Impact of fully adopted and reliable 20mm in BoB

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

Admiral Beez said:
Goodness. And all this with a .303 type gun that's been flying in pairs since 1915.
Click to expand...
No, the Japanese .303 gun was quite similar to the one flying in pairs since 1915 (or so).

That is the one you said was prefered to the 12.7mm gun (which is a scaled down Browning) which had the faults/problems I listed

the Japanese 7.7mm gun was the type 97 (no "Ho" prefix)
 
Having reliable 20mm cannons is not addressing the most important aspects of gunnery, effective sights and pilots who could use them. In the BoB it has been proven that pilots were firing at enemy planes at excessive ranges and deflection causing them to hit nothing but open air, having bigger guns without equivalent sights and training in 1940 means you just miss with bigger bullets.
 
The pilots were advised that bomber defensive armament was potent and was advised to keep a fair distance.

So it wasn't accuracy also Me 109s were about so trying to line up a shot was not good for your health.

So good speed give em a squirt and keep running. 303s were perfect for that.

Remember you are not always shooting down aircraft. Making them miss or dropping their load early is as good as a win.
 
I read an article that proposed sending back a bomber riddled with bullet holes and full of injured crew was better in the long run than shooting it down.
 
Nope it wasn't.

Dragging dead crew out of a bomber and then having to give the poor guy a funeral was a downer for morale.

A bomber gone down could be mechanical or they could be POW or could be lost could be anything.
 
The Basket said:
Nope it wasn't.

Dragging dead crew out of a bomber and then having to give the poor guy a funeral was a downer for morale.

A bomber gone down could be mechanical or they could be POW or could be lost could be anything.
Click to expand...

From a cold, accounting point of view taking care of seriously wounded prisoners, especially those who cannot either return to service or take up a civilian occupation, would use more resources than funerals.
 
The Battle of Britain is all Spitfire this and 303 that.

My favourite comment was that the Germans won the BoB coz they shot down more aircraft.

That's not how the force works!

War is not like a computer game or a sport where the top score wins. It's not Rambo.

Even if the Spitfire had 2 Vickers like a Sopwith Camel and still able to achieve its military objective then 2 Vickers were plenty.

The strategic goal will not be changed by 20mm cannon.
 
Basically, cannon armed Spits and Hurricanes cause higher German losses.
Germans shift over to night bombing sooner.
Still no German invasion.
British night fighters start to kill German bombers in March/April of 1941.
Germans pack up and attack Russia in the late spring/summer of 1941.

As the Basket says, not much of a change.
 
What no one here has mentioned so far is that it takes an awful lot of bullets to shoot down a diesel powered plane, whether its a Ju 86 or a seaplane, whereas cannon fire is totally destructive.
 
The RAF had not much combat experience so had no lessons to learn.

So we have to talk weight of fire and rate of fire. One 20mm is going to be powerful but you got 8 guns firing so you may hit more often with more accumulated effects. Airplanes are full of cables and tubes so a 'Golden BB' is very much a thing.

And remember your hitting with AP or incendiary or tracer, not light ball.

Of course 20mm is the way but fixation on the Hispano was a short term drag.

Far better 8 reliable 303 than 2 unreliable 20mm cannon.

And you harmonize the guns so they fire a tight pattern. Not just random shooting all over the shop.

A good hit with a 22 is worth far more than a miss with a 44 magnum.

The 109 started of with 2 MG 17s so 8 303s would have seemed like Thor's mighty hammer in comparison. And in comparison to some Italian and Japanese aircraft it was far more capable.
 
Shortround6 said:
Basically, cannon armed Spits and Hurricanes cause higher German losses
Click to expand...

Both the spit and hurri could only have two Hispano's with 60 rds per gun, any more and the performance suffers due to excessive weight, you also don't get reliable HE ammunition until 1941, SAPI doesn't arrive until 1942. With the .303 the guns are very reliable, have reliable AP, tracer, incendiary and lots of them, harmonize them at 200m and teach the pilots to get in close, that will give you your higher German losses.
 
There is no doubt that higher quantities of AP and Incendiary ammunition would have increased German losses. As would better gunnery training and tactics (the getting in closer).
The four .303 guns on a later Spitfire fired more AP and Incendiary ammo per second than a BoB eight gun fighter did just due to ammo availability.

But what do the higher losses mean?
A quicker shift to night bombing?
Germany stops and re-thinks the whole going to war with both Britain and Russia at the same time?
 


That last would be unlikely; going to war with the USSR was a direct result of nazism's core tenets of enslaving Slavs, colonizing Eastern Europe, and attacking bolshevism. The war with Britain had already been started; Germany needed to make some really serious concessions to end it.
 
Would there be a shift in losses? Dunno.
Training would be no better so it could be that losses decrease. Installing the 20mm could lose RAF the war.

Never expect anything and no plan survives contact with the enemy.

German thinking? That must be a new term. I never heard of that before. You could argue that no such thing existed.

Certainly from 1939 to 1945.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Something shot down more than 1,600 Luftwaffe aircraft over the three months of the Battle of Britain.
Click to expand...

Surprisingly few pilots shot anything down. Of the 1,200 Luftwaffe aircraft shot down between 10 July and 15 September, 221 were shot down by the 17 top scoring RAF pilots. That's almost 1 in 5 by just 17 pilots.

Only 15% of the pilots who flew in the Battle claimed a 'whole' aircraft. Partial claims are almost meaningless in this context. Three pilots making a gunnery pass at an aircraft which went down were all accorded 1/3 of a victory, even if only one of them hit the target.

Only 12% claimed 2 aircraft, and 7% 4 aircraft.

Cannon armament, in the hands of this skilful few, would certainly have enabled them to shoot down more aircraft. The problem is that it might have caused the next category of pilot, the 15% who did claim at least one 'whole' aircraft, to shoot down fewer. The rest, the majority, don't matter as they never hit anything anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

German answer to the WAllies introducing the P-47 + DTs and Mustang Mk.X in June of 1943?
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
mack8
M
A
Where could Universal Carriers make an impact?
Replies
4
Views
1K
Warspite63
FW-190 and The Battle of Britain
2 3
Replies
56
Views
11K
tomo pauk
British 1936-42 purchase options, logistics and export/import of military hardware
13 14 15
Replies
299
Views
35K
yulzari
Finish copy of the DH "Mosquito"
Replies
6
Views
545
Seppo
S
Menu
Log in
Register