The Effectivness of 8 x.303s

Hi Slaterat,

>I dont believe that the Luftwaffe was at any major tactical disadvantage to the RAF. One could argue the opposite as RAF fighters were often still climbing to the fight and caught at an altitude disadvantage.

This certainly happened too. However, the problem is that we don't know how often each side had the initial advantage, so this gap in our knowledge invalidates any conclusion towards the relative effectiveness of the guns.

Another big factor is that for the RAF fighters operating over friendly territory and at the edge of the Me 109's range, it was much easier to disengage from a combat if at a disadvantage - and we don't know how many RAF aircraft were thus saved, and how many Messerschmitts could not escape from a disadvantageous position in an otherwise symmetrical situation.

So the lack of knowledge about the exact amount of the asymmetry between the RAF and the Luftwaffe fighters' combat experience simply makes a valid conclusion on the effectiveness of their armament impossible.

Better data might exist, but I'm not aware of it ... and even then, it might be contested. (If you remember the recent discussion on Bungay's Spitfire vs. Hurricane data, you know what I mean

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

renrich said:

..If the British fighters had had four 50 cal BMGs with a good ammo load( 400 rds per gun, like the F4F3 which was roughly contemporaneous) and IF that armament load had not been so excessive in weight or size to negatively impact the performance of the fighters, the RAF would have had more success in shooting down the FW AC. Likewise, if they had mounted four 20 mms or two 20 mms and two 50 BMGs(like later Spitfires did) and IF the 20 mms had been as reliable as the MGs were and IF the ammo load was almost as great as the load with the four 50s and IF the same caveats about weight, size and performance applied, then they would have been even more successful at their task. The facts are that they did not have the four 50s for probably perfectly good reasons and the 20 mms at that time were not reliable in that particular configuration in use at that time, so they went with the eight 303s and that sufficed...

Click to expand...

All good points Renrich
but we're drifting into what-if territory here, the cold fact is that 8 x .303s is what we had and the debate centres around that armament being adequate based upon kill ratios for both sides.

I'm not sure the argument is sound, based upon my previous posts.

Well I'm sitting here with abroken ankle so I've got some time for lazy conjecture

I'm not argueing that there weren't better araments than 8 x.303, but for its time period ie 39/40 it did the job against 109s, 110s and the German twin engined medium bombers. Would I want to go up against 4 engined , heavily built, armed and armoured B 17s/24s, with 8 x .303s, no way.

HoHun wrote

Another big factor is that for the RAF fighters operating over friendly territory and at the edge of the Me 109's range, it was much easier to disengage from a combat if at a disadvantage - and we don't know how many RAF aircraft were thus saved, and how many Messerschmitts could not escape from a disadvantageous position in an otherwise symmetrical situation.

Click to expand...

I would have to say that the short range of the 109 had a more telling affect on the survivability of the Luftwaffe bombers, than it did on the survivability of the 109. A 109 could often escape from a Hurricane and a Spifire by diving away. Fighting over England gave the RAF an a big advantage in saving pilots but probably not so much in saving aircraft

and

So the lack of knowledge about the exact amount of the asymmetry between the RAF and the Luftwaffe fighters' combat experience simply makes a valid conclusion on the effectiveness of their armament impossible.

Click to expand...

This is what we have to work with, of course there is almost an infinite amount of variables. Can one make an absolute conclusion , no thats why forums like this exist.

Slaterat

HoHun said:

Hi Maximowitz,

>Unless you were there at the time and actually taking part anything you say is merely lazy conjecture.

Few historians ever took part in anything, and those who did have to be treated with caution because they are biased more often than not.

In fact, history can be considered the armchair science of lazy conjecture - you better get used to it.

If you have anything to contribute to Slaterat's specific question or my specific reply, you're invited to lazily conjecture with us. Should you be unwilling (or unable) to raise the intellectual level of your posts above the "Allies won = good guns" mark, or again miss the point completely as in your "skill and luck" post, I'll simply put you on my ignore list and you can have all the fun you want without my interference.

Kind regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Click to expand...

Wrong. Being a historian is attempting to extrapolate the truth from fact. Not speculating on what may or may not have happened if this or that had been available. You'll find that under "fiction" in your local library.

Hi Slaterat,

>Well I'm sitting here with abroken ankle so I've got some time for lazy conjecture

Ouch - I hope it heals well! We'll try to keep you entertained during reconvalescence

>I'm not argueing that there weren't better araments than 8 x.303, but for its time period ie 39/40 it did the job against 109s, 110s and the German twin engined medium bombers.

My point is that better armament might have resulted in a much quicker, less costly and more decisive fashion. "Do the job" is a misleading simplification, since it implies that there is just one job that's either done or not. However, destroying so many bombers that the Luftwaffe would have to give up serious bombing, either for night operations or for "Circus" type fighter baiting operations, would have done a different job and not brought Britain so close to panic as it historically was.

(My view on the Battle of Britain is that it was a strategic air war, as the Luftwaffe tried to bomb the British into negotiating, not just the tactical air war aimed at the destruction of fighter command many writers think it was. Accordingly, being forced into ineffective night operations or tactical-only "Circus" attacks would have defeated the Luftwaffe's primary goal.)

>I would have to say that the short range of the 109 had a more telling affect on the survivability of the Luftwaffe bombers, than it did on the survivability of the 109.

It also had a telling effect on the survivability of the Hurricane and Spitfire. While the Messerschmitts were fighting at 15000 ft with 10 minutes fuel before they had to get back, they had to think twice about following a diving Hurricane or Spitfire down to finish them off. When the Messerschmitt tried to dive, the RAF fighters would have had little reason not to follow them ... they had no fuel concerns, and the dive would probably separate the Me 109 from its mates that tried to keep the altitude to make sure they would all make it bck to France.

>Can one make an absolute conclusion , no thats why forums like this exist.

True, but in this particular case, I'd even say the unknowns are so powerful that we can't even make a valid approximation.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hi Maximowitz,

You're on my ignore list now. I'm sure you're going to enjoy that.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hohun, just because he said something you don't agree with you ignore him (and he isn't the only one). That is pretty childish is you ask me and the way it is going to be, you're going to be ignoring everyone and have no-one left to speak to... Why can't you just accept that you have differences and discuss it in a civilised manner...

Now to the question at hand. The 8 .303's were effective to the extent that they brought down a large number of aircraft and stopped the German offensive. Now it took a lot of bullets to do this it's true and a number of aircraft went home that wouldn't of done with a heavier armament (perhaps).

However if you have lot of pilots new to air to air gunnery then the more rounds you carry the more likely you are to hit something with them. Whether or not you get a 'kill' or not is up for debate. But the more rounds you have technically means the more time for practice you have in a real world environment rather than on the training ranges.

Now it is just pure speculation if you ask me what would happened if the RAF had up-gunned the Spitfire and the Hurricane to include either a battery of 50 cals or 2 x 20mm + some .303's (like in the MKV). Obviously this gives them more firepower and as a result more destructive capability but with less rounds being able to be carried. Now going with the number of hits per kill, this is going to be less with the heavier armament but if the accuracy is still as poor as it was then it isn't necessarily going to mean more aircraft are shot down because it doesn't matter how heavier your armament is if you can't hit anything with it.

At the end of the day the 8 .303's were used and they did their job effectively enough to stop the Luftwaffe. Now we know the RAF rearmed the fighters after the battle (tried during) to make them more effective in the new environment of air combat but at the start when there wasn't a large presence of self-sealing fuel tanks and armour (unlike the end of the war). With the environment of the time of the battle the 8 .303's were an effective fighter to fighter armament but they were not perhaps the best against bombers (too light).

Would the outcome of the battle been any different had the Luftwaffe had Spitfires and Hurricanes with .303's and the RAF with BF109E (2 x 7.92mm and 2 x 20mm). The answer to that is probably no. The losses to the Luftwaffe may of been heavier and the offensive ended sooner but and the end of the day the result would of been similar which in its on way proves the effectiveness of the .303's in the early stages of the war. After this the RAF realised the limitations of them and started moving to heavier calibre weapons - the Hispano Cannons.

There were some Belgian Hurricanes built with 4 x.50s, but I dont believe they saw any action. This armament would of been an easy conversion for the Hurricane but probably not so much for the Spit. As we already know the RAF decided that the .50s weren't enough of an improvement , if any, and skipped up to the 20mm.

Back on the original topic of the thread, to summarize you have the luftwaffe with

-a significant advantage in numbers
-an overall advantage in performance, level speed, diving speed,
and if you believe some members, the 109 has a turn advantage
-cannon armed fighters

and for some reason(s), the RAF Fighters went nearly 1 to 1 with them and managed to knock down 1000 bombers while doing so. So why?

Some theories based on fire power /shooting

8 x .303s though light on weight of firepower puts a , lot of bullets and tracers in the air, and thus an increase in the probability of a hit/ critical hit.

The Hurricane was a great gun platform, stable and easy to see out of when shooting = greater probability of a hit

The Hurricanes unique structure provided great strength and was very resistant to damage from cannon shells.

Slaterat

Maximowitz said:

I would be particularly interested in hearing exactly how many fighter sorties HoHun managed during World War II? 5? 100? I suspect he's another little "armchair general" gathering data and specifications while playing with his Microsoft flight simulator and posting pointless "this versus that" threads.

Unless you were there at the time and actually taking part anything you say is merely lazy conjecture.

Click to expand...

Let's not be condescending in the other direction, what you described is what historians, both amateur and pro, do with history, and in 30 years they will be all we have, the veterans will be gone.

Clay_Allison said:

Let's not be condescending in the other direction, what you described is what historians, both amateur and pro, do with history, and in 30 years they will be all we have, the veterans will be gone.

Click to expand...

Fair play Clay, but as I said in a previous post I was fortunate enough to meet pilots like Tuck, Galland and Rall and I'm far more inclined to believe what they told me about their actual day to day experiences as fighter pilots than the fanciful speculations posted by certain members here.

Hi Gnomey,

>Hohun, just because he said something you don't agree with you ignore him (and he isn't the only one).

It's not if you agree with me that gets you on my ignore list, it's how you behave yourself that gets you on my ignore list.

Look at his posts: The first, "Allies won=Allied equipment superior" fallacy. The second, unspecific to the point of meaninglessness. The third, "ad hominem". The fourth, oversimplification (because a historian not allowed to consider alternatives will not ever be able to judge the adequacy of a historic action).

Even more telling, there is no connection between first post ("Allies won"), second post ("Skill and luck"), third ("Only those who were there know") and fourth post "("Historians don't speculate"). That's a clear sign he's not interested in explaining his opinion but just looking for an opportunity to bash me.

I'm not responsible for ramming down the foundations of basic logic down the unwilling throats of everyone in the wide, wide internet who happens disagrees with me, and if you look at the work of the German philosopher Schopenhauer, he expressly advises his audience to refrain from discussion with people who have already made up their minds, lack genuine interest and resort to manipulative debating techniques.

I don't see any genuine interest in Maximowitz' post, and in fact I don't even see him adressing the question Slaterat posed, so in accordance with Schopenhauer's advice, I put him on my ignore list.

>That is pretty childish is you ask me and the way it is going to be, you're going to be ignoring everyone and have no-one left to speak to...

Nice of you to care about that However, there are always so many people with who disagree with me in an intelligent, constructive and friendly manner that I don't miss the guys I put on my ignore list for their lack of these qualities.

>Now it is just pure speculation if you ask me what would happened if the RAF had up-gunned the Spitfire and the Hurricane to include either a battery of 50 cals or 2 x 20mm + some .303's (like in the MKV). Obviously this gives them more firepower and as a result more destructive capability but with less rounds being able to be carried.

Hm, you have to be aware that 20 mm cannon not only have greater firepower than machine guns, but that the destructiveness of their ammunition supply is greater, too.

Here is a battery comparison I already posted in the Battle of Britain thread, but which is relevant here as well:

8x Browning ,303 - 333 rpg, 17 s duration - 160 kg - 0,7 MW firepower
6x ,50 Browning M2 - 93 rpg, 7 s duration - 250 kg - 1,7 MW firepower
4x ,50 Browning M2 - 140 rpg, 11 s duration - 192 kg - 1,1 MW firepower
2x Hispano II - 60 rpg, 6 s duration - 130 kg - 2,1 MW firepower

The important (and often misunderstood) point that applies to your comment: The total energy of the ammunition supply for the 12.7 mm machine guns is about the same as for the 7.7 mm guns. Duration of fire of course is shorter with higher firepower. The cannon battery is three times as effective as the 7.7 mm battery while being 30 kg lighter despite carrying slightly more total energy in its ammunition supply. (Ammunition drums and boxes not considered for any weapon.)

>Would the outcome of the battle been any different had the Luftwaffe had Spitfires and Hurricanes with .303's and the RAF with BF109E (2 x 7.92mm and 2 x 20mm). The answer to that is probably no.

The answer is "probably no" because the RAF won the Battle of Britain. However, this victory was the result of many factors, and as it has been pointed out in the recent "Royal Navy won the Battle of Britain" thread, the iron determination to keep on fighting Winston Churchill inspired in the British populace was one of them. With a different prime minister, the Luftwaffe bombing might have made a much deeper impression on Britain as a whole, and the Germans might have achieved their objective of getting Britain to negotiate some sort of piece so that they would not have to worry about a second front while attacking the Soviet Union. More effective armament would simply have meant that the margin of safety of the British victory, against the possibility I'm describing or against other ones, would have been increased.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Another point about better armament is very well made in Peter Townsend's book, although he was not aware he was making the point, and that was that the British pilots often fired and saw hits and bits and pieces flew with sometimes smoke or maybe coolant and the enemy AC may have started toward the ground but they were specifically instructed to not follow an AC they thought they had mortally hit. The British pilot's claims were often 3 to 4 times the actual kills. Of course the German claims were also too high. Perhaps with a heavier armament many more of the claims might have been kills.

Hohun - I have looked through your analysises with interest and have note the energy is the greater in both the 50 cal and 20mm despite the shorter firing time. However my point was that the pilots needed to better shots to place this smaller supply of ammunition on the target. Thus a great supply of ammunition allowed for more attempts to hit - shall we say "spray and pay" rather than more accurate shooting. In this form the .303's are more effective than either of the heavier calibres with less rounds but obviously the damage is less so this is a bit of null point.

Finally I understand your position Hohun and I suppose we can all word a points better most of the time and make allowances for misunderstandings (from not reading/mistypes).

Renrich - pilots from all sides over claimed throughout the war I doubt there would be no difference whatever the weapons used.

So Gnomey, learn to behave yourself or you too might find yourself on the dreaded "ignore" Schopenhauer list. It is dark and lonely on the list but someone has to be on it.

Hi Gnomey,

>Thus a great supply of ammunition allowed for more attempts to hit - shall we say "spray and pay" rather than more accurate shooting. In this form the .303's are more effective than either of the heavier calibres with less rounds but obviously the damage is less so this is a bit of null point.

Ah, yes - with equal hit probability (which is just an approximation), you'll get the same share of the total ammunition supply on target, and as you point out there is no difference between fewer more destructive hits and more less destructive hits if the original ammunition supply and the hit probability are equal.

This is a bit counter-intuitive I guess - I know it's a point that I often find difficult to explain ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

I think that most parties are comming to a similar conclusion i.e.

Was 8 x 303 the ideal armament no,
Was it sufficient, yes.
Would the RAF have been better off with 4 or 6 x 0.50, yes

Interesting question which I have never seen debated, would the Luftwaffe have been better off with 4 x 0.5 instead of the 2 x 20mm and 2 x LMG?
Immediate gut reaction is no, as the 20mm was far more powerful but with only 60rpg ?

Digressing but I agree with Kurfurst when I believe that the RAF would have been better off with the 109E.

HoHun said:

Hi Gnomey,

>Thus a great supply of ammunition allowed for more attempts to hit - shall we say "spray and pay" rather than more accurate shooting. In this form the .303's are more effective than either of the heavier calibres with less rounds but obviously the damage is less so this is a bit of null point.

Ah, yes - with equal hit probability (which is just an approximation), you'll get the same share of the total ammunition supply on target, and as you point out there is no difference between fewer more destructive hits and more less destructive hits if the original ammunition supply and the hit probability are equal.

This is a bit counter-intuitive I guess - I know it's a point that I often find difficult to explain ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Click to expand...

Would agree with that. A lot of what we are discussing depends on getting the rounds on target and this depends a lot on skill and having a good eye. For a rookie they might prefer a lot of rounds to play with (such as the .303's) whereas an experten with lots of experience and a good eye would prefer a smaller more destructive weapons package (such as the all nose mounted armament seen in later 109's (Marseilles for example). Ultimately there is more destruction in the second package but less chances to secure a hit(s) although that hit(s) are more likely to achieve a 'kill'.

Glider said:

Digressing but I agree with Kurfurst when I believe that the RAF would have been better off with the 109E.

Click to expand...

That's not digressing
that is more or less the point. Discussing the relative merits of various, heavier-calibre weapons is digressing. It is well documented elsewhere on the forum that the .50 hits harder than the .303 and the 20mm hits harder than the .50; in that respect the distinction between this thread and the Battle of Britain thread are becoming a little blurry.

The start of the thread asked 'were 8 x .303s adequate' (history has proved this to be the case) and then goes on to offer a theory that

'it would seem that the apparent advantage of cannons didn`t account for much during the BoB'

I don't think the advantages of cannons will manifest themselves clearly in single-engined fighter vs single-engined fighter combat; the fact that Luftwaffe fighters are clearly making a bigger mess of RAF fighters when they hit them, doesn't mean Luftwaffe fighters aren't being shot down.

The differences (advantages) would be seen far more clearly if it were the Luftwaffe intercepting bomber streams with their armament configuration, instead of the RAF with theirs; cannons will chew a bomber up more quickly and effectively than an eight-gun battery of .303s.

I think it would be seen that far from being 'adequate' they would be pretty damned effective and I would even go so far as to speculate that daylight bombing would be cancelled.

To consider the relative merits of the armament configuration of opposing aircraft in a given battle you have to consider how those opposing aircraft would have dealt with all types of aircraft involved in that battle and that's the problem with the BoB, German fighters just weren't engaging bombers in the same way that the RAF were - this is why I think the BoB isn't a representative case for comparing 8 x .303s against cannons.

I agree with your sentiment, Kurfurst had it about right.

slaterat said:

The source specifically states " Luftwaffe forces deployed against Great Britain, Aug 10 1940. Figures taken from the Luftwaffe Quartermaster General 6th, Abteilung returns."

Slaterat

Click to expand...

very strange 6th AFAIK it's for june

Colin 1
My comment was digressing as the reasons for my preference for the 109E over the Spitfire 1a for the RAF, had more to do than with the guns. I am sure we all agree that any design is a balance of many things and the 109E's balance is the one I prefer.

However back to the effectiveness of the weapons. As I have said I believe the 8 x 303 to be adaquate. Had the RAF been armed with 2 x 20mm and 2 x LMG, or 4/6 x 0.5 instead, then I believe that they would have done better and a lot of German aircraft that just made it home, wouldn't have made it home.