.303 Browning MG question

[Cutaway]

What happened to the .303 Browning machine guns used in RAF fighters/bombers after WW2?

I was thinking they could have replaced the Vickers/bren guns and be converted to GPMG's like the M1919A6.

Suppose they could have been converted to the 7.62 NATO Calibre.

Apart from that, Does anyone have images of them?

[32Bravo]

What happened to the .303 Browning machine guns used in RAF fighters/bombers after WW2?

I was thinking they could have replaced the Vickers/bren guns and be converted to GPMG's like the M1919A6.

Suppose they could have been converted to the 7.62 NATO Calibre.

Apart from that, Does anyone have images of them?

If it is the same weapon as the .30 Browning, they were used by the British Army for many years after the war. An example would be the Saracen APC, which had Browning mounted in the turret, as did the ferret scout car.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browning_Model_1919_machine_gun

http://www.tankmuseum.com/single/saracen.htm

http://www.tankmuseum.com/single/ferret.htm

[Man of Stoat]

Why would they want/need to do this?

[32Bravo]

Why would they want/need to do this?

If you are referring to the re-boring of the weapon to take 7.62mm ammo? Then, the simple answer is that they did it to standardise ammunition. Better and simpler to produce one calibre of ammunition to fit all weapons, than to have to supply many different calibres.

[Amrit]

The way that I read the original question was "were the aircraft guns re-used after they had been removed from aircraft that had been decommissioned?". Possibly in a ground role?

I'd be interested in that too - especially wing guns. Or were they scrapped alonf with the rest of the plane?

[Man of Stoat]

No, my q was really why would the army convert A/C MGs into inferior ground wpns post-war during a time of surplus BRENs/MMGs ?

Parts/training/infrastructure/support must be borne in mind

[Rising Sun*]

Did wing mounted MG's of the same calibre have the same:

- sights
- feed mechanisms
- trigger mechanisms

as infantry ones?

Were the mounting points for internal wing mounting compatible with simple conversion to stocks?

Were they the same weapons in other respects?

I'd assume that there would be a lot of fiddly work in converting them to infantry weapons.

As Man of Stoat says, why bother when there was no shortage of other infantry
MG's already available?

[Amrit]

I read somewhere (and now can't remember where) about partisans using machineguns "rescued" from a downed aircraft. I'm sure it was a fighter, because the use of bomber MGs wouldn't have been a problem (and hence I wouldn't have thought it so strange).

As to postwar - yes, I agree that there was already a glut of standard guns. But one wonders whether the idea was ever considered, and as RS asks above, what would the technical difficulties have been.

[Cuts]

I was thinking they could have replaced the Vickers/bren guns and be converted to GPMG's like the M1919A6.

They couldn't replace the BREN in the same manner due to weight, feed, role, etc., nor are they are suitable for SF.

[Walther]

The German MG15 was e.g. originally an aircraft MG, which, after it got replaced by machine cannons, was often converted into an infantry MG mainly used by rear area troops during a shortage of real GPMGs. Since it was not designed to be used with a bipod and to be carried, it was very bulky and arkward.

Jan

[Tony Williams]

I have never heard any suggestion of using the .303 Browning in the ground role. It would have required various accessories, as already mentioned, and probably also a special supply of belted .303 ammo (the Vickers used a different belt).

Finally, it would have faced limitations on its use because of its high RoF of 1,200 rpm, which did not meet the British Army's philosophy and would have required frequent breaks for cooling down. I don't think the gun had the kind of quick-change barrel that the MG 34 and 42 had.

The .30 Brownings used in British AFVs were the same as the US ones, in .30-06 calibre, and fired at the normal rate of c.500 rpm.

[Cuts]

Tony !
Stop bringing facts and common sense into these MG discussions !

;)

[Gutkowski]

Tony !
Stop bringing facts and common sense into these MG discussions !

;)
LOL Good one

[2nd of foot]

The browning tripod was issued to all units late 70s for bore sighting the SLR. School of Infantry Brecon used the .30 with tripod for many years as an enemy weapon. I never saw it used in the live role only blank. I saw it post Falklands so may have been captured but probably dismounted armoured car guns as ferret and Saracen were still using them at this time. If you could see a CES for the .30 browning issued to armoured vehicles you would probably find it comes with a tripod same as the L37 CES had a but, bipods and light barrel.

[Man of Stoat]

You cannot have such a high rate of fire in an air cooled ground machine gun with no quick change barrel facility. It would overheat too quickly. As an emergency expedient, fine, better than nothing. The idea of such an official conversion is, frankly, laughable, which is why only the sage "cutaway" is considering it...

[Rising Sun*]

You cannot have such a high rate of fire in an air cooled ground machine gun with no quick change barrel facility. It would overheat too quickly. As an emergency expedient, fine, better than nothing. The idea of such an official conversion is, frankly, laughable, which is why only the sage "cutaway" is considering it...

Just to demonstrate my ignorance, was there an allowance in aircraft MG for faster cooling in the cooler air at higher altitudes and the faster flow of air over barrels (but presumably not so much the rest of the barrels and the breeches in enclosed wings)?

[Man of Stoat]

^^^

To some extent, but mainly because you're not doing sustained fire, and your ammunition supply is severely limited.

[Mk VII]

with most of the remaining WW2 generation fighters and bombers either cannon-armed or quickly discarded after 1945 there was little role for the a/c Brownings and they were probably scrapped. The .30 AFV guns continued in service for many years (most converted to cease fire with bolt open) until they were finally withdrawn in 1998. They gave very little trouble and there were still plenty of spares in the supply system, most still in their WW2 packaging.

[Jenkin]

the other thing was that the main weopon being the 7.92 or 303 caliber for over eighty years, the main change was due to the newly introduced NATO rounds, which the 7.62 or the 308 calibers allowed for a more universal production of both the rounds and the barrels, but this also follows the stupidity of the americans to drop the 30-06's, and the M1 Garands during the vietnamese war and to take up the more popular 20 caliber machine guns, so it comes down to a new round pushed by both popularity, NATO rulings, and ease of production.

[Jenkin]

Just thinking bout it, why did the B-15 flying fortresses and like, have the half inch or .50 caliber machine guns, on the nose and tale gunners along with the 303 caliber browning machine guns? and if these were effective, as they were, this poses the question, were the newly adapted weopons and calibers also improve fire rates and/or round effectiveness?

[Rising Sun*]

You cannot have such a high rate of fire in an air cooled ground machine gun with no quick change barrel facility. It would overheat too quickly. As an emergency expedient, fine, better than nothing. The idea of such an official conversion is, frankly, laughable, which is why only the sage "cutaway" is considering it...

My bold.

It was done at least once as an emergency expedient, by the RAAF during the final days in the defence of Singapore in WWII.

However, when the troops were reconciled to it*, considerable effort was put into preparing the ground defences; machine guns were taken from crashed aircraft and mounted on tripods made out of parts of crashed Blenheim air frames ... http://www.warbirdforum.com/secret3.htm para 42

* 'It' being staying and fighting to the bitter end at Singapore

[Tony Williams]

Just thinking bout it, why did the B-15 flying fortresses and like, have the half inch or .50 caliber machine guns, on the nose and tale gunners along with the 303 caliber browning machine guns? and if these were effective, as they were, this poses the question, were the newly adapted weopons and calibers also improve fire rates and/or round effectiveness?

I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

Do you mean "why did the B-17 (not -15) Flying Fortress have .30 cal (not .303) as well as .50 cal?" If so, the answer is that they didn't, for long. The .50 was so much more effective than the .30 that the latter was soon only retained in places where the .50 wouldn't fit.

What do you mean by "newly adapted weapons and calibres"? The Brownings in both .30 and .50 were quite old designs by WW2, their origins dating back to the end of WW1. The firing rate of the .50 was improved somewhat by WW2, but not by a great amount. Ammunition was also improved in both .30 and .50 calibre - mainly, with more effective incendiaries (and later, the M8 .50 API).

The .50 cal remained effective, but as a bomber defensive gun it was not very efficient. The actual shoot-downs were probably only about 10% of the claims.

[Mk VII]

It was an unpalatable truth for both the RAF and the USAAF that the complex, heavy and expensive multi-gun turrets, from which so much had been expected, were incapable of fulfilling their primary purpose - enabling unescorted bombers to fight through to the target and back with acceptable losses.

[Jenkin]

Close enough with the machines, but the .50 cal's were still used right up until the light 7.62 machine gun was adapted, and you are right with the perentage shoot downs, but the .30 caliber such as the .308 or the .303 calibers were still used in preference to the .50 caliber machine guns. with a higher load rate, fire rate and effectiveness.

[Man of Stoat]

^^^
Err, Tony is right.

When exactly was the "light 7.62 machine gun" adapted for aircraft use?

You also find that the .303" Browning was never used in the B17 flying Fortress. Ever.

[Walther]

^^^
Err, Tony is right.

When exactly was the "light 7.62 machine gun" adapted for aircraft use?

You also find that the .303" Browning was never used in the B17 flying Fortress. Ever.

Stoatman,

Didn't the RAF operate a handfull of B-17 in Coastal Command and Bomber Command? I'm not sure, but they could have been equipped with .303 Brownings. But the American ones, definitely not!

Jan

[Man of Stoat]

^^^
possibly, I wouldn't know. Given that the question was about American ones, I didn't consider the tiny handful of coastal command ones.

[Jenkin]

The Avro Lancaster


Considered Britains's greatest bomber of World War 2, the Avro Lancaster was the main aircraft used for night assault on Germany. With four engines allowing the plane to fly at 462 km/h (287 mph), this heavy bomber delivered a bigger bombload than any other plane in Europe - 6350kg (14,000lbs).

The Lancaster was well designed, so well that only minor changes were made before production started and then surged ahead through World War 2.


Type: seven-seat heavy bomber

Powerplant: 4x 1,390hp (1,460hp with max boost) Merlin 20 or 22

Service Ceiling: 7467m (24,492ft)

Maximum Speed: 287mph (462km/h)

Range: 4075km (2530 miles) with 3175kg (7000lbs) bombs; 2700 km (1660 miles) with full load (6350kg/14,000lbs of bombs)

Armament: nine 7.7mm (.303 cal.) Browning machine guns

Dimensions: Span: 31.09 m (102 ft.)
Lenght: 21.18 m (69 ft.)
Height: 6.25 m (20 ft.)

[Jenkin]

so the avero Lancaster bombers had the 303 browning machine guns, i always get the B-17's and the Lancasters mixed up, due to both were produced together but one was used in day the other as a night bomber

[Jenkin]

YR-13/H-13/OH-13 Series Sioux
light observation helicopter



(1946) The Bell (model 47) H-13 Sioux, with a crew of three, was one of the most popular light utility helicopters ever built. The Bell model 47 was produced continuously from 1946 to 1973, and in other countries through 1976. Produced in 20 different configurations, with model numbers ranging from A to T, the Bell model 47 was used in 40 countries. The combined total of commercial and military versions of this series was 5,000. The U.S. Army Air Force procured it's first YR-13 (model 47B) in December 1946. The OH-13 had a cruising speed of 70 mph (60 knots). The Sioux could be armed with twin M37C .30 Cal. machine guns on the XM1 armament subsystem or twin M60C 7.62mm machine guns on the M2 armament subsystem.

[Sgt.Malarky]

I think they replaced the bren for the Vickers gun because it can hold more ammo in a belt then a magazine and the vickers has a higher rate of fire I think.

[Tony Williams]

I think they replaced the bren for the Vickers gun because it can hold more ammo in a belt then a magazine and the vickers has a higher rate of fire I think.

In what? Neither the Bren nor the Vickers was used in WW2 RAF aircraft.

[pat469]

The old memory is not what it was, but I'm sure we had .30 Browning fitted as co-ax on the Centurion, and possibly also on the commanders mount, though I cannot be sure on that point. A very effective MG it was, but it had a tendency to get through barrels at a high rate when you had an over enthusiastic gunner.(2 second burst? What's one of them then?)

[pat469]

Yes, it's come back to me, the commanders mount did have a .30

[Topor]

On a side note:

There were plenty of Bren's converted to 7.62NATO & some were used in Op. Granby.
I had a shoot with one converted to 7.62x54r whilst over in the US for a 3 gun match last month: Accurate but the odd chambering (Russian 7.62 reamer shorter than .303) split most of the case necks.

I'm a total leftie, so I had a "slight" problem finding the sights until I swapped shoulders. ;-)

Dat's me vif da Bren in me new Avatar:-)

[Dani]

Dat's me vif da Bren in me new Avatar:-)

Also as a side note, please update your avatar to a WW2 related one.
Thanks!

[Topor]

Also as a side note, please update your avatar to a WW2 related one.
Thanks!

The pictured Bren was manufactured at Enfield Lock in 1941 & probably "did its bit". ;-)

I'll have to see what I can find...

[Dani]

The pictured Bren was manufactured at Enfield Lock in 1941 & probably "did its bit". ;-)

I'll have to see what I can find...

I know Topor, it's debatable. But someone might take a picture of oneself in front of - let's say - a Sherman tank. And to upload as an avatar...

[Floating Chamber]

I know what happened to many thousands of them in the early 1960's.
They, along with Stens, arrived by the trainload for smelting, week after week, at Round Oak Steelworks in Brierley Hill, Dudley. (Now The Merry Hill Shopping Centre).

Local kids would filch numbers of these from the standing trucks and temporarilly dump them in the shallows of the nearby Fens Pool till the 'heat ' died down!

Each gun, and they were .303" Brownings*, had been cut with a burner at the Muzzle Recoil Intensifier, halfway along the barrel, through the feed-assembly and continuing down the left-hand receiver plate. The burning areas had sustained severe rusting after exposure, but other parts were still protected by grease.

* these Brownings had 'symmetrical' bodies, so that right or left-hand feed could be quickly facilitated. The breech blocks had, of course, 'criss-cross' feeding grooves and still with their respective switchable circular plates intact. The blued lock assemblies and hardened accelerator-claws on these guns were in pristine condition, even after weeks under water. One thing puzzled me; not one of those viewed by me had the barrel extension fitted!

The Stens would be cut at the muzzle, bolt/ejection-port area, sear and trigger-group fire-selector area.

So there it is, many of these weapons became car bodies, gas-stoves and the like!

FC