Wildcat during the Battle of Britain

[pinsog]

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.

I never said they didn't shoot down any. Obviously they knocked down several, what I said was, if they were all well trained at air to air gunnery (obviously not everyone can be John Thach) the BoB would have been much shorter because they would have knocked down more German fighters and bombers at a quicker pace.

I agree that obviously they could have done better, obviously so could the USA (the torpedo thing again, nothing to compete with the Spitfire, 109 or Zero at the beginning...etc etc)

 

[Clayton Magnet]

8 gun Hurricane with, lets say any air to air marksman, would cause horrifying results inside a German bomber

What about a TWELVE gun hurricane, against unarmoured Japanese bombers?
Totally off topic I know, I just remember reading a Japanese report regarding the Hurricane Mk.IIB in the Burma theater. They were not impressed by the aircraft, but certainly respected the swarm of angry bees streaming out the front of it.

 

[pbehn]

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.

And they did, didn't they? I think I already said that by the time the L/W stopped they were down to 200 serviceable bombers? Some pilots didn't like the Spitfire solely because of its gun set up, if you harmonise them at 200 yards you have a pepperpot.

 

[pinsog]

What about a TWELVE gun hurricane, against unarmoured Japanese bombers?
Totally off topic I know, I just remember reading a Japanese report regarding the Hurricane Mk.IIB in the Burma theater. They were not impressed by the aircraft, but certainly respected the swarm of angry bees streaming out the front of it.

Agreed. If you could catch unescorted bombers with that thing, all 12 guns bore sighted at 200-300 yards, that is 14,400 rounds per minute, 240 per second. The only bomber that would be safe is one it can't catch.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

if they were all well trained at air to air gunnery (obviously not everyone can be John Thach)

As I had asked earlier, what was John Thach doing in the Summer of 1940? Maybe I am assuming here, but his gunnery prowess was tempered in combat. He may have been a pre-war instructor, but I highly doubt you could have dropped him into a Hurricane in 1940 without the same huge learning curve everyone else in the BoB experienced.

 

[pinsog]

And they did, didn't they? I think I already said that by the time the L/W stopped they were down to 200 serviceable bombers? Some pilots didn't like the Spitfire solely because of its gun set up, if you harmonise them at 200 yards you have a pepperpot.

Your right, the Spitfire didn't have the best gun setup, it's why I specifically used the Hurricane. The British won, they did the best with what they had, I'm just saying that they didn't need a different fighter or even a bigger better gun, but they would have won sooner and with fewer losses themselves if they had only done air to air gunnery training and concentrated their guns.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Most, if not all of what he was instructing overwhelmed F4F pilots in 1942 was the result of 6 months direct combat, and 2 years of observing the advancements in the European theater. A LOT changed between 1940 and 1942

 

[pinsog]

As I had asked earlier, what was John Thach doing in the Summer of 1940? Maybe I am assuming here, but his gunnery prowess was tempered in combat. He may have been a pre-war instructor, but I highly doubt you could have dropped him into a Hurricane in 1940 without the same huge learning curve everyone else in the BoB experienced.

I don't know what he was doing in 1940. He was a pre war pilot and already 35 years old. I think he taught gunnery before the war and was already a crack shot but I'm open to correction. He may have just been one of those gifted people that can do something like that really well. How well would he have done? No way to tell. How many of the greatest pilots that ever lived were the first guys shot down on their first flight by some moron who could barely fly, or done lucky rear gunner....we will never know.

 

[pbehn]

Agreed. If you could catch unescorted bombers with that thing, all 12 guns bore sighted at 200-300 yards, that is 14,400 rounds per minute, 240 per second. The only bomber that would be safe is one it can't catch.

But not more effective than a hurricane Mk2 with 4 x 20mm cannon.

 

[Glider]

Your right, the Spitfire didn't have the best gun setup, it's why I specifically used the Hurricane. The British won, they did the best with what they had, I'm just saying that they didn't need a different fighter or even a bigger better gun, but they would have won sooner and with fewer losses themselves if they had only done air to air gunnery training and concentrated their guns.

Lets keep this simple.

1) They did do air to air gunnery, probably as much as any other nation
2) In 1939 increasing the spread of shot increased the number of the enemy hit, and the number of aircraft shot down as the targets were easier to shoot down
3) As protection increased they needed to concentrate the fire and did

4) Most importantly air to air gunnery is very difficult

 

[pinsog]

Lets keep this simple.

1) They did do air to air gunnery, probably as much as any other nation
2) In 1939 increasing the spread of shot increased the number of the enemy hit, and the number of aircraft shot down as the targets were easier to shoot down
3) As protection increased they needed to concentrate the fire and did

4) Most importantly air to air gunnery is very difficult

1. Ok. Maybe your right but I have read that a lot of the new guys were opening fire at ranges of 1000 yards, that doesn't sound like much training. As I said earlier, Richard Bong said he didn't get much gunnery training either so I'm not singling out Britain.
2. If you can put a good percentage of bullets into a target sleeve with 1 synchronized gun while training then spreading the 8 gun pattern out doesn't make sense. If you can't hit the target sleeve then you need more training. "What was your percentage on the towed sleeve new pilot?" "It was xyz sir" "Well that percentage sucks, do it again". Isn't that what they do with a foot soldier with a rifle? Bang. "Missed, do it again. Your going to be here until you can qualify". It's how I got to be a good shot and how my son got to be even better than me. Repetition until you get it right.
3. Even unarmored planes are difficult to bring down if you can't hit them.
4. Of course air to air gunnery is difficult. Flying a plane, maneuvering and navigating is difficult as well. You do it over and over until you get it right. Yes it costs money but war is an expensive game, it is cheaper if your good at it than if your not.

 

[pbehn]

1. Ok. Maybe your right but I have read that a lot of the new guys were opening fire at ranges of 1000 yards, that doesn't sound like much training. As I said earlier, Richard Bong said he didn't get much gunnery training either so I'm not singling out Britain.
2. If you can put a good percentage of bullets into a target sleeve with 1 synchronized gun while training then spreading the 8 gun pattern out doesn't make sense. If you can't hit the target sleeve then you need more training. "What was your percentage on the towed sleeve new pilot?" "It was xyz sir" "Well that percentage sucks, do it again". Isn't that what they do with a foot soldier with a rifle? Bang. "Missed, do it again. Your going to be here until you can qualify". It's how I got to be a good shot and how my son got to be even better than me. Repetition until you get it right.
3. Even unarmored planes are difficult to bring down if you can't hit them.
4. Of course air to air gunnery is difficult. Flying a plane, maneuvering and navigating is difficult as well. You do it over and over until you get it right. Yes it costs money but war is an expensive game, it is cheaper if your good at it than if your not.

So why didn't the LW win. they had twice as many fighters and the RAF couldn't hit a barn door? It is a question you must answer. One must conclude that the LW was much, much worse because they had more planes but gave up.

 

[Greyman]

Dowding ordered Fighter Command to switch from the 'Horizontal Pattern' (Dowding Spread) to the 'Concentrated Pattern' (point harmonisation) in February 1940.

Much is made of the 'Dowding Spread' but it had little to no effect on the Battle of Britain (the Hurricane units in France never adopted the Dowding Spread in the first place).

 

[pinsog]

So why didn't the LW win. they had twice as many fighters and the RAF couldn't hit a barn door? It is a question you must answer. One must conclude that the LW was much, much worse because they had more planes but gave up.

Again. I didn't say they didn't shoot down anyone, I said they would shoot down more if trained.

if you had to bet on 1 of 2 guys, who would break the most skeet. Would you put your money on the guy who had never fired a gun in his life or the guy that had 2 weeks of training with an expert on shooting skeet? It's that simple.

If they shot down 10 bombers a day with virtually no training, how would they do if they all had 2 solid weeks of air to air gunnery training by a recognized expert in air to air gunnery training? I have not said they didn't shoot anything down, I have said repeatedly that they would have shot down more in a shorter time with fewer losses if they had good training. Train train train train. It's what pro athletes do, it's what the Roman legions did (training was bloodless war, war was bloody training), it's what Olympic Athletes do, it's what chess players do. Seriously, are you really good at something? Did you do it over and over and over again until you got good? That's what I'm saying. I'm saying a trained person is better than an untrained person. An untrained person might do it but a well trained person will do it better

 

[pbehn]

Again. I didn't say they didn't shoot down anyone, I said they would shoot down more if trained.

if you had to bet on 1 of 2 guys, who would break the most skeet. Would you put your money on the guy who had never fired a gun in his life or the guy that had 2 weeks of training with an expert on shooting skeet? It's that simple.

If they shot down 10 bombers a day with virtually no training, how would they do if they all had 2 solid weeks of air to air gunnery training by a recognized expert in air to air gunnery training? I have not said they didn't shoot anything down, I have said repeatedly that they would have shot down more in a shorter time with fewer losses if they had good training. Train train train train. It's what pro athletes do, it's what the Roman legions did (training was bloodless war, war was bloody training), it's what Olympic Athletes do, it's what chess players do. Seriously, are you really good at something? Did you do it over and over and over again until you got good? That's what I'm saying. I'm saying a trained person is better than an untrained person. An untrained person might do it but a well trained person will do it better

It was a war, of course everyone would love all pilots to have 200 hours on Spitfires or Hurricanes and 25 or however many hours you want on gunnery training but that isn't war. In a war you wear down the enemy. At the fall of France the RAF had 500 single engine fighters and pilots, to expand that and replace losses you have to massively expand training for the long term but cut training in the short term. If the RAF only sent pilots into the BoB that completely satisfied all requirements the few that did would be very easy to beat by the LW. The sad fact is that many pilots were there as a distraction to allow those who knew what they were doing to do what they had to do. Its a similar situation with US bomber formations being there, just to be there as bait, to draw the LW into the conflict.

 

[Milosh]

I don't know what he was doing in 1940. He was a pre war pilot and already 35 years old. I think he taught gunnery before the war and was already a crack shot but I'm open to correction. He may have just been one of those gifted people that can do something like that really well. How well would he have done? No way to tell. How many of the greatest pilots that ever lived were the first guys shot down on their first flight by some moron who could barely fly, or done lucky rear gunner....we will never know.

Thach spent the 1930s serving as a test pilot and instructor and establishing a reputation as an expert in aerial gunnery.

 

[pinsog]

It was a war, of course everyone would love all pilots to have 200 hours on Spitfires or Hurricanes and 25 or however many hours you want on gunnery training but that isn't war. In a war you wear down the enemy. At the fall of France the RAF had 500 single engine fighters and pilots, to expand that and replace losses you have to massively expand training for the long term but cut training in the short term. If the RAF only sent pilots into the BoB that completely satisfied all requirements the few that did would be very easy to beat by the LW. The sad fact is that many pilots were there as a distraction to allow those who knew what they were doing to do what they had to do. Its a similar situation with US bomber formations being there, just to be there as bait, to draw the LW into the conflict.

How about extensive gunnery training for the pilots in reserve then rotate them to the front and train the group they relieve? Essentially that was what John Thach did at Pearl Harbor before Midway with a group of pilots that I believe joined him as a single group on Yorktown for Midway. The Yorktown pilots did well even though they did end up losing their ship.

 

[pbehn]

How about extensive gunnery training for the pilots in reserve then rotate them to the front and train the group they relieve? Essentially that was what John Thach did at Pearl Harbor before Midway with a group of pilots that I believe joined him as a single group on Yorktown for Midway. The Yorktown pilots did well even though they did end up losing their ship.

What "reserve" 200 were lost in France. Between Pearl Harbor and Midway how many pilots did the USA lose? How long after the battle of Britain was that? How much had the USA already expanded its training programmes after Sept 3rd 1939?

 

[BiffF15]

I said nothing about the Thach weave, i was talking about John Thach's idea and training for attacking bombers. You climb above and ahead of them off to one side, turn toward them, open fire in a 90 degree deflection shot. The fighter has the entire upper wing, engines and full length of the fuselage as a target, the gunners on the enemy planes, IF any of them can bear, have a 90 degree deflection shot head on at a small fighter, virtually impossible.

If every raid had been like the case you describe there would never have been an interception by the British.

The reason the British used the spread pattern was because they didn't teach gunnery. Seriously, have you ever shot a gun? Do you own any? Being able to actually hit the target is sort of the main point when using a gun whether your bird hunting, deer hunting, target shooting, shooting at a soldier with a pistol or rifle, a tank shooting at a tank, a battleship shooting at a battleship or a plane shooting at a plane. Sending up a guy in a plane and saying "oh by the way, you'll see enemy planes today, that button there makes the guns go pow pow pow" is not the best way to win. Every year when I go deer hunting, my son and I go somewhere and shoot our rifles to make sure they are still sighted in. The British didn't do gunnery training for probably a couple of reasons 1. They didn't have time 2. Some idiot who probably never flew didn't think you could hit anything anyway.

How can you think teaching the pilots to be able to lead and hit a target is an idea that wouldn't help???

The bolder portion above was still being done when I last flew the Eagle back in 2008. Only guns the bomber has now are tail guns, which is what we were avoiding. The first time I actually did this type of pass I had already been flying the Eagle for over 5 years, and the pass was against a P-3. Gunsight footage is of no use other than to record whether you got hits or not (of no use in aiming). In my opinion this is an easy shot as we were taught it academically only. I guess since we were practicing against maneuvering targets a non-maneuvering one should be easy.

I agree with Pinsog on convergence however I do so without the reasoning behind the spread set up. Just seems to be contrary to reason.

I have only shot skeet once in the last decade. I didn't hit s—t the first five shots. I went with another fighter guy so he takes about five minutes explaining the sight picture referencing the Eagle gunsight (he was a F-15 / 22 guy). Next round I hit more than I missed. Good instruction is invaluable.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[pbehn]

The bolder portion above was still being done when I last flew the Eagle back in 2008. Only guns the bomber has now are tail guns, which is what we were avoiding. The first time I actually did this type of pass I had already been flying the Eagle for over 5 years, and the pass was against a P-3. Gunsight footage is of no use other than to record whether you got hits or not (of no use in aiming). In my opinion this is an easy shot as we were taught it academically only. I guess since we were practicing against maneuvering targets a non-maneuvering one should be easy.

I agree with Pinsog on convergence however I do so without the reasoning behind the spread set up. Just seems to be contrary to reason.

I have only shot skeet once in the last decade. I didn't hit s—t the first five shots. I went with another fighter guy so he takes about five minutes explaining the sight picture referencing the Eagle gunsight (he was a F-15 / 22 guy). Next round I hit more than I missed. Good instruction is invaluable.

Cheers,
Biff

RAF pilots in 1940 often remarked how keen the LW were to let them have their favourite and most effective attack on German bombers, often giving a friendly wave and tipping their caps at an amusing and jaunty angle in anticipation of a fine display of marksmanship. NOT.