Jump to content

WWII Tactical AAA


Al

Recommended Posts

I see what you're getting at now although I'm not sure what the relevance is.  You're still putting 100 rounds a minute down range as far as the recipient is concerned.  Sure, there will be 'gaps' from the point of view of a crossing target. 

 

It's completely irrelevant, since FB himself postulated the 1 second exposure time. so all he has to do to get from rpm to pure rounds-on-target is divide it by 60 (not divide it by number of guns).

Besides, it's easy enough to 'prove' the exact opposite. Using the postulated 1 second exposure 100 rounds in a minute would result in 98 rounds not fired or wasted, while the 1 shot option has a genuine chance of downing the enemy*. So many guns with low rof is better that one high rof weapon.

 

* To elaborate still further: If we give the pilot a 50% to hit with the 'continous' gun and 25% with the 'volley' guns, he would -on average- need 50 passes to down a mig with one high rof .50 and 4 with the gun-battery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 210
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Now, which of the following are correct?

 

1)  Your military didn't have a SAW in WW2.

2)  Your military now has a SAW.

3)  US had a SAW in WW2

4)  Complaints were made when the BAR was dropped for the squad version of the M14.

5)  US again has a SAW

 

All except 1&3 are true (unless it's a trick question).

 

 

 

Kind of telling isn't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is actually the odd part.  I was completely unaware that you had a point.  Other than not able to understand that you cannot simply add rates of fire of weapons together to develop the "grand unified rate of fire."  You still don't get it.

Why weren't B-17s updated to 20mm?  [..]

 

That's a good question, it certainly would have been a good thing. And I see no reason why they couldn't be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He may be referring to the F-86K which was the monkey model sold to NATO and others.

210591[/snapback]

 

No, our F-86D were ex-USAF - I will ask a friend to look at manual again. IIRC it could happen that some of Sabres rebuilt to a recce version had guns (IF-86D, not to be confused with real recce version RF-86D) got guns, as radar was removed...

On the other hand it could happen that manuel covers also other model on the D airframe (F-86K, just like F-84 manuel covers both F-84G and F-84F, despite the fact that F-84F was newer used by Yugoslavia)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, our F-86D were ex-USAF - I will ask a friend to look at manual again. IIRC it could happen that some of Sabres rebuilt to a recce version had guns (IF-86D, not to be confused with real recce version RF-86D) got guns, as radar was removed...

On the other hand it could happen that manuel covers also other model on the D airframe (F-86K, just like F-84 manuel covers both F-84G and F-84F, despite the fact that F-84F was newer used by Yugoslavia)...

210974[/snapback]

 

No, you are right, they were F-86Ds

 

"Yugoslavia-Jugoslavensko Ratno Vazduhplovstvo

In 1961, the Yugoslavian air force, the Jugoslovensko Ratno Vazduhoplovstvo, obtained 130 F-86Ds. Deliveries of US combat aircraft to what was obstensibly a Communist country caused a lot of political controversy in the USA. For a time, these F-86Ds served in Yugoslavia alongside the Soviet-supplied MiG-21, one of the few situations where Western and Soviet-bloc aircraft served side-by-side. They were finally taken out of service about 1980. "

 

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_6.html

 

I wonder if they came fitted with guns or if they were a local mod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US investigated explosive bullets between 1940 and 1942 but abandoned the effort in favor of work on API rounds.

210795[/snapback]

As a sidenote, HE ammo was developed for the 13.2 mm Hotchkiss before the war, but it doesn't seem to have ever entered service (fields manuals don't mention it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't really see how you can equate the M249 to a the BAR.  You're comparing a gun with a fixed barrel and 20 round mag firing to a gun with detachable barrels and a 200 round belt.  Conceptually the Minimi is an LMG, not a heavy barrelled rifle.

210949[/snapback]

Tactics, not features per se.

F-51s had an infernal combustion engine. No radar. No missiles. Couldn't go supersonic. F-15 (just reverse the numbers...) has jets, radar, missiles, goes supersonic.

Both are air superiority fighters. Tactics.

 

Squad were formed around the BAR. LMG support was from the belt fed M1919. BREN tried to do both. Minimi is more akin to the BAR's role than the M1919's role. M60 was developed for the latter. M14A1 to perform SAW role. M14A1 didn't work. They ended up trying to fill the SAW role with the M60. Nyet. If they weren't so pissed at Eugene maybe they could have purchased the 63.

 

----

BREN would have been a better weapon with belt feed.

 

BREN had a quick change barrel. 30 round magazines. Which of the following is true:

 

1) Your forces now provide soldiers with automatic weapons that have 30 round clips.

2) That weapon does not have a quick change barrel.

 

----

 

Somebody (Lev?) denied that the US forces had a SAW in WW2. Which of the following is true:

1) BARs were issued to Squads.

2) BARs are Automatic.

3) BARs are a Weapon.

 

-----

 

We started with AAA. Thence to F-86s and Migs. Now we're going to do infantry support weapons. Have we missed any of the recurring threads?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tactics, not features per se.

F-51s had an infernal combustion engine.  No radar.  No missiles.  Couldn't go supersonic.  F-15 (just reverse the numbers...) has jets, radar, missiles, goes supersonic.

Both are air superiority fighters.  Tactics.

 

Until the L85 we had two dissimilar groups in a section - a rifle group and an MG group.  With L85 + L86 we went to two identical (in smallarms) groups within each section (squad).  These both supplemented theior firepower with a UGL and a SAW. I thought the US had a similar experience in that it used to have a rifle group and an assault group, the former having the BAR. As I understand it, you now have a slightly lopsided version of our current scheme without the DMRs (this may have changed) and one extra man in one of the groups, but otherwise uncannily similar.  Tactics must likewise have changed slightly to accommodate what is now an essentially balanced squad small arms loadout.

 

Squad were formed around the BAR.  LMG support was from the belt fed M1919.  BREN tried to do both.  Minimi is more akin to the BAR's role than the M1919's role.  M60 was developed for the latter.  M14A1 to perform SAW role.  M14A1 didn't work.  They ended up trying to fill the SAW role with the M60.  Nyet.  If they weren't so pissed at Eugene maybe they could have purchased the 63.

 

The Navy did buy the 63 in small numbers. Was the M1919A6 issued at squad level?  Did the M14A1 literally not work or was it just that the rifle offered no real advance over the BAR?  There was to have been a heavy barrelled M14 based SAW - the M15.  AFAIK that never got issued.

 

----

BREN would have been a better weapon with belt feed.

 

Which they did do, belatedly for the trials that ended up with us purchasing the MAG.

 

BREN had a quick change barrel.  30 round magazines.  Which of the following is true:

 

The ones we were issued with (by Inglis in .303" no less) had 30 rounders but we were told not to load more than 27. :)

 

1)  Your forces now provide soldiers with automatic weapons that have 30 round clips.

2)  That weapon does not have a quick change barrel.

 

The L86 has pretty much relinquished its SAW role (with the infantry) and is now effectively a DMR. We now issue one SAW to every brick, two to a section (squad) - that weapon has a detachable barrel and feeds from a (usually) 200 round belt. Unlike your version it has a short barrel and a telescopic stock.  Interestingly, the Army has some heavy barreled AR15s too, but I'm not sure who actually uses them.

 

----

 

Somebody (Lev?) denied that the US forces had a SAW in WW2.  Which of the following is true:

1)  BARs were issued to Squads.

2)  BARs are Automatic.

3)  BARs are a Weapon.

 

Then the M1928A1, M1, M1A1, M3, M3A1, M1, M1A1 SMGs and M2 (carbine) were SAWs? :)

 

We started with AAA.  Thence to F-86s and Migs.  Now we're going to do infantry support weapons.  Have we missed any of the recurring threads?

 

Why didn't the US Army adopt the 17 pounder for its M4 tanks earlier? :)

 

 

211068[/snapback]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sustained fire is a better term.

 

BAR goes with the squad. The M1919s aren't the most portable of weapons. The weapon needs to be able to fire on the move. Which is why most BARs quickly lost the bipod (which they were charged for when the weapon was turned in - 26th ID gunner). M1919s are stationary support weapons for the most part. That is really the point of the SAW though. Portable sustained fire.

 

I was aware of Navy use of the Stoner. There is a well known picture of a guy in a mud wallow with one. Kind of looks like Charlie Sheen... He has the large box magazine. Keeps the muck out of it I'd think.

 

Did the M14A1 literally not work or was it just that the rifle offered no real advance over the BAR?  There was to have been a heavy barrelled M14 based SAW - the M15.  AFAIK that never got issued.
M14A1 was too light for the role. "Problems in accuracy and control ..." Adding a bipod, pistol grip, and muzzle stabilizer doesn't really add much to the M14. Too light for full auto in .308. The BAR was able to provide sustained fire support for M1903s and M1s. The M14 has about the same ability as the BAR (less the weight issue). When the M1 was replaced with the M14 they needed to develop a weapon that had sustained fire capability in excess of the M14. None was forthcoming. The Stoner 63 had that ability versus the M16 though. They should have just made BARs in .308 in the '50s.

 

Then the M1928A1, M1, M1A1, M3, M3A1, M1, M1A1 SMGs and M2 (carbine) were SAWs?

Oddly enough the M1928A1 qualifies. I have a picture around here of a squad in Germany. The bulk of the squad are using M1 Carbines and one soldier is providing sustained fire capability with his M1928.

 

We can backdate the concept. Squad with Trapdoors getting support from a Winchester 1873.... :lol:

 

 

Forgot your 17lb question. Why, after years of failure, do the Brits consider the fielding of a tank with a flat glacis and a 77mm cannon to be a success when the rest of the world was using sloped armor and the cannon bar had been raised to 88mm+? :P

 

77mm armed Shermans wasn't what was needed. 90mm armed M26s was. Centurions on your side.

Edited by FormerBlue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was the M1919A6 issued at squad level? 
Yes, to airborne. That was the first issue, IIRC. Parachute squad TOE called for a .30 MG, no BAR. That got ignored a lot.

 

Did the M14A1 literally not work or was it just that the rifle offered no real advance over the BAR?  There was to have been a heavy barrelled M14 based SAW - the M15.  AFAIK that never got issued.

211247[/snapback]

The M14A1 having an advantage over the BAR was moot, because the BAR was dead by then. The A1 was an improvement, but did not go far enough towards making the M14 controllable on full auto. You're right about the M15 being a non-starter.

 

I have a heavy-Match barrelled M1A (approximate weight of M15) fitted with E2 (M14A1) stock, bipod, and large scope. It is naturally not full-auto, but is heavy enough that it could possibly be marginally controllable if it was FA - but only with the bipod on something solid. The straight-line stock combined with a folding front handgrip that horses the gun down tight on the bipod, there is zippo muzzle jump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sustained fire is a better term. 

 

BAR goes with the squad.  The M1919s aren't the most portable of weapons.  The weapon needs to be able to fire on the move.  Which is why most BARs quickly lost the bipod (which they were charged for when the weapon was turned in - 26th ID gunner).  M1919s are stationary support weapons for the most part.  That is really the point of the SAW though.  Portable sustained fire.

 

There was an M1919 'LMG' - the A6. This had a bipod and a shoulder stock. Not sure if it was issued at squad level though.

 

I was aware of Navy use of the Stoner.  There is a well known picture of a guy in a mud wallow with one.  Kind of looks like Charlie Sheen...  He has the large box magazine.  Keeps the muck out of it I'd think.

 

The photo that looks like it was taken from directly above with the guy (who did look uncanilly like Charlie Sheen) looking straight up?

 

M14A1 was too light for the role.  "Problems in accuracy and control ..."  Adding a bipod, pistol grip, and muzzle stabilizer doesn't really add much to the M14.  Too light for full auto in .308.  The BAR was able to provide sustained fire support for M1903s and M1s.  The M14 has about the same ability as the BAR (less the weight issue).  When the M1 was replaced with the M14 they needed to develop a weapon that had sustained fire capability in excess of the M14.  None was forthcoming.

 

I thought that's what the M60 was for?

 

Oddly enough the M1928A1 qualifies.  I have a picture around here of a squad in Germany.  The bulk of the squad are using M1 Carbines and one soldier is providing sustained fire capability with his M1928. 

 

Germany is late for an M1928A1 - what unit was it?

 

We can backdate the concept.  Squad with Trapdoors getting support from a Winchester 1873....  :lol:

 

Forgot your 17lb question.  Why, after years of failure, do the Brits consider the fielding of a tank with a flat glacis and a 77mm cannon to be a success when the rest of the world was using sloped armor and the cannon bar had been raised to 88mm+?  :P

 

That doesn't qualify as a regularly recurring topic though :)

 

77mm armed Shermans wasn't what was needed.  90mm armed M26s was.  Centurions on your side.

 

Strangely enough the US Army actually took delivery of 17 pdr (not 77 mm ) armed Shermans:

 

http://freespace.virgin.net/shermanic.firefly/usnew.html

 

 

211283[/snapback]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still don't get it. You cannot add the total RPM of each gun for a grand rpm. It doesn't work. The Mig-15 had 3 cannon. Do you add those dissimilar calibers together too?

No, it shows you don't understand that weight of explosive powder is not the grand end all of everything. Mobility matters. Weight matters. Rate of fire matters.

 

it seems that you cannot understund the valor of the term "equilibrium". how mobility you mention, when your M 2 weights almost as a light model 20mm?

when the RoF of a MG 151 is almost the same ? if the english engeeneers thinked like you, why bothers to leave 8-12 mg to have 4 hisso?? leave 10000 rpms for 2400, they must been crazy!!

 

 

Does this mean you've been in either the Mig-15 or F-86 in real life? Firing at the other?

 

no, and you?

 

 

Why weren't B-17s updated to 20mm? Why weren't P-51s given M61s? Why weren't Yak-9s given IR missiles? Guess.[/b]

 

????? perhaps that they hadn't invented yet, or for industrial reasons? but what's your point? how do yuo explain that B 36 were equipped with 16x20mm? or the Tu-4 ,copy of the superfortress, armed with 23mm? the avro lincoln with 20mm?

so you are so brilliant, why do not add to mustang also amraam?

more seriousely, i am pretty sure that crews of B 17s could had been happy to have hisso or mg 151 insthead of m2hbs. naturally, it cannot be there 12 of them.

for sure, the evolution of tecnology shown this was the case.

 

about the 40mm he shells, i would ask to Tony or someone, this issue: what kind of fuse had US 40mm wwii bofors?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

more seriousely,  i am pretty sure that crews of B 17s could had been happy to have hisso or mg 151 insthead of m2hbs. naturally, it cannot be there 12 of them.

for sure, the evolution of tecnology shown this was the case.

 

about the 40mm he shells, i would ask to Tony or someone, this issue: what kind of fuse had US 40mm wwii bofors?

211803[/snapback]

Minor detail, the aircraft guns were not M2HBs. They were M2s, later M3s, with 36" barrels and slightly poorer ballistics to the M2HB's 48" barrel. Similarly, the watercooled .50s used on ships and some Army AA were short-barrelled.

 

Afaik, the WW2 Bofors were contact fused. You couldn't get a proximity fuse into a 40mm shell in those days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Afaik, the WW2 Bofors were contact fused.  You couldn't get a proximity fuse into a 40mm shell in those days.

211914[/snapback]

 

Yes, though I think they called the fuse 'point detonating' - there was also a self-destruct feature incorporated for obvious reasons. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Minor detail, the aircraft guns were not M2HBs. They were M2s, later M3s, with 36" barrels and slightly poorer ballistics to the M2HB's 48" barrel. Similarly, the watercooled .50s used on ships and some Army AA were short-barrelled.

Are you sure about that KS? I'm away from my sources, but my understanding is that the only short-barrelled .50s in WW2 were the aircraft ones.

 

Afaik, the WW2 Bofors were contact fused.  You couldn't get a proximity fuse into a 40mm shell in those days.

 

Correct. Curiously, the RN 2 pdr AA (40mm) used time-fuzed HE when it first came out in WW1 and for a couple of decades thereafter, but the WW2 HV loading used contact fuzes. Evidently they decided that a direct hit stood a better chance of bringing a plane down. Reminds me of the late-WW2 German research which demonstrated the same when using large-calibre Flak against heavy bombers.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curiously, the RN 2 pdr AA (40mm) used time-fuzed HE when it first came out in WW1 and for a couple of decades thereafter, but the WW2 HV loading used contact fuzes.

211983[/snapback]

Tony, did it have an automatic fuse setter? I can't imagine manually setting the time fuse for a 2 pdr; it would seriously impact the rate of fire.

 

Hojutsuka

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Water cooled .50s came in both barrel links depending on the vintage.

 

The M1921 series had 36 inch barrels.

 

The M2 water cooled started with a 36 inch barrel and then went to a 45 inch long barrel. There were conversion kits to extend the short water jackets. This consisted of a jacket extension that screwed into the front of the short jacket. After the switch to 45 inch barrels new guns came with long water jackets.

 

There were also 36 inch barrels for the early M2HBs, original pre W2 vintage short heavy barrels are very rare. They were used until supplies were exhausted.

Edited by Bob B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found these pictures, over at NavWeaps.com, of army quad .50 mounts on board the USS Lexington CV 16, in 1945. Note that instead of the regular M2HB guns, it is equiped with M2 Aircraft guns. (I know that due to parts commonality the navy used the AC guns on PT and other small craft.) What I find strange is that this is on a carrier in 1945, and not 1942. Much has been said about the USN leaving .50s behind and going with 20mm and 40mm AA batteries. Haze Gray, etc., make no mention of ships being equiped with these. Has anyone got more info about the use of quad .50s on USN ships late in WW2? Was this just done on one ship, or was it more wide spread.

:blink:

 

 

 

 

FWIW, I remember the pictures of the Yorktown wreck sitting on the bottom with her water cooled .50s still pointed towards the sky.

Edited by Bob B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found these pictures, over at NavWeaps.com, of army quad .50 mounts on board the USS Lexington CV 16, in 1945.  Note that instead of the regular M2HB guns, it is equiped with M2 Aircraft guns.  (I know that due to parts commonality the navy used the AC guns on PT and other small craft.) What I find strange is that this is on a carrier in 1945, and not 1942.  Much has been said about the USN leaving .50s behind and going with 20mm and 40mm AA batteries.  Haze Gray, etc., make no mention of ships being equiped with these.  Has anyone got more info about the use of quad .50s on USN ships late in WW2?  Was this just done on one ship, or was it more wide spread.

:blink:

212414[/snapback]

I don't know if you could call it "widespread", but several USN ships, mostly BBs and CVs, carried Maxson mounts with .50s in 1944-5. Some work was done substituting 20mm for the .50s to make a quad 20mm. IIRC Pennsylvania received one of those.

 

Possibly the 'de-emphasis' of the AA Artillery in the Army freed up a lot of Maxson mounts coming off the production lines. They were usually mounted in areas where Bofors wouldn't fit, or were too heavy for the stucture.

 

In any case there were a lot of 'non-standard" mounts late in the war. Many captains wanted all the AA barrels they could get on their ships, and didn't particularly worry about caliber or commonality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...In any case there were a lot of 'non-standard" mounts late in the war. Many captains wanted all the AA barrels they could get on their ships, and didn't particularly worry about caliber or commonality.

212418[/snapback]

 

 

Well, an Essex class carrier would have had no problem coming up with enough ammo, gas, and barrels to keep one of those puppies running. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, an Essex class carrier would have had no problem coming up with enough ammo, gas, and barrels to keep one of those puppies running. :D

212435[/snapback]

 

Perhaps that explains the non-standard use of the aircraft rather than HB guns in the mounting: they had them available.

 

Barrel heating would have restricted those guns to very short bursts, with long gaps in between - they didn't even have the benefit of a fast cooling airstream which the aircraft-mounted guns enjoyed.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Water cooled .50s came in both barrel links depending on the vintage.

 

The M1921 series had 36 inch barrels.

 

The M2 water cooled started with a 36 inch barrel and then went to a 45 inch long barrel. There were conversion kits to extend the short water jackets. This consisted of a jacket extension that screwed into the front of the short jacket. After the switch to 45 inch barrels new guns came with long water jackets.

 

There were also 36 inch barrels for the early M2HBs, original pre W2 vintage short heavy barrels are very rare. They were used until supplies were exhausted.

212141[/snapback]

 

Thanks for that, Bob. That explains why the WW2 standard is always quoted as the 45 inch barrel.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Was this just done on one ship, or was it more wide spread.

:blink:

 

 

FWIW, I remember the pictures of the Yorktown wreck sitting on the bottom with her water cooled .50s still pointed towards the sky.

212414[/snapback]

 

As I mention in a post earlier in this thread, the USN mounted the quad 50 on a small number of Essex class carriers as a test project. Each carrier was to get 6 mounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...