Breda SAFAT 12,7mm - gun damage British report

[Falco_Peregrinus]

Hello everyone,

I am reposting a thread I posted in another website years ago, after I found a real-life account of the effectiveness

of explosive 12,7mm HEI-HE rounds mounted in the cartridge-belts of the Regia Aeronautica HMGs.

It's interesting to notice how such a small round (often reputed to be almost useless in internet-based pages) was able

to almost rip off a main wing spar (impressive considering this is one of the strongest structures in a plane) and create a hole of about 30 cms on the outher skin (less impressive)

 

The action above mentions one of the first ever use of the C.202 in action over Malta.
Date: 22 October 1941.
RAF = 1 Hurricane shot down, 1 heavily damaged.
RA = 1 202 slightly damaged.

 

 

Hope you'll enjoy it

 

 

[Finkeren]

I would say any 12.7mm shell would do that. Aircraft are fragile things. Even a standard rifle-caliber fmj-bullet will pass right through a WW2 era aircraft and out the other side, unless it hits a piece of armor or the engine block or something.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I will politely disagree. Aircraft are not fragile things, its a 2.5-5 tons of aluminum and steel structure that is intended to go at speeds (in case of ww2) varying from 600 to 800 km/h indicated and resist loads in excess of 10 G (at least airframe, poor pilots brain will escape through his nose ...). Fragile is kite. Or my stomach.

 

 

 

Even a standard rifle-caliber fmj-bullet will pass right through a WW2 era aircraft and out the other side, unless it hits a piece of armor or the engine block or something.

You tell that to Brits who observed a Wellingtons airframe deflection a good portion of .303s and 7.92 rounds fired at it.  

 

Now, to a point. Italian 12.7 mm Breda-Safat had those famous (or infamous, depending on the side) explosive rounds among the other types:

- Explosive fuzed projectiles with red tip,

- Explosive tracer incendiary fuzed projectiles painted in yellow color - this one had aprox. 0.8 grams of explosive PETN and some decent load of incendiary Potassium Perchlorate, Aluminium (most likely powdered) and TNT.  

 

 

 

was able to almost rip off a main wing spar (impressive considering this is one of the strongest structures in a plane) and create a hole of about 30 cms on the outher skin (less impressive)

That is impressive or would be if that actually was the way pilot mentioned this. Soviets also utilized explosive rounds with their Berezin UB which had 1.5- 2.1 grams of PETN and officially recorded performance, MDZ-3 (1.5 g PETN and 1.2 g of incendiary composition No.7) bullet creates an entrance opening with a diameter of approximately 20 mm and an exit opening of up to 110 mm diameter. Most likely that Hurricane pilot was hit with more rounds then he could simply count

 

Japanese also used HE round in their Ho-103 and Type 2 heavy machine guns of which there is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence and some evaluation as well. 

[Finkeren]

I will politely disagree. Aircraft are not fragile things, its a 2.5-5 tons of aluminum and steel structure that is intended to go at speeds (in case of ww2) varying from 600 to 800 km/h indicated and resist loads in excess of 10 G (at least airframe, poor pilots brain will escape through his nose ...). Fragile is kite. Or my stomach.

Well let me rephrase: Aircraft are great at bearing loads, absolutely marvelous at it in fact. However, they are generally rather easy to poke holes into. I speak as someone who once poked a hole in an aircraft's wing by accident with a screwdriver.

 

The Wellington you mention is a bit of an odd case, because its fuselage was pretty much a wicker basket made from metal and quite unusually strong.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Yes, to poke hole into one ... you can poke many holes and aircraft will still fly. Numerical evidence supports that, especially as studies like one based on over 500 airframes, the US Navy found that the most common form of damage was structural damage (215 of examined aiframes) but it accounted for aprox. 10 % of losses (or to say other way, about 90% of aircraft suffering that kind of damage only, returned to safety) while in contrast of 57 aircraft suffering damage to oil or fuel systems, only 18 % survived. 

 

Aircraft is a structure and just because you can poke a hole in it with a screwdriver doesn't mean it will fall out of the sky. 

[Finkeren]

Yes, to poke hole into one ... you can poke many holes and aircraft will still fly. Numerical evidence supports that, especially as studies like one based on over 500 airframes, the US Navy found that the most common form of damage was structural damage (215 of examined aiframes) but it accounted for aprox. 10 % of losses (or to say other way, about 90% of aircraft suffering that kind of damage only, returned to safety) while in contrast of 57 aircraft suffering damage to oil or fuel systems, only 18 % survived.

 

Aircraft is a structure and just because you can poke a hole in it with a screwdriver doesn't mean it will fall out of the sky.

I agree. With all of it.

 

I'd still claim, that a WW2 era aircraft are fragile, fighters especially, because all the vulnerable parts, the parts that do make the aircraft fall down when struck, are crammed together quite tightly in the front half of the fuselage. Meaning that any projectile that penetrates the front half is pretty much bound to hit something vital.

 

To go back to my original point: It really doesn't surprise me, that a Breda SAFAT shell was found to have done massive (though not fatal) damage to the main wing spar, because the spar is a load bearing structure, it is not built to resist damage from gunfire. Really, apart from actual armoured plates, no part of an aircraft is built to withstand the damage of 12.7mm projectiles, regardless which gun they were fired from.