Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
RAF pilots didn't have time, with a closing speed above 100mph, to pick and choose what part of the enemy to aim at; if the sight came "on," they fired.According to R.Dunn in his book "Exploding Fuel Tanks" the German bombers had an advanced high degree of protection for the fuel tanks. So much so that RAF pilots would aim for the engines/cockpits rather than pepper the wings. There are many stories and pictures of German bombers coming home or ditching looking like Swiss cheese..
The Spitfire's top tank was never sealed, since there wasn't room for the material, and keep the (already inadequate) fuel load; eventually a fireproof bulkhead was fitted between the pilot and the tanks. Hurricane pilots deduced that their (worse) situation was due to the fire, in the wing tanks, being drawn into the cockpit through the open framework of the wings.It is interesting to note that as the BoB was starting the RAF was still in the process of retro-fitting its fighters with ss materials and also to note that many of the Spitfires and Hurricanes left one tank unprotected in the fuselage. Production aircraft had full protection.
Unfortunately practicalities work against that idea; the Spitfire and Hurricane were designed around a battery of 8 x .303", and it would have been impossible to just swap the two guns. The .5" barrel was 18" longer than the .303", so some of that was likely to stick out in front of the Hurricane's wings, slowing it down even further. On the Spitfire, the outer pair of guns (where the leading edge tapered back) would have suffered the same problem. Then you have the longer ammunition of the .5", which would have needed new, wider ammunition "cans," with consequent deeper stagger between gun breeches, forcing guns rearward, into the area where the wings' cross-sections get thinner, causing possible bulges, and more drag.So IMO arming with .50cal would have greatly increased the RAF's ability to quickly bring down more bombers and less getting away with only damage
Development, for aircraft, ceased in 1928, because "not particularly fast firing" = 700rpm, against 800 for the Browning .5" 1150rpm for the .303". As for being "far lighter," it weighed 26 kilos = 57 lbs, against 55-68 for the .5" Browning, and 22.75lbs for the .303".The most ironic thing is that the british had a local 12,7mm design , the Vickers C, not particulary fast firing but belt feed, reliable and far lighter than the Browning.:
Luckily this country has no time for that "Not Invented Here" nonsense.The Vicker C could be imbedded inside Spitfire wings without the bulge caused by the Hispano but in the end the Spitfire used all foreign designed weapons
Development, for aircraft, ceased in 1928, because "not particularly fast firing" = 700rpm, against 800 for the Browning .5" 1150rpm for the .303". As for being "far lighter," it weighed 26 kilos = 57 lbs, against 55-68 for the .5" Browning, and 22.75lbs for the .303".
Problems with the Hispano 20mm cannon was mentioned in the other thread as being a contributing factor in the failure of the Spitfires to shoot down a greater number of aircraft. Going through Cooper's book I compiled the following statistics -
2 Mar 6a/c engaged 2a/c suffered cannon failure
15 Mar 19 '' 8 " " " "
2 May 28 " 10 " " "
20 Jun 37 " 12 " " "
28 Jun 14 " 3 " " "
30 Jun 31 " 19 " " "
6 Jul 30 " 12 " " "
7 Sep 33 " 3 " " "
So of 198 spitfire that engaged in aerial combat, 69 aircraft suffered one or both cannons failures. That's close to 35% of the attacking force, not ideal in anyones book I would imagine.
Was this an isolated phenomenon or a more common occurance? Did it happen anywhere else in the PTO, MTO or ETO?
I imagine not to many people were eager to spend time and resources on trying to adapt every aircraft in service to take the 50 cal. It would have simply been non productive at a period in history were every second counted. Im my opinion i think the whole argument is rather irrelevant. The RAF did the job with the tools they had available and thats all that matters. Not to mention where exactly would all these 50 cal or any other calibre come from. And where were these guns and bullets have come from? I mean in 1940 the US had no desire to help Britain in it's fight against Germany. And im not hating in any way just saying. Britain had to make do with what it had and regardless of which gun was the best, when you are fighting for survival you will use whatever you can get your hands on at the time.
Fair comment sir. Im not America bashing at all. Im simply saying British technology (especially aircraft) was just as effective as any other country at that time, if not more so. And i totally get Roosevelt was in a tricky position, on the one hand keeping the people happy who at that time were very anti war, and on the other hand recognising that Germany was a very real threat and must have known eventually the US would have to do something or risk being left behind in arms/defence. I just think some of the lend lease terms or deals were solely in the best interest of the US at the expense of the British empire. Which lets face it, while already in decline, the war just hastened its end. But for that i blame Churchill in part if not entirely. The man seemed obsessed with forcing the US into the war in europe by any means possible, when that time and energy could have been used for more pressing and serious matters.But thats another story...We have been over the .50 cal gun issue in other threads. The .50cal gun and ammo of 1939-40 was not the .50cal gun and ammo or 1942 let alone 1943. The 1930-40 guns had lower rate of fire and a lower velocity bullet and apparently, no incendiary ammunition production which makes the superiority of a single .50 gun over a pair .303s a bit suspect at that point in time.
As for the bolded part. The US may not have been doing all the British might have desired but the US, in general, was far from having no desire to help.
The US was making plenty of aircraft for the British (the deal for Packard Merlins was signed in Sept of 1940) and plenty of other war materials were being shipped. True it was for cash at this time (mostly) but the US was sometimes taking a back seat in deliveries ( allowing France and Britain to get earlier delivery while US squadrons still flew biplanes or P-26 Peashooters.)
There were also drives in the US to take up collections of small arms, old helmets, binoculars to help equip the home guard after Dunkirk.
1941 might well have been different than 1940 but US did set up the "neutrality patrol" in 1939 and it was much expanded during 1940 and 1941.
By the Sept of 1941 the US was de facto providing escorts for convoys to Britain.
"USS Greer ineffectively engaged U-652 on September 4; and on September 11 President Roosevelt declared Axis ships entered the neutrality zone at their own risk, and ordered the U.S. Navy to attack any vessel threatening ships under American escort.[10] HX 150 sailed September 16, 1941, as the first convoy with American escort.[11] ON 18 sailed September 24 as the first westbound convoy with American escort.[12] The Gleaves-class destroyer Kearny was torpedoed while escorting Convoy SC 48 on October 17, 1941.[13] The destroyer Reuben James was torpedoed and sunk on October 31, 1941, while escorting Convoy HX 156 with a loss of 100 lives"
The loss of life of the Rueben James crew was small potatoes indeed to what the British were going through but the ever expanding aid to Britain started well before Pearl Harbor.
WHile lend lease wasn't signed until March of 1941 it was proposed in late 1940...................just saying.