Maximowitz
Tech Sergeant
I like you Sir, you clearly have some wit about you.
"And hath the fellow any wit about him?"
W. Shakespeare
The Effectivness of 8 x.303s
- Thread starter slaterat
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I like you Sir, you clearly have some wit about you.
"And hath the fellow any wit about him?"
W. Shakespeare
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Your digression doesn't seem to match what Kurfurst was saying; Kurfurst's statement more or less supports the claim I'm trying to make
It's all well and good comparing cannons to machine guns in a fighter vs fighter situation, the real difference between the two is when you're attempting to bring down a bomber
and I totally agree, which I think dispels the theory that cannons wouldn't have had much more luck than machine guns during the battle
- Thread starter
- #43
Hohun
I've got some weights you might be interested in. These are from my Hurricane II manual.
1 browning gun with release and safety units 24 lbs
100 rds .303 ammo 6.63 lbs
1 20 mm gun with firing unit 106.25 lbs (Hispano)
100 rds 20 mm ammo 62.5 lbs
total weight of 8 x.303 gun pakage
Guns and accessories 201 lbs
ammunition and boxes 204 lbs
so thats 405 lbs for the whole package
For the IIc 4 x 20 mm
Guns and accessories 427 lbs
ammunition and boxes 327 lbs
thats 754 lbs for the whole package.
Hohun estimates a 4 x .50 package to weigh at 192 kgs or 422lbs
So the comparable batteries are
8 x.303
4 x .50
2x20mm
anything more than this would add weight and its resultant penalties.
I'm tending to agree with Hohun upgunning to .50 really isn't worth it as you get no overall increase in total energy.
Slaterat
I've got some weights you might be interested in. These are from my Hurricane II manual.
1 browning gun with release and safety units 24 lbs
100 rds .303 ammo 6.63 lbs
1 20 mm gun with firing unit 106.25 lbs (Hispano)
100 rds 20 mm ammo 62.5 lbs
total weight of 8 x.303 gun pakage
Guns and accessories 201 lbs
ammunition and boxes 204 lbs
so thats 405 lbs for the whole package
For the IIc 4 x 20 mm
Guns and accessories 427 lbs
ammunition and boxes 327 lbs
thats 754 lbs for the whole package.
Hohun estimates a 4 x .50 package to weigh at 192 kgs or 422lbs
So the comparable batteries are
8 x.303
4 x .50
2x20mm
anything more than this would add weight and its resultant penalties.
I'm tending to agree with Hohun upgunning to .50 really isn't worth it as you get no overall increase in total energy.
Slaterat
"I'm tending to agree with Hohun upgunning to .50 really isn't worth it as you get no overall increase in total energy."
Slaterat and Hohun,
I don't think "energy" is a good description of what it takes to bring down an aircraft. For instance, a 22-250 rifle shooting a 40 grain bullet at 4000 ft per second has about the same energy as a 45-70 shooting a 500 grain bullet at 1800 ft per second, BUT if a hungry lion is 10 ft from you, which do you want to have?
5 rounds of 303 may have the same energy as 1 50 round, BUT you could shoot all 5 of those 303's into the seat armor or maybe engine block of a 109 and they won't penetrate, neither would 10, 20 or more. The armor or enigine block will deflect or absorb the rounds and the aircraft will keep flying. A single 50 would penetrate the armor or engine and the pilot would die or the engine would quit. It is a same reason tanks have a 120mm cannon instead of a minigun as their main armament. 6,000 rounds of 7.62 might have the same energy as a single 120mm, and would certainly be easier to hit with, but they simply wont penetrate the frontal armor of a main battle tank.
I'm would say there are countless unheard stories from German pilots of bullets being stopped by aircraft parts that should have killed the pilot, or bouncing off the engine at shallow angles where a 50 would have penetrated and the pilot and plane lived to fight another day.
In the BoB I don't think the 20mm was the right weapon due to the inexperience of many of the British pilots(I'm not running them down, please don't start an argument about that) 60 rounds isnt enough for an inexperienced pilot. But if the Wildcat could carry 4 or 6 50's and plenty of ammo, there is no reason why the Spit and certainly the Hurricane could have carried 4 or 6 50's and a good supply of ammo.
Slaterat and Hohun,
I don't think "energy" is a good description of what it takes to bring down an aircraft. For instance, a 22-250 rifle shooting a 40 grain bullet at 4000 ft per second has about the same energy as a 45-70 shooting a 500 grain bullet at 1800 ft per second, BUT if a hungry lion is 10 ft from you, which do you want to have?
5 rounds of 303 may have the same energy as 1 50 round, BUT you could shoot all 5 of those 303's into the seat armor or maybe engine block of a 109 and they won't penetrate, neither would 10, 20 or more. The armor or enigine block will deflect or absorb the rounds and the aircraft will keep flying. A single 50 would penetrate the armor or engine and the pilot would die or the engine would quit. It is a same reason tanks have a 120mm cannon instead of a minigun as their main armament. 6,000 rounds of 7.62 might have the same energy as a single 120mm, and would certainly be easier to hit with, but they simply wont penetrate the frontal armor of a main battle tank.
I'm would say there are countless unheard stories from German pilots of bullets being stopped by aircraft parts that should have killed the pilot, or bouncing off the engine at shallow angles where a 50 would have penetrated and the pilot and plane lived to fight another day.
In the BoB I don't think the 20mm was the right weapon due to the inexperience of many of the British pilots(I'm not running them down, please don't start an argument about that) 60 rounds isnt enough for an inexperienced pilot. But if the Wildcat could carry 4 or 6 50's and plenty of ammo, there is no reason why the Spit and certainly the Hurricane could have carried 4 or 6 50's and a good supply of ammo.
One more point:
Someone stated more or less, that the British shot down German planes with 303's so that must mean they were adequately armed and someone even said they had a video of this and they would try to post it. Sounds good but....
I saw a video one time of an elephant that got loose from a circus in the US and went on a rampage killing someone. The police showed up and were told by the elephants handler to kill the elephant. They opened fire with 9mm pistols and a couple of 12 gauge shotguns and eventually killed the elephant. Does that make the 9mm or 12 gauge a good choice for elephants? Would anyone in their right mind hunt an elephant with a 9mm pistol or a 12 gauge? No. It simply proves that if you shoot something enough times you can bring it down with a totally inadequate round, whether it is an elephant with a 9mm or a German aircraft with a 303.
Someone stated more or less, that the British shot down German planes with 303's so that must mean they were adequately armed and someone even said they had a video of this and they would try to post it. Sounds good but....
I saw a video one time of an elephant that got loose from a circus in the US and went on a rampage killing someone. The police showed up and were told by the elephants handler to kill the elephant. They opened fire with 9mm pistols and a couple of 12 gauge shotguns and eventually killed the elephant. Does that make the 9mm or 12 gauge a good choice for elephants? Would anyone in their right mind hunt an elephant with a 9mm pistol or a 12 gauge? No. It simply proves that if you shoot something enough times you can bring it down with a totally inadequate round, whether it is an elephant with a 9mm or a German aircraft with a 303.
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
I'm not a fighter pilot or an expert in airplanes. But I do know guns. Guns have been my primary field of interest for a long time now (~10 years of reading everything I can find.)
The .303 was roughly equivalent to the 7.62 NATO we are all familiar with, less powerful than the 7.92 Mauser and the 30-06. In addition to the lack of comparative power to the other two, it was loaded with a heavy (174 grain) bullet and had a relatively low velocity (~2600 fps).
Basically, I wouldn't be comfortable stopping any lightly armored vehicle with a few .303s. Sure, they could shoot up the control surfaces, puncture the coolant tank, hit the oil cooler. That is doing it the hard way. The 710 grain 50 BMG could penetrate early pilot armor (it was improved throughout the war) could kill an engine with even halfway decent angle.
Too many people start using figures from the armor of 109-Gs to illustrate points about -Es and -Fs to try to show that the .50 was ineffective.
That said, considering the production constraints that the British were under during the BoB, I don't know that they had any other choice. They needed available ammunition, available guns, and no production delays as they frantically built fighters as fast as they could.
The change to cannon armament was probably the earliest change they could make without unacceptable risk to production, and skipping a step to 20mm was in my opinion (which is worth what you pay for it) the right one.
The .303 was roughly equivalent to the 7.62 NATO we are all familiar with, less powerful than the 7.92 Mauser and the 30-06. In addition to the lack of comparative power to the other two, it was loaded with a heavy (174 grain) bullet and had a relatively low velocity (~2600 fps).
Basically, I wouldn't be comfortable stopping any lightly armored vehicle with a few .303s. Sure, they could shoot up the control surfaces, puncture the coolant tank, hit the oil cooler. That is doing it the hard way. The 710 grain 50 BMG could penetrate early pilot armor (it was improved throughout the war) could kill an engine with even halfway decent angle.
Too many people start using figures from the armor of 109-Gs to illustrate points about -Es and -Fs to try to show that the .50 was ineffective.
That said, considering the production constraints that the British were under during the BoB, I don't know that they had any other choice. They needed available ammunition, available guns, and no production delays as they frantically built fighters as fast as they could.
The change to cannon armament was probably the earliest change they could make without unacceptable risk to production, and skipping a step to 20mm was in my opinion (which is worth what you pay for it) the right one.
- Thread starter
- #47
The engine blocks of the WW II fighters that we talk about are all made of cast aluminum ,full of water jackets ,and oil and coolant passages all quite easily destroyed by rifle calibre ammo. The heavier weight of the .303 made it superior to some other rifle calibre rounds as its flight was less disrupted when piercing things like aircraft skin ect.
Slaterat
Slaterat
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
The 7.92 had an equally heavy loading and more speed. It has been one of the hardest of the classic rifle rounds to stop even with modern body armor that stops 7.62 nato without missing a beat. I'd say it beats the .303.
That said, I own two Enfields and I love them dearly.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
8 Brownings 303s was considered heavy armament for its day. Look at other European fighters of the same era...the early 109s were only armed with 2 guns!
Also the RAF were firing incendery ammunition which helped with destroying.
The concept worked because the guns had a watering can effect and hosed an aircraft with lead. Also novices just had to point and shoot where the 109 pilot had to be spot on with his 20mm.
Any aircraft riddled with holes is either going to be scrapped or need serious repair, knocking it out of the battle. Also aircrew were either killed or injured so they are not working next day either.
Within the context of the time, the 303s worked perfectly.
Also the RAF were firing incendery ammunition which helped with destroying.
The concept worked because the guns had a watering can effect and hosed an aircraft with lead. Also novices just had to point and shoot where the 109 pilot had to be spot on with his 20mm.
Any aircraft riddled with holes is either going to be scrapped or need serious repair, knocking it out of the battle. Also aircrew were either killed or injured so they are not working next day either.
Within the context of the time, the 303s worked perfectly.
Hi Pinsog,
>5 rounds of 303 may have the same energy as 1 50 round, BUT you could shoot all 5 of those 303's into the seat armor or maybe engine block of a 109 and they won't penetrate, neither would 10, 20 or more.
It's true that different rounds will have different effect on the various parts of the aircraft they might hit, but an aircraft consists of enough different part to make energy a good yardstick nonetheless.
A different method of assessing damage potential (based on momentum, with a modifier for chemical energy) can be found here:
WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS
The difference to the total energy approach is not that big, and in fact we recently noticed that the table on Tony's site that compares the two methods has a slight inaccuracy that makes the deviations appear somewhat greater than they actually are.
>In the BoB I don't think the 20mm was the right weapon due to the inexperience of many of the British pilots(I'm not running them down, please don't start an argument about that) 60 rounds isnt enough for an inexperienced pilot.
Hm, look at the total energy of one round:
Browning ,303 7,7x56R: 4,38 kJ per round (average)
,50 Browning M2 12,7x99: 21,8 kJ per round (average)
Hispano II 20x110: 106,2 kJ per round (average)
The total energy of the batteries:
8 x 333 rounds Browning ,303: 11,7 MJ
6 x 93 rounds ,50 Browning M2: 12.2 MJ
4 x 140 rounds ,50 Browning M2: 12.2 MJ
2 x 60 rounds Hispano II 20x110: 12,7 MJ
Accordingly, the inexperienced RAF pilot with the same level of shooting skill resulting in the same hit probability will bring (approximately) the same amount of energy on target with each of these batteries. The number of rounds necessary for this varies, the effect on the target not so much.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>5 rounds of 303 may have the same energy as 1 50 round, BUT you could shoot all 5 of those 303's into the seat armor or maybe engine block of a 109 and they won't penetrate, neither would 10, 20 or more.
It's true that different rounds will have different effect on the various parts of the aircraft they might hit, but an aircraft consists of enough different part to make energy a good yardstick nonetheless.
A different method of assessing damage potential (based on momentum, with a modifier for chemical energy) can be found here:
WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS
The difference to the total energy approach is not that big, and in fact we recently noticed that the table on Tony's site that compares the two methods has a slight inaccuracy that makes the deviations appear somewhat greater than they actually are.
>In the BoB I don't think the 20mm was the right weapon due to the inexperience of many of the British pilots(I'm not running them down, please don't start an argument about that) 60 rounds isnt enough for an inexperienced pilot.
Hm, look at the total energy of one round:
Browning ,303 7,7x56R: 4,38 kJ per round (average)
,50 Browning M2 12,7x99: 21,8 kJ per round (average)
Hispano II 20x110: 106,2 kJ per round (average)
The total energy of the batteries:
8 x 333 rounds Browning ,303: 11,7 MJ
6 x 93 rounds ,50 Browning M2: 12.2 MJ
4 x 140 rounds ,50 Browning M2: 12.2 MJ
2 x 60 rounds Hispano II 20x110: 12,7 MJ
Accordingly, the inexperienced RAF pilot with the same level of shooting skill resulting in the same hit probability will bring (approximately) the same amount of energy on target with each of these batteries. The number of rounds necessary for this varies, the effect on the target not so much.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Hi Basket,
>8 Brownings 303s was considered heavy armament for its day. Look at other European fighters of the same era...the early 109s were only armed with 2 guns!
On one hand, that's correct - on the other hand, the French had a 20 mm engine cannon in 1939, and the Germans had the twin-cannon Me 110 flying by 1939 and were converting the Me 109 to wing cannon in 1940 at a rapid pace.
Even the RAF had planned to employ much heavier armament than the eight-gun battery that admittedly was revolutionary when originally conceived - the specification that resulted in the Westland Whirlwind had been drafted long before the Battle of Britain, and it demanded a four-cannon fighter.
>The concept worked because the guns had a watering can effect and hosed an aircraft with lead. Also novices just had to point and shoot where the 109 pilot had to be spot on with his 20mm.
As outlined in my above answer to Pinsog, the ratio with the 20 mm cannon could be just as poor as with 7.7 mm machine guns and the greater destructiveness of the 20 mm shells would still bring the same amount of energy on target.
>Within the context of the time, the 303s worked perfectly.
Again, I have to point out that it's necessary to look at the alternatives to assess the quality of the British aircraft armament of the time: heavier armament could have rendered the Luftwaffe attack against Britain a lot less effective than they actually were. The rifle-calibre machine guns were obsolescent at the time, and it's fortunate that they did a fair job in an hour of need when their scheduled replacement wasn't ready yet. However, with working cannon armament, the British situation would not have become as desperate as it historically was.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>8 Brownings 303s was considered heavy armament for its day. Look at other European fighters of the same era...the early 109s were only armed with 2 guns!
On one hand, that's correct - on the other hand, the French had a 20 mm engine cannon in 1939, and the Germans had the twin-cannon Me 110 flying by 1939 and were converting the Me 109 to wing cannon in 1940 at a rapid pace.
Even the RAF had planned to employ much heavier armament than the eight-gun battery that admittedly was revolutionary when originally conceived - the specification that resulted in the Westland Whirlwind had been drafted long before the Battle of Britain, and it demanded a four-cannon fighter.
>The concept worked because the guns had a watering can effect and hosed an aircraft with lead. Also novices just had to point and shoot where the 109 pilot had to be spot on with his 20mm.
As outlined in my above answer to Pinsog, the ratio with the 20 mm cannon could be just as poor as with 7.7 mm machine guns and the greater destructiveness of the 20 mm shells would still bring the same amount of energy on target.
>Within the context of the time, the 303s worked perfectly.
Again, I have to point out that it's necessary to look at the alternatives to assess the quality of the British aircraft armament of the time: heavier armament could have rendered the Luftwaffe attack against Britain a lot less effective than they actually were. The rifle-calibre machine guns were obsolescent at the time, and it's fortunate that they did a fair job in an hour of need when their scheduled replacement wasn't ready yet. However, with working cannon armament, the British situation would not have become as desperate as it historically was.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
I agree but the 20mm Hispano cannon was not combat ready in 1940 nd certainly not in a position to be put in every front line fighter.
The 50 cal...dunno if that was available in huge numbers to the RAF in the late thrities.
The context I was referring to was that the 303 was available and so was plenty of ammo so its a case of beggars can't be choosers. Any weapon has only 2 questons in my opinon. Does it work and is it available? The 303 was phased out later but it did the job when it was needed.
Considering the oppositon Dowding had then even fielding 8 guns was better than equivalent Italian or Jap fighters of the late 30s era. The 109 was designed with 2 mgs so it was the fashion of the era to go with guns. Remember also the RAF had no combat experience and believed the 303s were good enough. Which proved the case in 1940.
The 50 cal...dunno if that was available in huge numbers to the RAF in the late thrities.
The context I was referring to was that the 303 was available and so was plenty of ammo so its a case of beggars can't be choosers. Any weapon has only 2 questons in my opinon. Does it work and is it available? The 303 was phased out later but it did the job when it was needed.
Considering the oppositon Dowding had then even fielding 8 guns was better than equivalent Italian or Jap fighters of the late 30s era. The 109 was designed with 2 mgs so it was the fashion of the era to go with guns. Remember also the RAF had no combat experience and believed the 303s were good enough. Which proved the case in 1940.
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Given that the 8 x .303 armed Spitfires and Hurricane managed to down approximately 1,500 German fighters and bombers in the period, I'd argue that, yes, the armament was effective.
However, given this, it does not mean that it was the most effective armament option available to the RAF at the time, nor was it perhaps the best armament for the particular target set that the RAF faced during the July-Septeber 1940 period.
My long held belief is that, during the Battle of Britian, each side had the wrong armament on their fighters for the job that they were doing.
The 8 x .303 array found on British fighters is poorly suited to their primary mission: attacking and destroying bombers. It lacks both the effective range to keep the attacking fighter out of the range of return fire from the bombers, as well as lacking the overall destructive power of a 20 mm shell, and the penetrative capibilities of the .50 calibre.
The are manifold accounts of RAF fighter pilots getting a "squirt" at an opposing bomber, only to have to break off without a satisfactory result (sufficent damage to guarentee a kill) due to return fire or interference from enemy fighters.
What the RAF required was a weapon that was able to reasonable assure a pilot of destruction of the target in a single pass. The 8 x .303, while still capable of killing a bomber in a single pass, did not give anything like certainty. Hence the multiple pictures of He-111s and Ju-88s returning to France with 200-300, or more, .303 sized holes in the fuselage.
Suppose that an average pilot can put 20% of the rounds in a burst on large target like a non-manuvering bomber. Suppose too that it takes between 100 and 200 rounds on target to reasonable guarentee a kill of that same bomber.
Our 8 x .303 battery puts out about 160 rounds per second. At 20% accuracy, that equates to about 32 rounds on target per second. That means that a fighter has to maintain fire on the target for approximately 3 to 6 seconds to reasonable guarentee a kill. If accuracy is worse, then our time on target requirement gets worse as well, and the converse for pilots with better aim.
Against un-escorted bombers (which is what the RAF believed they would be facing) that may be sufficent. Indeed, when Hurricanes and Spitfires did manage to find unescorted bombers, they generally shot down a very high percentage, for few losses.
However, when presented with escorted bombers, this is more of a dilemma. Having to close and hold steady to hit the target means leaving youself vulnerable to counterattack, either from the (minimally effective) return fire or fighters. There are multiple Luftwaffe gun camera recordings of RAF fighers falling victim to their fighter opponents while firing on German bombers for 'long' (5 seconds plus) periods, maintaining a steady and level profile.
What the RAF needed was something that could put more destructive potential/energy into the target at a greater rate from further away: the cannon.
On the other hand, the 7.92/20 mm mixed array on the Bf-110 and 109 was probably better suited to engaging bombers than fighters, particularly the 110's nose mounted 2 x 20 mm, 4 x 7.92 mm array.
When presented with a small, manuvering target like a single engined fighter, the mixed array is less favourable, as you have the divergent ballistics of the two calibers to deal with. This means a pilot may be unable to put as much destructive energy into the target as would be liked.
The other problem for the German armament lies in the specifics of the MG FF cannon. Compared to other 20 mm cannon of the war, such as the MG 151/20, the Hispano and the ShVAK, it has a low rate of fire, low muzzle velocity and a relatively light-weight shell. This leads to a long flight time and a high rate of ballistic drop, as well as a gap of approximately 75-85 m between cannon shells, which may not be a good thing aginst rapidly maunvering targets. There is also a 20% difference between the M/V of its HE Minengeschoss shell and its tracer shell, as well as 20% weight difference, and differing shell shape, meaning further divergent ballistics.
This then, is probably not an ideal armament to combat a small, manouvering target with minimal armour. The Spitfire/Hurricane battery with its unified ballistics and vastly higher rate of fire (160 rps compared to 56/96 rps for the German fighters), is probably better for the targets that the Germans faced.
However, given this, it does not mean that it was the most effective armament option available to the RAF at the time, nor was it perhaps the best armament for the particular target set that the RAF faced during the July-Septeber 1940 period.
My long held belief is that, during the Battle of Britian, each side had the wrong armament on their fighters for the job that they were doing.
The 8 x .303 array found on British fighters is poorly suited to their primary mission: attacking and destroying bombers. It lacks both the effective range to keep the attacking fighter out of the range of return fire from the bombers, as well as lacking the overall destructive power of a 20 mm shell, and the penetrative capibilities of the .50 calibre.
The are manifold accounts of RAF fighter pilots getting a "squirt" at an opposing bomber, only to have to break off without a satisfactory result (sufficent damage to guarentee a kill) due to return fire or interference from enemy fighters.
What the RAF required was a weapon that was able to reasonable assure a pilot of destruction of the target in a single pass. The 8 x .303, while still capable of killing a bomber in a single pass, did not give anything like certainty. Hence the multiple pictures of He-111s and Ju-88s returning to France with 200-300, or more, .303 sized holes in the fuselage.
Suppose that an average pilot can put 20% of the rounds in a burst on large target like a non-manuvering bomber. Suppose too that it takes between 100 and 200 rounds on target to reasonable guarentee a kill of that same bomber.
Our 8 x .303 battery puts out about 160 rounds per second. At 20% accuracy, that equates to about 32 rounds on target per second. That means that a fighter has to maintain fire on the target for approximately 3 to 6 seconds to reasonable guarentee a kill. If accuracy is worse, then our time on target requirement gets worse as well, and the converse for pilots with better aim.
Against un-escorted bombers (which is what the RAF believed they would be facing) that may be sufficent. Indeed, when Hurricanes and Spitfires did manage to find unescorted bombers, they generally shot down a very high percentage, for few losses.
However, when presented with escorted bombers, this is more of a dilemma. Having to close and hold steady to hit the target means leaving youself vulnerable to counterattack, either from the (minimally effective) return fire or fighters. There are multiple Luftwaffe gun camera recordings of RAF fighers falling victim to their fighter opponents while firing on German bombers for 'long' (5 seconds plus) periods, maintaining a steady and level profile.
What the RAF needed was something that could put more destructive potential/energy into the target at a greater rate from further away: the cannon.
On the other hand, the 7.92/20 mm mixed array on the Bf-110 and 109 was probably better suited to engaging bombers than fighters, particularly the 110's nose mounted 2 x 20 mm, 4 x 7.92 mm array.
When presented with a small, manuvering target like a single engined fighter, the mixed array is less favourable, as you have the divergent ballistics of the two calibers to deal with. This means a pilot may be unable to put as much destructive energy into the target as would be liked.
The other problem for the German armament lies in the specifics of the MG FF cannon. Compared to other 20 mm cannon of the war, such as the MG 151/20, the Hispano and the ShVAK, it has a low rate of fire, low muzzle velocity and a relatively light-weight shell. This leads to a long flight time and a high rate of ballistic drop, as well as a gap of approximately 75-85 m between cannon shells, which may not be a good thing aginst rapidly maunvering targets. There is also a 20% difference between the M/V of its HE Minengeschoss shell and its tracer shell, as well as 20% weight difference, and differing shell shape, meaning further divergent ballistics.
This then, is probably not an ideal armament to combat a small, manouvering target with minimal armour. The Spitfire/Hurricane battery with its unified ballistics and vastly higher rate of fire (160 rps compared to 56/96 rps for the German fighters), is probably better for the targets that the Germans faced.
Hi Basket,
>Remember also the RAF had no combat experience and believed the 303s were good enough. Which proved the case in 1940.
"Good enough" is a concept that can blind you for the realities. If a more effective armament would have enabled the RAF to blast the Luftwaffe bombers out of the sky (just as the Luftwaffe had blasted the RAF bomber out of the sky over Heligoland Bay), there would not even have been the climactic and close-run Battle of Britain as we know it.
In a way, the ineffectiveness of the 7.7 mm guns created the environment in which you claim it proved "good enough".
(And clearly, even without battle experience the RAF had recognized that the 7.7 mm machine guns were not good enough, as by 1940 they had been working on a much more effective replacement for several years.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>Remember also the RAF had no combat experience and believed the 303s were good enough. Which proved the case in 1940.
"Good enough" is a concept that can blind you for the realities. If a more effective armament would have enabled the RAF to blast the Luftwaffe bombers out of the sky (just as the Luftwaffe had blasted the RAF bomber out of the sky over Heligoland Bay), there would not even have been the climactic and close-run Battle of Britain as we know it.
In a way, the ineffectiveness of the 7.7 mm guns created the environment in which you claim it proved "good enough".
(And clearly, even without battle experience the RAF had recognized that the 7.7 mm machine guns were not good enough, as by 1940 they had been working on a much more effective replacement for several years.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
The .50 was a tried and tested weapon by then. It would have been available to the RAF in whatever numbers they required, the fact is that they simply dismissed it as an option.
The RAF of the late 30s were far from being beggars, they had money lavished on new equipment, the development and production of the Defiant, Hurricane and Spitfire, the Chain Home Low radar network; as far as defence budget was concerned, the pre-war RAF was a good place to be.
I don't think 'fashion' played any part in ANY nation's decision-making process where arming their fighters was concerned, individual design limitations meant some got cannons on board before others but I think it's safe to assume that if they could all have had cannons, they would have done.
The Air Ministry believed the .303 was good enough, it was the RAF who showed them that it was only adequate at best.
Italian and Japanese design philosophy favoured agility (alot of Italian all-metal, low-wing monoplane designs still had open cockpits) and at that early stage of the war a heavy armament would have been seen to be to the detriment of that aspect of performance.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Isn't that a bit like saying everyone else is using children to fight grizzly bears but we're using fully-grown men, so we're doing OK? Obviously the difference wasn't quite so academic as that but saying 'we're more heavily-armed than they are, therefore we are heavily-armed enough' could have proved a dangerous school of thought; the eight-gun .303 battery WAS considered a heavy armament, but in the reality of battle it was only proved to be adequate at best
How many times have posters on these threads mentioned Heinkels and Dorniers getting back to France with 1000+ holes in them? The 'watering-can' effect that you speak of didn't generally work with all-metal, stressed skin monocoque design - you had to hit something vital.
or even the day after that...
...is the wrong answer; the .303 worked adequately (at best).
I suspect that the majority of people on the forum can't help but 'speculate' on what may or may not have happened. Hence, we have discussions to see how plausible it is. People have opinions about different aircraft, and others may disagree over historical evidence - yes, but it's only natural to wonder if this design and gone ahead, or that Battle fought with a different commander.
When news of what the RAF were planing to arm their fighters with came out, it must have come as a bit of a shock to others in Military avaition.
The RAF (Capt Sorley) had evaluated the options, realised with the higher speeds of the 'modern' aircraft combat may consist of just a two-second burst of gunfire. Given that, the two fuselage guns then current was plainly not enough - hence the calculation of the number of bullets needed in the two second burst.
Later, the French started using a canon mounted on the fuselage, the RAF loved the canon, but realised they couldn't use that mounting - the merlin wasn't suited to that. Therefore, while trying to convert the metric French canon to imperial enginering standards - a canon armed fighter spec was issued. The designs included single engined aircraft, but although ordered the Treasury would only pay for the Westland prototype.
I have no qualms of wondering 'what-if' the Boulton Paul canon fighters had been built. Unlikely they would have been available in numbers, but more likely that the canon jamming would have been solved in time!
Yes, maybe 4 x 0.50" machine guns would have been more effective - 'Killer' Cauldwell preferred the Kittyhawk armament of all the aircraft he flew.
Yet, early instruction on synchronising the guns at 150 - 250 yds rather than 450 yds, would have been much better!
The RAF (Capt Sorley) had evaluated the options, realised with the higher speeds of the 'modern' aircraft combat may consist of just a two-second burst of gunfire. Given that, the two fuselage guns then current was plainly not enough - hence the calculation of the number of bullets needed in the two second burst.
Later, the French started using a canon mounted on the fuselage, the RAF loved the canon, but realised they couldn't use that mounting - the merlin wasn't suited to that. Therefore, while trying to convert the metric French canon to imperial enginering standards - a canon armed fighter spec was issued. The designs included single engined aircraft, but although ordered the Treasury would only pay for the Westland prototype.
I have no qualms of wondering 'what-if' the Boulton Paul canon fighters had been built. Unlikely they would have been available in numbers, but more likely that the canon jamming would have been solved in time!
Yes, maybe 4 x 0.50" machine guns would have been more effective - 'Killer' Cauldwell preferred the Kittyhawk armament of all the aircraft he flew.
Yet, early instruction on synchronising the guns at 150 - 250 yds rather than 450 yds, would have been much better!
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Jabberwockey, you make some interesting and IMO valid points. About a year ago I read an article in "Air and Space" about the Hurricane and Spitfire and they stated that, in the opinion of the RAF, it would take something like 300 plus hits(I can't remember the exact number) with the 303 to bring down a bomber. They also postulated that the fighter would be able to get in a two second burst. Therefore they needed 8-303s to bring down bombers. It seems that they were assuming that when the fighter fired the 2 second burst, all the bullets would hit the target. They had to assume something.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Agree on all points
A thoughtful, well-measured post
Sorry I pared it down so much, I was trying to save space
