British .303 vs 50 Cal M2

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


From everything I've read from the powers that be themselves it was due to the second issue (performance penalty).
 
Greyman said:
From everything I've read from the powers that be themselves it was due to the second issue (performance penalty).
Click to expand...
I have not seen any material that suggests the Hispano cannons were any more prone to gun stoppages than any other fighter. A lot to do with it was poor or lack of proper maintenance on the ground, but again raf ground crew usually took great care and pride in their work knowing how important it was to give the pilot every chance of returning their aircraft. I have read accounts of Polish squadron mechanics in a frenzy when seeing their aircraft return to base. With one mechanic running along side his pilots Hurricane shouting "mine has been firing, mine has been firing!". As the red tape over the fighters gun ports would be missing if the machine had been using its guns. If by performance you mean weight/drop in speed, agility. Maybe in the very early days. One raf Hurricane early in 1940 was fitted with experimental twin 20mm cannon but it was so slow the aircraft could barely catch a bomber never mind anything else. But with the continuios uprating of the RR PV12 merlin these problems were soon offset.
 
Last edited:
Greyman said:
I would guess they were able to be used up. Plenty of planes used them just before the war and a couple still were in the beginning. Supposedly the Swordfish kept its Mk.V until the very end of production ('44).
Click to expand...
Thats because the vickers machine gun was a tested and reliable weapon. It's the same reason the British kept the Browning .303. Again it was a very realiable weapon and could take British bullets not to mention easy to mass produce and already widespread. Later fighter bombers like the Beaufighter/Mossie and Typhoon kept x2/x4 .303s to help gauge trajectory for their main armament (rockets/cannon) when attacking ground or sea targets.
 
Smokey Stover said:
If by performance you mean weight/drop in speed, agility. Maybe in the very early days.
Click to expand...

When the AFDU compared the 'C' wing armaments (4x 20mm Spitfire vs. the 2x 20mm & 4x .303 Spitfire) they concluded the former was:
  • approximately 248 pounds heavier
  • was not as manoeuvrable at all heights, falling off rapidly above 20,000 feet
  • handling was 'exceedingly sloppy' above 30,000 feet
  • "at 28,000 feet ... it is thought that it could be easily out-manoeuvred by the Me.109F"
  • climb was not as good at all heights
 

Apparently the 20mm cannon were a disaster over Darwin in 1943
http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=the-spitfire-vc-s-faulty-armament
 

Ok, with all due respect i think your leaning heavily on the evoluatiom of both aircraft. The Bf -109 was designed and manufactured almost two years ahead of the spitfire. So bearing that in mind, had both a/c started out at the same time the comparity would most certainly been different. By the time the Germans had enterered the 109F into combat one could argue the raf could have been rolling out the Spitfire mk IX. But lets stick with what we know as fact. What you are omitting to mention is when the 109F first went into combat in late 1940/early 1941, at lot of spitfires were still Mk ll's albeit with a more powerful engine. Early Bf - 109F's were initionally plagued with a few minor glitches. The 1,332hp DB601E engine was used in the 109F -3 & F-4 versions. And only 15 examples of the F-3 were known to be produced. Now after a few minor flight/tail problems were eliminated the F series did have a slight advantage in speed at altitude over the Spitfire. But the answer to that is dont get into a climbing fight with a 109-F. Secondly because of the dislike by some major German aces including Adolf Galland, the F series armament was problematic to say the least. Many pilots disliked the prop hub 15mm canon and two small calibre machine guns. So underwing 20mm gun pods were field adapted to many machines severely hampering performance. . An unexpected structural flaw of the wing and tail section was revealed when the first F-1s were rushed into service; some aircraft crashed or nearly crashed, with either the wing surface wrinkling or fracturing, or by the tail structure failing. In one such accident, the commander of JG 2 "Richthofen", Wilhelm Balthazar lost his life when he was attacked by a Spitfire during a test flight. While making an evasive manoeuvre, the wings broke away and Balthasar was killed when his aircraft hit the ground. Slightly thicker wing skins and reinforced spars dealt with the wing problems. Tests were also carried out to find out why the tails had failed, and it was found that at certain engine settings a high-frequency oscillation in the tailplane spar was overlapped by harmonic vibrations from the engine; the combined effect being enough to cause structural failure at the rear fuselage/fin attachment point. Initially, two external stiffening plates were screwed onto the outer fuselage on each side, and later the entire structure was reinforced. I admit until raf Mk V's knew how to dogfight favourably with the Bf -109F a lot of Spitfires were lost between late 40/early 41. But the situation was soon offset by the Mk IX that rained supreme for the rest of the war.
 
Smokey Stover said:
I think that was most likely down to the atrocious conditions. Sandstorms, severe weather, mud, and poor maintenance & lack of equipment, personal and hangers to protect or fix aircraft. Complex engine parts and sand/dust are not a good combination.
Click to expand...

The US 50's worked. The Japanese 20mm and machineguns worked. The P39's, P40's, Wildcats (at Guadalcanal) and Zero's all dealt with the same conditions and seemed to work.
 

Your evaluation of the good and bad points of the Bf 109F is a very good one, bar a detail or two. The Bf 109F1 and F2 were powered by engine with ~1000 HP at 20000 ft, and 1250 HP at 6000 ft, speed was around 375 mph at 20000 ft. But, more importantly for RAF, there was not a great number of the F1s and F2s around during the winter of 1940/41, and Eruopean winter was not conductive for air combat of the are anyway.
There was also a handful of 109F0 around, that were about equal to the Spitfire II.
However - RAF can't roll out the Spitfire Mk.IX before late 1941 since there is no two-stage Merlin around (and Spitfire IX didn't reigned supreme for the rest of the war, if we equal the reign with being best in every important category that makes a fighter).
'Some people' can argue all day long for the early introduction of the Spit IX, RAF's best bet for mid-1940 to early 1942 is Spitfire III with it's polished streamlining and resulting performance and range potential.
 

To be fair i have seen stats that show the polished/glitch free 109F could reach just over 400mph at 20,000 feet. But im always a little sceptical of numbers on paper as opposed to actual flight data. The two stage turbo Merlin was already on the design board by late 40 early 41, although i concede it was far from the polished part. Im actually not that big a fan of the Spitfire except the Mk l interceptor. I actually think the Hawker Tempest V (After the gremlins of the early Napier Sabre engine were eliminated) was a better fighter than the Spit Mk lX. And a lot of German airmen's accounts/war diaries agree that the Tempest was more of a concern than the Spit. Especially to Fw 190 pilots who found out much to their cost they could not escape the Tempest in a dive or straight line speed. Even Me 262 pilots feared the Tempest more than any other allied fighter. And i have not come across any issues with the x4 20mm hispano short barrelled canon either by stoppages or speed/flight control handicaps But then the Sabre engine was quite a beast capable of huge power bursts albeit at the pilots risk of overheating/internal damage if used in excess. The Bf 109F was probably where Messerschmitt should have drawn the line on the 109 series. It's almost universally agreed by luwftwaffe pilots that the Freidrich was the most agile and fastest Mk of all types and yet fewer F models were built than any other Mk. As Galland once said, they should have concentrated on refining the F series while upscaling the Fw 190 production. At least until the Me 262 could be rolled out in numbers with better technology.
 
fastmongrel said:
Probably a typo but their never was a Turbocharged Merlin
Click to expand...
Ok, so supercharger then. A turbo is powered by exhaust gasses and therefore has lag, while a supercharger is usually chain or belt driven providing constant power without the drop off in performance. So maybe it's not quite splitting hairs but its close...
 
Ok, so maybe this will clear things up about the 20mm British Hispano Suiza.
In the buildup to the Second World War, the United Kingdom had embarked on a programme to develop cannon-armed fighters.[4] They acquired a licence to build the HS.404, which entered production as the Hispano Mk.I intended as aeroplane armament. Its first use was in the Westland Whirlwind of 1940, and later in the more powerful Bristol Beaufighter, providing the Royal Air Force with powerful cannon-armed interceptors.[5] The experience of the Battle of Britain had shown the batteries of eight rifle-calibre machine guns to be inadequate and prompted the adoption of auto cannon armament for the primary portion of Royal Air Force (RAF) fighters.[6] The Beaufighter highlighted the need for a belt feed mechanism; as a night fighter the 60-round drums needed to be replaced in the dark by the Radar/Wireless Operator, often while the aircraft was manoeuvering to keep sight of its quarry. In addition, the early trial installations in the Hawker Hurricane and Supermarine Spitfirehad shown a tendency for the gun to jam during combat manoeuvres, leading to some official doubt as to the suitability of cannon as the sole main armament. This led to the Air Ministry for a brief period specifying 12-machine gun armament for new fighters.[6]

Subsequently, a suitable belt-feeding system was developed by Martin-Baker, and the new design was adopted by the RAF and Fleet Air Arm in 1941 in a slightly modified form as the Hispano Mk.II. Four cannon replaced the eight .303 Browning machine guns in the Hurricane[7] and in some tropical versions of the Spitfire, becoming standard armament in later fighters. Most other Spitfires had only two cannon, because outboard cannon tended to freeze at high altitudes, along with four 0.303 calibre (7.7mm) or two 0.50 calibre (12.7mm) machine guns.[8]

The British were concerned their production would be inadequate and licensed production of the Hispano to the US. However, the US production never became satisfactory and the British eventually gave up on the U.S. versions. British production was eventually increased to the point where this was no longer an issue. The ultimate version of the British wartime Hispanos was the Hispano Mk. V, which had a shorter barrel, and lacked the cocking cylinder thus requiring manual cocking before flight. It was lighter and had a higher rate of fire (desirable in aircraft armament), although at the expense of some muzzle velocity. The shorter barrel meant that the weapon could be housed within the wing of a fighter plane, reducing drag and making them less vulnerable to freezing and mechanical stress. One of the main British fighters to use the Mk. V was the Hawker Tempest Mk. V Series II, which mounted two cannon in each wing.[9] Ammunition types available included Semi-Armour Piercing, Incendiary (SAPI) and High Explosive, Incendiary (HEI).[10] Around 42,500 Hispano cannon of various Marks were manufactured by Birmingham Small Arms (BSA).
In the buildup to the Second World War, the United Kingdom had embarked on a programme to develop cannon-armed fighters.[4] They acquired a licence to build the HS.404, which entered production as the Hispano Mk.I intended as aeroplane armament. Its first use was in the Westland Whirlwind of 1940, and later in the more powerful Bristol Beaufighter, providing the Royal Air Force with powerful cannon-armed interceptors.[5] The experience of the Battle of Britain had shown the batteries of eight rifle-calibre machine guns to be inadequate and prompted the adoption of auto cannon armament for the primary portion of Royal Air Force (RAF) fighters.[6] The Beaufighter highlighted the need for a belt feed mechanism; as a night fighter the 60-round drums needed to be replaced in the dark by the Radar/Wireless Operator, often while the aircraft was manoeuvering to keep sight of its quarry. In addition, the early trial installations in the Hawker Hurricane and Supermarine Spitfirehad shown a tendency for the gun to jam during combat manoeuvres, leading to some official doubt as to the suitability of cannon as the sole main armament. This led to the Air Ministry for a brief period specifying 12-machine gun armament for new fighters.[6]

Subsequently, a suitable belt-feeding system was developed by Martin-Baker, and the new design was adopted by the RAF and Fleet Air Arm in 1941 in a slightly modified form as the Hispano Mk.II. Four cannon replaced the eight .303 Browning machine guns in the Hurricane[7] and in some tropical versions of the Spitfire, becoming standard armament in later fighters. Most other Spitfires had only two cannon, because outboard cannon tended to freeze at high altitudes, along with four 0.303 calibre (7.7mm) or two 0.50 calibre (12.7mm) machine guns.[8]
In the buildup to the Second World War, the United Kingdom had embarked on a programme to develop cannon-armed fighters.[4] They acquired a licence to build the HS.404, which entered production as the Hispano Mk.I intended as aeroplane armament. Its first use was in the Westland Whirlwind of 1940, and later in the more powerful Bristol Beaufighter, providing the Royal Air Force with powerful cannon-armed interceptors.[5] The experience of the Battle of Britain had shown the batteries of eight rifle-calibre machine guns to be inadequate and prompted the adoption of auto cannon armament for the primary portion of Royal Air Force (RAF) fighters.[6] The Beaufighter highlighted the need for a belt feed mechanism; as a night fighter the 60-round drums needed to be replaced in the dark by the Radar/Wireless Operator, often while the aircraft was manoeuvering to keep sight of its quarry. In addition, the early trial installations in the Hawker Hurricane and Supermarine Spitfirehad shown a tendency for the gun to jam during combat manoeuvres, leading to some official doubt as to the suitability of cannon as the sole main armament. This led to the Air Ministry for a brief period specifying 12-machine gun armament for new fighters.[6]
 
Last edited:
I would hope the Tempest was a better fighter than the MK IX Spitfire.

It took until Sept of 1944 to get five operational squadrons of Tempests into service. Just over two years earlier (Aug 1942) there were 4 squadrons of MK IX Spitfires.
First Tempest squadron/s went operational in April of 1944. First Spitfire two stage Griffon squadron (No 610) went operational in Dec 1943. Six squadrons in the 2nd TAF by Dec 1944.

The Tempest is going to look fantastic compared to a plane that was 2 years older, compared to an old airplane with an up to date engine the difference is not anywhere near as marked.
 

Initially i agree, the Spitfire was after all a 1930's design. But engine wise, the evolution of the Spit from a small black merlin to a huge Griffon powered machine with X4 20mm canon in later/last models such as the Mk 22 clearly showed just how versatile and easy the basic design was to constantly update deserves much credit. And even though the Tempest ll was effectively a post war fighter, (Mainly due to the scarcity of the Bristol Centaurus radial engine) was in most respects a better aircraft than the Tempest V. It had a better roll rate, more powerful and reliable engine and spawned a new fast modern post war aircraft carrier fighter. The Hawker Sea Fury. I guess sometimes regardless of which aircraft is best some planes just hold more of a soft spot in our heart. For example the Spitfire was and is one of the most graceful, practical fighters of its day. But i still prefer the Hawker Hurricane.....
 

The Bf 109F4 should be able to beat 400 mph mark once the DB 601E s cleared for 'Notleistung', that being winter of 1941/42 (it was ~390 mph before that). As fast commented above - no turbo on Spitfires. Engines that are already on the design board will not power any aircraft, this is what produced and installed engines do.


Short-barreled Hispano, the Mk.II, entered service some 4 years after the British-made Hispano II, on Tempest. One might expect that engineers and technicians figured out a thing or two about cann'ns' installations. We can also recall that both Hurricane and Typhoon were featuring unproblematic cannon installations.
German pilot or two is indeed entitled to it's opinion, yet the Bf 109Fs were not the fastest 109s. Agility was a part of light armament and fuel load, some other German pilots compained about lack of firepower (so many of the 109s got gondola cannons), and we know that 109 was unable to provide real long-range work in Zero or P-51 league - confirming the 'no free lunch' rule once again. The Bf 109G2 was a refined 109F4, production of the Fw 190 was being upscaled as possible anyway.

Smokey Stover said:
Ok, so maybe this will clear things up about the 20mm British Hispano Suiza.
<snip>
Click to expand...

Interesting. Your work?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

50 year old airplane
Replies
12
Views
978
MIflyer
M
Sakai Saburo Vs Sugita Sho-ichi
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
4K
GrauGeist
Supercharging & stuff - losses, improvements, good vs. bad. vs. excellent etc
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
Bretoal2
B
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
12K
EwenS
E
Menu
Log in
Register