.303's

[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.

[jimbop]

Originally Posted by Moggy

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.

That's a good point - maybe someone knows? Although even if you set full de Wilde & AP in CoD you can't come close.

I don't really know about effectiveness of the .303 in real life.

I though don't think it is undermodelled in terms of fire power. If any discrepancy that I'd say that it is overpowered but I am not sure.

Here why I think that it is not undermodelled:

I can make planes catch fire, explode or rip wings off with my 8 machine guns in standard loadout as delivered by CoD. I just made a 109 explode with my Browings online (so standard loadout, no tracers per default of course as I cannot alter the setting right now) and I didn't have to pump several seconds. I at best shot a burst of one second.

I also managed to rip the wing off a 111 with my Spit 1. I frequently set 109s on fire.

If I hit the enemy with the correct distance corresponding to my convergence I do a lot of damage. If I hit something vital it is a quick kill. A very quick kill.

It also depends on the target plane. Some are easier to bring down, some are very robust. I usually have no difficulties in downing a Ju88 but a He111 is more reluctant to fall.

And yes, with the Hurri I manage to be more effective than with the Spit but I do think that it is quite close to reality. The Hurri was reputed to be a very stable shooting platform that is the bullets are more likely to hit home when you aim right than with a Spit because the latter will more make its bullet "rain" around the point you want to shoot at as the Spit is quite nervous. Also I think the gun setup of the Hurri is much better than in the Spit. If I remember well 6 out of the 8 machine guns of the Hurri (perhaps it's all of them) are located very close to each other while in the Spit they are all quite apart from each other. Now if the target is slightly off the convergence point of the guns, the area at which the bullets will hit is more confined for the Hurri than for the Spit and therefore the Hurri will cause more damage in such situations. Therefore I think it is valid that the Hurri overall is the better shooting platform and can cause more damage when the target is not ideally in the convergence of one's guns and usually the target will always be a bit off. So the Hurri wins here.

[Moggy]

Originally Posted by jimbop

That's a good point - maybe someone knows? Although even if you set full de Wilde & AP in CoD you can't come close.

If you use a setup of half AP and half "De Wilde", you're not actually using the setup used in 1940...this setup wasn't used until 1942. So it's perfectly understandable why someone would think it was overmodelled and wrong...when it fact it's just the wrong loadout for the era.
From what I've read from different sources, the loadouts for the Battle of Britain tended to be 3 or 4 guns with ball ammunition, 2 with AP and the rest with either "De Wilde" or B.Mk.IV's (I believe the closest to these are the B.Mk.Iz's in game).

[jimbop]

Originally Posted by Moggy

If you use a setup of half AP and half "De Wilde", you're not actually using the setup used in 1940...this setup wasn't used until 1942. So it's perfectly understandable why someone would think it was overmodelled and wrong...when it fact it's just the wrong loadout for the era.
From what I've read from different sources, the loadouts for the Battle of Britain tended to be 3 or 4 guns with ball ammunition, 2 with AP and the rest with either "De Wilde" or B.Mk.IV's (I believe the closest to these are the B.Mk.Iz's in game).

Read the posts again - I was saying that 1946 seems overmodelled in comparison to CoD. Was wondering which loadouts were used in 1946 since they seem more powerful than CoD even with the AP/De Wilde mix.