia. 15' - 8.3mils
upper turret > dia. 20' - 11.2mils
nose turret > dia. 23' - 12.9mils (Emerson)
nose turret > dia. 35' - 19.3mils
waist(closed) dia. 23' - 12.9mils
waist(open) dia. 63' - 35.6mils
tail turret > dia 35' - 19.3mils

Tony Williams

30th July 2006, 00:05

I've just remembered something: in 'Flying Guns WW2' I included a contemporary diagram (from the PRO files) of the shot pattern made by each of the four .303s and two 20mm of a Spitfire Vb, showing how the guns were harmonised and the patterns this made at different ranges. It is noticeable that the circles indicating the dispersion size of each gun are slightly smaller for the Hispanos than for the Brownings (which are about 10% bigger in diameter). Clearly, in this case the wing mountings would be equally flexible for both types of gun, so that indicates that the Hispano was more accurate than the .303 Browning.

Tony Williams

Ricky

31st July 2006, 18:04

not necessarily...

The vannon in a Spitfire wing were inboard of the mgs, and I seem to remember that wing flex aided the inaccuracy of Spitfire guns... would this effect the accuracy of the mgs more because they were further up the wing? Or am I talking out of my rear end here? (probably...)

It would be interesting to see a similar diagram for the all-mg Spitfires...

Tony Williams

31st July 2006, 19:28

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

It would be interesting to see a similar diagram for the all-mg Spitfires...I have one. The circles are all the same size.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Ricky

31st July 2006, 22:03

Well, that blows my question out of the water![B)]

Thanks Tony.:)

Lightning

1st August 2006, 22:21

Hi Tony,

Quoting you:

quote:I think that we have to look at weapons as they were used, in the mountings to which they were fitted, while acknowledging that some of those mountings (like the B24 waist guns) were so flexible that they seriously degraded the accuracy.

This is certainly true if we are talking about the effectiveness of a particular gun as used (i.e. the sum total of the gun, its mounting, the location where it is mounted, etc.). This, however, does not do justice to the gun itself.

The M2 was used on, among others, the P-38, P-40, P-47, P-51, P-61, P-63, F4F, F6F, F8F(?), and the F4U. Nobody could suggest that stability of the mounting arrangements in all of these fighters was equal. So, in stating the "accuracy" of the M2 machine gun, which installation would be valid?

You could say, for instance, that the 50-cal guns of the P-38 had a better over-all dispersion at all ranges (except at, and near, the conversion point) than did those of the F4U, but which plane used the more-accurate gun? Neither. They both used the same gun i.e. the M2.

quote:I have given you the explanation for why short-recoil guns like the Browning tend (other things being equal) to be less accurate than gas-operated ones, and it is due to the fact that the barrel is free to move rather than locked to the receiver . . .

As an aside, Browning seemed to like this arrangement in some of his other-than-machine-gun designs. For many years, my favorite (and only) upland game and waterfowl shotgun was a 12 gauge Browning Auto-Five (A5) "Light Twelve" with 28" barrel. At first, I was somewhat startled when the whole barrel came back in recoil! That didn't last long, and I went on to bag a lot of game with that old gun. Sadly, I had to sell it when I moved to Germany.

quote:When used for accurate shooting at long range, the .50 ammo is now generally fired by specially-designed rifles rather than the Browning M2.

But from WWII to Viet Nam, the best military-issue sniper rifles available to the troops were the M1903 Springfield, the M1C/D Garand, the M21 sniper version of the M14, and the M24 accurized Remington Model 700. The M2, used with tripod and 10-power scope, was superior to any of them at ranges over 1000 meters. It was not only that the M2 could shoot farther than the aforementioned rifles, but it could do so with accuracy!

quote: to sum up, I would say that the Browning MG's accuracy was (and is) adequate for its purposes, because those purposes did not require precision shooting.

The fact that the M2 was used for decades as the US military's primary ultra-range sniper "rifle" proves that one of its very important purposes did, in deed, require "precision shooting."

Regards,
Lightning

Ricky

1st August 2006, 23:59

I think the issue here is this:

In single-shot mode, the M2 is accurate. When in automatic fire mode, it loses accuracy. As do all machineguns.

Is that a correct summary?

Tony Williams

2nd August 2006, 00:26

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi Tony,

Quoting you:

quote:I think that we have to look at weapons as they were used, in the mountings to which they were fitted, while acknowledging that some of those mountings (like the B24 waist guns) were so flexible that they seriously degraded the accuracy.

This is certainly true if we are talking about the effectiveness of a particular gun as used (i.e. the sum total of the gun, its mounting, the location where it is mounted, etc.). This, however, does not do justice to the gun itself.
The issue, it seems to me, is real-world accuracy - i.e. how does the accuracy of different guns compare when used in similar mountings? There is plenty of evidence that, in those circumstances, the Browning short-recoil MG design is less accurate than most. However, as I said, that difference is not significant in practical terms.

quote:quote:When used for accurate shooting at long range, the .50 ammo is now generally fired by specially-designed rifles rather than the Browning M2.

But from WWII to Viet Nam, the best military-issue sniper rifles available to the troops were the M1903 Springfield, the M1C/D Garand, the M21 sniper version of the M14, and the M24 accurized Remington Model 700. The M2, used with tripod and 10-power scope, was superior to any of them at ranges over 1000 meters. It was not only that the M2 could shoot farther than the aforementioned rifles, but it could do so with accuracy!
Come now, Lightning, you know perfectly well that the rifle-calibre ammo such as the .30-06 and 7.62mm is running out of puff by 1,000 metres: the velocity drops below the speed of sound at around that distance, which causes disturbance as the bullet passes back through the sound barrier, and it is relatively easily blown around by any cross-winds. The .50 bullet is still supersonic above 1,500m and has far superior wind-bucking ability.

I'd be willing to bet that if you did a side-by-side shooting test with the .50 BMG vs a 7.62 sniper rifle at 500m, the 7.62mm would shoot far tighter groups - because the guns are much more accurate. It's only the much bigger ammo that gives the .50 its longer reach.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Lightning

2nd August 2006, 00:30

Hi Ricky,

Quoting you:

quote:I think the issue here is this:

In single-shot mode, the M2 is accurate. When in automatic fire mode, it loses accuracy. As do all machineguns.

Is that a correct summary?

I think that's pretty close. I would add a little to it.

Any gun--repeating, semiautomatic, or fully automatic--will always place its first shot more accurately than any following shots fired in a short time. That first shot is the only one that can be well aimed. Recoil and vibration come into play after that. The gun, however, retains its inherent accuracy throughout the firing of the string (as long as the gun is not overheated by excessive firing). It's just that the shooter (or the mounting) cannot maintain control of the gun in order to allow it to fire successive shots from exactly the same alignment as that of the first.

My whole point throughout this entire discussion is that, if you are going to compare the accuracy of one gun against that of another, you have to either disregard the effects of unstable mounting or assume that those effects are the exactly the same for each gun and therefore cancel out--an unrealistic assumption.

The inherent accuracy is a built-in quality of the gun itself. It does not change just because the gun is mounted or fired in such a way as to not fully utilize it.

Regards,
Lightning

Mark J

2nd August 2006, 07:57

I would have to agree, accuracy is an inherent aspect of any gun, built into it during construction. That accuracy is compramised by flexible mountings and that includes aircraft wings. For aircraft gun accuracy, the 'holy grail' would be the ability to control the automatic fire of the gun in a fluid action, ie' aircombat. For me, the most accurate were the centreline mounting guns but in saying that, I don't believe pinpoint accuracy was ever an issue with WWII aircraft as it was with say sniper rifles.

cheers

Tony Williams

2nd August 2006, 21:15

quote:
[i]Any gun--repeating, semiautomatic, or fully automatic--will always place its first shot more accurately than any following shots fired in a short time. That first shot is the only one that can be well aimed.
Not always true - the power-driven rotary MGs are not accurate until they get up to full rotation speed - they throw the first few rounds to one side.

quote:The inherent accuracy is a built-in quality of the gun itself. It does not change just because the gun is mounted or fired in such a way as to not fully utilize it.
That is true. And the Browning remains relatively inaccurate whatever it's strapped to. :)

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Lightning

2nd August 2006, 23:58

Hi Tony,

Quoting you:

quote:And the Browning remains relatively inaccurate whatever it's strapped to. :)

I assume you mean the Browning M2. (You have mentioned the Browning 30 cal in several of your postings.) If so, in the face of so many documented cases of the M2 being used very effectively and accurately at very long ranges, I can't see how you can make that statement!

Your use of the phrase "relatively inaccurate" requires clarification. Relative to what? Over the years, machine guns have never been thought of as precision weapons. In spite of this, the M2 has been much used by the US military as a true sniper weapon at ranges unequaled by purpose-dedicated sniper rifles (i.e. M1903, M1C, M1D, M21, M24).

The accuracy of these rifles, within their effective range, is not stated in terms of mils but in minutes-of-arc. The M2 does not have this degree of accuracy, but at ranges beyond 1000 meters it retains its considerable accuracy while that of the cited rifles begins to fall off rapidly. It is at these ranges that the M2 comes into its own.

What other machine gun in use from before WWII through the Viet Nam war has achieved such a well-deserved reputation as a time-proven ultra-range sniper weapon? This whole discussion began with the comparison between the Soviet 12.7 mm machine gun and the US 50 cal M2. Since the debate has narrowed to the accuracy of the M2, it would be interesting to know how the the Soviet gun compares in accuracy to the M2 at ranges of 1200 meters and beyond. Has its accuracy at such ranges ever even hinted at its being suitable for ultra-range sniper use?

The statement that the M2 is "relatively inaccurate" has been abundantly refuted by its performance on battlefields around the world and spanning decades of conflict.

Regards,
Lightning

Tony Williams

3rd August 2006, 05:34

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi Tony,

Quoting you:

quote:And the Browning remains relatively inaccurate whatever it's strapped to. :)

I assume you mean the Browning M2. (You have mentioned the Browning 30 cal in several of your postings.)

Actually, the aircraft .30 Browning used in WW2 was also designated the M2. The .30 and the .50 were the same design, just to different scales, so the fundamental reasons for inaccuracy would apply to both.

quote:In the face of so many documented cases of the M2 being used very effectively and accurately at very long ranges, I can't see how you can make that statement!
Actually, I haven't seen any evidence of high accuracy standards. The only figures I'm aware of relate to the aircraft M2 (not the army's M2HB, which is different in various respects) and they indicate a worse than average accuracy.

quote:Your use of the phrase "relatively inaccurate" requires clarification. Relative to what?
Other comparable automatic weapons, specifically gas-operated ones.

quote:Over the years, machine guns have never been thought of as precision weapons. In spite of this, the M2 has been much used by the US military as a true sniper weapon at ranges unequaled by purpose-dedicated sniper rifles (i.e. M1903, M1C, M1D, M21, M24).

The accuracy of these rifles, within their effective range, is not stated in terms of mils but in minutes-of-arc. The M2 does not have this degree of accuracy, but at ranges beyond 1000 meters it retains its considerable accuracy while that of the cited rifles begins to fall off rapidly. It is at these ranges that the M2 comes into its own.
The very best .30/7.62mm rifles have an effective range of only 800m, simply because, as I've already said, the cartridge is too weak to reach any further with any sort of consistency. It isn't the M2 which "comes into its own" at longer ranges, it's the .50 cal cartridge. You may note that nowadays the US Army, along with many others, use rifles in .50 cal (or the Russian 12.7mm or 14.5mm) for accurate long-range shooting, not any kind of MG.

The only reason that the US Army made any use of the .50 M2 for firing at distant point targets is simply that they had nothing else which could do that job, except for a tank gun (which would be a bit wasteful to use against individual soldiers). That does not indicate that it was particularly accurate, just that it was all that was available.

quote:What other machine gun in use from before WWII through the Viet Nam war has achieved such a well-deserved reputation as a time-proven ultra-range sniper weapon?
Has it? As far as I can see the main example quoted is that of Carlos Hathcock's famous long-range kill. Which he achieved once. And even that wasn't with the first shot.

The .30 cal sniper rifles had an average score of 1.3 shots per kill. I've never seen any figures for the .50 M2, have you?

quote:This whole discussion began with the comparison between the Soviet 12.7 mm machine gun and the US 50 cal M2. Since the debate has narrowed to the accuracy of the M2, it would be interesting to know how the the Soviet gun compares in accuracy to the M2 at ranges of 1200 meters and beyond. Has its accuracy at such ranges ever even hinted at its being suitable for ultra-range sniper use?
Of course it hasn't - it was purely an aircraft gun (just as the .50 M2 was purely an aircraft gun - it was the M2HB which the Army used).

quote:The statement that the M2 is "relatively inaccurate" has been abundantly refuted by its performance on battlefields around the world and spanning decades of conflict.
Sorry, but it hasn't at all. The only evidence you've quoted is that the US Army used it in the long-range sniper role. To which I have responded that its use in that role was for want of anything else, not because it was particularly accurate, and I have seen no evidence whatsoever to indicate that any flavour of Browning short-recoil MG is more accurate than, or even as accurate as, any other comparable MG.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Mark J

3rd August 2006, 08:43

Very interesting debate! Just my opinion but if I was faced with the chance at shooting at an individual enemy soldier at very long range then a heavy machine gun is the LAST weapon of choice. A heavy caliber rifle would be the first choice but as has been said, perhaps a heavy machine gun was all that was available for some troops. My own experiance with machineguns is limited to the Sterling in .9mm and I found that a waste of time over 10 meters, I'd take a pistol or rifle by choice every time.
Just a personal note, any semi or full automatic weapon with a moving barrel is going to be at a disadvantage simply because the barrel moves but this is really only important when pinpoint accuracy is needed. Planes don't need pinpoint single shot accuracy.
Keep it going guys [8D]

cheers

Tony Williams

3rd August 2006, 11:13

I did a bit more digging on the use of the .50 M2HB for sniping.

As far as I can discover, Hathcock was the only person to do this. His M2HB was specially modified for him, to fire single shot. See: http://www.bobtuley.com/carloshathcock.htm

Which therefore tells you nothing about how accurate the M2HB was as a machine gun.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Lightning

4th August 2006, 00:16

Hi Tony,
quote:Actually, the aircraft .30 Browning used in WW2 was also designated the M2. The .30 and the .50 were the same design, just to different scales, so the fundamental reasons for inaccuracy would apply to both.

Surely you're not suggesting that the 30 cal was as accurate as the 50 cal--especialy at any range beyond 100 meters! I have fired both guns at vehicles (derelicts used for range-targets) at ranges out to over 500 meters, and I could tear up a jeep with short bursts from the .50 where the .30 would only kick up dirt in the general area. When firing tracers, even though they burn out on the way and group differently, the tighter patterns shot by the .50 are so obvious that they can't be seriously disputed.

quote:The very best .30/7.62mm rifles have an effective range of only 800m, simply because, as I've already said, the cartridge is too weak to reach any further with any sort of consistency. It isn't the M2 which "comes into its own" at longer ranges, it's the .50 cal cartridge.

Which is what I said earlier when citing the "minute-of-arc" accuracy of the list of sniper rifles I gave. Of course it's the 50 cal round that makes such long-range shooting possible, but the round fired is only as accurate as the gun firing it. This is so obvious as to not require further comment.
quote:You may note that nowadays the US Army, along with many others, use rifles in .50 cal (or the Russian 12.7mm or 14.5mm) for accurate long-range shooting, not any kind of MG.

The operative word here is "nowadays." Technology marches on. You may note that the discussion has been primarily about WWII through Viet Nam--a point that I have been careful to point out on several occasions. Fighter planes have also increased their performance since Viet Nam.

Of course a purpose-designed 50 cal sniper rifle will out-perform a 50 cal M2 at ultra long range--but the 30 cal/7.62 mm sniper rifles mentioned in this discussion won't. It's a tribute to the M2's accuracy that it was used as a sniper weapon in the first place!
quote:Has it? As far as I can see the main example quoted is that of Carlos Hathcock's famous long-range kill. Which he achieved once. And even that wasn't with the first shot.

That shot (it was, by the way, first mentioned up by you) was made at 2500 meters! That's 500 to 700 meters beyond the specified maximum effective range of the M2. And it took all of two shots! I would consider it great shooting if it took 10 shots! How many shots would it have taken using an M24 Remington?

quote:The .30 cal sniper rifles had an average score of 1.3 shots per kill. I've never seen any figures for the .50 M2, have you?

What was the average range at which this average 1.3 shots per kill was achieved? Most sniper kills were made at between 400 and 600 meters. The M2 would most probably not have been used at less than 800 to 1000 meters unless it just happened to be on hand at the time.

When used as a long-range sniper weapon, the M2 was usually fired from a prepared position overlooking areas of known enemy activity. It was obviously too big and heavy to be used by snipers who had to remained hidden until they took their shot (no more than three) and then had to move to a new "hide"--all without being located.

quote:Sorry, but it hasn't at all. The only evidence you've quoted is that the US Army used it in the long-range sniper role.

Equally sorry, but it has. You yourself have cited one of the greatest snipers in history, Carlos Hathcock--a US Marine who used the M2 to great advantage.
quote:To which I have responded that its use in that role was for want of anything else, not because it was particularly accurate, and I have seen no evidence whatsoever to indicate that any flavour of Browning short-recoil MG is more accurate than, or even as accurate as, any other comparable MG.

It was accurate enough to have been effective at ranges where those other sniper rifles were not. If it were not particularly accurate, very few, if any, of those shots would have found their mark. Had that been the case, the M2 would never have gained its reputation as a long-range menace to be feared by the enemy.

The evidence that you fail to see is that the M2 was selected and used as a sniper weapon where those "comparable MGs" were not. And, if they had been, there is every reason to believe--based on the fine reputation earned by the M2 in this role--that they would have been outperformed by the M2.

Regards,
Lightning

Tony Williams

4th August 2006, 11:41

I did indeed first mention Carlos Hathcock's 2,500 yard shot - and commented at the same time that a hell of a lot of luck must have been involved. Everyone talks about that one kill with the .50 - I have seen no mention of any others at similar ranges. Ergo, it was a one-off kill, not a routine occurence (if it were routine, it wouldn't be so famous).

I have also seen no evidence that anyone else used the .50 MG in a similar way to Hathcock, let alone that it was in common use as a 'sniper' weapon.

I have pointed out that Hathcock's gun was modified to single shot, so it was no longer a machine gun (although I note you have ignored that).

We seem to be going round in circles on this one. This will accordingly be my last post on this subject, unless anyone can come up with some evidence - in terms of figures - concerning the gun's accuracy. And note that the .50 M2 as used in aircraft (and aircraft armament was what this debate was about) had a thinner and lighter barrel, plus a much higher rate of fire, than the M2HB ground gun, which would have tended to make it significantly less accurate.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Lightning

8th August 2006, 21:59

Hi Tony,

I agree that we're in a "Lufberry Circle" on this topic, and I am comfortable to agree to disagree, but I must address a couple of your final comments:
quote:I did indeed first mention Carlos Hathcock's 2,500 yard shot - and commented at the same time that a hell of a lot of luck must have been involved. Everyone talks about that one kill with the .50 - I have seen no mention of any others at similar ranges. Ergo, it was a one-off kill, not a routine occurence (if it were routine, it wouldn't be so famous).
As this shot was made far beyond the maximum effective range of the M2 (as I said earlier, 500 to 700 meters beyond), it was certainly not a routine occurrence, but the shot was made nonetheless. Some luck, yes, but not luck alone. That shot was made using some luck, a great deal of skill, and a fine long-range weapon. Also, since it was the longest sniper kill in history, it stands to reason that it was a "one-of" kill--otherwise it wouldn't hold the record.
quote:I have also seen no evidence that anyone else used the .50 MG in a similar way to Hathcock, let alone that it was in common use as a 'sniper' weapon.
No one else used quite a few weapons, sniper or otherwise, as well as Hathcock. As to the extent of its use as a sniper weapon, the M2 was not "commonly" used for reasons I gave earlier. It was, however, used as a long range sniper weapon in the Korean War for shots beyond the range of existing issue sniper rifles over the vast open areas of the Korean battlefield . It became even more used in this role in Viet Nam, jungle conditions notwithstanding.
quote:I have pointed out that Hathcock's gun was modified to single shot, so it was no longer a machine gun (although I note you have ignored that).
I really didn't ignore that, Tony. It's been a long time since I have fired the M2, but I remember that we fired individual shots with it on occasion. I just can't remember whether there was a selector involved or not. Maybe you can shed some light on this. Anyway, it would be quite simple to fire the M2 (or any other machine gun, for that matter) on single shot--just put a single round in the chamber. Full-automatic (or even semi-automatic) fire would never be used for sniper operations in the first place.
quote:. . . a much higher rate of fire, than the M2HB ground gun, which would have tended to make it significantly less accurate.
Although the ranges involved were much shorter.

Regards,
Lightning