PDA

View Full Version : .303 Browning MG question



Cutaway
04-13-2007, 03:02 PM
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
04-13-2007, 03:29 PM
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
04-14-2007, 06:47 AM
Why would they want/need to do this?

32Bravo
04-14-2007, 06:59 AM
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
04-14-2007, 07:12 AM
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
04-14-2007, 07:19 AM
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*
04-14-2007, 07:59 AM
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
04-14-2007, 08:23 AM
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
04-15-2007, 10:25 AM
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
04-15-2007, 02:49 PM
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
04-22-2007, 03:25 AM
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
04-22-2007, 04:18 AM
Tony !
Stop bringing facts and common sense into these MG discussions !

;)

Gutkowski
04-22-2007, 08:14 AM
Tony !
Stop bringing facts and common sense into these MG discussions !

;)
LOL Good one

2nd of foot
04-27-2007, 05:46 AM
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
04-27-2007, 06:41 AM
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*
04-27-2007, 08:53 AM
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
05-03-2007, 04:56 AM
^^^

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

Mk VII
05-03-2007, 05:17 PM
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
05-21-2007, 10:39 PM
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
05-21-2007, 10:44 PM
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*
05-22-2007, 05:49 AM
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
05-22-2007, 06:15 AM
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
05-22-2007, 12:41 PM
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
05-24-2007, 10:30 PM
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
05-25-2007, 01:42 AM
^^^
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
05-25-2007, 02:43 AM
^^^
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
05-25-2007, 06:36 AM
^^^
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
05-28-2007, 10:12 PM
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
05-28-2007, 10:16 PM
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
05-28-2007, 10:32 PM
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
06-05-2007, 07:55 PM
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
06-05-2007, 11:45 PM
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
06-17-2007, 09:30 AM
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
06-17-2007, 09:36 AM
Yes, it's come back to me, the commanders mount did have a .30

Topor
07-01-2007, 05:51 PM
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
07-01-2007, 10:51 PM
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
07-02-2007, 10:31 AM
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
07-02-2007, 01:45 PM
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
10-30-2008, 07:54 AM
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

CliSwe
01-03-2009, 06:27 PM
I wonder why nobody considered the reason for the higher ROF of aircraft-mounted .30" Brownings: apparently, to save weight, the moving parts (bolts, springs etc.) as well as the receiver bodies, were made from lighter-grade metal. I doubt they'd last very long as infantry weapons.

Cheers,
Cliff

Man of Stoat
01-04-2009, 06:12 AM
CliSwe, I think you're putting the cart before the horse: the high ROF was part of the pre-war spec for the 8-gun fighters, based on calculations of anticipated engagement times at 300mph. Lighter weight is simply the necessary result of the higher ROF, not the other way around,

OLD RSM
02-06-2009, 03:08 PM
Hi Guy's
Canada took all thier M1919A4 Browning Guns and changed them up to 7.62mmX51 NATO as C1 and C5 in the late 1960 till early 2000 The Brownig was replaced By the C6 (FN Mag 58)
Cheers Gerry

Timbo in Oz
02-15-2010, 07:49 PM
So were a lot of ground M1919's in the US services.

Jenkin wanted to know about the .303 RAF version, which was most unsuitable for such a conversion.

To summarise all the points made by other posters, and some other features added by the RAF.

Most of the gun would have had to be replaced.

And, there was no need for a belt-fed air cooled LMG in the cut-back British services.

Another way of thinking about the OP (Jenkin) question of why not?' is this.

Until about end 1943 in the Pacific, and end 1942 in Europe/Nth Africa adaptation of of free-mounting 0.5" ANM2's and their ammunition, from downed US-made aircraft was very common - but for LAA purposes.

This pretty much ceased once Allied air supremacy became a common feature in all theatres. At the same time Quad mounts on half tracks and trailers - using standard M2HB's became very common. Add in the advent of plenty of 20mm Oerlikons and Polstens as well.

So, local adaptation of 'found' 0.30" aircraft Brownings for ground use as LAA weapons, just never took off. Not effective enough.

The reality for the .50 Browning M2 is that it was acceptable as a fixed air-to-air gun in WWII, when 6 or 8 were carried. It was not even the most effective 12.7mm aircraft gun of WWII. Russia's were lighter, just as reliable, fired faster, and hit just as hard.

Just for completeness the RAF's adaptation to .303 ammunition, of the fixed-mount M1919 .30 gun involved an almost complete redevelopment of the gun. All the in-service 0.303 guns were entirely made in Britain.

the timings and delays of the firing mechanism*
primary extraction for the rimmed round*
A new muzzle attachment, to help increase RoF, and then modified because of increased fouling from 'cordite' propellant.
Even lighter moving parts* than the USAAF version > RoF.

the same gun was used in all the turretted installations in RAAF bombers. Single free guns were mostly the VGO.

This latter being the only RAF aircraft gun adapted for ground use in nay numbers, to be mounted on pintles for use against aircraft by the SAS, and using the RAF's own TI and API rounds, and where it's high RoF matched the role of course.

Stonkey
06-06-2010, 10:50 AM
During WWII I nursed 4 Browning 303's in the back of a Wimpy (wellington) then Lancaster (Lank) (Tail end Charlie) . I found them very reliable in operation (though a little bit noisy.) Cooling was not a problem as at 29,000 feet the outside (and inside) temperature was -40.
We had them mounted in the Frazer-Nash or Bolton-Paul turrets (one hydraulically driven the other electric). Not much difference between them, as long as they worked.
I was able to strip down a 303 and assemble it - Blindfold - in less than one minute - at 85 yoa now it would probably take me a week.
Towards the end of the war the 303 was swapped over to the .5 but I think I preferred the .303.
Don't like guns now, or wars - Nasty things.
Stonkey.

Saxon
06-07-2010, 06:20 PM
During WWII I nursed 4 Browning 303's in the back of a Wimpy (wellington) then Lancaster (Lank) (Tail end Charlie) . I found them very reliable in operation (though a little bit noisy.) Cooling was not a problem as at 29,000 feet the outside (and inside) temperature was -40.
We had them mounted in the Frazer-Nash or Bolton-Paul turrets (one hydraulically driven the other electric). Not much difference between them, as long as they worked.
I was able to strip down a 303 and assemble it - Blindfold - in less than one minute - at 85 yoa now it would probably take me a week.
Towards the end of the war the 303 was swapped over to the .5 but I think I preferred the .303.
Don't like guns now, or wars - Nasty things.
Stonkey.

Thank you for this info Stonkey.

What was the effective range of the 303? I would guess you would be wasting ammo over 200yds?

And did you ever hit or shoot down a German plane with the thing?

cheers,
Saxon

leccy
06-08-2010, 02:28 AM
From my grandads notes (Air Gunner on Blenhims then rear gunner on Wimpys and later Lancs served 1938-1960) he rarely fired all four brownings at once as the barrels drooped so he fired in pairs.

He does not say whether he actually shot one down as most raids were night time and you had limited vision of an incoming aircraft (although he does comment that he thought the flak was pretty coloured along with the tracer), more that you tried to keep them away from you 'make you look dangerous so they go for an easier target'

Saxon
06-08-2010, 06:42 AM
Until about end 1943 in the Pacific, and end 1942 in Europe/Nth Africa adaptation of of free-mounting 0.5" ANM2's and their ammunition, from downed US-made aircraft was very common - but for LAA purposes.

This pretty much ceased once Allied air supremacy became a common feature in all theatres. At the same time Quad mounts on half tracks and trailers - using standard M2HB's became very common. Add in the advent of plenty of 20mm Oerlikons and Polstens as well.



Hi Timbo,

This is a bit off-topic, but the OP was 3 years ago ;)

It sounds like you have info on the deployment of 20mm Oerlikons and Polstens!

I had researched British Army use of 20mm AA guns, and found them difficult to nail down.

Best I can tell, the Oerlikon was available in England from 1940 but perhaps only for RN use? It seems certain it was used by the British Army, but I can't find it listed in any OOB or solid reference.

I have a couple of vague references (and a photo or two) to the Oerlikon being used in Italy.
I also have a reference to Support Battalions being equipped with 16 LAA 20mm, in mid 1943.

I know the British Army (LAA and SAS) used plenty of captured Italian Breda 20mm from 1941.

The first reference to the 20mm Hispano is Airborne troops training with it in May 1943.

Airborne switched to the 20mm Polsten which seems to arrive in large numbers and in many different types of mountings and configurations around March 1944.

I'd be grateful for any additional information.


(Mods, if this is too 'off-topic' let me know and I'll start a new thread, thanks)

Cheers,
Saxon

Rising Sun*
06-08-2010, 06:47 AM
Hi Timbo,

This is a bit off-topic, but the OP was 3 years ago ;)

It sounds like you have info on the deployment of 20mm Oerlikons and Polstens!

I had researched British Army use of 20mm AA guns, and found them difficult to nail down.

Best I can tell, the Oerlikon was available in England from 1940 but perhaps only for RN use? It seems certain it was used by the British Army, but I can't find it listed in any OOB or solid reference.

I have a couple of vague references (and a photo or two) to the Oerlikon being used in Italy.
I also have a reference to Support Battalions being equipped with 16 LAA 20mm, in mid 1943.

I know the British Army (LAA and SAS) used plenty of captured Italian Breda 20mm from 1941.

The first reference to the 20mm Hispano is Airborne troops training with it in May 1943.

Airborne switched to the 20mm Polsten which seems to arrive in large numbers and in many different types of mountings and configurations around March 1944.

I'd be grateful for any additional information.


(Mods, if this is too 'off-topic' let me know and I'll start a new thread, thanks)

Cheers,
Saxon

You'd probably get better responses in a thread with a title that reflects the weapon / use you're interested in than in this thread.

If you'd like, post a suitable thread title and I'll start a separate thread under that title.

Stonkey
06-08-2010, 08:50 AM
Hi Saxon,
Thanks for your reply. To answer your question re the range of the Browning 303, I don't know! as I don't think we were ever told? We used to align our 4 rear turret guns on a target at 1500 yds by removing the breach-blocks and looking down the barrels.
I never ever saw a German kite. I was 14 in 1939 when they started the war, (not my fault!) When I joined the RAF in 1943 my training lasted over a year, I started off as a WOP/AG (Wireless Operator Air Gunner) and then a straight AG as the WOP/AG was scrapped.
On finishing training etc;was posted to Bomber Command, but I got Rubella (German Measles) and was kept in isolation for 10 days. When I emerged from hospital my crew had picked up another AG and moved on. As no one wanted a sprog AG I spent most of the rest of the war in testing kites that had been repaired after being shot up during raids over the pond. I also went on trips to scatter Windows (strips of silver paper) to fool the krouts radar. I was shot at twice, by our own Navy (shoot first - ask questions later if necessary) B*******.

Stonkey.

Saxon
06-08-2010, 10:25 AM
Hi Saxon,
Thanks for your reply. To answer your question re the range of the Browning 303, I don't know! as I don't think we were ever told? We used to align our 4 rear turret guns on a target at 1500 yds by removing the breach-blocks and looking down the barrels.
I never ever saw a German kite. I was 14 in 1939 when they started the war, (not my fault!) When I joined the RAF in 1943 my training lasted over a year, I started off as a WOP/AG (Wireless Operator Air Gunner) and then a straight AG as the WOP/AG was scrapped.
On finishing training etc;was posted to Bomber Command, but I got Rubella (German Measles) and was kept in isolation for 10 days. When I emerged from hospital my crew had picked up another AG and moved on. As no one wanted a sprog AG I spent most of the rest of the war in testing kites that had been repaired after being shot up during raids over the pond. I also went on trips to scatter Windows (strips of silver paper) to fool the krouts radar. I was shot at twice, by our own Navy (shoot first - ask questions later if necessary) B*******.

Stonkey.

Hi Stonkey,

It sounds like you had a pretty good war!

It's a good job those RN lads were rubbish shots huh!

Both of my Grandfathers were part-time volunteer firemen before the war started, so they were kept in the fire brigade for the whole war. One of them in London the other in Somerset. I had at least one Great-Uncle in the BEF. He was the last one out of Dunkirk (supposedly) and I believe he survived the war.

The older I get, the more I appreciate your generation, and what you did.

Thank you for your service (Salute).
Saxon

Stonkey
06-08-2010, 10:32 AM
Aw Shucks wuz nuthing really.

Keep Smiling,
Stan.

Timbo in Oz
06-08-2010, 09:17 PM
The Polsten was issued late in WWII in the European theatre, It was a lightened and simplified (number of parts down to about 40%) Oerlikon. Initially to paras and etc. Same drum and ammo.

the Allies did not need much in the way of super good very light AAA by 1943, and what they did have was fine. The 40MM bofors L60 plus the quad and twin .5"M2HB, and later the Polsten. noting that the kerriosn predictor for the bofors L60 was very good and the LAA regiments thus far outperformed any German units.

The Germans DID need superb LAA by 1942/3.