All-Aircraft-Simulations
.303s can't shoot down a Betty? - Printable Version

+- All-Aircraft-Simulations (https://allaircraftsimulations.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=275)
+--- Forum: Reference Center (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=278)
+--- Thread: .303s can't shoot down a Betty? (/showthread.php?tid=61330)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

- P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole - 03.05.2009

*coughs* did i not just say in my first post to converge the hurri's guns to 150-200m?

- AJD-NZ - 03.05.2009

P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole Wrote:*coughs* did i not just say in my first post to converge the hurri's guns to 150-200m?

Yes you certainly did, sorry about that :oops: perhaps I should've been more specific, as I was using "you" as a generic term & it was not intended as a reply to your post. Smile

- P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole - 03.05.2009

heh, no problem!

- RRuger - 03.05.2009

P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole Wrote:
RRuger Wrote:
P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole Wrote:the reason many bombers survived wasn't just the uselessness of the .303 round; it was RAF doctrine. Guns were set to converge at 400 yards (about 360 meters) but a lot of attacks happened far closer; as the guns were not harmonised, the guns sprayed the whole aircraft, riddling it with bullet holes and not actually doing anything more than superficial damage. However, it is true that a mix of cannons and Mgs were more effective.

That's debatable my friend, a bullet hole is a bullet hole, whether spray & pray or dead center of the convergence.

true,but a l ot of bullets that strike an entire aircraft will likely not do as much as a stream of bullets converging on a single point. Ture, .303 is clearly inferior to 20mm cannon, but even so, a single .303 striking an engine may not do much, but 20 or 30 might.

I wasn't speaking to what it takes to knock out an engine I was refering to this statememt that you made to Karaya;
"the reason many bombers survived wasn't just the uselessness of the .303 round; it was RAF doctrine. Guns were set to converge at 400 yards (about 360 meters) but a lot of attacks happened far closer; as the guns were not harmonised, the guns sprayed the whole aircraft, riddling it with bullet holes and not actually doing anything more than superficial damage. However, it is true that a mix of cannons and Mgs were more effective."
To his statement; "
.303s or any kind of rifle calibre machine gun for that matter will prove to be rather ineffective against most bombers both in the sim and in real life. There's a reason they put so many of them onto a fighter aircraft. During the BoB many a Luftwaffe bomber came back home with literally hundreds of bullet holes all over but no critical damages sustained, thats why even with 8x.303s they later upgraded the Spitfire to 2x20mm on top of 2 pairs of MGs and the Hurricane finally to 4x20mm."

Which is documented. I have no issue with your point about the center of convergence being more powerful than spraying the bombers from a distance farther than what the gun convergence is set to, what I'm saying is that the Nazi bombers DID come home like Swiss cheese, which is documented. I am a hunter, got several shotguns and I shoot trap, I can do damage with one BB, I can even knock down the clay, but with a "choked" shot I can shatter it, yes I know. And if what you say it true to your point in that many attacks took place inside the convergence wouldn't then each round have a greater muzzle velocity therefore inflicting more damage per round Wink

- GeneralPsycho - 03.05.2009

some very informational info here

RRuger, do you have to type in light blue? i think people can see the white color just fine :roll:

- RRuger - 03.05.2009

GeneralPsycho Wrote:some very informational info here

RRuger, do you have to type in light blue? i think people can see the white color just fine :roll:

You make the most moronic statements dude! (did I spell that right) :lol: Besides it's not light blue, it's Cyan, get it right...

- AJD-NZ - 04.05.2009

dorkfish Wrote:Thanks so much for the great replies. I have my MGs set at 500 meters...so I will shorted it to 150-200 for Hurricane career and try tactics other than a six o'clock level attack.

I guess the convergence was not *as* criticize with the 109 that I fly most of the time. being only three weapons with one that does not converge, and the two machine guns being close together.

And you (all) are right. I did notice the bursts where impacting over a very large surface area of the plane.

Let us know how you get on with the convergence set at 150metres :wink:

- NathanielGreene - 04.05.2009

If 7.7 can down a hellcat, .303 can bring down a Betty.

- P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole - 04.05.2009

RRuger Wrote:And if what you say it true to your point in that many attacks took place inside the convergence wouldn't then each round have a greater muzzle velocity therefore inflicting more damage per round Wink

Totally agree with your point on Nazi bombers, many did indeed come home riddled with holes; the battle of Britain kill claims for the RAF was highly inflated due to the fact many bombers looked crippled following attacks, but then actually limped home to fight another day. But the argument that .303 was ineffective is only half true, you can argue that it became effective (to degrees) when propperly harmonised. The RAF adopted 8 .303's on hurris and spits not because a .303 was crap, and therefore 8 crap weapons might be less crappy, but because tests in the late 30's suggested that, when propperly harmonised, the .303's could inflict sufficient damage.

The whole point of convergence is that all the bullets strike the same general area and create a large hole and more damage, as could be achieved by a single cannon blast. I'm not saying that QED .303's are the way to go, nor that they are better than cannon but that they can be quite damaging when employed right, and in the battle of britain, they generally weren't.

The argument you seem to be giving is that due to the greater muzzle velocity of .303's up close, it is more effective to riddle the bomber with rounds all over. No, that does not stand. All the bullets will strike and go through (unless they have the happy fortune to hit something vital). The whole point of convergence is that all the bullets strike the same general area and create a much larger hole and therefore cause more serious damage, as could be achieved by a single cannon blast. My argument isn't to only attack where the guns are harmonised (ie 400yards away) but that they should have been re-harmonised much closer in the first place. British Fighting Area Attacks essentially dictated that pilots sweep in, open fire at 400 yards and continue unti they fly over the target. But this meant that you lose the lethal density achieved by attacking when the gunfire converges almost straight away; as such you riddle the bomber with shot but do bugger all that is actually serious. The guns should have bene harmonised far closer.

- reflected - 04.05.2009

As a Spitfire Jockey, I had a lot of trounble with .303s. Here's my experience (I might be wrong):
Firts, synchronize your guns to 200m or so. then, pay attention to the distance of your target:
outside of conv. range: useless, waste of ammo
inside of conv. range: better, but the best is:
conv. range: I can set any plane on fire with a single one second, well aimed shot! However, you can fire all your ammo into a 109 that is not in conv.range. The .303 is the gun that teaches you to shoot! Wink

- RRuger - 04.05.2009

Well, with that, I don't see much that we disagree on Moogy. I thought you were disputing the statement about the bullet holes in the bombers. But still one bullet, close range, sweet spot, you have a kill, I'll stand by that comment Wink

- AJD-NZ - 04.05.2009

NathanielGreene Wrote:If 7.7 can down a hellcat, .303 can bring down a Betty.

7.7mm = .303 inches, if you go to > IL2 > Downloads, you can download an information pack that I've posted. This includes a very useful conversion tool :wink:

- P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole - 04.05.2009

RRuger Wrote:Well, with that, I don't see much that we disagree on Moogy. I thought you were disputing the statement about the bullet holes in the bombers. But still one bullet, close range, sweet spot, you have a kill, I'll stand by that comment Wink


well of course! One lucky shot with a pistol from the right range if the conditions were right, aiming was spot on, and if it hit the pilot in the head, might knock down a bomber, although the chances of that happening are bugger all to 1.

btw: Moogy? :lol:

- RRuger - 04.05.2009

Ok, Moggy onward and upward. Here is a comparison between the .303 British and the round that I hunt elk with, the 300 Winchester Magnum. This is a cut and paste but the scale is good and I lined up the bases so I think it's pretty close to accurate. As you can see the .303 IS quite weenie even compared to rifle rounds of today.



[Image: hunting_2008_1234.jpg]


I know that the Brits played the hand that they were dealt and did a fine job of it and maybe the selection of the .303 at the time was just that, they had to make the best of what they had Wink cheers..

(note to self, color all text Cyan)

- P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole - 04.05.2009

I'm afraid that i'm not quite sure what your point is with the comprison. It's interesting, certainly, and I thank you for sharing it. But are you suggesting we should have used .300 Winchester Magnum? I've not argued that the .303 was any better shot for shot than any aerial weapon, indeed it was markedly inferior -- but 8 / 12 of the buggers when propperly converged and fired accurately could still be quite potent, especially against early war aircraft. Yes, one lucky .303 round might do more damage than 5 cannon shells in theory, but the chances of that happening are massively low. I'm afraid that by going down this path comparing modern and antiquated weaponry, we shall stray off topic entirely.