Why no heavier RAF machine gun calibres? (3 Viewers)

[Reluctant Poster]

As far as I know Lloyds includes the fishing fleets and coasters, which pushes the overall tonnages up, when you go to ships of 1,600 GRT or more Norway drops 600,000, Holland 300,000, Britain 3,500,000 GRT compared to Lloyds. Overall 56,803,000 GRT of ocean going ships versus Lloyds 68,500,000 GRT of shipping. When it comes to what happened in 1940 most of the fleets of the countries attacked by Germany joined the allied cause, more than offsetting allied ships now captured or trapped in Sweden, an exception was Denmark where German threats to the families of the crews resulted in many ships returning or being laid up in neutral ports, the latter a fate a lot of Italian ships suffered, most of these succumbed to US pressure later and joined the allied fleet, on the other hand a number of ships chartered by Japan failed to be returned before December 1941, while the French fleet largely stayed loyal to Vichy. Panama had 700,000 GRT of ocean going ships but generally the minor neutrals tried to stay out of the conflict zones. Apart from the inefficiencies of convoys a lot more "trade" was one way, further reducing shipping efficiency. Add the closure of the Suez canal and, for example, lots of pre war British trade was to Europe, for items that now had to come from much further away or do without.

The Lloyd's Register does a beakdown by types of vessel.

Further disregarding Great Lakes Vessels, wood and composite Vessels, Vessels < 4,000 GRT, and Vessels 25 years or older produces this table:

This makes the case for the Liberty even stronger.

 

[PAT303]

What a load of cobblers.

If you had said that the Mk III inspired the Mk VIII and XIV I would totally agree but the absence of Mk III parts in the Mk VIII and XIV blueprints I have says you are massively over reaching.

I have a SMALL collection of Spitfire blueprints and the Vickers part number system is very easy to follow.

Each version has a model number. The Mark 1 was the Model 300. All Mk 1 parts, other than standard parts or parts used on earlier Supermarine aircraft has a part number that consists of the model number followed by a two digit area code followed by a dash followed by an item number.

Taking the fuselage (area 27) as an example Frame 5 is shown on multiple sheets and on sheet 26 the upper port engine mount fitting is item 130. This makes the part number of that fitting 30027-130.

Each part on every later mark that is carried forward from the previous Mark/model keeps the same part number so every mark that uses the same engine mount fitting as on the Mk I has the same part number.

When the part is replaced on a later mark it gets a new part number starting with the new model number, followed by 27 indicating main fuselage and a new dash number.

The Mk VIII is the model 359 so the fuselage is part number 35927. The Mark XIV was model 379. I do not know what model the Mk III was

This is a typical drawing section for the late Mk VIII fuselage which is also used on the Mk XIV. Note all the part numbers start 300 or 379 (meaning a part changed for the Mk XIV but now also used on the Mk VIII) Note also the main frame pressing has only 515 shown as the number. That means it was a new part first used on the Mk VIII and its part number is 35927-515 regardless of which mark that part is used on.

The interesting thing is that I can not find in any Mk VIII and Mk XIV drawings any part numbers that do not start with model numbers for the Mk I, Mk II, Mk V, Ml VIII and Mk XIV. Admittedly I only have 28 sheets of Mk VIII and 181 sheets for the Mk XIV but obviously there should be multiple Mk III parts showing in at least some of the drawings. Even the fuselage stern has all new model 379 parts in the area where the tail gear is attached so even that was redesigned from scratch. See the second drawing below.

View attachment 811442

View attachment 811446

Why would Mk VIII blueprints have Mk III part numbers on them?.

 

[PAT303]

The service trials of the Mk III prototype stated (from Morgan and Shacklady):
"There appear to be two serious disadvantages in an otherwise excellent aircraft.
(a) The landing run is dangerously long, and probably prohibitive for night flying and (b) the square ends to the wings will make the Spitfire still more difficult to differentiate from the Bf109, a matter in which mistakes have been made. May a pair of ordinary wings please be fitted to the Spitfire III so that it may be ascertained what reduction in the landing run is thereby obtained. I feel that the present Spitfire is already wing-loaded to the maximum extent compatible with efficiency and, if extra weight is to be added the wing surface ought to be increased rather than reduced."

Dangerously long landing run compared to what, dozens of other RAF aircraft already in service? so not being safe to use as a night fighter, you could use any of the hundreds of Mk II's available, just saying, which it wasn't designed for anyway is a good enough reason to not have a 400mph fighter in 1940?, no RAF aircraft can have squared off wings because the 109 has them?, How did the British win with this mentality?

 

[Shortround6]

, How did the British win with this mentality?

It was a close run thing.

You can't build Spitfires because you need Defiants?
You can't build Whirlwinds because you need Lysanders?
Reasons for building Botha's defy Logic.
A lot of the tank story.
The Idea that tanks and AT guns shouldn't have HE ammo, even a little bit.
The 100lb Anti-sub bomb?

I suspect German agents

 

[MiTasol]

By ensuring they were not losing rare aircraft and far rarer pilots to "friendly" fire.

 

[MiTasol]

The Idea that tanks and AT guns shouldn't have HE ammo, even a little bit.
The 100lb Anti-sub bomb?

I suspect German agents

I think that was just the mentality of those Generals that thought there was a place for (horse) cavalry in modern warfare so long as it was thoroughbreds ridden by Gentlemen.

These were the same people who forced the British Browning aircraft machine guns to be able to five times the total ammunition capacity of any aircraft magazine and fire more rounds a few seconds later, and demanded lubricated ammunition so that it would freeze at altitude and that at the start of the BoB that the Hispano be banned until it was proven that the breach was locked when the gun fired.

Inbred upper crust Generals who probably purchased their commissions in Queen Victoria's time and who were still reliving the Crimean war.

 

[Shortround6]

there was a place for (horse) cavalry in modern warfare so long as it was thoroughbreds ridden by Gentlemen

But, but , but.............that is what their 3rd cousin, once removed, who lived in Germany told them that the German army believed.
The Germans were just using fake tanks to fool everyone.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

I think that was just the mentality of those Generals that thought there was a place for (horse) cavalry in modern warfare so long as it was thoroughbreds ridden by Gentlemen.

These were the same people who forced the British Browning aircraft machine guns to be able to five times the total ammunition capacity of any aircraft magazine and fire more rounds a few seconds later, and demanded lubricated ammunition so that it would freeze at altitude and that at the start of the BoB that the Hispano be banned until it was proven that the breach was locked when the gun fired.

Inbred upper crust Generals who probably purchased their commissions in Queen Victoria's time and who were still reliving the Crimean war.

Actually the US Army clung to the cavalry longer. I have posted on this previously. The British Army was the first to mechanize.

 

[Juha3]

I would also add that the claim the RAF could not reach Dunkirk is false. They could have done so if they had wanted but they chose wisely to fight over their own territory. In fact the very next year Leigh Mallory did send the Spitfires over France with disastrous results.

Yes, Circuses were flown as far as Lille (appr. 9 times, 150 kms from the tip of Dungeness ) and Hazebrouck (appr. 10 times), 111 kms from the tip of Dungeness, up to the end of August 1941.

 

[MiTasol]

Actually the US Army clung to the cavalry longer. I have posted on this previously. The British Army was the first to mechanize.

Yes but that was crossbreeds ridden by Colonials. That does not count.

 

[EwenS]

I would also add that the claim the RAF could not reach Dunkirk is false. They could have done so if they had wanted but they chose wisely to fight over their own territory. In fact the very next year Leigh Mallory did send the Spitfires over France with disastrous results.

Not a question of they could have done so but that they actually DID fight over Dunkirk during Operation Dynamo to evacuate British & French troops in May/June 1940.

Miracles and myths: The Dunkirk Evacuation – Part 1: Where was the RAF? - The National Archives blog

On 10 May 1940, Hitler’s forces suddenly opened their offensive in Western Europe. Attacking through neutral Belgium and Luxembourg, they soon shattered the Allied defences and threw the British and French armies into disarray. Within 10 days, the Luftwaffe ground down RAF fighter squadrons...

blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk

 

[PAT303]

By ensuring they were not losing rare aircraft and far rarer pilots to "friendly" fire.

So the squared off wings were deemed a negative aspect to the Mk III because it could be mistaken for a 109 yet they made hundreds of LF Mk V's IX's XIV's and Mk XVI's which had squared off wings?.

 

[PAT303]

Hispano be banned until it was proven that the breach was locked when the gun fired.

Do you know much about firearms?, as an example both the Lee Enfield and Mauser rifles are unable to be fired unless the bolt is in battery, or in other words locked, there's a pretty important reason for that.
As for the Hispano itself the cannon armed squadrons that had them in the BoB were so frustrated about the reliability of them, or lack there of that they exchanged them for war weary .303 Browning armed models. Simple fact is HMG's and Cannons were not mature weapons in 1940.

 

[Engineman]

What does surprise me somewhat is that it took so long to re-develop the war-booty MG 213 family of cannon into the post-war weapons. Was it lethargy or were the ex-Allied nations industries so bigoted that they could not recognise the excellent features of the design?
Myself, I suspect that the different nations only played with the concept to start with and lethargy held back the development towards realisation of a great gun.

Eng

 

[Shortround6]

What does surprise me somewhat is that it took so long to re-develop the war-booty MG 213 family of cannon into the post-war weapons. Was it lethargy or were the ex-Allied nations industries so bigoted that they could not recognise the excellent features of the design?
Myself, I suspect that the different nations only played with the concept to start with and lethargy held back the development towards realisation of a great gun.

Eng

There was a wind down of weapons making in the 2-3 years after the end of WW II. Things speeded up with the growing confrontations with the Soviet Union, like the Berlin blockade and air lift. Soviets detonating their own atomic bomb Aug 29th 1949 certainly speeded up western spending/research into better air to air weapons. It still took several years (3-4?) to get revolver guns into service.
The MG 213 was a great concept. It broke down the cycle of the gun into 5 different stages so you could have 5 operations going at at once. Like as gun was firing other chambers were partial loading, final loading (chambering) extracting, ejecting. NOW get it do work, and since the gun is a revolver, seal the cylinder to barrel gap, which is dealing with pressures of 30-50,000psi depending on cartridge being used. Now get it to work from 0 ft to 50,000ft, in vastly different temperatures and while pulling 5-6Gs, or negative G.
Just feeding guns could be a problem. The US M39 fired at 1500rpm and the size of the shell was twice the size of .50 cal so you had to feed over 1.5 meters worth of belt/shells in 2 seconds.
There is not only getting the gun/s to actually work and work well. They also didn't want disposable guns, at least in the west. They wanted guns that were rebuildable/overhaulable out to certain life cycle.

 

[MIflyer]

It is hard to think of a situation in the first half of the war where we would have not been better off with P-80s than what we actually had

Long Range escort in the ETO and Pacific, for one thing? The P-80 could not hack that. Every hear of the XP-83 or the FJ Fury? Both were corpulent attempts to address the jet range problem and were not successful.

 

[Engineman]

There was a wind down of weapons making in the 2-3 years after the end of WW II. Things speeded up with the growing confrontations with the Soviet Union, like the Berlin blockade and air lift. Soviets detonating their own atomic bomb Aug 29th 1949 certainly speeded up western spending/research into better air to air weapons. It still took several years (3-4?) to get revolver guns into service.
The MG 213 was a great concept. It broke down the cycle of the gun into 5 different stages so you could have 5 operations going at at once. Like as gun was firing other chambers were partial loading, final loading (chambering) extracting, ejecting. NOW get it do work, and since the gun is a revolver, seal the cylinder to barrel gap, which is dealing with pressures of 30-50,000psi depending on cartridge being used. Now get it to work from 0 ft to 50,000ft, in vastly different temperatures and while pulling 5-6Gs, or negative G.
Just feeding guns could be a problem. The US M39 fired at 1500rpm and the size of the shell was twice the size of .50 cal so you had to feed over 1.5 meters worth of belt/shells in 2 seconds.
There is not only getting the gun/s to actually work and work well. They also didn't want disposable guns, at least in the west. They wanted guns that were rebuildable/overhaulable out to certain life cycle.

Like I said, Slow, slow, slow. It was almost a mature weapon in 1945, even when wartime developed with poor German materials. I can't see how anyone then, who understood air fighting and guns, would not want it NOW! If they had had a working MK 213C with HE instead of 0.5's, all of those damaged Mig's would have been kills.

Eng

 

[Shortround6]

It was almost a mature weapon in 1945, even when wartime developed with poor German materials.

I would need to some real proof of this.
The Germans had all sorts of wonderful stuff that was just short of being ready to go into production in the summer of 1945 that it took the Allies (and the soviets) 5-8 years to get into service, and this was after, at least in the west, taking hundreds of German engineers back to France, Britain and the US.
They had a lot ideas/drawings/test rigs. The distance/time from actual service use is very questionable.
The whole wire guided anti-tank missile saga is a classic example. They had the idea, they had fired missiles on the test ranges. The Egyptians even had some successes in 1967 (over 20 years later) but they also had many, many, many failures. What company demonstrators/salesmen could do (while not being shot at) with 1st and 2nd generation wire guided AT missiles were in a different league from what normal soldiers could do. Throw in the ducking while being shot at factor and tanks killed per number of missiles fired was in the single digits.
Where the MG 213 falls on the Spectrum I don't know for sure but my suspicion rating is high.

Maybe the US could have done better if they had not been seduced by the allure of the air-to-air rocket. Millions of dollars poured into the rockets, the planes to fire them, the radars and fire control systems and ground radars/control systems. Hey, the Germans were using the R4M rocket in WW II. Almost a mature weapon, in fact even used in combat an number times. 11 years later.
Battle of Palmdale - Wikipedia

I don't have time (hours) to go through the number of failures/long troubled development times of the French, British, American ground based anti-aircraft missiles of the 1940s/50s to get to where the Germans actually needed to be in 1944/45. Or the problems with the German advanced submarines.

Maybe the MG 213 was the exception to the rule.

 

[Engineman]

I would need to some real proof of this.
The Germans had all sorts of wonderful stuff that was just short of being ready to go into production in the summer of 1945 that it took the Allies (and the soviets) 5-8 years to get into service, and this was after, at least in the west, taking hundreds of German engineers back to France, Britain and the US.
They had a lot ideas/drawings/test rigs. The distance/time from actual service use is very questionable.
The whole wire guided anti-tank missile saga is a classic example. They had the idea, they had fired missiles on the test ranges. The Egyptians even had some successes in 1967 (over 20 years later) but they also had many, many, many failures. What company demonstrators/salesmen could do (while not being shot at) with 1st and 2nd generation wire guided AT missiles were in a different league from what normal soldiers could do. Throw in the ducking while being shot at factor and tanks killed per number of missiles fired was in the single digits.
Where the MG 213 falls on the Spectrum I don't know for sure but my suspicion rating is high.

Maybe the US could have done better if they had not been seduced by the allure of the air-to-air rocket. Millions of dollars poured into the rockets, the planes to fire them, the radars and fire control systems and ground radars/control systems. Hey, the Germans were using the R4M rocket in WW II. Almost a mature weapon, in fact even used in combat an number times. 11 years later.
Battle of Palmdale - Wikipedia

I don't have time (hours) to go through the number of failures/long troubled development times of the French, British, American ground based anti-aircraft missiles of the 1940s/50s to get to where the Germans actually needed to be in 1944/45. Or the problems with the German advanced submarines.

Maybe the MG 213 was the exception to the rule.

I almost mentioned the missiles thing, but we are talking guns.
Hey! How long did it take to design and build the Atomic bomb!

Eng

 

[Engineman]

Nope, I don't accept that it was impossible to develop a good working MK 213 C clone in a shorter timescale. The industries were dragging it out for £££ ($$$).

Eng