The Effectivness of 8 x.303s

[claidemore]

Don't forget the fear factor.
I'm sure all of us, before we became 'educated' on the subject, considered the 8 gun Spitfire and Hurricane to be an 'awesome amount of firepower'. Same holds true for Luftwaffe personnell facing them. It wasn't just a few senior RAF officers who thought that 8 machine guns was pretty special. You just don't hear scoffing remarks from german aircrew about BBgun armed Brit fighters. They were pretty frustrated and demoralized by the end of BoB, and facing 8 machine gun batteries was a factor.

Aircrew were not computing how much damage a certain gun might or might not do, they were simply praying that they didn't get hit, and facing 8 gun batteries on British fighters was a powerful intimidation factor.

I also have to take issue with the theory that a fighter can arm itself with a weapon that will allow it to stay out of range of a bombers defensive fire. This is only true as long as the bomber is armed with a lighter weapon. In theory, any weapon that can be mounted in a single engine fighter could be mounted in a bomber, so any advantage for the fighter would be temporary as bombers could be re-armed as nescessary.

 

[The Basket]

Look...it is easy to say that in 2009, The RAF should have had 20mm cannon or at least 50 cals.

But both the Spitfire and Hurricanes were mid 1930 designs which were 'fixed' so that they can be fully operational in 1940. Which means that 303s were what they went with. The Hispano was not ready by 1940 and maybe buying 50 cals of the Americans was costly.

And Colin1...8 machine guns was considered heavy armament and would tear a grizzly bear a new one any day of the week. If in hindsight, it was incorrect doesn't mean the initial judgement was poor. Why don't we go full on and say what was really needed was some AMRAAMs and Sidewinders. No Ju 88s are coming home now.

 

[Colin1]

...and maybe buying 50 cals of the Americans was costly

...and maybe that's called bean-counter engineering. It cost more than a few lives elsewhere in the war, too

And Colin1...8 machine guns was considered heavy armament and would tear a grizzly bear a new one any day of the week

Errrr.... I'm sure they would but I think you missed the jist of my analogy there. Wait a minute, is the bear armed with .50 cals?

If in hindsight, it was incorrect doesn't mean the initial judgement was poor

I think you'll find it does, in ANY situation, not just the one we're discussing

Why don't we go full on and say what was really needed was some AMRAAMs and Sidewinders

Because that's just being silly...

 

[KrazyKraut]

I don't think it's a matter of speculation if the .303 was adequate or not. The RAF themselves found the armament to be too light even before the battle had begun. The first Spitfire to carry the 20mm was modified in June 1939.

Would the BoB have had a different outcome if the HS.404 was available? No. But very likely more German aircrews would've been killed.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Basket,

>Look...it is easy to say that in 2009, The RAF should have had 20mm cannon or at least 50 cals.

Hm, I would like to point out that the RAF certainly had recognized the requirement for heavier armament and already acted on it, so it would be hard to criticize them.

(In fact, good planning was one of the main features of the RAF's armament program ... I can recommend "The Paladins" by John James which highlights this very well.)

However, the impact of not yet having achieved the planned transition to cannon in time for the Battle of Britain certainly made the battle much more difficult for the RAF to fight and to win, though there is no doubt that in the end they achieved a well-deserved victory.

Cannon were a technical reality at the time, and if things would have worked out just a little differently, the RAF might have fielded them in 1940. AMRAAMs didn't even make it into Tony's "Foresight War" alternate history novel

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[pinsog]

Fear doesn't bring down aircraft, holes in the right spot bring down aircraft. Yes, airplanes were shot down by 303 armed fighters, but in order to do this the British fighters had to close to point blank range bringing their fighters well within the range of the bombers defensive fire, and lets face it, the Spit and Hurricane were the toughest airplanes on the planet.(Yes I know the hurricane was ok but it certainly was no Wildcat)

If they had been armed with 50's, they could have remained outside the defensive cone of fire of the Germans and hosed them out of the sky. It worked for American Wildcats against Betty bombers that were better armed than their German counterparts. They at least had a 20mm in the tail, but the Americans just hosed them down from around 400 yards and many Wildcats would get multiple victories against Japenese twins. I know someone is going to say Japenese aircraft were easy to shoot down, but I bet a 303 armed British aircraft would have had as much difficulty with a Betty as they did with a Do17 or He111. They would probably got killed by the 20mm tail gunner before they ever got in range.

Same with the single engine planes like the Stuka. It was considered an easy victory by the RAF, but when US pilots in Wildcats encountered Vals, they would shoot down 4, 5, or 6 per Wildcat. The Brits would generally run out of ammo after a couple of planes.

As I said on a different thread, arming an aircraft with a weapon because "we have a alota bullets in stock" doesn't make it a good idea. If that is our reasoning then we could replace the 20mm Vulcan on modern fightrs with a 223 minigun because "there cheaper and we have alot of bullets".

 

[pinsog]

Claidemore, the Germans only equipped there bombers with 8mm defensive machinguns and to my knowledge never upgraded them throughout the war. The Condor had a 20mm defensive gune, but all the rest of their bombers, to my knowledge only had 8mm machineguns. So a 50 armed fighter could have stayed out of his effective range.
Sure the German bomber crews were demoralized. They were flying some pretty crappy planes and dying in them. The defensive armament and cone of fire of the He111 and Do17 sucked. They didn't even have a true tailgunner like a B17, B24 or B25 had.

The ONLY reason the British fighters were able to handle them is because the German bombers sucked. What would have happend if the Germans would have had a well defended medium bomber like a B25? I think a group of B25's could more than hold their own again a like number od 303 armed Hurricans and Spits.

There is no really good reason the Brits shouldn't have had better armed aircraft for the BoB. The German fighters both had cannon and it didn't detract from there performance, the Japanese Zero had cannon and it didn't detract from its performance, and American fighters and bombers had 50's.

 

[Vincenzo]

"The first B-25 was accepted by the Army in February of 1941."
a bit late for BoB
"Armament: one 0.30-inch machine gun in flexible mount in the nose. One 0.30-inch machine gun in a flexible dorsal position. One 0.30-inch machine gun in flexible waist position. One 0.50-inch machine gun in flexible tail position"
no so best

 

[pinsog]

Good point. Scratch B25 example.

 

[Vincenzo]

the alone can compare it's the large B17B, already operational for BoB. Armed with five 0.30-inch machine guns, with one gun in each of nose, dorsal, ventral, and two waist positions.

the weapons on bomber increase after the report on BoB, or more generally on war in europe

 

[drgondog]

Claidemore, the Germans only equipped there bombers with 8mm defensive machinguns and to my knowledge never upgraded them throughout the war. The Condor had a 20mm defensive gune, but all the rest of their bombers, to my knowledge only had 8mm machineguns. So a 50 armed fighter could have stayed out of his effective range.

They didn't even have a true tailgunner like a B17, B24 or B25 had.

The He 177 had 20mm, 13mm in addition to the 7.92's and had a tail gun

The ONLY reason the British fighters were able to handle them is because the German bombers sucked. What would have happend if the Germans would have had a well defended medium bomber like a B25? I think a group of B25's could more than hold their own again a like number od 303 armed Hurricans and Spits.

Perhaps not because German bombers sucked, but more that the German escort tactics sucked?

 

[renrich]

The following are some examples of fighters with heavier armament than 8-303s that were operational at the same time as the BOB. P40 with a mixture of 30 cals and 50cals, P39 with a mixture of 30 cals, 50 cals and a cannon(either 20mm or 37mm) F4F3(Martlet) with 4-50cals and 400 rds each, A6M with two 30 cals with 500 rds each and two 20mms with 60 rds each. I suggest that all of those were better armed than the Spit or Hurri against bombers although only the F6F and A6M had the high altitude performance to compete.

 

[Kurfürst]

Claidemore, the Germans only equipped there bombers with 8mm defensive machinguns and to my knowledge never upgraded them throughout the war.

Actually the Heinkel 111H had received 13mm MGs in all positions (which were now fully armored) at around 1942, and later ones introduced a powered turret in the dorsal position. The existing hand held, drum fed MG 15s were also replaced in positions with the belt fed MG 81 (or twin MG 81Zs) which fired at 60% higher rate.

The Ju 88s generally retained their 8mm armament (though upgraded them to MG 81s as well), though some were fitted with the 13mm MG 131s; the actual configuration was rather chaotic. The Ju 188, which was basically an improved Ju 88 under a different name, got 20mm cannons in the nose and one in a powered turret.

 

[Clay_Allison]

If I was an RAF pilot in the BoB I would be much more anxious to get rid of the idiotic tight formation death wish known as the "Vic" and start fighting using modern tactics than I would be to get rid of the 303.

 

[Waynos]

Pinsog; At that time the B-17 didn't have a tail gunner either. The best defended bombers in the world were the Wellington and Whitley which had power operated nose and tail turrets as a minimum, and they were still mauled. Even at the end of the war the very well defended B-17'S and B-24's of the sday were still being shot down in large numbers by fighters so I think that comparison doesn't really work.

Clay, while the vic was bad, the 'fighting area attack's were much much worse and fortunately neither lasted very long

 

[The Basket]

Great...I am now going to base all my judgements on hindsight.

Oh I forgot...I can't time travel.

The RAF did away with the 303 when it was obvious that it was no longer a viable weapon...But the 303 was still viable in 1940.

The British did have the same Hispano 20mm cannon as used by the Dewoitine D.520 in 1940 and also fielded by the Whirlwind but it tended to jam and so was pretty poor as a combat weapon. This was the cannon that was available and it didn't work.

The Spitfire had to be redesigned to take 8 303s so would have to be redesigned wing for 50 cals as it had to be redesigned for 20mm.

You fight with what you got. And the fact that it did the job. If your factories are geared up to make 303 rounds and 303 guns then using 303 makes sense.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Yeah, I agree that the British didn't have any better choice and made a change as soon as they could.

 

[pinsog]

Waynos,
The American units got mauled because the German fighters from the middle to the end of the war had cannon equipped fighters. The Fw190 had 4 20mm cannon and 2 13mm machineguns and some of their other aircraft had as much or more. The Germans wouldn't have mauled anything if they would've had 8 8mm machineguns as their only armament.

The Brits got mauled again, because they were using 303's to defend against 20mm cannon. Just like a Sherman trying to fight a Panther or Tiger, when you can be killed from a range and you can't harm the other person, it usually turns into a retreat or a slaughter.

 

[Vincenzo]

The following are some examples of fighters with heavier armament than 8-303s that were operational at the same time as the BOB. P40 with a mixture of 30 cals and 50cals, P39 with a mixture of 30 cals, 50 cals and a cannon(either 20mm or 37mm) F4F3(Martlet) with 4-50cals and 400 rds each, A6M with two 30 cals with 500 rds each and two 20mms with 60 rds each. I suggest that all of those were better armed than the Spit or Hurri against bombers although only the F6F and A6M had the high altitude performance to compete.

P-40 at time only 2 50s, P-39 wasn't operative at time, F4F-3 only from december

 

[Jabberwocky]

P-40 at time only 2 50s, P-39 wasn't operative at time, F4F-3 only from december

And only 65 A6Ms had been delivered by November 1940. The Zero's armament was essentially the same as that found on the Bf-109 E4.

Its performance at altitude was lacking in comparison to the Spitfire as well.