Greg Boeser
1st Lieutenant
The Golden BB Theory posits that if you put enough rounds out there something vital will get hit.
why is the A6M Zero's lack of armor emphasized so heavily (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter mig-31bm
- Start date
Other advantage of the .50 rounds : you can mix them with M1 Incendiary rounds (blue tip), although, to be true, they did not always properly work.
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,145
- Sep 29, 2025
Agree with all that but it's also the case that the Japanese knew that liquid cooled engines were vulnerable to their radiator being holed, and Allied pilots knew it quite well too. The JAAF particular emphasized shooting at the nose and underbelly of Allied fighters as a tactic to damage their radiators. Once they were losing coolant (and saw that tell-tale stream coming out) even if they didn't instantly crash Allied pilots knew it was only a matter of time - and not very much time, before their engine would fail so this does instantly become an existentialcrisis - they would immediately be looking for the way home or to somewhere relatively safe to crash land or ditch.
pinehilljoe
Staff Sergeant
The eight rifle caliber machine guns in the Hurricane and Spitfire seemed to be effective in the early part of the War.
People seem to forget the early years of the war was fought with very basic weapons and technology, there wasn't gyro gunsights or reliable guns and ammunition not to mention pilots with little to no skills, in the RAF many of the pilots had never travelled away from home, the first time they rode a train was to enlist and next to none of them had seen a plane let alone fly one. Dowding wanted and got 8 machine guns for the simple reason that hardly anyone hit anything, even the pro's struggled to connect so as many guns as possible firing as fast as possible as the best way to at least give them a chance of success, if you look at the stats only about 50% of Pilots were awarded a kill, only 5% reach Ace status with 5, that's a lot of guys flying around shooting open air.
yulzari
Tech Sergeant
This does seem a little over demeaning of the typical RAF pilots. Hollywood made the upper class RAF pilot a standard meme but the typical one was actually a grammar school boy although hardly universal. Railway trains abounded densely in Britain and cars were at least an aspiration in their youth and a commonplace on the streets. Aeroplanes flew widely across the country and small airfields existed within a determined boy's bicycle ride with many local aviation days at airfields and RAF stations. Aeroplanes were hardly a novelty to them.Of course some came from wealthy families who could afford cars and flying lessons and others came from impecunious families who could barely afford a grammar school uniform never mind luxuries. I very much doubt that there were any significant numbers who had never travelled on a train before they enlisted. Even those from the working classes may well have had travelled on trains for days out at the seaside at least with works holidays or social groups like the churches or Boy Scouts. Local day trips in buses were equally popular individually or in groups. Modern transport was not a mystery to them as a whole.
I agree that air to air firing was a neglected art yet the RAF gave a real priority to high speed target tugs to give some semblance to real attack profiles and accuracy with the reflector gun sights. Large numbers of period fromt line design aeroplanes were set to this task. Aeroplanes such as the Hawker Henley and Boulton Paul Defiant which were intended to operate in the front line and the Fairey Battle which was just falling out of front line use. The same applied to anti aircraft ground fire from the ground and at sea.
Growing up in Australia in the 70's and 80's I could count on one hand the number of people I knew who had flown on a plane, I remember school kids from the outback who were on exchange programs being absolutely in aww crossing the Sydney Harbour Bridge. I'm not bad mouthing RAF pilots but honestly even today in 2026 if you strapped a bunch of 20 year old's into Spitfires and said climb flat out to 25,000ft and shoot down a bunch of other 20 year old's while they also are also shooting at you I'd say the overall hit rate would be the same 2% that both sides claimed after the BoB. As for the A6M the BoB was a very different fight, the MkI/II Spit was a very different animal to the Mk V they fought against over Darwin while under an a very well organised integrated air defence network, the lack of protection for both pilot and machine would expose that weakness very clearly as it did to both the RAF and Luftwaffe in the battle of France.
Hi
No that is not the reason that "Dowding wanted and got 8 machine guns", there was great discussion on the subject of armament during the inter-war period, this is covered quite well in the following book:
In Chapter 5 'The Quest for Fighter Firepower', extract below:
Another book, less detailed, also has some information on the subject:
Extract below:
There may be some confusion with the discussions in the BoB period that appear in Dowding's 'Despatch', extract below:
I hope that is of use.
Mike
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Thank you Mike for the excerpts.
They show it is quite a long and complicated history to get from 2-4 guns to eight (from 1926?) there was some 'backsliding' by some officers.
What was wanted changed over the years and changed back a bit and then back to the original concept/s depending on year and particular officer/s.
It is possible to get quotes showing different things but some of them are not the general trend.
The Sopwith Snark
Used two Vickers guns in the Fuselage and two Lewis guns under each lower wing (recesses for the drums can be seen in the photo) in 1918-19. Unfortunately, the A.B.C.
Dragon engine was an utter disaster that doomed just about every airplane that used it.
The Snark also showed the problems faced by the RAF at the time. They could not mount the Vickers guns where the pilot could not reach them for inflight jams and while the Lewis gun was more reliable it could not be synchronized and was limited to 97 rounds in the drum, not enough for sustained fire.
The Gun situation was not fully resolved even for the first Gladiators which got 2 Vickers guns in the fuselage and a single Lewis under each wing until sufficient Brownings were available.
The guns on the Snark were good for around 600rpm so getting better guns also increased the total rate of fire.
They show it is quite a long and complicated history to get from 2-4 guns to eight (from 1926?) there was some 'backsliding' by some officers.
What was wanted changed over the years and changed back a bit and then back to the original concept/s depending on year and particular officer/s.
It is possible to get quotes showing different things but some of them are not the general trend.
The Sopwith Snark
Used two Vickers guns in the Fuselage and two Lewis guns under each lower wing (recesses for the drums can be seen in the photo) in 1918-19. Unfortunately, the A.B.C.
Dragon engine was an utter disaster that doomed just about every airplane that used it.
The Snark also showed the problems faced by the RAF at the time. They could not mount the Vickers guns where the pilot could not reach them for inflight jams and while the Lewis gun was more reliable it could not be synchronized and was limited to 97 rounds in the drum, not enough for sustained fire.
The Gun situation was not fully resolved even for the first Gladiators which got 2 Vickers guns in the fuselage and a single Lewis under each wing until sufficient Brownings were available.
The guns on the Snark were good for around 600rpm so getting better guns also increased the total rate of fire.
The Spitfire was fitted with 4 guns, that was then changed to 8 as more guns firing faster gave the best chance of a hit on the pilot not the plane itself, thats why the outer 4 guns are spread out so far, they weren't part of the original design, its also why the 4 .303's were kept after the Hispano as adopted, is wasn't until after the Gyro stabilised gunsight was in widespread use that that idea changed, the guns weren't harmanised for 250m but 600m originally, the RAF decided that firing was to commence at 600m down to 300m then break off as to stay out of the bombers return fire, again that changed after it was found to be impractical.
Last edited:
As we all know the .303's were meant to be replaced with cannons from around 1936 onwards with lots of different HMG and auto cannons trialed but non had thr reliability needed.
Attachments
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,145
- Sep 29, 2025
I grew up in the same era in a rather large American city and I can tell you that a lot of the people here, probably the majority of the population never flew on a plane, don't have a passport, also never rode on a train and some of them never even on a long-distance bus. Most of these people are very poor, but not all - I know quite well educated and seemingly cosmopolitan people here who have never been overseas. It's amazing how many people are extremely insular in their life experience even today.
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,145
- Sep 29, 2025
I think for this discussion, we should also keep in mind that for every aircraft shot down in air to air combat, a large number - probably 4 or 5 times as many particularly in the early war, were hit, but not damaged enough to be shot down.
I think this is for a wide range of reasons.
- Smaller caliber guns for the most part
- Lack of special ammunition like armor-piercing, incendiary, explosive etc. rounds
- Lack of familiarity with enemy aircraft (where the vulnerable spots are)
- Shooting from long distances
- Lack of gunnery training (which many Air Forces weren't doing early on)
- Some allegedly flimsy planes were a lot tougher than we assume
- Some early aircraft not carrying as much ammunition and fuel as later variants would (more empty space in the fuselage)
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,145
- Sep 29, 2025
Having eight guns makes it not only more likely that you get a hit, but that the hit is telling. Same for six heavy machine guns, or a pair or two pairs of cannon.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
But they didn't have cell phones then
I don't know about other countries, but the US was very "air minded" in the 1930s. In the 1950s and early 60s I summered at my Grandpaents house 1/2 way up the coast of Maine.
They still had some of my father's old aviation magazines (1930s) and models (wood and paper) in some of the storage areas. My Grandmother was a 2nd grade schoolteacher and my Grandfather was house servant who traveled to other states. They paid for my father to go to an aviation school in California to learn how to build aircraft. After getting through that school he went back to east coast and got a job working at Sikorsky and later down the road (literally) at Vaught building Corsairs.
His home town in Maine (5-6000 people) had small airport (light planes). Average working people didn't fly in airplanes, but they sure knew they existed and the aviation industry was looked at as the next big thing, much like the car industry was big thing in the 1930s.
Model clubs with contests for rubber band powered aircraft were popular for both kids and adults. We might have had a higher percentage of kids that knew about lift and drag than we do today
For the British (and others) getting into the RAF meant that when war came, they wouldn't be spending years in muddy trenches with possible poison gas. Sort of an incentive program for young men.
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,145
- Sep 29, 2025
But they didn't have cell phones then
I don't know about other countries, but the US was very "air minded" in the 1930s. In the 1950s and early 60s I summered at my Grandpaents house 1/2 way up the coast of Maine.
They still had some of my father's old aviation magazines (1930s) and models (wood and paper) in some of the storage areas. My Grandmother was a 2nd grade schoolteacher and my Grandfather was house servant who traveled to other states. They paid for my father to go to an aviation school in California to learn how to build aircraft. After getting through that school he went back to east coast and got a job working at Sikorsky and later down the road (literally) at Vaught building Corsairs.
His home town in Maine (5-6000 people) had small airport (light planes). Average working people didn't fly in airplanes, but they sure knew they existed and the aviation industry was looked at as the next big thing, much like the car industry was big thing in the 1930s.
Model clubs with contests for rubber band powered aircraft were popular for both kids and adults. We might have had a higher percentage of kids that knew about lift and drag than we do today
For the British (and others) getting into the RAF meant that when war came, they wouldn't be spending years in muddy trenches with possible poison gas. Sort of an incentive program for young men.
There were obviously exceptions to the rule. My dad had some connections to the world of aviation as well, somewhat unexpectedly considering his circumstances. I suspect a lot of us ended up in spaces like this as the result of such connections.
But I think they were fairly rare in the 40s, and even into the 70s in a lot of places.
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,145
- Sep 29, 2025
(I do think that after WW2 there was a big jump in awareness of aviation for a lot of working class people all over the world who were involved in aviation during the war or experienced it indirectly, even as civilians. A lot of the car culture and "hot-rodding", street racing, motorcycle culture and so on in places like the US and Australia was directly linked to guys working on airplanes during the war, IMHO.)
