Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hi Marcel,
>So it seems that this armament was more than adequate.
On the other hand, there is an account by a Luftwaffe fighter pilot with WW1 combat experience shooting down a Fokker G.1 with cannon, and he was shocked by the destructiveness of his guns when the G.1 blew up ... the sight made him immediately consider his own mortality in a modern war.
>I wonder however how much this had to do with the fact that all MG's were centered in the nose instead of in the wings?
That certainly helped to get the full effect regardless of range.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Hm, I don't think one can possibly conclude that from the outcome of the Battle of Britain. With the RAF fighters possessing more effective armament, the Luftwaffe might have been forced to abandon their daylight raids much earlier than they actually did - which would have been a great advantage for Britain as night bombing was much less effective.
I don't think there is any doubt that 6 x .50 are far more effective than 8 x 303, so the obvious reply would be that the Germans would have lost more aircraft.
Personally I think the Hurricane had a better chance carrying the 6 x 0.50 as the weapons bay was a better size and they didn't seem to have a problem with 4 x 20. I do doubt that the Spitfre could carry 6, 4 x 0.50 sounds a better bet. That said 4 x 0.5 us probably better than 8 x 303 so a similar situation would apply.
I have read of German bombers getting home with 200 hits from the 303, only just maybe, but still getting home. If you were using 6 x 0.50 that would equal approx 95 hits by 0.50 and I have not heard of a medium bomber taking that much damage.