Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

30-50 rounds per gun? That seems very low... They probably carrier more then that...

Agreed. I was thinking on 1-3 min, and what they told me was incorrect. An M2 puts @ 800 rounds a min down range. The storage looked like about that many rounds, give or take. So I am thinking 1-2 min actual prolonged burst capability. Therefore, I go to The Source looking for clarification [;)] Wiki would just be a waste.

<edit>
From U.S.Army weaponology data base you can alter an M2 from Rapid Fire to Slow Rate Of Fire (40 rounds a min). That still does not seem to dove tail with the stowage I saw, so I'm just curious.

I was really sceptical of these numbers, having memories of the RAF Heavies fitted with channels to hold their ammo.
But checking Joe Baugher's data see that the guns had 5-600 rpg.

I expected 1-2000!

PS The B29 had 1000rpg.

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

30-50 rounds per gun? That seems very low... They probably carrier more then that...

Agreed. I was thinking on 1-3 min, and what they told me was incorrect. An M2 puts @ 800 rounds a min down range. The storage looked like about that many rounds, give or take. So I am thinking 1-2 min actual prolonged burst capability. Therefore, I go to The Source looking for clarification [;)] Wiki would just be a waste.

<edit>
From U.S.Army weaponology data base you can alter an M2 from Rapid Fire to Slow Rate Of Fire (40 rounds a min). That still does not seem to dove tail with the stowage I saw, so I'm just curious.

I was really sceptical of these numbers, having memories of the RAF Heavies fitted with channels to hold their ammo.
But checking Joe Baugher's data see that the guns had 5-600 rpg.

I expected 1-2000!

Yeah, I think I've heard the 5-600rpg also. I have heard stories of crewmen slipping more ammo onboard at times.

Lancaster Mid Upper had 1000rpg and the Tail 2500rpg.

Yeah, I was talking B-17's. Didn't the Lanc have quad .303's in the tail?

With few exceptions the RAF used .303s for bomber defense and the US used .50s most of the time. The trade off is that a .50 has more hitting power, but it is tougher to hold on target when hand held (such as a waist gun position) and you can carry fewer rounds of .50 in the same space.

Bill

ORIGINAL: wdolson

With few exceptions the RAF used .303s for bomber defense and the US used .50s most of the time. The trade off is that a .50 has more hitting power, but it is tougher to hold on target when hand held (such as a waist gun position) and you can carry fewer rounds of .50 in the same space.

Bill

And for the same weight, which I think is more important here.

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Dixie,

In another post I posted it was explained to me that B 17's carried a very limited amount of ammo for their .50's. About a 3 second burst for each weapon. This actually makes sense to me upon consideration. I was shown limited ammo storage bays as proof. Does this information dove tail with your experience on Lancasters? I'm not doubting my sources at all, but you are The Voice Of Experience. An inquiring mind would like to know [8D]

Sorry about the delay getting back to you, I can see there's a lively discussion going on after your post [:D]


I'm not sure of the exact numbers etc, but a Lancaster would usually have enough ammo for a lot more than a 3 second burst. The Grand Slam modified Lancasters were massively stripped out, the nose and mid-upper turrets were removed as were a pair of brownings from the tail. The ammunition for the tail turret was reduced to approx 2 seconds of firing which was apparently a big reduction in the burst. I've also read accounts of Lancasters being used in ground support during the Normandy break out and the Falaise Gap in France where a few crews went strafing German columns which they wouldn't have done with 3 seconds worth of ammo.

ORIGINAL: JeffK
I was really sceptical of these numbers, having memories of the RAF Heavies fitted with channels to hold their ammo.
But checking Joe Baugher's data see that the guns had 5-600 rpg.

I expected 1-2000!

PS The B29 had 1000rpg.

I'm not sure of the numbers, but the ammunition rack for the rear turret on the Lancaster extends forward past the mid-upper turret. Allegedly it makes about 9 yards worth of rounds hence the origin of "the whole nine yards", I suspect that the USAAF have a similar origin. I'll try to get a pic in the next few days.

ORIGINAL: wdolson

With few exceptions the RAF used .303s for bomber defense and the US used .50s most of the time. The trade off is that a .50 has more hitting power, but it is tougher to hold on target when hand held (such as a waist gun position) and you can carry fewer rounds of .50 in the same space.

Bill

For most crews the gunners on RAF bombers were more of a lookout than an a gunner in the USAAF sense. I've come across a few gunners who carried out ops and never fired their guns even if they did see a nightfighter. The usual outcome was for the bomber to be shot down before they had a chance to fire back, with the rear gunner often the first to be killed to prevent return fire if they weren't using Schrage music. Or if the bomber spotted the fighter first it was usually a corkscrew away.

A few .50 turrets made it into service with Bomber Command in the latter part of the war. There were two different designs, one by Fraser Nash (who made the standard .303 turrets) and one by Rose Bros. who were based in Gainsborough in Lincolnshire, so local to the main Bomber Command bases. IIRC Harris (among others) was sceptical of the benefits of the 50 cals. They did hit harder than the 303 guns but were still outranged by the NJ 20mm cannons. I think I'm correct in saying that their use was concentrated in a few units, 101 Squadron were quite a big user. They were also one of the biggest squadrons as their special duties meant they were up most nights with a corresponding higher casualty rate (more sorties plus the NJ could home in on their ABC transmissions).

ORIGINAL: rustysi

ORIGINAL: wdolson

With few exceptions the RAF used .303s for bomber defense and the US used .50s most of the time. The trade off is that a .50 has more hitting power, but it is tougher to hold on target when hand held (such as a waist gun position) and you can carry fewer rounds of .50 in the same space.

Bill

And for the same weight, which I think is more important here.

That's the other big thing. The RAF was all about maximum bomb load which meant minimising the weight of other stuff on board. A prime example of this is the amount of armour plating (not) fitted to a Lancaster. There's one sheet of steel behind the pilot's head and that's your lot. [X(]

ORIGINAL: Symon

ORIGINAL: Dixie
Sadly, Vera has gone home now. The BBMF hangar feels a bit empty now and the display season is almost done. This time next week most of the aircraft will be in pieces for their winter maintenance. The plan is for the Lancaster to have her nose removed for some work, if we can get some trestles made up in time to hold it.

The two MkXIX Spitfires are already in less than airworthy states, this is how PS915 looked before the engine was taken out on Wednesday.

That's an incredible photo, Martin. It makes it very clear what that whole cantilever wing thing was all about. Still blown away over how they could stay on, but mechanics, is aerodynamics, is physics. Woof !! JWE

You can see the attachment points for the wings at the bulkhead just behind the engine. Each wing is held on by eight bolts which need a lot of hitting to come out [:D] There's another bolt at the back end to stop the wing twisting.

I've been put on the fighters this winter and I've managed (through various means) to get the two Hurricanes as mine with two other guys.


If things go to plan I might have a special treat later for the forums [;)] Something that isn't a regular occurrence anywhere...

A couple more from today. One of the Spitfires was sent by road for a major servicing. Usually they're flown down to Duxford, but PS915's engine chewed itself to bits a few weeks back so she couldn't go by air.


Here she is on her way up

And on the lorry. The wings were put alongside the fuselage on the trailer, but I was at lunch for that bit so no pictures.

And this was my main job for the day, the Merlin from Hurricane PZ865 which was taken out this afternoon.