Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I gotta disagree on the 303's. I figure if I won't deer hunt with it, then I wouldn't shoot airplanes with it either. Against Japanese, 4 50's would be enough, with a huge supply of ammo of course. 6 would be fine to if it didn't affect performance to badly. 4 20's would be overkill against Japanese aircraft. If you were dead on target everytime you sqeezed the trigger they would fine, since it would only take a couple of rounds to destroy one, but I think that you would spend a good portion of your time missing and trying to get on target and I don't think you would have enough ammo with 4 20's to do that. By the time you miss with 2 or 3 bursts, your out of ammo.
But look at all the aircraft powered throughout the war by the Merlin engine.I can't imagine many Spitfire or Mustang or Mosquito or Lancaster pilots saying "this would be a great aircraft if only it had fuel injection"
I happen to agree about the Spitfire MkI and Bf109E,nothing in it. I don't know enough about the Zero to have an informed opinion.
Cheers
Steve
Hmm, all the Merlins/Packards in the later half (Spitfire IX, P-51, Mosquito XX) had pressure carburettors no? For a 4 engined bomber fuel injection is not that important.
I agree. 1940 Germany didn't have anywhere near enough aircraft to overwhelm the RAF. However the solution is more Me-109s plus drop tanks. Not a similiar number of A6M2s.I don't think they would have won, but the battle would have been more costly for the British.
but not to the Observer Corps...it would be difficult for the RAF to intercept low level (i.e. invisible to radar)...
On the subject of Hurricane vs Zero (or Ki-43), it's been discussed at length on these forums, particularly regarding the CBI theatre. My conclusion, FWIW, is that none of the performance advantages of the Hurricane could be employed tactically to give an advantage over the Zero or Oscar on a regular basis. Combine that with the RAF's 'colonial' attitude in the CBI and the rest is history!
The .303 British is an excellent deer cartridge, ballistically it is very close to the .308 Winchester (7.62 Nato). Here in Canada it has been (and continues to be) used for everything up to and including moose and grizzly bears. (not my first choice for grizzly). I personally carred a No. 5 jungle carbine as a back up gun while guiding for moose and bears in northern BC. (also carried a 30-30 Winch and a .444 Marlin, witnessed a 500 yard one shot kill on a moose with the .30-30. Pure outhouse luck on that one.)
I think the RAF would have been more effective against the Luftwaffe bombers during BoB if they had been armed with .50 mgs instead of .303, but the .303s did manage to shoot down a lot of aircraft.
Pretty much every airforce in the world had switched to 20mm cannon by the end of WWII, so the theory that a cannon would miss too often and make it ineffective doesn't carry much weight. Missing or hitting is primarily a product of training or lack of training and sighting systems, not weapon selection.
I agree. 1940 Germany didn't have anywhere near enough aircraft to overwhelm the RAF. However the solution is more Me-109s plus drop tanks. Not a similiar number of A6M2s.
A significant increase in Me-110s available for fighter sweeps would also make a difference. The Me-110C was faster then a Hurricane and almost as fast as a Spitfire. If not chained to the bombers it would be difficult for the RAF to intercept low level (i.e. invisible to radar) Me-110 attacks on airfields.
I agree. 1940 Germany didn't have anywhere near enough aircraft to overwhelm the RAF. However the solution is more Me-109s plus drop tanks. Not a similiar number of A6M2s.
A significant increase in Me-110s available for fighter sweeps would also make a difference. The Me-110C was faster then a Hurricane and almost as fast as a Spitfire. If not chained to the bombers it would be difficult for the RAF to intercept low level (i.e. invisible to radar) Me-110 attacks on airfields.
The LW in 1940 outnumbered the RAF by at least 2:1 in frontline aircraft. .
I agree up to a point, but if your shooting a fast turning fighter like a Zero, Spitfire, Fw190 ect, he knows your behind him and he's flying for his life, it is still going to be difficult to hit him and you will have better luck with say 4 or 6 50's with between 250 and 400 rounds per gun and a high rate of fire, than you will with 2 or 4 20's with 50 to 90 rounds per gun and a low rate of fire.
the Wildcat with 4 .50s had a Max of 430 rpg. With a rate if fire of about 14 rounds per second per gun that gives 56 rounds per second. It did vary a bit. It also means the F4F-3 had about 30 seconds of firing time. The F4F-4 with 6 guns carried a max of 240rpg. or just over 17 seconds of firing time. Both set ups have much more firing time than the 4 Hispanos in the Hurricane which were good for about 9 seconds or three 3 second bursts. However at 600rpm or 10 rounds a second per gun the Hurricane was throwing FORTY 20mm shells a second which isn't that many fewer than the four .50s and is a far cry from the 18 or fewer 20mm shells per second from the 109 or Zero. The Hurricane also had a good 2 seconds more firing time than the 109 or Zero and with shells that had a MV 280m/s faster than all but the German "mine" shell the Hispano was easier to hit with than the early Axis cannon.
9 seconds isn't very long when your chasing a hard turning single engine fighter and it was the best of the 20mm group for both firing time and weight per second. Didn't the P47 carry around 400 rpg?
BoB OOB September 1940.
Document-49: Fighter Command Order of Battle Sept 15th 1940
I see no reason to think RAF fighter aircraft were outnumbered during the Battle of Britain.
Document-49: Fighter Command Order of Battle Sept 15th 1940
I see no reason to think RAF fighter aircraft were outnumbered during the Battle of Britain.
They certainly weren't towards the end of the battle.
The beginning is another matter. On 10 July the RAF had 570 operational Spitfires and Hurricanes. The Luftwaffe had about 1,100 operational 109s and 110s.
By 7 September the RAF was up to 620 operational Spits and Hurricanes, the Luftwaffe down to 770 operational 109s and 110s.
Even then, though, the Luftwaffe was pretty much concentrated against the SE of England, whereas the RAF was spread over the UK.
They certainly weren't towards the end of the battle.
The beginning is another matter. On 10 July the RAF had 570 operational Spitfires and Hurricanes. The Luftwaffe had about 1,100 operational 109s and 110s.
By 7 September the RAF was up to 620 operational Spits and Hurricanes, the Luftwaffe down to 770 operational 109s and 110s.
Even then, though, the Luftwaffe was pretty much concentrated against the SE of England, whereas the RAF was spread over the UK.
Not all of the LW was flying every day, either. Units were rested from operation in the same manner as RAF Sqns, its only that they stayed at their base, and didn't transfer to the safe backyard as RAF Sqns did; the LW airfields in France were much less exposed to the RAF than vica versa.
In any case, the British doesn't seem to have been outnumbered at any part of the Battle, even when their situation was the worst in the first week of September, the British flew some 5513 fighter sorties against 2355 German. British bombers flew 642, Coastal Command 921 in addition, while the Luftwaffe's bombers flew 2855.
Dave
As others have pointed out, because the RAF was on the defensive, it had to spread itself out allover the british isles , which meant that only a fraction of its strength could be deployed to the battle at any given time. This was admittedly less of a handicap than it might otherwise be, since Dowding needed to constantly rotate units and rest and rebuild them during the battle, which he did by rotating worn units to the quieter sectors.
Lastly a word about readiness rates. As the battle progressed, the poor replacement and logistic system supporting the germans (again as a result of the German lack of depth in thair prewar planning) German readiness rates plummetted in comparison to the RAFs.
Jul06
FC: 644
JG: 980
KG: 1280
SG: 220
FC/LW ratio 0.25
FC/JG Ratio 0.67
Aug10
FC: 749
JG: 1030
KG: 1078
SG: 261
FC/LW ratio 0.28
FC/JG Ratio 0.73
Sep07
FC: 745
JG: 752
KG: 772
SG: 180
FC/LW ratio 0.45
FC/JG Ratio 0.95
Sep28
FC: 792
JG: 510
KG: 750
SG: 340