Zeroing guns of Hurricane and Spitfire what range?

[EdStraker]

Does anyone know what range the browning machine guns in the wings of Hurricanes and Spit's were zeroed at,150 yds,200 yds,more?I'm really interested to know.

[TheGrunch]

I believe they were initially harmonised at 400yds as standard for a while before it was realised that firing closer was more effective. I think the minimum for the Spitfire's guns was 250yds on account of the narrow gun bays, not sure about the Hurricane.

[Snuffy Smith]

Remember, rifle caliber machine guns in the early months. You must be close, and you want to kill the pilot.

[EdStraker]

Thanks guys good info given here,I also heard that although there was a standard yardage for the zeroing/harmonsing of these guns,that pilots often customised this yardage to there specific liking.

[M_Gunz]

Originally posted by Snuffy Smith:
Remember, rifle caliber machine guns in the early months. You must be close, and you want to kill the pilot.

Snuffy, while those 303's wouldn't go through 109 seat backs from 100 feet they are still capable of penetrating much of the rest of a 109 or bomber in 1940 and killing whoever got in the way from 1/4 mile and more. You don't have to be close but it helps and a lot of WWII fighter pilots were only out to shoot planes down even if others were there to make it personal. Judge by the attitudes towards shooting parachuting crew if you must. Besides, the engine is bigger and easier to hit.

Add: two bigger reasons to get close:

1) the apparent target is bigger and harder to miss
2) bullet time of travel is shorter, a jinking target can get less out of the way before the shots reach him

Question. Didn't you play B-17II and didn't you know Maj. Worsley online?

[Snuffy Smith]

RAF 1943 Gunnery Manual for Hurricane:

I've seen and like convergence at 150 to 200 meters for 303s. It's like looking the full length of a stadium at the people behind the other goal. With 303s, you really do need to be close and to kill the pilot or the engine to bring one down. Here's a link to an RAF Hurricane Gunnery manual on Darts' page for IL2 that I keep by me and have found invaluable. There is an almost identical one, Galland's Horrido for the 109 too. Both are excellant and very similar. The RAF one is of course British, and the German one is more European. I put them up for those beginning their flight school, who may not have seen them in the old forum.

RAF from Darts' page
http://www.darts-page.com/oth_files.htm
http://www.darts-page.com/files/gunnery01.htm

Galland's from Bakelit and Rafiger
http://www.rafiger.de/Homepage...es/Schiessfibel.html (http://www.rafiger.de/Homepage/Pages/Schiessfibel.html)

PS: No, I'm afraid I did not get into B17II.

Good hunting everyone. It will only be 2 weeks, be sure.

[M_Gunz]

.303 British 180 gr Power Point and Core Lock bullets. The powder, weight and shape are what matter as to speed and energy.

Range yards | Velocity ft/sec | Energy ft-pounds | % Energy

Muzzle | 2540 | 2580 | 100%
100... | 2300 | 2120 | 82%
200... | 2090 | 1750 | 68%
300... | 1900 | 1440 | 56%

A little perspective -- Remington .223, 3300 ft/sec at muzzle has 1330 ft-pounds energy and will wreck engines a good ways out.

Sure closer is more. Easy to see by comparing numbers to numbers. But what even the "small" numbers mean, 303 can bore holes through thin aluminum or perspex and still wound, kill or cut control lines, oil lines, fuel line or tank, crack castings, shatter stones, go through bricks and fun like that at 300 yards.

160-180 gr bullet around 2000 ft/sec describes very effective 20th century hunting round at muzzle.

It depends on what you have to go through to get to the pilot/engine. 109 seat back armor, point blank might not do. The fuselage of an He-111.. no problem. It's the armor and thick parts that block shots and if the thick part is the motor then the motor will probably get some damage unless the hit is glancing and the ricochet doesn't clip a vulnerable part like oil line, fuel line, vacuum line, carb. Radiators are more easily punched through. Instrument panel and engine controls also easily broken. The pilot, easiest of all!

It's the armor that stops the shots with no effect and the heavier structural parts that do so with little if any effect. My answer is to avoid the armor, shoot deflection. ALL of these bullets are effective PK at longer ranges from deflection if you can hit.

Try riding 300m directly behind a bomber with 30 cal rear gun. See how long that works.

[biggs222]

Originally posted by M_Gunz:

Sure closer is more. Easy to see by comparing numbers to numbers. But what even the "small" numbers mean, 303 can bore holes through thin aluminum or perspex and still wound, kill or cut control lines, oil lines, fuel line or tank, crack castings, shatter stones, go through bricks and fun like that at 300 yards.

160-180 gr bullet around 2000 ft/sec describes very effective 20th century hunting round at muzzle.

It depends on what you have to go through to get to the pilot/engine. 109 seat back armor, point blank might not do. The fuselage of an He-111.. no problem. It's the armor and thick parts that block shots and if the thick part is the motor then the motor will probably get some damage unless the hit is glancing and the ricochet doesn't clip a vulnerable part like oil line, fuel line, vacuum line, carb. Radiators are more easily punched through. Instrument panel and engine controls also easily broken. The pilot, easiest of all!

It's the armor that stops the shots with no effect and the heavier structural parts that do so with little if any effect. My answer is to avoid the armor, shoot deflection. ALL of these bullets are effective PK at longer ranges from deflection if you can hit.



exactly... And another thing people have to understand. CoD is going to have a MUCH more detailed and sophisticated Damage Modeling System than in the past... which will increase the effectiveness of the .303 ingame considerably..

like you said, fuel/oil/coolant lines and tanks, ammo stores, control lines/surfaces, individual parts of the engine itself...

I foresee a lot of people coming out to complain about how "over powered" the .303s are because their plane was set alight by a single good harmonized burst to the engine or fuel tank.

no the .303s didnt have any explosive capabilities like the cannon did and it isn't going to "saw" off anyone's wing, but eight high ROF machine guns are still, eight machine guns.

[Buzzsaw-]

Salute

In fact, many analysts believe the Spitfire and Hurricane's .303's were better weapons versus enemy fighters than the 109's mix of 7.92mm and low velocity 20mm. The rifle calibre weapons were much more accurate. The MG/FF was an extremely low velocity weapon, not at all suitable for high G dogfighting with high deflection angles.

Initially RAF pilots were recommended to set their convergence to 400 yards, according to an anti-bomber doctrine which had fighters opening fire in flight groupings at longer ranges.

This was quickly discarded when results were disappointing, and most pilots set convergence to between 200-250 yards. Once convergence was changed, the .303's were capable of causing structural damage to any fighter or single engine attack aircraft and there were a number of instances of Stukas having their wings 'sawn off' by .303 equipped fighters.

Against bombers, the .303's also suffered initially from lack of results due to the too long convergence. Results improved with the change, but against the larger structures of the bombers, the .303 rounds were incapable of causing catastrophic damage. The weapons got their major success through setting engines on fire or killing crew members. Standard issue .303 ammunition was API, 'armour piercing inciendary', and any damage or leaks in areas where fuel or oil lines or tanks were located resulted in immediate fires.

.303's were incapable of penetrating rear seat pilot armour at ranges greater than 100 yards, below that and they were effective. Many 109 and bomber units were not equipped with armour in the initial stages of the battle.

[JG53Frankyboy]

during the BoB
the Luftwaffe had the better weapons to shoot down bombers.
the RAF had the better weapons to shoot down fighters.

what a world http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Swallow601]

Thanks Buzz. Some great information. I've always liked the eight .303 configuration because if you're praying and spraying, there are more projectiles in the air... But you've given me pause for thought about how effective they actually were.

[biggs222]

Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

In fact, many analysts believe the Spitfire and Hurricane's .303's were better weapons versus enemy fighters than the 109's mix of 7.92mm and low velocity 20mm. The rifle calibre weapons were much more accurate. The MG/FF was an extremely low velocity weapon, not at all suitable for high G dogfighting with high deflection angles.

Initially RAF pilots were recommended to set their convergence to 400 yards, according to an anti-bomber doctrine which had fighters opening fire in flight groupings at longer ranges.

This was quickly discarded when results were disappointing, and most pilots set convergence to between 200-250 yards. Once convergence was changed, the .303's were capable of causing structural damage to any fighter or single engine attack aircraft and there were a number of instances of Stukas having their wings 'sawn off' by .303 equipped fighters.

Against bombers, the .303's also suffered initially from lack of results due to the too long convergence. Results improved with the change, but against the larger structures of the bombers, the .303 rounds were incapable of causing catastrophic damage. The weapons got their major success through setting engines on fire or killing crew members. Standard issue .303 ammunition was API, 'armour piercing inciendary', and any damage or leaks in areas where fuel or oil lines or tanks were located resulted in immediate fires.

.303's were incapable of penetrating rear seat pilot armour at ranges greater than 100 yards, below that and they were effective. Many 109 and bomber units were not equipped with armour in the initial stages of the battle.

right.

Mr. Sorley decided that there would have to be 8 .303s in order to compensate for the lack of hitting power that the rifle caliber possessed.
quantity over quality, so to speak.

its just that the problem was the pilot needed a good amount of time, especially if not in perfect harmonized range of its guns, in order to do critical damage... and in a dog-fighting environment one only had a couple seconds on target most of the time.

I wonder why Sorley didnt go with 2 .50cals in each wing instead... i think that would have been a good compromise between hitting power and ROF...Or were their issues with the US .50cal at the time?

[JG53Frankyboy]

not available in enough numbers IIRC

[M_Gunz]

Originally posted by biggs222:
its just that the problem was the pilot needed a good amount of time, especially if not in perfect harmonized range of its guns, in order to do critical damage... and in a dog-fighting environment one only had a couple seconds on target most of the time.

Good point!
Add: though IIRC 8 303's put out more than twice the chances to hit something vulnerable... if you get hits at all as 4 50 cals.


I wonder why Sorley didnt go with 2 .50cals in each wing instead... i think that would have been a good compromise between hitting power and ROF...Or were their issues with the US .50cal at the time?

When they got talked into the Mustang contract they had been looking for 4x50 cal P-40's.

[Buzzsaw-]

Originally posted by biggs222:
I wonder why Sorley didnt go with 2 .50cals in each wing instead... i think that would have been a good compromise between hitting power and ROF...Or were their issues with the US .50cal at the time?

The British were already on the 20mm track, same as the Germans. British armament manufacturers never took out a licence to manufacture the Browning .50 for aerial purposes. The aircraft equipped with .50's which the RAF and RN used were lend lease weapons, the exception being the Spit XVI which had some of its .50's manufactured in Canada.

The British considered the Oerlikon 20 mm cannon, which the MG F/F was copied from. It has the advantage of being compact.

But they rejected it as too low velocity, and were working on developing the Hispano Suiza HS 404 weapon, (which was also slightly related to the Oerlikon) for the Spit and Hurri. The HS 404 had already been used by the French in their fighter aircraft. The British acquired a licence to build it as the Hispano Mk.I. However, they were frustrated in this for quite a while, jamming was a continual problem, as seen with the cannon equipped Spits in the BoB. They were actually on the point of abandoning the 20mm cannon and going with 12 .303's when a modified belt-feeding system was developed by Martin-Baker with the new design named Hispano Mk.II. This was used by the Spits, Hurris, Beaufighters, Typhoons, etc. the rest of the war. Another version, the Hispano Mk V with a shorter barrel and higher rate of fire was installed on the Tempest. It is regarded by many historians as the best overall air to air weapon in WWII.

[Buzzsaw-]

Salute

This discussion of armament raises another question, that being whether or not the German bombers included in the game have fire extinguishers as standard equipment in their engine compartments.

We had some of these aircraft with them in IL-2, but I wonder whether the 1940 models came with them?

Certainly from the promo videos I have seen, the bomber engines seem to light up pretty good when they are under fire from the 8 gun Brit fighters.

[biggs222]

Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

This discussion of armament raises another question, that being whether or not the German bombers included in the game have fire extinguishers as standard equipment in their engine compartments.

We had some of these aircraft with them in IL-2, but I wonder whether the 1940 models came with them?

Certainly from the promo videos I have seen, the bomber engines seem to light up pretty good when they are under fire from the 8 gun Brit fighters.

yeah Il-2 had them coded into the game... I suspect they will be in there for CoD.

[Buzzsaw-]

Salute

I realize IL-2 aircraft had the extinguishers, my question was did the Heinkel, Dornier, and Junkers have the systems installed in 1940? This was early in the war, and many aircraft systems were still in their early development stages.

I am sure if the planes did have these systems, then Oleg will include them.

Interesting side note:

The Dewoitnine 520 Fighter had an onboard engine fire suppression system activated by the pilot.

Another interesting fact re. the 520: It had a range of 1500 km for ferry purposes, it had 40% more fuel than a 109 or Spitfire. The French were able to fly 520's across the Med after the fall of France. If the Germans had been equipped with Dewoitnines instead of 109's, their problems with lack of range would have been solved.

[Mirtma]

I was wondering, how Dewoitnine 520 looks:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/D.520_Le_Bourget_01.jpg/800px-D.520_Le_Bourget_01.jpg

[Skoshi Tiger]

Hi,

I was looking for load data for the MKVIII round as fired by the Colt-Brownings used by the RAF and found this data

Cartridge, Mk VIII
Accepted 1938
Smokeless powder load. Boxer or Berdan primed. 175 gr pointed-boat tailed bullet.
Muzzle Velocity - 2440fps

(http://www.303british.com/id19.html)

The MkVIII could be used in your standard SMLE but the boat tailed projectile caused excesive barrel wear so was not recomended. (Apparently any digger that could find some used it!
I'm not sure shat the attraction was because theres only a one grain difference in the projectile weight?????)


Cheers!


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
.303 British 180 gr Power Point and Core Lock bullets. The powder, weight and shape are what matter as to speed and energy.

Range yards | Velocity ft/sec | Energy ft-pounds | % Energy

Muzzle | 2540 | 2580 | 100%
100... | 2300 | 2120 | 82%
200... | 2090 | 1750 | 68%
300... | 1900 | 1440 | 56%

A little perspective -- Remington .223, 3300 ft/sec at muzzle has 1330 ft-pounds energy and will wreck engines a good ways out.

Sure closer is more. Easy to see by comparing numbers to numbers. But what even the "small" numbers mean, 303 can bore holes through thin aluminum or perspex and still wound, kill or cut control lines, oil lines, fuel line or tank, crack castings, shatter stones, go through bricks and fun like that at 300 yards.

160-180 gr bullet around 2000 ft/sec describes very effective 20th century hunting round at muzzle.

It depends on what you have to go through to get to the pilot/engine. 109 seat back armor, point blank might not do. The fuselage of an He-111.. no problem. It's the armor and thick parts that block shots and if the thick part is the motor then the motor will probably get some damage unless the hit is glancing and the ricochet doesn't clip a vulnerable part like oil line, fuel line, vacuum line, carb. Radiators are more easily punched through. Instrument panel and engine controls also easily broken. The pilot, easiest of all!

It's the armor that stops the shots with no effect and the heavier structural parts that do so with little if any effect. My answer is to avoid the armor, shoot deflection. ALL of these bullets are effective PK at longer ranges from deflection if you can hit.

Try riding 300m directly behind a bomber with 30 cal rear gun. See how long that works.

[M_Gunz]

My data is from around 1970, probably powder improved slightly by then. It's what I've got on the bookshelf. The at muzzle and weight numbers are not much different, are they? Still, they ain't 30-06!

Boat tail bullets have less subsonic drag than flat tail. Pointy nose have less supersonic drag than flatter or round tips.

[Skoshi Tiger]

The at muzzle and weight numbers are not much different, are they? Still, they ain't 30-06!


Not much. The 30-06 is a classic round and a lot of the rifles that it's use it have a lot of headroom for re-loaders.

Most of the .303 loads I've seen (and used) are on the light side to help preserve barrels.

Around where I live most sensible people would opt for a lighter, faster flat shooting round in a modern rifle. No accounting for taste!

Cheers!

[M_Gunz]

There is a lot to say for a bullet that between 25m and 250m only rises 5cm above the sight line and requires not as much lead on a moving target. Still the momentum of those tends to be severely lacking, they are more easily deflected and yet penetration is high.

30-06 is a bear compared to the 303 as far as I can see. IIRC it was developed based on or from the old Mauser military round that was effective well beyond the old British 303.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Just an observation,

The Browning 0.303in Mark II Machine Gun as used by the RAF had a rate of fire of 1150rpm.

Now with all 8 guns firing thats about 9200rpm.

That's the equivelent of more than two M134 Miniguns firing at 4000rpm. (the 7.62mm Nato round is roughly similar as the .303)

Of course you've only got your 15 seconds of ammo but how effective would a brace of mini guns be against thin skinned targets?


Cheers!