The actual quote is a bit more blood-thirsty, with Malan saying something bout how he liked the moral-dampening effect of sending the damaged bomber home with the injured crew shot to ribbons or coughing their lungs out. Something like that anyway.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The actual quote is a bit more blood-thirsty, with Malan saying something bout how he liked the moral-dampening effect of sending the damaged bomber home with the injured crew shot to ribbons or coughing their lungs out. Something like that anyway.@fastmongrel IDK, this would be a morale boost to me, knowing that my ship can take a beating and still get me home.
17 Images of Damaged B-17 Bombers That Miraculously Made It Home
True, but you're looking at the "not" data - the aircraft that were not shot down. Many German bombers went down after a single burst, because a de Wilde incendiary hit the right spot and set them alight, or an AP round found an oxygen tank (instant disintegration), or killed the pilot. Some RAF night bombers came home with more than twenty hits by MG-FFM minengeschoss ammunition, whereas some B-17s went down after one shell in the cockpit.I think the issue starts with bombers in the BoB taking an extraordinary number of hits to take them down. I have read of the being riddled everywhere with many passing through prop blades where a cannon shell would have blown the blade off. Many bombers landed in France and never took off again. In the later raids on London there were many bombers with no escort over London that made it home, whether cannons on RAF fighters would have changed it is a possibility.
In theory, any Spitifre after the V with the universal wing could carry four Hispanos. The Spitfire VC was intended to go for four Hispano cannons as standard, and the original batch sent to Malta in 1942 did include four-cannon Spitfires, but the pilots on Malta preferred two Hispanos and four .303s because it was lighter, which meant the Spits climbed better, and rate of climb was all important over Malta. They also only faced twin-engined Ju88s and three-engined Savoias, so two Hispanos were enough punch to get the job done. If they had faced something tougher like B-17s then they probably would have needed four Hispanos, but the Luftwaffe failed to make a real strategic bomber as good as the B-17.Quite possibly, but 4 cannons only became standard with the Mk 21 onwards, before that it was 2 cannon plus either no mg, 4 lmg or 2 HMG. 4 cannon + 4 lmg is a lot of recoil for such a slender wing.
IDK, Germany could follow Prussia's example, crush the French into submission, and then completely withdraw from France once they agree to terms. With France no longer at war or under occupation, but instead the French people are left to enjoy their baguettes, fine wines and soft cheeses; do the British people still have sufficient beef with Germany to carry on?The war with Britain had already been started; Germany needed to make some really serious concessions to end it.
Oh dear, history lesson in the offing!This is another one of those myths that should go into that thread ... Oerlikons were never put into British fighters -- always the Hispano.
IDK, Germany could follow Prussia's example, crush the French into submission, and then completely withdraw from France once they agree to terms. With France no longer at war or under occupation, but instead the French people are left to enjoy their baguettes, fine wines and soft cheeses; do the British people still have sufficient beef with Germany to carry on?
IMO, once the French have surrendered and the Germans have withdrawn, the British people, Parliamentary opposition and even FDR may be pushing for Churchill to call it a day - no one wants Bolshevism to spread, so many may be cheering Hitler on. Of course this wouldn't bode well for Hitler's Untermensch, nor Japan's expansionist plans. Maybe someone wants to try this out in the What'if forum?
Oh dear, history lesson in the offing!
The V7360 aircraft was built by Hawker in response to the Air Ministry's four-cannon fighter requirement, and the cannon installation was first sketched in 1934. V7360 is supposed to have made its first flight in four-gun form in March 1936. The design was tendered to the Air Ministry in April 1936, with four Oerlikons, and rejected, because the Air Ministry had already decided the Hispano was a better option, and because the cannon required a completely different wing design (the box wing), which would have disrupted Hurricane production. Hawker then continued developing V7360 as a research prototype with the Air Ministry's approval. The box wing design used on V7360 replaced the spar wing of the Hurricane I for the Hurricane IIC's four-cannon design, which was one reason why the Hurricane IIC went into service so smoothly - the new wing design had already been proven.
L1750 was a much simpler requirement, to test whether a Hurricane I with the standard spar wing could be fitted with cannon. Because the cannon barrels were too big to pass through the leading spar without major cutting and reinforcing, the idea was to test two underwing gunpods. Such an improvisation offered a quick way to switch a number of existing Hurricane Is into cannon-carrying Hurricanes. Oerlikons were used for the test aircraft because they were available, whereas Hispanos were not. The result was slower and less manouverable than the ordinary Mk I, so did not pass muster. The idea did later lead to the 40mm anti-tank version, the Hurricane IID. L1750 was tested at North Weald and was still attached to 151 Squadron when the BoB started, languishing in a hanger there as no-one wanted to fly a slower Hurricane. It wasn't until F/Lt Smith joined the Squadron on 19th June 1940, saw L1750 and decided to give it a go that it was used operationally. Smith described himself as "a bit of a gun buff" and wanted to see what the cannon could do!
The general narrative sounds about right but I've never come across anything that would indicate a (nonsensical in my opinion) substitution of the Hispanos with Oerlikons.
A&AEE trials (24 Nov 1940) of V1750 clearly show Hispano guns.
A&AEE trials (4 Aug 1940) of V7630 clearly show Hispano guns.
Blohm & Voss BV 138 - WikipediaThe LW only had a few dozen Diesel engined aircraft and for some reason they were very prone to engine fires.
Flashpoint of Avgas is -40 centigrade, flashpoint of diesel is +60 centigrade, self ignition point of Magnesium is +473 centigrade.
For those people from primitive countries that still use Ye Olde British Goat measurements you will have to use google to convert Centigrade to Fairyheights.
V7360 might have been lugging Hispanos in late 1940, but there were no Hispanos available when L1750 was originally trialed in 1939, and definitely none in 1936 when V7360 first flew with four cannon.
The aircraft flown also played a part, a Spitfire was marginally better at keeping its pilots alive for all sorts of reasons. Over the course of time this had an effect.
Making assumptions here....
But the RAF had some very green pilots who hadn't flown 10 hours in a Spitfire and were using questionable tactics. So how 20mm gonna help them I am sure I don't know.
I was just saying that is the statistics, nothing to stop a Hurricane pilot becoming an ace or a spitfire pilot being lost on his first day.The pilot was a more important component. They didn't all fly Spitfires in the BoB (Lock, McKellar and I think Gray did).
I was saying why some felt the need for cannon which was a perception not a complete reality.True, but you're looking at the "not" data - the aircraft that were not shot down. Many German bombers went down after a single burst, because a de Wilde incendiary hit the right spot and set them alight, or an AP round found an oxygen tank (instant disintegration), or killed the pilot. Some RAF night bombers came home with more than twenty hits by MG-FFM minengeschoss ammunition, whereas some B-17s went down after one shell in the cockpit.
On another point, all the Luftwaffe bombers in the Bob excepting the Do17s had liquid-cooled engines, which meant they were very vulnerable to even .303 ball ammo. One hit in each radiator and they had about five minutes before the engines seized. A lot of Luftwaffe bombers lost over Britain in 1940 took minor flak damage, which led to engine failure, which led to the bomber being forced to crash-land. Bullet placement is much more important than simply spraying the target, a matter the aces realized and meant they aimed for the engines and the cockpit. The RAF standard of eight .303s sprayed a lot of bullets, which gave the average pilot a better chance of hitting the spots the aces aimed for. The cannon would have fired less rounds, so less chance for the average pilot to hit the right spot. And, even with 20mm HE shells, you still had to hit the right spot to bring a bomber down.
A production run of 297 is not a few dozen but a few hundred. Pre war problems with diesel engines is not the same as having permanent problems with diesel engines.Neither link disproves anything I said.
I think the issue starts with bombers in the BoB taking an extraordinary number of hits to take them down. I have read of the being riddled everywhere with many passing through prop blades where a cannon shell would have blown the blade off.