Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The British used the .50 cal Brownings in addition to the HS 20mm cannons in later versions (e-wing IIRC).
I'm curious if anyone knows if the .50 cals were considered on earlier Spits, especially before there was a reliable 20mm cannon. I would think that a 4x.50cal battery would pack a significantly better punch than the 8x.303 that was used on the Spit I and II. Am I right? And does anyone know if this was considered/tested?`
Before you open up this particular can of wormsIs the .50 that much better than a .303? Sure the .50 is heavier but IIRC it didn't carry any explosives similar to the .303
The 20mm is the 1st round large enough to carry extra BOOM. Thus why bother with .50, and put all effort in placing 20mm.
The 20mm was considered by all (Allies and Axis) as the most effective calibre for shooting down fighters.
Armament preference largely depends on mission profile. Your average Luftwaffe pilot in 1944 would likely agree with you. Your average USAAF pilot likely would not. I would also revise your armament load-out opinions to 4 x .50s as comfortably adequate, 6 x .50s as easily sufficient and 8 x .50s as more than adequate - all based on a typical USAAF mission profile for the late war period.(when the Spit was developed) 8x .303 was considered heavy armament. During the war it soon became obvious that the .303 was to light and they installed 20mm... Sure they had problems with the 20mm but 4x 0.50 was hardly better than the .303
The RAF's frontline fighters were upgraded with armour protection at least twice prior to WWII upon intelligence reports of the heavier German armament being fitted to the Bf109. It is curious that they didn't make the connection between armour and armour-defeating during the same period.
I haven't been able to find my scource again but I once read that .50 armed fighters needed a lot more bullets to shoot down a enemy compared to a cannon armed fighter. And as such needed to be a lot longer on the enemies tail.
Your source doesn't sound terribly scientific in its prognosis. There is little doubt that a cannon will hit you harder than a heavy machine gun but in the case of fighter vs fighter it is worth considering a sledgehammer vs nut analogy; why crack a nut with a 2lb sledgehammer when an 1lb sledgehammer is performing the same task adequately? Against yield per round you also must consider rate of fire, I don't recall any anecdotal material recording USAAF fighters running out of ammo trying to bring down a Luftwaffe interceptor (based on the assumption that his fire was effective ie he was hitting his target)
Late war most German fighters where put into service for bomber killing and were heavier (added gunpods, armor etc etc) and less maneouvrable.
Agreed
For a fighter I'd take a 20mm anytime over a .50. I think 4x .50 was weak, 6x was barely enough and 8x good.
Armament preference largely depends on mission profile. Your average Luftwaffe pilot in 1944 would likely agree with you. Your average USAAF pilot likely would not. I would also revise your armament load-out opinions to 4 x .50s as comfortably adequate, 6 x .50s as easily sufficient and 8 x .50s as more than adequate - all based on a typical USAAF mission profile for the late war period.
This site gives a lot of info on the subject
http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/sorting-out-the-e-american-armament-for-the-spitfire-mk-ixxvi.html
Is the .50 that much better than a .303? Sure the .50 is heavier but IIRC it didn't carry any explosives similar to the .303
The 20mm is the 1st round large enough to carry extra BOOM. Thus why bother with .50, and put all efford in placing 20mm.
The 20mm was considered by all (Allies and Axis) as the most effictive calibre for shooting down fighters.
Just before Mitchell died he designed a Spitifre variant (Type 312) with 4 x 20mm Oerlikons mounted in the wings and a redesigned cooling system (Tony Buttler British Secret Projects: Fighters and Bombers 1935-1950 pages 35, 55.
The reason the .50 Browning wasn't used was because it was considered to be under-developed by the Air Ministry. More likely they wanted to continue with the .303 because of the millions of rounds of ammo in storage. To my mind it was a stupid decision At the time it was considered the .50 was already well developed: had British fighters been armed with (say) 4-6 .50s during the Battle of Britain they would have been a great deal more effective. And, considering the problems the British had getting the 20 mm Hispano working the .50 Browning would have been a good weapon to have.
...unless I'm mistakenQ: Would the heavier leadweight of the .50cal battery (if any) be more effective in bringing down the light/medium bombers of the day (BoB), the He111, Do17 and Ju88?
A: I know the armour-piercing qualities of the .50cal way surpasses the .303
I think so too. It's weird how defense ministries often think like grocery clerks when it comes to equipping their armed forces. I believe the German Army had the same thoughts when there was talk of introducing the MP-44 with the new 7.92x32mm round. They halted because they had 8 BILLION 7.92x57mm Mauser rounds on stock.
I don't think interoperability is the peevish issue you seem to indicate. The standard .303 round was used in British Army rifles, the Bren Gun infantry support weapon, as well as in the RAF's fighter and bomber armament. Having just Fighter Command migrate to the .50 cal would necessitate an entirely new supply chain from factory to front-line for that one "customer" for both the weapon and the ammunition. Given the numbers of .303 rounds probably still lying around from WWI, the expense of retooling factories and the time constraints as Britain strove to prepare for the coming war, I think sticking with the .303 was the right choice.
...as promised...I will post them up when I get home tonight.