Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
Your digression doesn't seem to match what Kurfurst was saying; Kurfurst's statement more or less supports the claim I'm trying to makeMy 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.
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...Ironically, the RAF would be much better off with the cannon armed Emils in the Battle, as their problem was that the .303 rounds were rather ineffective against the armored German bombers. If they didn't hit something vital, like engines etc., the bomber would sometimes make it back to the base with 1000+ hits in it, and the crew unhurt...
and I totally agree, which I think dispels the theory that cannons wouldn't have had much more luck than machine guns during the battleHowever 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.
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.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
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 50 cal...dunno if that was available in huge numbers to the RAF in the late thirties
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.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...
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....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.
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 best8 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!
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.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
or even the day after that...Also aircrew were either killed... ...so they are not working next day
...is the wrong answer; the .303 worked adequately (at best).Within the context of the time, the 303s worked perfectly
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.
Agree on all pointsGiven that the 8 x .303 armed Spitfires and Hurricane managed to down approximately 1,500 German fighters and bombers in the period...
...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.