The Effectivness of 8 x.303s

claidemore · Jan 18, 2009

pinsog said:
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.

The american bombers had .50 Brownings, which are flatter shooting than the German Mg151/20, Mk108 or 13mm mgs. Yet they still got 'mauled'.

There were plenty of gunners in Lancasters and Halifaxes who shot down late war (well armored) German fighters with .303s.
Even so, the Lanc and the Halifax were armed with .50s in later marks (particularly RCAF planes with Preston-Green gun mount), and some Lancs even had 20mm cannons (unofficially).

Wars are not paid for with design requirments and good intentions, it takes cold hard cash. To replace thousands of .303 brownings with .50s would mean taking away from other parts of the war effort. It would be uneconomical to leave all those .303s collecting dust, spend money on different (more powerful) machine guns, and then perhaps not have enough resources to put tracks on tanks, or boots on soldiers feet.

Fear does not bring down aircraft, but it does affect aircrew and their performance, morale, will to fight, exhaustion level etc. It is foolish to ignore psychological impact. Every airman in a Luftwaffe bomber had seen a hundred movie scenes with mobs of 'bad guys' being mowed down by 'tommy guns'. To many of those young men, eight machine guns would seem like an apocolyptic weapon system. It's pretty hard to measure what effect that might have had, but that doesn't make it any less real.

BTW, Hurricanes in the PTO didn't have much trouble against Japanese bombers.

The Basket · Jan 19, 2009

Thank the Lord! Some members who understand what was going on.

You can't say that Jap fighters were lightly armed coz of agility and then say the Zero was well armed. Also the Zero was unknown to the west in the late 1930s.

Look at early Fw 190s. All machine guns. Now surely the germans must have realised that cannon are good but why no cannon?

The answer is yes, the RAF should have had cannon but didn't due to Industrial production and politcal and military doctrine of the mid to late 1930s which couldn't be altered overnight....didn't. Also UK was desperate and the 303 was available. And it still did a fine job. To say that 50 cals could be fitted then I will need to see the facts.

Too late to build and design a new one so obviously either licence production or buying the American gun. Since the country could be at war tomorrow then time ran out so build the 303 today and I will have my cannons tomorrow.

Colin1 · Jan 19, 2009

The Basket said:
Thank the Lord! Some members who understand what was going on

AMRAAMS, Sidewinders, time travel and now 'none of us bar a few understand what was going on' - you certainly have a flair for histrionics.

You're entitled to your views but they're no less speculation based on your understanding of the facts, than anyone else's on here, for that reason I take exception to your last rant, I think the vast majority of people on here understood what was going on, subject to their interpretation, which is a key ingredient to good debate.

The Spitfire was not 're-designed' to house 8 x .303 machine guns, the original Air Ministry Specification F.37/34 asked for an eight-gun fighter in the first instance.

Far from being last-minute, the Air Ministry looked at the .303, the .50 and the 20mm in depth as a preferred armament (well documented elsewhere on the forum), so in-depth in fact, it had time to reject the .50 and observe that 'there were problems' with a wing-mounted cannon installation.

Going with .303s because 'that's what you're geared up to manufacture' could have proved foolhardy indeed; history has proved that they were adequate but that hardly qualifies it as sound doctrine.

I think your views are just as valid as mine or anyone elses, I just don't think we need the strange responses from you when someone puts those views under scrutiny.

Waynos · Jan 19, 2009

From reading publications of the time like Flight and The Aeroplane from 1938/39 it is clearly believed by the writers that the British 8 gun arrangement was the most devastating firepower available anywhere in the world at the time, they concede that it 'might' be bettered by the 20mm cannon once its various issues have been sorted out but there is no mention whatsoever of the US .50 calibre other than reviews of the P-36 and P-39 that describe them as being surprisingly lightly armed for modern fighters, which suggests that they felt it was at best 'the same' as a .303 bullet.

Anyone know where this viewpoint would have originated from? Where there any official views that agreed with the assesment?

Glider · Jan 19, 2009

Colin1 said:
The Spitfire was not 're-designed' to house 8 x .303 machine guns, the original Air Ministry Specification F.37/34 asked for an eight-gun fighter in the first instance.

I am afraid that the Spitfire was originally designed for 4 x 303 not 8 guns. When the Air Ministry saw the mock up they refused to accept the design until it was modified to take 8 x 303. Have you ever wondered why the Spitfires guns were so spread out? In fact no Spitfire I aircraft were ever built, what everyone refers to as the Mk I is more properly known as the Spitfire Ia.

Far from being last-minute, the Air Ministry looked at the .303, the .50 and the 20mm in depth as a preferred armament (well documented elsewhere on the forum), so in-depth in fact, it had time to reject the .50 and observe that 'there were problems' with a wing-mounted cannon installation.

The Air Ministry never tested the 0.5 M2 in firing tests, when the decision to change to the 20mm was taken they had tested the 0.5 M1 which was a very different design.

Going with .303s because 'that's what you're geared up to manufacture' could have proved foolhardy indeed; history has proved that they were adequate but that hardly qualifies it as sound doctrine.

We did decide to go with the 303 until the 20mm was ready but that was why the design spec insisted on 8 x 303. The 8 x 303 was in fact a plan B or if you prefer, a fall back position and the authorities deserve a lot of credit for being so forward in their planning.

The Basket · Jan 19, 2009

The Spitfire wing was redesigned. But it was redesigned when being designed. As the requirement just came out. And then it was a tightfit. As the guns had to be spaced out. The Barndoor on the Hurricane had no such problems.

You gave me some smack on your posts so I'm just returning the favour.

What 20mm cannon are you refering to?

Remember the Whirlwind and Bf 110 and P-38 were cannon armed because they were big machines. The 20mm cannons were initial considered too heavy for single seaters.

Glider · Jan 19, 2009

The Basket said:
The Spitfire wing was redesigned. But it was redesigned when being designed. As the requirement just came out. And then it was a tightfit. As the guns had to be spaced out. The Barndoor on the Hurricane had no such problems.

I am sorry but you are mistaken. The wing was redesgined after the Air Ministry rejected the original design because it only had 4 guns.

You gave me some smack on your posts so I'm just returning the favour.

I am sorry that you think so, little is gained by anyone giving 'smacks' as you call it. I apologise if you think that is the case.

What 20mm cannon are you refering to?

The British decided to go for the Hispana-Suiza 404 in 1936 and as early as 1938 reports were being sent out that the 303 should be replaced as quickly as possible and that the Hispano gun was the immediate way forward.

Remember the Whirlwind and Bf 110 and P-38 were cannon armed because they were big machines. The 20mm cannons were initial considered too heavy for single seaters.

The 20mm cannons were to the best of my knowledge never considered too big for single seat fighters. The MS 406 was designed to a 1934 fighter specification that demanded a 20mm gun. The Bloch MB152 had two 20mm wing mounted guns.
The Whirlwind and the Beaufighter were big because it was designed to carry 4 of them.

renrich · Jan 19, 2009

I stand corrected and thanks for the correction. The Wildcat and P39 were not truly operational until late 1940. However, they could have been operational in US but for the foreign orders which took precedence over AAF and USN orders. I believe that Britain actually took over orders in late 1940 that had originally been intended for the French and a Martlet got it's first kill, against a JU88, on Dec. 25, 1940. Those 4-50s with 400 rds. each were deadly. The P40 at that time had two cowl mounted 50s and four wing mounted 30s which is substantially more fire power than 6-303s. My reference says that the A6M2 was in action in late summer 1940 in China. The A6M2 had a service ceiling of 33790 feet which was at least as great as that of the Hurricane which had a hard time at 30000 feet.

claidemore · Jan 19, 2009

Glider said:
I am sorry that you think so, little is gained by anyone giving 'smacks' as you call it. I apologise if you think that is the case.

Glider:
I believe Basket was responding to Colin1s post, not yours. Just by looking at the timing of the posts.

Glider · Jan 19, 2009

claidemore said:
Glider:
I believe Basket was responding to Colin1s post, not yours. Just by looking at the timing of the posts.

Whoops apologies to all involved

Thanks for pointing it out

Colin1 · Jan 19, 2009

Glider said:
Whoops apologies to all involved

Thanks for pointing it out

but thanks for saving me the bother of answering the questions

Colin1 · Jan 19, 2009

The Basket said:
You gave me some smack on your posts so I'm just returning the favour

I'm sorry but that's nonsense
read my posts more carefully and you'll find that I always strive for constructive criticism/dialogue/debate; I have more respect for myself and the people I'm talking to, to descend to that kind of behaviour

HoHun · Jan 19, 2009

Hi Basket,

>Also UK was desperate and the 303 was available. And it still did a fine job.

Nice to see that you appreciate that there are different ways to do a job. However, the job the 7.7 mm machine gun did for the RAF actually was rather poor.

Contemporary cannon - the French and the Germans both had had cannon-armed single-engine fighters long before the Battle of Britain, the Germans actually testing some in the Spanish Civil War, so we're not talking about "AMRAAMs" here - were much more destructive than rifle-calibre machine guns, and the damage German cannon did to RAF bombers was so bad that they forced the RAF into night operations after just one or two large-scale (for the time) engagements.

If the RAF had be able to threaten the Luftwaffe bombers with this kind of damage, the Luftwaffe would have been forced to increase their escort strength to something resembling that chosen by the RAF for their later Circus raids (where the RAF faced cannon-armed fighters), or alternatively operate at night only (like the RAF did for most of the war).

Quite obviously, both options would have reduced the Luftwaffe bombing effectiveness far below what we have seen historically, and neither would the attacks against 11 Group airfields have been as serious as Park experienced it historically, nor would the famous scene with Churchill asking for the extend of Fighter Command reserves and receiving the alarming answer: "None!" have happened.

That the Battle of Britain was as close-run as it historically was is the direct result of the poor effectiveness of the eight-gun battery which had not been designed to fight bombers equipped with armour and self-sealing tanks, and cannon were in use in other air forces at the time so the question why the RAF did not have them is a highly relevant one.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Vincenzo · Jan 19, 2009

renrich said:
I stand corrected and thanks for the correction. The Wildcat and P39 were not truly operational until late 1940. However, they could have been operational in US but for the foreign orders which took precedence over AAF and USN orders. I believe that Britain actually took over orders in late 1940 that had originally been intended for the French and a Martlet got it's first kill, against a JU88, on Dec. 25, 1940. Those 4-50s with 400 rds. each were deadly. The P40 at that time had two cowl mounted 50s and four wing mounted 30s which is substantially more fire power than 6-303s. My reference says that the A6M2 was in action in late summer 1940 in China. The A6M2 had a service ceiling of 33790 feet which was at least as great as that of the Hurricane which had a hard time at 30000 feet.

for P-40 only 2 50s (the P-40B, with weapons that you write, become operational summer '41), my on zero talking september 1940 (so like your)

Colin1 · Jan 19, 2009

Glider said:
1. I am afraid that the Spitfire was originally designed for 4 x 303 not 8 guns. When the Air Ministry saw the mock up they refused to accept the design until it was modified to take 8 x 303.

2. Have you ever wondered why the Spitfires guns were so spread out?

3. In fact no Spitfire I aircraft were ever built, what everyone refers to as the Mk I is more properly known as the Spitfire Ia

1. Strictly speaking
the Supermarine F.37/34 was initially conceptualised for four .303s. When Sorley visited the Supermarine works at Woolston, you're right, he was indeed only looking at a mock-up of the F.37/34; the culmination of the visit was a communique by Sorley to the Deputy Chief of the Air Staff, AVM Christopher Courtney:

"On Friday, 26th April 1935, I saw at Supermarines a mock-up of a fighter which they are building to Specification 37/34. This is one got out by AMRD (the Air Member for Research and Development - Air Marshall Sir Hugh Dowding) to cover the redesign of the Supermarine F.7/30.
According to the 37/34 Specification it is to comply generally with the requirements of the F.7/30 Specification subject to certain concessions. As designed, it has every feature required by our latest specification 10/35 with the following differences:

i. four guns to be increased to eight
ii. deletion of the requirement to carry 4 bombs
iii. reduction of fuel capacity from 97 imp gallons"

all of which were incorporated without delay prior to design approval.

This doesn't suggest to me that the Air Ministry did anything like reject the design and by relenting on the bombs and fuel, admitted that it was one or the other, choosing more guns over the bombs and fuel.

It isn't, admittedly, overwhelming evidence in favour of my argument and largely revolves around where you draw the line on the design process.

Mitchell was happy though, he'd just shed 273lbs of fuel which amounted to nearly a 200lb weight saving even with the additional four guns. I've no idea what deleting the bomb-carrying requirement saved him.

2. No I haven't really considered the spread of armament in the Spitfire's wing in the context you're suggesting and I'm trying to corroborate your theory at the moment.

3. You are right, but in a forum of this calibre, was it necessary to point out that the first Spitfires sported the 'a' wing? I didn't think so and omitted it on precisely those grounds.

Sources
Spitfire A Documentary History
Alfred Price
MacDonald and Jane's
ISBN: 0 354 01077 8
Pages 20 -21

claidemore · Jan 19, 2009

HoHun said:
Hi Basket,

>Also UK was desperate and the 303 was available. And it still did a fine job.

Nice to see that you appreciate that there are different ways to do a job. However, the job the 7.7 mm machine gun did for the RAF actually was rather poor.
Between 1500 and 2000 aircraft shot down in 3 months. That makes 'poor' a very relative term.
Contemporary cannon - the French and the Germans both had had cannon-armed single-engine fighters long before the Battle of Britain, the Germans actually testing some in the Spanish Civil War, so we're not talking about "AMRAAMs" here - were much more destructive than rifle-calibre machine guns, and the damage German cannon did to RAF bombers was so bad that they forced the RAF into night operations after just one or two large-scale (for the time) engagements.
True, but was the decision made because of the damage from German cannons, or from poor defensive armament and lack of long range bomber escorts? I don't see a way to quantify that outside of an educated guess.

If the RAF had be able to threaten the Luftwaffe bombers with this kind of damage, the Luftwaffe would have been forced to increase their escort strength to something resembling that chosen by the RAF for their later Circus raids (where the RAF faced cannon-armed fighters), or alternatively operate at night only (like the RAF did for most of the war).
The Luftwaffe was forced to go to night bombing, and it was forced by 8x303 armed Spits and Hurricanes.
Quite obviously, both options would have reduced the Luftwaffe bombing effectiveness far below what we have seen historically, and neither would the attacks against 11 Group airfields have been as serious as Park experienced it historically, nor would the famous scene with Churchill asking for the extend of Fighter Command reserves and receiving the alarming answer: "None!" have happened.

That the Battle of Britain was as close-run as it historically was is the direct result of the poor effectiveness of the eight-gun battery which had not been designed to fight bombers equipped with armour and self-sealing tanks, and cannon were in use in other air forces at the time so the question why the RAF did not have them is a highly relevant one.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

There is no doubt that 20mm cannon are a better armament choice for fighters than rifle caliber mgs. I 'm not convinced that the .303s used in BoB were ineffective or that the Battles eventual outcome hinged heavily on their use. We have to remember that Luftwaffe aircraft in 1940 were not heavily armored, and the armor they did have only protected certain areas. Their self sealing tanks were also not particularly effective. The numbers shot down show quite clearly that they were vulnerable to .303 fire.
A well known hunter once said, "Use enough gun". In the case of the .303 during the Battle, it would appear to be 'just' enough.

Vincenzo · Jan 19, 2009

"Between 1500 and 2000 aircraft shot down in 3 months. That makes 'poor' a very relative term."
i don't think that number are true, the fighter command at example in october claimed ~200 kills and in juliett ~175 (from 10th)

i can add claims for august and setemper ~930 each, so a total of ~2230 i'm not a experten of that but kill are many less of claims (sometimes claims are multiple of real kills)

add lost (admitted) of FC ~65, ~325, ~360, ~125

renrich · Jan 19, 2009

An analogy to this discussion would be that since Karamojo (sp?) Bell slew many elephants with either a 6.5 or 7x57 Mauser, it follows that those calibers are adequate for elephant hunting. I would prefer a 600 Nitro Express in those days.

Marcel · Jan 19, 2009

HoHun said:
Contemporary cannon - the French and the Germans both had had cannon-armed single-engine fighters long before the Battle of Britain, the Germans actually testing some in the Spanish Civil War, so we're not talking about "AMRAAMs" here - were much more destructive than rifle-calibre machine guns, and the damage German cannon did to RAF bombers was so bad that they forced the RAF into night operations after just one or two large-scale (for the time) engagements.

Hi Henning,

Not an expert on the BoB, but wasn't the luftwaffe also forced to change into night bombing during the Blitz?

Marcel

Glider · Jan 19, 2009

Colin1 said:
i. four guns to be increased to eight
ii. deletion of the requirement to carry 4 bombs
iii. reduction of fuel capacity from 97 imp gallons"

I think there is one thing we can agree on, implementing (iii) was an error in view of the Spitfires range.

The Effectivness of 8 x.303s

Senior Airman

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Captain

Senior Master Sergeant

Captain

Chief Master Sergeant

Senior Airman

Captain

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Airman

Senior Master Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

rotartsinimdA

Captain

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads