.303's

[reflected]

OK, I managed to change and save my loadouts via FMB - wish it would work in QMB too - but I couldn't find where to set the convergeance. Can you help me please?

PS: boy, those AP and deWildes really make a difference!

[Fragal]

you can't change convergence in the FMB have to do it through the plane options - open the loadout you saved in the FMB from the options page go to guns and the convergence is set in there for horizontal and vertical untick the default convergence box you can then set your convergence on the individual guns set your convergence then hit OK to save or save it on to the new loadout.

[reflected]

Originally Posted by Fragal

you can't change convergence in the FMB have to do it through the plane options - open the loadout you saved in the FMB from the options page go to guns and the convergence is set in there for horizontal and vertical untick the default convergence box you can then set your convergence on the individual guns set your convergence then hit OK to save or save it on to the new loadout.

hmm when I load the loadout saved in FMB in the options/plane menu, I can selevt it but it doesn1t load the actual loadout but the default one under mine's name.

[Georgio41]

Apparently 1940-41 though there does seem to be some discrepancy over if the 9mm was German or Italian.
When I was a kid my Great Uncle related a story to me of chasing the Germans out of a city (he didn't specify) and then finding massive stores of ammunition left behind.
He also told me of being in a foxhole in the desert during a battle and having a large calibre round hit the back of his pit. He jumped out of the pit in case it exploded but it didn't. He says he almost pooped his pants when he looked down and saw that spinning between his feet.

As a footnote he was then sent to Singapore just in time to be captured by the Japanese from where he went to work on the railway in Burma which he survived by eating mashed cockroaches collected from the latrines.

He survived the war without any injury, but in an ironic twist of fate he died from gangerene; he was showing me the derelict site where he used to work in a chalk pit and stepped on a rusty nail.

Even though this became infected, he refused to get it treated until finally he had to have his leg amputated.
He died some months later just before he was due to have the other leg amputated as the gangerene had spread.

A stupid end to a stubborn old soldier but I guess after all he'd been through a simple nail seemed rediculous to worry about.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

That's interesting, I didn't know about this ammo capture in N.Africa, when did it occur?

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by Flying Pencil

They are.

Brits tested the .303 on old Blens , and a good percentage of the bullets just bounced off the Al skin.

Quite a few LW bombers barely made it back to France with over 200 hits on them.

Not accurate.

The tests revealed MANY of the bullets did not penetrate the FRAME of the bomber, but it was dependent on the angle they struck. The bullets were generally effective in doing damage to engines, fuel tanks and personel who were not protected by armour.

Most of the problems with the .303's effectiveness was a function of the convergence which the RAF recommended initially, which was far to distant, and resulted in scattered results. Once pilots reduced their convergence down to 200 yards, the results were much better.

Versus the lighter frames of the 109's and Stukas, pilots found the .303's could actually saw off wings and fuselages.

[MB_Avro_UK]

In my view, the 303s are far better than in il2. But which sim is the most accurate?

[b101uk]

If you are unfamiliar with .303, they are on par with a .308 win/7.62x51mm NATO in bullet weight, velocity and energy wise, or if you not old enough to have used the above in significant quantity they fire a bullet ~2.8 times the weigh with ~2 times the energy than a more modern lighter 5.56x45mm NATO

[Pist-N-Broke]

Originally Posted by Sven

You'll shoot the whole RAF's stock of DeWildes in no time

You're dead right Sven.

A Captain or later Major Dixon of the Royal Arsenal (responsible for small arms ammunition) was entrusted to sort out (remake) the De Wilde ammunition suitable for British manufacturing processes. Hence, Dixon (without instruction or permission from superiors) found his own solution after much personal trial and error. And, just in time too. His Mk 7 wasn't put into production until May 1940, and wasn't available at all till June 1940, and wasn't in general widespread use till August 1940.

1940 First production .303” Ball Mk 7 at Royal Ordnance Factory (ROF) Radway Green.
1940 First production of .303” Ball Mk 7 at ICI Agency factory, Standish (K2).
1941 Last .303” incendiary cartridge (B Mk 7) approved for service.

In firing tests, the Mk 7 had a 20% success rate in setting fuel tanks alight, twice that of the older Buckingham or the equivalent German 7.92 mm incendiary rounds, and also had the happy side-benefit that the flash of ignition on impact told the pilot that he was on target. This effect was very popular.

The RAF in 1940 preferred to load each .303 fighter gun with only one type of ammunition (easier than mix and matching ammunition in belts by hand when in a hurry during a desperate war).

The Dixon Mk 7 ammunition was first issued to squadrons in June 1940 and was at first in short supply. The initial fighter loading being one gun firing Dixon incendiary (when available), two guns with the old 1929 issue Buckingham incendiary/tracers (British gun camera film from the Battle of Britain often clearly shows the smoke trails of this round), and two guns with armour-piercing, and three with plain vanilla "ball" rounds with lead cores. This didn't change till 1942, then the standard loading for fixed guns was half with AP and half with incendiaries.

In the Battle of Britain, the performance of .303 ammunition was initially adequate but it was found that the German bombers often survived large numbers of hits. The reason became clear in further tests which involved firing .303 and German 7.92 mm armour-piercing ammunition against the fuselage of a Blenheim light bomber from behind – not the toughest of structures, and with only a 4 mm armour plate protecting the gunner. This AP ammunition could normally penetrate up to 10-12 mm of armour plate, but it was found that the aircraft structure it had to plough through before reaching the armour deflected, absorbed or disrupted the flight of the great majority of the bullets, and of those which reached the armour, very few had enough energy left to penetrate it. Some improvement was achieved by reducing the gun harmonisation range from 400 to 250 yards in order to concentrate the firepower of the RAF's fighters, but it was clear that a more powerful gun was needed. This eventually arrived in the form of the 20 mm Hispano.

The Dixon, Mk 7 / De Wilde bullet had no trace effect whatsoever.

There's a good read in a book called "One Perfect Summer", or something like that, about Captain Dixon.

http://cartridgecollectors.org/cmo/cmo07feb.htm

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/fo...owtopic=104583

A timeline of .303 development...
http://www.milsurpafterhours.com/bb/...c.php?f=3&t=79

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/RAF%20guns.htm

[jimbop]

I just fired up a one on one using the old IL-2 QMB. The Hurricane .303s feel massively overpowered in 1946 now - just aim in vaguely the right direction from any distance and the opponent just falls apart. Which is correct? Possibly somewhere in the middle... Don't misread this to be a plea for the return of the 1946 DM - it's not since I think it was overpowered but there sure is a huge difference.

[Moggy]

Originally Posted by jimbop

I just fired up a one on one using the old IL-2 QMB. The Hurricane .303s feel massively overpowered in 1946 now - just aim in vaguely the right direction from any distance and the opponent just falls apart. Which is correct? Possibly somewhere in the middle... Don't misread this to be a plea for the return of the 1946 DM - it's not since I think it was overpowered but there sure is a huge difference.

There's 1 big difference though Jimbo, you can alter your ammunition loadout in CoD something which you couldn't do in 1946. Unfortunately, I cannot remember what the loadout was for the Hurri Mk.I in 1946 so I can't make a comparison.