Wildcat during the Battle of Britain

pinsog · Sep 11, 2020

Glider said:
Because pre war / early war when bombers didn't have armour or self sealing tanks any hit from a 303 was to be taken seriously, so increasing the chances of hitting the aircraft had some logic. When protection increased then the need to concentrate the fire became far more important.

Most nations exaggerated the effectiveness of their weapons remembering again that in 1939/40 8 x LMG was far more than the average fighter carried

I agree that for the time, 8 lmg was about as good as it got, but if you can shoot and only 2 of your 8 guns will actually strike a twin engine sized aircraft at 200-300 yards, then why carry 8? If you can shoot, then all 8 should be concentrated, if you only need 2 to take down a plane then remove the other 6 like the KI43.

As I have said, I am not picking on the British, I recall reading that Richard Bong said he had little gunnery training and had to get close to hit them. He went on leave got some gunnery training and said he was a lot better shot after that and would have gotten more kills if he would have had gunnery training at the beginning

Clayton Magnet · Sep 11, 2020

pinsog said:
If they actually used it and the pilots could shoot then why did the RAF used the spread pattern with the guns on the Spitfire and Hurricane?

Because shooting at stressed skin monoplanes from other stressed skin monoplanes going over 300mph was brand spanking new in 1939/40.
And 8x.303 was considered to be ENORMOUS fire power in the days leading up to the war, when the standard fighter armament was usually still 2 synchronized light machine guns. As it turned out, the 8 machine guns was only barely adequate.
Perhaps the RAF should have followed the pre-war American example, and just ordered some Bell Airacuda's for bomber interception? My point being, that nobody really knew how the next war would play out.

Edit: This post was a little slow on the draw, sorry

pinsog · Sep 11, 2020

Clayton Magnet said:
Because shooting at stressed skin monoplanes from other stressed skin monoplanes going over 300mph was brand spanking new in 1939/40.
And 8x.303 was considered to be ENORMOUS fire power in the days leading up to the war, when the standard fighter armament was usually still 2 synchronized light machine guns. As it turned out, the 8 machine guns was only barely adequate.
Perhaps the RAF should have followed the pre-war American example, and just ordered some Bell Airacuda's for bomber interception?

Edit: This post was a little slow on the draw, sorry

Enormous firepower only counts if it hits the target. If you are the greatest air to air marksman on planet earth, but only 2 of the 8 guns on your Hurricane will hit a 2 engine bomber at 200-300 yards because of the spread pattern then your just hauling around extra weight, and your actual real firepower is no better than a KI43, a P36 or an ME109 who ran out of cannon ammo.

Or, they weren't trained to shoot and the spread pattern had to used so they could hit something. Can't be both, has to be one or the other.

Glider · Sep 11, 2020

Look at it this way. If you think that 2 x LMG was sufficient to seriously damage the enemy, then carrying 8 x LMG allows you to spread them out and cover four times the amount of sky. Your chances of hitting are significantly better as are your chances of surviving for another day.

We all know that 2 x LMG wasn't sufficient so they had to group them together when the targets became more robust.

pbehn · Sep 11, 2020

pinsog said:
Enormous firepower only counts if it hits the target. If you are the greatest air to air marksman on planet earth, but only 2 of the 8 guns on your Hurricane will hit a 2 engine bomber at 200-300 yards because of the spread pattern then your just hauling around extra weight, and your actual real firepower is no better than a KI43, a P36 or an ME109 who ran out of cannon ammo.

Or, they weren't trained to shoot and the spread pattern had to used so they could hit something. Can't be both, has to be one or the other.

I have no idea what the discussion is, pilots could and did change the harmonisation of their guns, but the "spread pattern" depends on how the guns are used. If you harmonise all guns at 200 yards then they are almost useless at 400 + yards aren't they? The reason why a shot gun isn't a rifle is because very, very few marksmen can hit a bird with a single bullet so a shotgun puts out a cloud of shot of which one or two hit the bird.

pinsog · Sep 11, 2020

Glider said:
Look at it this way. If you think that 2 x LMG was sufficient to seriously damage the enemy, then carrying 8 x LMG allows you to spread them out and cover four times the amount of sky. Your chances of hitting are significantly better as are your chances of surviving for another day.

We all know that 2 x LMG wasn't sufficient so they had to group them together when the targets became more robust.

You just made my point for me. IF you are trained to shoot and have practiced then you should be able to take a P36 and put a good percentage of bullets into a towed target sleeve with 2 synchronized 30's. If you can put a good percent of bullets into a target sleeve with 2 synchronized 30's then you should be able to climb into an 8 gun Hurricane with all guns bore sighted to 200 or so yards and completely shred the target sleeve. There would be no need for the 8 guns and spread pattern if you can shoot.

pinsog · Sep 11, 2020

pbehn said:
I have no idea what the discussion is, pilots could and did change the harmonisation of their guns, but the "spread pattern" depends on how the guns are used. If you harmonise all guns at 200 yards then they are almost useless at 400 + yards aren't they? The reason why a shot gun isn't a rifle is because very, very few marksmen can hit a bird with a single bullet so a shotgun puts out a cloud of shot of which one or two hit the bird.

If harmonized at 200 yards, the pattern would be the width of the guns in the wing at 400. (Draw a symmetrical X, one end is guns in the wing, the center is 200 yards, other end of the X is 400 yards. Obviously wing flex etc would assist in opening the pattern up more)

Yes a shotgun fires a pattern but the choke controls the size of the pattern. Full choke is a tight pattern, cylinder bore is a very open pattern. On large tough birds at distance you want a full choke for a tight dense pattern on the target. Poorer shots need a more open pattern

pbehn · Sep 11, 2020

pinsog said:
You just made my point for me. IF you are trained to shoot and have practiced then you should be able to take a P36 and put a good percentage of bullets into a towed target sleeve with 2 synchronized 30's. If you can put a good percent of bullets into a target sleeve with 2 synchronized 30's then you should be able to climb into an 8 gun Hurricane with all guns bore sighted to 200 or so yards and completely shred the target sleeve. There would be no need for the 8 guns and spread pattern if you can shoot.

The LW werent sending over target sleeves in 1940.

pinsog · Sep 11, 2020

pbehn said:
The LW werent sending over target sleeves in 1940.

Seriously? How are they supposed to practice, shooting down real airplanes?

You don't own a gun do you.

I practice before deer season on paper targets. I don't practice on live deer before I go deer hunting. I practice on clay skeet before I go bird hunting, I don't shoot live birds to practice for shooting live birds. The police and the army shoot paper targets to practice for people, they don't shoot real people to practice shooting real people. Air forces practice gunnery on target sleeves, they don't actually shoot each other down in peacetime

pbehn · Sep 11, 2020

pinsog said:
If harmonized at 200 yards, the pattern would be the width of the guns in the wing at 400. (Draw a symmetrical X, one end is guns in the wing, the center is 200 yards, other end of the X is 400 yards. Obviously wing flex etc would assist in opening the pattern up more)

Yes a shotgun fires a pattern but the choke controls the size of the pattern. Full choke is a tight pattern, cylinder bore is a very open pattern. On large tough birds at distance you want a full choke for a tight dense pattern on the target. Poorer shots need a more open pattern

At 400 yards zero bullets are hitting where you are aiming, are they? and at 600 yards they are more than the width of an aircraft apart. aren't they? The spread of bullets was based on what was needed for an average pilot to take down a bomber with a 2 second burst, as far as I understand it, exactly as you have described with the choke required for less experienced shooters and bigger birds. In fact although RAF pilots complained their rifle calibre ammunition didn't take down bombers effectively, many who made it back to France didn't take off again, same for the crews.

pbehn · Sep 11, 2020

pinsog said:
Seriously? How are they supposed to practice, shooting down real airplanes?

You don't own a gun do you.

I practice before deer season on paper targets. I don't practice on live deer before I go deer hunting. I practice on clay skeet before I go bird hunting, I don't shoot live birds to practice for shooting live birds. The police and the army shoot paper targets to practice for people, they don't shoot real people to practice shooting real people. Air forces practice gunnery on target sleeves, they don't actually shoot each other down in peacetime

Is the game changer in the discussion whether I have shot a deer or not? Do you practice with anything that shoots back and does 350MPH?

pinsog · Sep 11, 2020

pbehn said:
At 400 yards zero bullets are hitting where you are aiming, are they? and at 600 yards they are more than the width of an aircraft apart. aren't they? The spread of bullets was based on what was needed for an average pilot to take down a bomber with a 2 second burst, as far as I understand it, exactly as you have described with the choke required for less experienced shooters and bigger birds. In fact although RAF pilots complained their rifle calibre ammunition didn't take down bombers effectively, many who made it back to France didn't take off again, same for the crews.

They didn't take down bombers because the spread pattern would not let all of the guns hit the target. If you are a good shot and only 2 guns would hit the target out of 8 then why carry 8 guns? If you are a poor shot with no training then the 8 gun spread pattern makes sense.

pinsog · Sep 11, 2020

pbehn said:
Is the game changer in the discussion whether I have shot a deer or not? Do you practice with anything that shoots back and does 350MPH?

No, your not grasping basic firearm principles. Shooting a deer requires some practice. The farther he is, or if he is running, the more practice is required to do it.

Shooting a tank with another tank requires practice. Tanker gunners must qualify just like police and soldiers must qualify.

Shooting a flying bird requires practice. The farther out and faster they fly the more practice is required.

Air to air gunnery requires practice. Shooting a towed target sleeve over and over until you can get a good percentage of bullets on target is the best practice you can get short of shooting at the real thing.

pbehn · Sep 11, 2020

pinsog said:
No, your not grasping basic firearm principles. Shooting a deer requires some practice. The farther he is, or if he is running, the more practice is required to do it.

Shooting a tank with another tank requires practice. Tanker gunners must qualify just like police and soldiers must qualify.

Shooting a flying bird requires practice. The farther out and faster they fly the more practice is required.

Air to air gunnery requires practice. Shooting a towed target sleeve over and over until you can get a good percentage of bullets on target is the best practice you can get short of shooting at the real thing.

You are very persuasive, now remind me again why the P-51s armament was increased from 4 to 6 x 0.5"mgs and the P-47 had 8 x 0,5mgs. With such highly trained marksmen they surely just needed 2 to take down s/e fighters as opposed to armoured bombers? And why did they need that gyro gunsight thingey?

Clayton Magnet · Sep 11, 2020

pinsog said:
They didn't take down bombers because the spread pattern would not let all of the guns hit the target.

I don't think anyone is arguing against the virtues of proper gun harmonization. It is obviously the most effective way to destroy an aircraft with wing mounted guns. History proves that, however, in 1939, the RAF didnt have the luxury of hindsight. They configured the guns the way it was assumed they would be most effective, in a future war.
They obviously SHOULD have harmonized the guns at 2-3 hundred yards, just like they SHOULD have had more specific gunnery training. But they went to war with what they had, and adjusted their efforts to reflect the new reality. The obsolete "vic" formation comes to mind as well

pinsog · Sep 11, 2020

pbehn said:
At 400 yards zero bullets are hitting where you are aiming, are they? and at 600 yards they are more than the width of an aircraft apart. aren't they? The spread of bullets was based on what was needed for an average pilot to take down a bomber with a 2 second burst, as far as I understand it, exactly as you have described with the choke required for less experienced shooters and bigger birds. In fact although RAF pilots complained their rifle calibre ammunition didn't take down bombers effectively, many who made it back to France didn't take off again, same for the crews.

I re-read this. I think there might be a mis-understanding here. Early in the war the RAF had a 'spread pattern' that they used where they didn't focus all of the guns on a fighter at a specific range. they literally pointed each of them in a different direction. (This is hard to explain by typing. I hope someone posts a pic of what I'm talking about). It wasn't that they focused all 8 at 200 or 300 or 400 or 500 or 600 yards, they would point them all over the place (poor description on my part). For instance an HE111 straight and level a Spitfire straight and level 200 yards behind it, both parked on a runway, only maybe 2 or 3 of the Spitfires guns would hit the HE111. Do you see the problem? Instead of having all 8 hit in say a 3 foot circle at that distance (not sure that was even possible as a machine gun shoots a large group, unlike a rifle) So instead of a Spitfire or Hurricane saddling up behind an HE111 and putting to sight on the left engine and then pumping 160 rounds a seconds into that 1 engine, he might only be able to get 1 gun to bear on that engine. Does that make more sense?

Clayton Magnet · Sep 11, 2020

pinsog said:
I re-read this. I think there might be a mis-understanding here. Early in the war the RAF had a 'spread pattern' that they used where they didn't focus all of the guns on a fighter at a specific range. they literally pointed each of them in a different direction. (This is hard to explain by typing. I hope someone posts a pic of what I'm talking about). It wasn't that they focused all 8 at 200 or 300 or 400 or 500 or 600 yards, they would point them all over the place (poor description on my part). For instance an HE111 straight and level a Spitfire straight and level 200 yards behind it, both parked on a runway, only maybe 2 or 3 of the Spitfires guns would hit the HE111. Do you see the problem? Instead of having all 8 hit in say a 3 foot circle at that distance (not sure that was even possible as a machine gun shoots a large group, unlike a rifle) So instead of a Spitfire or Hurricane saddling up behind an HE111 and putting to sight on the left engine and then pumping 160 rounds a seconds into that 1 engine, he might only be able to get 1 gun to bear on that engine. Does that make more sense?

It was assumed that the speeds modern aircraft would overtake each other were going to be fantastic. Spreading the fire out from 8 guns was supposed to give the intercepting aircraft a greater chance of hitting the target at ever decreasing ranges until it was overtaken. In a stern chase

pinsog · Sep 11, 2020

Clayton Magnet said:
I don't think anyone is arguing against the virtues of proper gun harmonization. It is obviously the most effective way to destroy an aircraft with wing mounted guns. History proves that, however, in 1939, the RAF didnt have the luxury of hindsight. They configured the guns the way it was assumed they would be most effective, in a future war.
They obviously SHOULD have harmonized the guns at 2-3 hundred yards, just like they SHOULD have had more specific gunnery training. But they went to war with what they had, and adjusted their efforts to reflect the new reality. The obsolete "vic" formation comes to mind as well

Actually they were and were also arguing against gunnery training. I agree with everything you just typed. I agree they went with what they had as did everyone else. The US sure could have done better as well, as I said above Richard Bong said he wasn't a very good shot either and did much better after he got some training later on

pbehn · Sep 11, 2020

pinsog said:
I re-read this. I think there might be a mis-understanding here. Early in the war the RAF had a 'spread pattern' that they used where they didn't focus all of the guns on a fighter at a specific range. they literally pointed each of them in a different direction. (This is hard to explain by typing. I hope someone posts a pic of what I'm talking about). It wasn't that they focused all 8 at 200 or 300 or 400 or 500 or 600 yards, they would point them all over the place (poor description on my part). For instance an HE111 straight and level a Spitfire straight and level 200 yards behind it, both parked on a runway, only maybe 2 or 3 of the Spitfires guns would hit the HE111. Do you see the problem? Instead of having all 8 hit in say a 3 foot circle at that distance (not sure that was even possible as a machine gun shoots a large group, unlike a rifle) So instead of a Spitfire or Hurricane saddling up behind an HE111 and putting to sight on the left engine and then pumping 160 rounds a seconds into that 1 engine, he might only be able to get 1 gun to bear on that engine. Does that make more sense?

I have seen the diagrame so I know what you are discussing and that is my point. It is a strange argument to say the RAF didnt shoot down either bombers or fighters, because they obviously did. You will not get a bomber to explode in flames with rifle calibre bullets unless you are lucky. The fact is the L/W gave up because they were losing too many fighters and bombers, at the end down to 200 serviceable bombers. You can argue that the RAF could have done things better and they would agree, but you simply cannot argue that they weren't shooting down bombers and fighters, they were at a rate the LW couldn't sustain.

pinsog · Sep 11, 2020

pbehn said:
You are very persuasive, now remind me again why the P-51s armament was increased from 4 to 6 x 0.5"mgs and the P-47 had 8 x 0,5mgs. With such highly trained marksmen they surely just needed 2 to take down s/e fighters as opposed to armoured bombers? And why did they need that gyro gunsight thingey?

Gyro gunsight, technology always helps right along with training. Try shooting an open sighted rifle at 200 yards, then try the same thing with a scope, then try it with a big scope. With open sights the front sight might cover half the target, with a good scope I can shoot 2 1/4 inch groups at 400 yards and 1 hole groups at 100. New technology is always welcome. More guns, quicker kill in a shorter time. I think the British setup of 8 303's was about as good as it got in the time period as long as they were all focused in a tight pattern at whatever range you choose. As I said several times above, an 8 gun Hurricane with, lets say any air to air marksman, would cause horrifying results inside a German bomber.

Wildcat during the Battle of Britain

Tech Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Captain

Colonel

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Colonel

Tech Sergeant

Colonel

Colonel

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Colonel

Staff Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Colonel

Tech Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads