By: Tony Williams - 19th April 2004 at 09:12
The .303 was one third of the weight of the .50 and fired 60% faster, so for the same weight of armament could put out almost five times as many bullets.
HOWEVER – planes in WW2 were too tough, even without armour plate, for the .303 to do much damage to. This is from ‘Flying Guns – World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45’ by Emmanuel Gustin and myself, concerning British tests of .303 and 7.92mm armour-piercing ammunition:
“The test then changed to shooting at the rear of the long-suffering Bristol Blenheim at the same distance, involving penetrating the rear fuselage before reaching the 4 mm armour plate protecting the rear gunner, which was angled at 60º to the line of fire. The results in this case were reversed; 33% of the .303″ rounds reached the armour and 6% penetrated it. In contrast, only 23% of the 7.92 mm bullets reached the armour, and just 1% penetrated. The British speculated that the degree of stability of the bullets (determined by the bullet design and the gun’s rifling) might have accounted for these differences.”
The .303 ‘de Wilde’ incendiary bullet performed quite well, but even so it was not surprising that many German bombers made it back to base despite being riddled with .303 bullets.
In comparison, the .5 remained effective throughout the war; although it wasn’t as destructive as the 20mm cannon it was good enough.
The only purpose for which the .303 was better was strafing troops out in the open, because of the higher number of bullets being fired.
For more details on WW2 aircraft armament evaluation, see: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
Sign In
April 19, 2004 at 7:49 am