Oh my goodness, this brings back some happy memories. Back in the late 50s when I was 17 I was Flight Sergeant in 29F squadron ATC based in Rugby, My party piece was to field strip and reassemble this gun in front of the new recruits, blindfolded. Never failed to impress `em, come to think of it it was probably my "finest hour"! 😃Many Thanks, Jonathan for yet another brilliant entertaining, and instructive video.
LOL yes, same here. As a 13 year old SGT in the CCF I'd do the same in the '50's with a Bren Gun. I can still do it in my mind and feel the parts in my hand. Field strip disassemble and assemble in under 60 seconds. Probably take my arthritic hands a bit longer now though. :)
@@steverate7408 yes Steve they were indeed, I'd go back to them without hesitation. Would you? Did you join the RAF? After a few years in Hippy Wilderness I joined Para Reg for three years then transferred to logistics. I did 25 years in all and they were mostly happy times for me.
@@jonathanferguson1211 Yes Jonathan, I always loved working with weapons. I spent three months happily serving in the armoury at Pirbright, some of the officers personal weapons were really interesting, including amongst other things a genuine NAZI Luger.
Fun fact. The finned booster section at the muzzle of these aircraft guns was used as part of Obi-Wan Kenobi's lightsaber in the original Star Wars movie.
Considering he did EVERYTHING. No. Not even a chance. Not at least until we change technologies. Small pistols in Europe have been known as Brownings for a very long time. Sort of like vacuums being Hoovers in England. He did vest pistols, carry pistols, military full sized pistols, MG, HMG, Shotguns (pump, lever and semi-auto), rifles, etc. He touched nearly every single area of design for a small arms designer and he did it well. Most people get one area, and maybe a few designs in other areas. The Mausers really mastered a bolt action rifle, but their other endeavors were not as impressive. Adolph Furrier could toggle lock with the best. He was out of his element elsewhere. Stoner worked with modern materials and brought rifles into a modern age. Glock made tupperware pistols readily accepted. Neither one did the other genre that great.
Well choosing the Browning over the Vickers made a lot of sense in aircraft. Browning was a lot lighter than the Vickers....In planes weight matters a LOT. Especially when early UK fighters had up to 8 (or 12 on later far east ground attack Hurricanes).
I suspect the main reason the British were looking to replace the Vickers as an aircraft gun was the fact that it probably simply couldn't be made to fire fast enough for their requirements by the 1930s. IIRC, the rate of fire was only around 450-500 rounds per minute. The Browning M1917 that appeared at the tail end of WWI was also designed as a ground gun, but had a faster rate of fire, at about 600 rounds per minute. As noted here, the aircraft versions that came later were able to have their rate of fire increased to over 1000 rounds per minute, something I don't think was remotely achievable with the Vickers.
The Vickers didnt need the water jacket though which made it a lot lighter. The Vickers was also ultra reliable. Both were firing a calibre which was far to small though.
@@Ukraineaissance2014 no the caliber was enough later UK adopted Hispano automatic canon in Fighters like hurricane,Tempest and Spitfire later US also adopted after the British adoption
One interesting feature he failed to mention is that the guns could be belt fed from either side by switching the round section of the fed mechanism guide on top of the bolt.
Hi. Really great info on aircraft brownings and very clearly explained. I had a cousin who was killed flying Halifax in ww2 and an uncle air gunner on Bostons 114sqdn who used vickers K guns over North Africa and Italy. Thanks for all your very informative programs Jon J
When a Machine gun is not a cannon... I think the cutoff point would be 15mm, hence it being a autocannon. 14.5 Russian is the biggest MG caliber I can think of off the top of my head. 15mm MG151/15 is, well, an autocannon of the sub-20mm category.
@@CollinTheSav The usual cut-off is 20mm (not inclusive of course). "Autocannon" is an interesting one - really just a synonym for the modern term "cannon", which is itself a weird re-coining of the original colloquial term for an artillery piece, which hadn't been used in a military or technical sense for decades by that point (and originally meant an artillery piece of a very specific bore and size). Total etymology rabbithole!
The common definition is that 20 mm and up is a cannon, while anything below that is a machine gun. And if it fires pistol caliber ammunition, it's a sub machine gun. In theory it would be possible to create a brand new 20 mm pistol cartridge and build a sub-autocannon.
a modified version of Cordite is still in use, Nitroguanide was added to the makeup making it a triple-base propellant, this was done because nitroguanide generates a lot of nitrogen when heated,this cools the gun barrel and reduces muzzle flash, originally done for the Royal Navy's guns, it is still used in modern artilley such as the 155mm FH70
Can I suggest an episode on the BESA tank gun, or indeed any other use? I can see no UA-cam episode on this gun giving details anywhere. Maybe do it with the Tank Museum.
I was reading a news article today about one of these guns recovered off Darwin Australia that's been in the water since 1942. Fisherman had hooked the gun up while pulling their lines in. The article said the gun was an MG40. I thought it was a miss-print or something. The article showed the gun was recovered with an exploded .303 casing stuck in it. With high fire rate and open bolt operation that makes more sense. Not sure how common that sort of failure is but this gun was frozen in time in that state. They said the .303 round was manufactured in Footscray Melbourne. Love this series I learned something new today.🙂👍
Most of ammunition used out of Australia was manufactured at the Footscray plant until 1994 until the operations were moved to the ADI Benalla plant. The Footscray ammunition has an “MF”, “MF1”, “MF2” or “MG” head stamp to differentiate between the three production lines on site at various times with “MF” being most common. The Footscray plant has now been redeveloped into houses and a shopping centre.
it's interesting to hear Jonathan talk about these guns, I'm Chairman of the RAF Bircham Newton Heritage Centre in Norfolk, the former RAF Station Bircham Newton was operated by Coastal Command during WW2, most of the Aircraft used such as the Avro Anson, the Lockheed Hudson and Vickers Wellington used these weapons in their Turrets. both the Vickers 303. and the Browning 303. we have alot of details of Airmen operating these weapons during Missions for Defensive and Offensive means. a sortie of 3 Lockheed Hudsons from No. 206 Squadron covering the Evacuation of Dunkirk flew in a tight formation together and used their Turrets with Twin 303. Brownings to Shoot down 2 attacking Me109s. its a Fantastic account of using these weapons in aerial combat. and the skill of the Aerial Gunners.
Curtis LeMay was an exception to people who know aircraft don't know guns and vice versa. LeMay commanded the XX Air Force during World War Two, was SAC's commander during the Cold War, and made the first major order of the M16 rifle for the Air Force after personally test-firing one.
WRONG!! the 16 is a piece of junk!! too many damn parts you've got to run the thing soaking wet because of too tight of tolerances and too small of caliber!! 223/556 is the absolute most bullet sensitive rifle round ever developed (with 9mm being the pistol version!!) i've had 7 AR's and not one of them were worth half a damn whereas the AR 180 and HK 93 i've got are golden! i can run them all damn day without stopping to clean them 5 or more times!
@@s_vb2220 both full sized 20 inch and 16 inch carbines and the company's i can't remember all of them but couple of them were bushmaster and olympic arms, i got rid of the last one in 2005! although i know a few who have had got one since and they still seem to be junk!!
i learned during the 1990's that the Browning machine guns fired from a closed bolt (which explained a lot of things, such as the runaway gun drills with the M60) and this video mentioned that the British Brownings went to open-bolt operation. The closed bolt Browning facilitated being timed (interrupter gear) to fire through a propeller disk when the blades were clear of the muzzles. That explains a lot. I'd be interested in finding out what guns were used in the British 1930's aircraft that still fired machine guns synchronized to fire through the propeller disk.
I can also confirm the browning .30 on my centurion ARV in the 1980/90s also fired from an open bolt. I can recall the training and being informed we the British had modified them to reduce incidents of run away gun.
The Gladiator had two of these, one on each side of the cockpit, that fired through the propeller disk. In this configuration the rear sear was controlled by the pilot's trigger on the control column and the front sear was controlled by the synchronisation system. This way the rear sear would stay down whilst the pilot held their trigger down which would allow the bolt to close but the front sear would only release the firing pin when the round wasn't going to hit the propeller. This keeps the open bolt operation for cooling but uses the closed bolt to accurately time the firing.
Excellent question. The ONLY aircraft still in service that used the .303 Browning in synchronised setup was the Gloster Gladiator. AP1641E vol1 pt1 ch1 says “the synchronising gear trigger motor replaces the fire-and-safe unit.” and mentions a pneumatic unit “at the base of the oil reservoir to actuate the control needle.” The full synchro gear is described in AP1242 vol I ch9 apparently, which annoyingly we don't have. We do, however, have an example of the 'synchronising gear trigger motor'.
@@jonathanferguson1211 Thanks for that reference, something to look up some time. As someone who is in that venn diagram of aviation and firearms nerd I remember reading about the double sear system on an old explanation panel tucked away in a corner of the Kent Battle of Britain Museum and it stuck with me as a clever way of working the two operating systems to the best advantage of both.
Jonathan IIRC from the IWM video from Duxford which you contributed to which I watched yesterday the first Spitfire squadron to be equipped with Cannon demanded their .303 guns back as the cannon jammed so often they wanted something that actually fired reliably.
When the Beaufighter was first put into squadron service it was without its' designed compliment of .303 wing guns, only the 20mm cannon pack in the nose. This was done because it was felt there was too much risk of running out of Brownings for the Spitfires and Hurricanes still needed to fight the Battle of Britain.
I hit one with a plow up in mareeba back in the 80s. No internals just the frame and barrel shroud. Now in the possession of the Australian War Memorial
It’s interesting how intertwined the British/American war effort was in WW2 even if the more parochial among us won’t admit it. The most iconic British fighter of the war used American guns to shoot down the enemy. The most iconic American fighter of the war was built at the request of Britain and didn’t reach its potential until a British engine was installed.
I knew that the P-51 Mustang used the Merlin engine, but somehow I didn't know that the RAF used it. I had thought that the P-38 was developed for a British specification, but it seems I confused that aspect with the P-51.
@@JonathanRossRogers I believe that the Mustang was built to an RAF specification for an escort fighter (the Whirlwind not being up to the job). By the time the Mustang was available, the RAF had switched to night bombing and there was no RAF need for the Mustang. That said, the RAF operated some Mustangs and the USAAF some Spitfires..
@@PassportToPimlico I think it started with the RAF just wanting a fighter. They were talking with North American about bombers, and asked them if they could manufacture P-40s (which were good fighters, about equivalent to the Hurricane). NAA said they could do a better fighter with the same engine. RAF Mustangs with the Allison engine were used for Army Co-Operation (because of the notorious high altitude limitations of the Allison without a turbo-supercharger); Army Co-Operation at that time was NOT a high status role. So the origins were pretty unglamorous, but various people had the idea of putting in a Merlin, with its high performance mechanical supercharger, and with the addition of fuel tanks everywhere, and six .50" calibre guns (replacing a mixture of calibres), it became the best escort fighter of the war. The P-38, BTW, was a purely US origin design: it did have the turbo-superchargers the Allison needed for high altitude, but the installation wasn't satisfactory in Europe. Yes, they did think of putting Merlins in the P-38, but various US interests successfully resisted putting nasty foreign engines in a US design.
@@michaelwright2986 my friend you're not correct. P40 wasn't a NAA product. If P40s were desired you went to Curtiss. The British did inquire about Pursuit planes and NAA delivered in less than 6 months, a clean sheet design, with Allison engines. Once delivered UK determined it wasn't suitable. Then fate stepped in. Merlins were installed and the P51 was Born. NAA supplied T And AT trainers and the B25 Mitchell to all allies. The Packard built Merlins were re engineered to facilitate mass production. Packard Merlins were easier , cheaper to produce with a less skilled workforce. Packard Merlins lost no performance due to these changes. The UK still didn't adopt the P51 but the USAAC jumped on it.. An incestuous marriage between cousins. The highest scoring US ace flew the P38. P38 was used extensively in all theatres in WW2. It excelled in recon and ground attack. By wars end it was still a very fast and potent weapon. One of a handful of 1930s plane to serve throughout the war. Hurricane Spitfire BF109 P39,P40 ....P38 was a Pursuit not a Fighter. Dogfighting wasn't their forte. Pursuit and destruction of bombers mission 1.
I was in the CCF at my school in the mid 1960s. I was assistant armourer and helped the school master who ran the army side of the CCF. Used to count the guns we had and made sure the ones we used worked and were oiled and cleaned .Mostly WW1 and 2 Lee Enfield with a mixture of Martin Henry and Lee Metford which were never used but had to be accounted for. We seemed to have an awful lot of guns for a small schoolboy unit but hey ho I didn’t question why ! This was the 1960s after all. I was mostly left alone on Tuesday afternoons after school to get on . I was always fascinated by a big wooden box hidden under a table but was told it wasn’t to be touched as was not part of the inventory. But of course I did have a look and inside was a browning machine gun. Even then it made me worried and I did ask my teacher eventually. He wasn’t cross ( I suppose he knew I would look) and explained one of the masters was in a Lancaster crew in the war and he bought the gun back ,to show the boys, when he returned to school in 1945 ! Presume it’s long gone as I know all the ‘old ‘ rifle stock was taken by the army after I left to be replaced with more modern weapons .
School CCF's back then seemed to be very well supplied. Ours had 150 No1 L-Es (back in the day when the whole school was expected to be in the CCF), Bren guns, Sterlings, a safefull of Webley revolvers (and mysteriously a brace of Beretta automatics), the Rifle teams target guns (rebedded, resighted No 4 LE) and, it seemed, huge quantities of ammunition. Plus 31 sets, 88 sets, 22 sets, field phones and a million miles of wire; vehicles, gliders it just went on and on. How on earth did such arsenals get into 'private hands? And, there were always secrets kept securely by the RSM - explosives and god knows what else. Sadly, almost zero of us joined the Army - one spit and polish junior under officer guy did go on to a major military career. He ended up as the MP who allegedly called the No 10 Downing Street police a bunch of 'plebs'. He knows who he is.
@@alastairbarkley6572 Amazing times. We had a chap called B****h who kept a Wembley revolver in his tuck box ! No ammunition though. He ended up in an a Indian jail as a suspected gun runner . It was all over the papers .
@@robtt997 An Indian jail. Gun running? Wow. We never had such ambitions. The school contemporary I'm talking of had a sorta distinguished career with the British Army in Bosnia/Balkans. He was then International Aid Minister until the 'plebs' affair. He denied he'd ever say 'plebs' to anyone - odd since it was an epithetic used pretty much continuously by us pampered schoolboys back then!
Anyone who studies military aircraft without knowing something about their weapons is obviously enthusiastic about targets, because that's what an unarmed machine usually is. (PR & similar types usually relied on speed and/or stealth to stay out of the target category.)
Oh plenty of aviation historians know *something* about the weapons - calibre, rate of fire etc. But not to the technical level that those of us who study firearms specifically aspire to. Same goes the other way around as I note - those with technical gun knowledge are fairly clueless on airframes and engines etc. For the most part of course.
@@jonathanferguson1211 I will admit to learning from your talk. I was not aware of the open-bolt modification, or the subtle difference between fighter and bomber vesrions. Whether the variations in muzzle devices really counted as a differentce, since they could easily be unscrewed could generate nerdy debates. :-)*
I got some old.303 and it had a very distinct smell when fired ,so I pulled a bullet off a round to see if it was contaminated or something and was so confused by the "spaghetti" inside. I asked a guy who'd been shooting his SMLE , What the hell it was?after he stopped laughing he said it was cordite. Once you smell it you'll never forget it.
It’s a mixture of gun cotton and nitroglycerin with petroleum jelly. Two high explosives that when mixed, produced a low explosive. It was invented to get around Alfred Nobel’s patents for his Nitrocellulose based propellant “Ballistite”. His patents used the form of Nitrocellulose that dissolved in a mixture of Ethanol and Ether. Cordite used guncotton which dissolves in Acetone, thus sidestepping Nobel’s patent. There were several court cases ending up in the House of Lords. But Nobel’s patent uses the term “well known soluble form Of nitrocellulose” ie “Collodion”, not the “insoluble” guncotton (which is soluble in acetone) so he lost. This saved His majesty’s government a real fortune. The propellant used to fire the Uranium projectile in the gun based “Little boy” atomic bomb was Cordite.
Someone surrendered two of these machine guns to my gunsmith (in France) last year to have them deactivated (great sadness that was...), but I had the pleasure of seeing them beforehand, It was quite an experience.
Arthur Harris spent his entire time arguing against the MAP and the Air Ministry for the replacement of the Browning .303 turrets in his beloved Lancaster. It never really happened. It seemed to have been the same inertia that kept the Blenheim and Battle still in production. Only relatively few .5 equipped turrets were fitted. German fighters knew the limited range of the .303 and simply fired their 20mm cannon while standing off. So many a/c and crew were needlessly lost which Harris felt keenly.
The .303 was certainly inadequate and should have been replaced with .50 mid-war at the latest. Then again, Freeman Dyson worked on bomber losses during the war, and based on interviews with shot down crews who made it home most never knew what hit them. Which led him to propose getting rid of the top turret. Less weight and drag (and one crew member less) would have increased speed and thus less time spent over enemy territory and lower loss rate. Of course this proposal was shot down as the myth of the gallant gunners protecting their mates was just too strong.
I 99% reckon those ye olde POS were bog standard 1919 30cal firing from a closed bolt. For the life of me, I never understood why we didn't convert them to 7.62 after the ADF/Armoured Corp made a concious decision to keep them in service on the M113 or better still, replace them with the MG3 we had on the Leopards.
Thank you for covering this Colt Browning 303 machine gun for the RAF and Commonwealth Aircraft in WW 2 in detail.Would you have the Hispano done in future.Cheers 😃
There's some colour of RAF armourers in Burma using a tool similar to what you mention here to set up the guns on RAF Thnderbolts..i wondered what they were for
I thought that the presenter would have mentioned the part that 13 year old Londoner Hazel Hill and her mother’s kitchen table played in the utilisation of these guns.
Hi Jonathan, really interesting video. Any chance on a video on the BESA machine gun used in WW2 British tanks? There's very little on the history of the gun on UA-cam.
My uncle was a tail gunner on Lancaster bombers during the war and told me a lot of the tricks of the trade and as I was an armourer in the Royal Air Force and was stationed at RAF Waddington a wartime Lancaster station I had many opportunities to see personally what he had told me . RAF Waddington had for many years the last flying Lanc. at the time stationed there and I used to clean and service the .303 brownings in the small arms bay and I had a chance to get a good look at City of Lincoln .The cocking tool I found in a bin under the bench in the S/A bay and I was the only one who knew what it was as I had looked it up in the book , what the gunners used to use in general was their brevit hat (chip cutter to the erks) I used my beret and for interest Jonathan what tool was used to strip the gun? The Lanc had at one point .5 brownings.
Thanks for another great video Jonathan. I wonder were the RAF so wedded to the small calibre .303 ammo simply because they already had millions of rounds in munitions depots by 1939?
This reminded me of the Dan Snow History documentary on the excavation of the Spitfire from the Bog in Donegal, if I remember correctly of the eight guns six were able to be made functional by Irish Army Armourers, cant seem to find it on UA-cam may have been struck for copy right reasons.
we keep giving info on the "Two" triggers in either with one of One manual "S-F" trigger. I would like to know is either the sear or other trigger "Momentary or Definite Purpose" as this would or Could further Complicate mostly the crew operated gunner's model! Love a Hydraulics and pneumatics system, would love to see more as a Journeyman Millwright Tech in both systems of today. I suspect the difference would be the vent or return of each system. Used air venting to atmosphere, Hydraulics with a return line I suspect at the main valve with used pressure either resetting via a spring similar to older Brake cylinders, or a return line? Great Job tons of INFO!!
At least on a surface level, always loved aircraft (the mechanics class was my favourite part of Air Cadets!), and the engineering of guns as well! I fit into this Venn diagram nicely. Unrelated, is that a Casio calculator watch? If so, I have one, super useful little device!
Well I’ll give it a shot but please don’t treat my explanation as gospel because I’m certainly no expert on it but here I go So think of cannon balls out of a cannon Smaller cannon is easier to wheel around and the ammunition for it is much smaller and also easier to cart around Softer shooting overall with less recoil and less noise a smaller projectile can be pushed to higher speeds with less energy But consequently has less long range capability as it will not hold its velocity as well when really reaching out there Plus smaller ball = smaller hole or damage on target Now think of a much larger canon And think of all the points I just made and reverse them 😂 Bigger ball bigger hole Much heavier gun and corresponding ammunition More energy needed to move the projectile More pronounced recoil Etc etc That’s my take on it anyway
@@corditesniffer8020 This is part of the answer - the rest is in the explosive payload that a cannon shell can carry, which creates holes bigger than the calibre of the projectile itself...
I read some years ago that during the war it was calculated that it took 12lbs (in dead weight) of bullets to shoot down a bomber, irrespective of calibre. I don't know the weight of an individual .303 calibre bullet, but obviously it's less than a .50 calibre bullet & a fraction of the weight of a 20mm cannon round, hence the lower the calibre, the more hits are required. A lower calibre gun tends to have a higher rate of fire than one of a higher calibre, which has the effect of putting more projectiles on the point of aim at any given instant, but they are less destructive. As Jonathan mentioned, a 20mm cannon's rate of fire was about half that of a .303 machine gun, making harder to hit the target, but the destructive effect of each 20mm round was many times greater, plus it has the capacity to carry an explosive charge, which increases it's chances of doing crippling damage & decreases the chance of "over-penetration" where the bullet goes right through the aircraft without doing any significant damage.
@@Kevin-mx1vi The British War Office wanted heavier guns were but none existed in 1938/39/40 that were reliable; and they also made a cold, dispassionate evaluation of probable pilot skills. Their conclusion was that it was better for the inexperienced majority of pilots to at least achieve some damage to an enemy plane with a few lucky hits from a large number of small projectiles than to miss entirely with a small number of larger projectiles. As cannon (Hispano) matured, and pilot skill increased, the conversion to mixed armament proceeded as originally intended.
Bigger is better, but sure, there is a trade-off. Bigger guns are heavier, cause more recoil etc. And early in the war autocannon reliability was certainly an issue. Then as planes got faster it meant that there was a shorter window of time to deliver enough damage to shoot down a plane (think deflection shots etc.). IIRC statistics showed that to shoot down a WWII fighter you needed on average 1 30mm hit, or 4-5 20mm hits, or about 25 .50 hits, or 100 .30 hits. So as a rough rule of thumb, a factor of 4-5 increase in rounds needed for each caliber jump. And then again, IIRC, roughly another factor of five increase in number of rounds on targets for downing a four-engined bomber instead of a single-engined fighter. As an example of compromises made, consider the German Mk108 30mm autocannon. For it's size, it was a VERY lightweight and compact package enabling it to be installed in fighters. However, in order to achieve this it had a pretty slow muzzle velocity (540 m/s) leading to poor ballistics and difficulty of doing deflection shots. Perhaps it was a good compromise for Germany, with their need to shoot down heavy bombers. As a general-purpose WWII fighter armament, IMHO 20mm autocannons was probably the sweet spot, like the British Hispano Mk V (used in the Tempest) or the German Mg151/20. You can see the same logic even today in the armaments of jet fighters. 25-30mm seems to be the sweet spot (the venerable 20mm Vulcan seems to finally be on the way out considering the F-35 mounts a new 25mm Gatling gun).
So let me see if I understand this. The gun with the changed design to fire from an open bolt does not have a fixed firing pin, it does not use an inertial firing pin, it still uses a spring loaded firing pin even though it has been redesigned to fire from an open bolt?
Was the reason early fighters had the canvas patches over the gunports really to prevent the guns from freezing and did the open bolt or use of cordite contribute to this?
Huh, I always expected the .303 machine guns to have longer barrels. Or to be bigger in general, though considering it has to be crammed into things like wings or noses of planes then it makes sense for it to be as compact as possible.
5:45 for the first time I heard an aircraft machine gun get cook off. I wonder what will it be like with the AN/M2 .30, which has considerably more powder and more rate of fire
A swarm of angry bees...the best way to visualise what it's like to be on the wrong end of a machine gun is to roll a 250 round belt, push the centre out into a cone...and look at it end on. Just a wall of bullets.
That was fascinating. I don't know much about guns. How does the reciprocating bolt mechanism work? There does not seem to be a gas port in the barrel and a gas piston and cylinder, as there is in the assault rifles you have shown. I am sorry if that is an elementary question.
There are two major sources of energy that can be utilized to cycle the gun: gas pressure you're already familiar with and recoil force (well, today there are also electrically-operated guns , gatling-type, but these appeared after the war so let's skip them for now). All auto weapons use the former, or the latter, or combination of both. The latter also comes in 4 main versions. Google for "short recoil" operation, that's the one the presented Browning used.
Hispano was intended as an upgrade, 2x 20mm cannon is far more destructive than the 4x .303 guns they replaced (most cannon Spitfires retained 4x Brownings in the outer wings). The 'universal' wing for the spitfire could accommodate 2 cannons in the inner bays for a total of 4x Hispanos,
If the bullet was sitting there pulled out of the belt but gripped by the bolt in the rearward position, was there a risk of maneuvers or other shocks causing the bullet to fall off of the bolt before the pilot presses fire again?
Pretty much - it's not a trigger in the conventional sense but the rear sear unit has an internal piston that pushes up on the sear to release the bolt. That piston is basically the trigger in normal operation and it's operated by hydraulic pressure from the hose that's attached to said rear sear unit (using a flanged locking collar). There's another control that we might call a trigger, which was brass bar on the rear sear unit that you can always use to manually release the rear sear without using hydraulic pressure - you need to use this to load the gun and fire it off safely at the end of a mission.
8 of those firing would be about 10'000 rounds per minute, or 160 shots per second. And they carried enough ammunition for 15 seconds of continual firing each bullet would be an armour piercing incendiary bullet. So the RAF fighters weren't undergunned despite lacking many autocannons in the early years, the Axis forces would typically have only a single slow firing 20mm cannon.
There was no API rounds for the 303, it was either or. And yes the 303 was under powered from the start for anti-material purposes, it was inferior for the role than the 30-06 which fired a slight heavier bullet faster and the 7.92x57 of the Germans that fired significantly heavier round roughly the same velocity (the Gemans has MGs too, not just the 20mm spinner cannon), add the 50bmg into the mix which DID have an API round that both punched through more steel than 303 AP and had more incendiary material the the 303 incendiary. Between being undergunned and having an obsolete fuel system rather handicapped the early Spits and Hurricanes.
I have a request, the black guns on the black table in a poorly lit room are really hard to see. Could you improve the lighting please? Many thanks for the content though
Thanks for the video. Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems like the “second trigger” is just a safety. In the video you say the normal practice was to take off with the bolt forward, but also that the safety doesn’t work with the bolt forward. A safety that can’t be engaged until after you’ve fired a burst seems awkward. Also if someone could shed light on why while the RAF was busy adopting the .303 browning the Army was adopting the BESA in 8mm Mauser? I get that the air browning wasn’t set up for ground use, but the 1919 was originally developed as a tank gun and was one of the most successful ever built. It wouldn’t have been hard to convert it back. So did the Army not know there would be a .303 browning factory? Did someone really think setting up another separate factory to make BESA’s in non-standard cartridges was a great time saver?
During the Battle of Britain the .303 was already recognized as being inadequate against enemy aircraft which, by then, had armor protection and self-sealing fuel tanks. The German Me109s already had 20-mm cannon, so the RAF pilots were fully aware of exactly how effective they were. There was a major controversy among RAF fighter pilots about whether to increase fighter armament to 12 Brownings or to replace them with more powerful 20mm cannon. Robert Tuck and "Sailor" Malan were convinced that the RAF needed to convert to the 20mm cannon as soon as possible because the .303 simply did not have enough power to shoot down German aircraft, but Douglas Bader insisted that they should stick with the Brownings. The result was that the Spitfires ended up getting two 20mm cannon and four Brownings, while the Hurricanes got four 20mm cannon. However, the British bombers continued to carry the .303 machine guns, although the number of them was increased. By the time the Americans got into the war they were also using the Browning, but in a larger .50 inch caliber version that had a lot more punch than the .303 version and a higher rate of fire than the 20-mm cannon. Oddly, the British never seemed to care for the .50 inch machine gun, while the Americans were equally uninterested in using 20-mm aircraft cannon.
Good points .Bader was very anti-cannon and flew a Spitfire Mark Va (8 x 0.303) until he was shot down in 1941. Wing Commander H.R. Allen wrote a book called 'Who Won the Battle of Britain' in which he stated that in 1940 RAF fighters would have been better off with four 0.50 calibre guns, resulting in far more German aircraft being shot down.
It's not so much that we weren't interested in the 20mm, the problem was that the airforce was controlled by the army and the army had requirements for weapons over .50 caliber that made them unreliable in aircraft. We did use them in the P38's, and the late war F4U Corsair.
There is aniother very interesting Browning.. The 13.2mm that mainly Sweden used - calling it the m/39 and 39B AKAN. A very powerful, souped up version of the 12.7mm M".
@@Reactordrone No, the French took the 12.7x99mm Browning cartridge and necked it up to 13.2mm; otherwise it is essentially the same cartridge, but not interchangeable.
Oh my goodness, this brings back some happy memories. Back in the late 50s when I was 17 I was Flight Sergeant in 29F squadron ATC based in Rugby, My party piece was to field strip and reassemble this gun in front of the new recruits, blindfolded. Never failed to impress `em, come to think of it it was probably my "finest hour"! 😃Many Thanks, Jonathan for yet another brilliant entertaining, and instructive video.
LOL yes, same here. As a 13 year old SGT in the CCF I'd do the same in the '50's with a Bren Gun. I can still do it in my mind and feel the parts in my hand. Field strip disassemble and assemble in under 60 seconds. Probably take my arthritic hands a bit longer now though. :)
@@jimfrodsham7938 Happy Days, Jim😀!
@@steverate7408 yes Steve they were indeed, I'd go back to them without hesitation. Would you? Did you join the RAF? After a few years in Hippy Wilderness I joined Para Reg for three years then transferred to logistics. I did 25 years in all and they were mostly happy times for me.
I won't pretend that it wasn't a lot of fun getting to know this type.
@@jonathanferguson1211 Yes Jonathan, I always loved working with weapons. I spent three months happily serving in the armoury at Pirbright, some of the officers personal weapons were really interesting, including amongst other things a genuine NAZI Luger.
Jonathan standing in front of a Lancaster is one of the most gloriously British things I’ve ever seen.
God save The Royal armories!
@@samholdsworth420 Armouries* ;)
@@gestaposantaclaus forgive me....Google autocorrected.....
You need to get out more, thats fucking tragic
@@Beauloqs you beat me to it! lol 😂
Fun fact. The finned booster section at the muzzle of these aircraft guns was used as part of Obi-Wan Kenobi's lightsaber in the original Star Wars movie.
how interesting!
In later years, jawas started AI in a shed, botching colts from scrap they found laying around in Hampshire.
And due to Illinois lawmakers, the lightsaber itself is now considered to be an assault weapon, and is illegal in the state.
Another shining example of the genius of John Browning. Will we ever see another like him?
Modestly smiling....
Considering he did EVERYTHING. No. Not even a chance. Not at least until we change technologies. Small pistols in Europe have been known as Brownings for a very long time. Sort of like vacuums being Hoovers in England. He did vest pistols, carry pistols, military full sized pistols, MG, HMG, Shotguns (pump, lever and semi-auto), rifles, etc. He touched nearly every single area of design for a small arms designer and he did it well.
Most people get one area, and maybe a few designs in other areas. The Mausers really mastered a bolt action rifle, but their other endeavors were not as impressive. Adolph Furrier could toggle lock with the best. He was out of his element elsewhere.
Stoner worked with modern materials and brought rifles into a modern age. Glock made tupperware pistols readily accepted. Neither one did the other genre that great.
The joy on both of your faces is great :)
Well choosing the Browning over the Vickers made a lot of sense in aircraft. Browning was a lot lighter than the Vickers....In planes weight matters a LOT. Especially when early UK fighters had up to 8 (or 12 on later far east ground attack Hurricanes).
I suspect the main reason the British were looking to replace the Vickers as an aircraft gun was the fact that it probably simply couldn't be made to fire fast enough for their requirements by the 1930s. IIRC, the rate of fire was only around 450-500 rounds per minute. The Browning M1917 that appeared at the tail end of WWI was also designed as a ground gun, but had a faster rate of fire, at about 600 rounds per minute. As noted here, the aircraft versions that came later were able to have their rate of fire increased to over 1000 rounds per minute, something I don't think was remotely achievable with the Vickers.
@@Hibernicus1968 That too...but weight savings (on gun and mountings in wings) would have helped roll rates.
The Vickers didnt need the water jacket though which made it a lot lighter. The Vickers was also ultra reliable. Both were firing a calibre which was far to small though.
@@Ukraineaissance2014 no the caliber was enough
later UK adopted Hispano automatic canon in Fighters like hurricane,Tempest and Spitfire
later US also adopted after the British adoption
@@Kreatorisbackyt so if the calibre of the machine guns was enough why did they adopt those much larger calibre cannons instead?
As a Jonathan who loves both guns and aircraft, I love this video :D
DOUGLAS BADER: "Get as close as you can before opening fire. When you think you're too close, get even closer".
One interesting feature he failed to mention is that the guns could be belt fed from either side by switching the round section of the fed mechanism guide on top of the bolt.
Good point mate.
Browning was a genius
Yeah, most Browning machine guns could do that.
@@budmeister No only the aircraft guns could as they need to be able to be fitted in either wing.
Hi. Really great info on aircraft brownings and very clearly explained. I had a cousin who was killed flying Halifax in ww2 and an uncle air gunner on Bostons 114sqdn who used vickers K guns over North Africa and Italy. Thanks for all your very informative programs Jon J
I learnt loads from this video, thank you!
Excellent presentation as always on a overlooked topic.
Can we have the 20mm canon next please. And when is a machine gun not a canon?
When a Machine gun is not a cannon... I think the cutoff point would be 15mm, hence it being a autocannon. 14.5 Russian is the biggest MG caliber I can think of off the top of my head. 15mm MG151/15 is, well, an autocannon of the sub-20mm category.
@@CollinTheSav The usual cut-off is 20mm (not inclusive of course). "Autocannon" is an interesting one - really just a synonym for the modern term "cannon", which is itself a weird re-coining of the original colloquial term for an artillery piece, which hadn't been used in a military or technical sense for decades by that point (and originally meant an artillery piece of a very specific bore and size). Total etymology rabbithole!
The germans are/were big fans of 20 mm machine guns
The common definition is that 20 mm and up is a cannon, while anything below that is a machine gun. And if it fires pistol caliber ammunition, it's a sub machine gun. In theory it would be possible to create a brand new 20 mm pistol cartridge and build a sub-autocannon.
@@alltat Very clearly explained, Thanks for that.
Superb analysis. Thank you!
Love the aircraft guns of ww2 so many crazy designs that have been designed with almost any caliber.
And it was a thirteen year old girl who calculated and specified the armament for the Spitfire.
My father was RAF Aircrew AG/Sigs 1939 - '46 (I think he preferred his other 'office' sitting tapping a morse key)
a modified version of Cordite is still in use, Nitroguanide was added to the makeup making it a triple-base propellant, this was done because nitroguanide generates a lot of nitrogen when heated,this cools the gun barrel and reduces muzzle flash, originally done for the Royal Navy's guns, it is still used in modern artilley such as the 155mm FH70
cordite being developed of course by a scot James Dewar.
Can I suggest an episode on the BESA tank gun, or indeed any other use? I can see no UA-cam episode on this gun giving details anywhere. Maybe do it with the Tank Museum.
Look for ZB-53 vids.
The idea of a colab with TTM is intriguing, let's hope they can.
As a gun and aviation history nut, this makes me very happy, as well as the mere mention of cordite makes my naval nut senses tingle a bit.
*Happy plane and firearms enthusiast noises*
Fascinating thanks for sharing your presentation enjoyed it fully👍👍👍
I was reading a news article today about one of these guns recovered off Darwin Australia that's been in the water since 1942. Fisherman had hooked the gun up while pulling their lines in.
The article said the gun was an MG40. I thought it was a miss-print or something.
The article showed the gun was recovered with an exploded .303 casing stuck in it. With high fire rate and open bolt operation that makes more sense. Not sure how common that sort of failure is but this gun was frozen in time in that state.
They said the .303 round was manufactured in Footscray Melbourne. Love this series I learned something new today.🙂👍
Most of ammunition used out of Australia was manufactured at the Footscray plant until 1994 until the operations were moved to the ADI Benalla plant. The Footscray ammunition has an “MF”, “MF1”, “MF2” or “MG” head stamp to differentiate between the three production lines on site at various times with “MF” being most common.
The Footscray plant has now been redeveloped into houses and a shopping centre.
it's interesting to hear Jonathan talk about these guns, I'm Chairman of the RAF Bircham Newton Heritage Centre in Norfolk, the former RAF Station Bircham Newton was operated by Coastal Command during WW2, most of the Aircraft used such as the Avro Anson, the Lockheed Hudson and Vickers Wellington used these weapons in their Turrets. both the Vickers 303. and the Browning 303. we have alot of details of Airmen operating these weapons during Missions for Defensive and Offensive means.
a sortie of 3 Lockheed Hudsons from No. 206 Squadron covering the Evacuation of Dunkirk flew in a tight formation together and used their Turrets with Twin 303. Brownings to Shoot down 2 attacking Me109s. its a Fantastic account of using these weapons in aerial combat. and the skill of the Aerial Gunners.
@@madisntit6547 by all means come visit! We're a small Museum but have alot of History within!
Thanks for watching Jamie. If I can help with any gun-related queries you can reach me via our website.
@@jonathanferguson1211 thanks Jonathan!
Curtis LeMay was an exception to people who know aircraft don't know guns and vice versa. LeMay commanded the XX Air Force during World War Two, was SAC's commander during the Cold War, and made the first major order of the M16 rifle for the Air Force after personally test-firing one.
WRONG!! the 16 is a piece of junk!! too many damn parts you've got to run the thing soaking wet because of too tight of tolerances and too small of caliber!! 223/556 is the absolute most bullet sensitive rifle round ever developed (with 9mm being the pistol version!!) i've had 7 AR's and not one of them were worth half a damn whereas the AR 180 and HK 93 i've got are golden! i can run them all damn day without stopping to clean them 5 or more times!
@@keithmoore5306 what kind of AR's did you own? who made them?
@@keithmoore5306 Lol
@@s_vb2220 both full sized 20 inch and 16 inch carbines and the company's i can't remember all of them but couple of them were bushmaster and olympic arms, i got rid of the last one in 2005! although i know a few who have had got one since and they still seem to be junk!!
@@neilhillis9858 stick it sideways fanboy!!!
i learned during the 1990's that the Browning machine guns fired from a closed bolt (which explained a lot of things, such as the runaway gun drills with the M60) and this video mentioned that the British Brownings went to open-bolt operation. The closed bolt Browning facilitated being timed (interrupter gear) to fire through a propeller disk when the blades were clear of the muzzles. That explains a lot.
I'd be interested in finding out what guns were used in the British 1930's aircraft that still fired machine guns synchronized to fire through the propeller disk.
I can also confirm the browning .30 on my centurion ARV in the 1980/90s also fired from an open bolt. I can recall the training and being informed we the British had modified them to reduce incidents of run away gun.
The Gladiator had two of these, one on each side of the cockpit, that fired through the propeller disk. In this configuration the rear sear was controlled by the pilot's trigger on the control column and the front sear was controlled by the synchronisation system. This way the rear sear would stay down whilst the pilot held their trigger down which would allow the bolt to close but the front sear would only release the firing pin when the round wasn't going to hit the propeller. This keeps the open bolt operation for cooling but uses the closed bolt to accurately time the firing.
@@stephen7571 It was (as I hope made the edit of the video) due to our use of Cordite, which burned differently than ball powder and caused cook-offs.
Excellent question. The ONLY aircraft still in service that used the .303 Browning in synchronised setup was the Gloster Gladiator. AP1641E vol1 pt1 ch1 says “the synchronising gear trigger motor replaces the fire-and-safe unit.” and mentions a pneumatic unit “at the base of the oil reservoir to actuate the control needle.” The full synchro gear is described in AP1242 vol I ch9 apparently, which annoyingly we don't have. We do, however, have an example of the 'synchronising gear trigger motor'.
@@jonathanferguson1211 Thanks for that reference, something to look up some time. As someone who is in that venn diagram of aviation and firearms nerd I remember reading about the double sear system on an old explanation panel tucked away in a corner of the Kent Battle of Britain Museum and it stuck with me as a clever way of working the two operating systems to the best advantage of both.
2 of the greatest WW2 movies i have seen.
1.One of our aircraft is missing
2. Spitfire ..David niven .
Love for him to do more aircraft weaponry but get Bismarck for military aviation history as a guest
Man, I hope Jonathan gets invited to more places that houses historical vehicles of war.
Jonathan IIRC from the IWM video from Duxford which you contributed to which I watched yesterday the first Spitfire squadron to be equipped with Cannon demanded their .303 guns back as the cannon jammed so often they wanted something that actually fired reliably.
I had no idea Brownings were used on British planes! I feel like I should’ve known that already. Very cool piece!
thank you so much, that was absolutely brilliant
I hope you'll continue this series as I love aircraft, would love to you review see any aircraft mounted gun/cannon that you can!
When the Beaufighter was first put into squadron service it was without its' designed compliment of .303 wing guns, only the 20mm cannon pack in the nose. This was done because it was felt there was too much risk of running out of Brownings for the Spitfires and Hurricanes still needed to fight the Battle of Britain.
I hit one with a plow up in mareeba back in the 80s. No internals just the frame and barrel shroud. Now in the possession of the Australian War Memorial
You feel good about yourself lying on the internet? Clown 🤡.
Cattledog? Keep yapping little chihuahua....stay in mums basement loser
It’s interesting how intertwined the British/American war effort was in WW2 even if the more parochial among us won’t admit it. The most iconic British fighter of the war used American guns to shoot down the enemy. The most iconic American fighter of the war was built at the request of Britain and didn’t reach its potential until a British engine was installed.
I knew that the P-51 Mustang used the Merlin engine, but somehow I didn't know that the RAF used it. I had thought that the P-38 was developed for a British specification, but it seems I confused that aspect with the P-51.
@@JonathanRossRogers I believe that the Mustang was built to an RAF specification for an escort fighter (the Whirlwind not being up to the job). By the time the Mustang was available, the RAF had switched to night bombing and there was no RAF need for the Mustang. That said, the RAF operated some Mustangs and the USAAF some Spitfires..
@@PassportToPimlico That makes sense.
@@PassportToPimlico I think it started with the RAF just wanting a fighter. They were talking with North American about bombers, and asked them if they could manufacture P-40s (which were good fighters, about equivalent to the Hurricane). NAA said they could do a better fighter with the same engine. RAF Mustangs with the Allison engine were used for Army Co-Operation (because of the notorious high altitude limitations of the Allison without a turbo-supercharger); Army Co-Operation at that time was NOT a high status role. So the origins were pretty unglamorous, but various people had the idea of putting in a Merlin, with its high performance mechanical supercharger, and with the addition of fuel tanks everywhere, and six .50" calibre guns (replacing a mixture of calibres), it became the best escort fighter of the war.
The P-38, BTW, was a purely US origin design: it did have the turbo-superchargers the Allison needed for high altitude, but the installation wasn't satisfactory in Europe. Yes, they did think of putting Merlins in the P-38, but various US interests successfully resisted putting nasty foreign engines in a US design.
@@michaelwright2986 my friend you're not correct.
P40 wasn't a NAA product.
If P40s were desired you went to Curtiss.
The British did inquire about Pursuit planes and NAA delivered in less than 6 months, a clean sheet design, with Allison engines.
Once delivered UK determined it wasn't suitable. Then fate stepped in. Merlins were installed and the P51 was Born.
NAA supplied T And AT trainers and the B25 Mitchell to all allies.
The Packard built Merlins were re engineered to facilitate mass production.
Packard Merlins were easier , cheaper to produce with a less skilled workforce. Packard Merlins lost no performance due to these changes.
The UK still didn't adopt the P51 but the USAAC jumped on it..
An incestuous marriage between cousins.
The highest scoring US ace flew the P38.
P38 was used extensively in all theatres in WW2.
It excelled in recon and ground attack. By wars end it was still a very fast and potent weapon. One of a handful of 1930s plane to serve throughout the war.
Hurricane Spitfire BF109 P39,P40 ....P38 was a Pursuit not a Fighter.
Dogfighting wasn't their forte. Pursuit and destruction of bombers mission 1.
I was in the CCF at my school in the mid 1960s. I was assistant armourer and helped the school master who ran the army side of the CCF. Used to count the guns we had and made sure the ones we used worked and were oiled and cleaned .Mostly WW1 and 2 Lee Enfield with a mixture of Martin Henry and Lee Metford which were never used but had to be accounted for. We seemed to have an awful lot of guns for a small schoolboy unit but hey ho I didn’t question why ! This was the 1960s after all. I was mostly left alone on Tuesday afternoons after school to get on . I was always fascinated by a big wooden box hidden under a table but was told it wasn’t to be touched as was not part of the inventory. But of course I did have a look and inside was a browning machine gun. Even then it made me worried and I did ask my teacher eventually. He wasn’t cross ( I suppose he knew I would look) and explained one of the masters was in a Lancaster crew in the war and he bought the gun back ,to show the boys, when he returned to school in 1945 ! Presume it’s long gone as I know all the ‘old ‘ rifle stock was taken by the army after I left to be replaced with more modern weapons .
School CCF's back then seemed to be very well supplied. Ours had 150 No1 L-Es (back in the day when the whole school was expected to be in the CCF), Bren guns, Sterlings, a safefull of Webley revolvers (and mysteriously a brace of Beretta automatics), the Rifle teams target guns (rebedded, resighted No 4 LE) and, it seemed, huge quantities of ammunition. Plus 31 sets, 88 sets, 22 sets, field phones and a million miles of wire; vehicles, gliders it just went on and on. How on earth did such arsenals get into 'private hands? And, there were always secrets kept securely by the RSM - explosives and god knows what else. Sadly, almost zero of us joined the Army - one spit and polish junior under officer guy did go on to a major military career. He ended up as the MP who allegedly called the No 10 Downing Street police a bunch of 'plebs'. He knows who he is.
@@alastairbarkley6572 Amazing times. We had a chap called B****h who kept a Wembley revolver in his tuck box ! No ammunition though. He ended up in an a Indian jail as a suspected gun runner . It was all over the papers .
@@robtt997 An Indian jail. Gun running? Wow. We never had such ambitions. The school contemporary I'm talking of had a sorta distinguished career with the British Army in Bosnia/Balkans. He was then International Aid Minister until the 'plebs' affair. He denied he'd ever say 'plebs' to anyone - odd since it was an epithetic used pretty much continuously by us pampered schoolboys back then!
Anyone who studies military aircraft without knowing something about their weapons is obviously enthusiastic about targets, because that's what an unarmed machine usually is.
(PR & similar types usually relied on speed and/or stealth to stay out of the target category.)
Oh plenty of aviation historians know *something* about the weapons - calibre, rate of fire etc. But not to the technical level that those of us who study firearms specifically aspire to. Same goes the other way around as I note - those with technical gun knowledge are fairly clueless on airframes and engines etc. For the most part of course.
@@jonathanferguson1211 I will admit to learning from your talk. I was not aware of the open-bolt modification, or the subtle difference between fighter and bomber vesrions. Whether the variations in muzzle devices really counted as a differentce, since they could easily be unscrewed could generate nerdy debates. :-)*
I got some old.303 and it had a very distinct smell when fired ,so I pulled a bullet off a round to see if it was contaminated or something and was so confused by the "spaghetti" inside. I asked a guy who'd been shooting his SMLE , What the hell it was?after he stopped laughing he said it was cordite. Once you smell it you'll never forget it.
If only Mk7 ball Ammunition wasn’t rare as hens teeth
I’ve never smelt cordite but I’ve heard and read many stories about the “ Acrid “ smell of it
It’s a mixture of gun cotton and nitroglycerin with petroleum jelly. Two high explosives that when mixed, produced a low explosive. It was invented to get around Alfred Nobel’s patents for his Nitrocellulose based propellant “Ballistite”. His patents used the form of Nitrocellulose that dissolved in a mixture of Ethanol and Ether. Cordite used guncotton which dissolves in Acetone, thus sidestepping Nobel’s patent. There were several court cases ending up in the House of Lords. But Nobel’s patent uses the term “well known soluble form
Of nitrocellulose” ie “Collodion”, not the “insoluble” guncotton (which is soluble in acetone) so he lost. This saved His majesty’s government a real fortune.
The propellant used to fire the Uranium projectile in the gun based “Little boy” atomic bomb was Cordite.
@@SvenTviking I didn't know that I thought the (then) newly discovered RDX was used to achieve critical mass .
What powder smells closer to it? I do like finding out how different powders smell. Most 5.56/.223 smells super ammonia-y after firing.
The scent of cordite definitely initiates a hard on. You have to feel sorry for users of inferior propellants.
Someone surrendered two of these machine guns to my gunsmith (in France) last year to have them deactivated (great sadness that was...), but I had the pleasure of seeing them beforehand, It was quite an experience.
Arthur Harris spent his entire time arguing against the MAP and the Air Ministry for the replacement of the Browning .303 turrets in his beloved Lancaster. It never really happened. It seemed to have been the same inertia that kept the Blenheim and Battle still in production. Only relatively few .5 equipped turrets were fitted. German fighters knew the limited range of the .303 and simply fired their 20mm cannon while standing off. So many a/c and crew were needlessly lost which Harris felt keenly.
The .303 was certainly inadequate and should have been replaced with .50 mid-war at the latest.
Then again, Freeman Dyson worked on bomber losses during the war, and based on interviews with shot down crews who made it home most never knew what hit them. Which led him to propose getting rid of the top turret. Less weight and drag (and one crew member less) would have increased speed and thus less time spent over enemy territory and lower loss rate. Of course this proposal was shot down as the myth of the gallant gunners protecting their mates was just too strong.
The Royal Australian Armoured Corp used to use Brownings in 30-06 that also fired from open bolts like that gun.
I 99% reckon those ye olde POS were bog standard 1919 30cal firing from a closed bolt. For the life of me, I never understood why we didn't convert them to 7.62 after the ADF/Armoured Corp made a concious decision to keep them in service on the M113 or better still, replace them with the MG3 we had on the Leopards.
@@SnoopReddogg I suspect we had a lot of .30-06 ammo, with nothing else to use it in.
Thank you for covering this Colt Browning 303 machine gun for the RAF and Commonwealth Aircraft in WW 2 in detail.Would you have the Hispano done in future.Cheers 😃
18:20 As a Yank who listens to BBC podcasts, all I could think of was "Other guns are available."
In War Thunder the spitfires tend to get gun jams quickly if you fire too long of a burst.
Most Excellent
There's some colour of RAF armourers in Burma using a tool similar to what you mention here to set up the guns on RAF Thnderbolts..i wondered what they were for
I would love to see a video on the 20mm mg151 if you got one.
I thought that the presenter would have mentioned the part that 13 year old Londoner Hazel Hill and her mother’s kitchen table played in the utilisation of these guns.
Hi Jonathan, really interesting video. Any chance on a video on the BESA machine gun used in WW2 British tanks? There's very little on the history of the gun on UA-cam.
Maybe forgotten weapons has a video on it
@@sleepyrasta420 I've checked and they haven't covered it either.
My uncle was a tail gunner on Lancaster bombers during the war and told me a lot of the tricks of the trade and as I was an armourer in the Royal Air Force and was stationed at RAF Waddington a wartime Lancaster station I had many opportunities to see personally what he had told me . RAF Waddington had for many years the last flying Lanc. at the time stationed there and I used to clean and service the .303 brownings in the small arms bay and I had a chance to get a good look at City of Lincoln .The cocking tool I found in a bin under the bench in the S/A bay and I was the only one who knew what it was as I had looked it up in the book , what the gunners used to use in general was their brevit hat (chip cutter to the erks) I used my beret and for interest Jonathan what tool was used to strip the gun? The Lanc had at one point .5 brownings.
I wish we can get a video like this for the hispano 20mm mk 1, 2 and 5
You need to move that EM2 ... it's really distracting :)
Or pick it up and shoot it for us :-)
Thanks for another great video Jonathan. I wonder were the RAF so wedded to the small calibre .303 ammo simply because they already had millions of rounds in munitions depots by 1939?
This reminded me of the Dan Snow History documentary on the excavation of the Spitfire from the Bog in Donegal, if I remember correctly of the eight guns six were able to be made functional by Irish Army Armourers, cant seem to find it on UA-cam may have been struck for copy right reasons.
Jonathan, Sean Bean did a documentary about napoleonic weaponry at the Royal armoury museum, did you meet him?
I did :) It was me teaching him to shoot the musket. I snagged his target and got him to sign it.
@@jonathanferguson1211 going to have to watch it Now!
we keep giving info on the "Two" triggers in either with one of One manual "S-F" trigger.
I would like to know is either the sear or other trigger "Momentary or Definite Purpose" as this would or Could further Complicate mostly the crew operated gunner's model!
Love a Hydraulics and pneumatics system, would love to see more as a Journeyman Millwright Tech in both systems of today. I suspect the difference would be the vent or return of each system. Used air venting to atmosphere, Hydraulics with a return line I suspect at the main valve with used pressure either resetting via a spring similar to older Brake cylinders, or a return line?
Great Job tons of INFO!!
Great! Most interesting..
At least on a surface level, always loved aircraft (the mechanics class was my favourite part of Air Cadets!), and the engineering of guns as well! I fit into this Venn diagram nicely.
Unrelated, is that a Casio calculator watch? If so, I have one, super useful little device!
I'd like to hear an explanation of pros and cons of caliber size. Many seem to think bigger is better, there has to be a trade-off.
Well I’ll give it a shot but please don’t treat my explanation as gospel because I’m certainly no expert on it but here I go
So think of cannon balls out of a cannon
Smaller cannon is easier to wheel around and the ammunition for it is much smaller and also easier to cart around
Softer shooting overall with less recoil and less noise
a smaller projectile can be pushed to higher speeds with less energy
But consequently has less long range capability as it will not hold its velocity as well when really reaching out there
Plus smaller ball = smaller hole or damage on target
Now think of a much larger canon
And think of all the points I just made and reverse them 😂
Bigger ball bigger hole
Much heavier gun and corresponding ammunition
More energy needed to move the projectile
More pronounced recoil
Etc etc
That’s my take on it anyway
@@corditesniffer8020 This is part of the answer - the rest is in the explosive payload that a cannon shell can carry, which creates holes bigger than the calibre of the projectile itself...
I read some years ago that during the war it was calculated that it took 12lbs (in dead weight) of bullets to shoot down a bomber, irrespective of calibre. I don't know the weight of an individual .303 calibre bullet, but obviously it's less than a .50 calibre bullet & a fraction of the weight of a 20mm cannon round, hence the lower the calibre, the more hits are required.
A lower calibre gun tends to have a higher rate of fire than one of a higher calibre, which has the effect of putting more projectiles on the point of aim at any given instant, but they are less destructive. As Jonathan mentioned, a 20mm cannon's rate of fire was about half that of a .303 machine gun, making harder to hit the target, but the destructive effect of each 20mm round was many times greater, plus it has the capacity to carry an explosive charge, which increases it's chances of doing crippling damage & decreases the chance of "over-penetration" where the bullet goes right through the aircraft without doing any significant damage.
@@Kevin-mx1vi The British War Office wanted heavier guns were but none existed in 1938/39/40 that were reliable; and they also made a cold, dispassionate evaluation of probable pilot skills. Their conclusion was that it was better for the inexperienced majority of pilots to at least achieve some damage to an enemy plane with a few lucky hits from a large number of small projectiles than to miss entirely with a small number of larger projectiles. As cannon (Hispano) matured, and pilot skill increased, the conversion to mixed armament proceeded as originally intended.
Bigger is better, but sure, there is a trade-off. Bigger guns are heavier, cause more recoil etc. And early in the war autocannon reliability was certainly an issue. Then as planes got faster it meant that there was a shorter window of time to deliver enough damage to shoot down a plane (think deflection shots etc.). IIRC statistics showed that to shoot down a WWII fighter you needed on average 1 30mm hit, or 4-5 20mm hits, or about 25 .50 hits, or 100 .30 hits. So as a rough rule of thumb, a factor of 4-5 increase in rounds needed for each caliber jump. And then again, IIRC, roughly another factor of five increase in number of rounds on targets for downing a four-engined bomber instead of a single-engined fighter.
As an example of compromises made, consider the German Mk108 30mm autocannon. For it's size, it was a VERY lightweight and compact package enabling it to be installed in fighters. However, in order to achieve this it had a pretty slow muzzle velocity (540 m/s) leading to poor ballistics and difficulty of doing deflection shots. Perhaps it was a good compromise for Germany, with their need to shoot down heavy bombers. As a general-purpose WWII fighter armament, IMHO 20mm autocannons was probably the sweet spot, like the British Hispano Mk V (used in the Tempest) or the German Mg151/20.
You can see the same logic even today in the armaments of jet fighters. 25-30mm seems to be the sweet spot (the venerable 20mm Vulcan seems to finally be on the way out considering the F-35 mounts a new 25mm Gatling gun).
Be kind of cool to see him show us a 20mm hispano mkII/V and even German armament such as he 20mm MG151.
So let me see if I understand this. The gun with the changed design to fire from an open bolt does not have a fixed firing pin, it does not use an inertial firing pin, it still uses a spring loaded firing pin even though it has been redesigned to fire from an open bolt?
Was the reason early fighters had the canvas patches over the gunports really to prevent the guns from freezing and did the open bolt or use of cordite contribute to this?
Huh, I always expected the .303 machine guns to have longer barrels. Or to be bigger in general, though considering it has to be crammed into things like wings or noses of planes then it makes sense for it to be as compact as possible.
5:45 for the first time I heard an aircraft machine gun get cook off. I wonder what will it be like with the AN/M2 .30, which has considerably more powder and more rate of fire
Some hurricanes had 6 in each wing.. specificly to kill bombers.. they were a bit heavy compared to the usual 4 per wing versions but effective
A swarm of angry bees...the best way to visualise what it's like to be on the wrong end of a machine gun is to roll a 250 round belt, push the centre out into a cone...and look at it end on. Just a wall of bullets.
Glad we Brownings were good for something.
Cracking stuff. But thank god for the Poles, Czechs, South African, New Zealanders etc that knew how to use this weapon. Especially the Poles.
That was fascinating.
I don't know much about guns. How does the reciprocating bolt mechanism work? There does not seem to be a gas port in the barrel and a gas piston and cylinder, as there is in the assault rifles you have shown. I am sorry if that is an elementary question.
There are two major sources of energy that can be utilized to cycle the gun: gas pressure you're already familiar with and recoil force (well, today there are also electrically-operated guns , gatling-type, but these appeared after the war so let's skip them for now). All auto weapons use the former, or the latter, or combination of both. The latter also comes in 4 main versions. Google for "short recoil" operation, that's the one the presented Browning used.
We need you to cover the tall boy and GrandSlam 👌
I read the Hispano armed Spits were done due to a scarcity of the browning. Some Fulmars got .50s for the same reason.
Hispano was intended as an upgrade, 2x 20mm cannon is far more destructive than the 4x .303 guns they replaced (most cannon Spitfires retained 4x Brownings in the outer wings).
The 'universal' wing for the spitfire could accommodate 2 cannons in the inner bays for a total of 4x Hispanos,
id be interested in a video on n.zi german autocannons, aka mk10x...
As someone from the hartford area, it is always bizarre to see connecticut in general popping up Literally Everywhere in firearms history
welcome to the world of colt! (colt as well as many of the really early gun makers in the U.S. Started out in Conn.)
Quick question, did the armourers have to set the headspace and timings differently depending on whether it was wing or turret mounted?
If the bullet was sitting there pulled out of the belt but gripped by the bolt in the rearward position, was there a risk of maneuvers or other shocks causing the bullet to fall off of the bolt before the pilot presses fire again?
Great and very interesting video! Would be nice to see you cover other aircraft-mounted machine guns and cannons
Love the video but just wanted to mention the audio sync is just a tad off.
This guy is like the Neil Degrass Tyson of the firearms world!
That is quite the compliment, thank you!
Wait - you're saying the guy's a fake? Really?
What? Why would you say Jonathan has no idea what he is talking about?
also is that a Thomson with a suppressor on on the weapon rack behind you?
could you do a video on the hispano if you have one in the collection?
Can we get a showcase on fun and or funky rounds used in history?
Nice. Would love to see a hispano 20mm.
Was the hydraulic trigger separate from the turret hydraulics?
Pretty much - it's not a trigger in the conventional sense but the rear sear unit has an internal piston that pushes up on the sear to release the bolt. That piston is basically the trigger in normal operation and it's operated by hydraulic pressure from the hose that's attached to said rear sear unit (using a flanged locking collar). There's another control that we might call a trigger, which was brass bar on the rear sear unit that you can always use to manually release the rear sear without using hydraulic pressure - you need to use this to load the gun and fire it off safely at the end of a mission.
@@jonathanferguson1211 Ah, OK. Got it now.
Thanks
Do aircraft not use gas operated guns because of pressure deviations?
8 of those firing would be about 10'000 rounds per minute, or 160 shots per second. And they carried enough ammunition for 15 seconds of continual firing each bullet would be an armour piercing incendiary bullet. So the RAF fighters weren't undergunned despite lacking many autocannons in the early years, the Axis forces would typically have only a single slow firing 20mm cannon.
There was no API rounds for the 303, it was either or. And yes the 303 was under powered from the start for anti-material purposes, it was inferior for the role than the 30-06 which fired a slight heavier bullet faster and the 7.92x57 of the Germans that fired significantly heavier round roughly the same velocity (the Gemans has MGs too, not just the 20mm spinner cannon), add the 50bmg into the mix which DID have an API round that both punched through more steel than 303 AP and had more incendiary material the the 303 incendiary.
Between being undergunned and having an obsolete fuel system rather handicapped the early Spits and Hurricanes.
Would love to see a video about the VSS Vintorez or AS Val guns! Anyway great job as usual Jonathan!
I have a request, the black guns on the black table in a poorly lit room are really hard to see. Could you improve the lighting please? Many thanks for the content though
Do you have a 20mm Hispano cannon in the collection?
Thanks for the video. Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems like the “second trigger” is just a safety. In the video you say the normal practice was to take off with the bolt forward, but also that the safety doesn’t work with the bolt forward. A safety that can’t be engaged until after you’ve fired a burst seems awkward.
Also if someone could shed light on why while the RAF was busy adopting the .303 browning the Army was adopting the BESA in 8mm Mauser? I get that the air browning wasn’t set up for ground use, but the 1919 was originally developed as a tank gun and was one of the most successful ever built. It wouldn’t have been hard to convert it back.
So did the Army not know there would be a .303 browning factory? Did someone really think setting up another separate factory to make BESA’s in non-standard cartridges was a great time saver?
what is the rares gun they got?
always wondered what machine guns the spitfire used I guess this would be the one.
It varied through the war. From just .303s , .303 and 20mm mix, .50 and 20mm as well as just 20mm
During the Battle of Britain the .303 was already recognized as being inadequate against enemy aircraft which, by then, had armor protection and self-sealing fuel tanks. The German Me109s already had 20-mm cannon, so the RAF pilots were fully aware of exactly how effective they were. There was a major controversy among RAF fighter pilots about whether to increase fighter armament to 12 Brownings or to replace them with more powerful 20mm cannon. Robert Tuck and "Sailor" Malan were convinced that the RAF needed to convert to the 20mm cannon as soon as possible because the .303 simply did not have enough power to shoot down German aircraft, but Douglas Bader insisted that they should stick with the Brownings. The result was that the Spitfires ended up getting two 20mm cannon and four Brownings, while the Hurricanes got four 20mm cannon. However, the British bombers continued to carry the .303 machine guns, although the number of them was increased. By the time the Americans got into the war they were also using the Browning, but in a larger .50 inch caliber version that had a lot more punch than the .303 version and a higher rate of fire than the 20-mm cannon. Oddly, the British never seemed to care for the .50 inch machine gun, while the Americans were equally uninterested in using 20-mm aircraft cannon.
Good points .Bader was very anti-cannon and flew a Spitfire Mark Va (8 x 0.303) until he was shot down in 1941. Wing Commander H.R. Allen wrote a book called 'Who Won the Battle of Britain' in which he stated that in 1940 RAF fighters would have been better off with four 0.50 calibre guns, resulting in far more German aircraft being shot down.
It's not so much that we weren't interested in the 20mm, the problem was that the airforce was controlled by the army and the army had requirements for weapons over .50 caliber that made them unreliable in aircraft. We did use them in the P38's, and the late war F4U Corsair.
When Jonathan was talking about cook offs, I thought he was going to say it’s ‘very un British’😂
Im interested to know why the spit at 20.12 has a kiwi on it?
When you see actual Cordite...
"I'm hungry for... the Forbidden Spaghetti"
Was that .303 Mk7 Or Sumthing else?
There is aniother very interesting Browning.. The 13.2mm that mainly Sweden used - calling it the m/39 and 39B AKAN. A very powerful, souped up version of the 12.7mm M".
I wonder if it's exactly the same size but they're measuring across the grooves instead of the lands?
@@Reactordrone No, the French took the 12.7x99mm Browning cartridge and necked it up to 13.2mm; otherwise it is essentially the same cartridge, but not interchangeable.
I wish the museum showcase more non firearms. There are plenty of British swords and bows and armor to curate
John Moses Browning...that guy might be onto something(s)...
I'd love to see the Mauser BK-27....though it's probably not the most handy thing to film