The Bristol Blenheim's Strafing Potential

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

The Bristol Blenheim's Strafing Potential

#1

Post by Juha Tompuri » 30 Jan 2015, 22:11

[This thread was split off from Torpedoes, running depth , barges (sealion) & small craft at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4&t=210236 and retitled by this moderator - DT]
phylo_roadking wrote:And how many rounds did each individual Blenheim F carry?
AFAIK around 3000.
phylo_roadking wrote: How many targets is it going to be able to engage on a single sortie???
Depending on targets, weather, training, pilot skills, how much time they could spend there etc.
phylo_roadking wrote:
To illustrate the point, here's a picture (from G. Naims and L. Frädrich, Krieg im Ärmelkanal) of the wheelhouse of a German Vorpostenboot, either V 1509 or V 1511, after being machine-gunned by a Blenheim (bomber) on 31.3.1941. The caption says crews on the bridge repeatedly suffered losses (the boats of this particular Vp-Flotilla were finally fitted with armour protection and gunshields from September 1941).
Interesting indeed...but what's the important word in there?
bomber

Regards, Juha
Last edited by Juha Tompuri on 30 Jan 2015, 22:11, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Torpedoes, running depth , barges (sealion) & small craft

#2

Post by phylo_roadking » 30 Jan 2015, 22:50

Depending on targets, weather, training, pilot skills, how much time they could spend there etc.
...and the enemy, don't forget them.
And how many rounds did each individual Blenheim F carry?
AFAIK around 3000.
I've done a little more searching and the answer is....500rpg for the wing-mounted Browning, and 500rpg in individual boxes for each of the four Brownings in the ventral gunpack. Which works out on a thumbnail calculation as 22-23 seconds' firing (if a Spitfire's 300rpg gave it c.14 secs'-worth).

I wonder how long an average strafing run on a point target by a Blenheim F was in seconds? There's book out by one Andrew Bird, "Coastal Dawn", about four of the Coastal Command Blenheim F squadrons from Oct 1939 to Oct 1940, I'll have to track it down to see if he gives the answer.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...


User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Torpedoes, running depth , barges (sealion) & small craft

#3

Post by Juha Tompuri » 30 Jan 2015, 23:23

phylo_roadking wrote:
Depending on targets, weather, training, pilot skills, how much time they could spend there etc.
...and the enemy, don't forget them.
No I don't.
The targets are the enemy, and also the enemy can be one of the factors limiting the time spend there.
phylo_roadking wrote:
And how many rounds did each individual Blenheim F carry?
AFAIK around 3000.
I've done a little more searching and the answer is....500rpg for the wing-mounted Browning, and 500rpg in individual boxes for each of the four Brownings in the ventral gunpack.
An improvement over the earlier statement, but still not quite correct:
phylo_roadking earlier wrote:I seem to remember an old Flypast article abut 4-5 years ago now regarding the Blenhiem F's contribution to Coastal Command. It might take a lot more than their 4 x rifle calibre MGs to do more than damage a tug...
You forgot the dorsal turret mg('s), and their ammo.
phylo_roadking wrote:...Which works out on a thumbnail calculation as 22-23 seconds' firing (if a Spitfire's 300rpg gave it c.14 secs'-worth).
With proper sources and a calculator one can get different kind of numbers:
http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/ ... un-fi.html
phylo_roadking wrote:I wonder how long an average strafing run on a point target by a Blenheim F was in seconds?
Quite much depends how far one opens fire and how thightly the firing button is then pressed.

Regards, Juha

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Torpedoes, running depth , barges (sealion) & small craft

#4

Post by phylo_roadking » 31 Jan 2015, 00:01

phylo_roadking wrote:
...Which works out on a thumbnail calculation as 22-23 seconds' firing (if a Spitfire's 300rpg gave it c.14 secs'-worth).


With proper sources and a calculator one can get different kind of numbers:
http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/ ... un-fi.html
You mean Specification F.5/34 issued by the Air Ministry for the Spitfire isn't a proper source?

Anyway - that increases the number of seconds' straight-ahead fire available to a Blenheim F to c.27 seconds.
I seem to remember an old Flypast article abut 4-5 years ago now regarding the Blenheim F's contribution to Coastal Command. It might take a lot more than their 4 x rifle calibre MGs to do more than damage a tug...
You forgot the dorsal turret mg('s), and their ammo.
No I didn't. The dorsal turret isn't going to be of much use in a surface strafing run.

And anyway - from October 1940 on, after trials at the RAE the RAF began removing the dorsal turrets from their remaining four squadrons of IFs..Nos. 604, 23, 25, and 219...to improve their performance. (Jon Lake) IVFs retained them as they had more powerful engines, and they were also beginning to get the two-gun Browning installation by the autumn.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Torpedoes, running depth , barges (sealion) & small craft

#5

Post by Juha Tompuri » 31 Jan 2015, 22:15

phylo_roadking wrote:
phylo_roadking wrote:
...Which works out on a thumbnail calculation as 22-23 seconds' firing (if a Spitfire's 300rpg gave it c.14 secs'-worth).


With proper sources and a calculator one can get different kind of numbers:
http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/ ... un-fi.html
You mean Specification F.5/34 issued by the Air Ministry for the Spitfire isn't a proper source?
For Blenheim... no.
phylo_roadking wrote:Anyway - that increases the number of seconds' straight-ahead fire available to a Blenheim F to c.27 seconds.
Yes, approx so.
phylo_roadking wrote:
I seem to remember an old Flypast article abut 4-5 years ago now regarding the Blenheim F's contribution to Coastal Command. It might take a lot more than their 4 x rifle calibre MGs to do more than damage a tug...
You forgot the dorsal turret mg('s), and their ammo.
No I didn't.
Yes you did.
You asked:
phylo_roadking earlier wrote:And how many rounds did each individual Blenheim F carry?

phylo_roadking wrote:The dorsal turret isn't going to be of much use in a surface strafing run.
Don't know how much they were used and with what kind of success.
phylo_roadking wrote:And anyway - from October 1940 on, after trials at the RAE the RAF began removing the dorsal turrets from their remaining four squadrons of IFs..Nos. 604, 23, 25, and 219...to improve their performance.
from October 1940 on..RAF began removing the dorsal turrets from their remaining four squadrons of IFs ???
Serious?
I think that RAF had more IF equipped squadrons than the four ones you claimed to have been the four remaining ...from October 1940 on.
In reality the four mentioned squadrons seem to have been Fighter Command night fighters/intruders. The rear armament for them was not that important.
phylo_roadking wrote: IVFs retained them as they had more powerful engines, and they were also beginning to get the two-gun Browning installation by the autumn.
Yes, unlike the above mentioned IFs, their rear armament seem to have considered useful at their duties, like at Coastal Command, their main operator.

Regards, Juha
Last edited by Juha Tompuri on 31 Jan 2015, 22:23, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Torpedoes, running depth , barges (sealion) & small craft

#6

Post by phylo_roadking » 31 Jan 2015, 23:24

phylo_roadking wrote:
...Which works out on a thumbnail calculation as 22-23 seconds' firing (if a Spitfire's 300rpg gave it c.14 secs'-worth).


With proper sources and a calculator one can get different kind of numbers:
http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/ ... un-fi.html
You mean Specification F.5/34 issued by the Air Ministry for the Spitfire isn't a proper source?
For Blenheim... no.
Actually, yes....when it specifies a period of fire for a .303 Browning armed fighter on a given number of rounds per gun as a baseline for calculation.

In the meantime I've found Tony Williams' material on the .303 Browning in RAF use, which confirms the 16 seconds'....and it also has some very interesting things to say about the .303 AP's efficacy in relation to Knouterer's comments on its penetrating power...
I seem to remember an old Flypast article abut 4-5 years ago now regarding the Blenheim F's contribution to Coastal Command. It might take a lot more than their 4 x rifle calibre MGs to do more than damage a tug...
You forgot the dorsal turret mg('s), and their ammo.
No I didn't.
Yes you did.
No I didn't. I was purposely ignoring the dorsal turret as it has little or no relevance to the Blenheim F's strafing a surface target on water. Which is the subject that has arisen in this thread...which was why I was interested in the firing duration of the ventral gunpack.
The dorsal turret isn't going to be of much use in a surface strafing run.
Don't know how much they were used and with what kind of success.
Actually I meant that there are certain very physical constraints on the Blenheim's dorsal turret being used effectively to strafe surface targets.
And anyway - from October 1940 on, after trials at the RAE the RAF began removing the dorsal turrets from their remaining four squadrons of IFs..Nos. 604, 23, 25, and 219...to improve their performance.
from October 1940 on..RAF began removing the dorsal turrets from their remaining four squadrons of IFs ???
Serious?
Yes.
I think that RAF had more IF equipped squadrons than the four ones you claimed to have been the four remaining ...from October 1940 on.
In reality the four mentioned squadrons seem to have been Fighter Command night fighters/intruders. The rear armament for them was not that important.
It had more IVF squadrons....and the RAF had indeed the Blenheim squadrons operating with Coastal Command. As discussed elsewhere with Knouterer there is some question over whether those Coastal Command squadrons on the list he posted up were IF or IVF.
IVFs retained them as they had more powerful engines, and they were also beginning to get the two-gun Browning installation by the autumn.
Yes, unlike the above mentioned IFs, their rear armament seem to have considered useful at their duties, like at Coastal Command, their main operator.
Regards, Juha
Or was it the case that in the case of the IFs, more speed was seen as more useful in their duties than defensive armament? :wink: If Nos. 604, 23, 25, and 219 were indeed nightfighters/intruders...then there's a lesser requirement for defensive armament compared to offensive armament and performance.

MkIVs of all duties were getting the two-gun upgrade by the Autumn, not just Fighters - for the Blenheim's desperate need as a bomber as well as a dayfighter was for....better defence. But we're talking here about the Fs and their antishipping role.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Torpedoes, running depth , barges (sealion) & small craft

#7

Post by Juha Tompuri » 01 Feb 2015, 01:14

phylo_roadking wrote:
phylo_roadking wrote:
...Which works out on a thumbnail calculation as 22-23 seconds' firing (if a Spitfire's 300rpg gave it c.14 secs'-worth).


With proper sources and a calculator one can get different kind of numbers:
http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/ ... un-fi.html
You mean Specification F.5/34 issued by the Air Ministry for the Spitfire isn't a proper source?
For Blenheim... no.
Actually, yes....when it specifies a period of fire for a .303 Browning armed fighter on a given number of rounds per gun as a baseline for calculation.
Hmm.. a bit hard to follow your logic, but do you mean that F.5/34 had something in common/to do with the outcome of your earlier mentioned "thumbnail calculations"?


phylo_roadking wrote:In the meantime I've found Tony Williams' material on the .303 Browning in RAF use, which confirms the 16 seconds'....
The 16 sec info has been obvious and avalillable for us here for a while.
phylo_roadking wrote:and it also has some very interesting things to say about the .303 AP's efficacy in relation to Knouterer's comments on its penetrating power...
Like?
phylo_roadking wrote:
I seem to remember an old Flypast article abut 4-5 years ago now regarding the Blenheim F's contribution to Coastal Command. It might take a lot more than their 4 x rifle calibre MGs to do more than damage a tug...
You forgot the dorsal turret mg('s), and their ammo.
No I didn't.
Yes you did.
No I didn't. I was purposely ignoring the dorsal turret
Ignoring?
Starting from when?
As the initial question, once again for a reminder, was:
phylo_roadking earlier wrote:And how many rounds did each individual Blenheim F carry?
phylo_roadking wrote:
The dorsal turret isn't going to be of much use in a surface strafing run.
Don't know how much they were used and with what kind of success.
Actually I meant that there are certain very physical constraints on the Blenheim's dorsal turret being used effectively to strafe surface targets.
What very physical constraints you mean?
phylo_roadking wrote:
And anyway - from October 1940 on, after trials at the RAE the RAF began removing the dorsal turrets from their remaining four squadrons of IFs..Nos. 604, 23, 25, and 219...to improve their performance.
from October 1940 on..RAF began removing the dorsal turrets from their remaining four squadrons of IFs ???
Serious?
Yes.
I think not.
Just incorrect info.
phylo_roadking wrote:
I think that RAF had more IF equipped squadrons than the four ones you claimed to have been the four remaining ...from October 1940 on.
In reality the four mentioned squadrons seem to have been Fighter Command night fighters/intruders. The rear armament for them was not that important.
It had more IVF squadrons....
IVF???
the issue was IF squadrons, and their number. You seriously here confirm your claim that RAF was stripping off the rear armament of their remaining IF squadrons?
phylo_roadking wrote:...and the RAF had indeed the Blenheim squadrons operating with Coastal Command.
Indeed it had.
phylo_roadking wrote:
IVFs retained them as they had more powerful engines, and they were also beginning to get the two-gun Browning installation by the autumn.
Yes, unlike the above mentioned IFs, their rear armament seem to have considered useful at their duties, like at Coastal Command, their main operator.
Regards, Juha
Or was it the case that in the case of the IFs, more speed was seen as more useful in their duties than defensive armament? :wink:
Also that, and also as their importance and role at that duty was endind in a period of few months.
phylo_roadking modified version of the original Juha T post wrote:Coastal Command, their main operator.
You agree?
phylo_roadking wrote:If Nos. 604, 23, 25, and 219 were indeed nightfighters/intruders...then there's a lesser requirement for defensive armament compared to offensive armament and performance.
If they were?
AFAIK their modest armament was not improved.


phylo_roadking wrote:MkIVs of all duties were getting the two-gun upgrade by the Autumn, not just Fighters - for the Blenheim's desperate need as a bomber as well as a dayfighter was for....better defence. But we're talking here about the Fs and their antishipping role.
Yes, and the main antishipping Blenheim F type seems to have been the IV.

Regards, Juha

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: The Bristol Blenheim's Strafing Potential

#8

Post by phylo_roadking » 01 Feb 2015, 19:10

Ignoring?
Starting from when?
As the initial question, once again for a reminder, was:
phylo_roadking earlier wrote:
And how many rounds did each individual Blenheim F carry?
Starting from when I asked the question, because I was only interested in determining the strafing time available to Blenheim pilots - as that is what the issue was. Not their defensive fire.
Hmm.. a bit hard to follow your logic, but do you mean that F.5/34 had something in common/to do with the outcome of your earlier mentioned "thumbnail calculations"?
No, it had something to do with generating the base numerical information for my earlier mentioned thumbnail calculations, not the outcome.
Actually I meant that there are certain very physical constraints on the Blenheim's dorsal turret being used effectively to strafe surface targets.
What very physical constraints you mean?
The traverse of the Bristol B.-pattern turrets as fitted to the Blenheim, and their angles of depression available to the gunner...vs. placement of the tail and control surfaces....were not conducive to the dorsal turret gunner strafing surface shipping.
And anyway - from October 1940 on, after trials at the RAE the RAF began removing the dorsal turrets from their remaining four squadrons of IFs..Nos. 604, 23, 25, and 219...to improve their performance.
from October 1940 on..RAF began removing the dorsal turrets from their remaining four squadrons of IFs ???
Serious?
Yes.I think not.
Just incorrect info.
IVF???
the issue was IF squadrons, and their number. You seriously here confirm your claim that RAF was stripping off the rear armament of their remaining IF squadrons?
If there didn't happen to be any more IF squadrons than the four Jon Lake mentions being converted in this way. Given the losses in France, and summer bombing operations etc., I wonder exactly how many Blenheim Is in total were left for any role...?

But that's one for a separate thread; we could actually do with a definitive list of RAF squadrons operating Blenheims in September 1940...and in what roles, and what types. The poor put-upon Bristol Blenheim seems to have been expected to function as day fighters, nightfighters/intruders, "trade interdiction" and anti-shipping attack fighters, day bombers attacking shipping, airfields etc., night bombers attacking ports....and in the event of invasion we can add that seven full squadrons of Blenheim bombers were to be put under Army command for ground support, in addition to Bomber, Fighter and Coastal Command's many and various other calls upon them :D AND remembering they had been decimated in France only weeks before...
Or was it the case that in the case of the IFs, more speed was seen as more useful in their duties than defensive armament? :wink:
Also that, and also as their importance and role at that duty was endind in a period of few months.
Not quite "and also".....more "despite the fact that...". Jon Lake notes that the RAF went ahead with the removal despite the fact that the first Beaufighters were already coming into service making the Blenheims redundant in many of their F-roles. In other words, the fact that they went ahead argues that the RAF thought they still had enough use to make the conversion worthwhile even for that short time. The continuing night Blitz and the requirement for as much defensive capability as possible would mean that even those "few months" service were vital.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: The Bristol Blenheim's Strafing Potential

#9

Post by phylo_roadking » 01 Feb 2015, 19:26

Regarding this...
and it also has some very interesting things to say about the .303 AP's efficacy in relation to Knouterer's comments on its penetrating power...
Like?
....and this...
To be reasonably proof against .303 AP rounds - of which the RAF had a reasonable supply, 28.8 million at the beginning of June - you'd need about 15 mm armour plate...
"Tests by the RAF indicated that both the .303 and 7.92mm AP bullets had some problems penetrating the structure of the relatively small and light Blenheim bomber. Both guns were fired at a range of 200 yards (180m) through the rear fuselage at the 4 mm armour plate protecting the rear gunner, which was angled at 60º to the line of fire. The results were poor; only 33% of the .303" rounds reached the armour (the rest being deflected or absorbed by the structure) and 6% penetrated it".


He also notes - regarding the "reasonable supply" of .303 AP...

"Another source for the Battle of Britain armament gives four guns with ball, two with AP and two with incendiaries (presumably Mk VI) with four of the last 25 rounds being tracer (presumably Mk IV incendiary/tracer) to tell the pilot he was running out of ammunition. It is not clear why ball was used at all; presumably there was a shortage of the more effective loadings. (By 1942 the standard loading for fixed .303s was half loaded with AP and half with incendiary.)"

The RAF may have had 28.8 million rounds of .303 AP at the beginning of June...but after operating over the front line of Fall Rot, the Kanalkampf, the Battle of Britain.....let alone whatever highly intensive fighting would ATL result in them "loosing" the Battle of Britain to the extent that the Germans won at least local air superiority over the proposed invasion area to allow Sealion to be commenced at all...how many were/would have been left?
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: The Bristol Blenheim's Strafing Potential

#10

Post by phylo_roadking » 01 Feb 2015, 19:39

Incidently..
To illustrate the point, here's a picture (from G. Naims and L. Frädrich, Krieg im Ärmelkanal) of the wheelhouse of a German Vorpostenboot, either V 1509 or V 1511, after being machine-gunned by a Blenheim (bomber) on 31.3.1941. The caption says crews on the bridge repeatedly suffered losses (the boats of this particular Vp-Flotilla were finally fitted with armour protection and gunshields from September 1941).
Image
The caption itself doesn't mention anything about a "Blenheim (bomber)"; is there any more detail regarding that encounter available....for example where it occurred?
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: The Bristol Blenheim's Strafing Potential

#11

Post by Knouterer » 02 Feb 2015, 00:06

phylo_roadking wrote:"Tests by the RAF indicated that both the .303 and 7.92mm AP bullets had some problems penetrating the structure of the relatively small and light Blenheim bomber.


Interesting. And would these bullets be in any way comparable to the German 7.92 mm AP bullets that according to you were such a serious threat to British light tanks?
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: The Bristol Blenheim's Strafing Potential

#12

Post by Knouterer » 02 Feb 2015, 00:08

phylo_roadking wrote:Incidently..


The caption itself doesn't mention anything about a "Blenheim (bomber)"; is there any more detail regarding that encounter available....for example where it occurred?
Yes of course. It was in the so-called Channel.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: The Bristol Blenheim's Strafing Potential

#13

Post by phylo_roadking » 02 Feb 2015, 00:24

Knouterer wrote:
phylo_roadking wrote:"Tests by the RAF indicated that both the .303 and 7.92mm AP bullets had some problems penetrating the structure of the relatively small and light Blenheim bomber.
Interesting. And would these bullets be in any way comparable to the German 7.92 mm AP bullets that according to you were such a serious threat to British light tanks?
Well, we know from various anecdotal accounts as already well discussed that MG fire from these would indeed penetrate British light armour...

But what's relevant to THIS topic is that the British .303 AP was more than reasonably proofed against by the light alloy skinning and structure of the Blenheim and only 4mm of armour....if only 6% of rounds fired made it to and through the armour.
The caption itself doesn't mention anything about a "Blenheim (bomber)"; is there any more detail regarding that encounter available....for example where it occurred?
Yes of course. It was in the so-called Channel.
Nothing more precise that that? :roll: It's a big Channel, with lots of ports along it and at both ends of it. Let alone where the vessel in question was coming from and going to...

And yes, it is actually entirely relevant.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: The Bristol Blenheim's Strafing Potential

#14

Post by phylo_roadking » 02 Feb 2015, 23:15

Nothing more precise on the location of this particular incident, then?
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: The Bristol Blenheim's Strafing Potential

#15

Post by Urmel » 03 Feb 2015, 11:58

Knouterer wrote:
phylo_roadking wrote:"Tests by the RAF indicated that both the .303 and 7.92mm AP bullets had some problems penetrating the structure of the relatively small and light Blenheim bomber.


Interesting. And would these bullets be in any way comparable to the German 7.92 mm AP bullets that according to you were such a serious threat to British light tanks?


The German 7.92mm ammo that was a threat was SmK, a special type of bullet designed to be armour-penetrating. German armour specifications for e.g. the Panzer I or armoured half-tracks asked for the armour to be 'SmK proof'.

I don't know if there was a .303 equivalent in terms of bullet to SmK and if so, what its specs were.

I also don't know whether the Mk. VI light was SmK proof. I understand carriers were not.

This ends this public service announcement.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”