Favorites and their achilles heels!

[renrich]

I have read that the RAF wanted to replace the 303s on British bombers with 50 BMGs but the 50s were not readily available so they soldiered on with the 303. Comparing the 50BMG with the 303 as far as overall lethality is ridiculous. Against aircraft, lightly armored vehicles, lightly armored ships, there is no comparison..

 

[Edgar Brooks]

--

 

[pbfoot]

I've read more then once about gunners that would not fire there 303's because they were worried that it would wake up the LW pilot who was unaware of them

 

[drgondog]

Unfortunately, the Germans didn't often drop a Fw190 into the U.K., in such a state as to enable us to use it for destructive testing (they had to ship a hulk back from the Middle East.) Complete aircraft were used for combat training. The usual firing range/synchronisation was 250 yards, not 100.

The usual range for a german nightfighter was 150 yards or less. A night fighter would be extremely difficult to see, much less hit at 250 yards in a blacked out night, and when approaching from low aft even more difficult. Why would BC harmonize at 250 yards. I'm not disputing your claim - it just seems to be a stupid policy for tail and mid upper gunners to harmonize way past their average shooting range based on seeing their target - PARTICULARLY if standard practice was to wait until the German fighter started shooting?.

As to frontal firing tests, there were plenty of radial engines written off, it would be easy to duplicate an FW 190 frontal armor framework including armored windscreen. The Ministry shouldn't have to 'guess'

Precisely what was being said, (14mm armour protected the Fw190 pilot's head,) so a deflection shot was the only thing that worked with machine guns, and 4 x .303" threw out more lead than 2 x .5".

More, far less effective .303 rounds at a target that you state is inpenetrable by a Browning .50 makes no sense at all

How often did the RAF have head-on confrontations with German fighters?

'Head -On' in this context is a German Fighter closing from 6 O'clock in confrontation with an RAF tail gunner - which should have been a very high percentage of the stalk and shoot engagements? Did you have something else in mind?

Against an enemy that is frantically manouevring to get out of the way (against fighters?) Also, most aircraft had armour around ammunition boxes, and bullets through a pilot tend to be faster-acting than one in the mainspar.

If that is the scenario you have in mind there is a far higher probabilty of a 5-10% deflection shot which obviates the 0 degree protections?

Which aircraft had armor around ammo boxes? Certainly not US or Lend Lease aircraft. Which german a/c had armor? Not the FW 190 and where is the armor around ammo on the Ju 88 or Me 110?

Back to your bullet through a pilot theory - all good but the statement you made was that neither the .303 or .50 could penetrate to the pilot from 0 deflection in front - but to 'be effective' a .50 had to have 5 degree deflection (I would throw a BS flag until I see the actual proof). At ANY deflection the kinetic energy of the .50 is 4x the .303 which makes a probability of a one round kill on a pilot much higher for any hit which would cause bleeding - .50s blow big holes in things they hit.

But first you have to guarantee that, in the dark, a gunner will be able to aim his two slower-firing guns accurately enough, before the fighter opens fire. Until the advent of the gyro sight, there was no certainty of that. There is also the consideration of bomb load; compare the average weight carried by the Lancaster, against that of the B-17, then work out how much less it would have been, with more guns (which, as you say, might never be used.)

Back to the visibility range discussion above - if the rear and mid upper gunners didn't shoot until German fighter well into range so as to not 'wake him up' then aiming two slower firing but much much more powerful weapons is no more difficult. If firing at greater range before fighter opens up - same argument.

I wasn't articulating that the Lancaster carry 'more guns' - I actually believe two 50's per turret were better than four .303's - but having said that we are only talking about 20 pounds per extra gun as contrasted to carrying 200 pounds less bomb load for the Lancaster to replace all .303 with all .50. Trivial basis of argument?

Which is precisely what the Air Ministry did, with the 4-gun 20-series Spitfires, once they had a (Griffon) engine, with enough oomph to lift that extra weight, and a wing strong enough to take the extra recoil.

First - the ability of the Spit to mount and carry 4x 20mm was never limited by engine power. As an example the P-51 (pre P-51A and Mark I) had 4 x 20mm with an 1100 hp engine and heavier than the Spit (all marks). It would have been easy to install 4 x20mm in the P-51B/C/D without suffering significant performance loss - particularly in contrast with the 6x 50 P-51D. Wing design was primary issue with Early Spits - not Rolls Royce engine.

Your extra weight argument is spurious. The LW suffered equally from the slightly more agile four .50 B/C Mustang as it did from the 600 pound heavier P-51D with 6x.50 ( two extra 50 cal plus 400 more rounds of ammo) - and that delta weight was FAR more significant than the adding say twenty x .50 cal to a Lancaster.

Look, this argument loses all basis for anything but opinion absent tests to demonstrate what the US Army knew from 1918 to present day. The Browning M2 and M3 .50 Caliber heavy machine gun is a far more powerful and effective anti armor, anti aircraft weapon than the M1919 30 (30-06 vs .303). The .50 breaks engine blocks, penetrates through 2x armor plate at any range - and increases the advantage with range.

I absolutely think leigh-Mallory was 100% correct in his views and surprised he didn't simply declare victory on the subject.

 

[Glider]

The idea was dropped, for the "standard" version, since 11 Group's commanding officer objected to the loss of height and rate-of-climb, when his fighters were being used for escort work; the tanks necessitated clipped wings, so were only used for the low-level "bubble-top" XVI F.R.XIV.

As far as I am aware the idea wasn't dropped. Far from it, 800 fuel tanks were ordered for retro fitting into existing Spit IXE and teardrop mk IX's had them installed as standard.

 

[Glider]

Going back to the idea behind the thread, My favorite plane would be the Whirlwind and its weak spot, only 60 RPG.

 

[Juha]

I have pages of the back-and-forth arguments between Leigh-Mallory and the Air Ministry hierarchy, which you're welcome to see, but there are too many to put them on here. L-M wanted them, the A.M. said no, and gave their reasons, which had nothing to do with production, or availability, of the.5".
Edit: This is typical of the response that L-M received:-

Thanks a lot, Edgar
always love to see original docus!

IMHO according to the few reports/memos I have seen on British armament tests they were realistic. IIRC at first British concluded that .5 Browning AP bullet was incapable to penetrate the back armour in LW fighters but later changed their mind. I cannot remember was it simply that later tests gave different results, penetration ability of a bullet after first coming through even light structures is a bit unpredictable, or had US designed a better AP round between the tests. IIRC US designed, or copied a Russian one, clearly better .5 AP/I round during the war.

Juha

 

[Edgar Brooks]

--

 

[Edgar Brooks]

--

 

[Edgar Brooks]

--

 

[Glider]

No they weren't. Modification 1335 was cancelled, as a general item, and only instituted for the XVI, as it was being built, because they were only ever intended for low-level use (like the F.R.XIVe, the only other wartime Mark to carry them.) The other necessary mods were too complicated, and time-consuming, to justify their inclusion. As it was the XVI only saw about three months of use, in 1945; no low-back Spitfire, of any Mark, was cleared for use before the end of 1944.
ADGB also pointed out that the necessity to "fly off" a sizeable gallonage, before they could go into combat, meant that, effectively, their range only increased by about 75 miles. With airfields available in freed parts of Europe, the extra range meant little, and droptanks were still the best option (apart from the risk of being blown up by a single incendiary round in a fume-filled tank.)
To give you an idea of what was thought of them, post-war, Squadrons were banned from using (or even filling) the XVI's tanks.

Do you know when this was cancelled. I say this as I have a number of papers that would appear to disagree with your position.

 

[bobbysocks]

the p 39 had a couple bad habits...early ones anyways. sometimes the pilots would get exhaust fumes in the cockpit. not a big deal if you are flying at altitude where you need O2 but was a pain if you were down low and off air. also it had a bad knack of tumbling...and once it started there was no pulling it out.

early 38s had horrible cockpit heaters i understand...which isnt itself isnt a big deal but remember a story where the pilot couldnt get his canopy defrosted...THAT could make life interesting.

 

[Milosh]

The only fighter that had protected ammo boxes that I can think of was the Fw190A-8/R8 that had outer wing mounted MK108 cannons.

Precisely what was being said, (14mm armour protected the Fw190 pilot's head,)

The Fw190A-8 had 8mm seat armour, 5mm back and panels on bulkhead 5 armour and 12mm head armour for the pilot.

Mod 1335 was for the standard fuselage and Mod 1414 was for the rear view fuselage.

How did the .50"s ever shoot down an a/c if the broke up on an a/c's skin?

Didn't some Spitfire Vs arrive on Malta with 4 20mm wing cannons?

 

[MikeGazdik]

1) I don't see this as anyone yelling at Edgar Brooks, just disagreeing with the opinions in the documentation you provided.

2) Back on point; All of the Russian made fighters that were severly under-gunned.

 

[parsifal]

All of the Russian made fighters that were severly under-gunned

.

True, when compared exclusively with german machines. That relative weakness is more than just a function of light armament. The 20mm SHVAK was relatively light on ballistically.

however, compared to some other nationalities, such as the italians, the Soviet aircraft were reasonably well armed

 

[Edgar Brooks]

--

 

[Edgar Brooks]

--

 

[Juha]

Hello Edgar
thanks again for the docu!

... in 1943 the Spitfire IX was being delivered direct from Gibraltar to Malta the desert, and signals talk of internal tanks being carried, together with the 170-gallon ferry tank, but I don't yet know what form those tanks took, so it's possible that they were the same type, but only possible.

Can't say anything on Mk IXs but when some Mk VCs were mod. for non-stop flights from Gibraltar to Malta, they got 29 gal rear fuselage tanks and larger oil tank, armament reduced to only 2 .303s. Equipped with a 170gal ferry drop tank so mod Mk VC could fly that just over 1,100 mls trip. When the planes arrived, the rear fuselage tank was removed, larger oil tank was changed to the normal one and they got their normal armament.These ferry flights began in Oct 42
. This info can be find from both Price's The Spitfire Story and Morgan's and Shacklady's Spitfire The History.
Juha

 

[drgondog]

There's a 7-page assessment of the probability of destruction of a Fw190A-3, by a direct stern attack, and the .303" .5" both came out with a 0% probability rating, since, as well as the pilot's armour the bullets would have oxygen tanks, tail wheel oleo, and wireless to get through, first; it also says that, with a slight deflection shot of a few degrees, even the .5" shells would be deflected, even broken up, by the fuselage skin. In the files, there is mention of work, under way, to produce a projectile that doesn't get deflected, or broken up, but, so far, I haven't found out if it actually happened.

It is simply amazing that the 1968 FW 190's Credited as Destroyed by 8th AF managed to clumsily blow up, crash or simly be abandoned as a result the application of .50 caliber rounds as puny as the RAF report suggests...

 

[Edgar Brooks]

--