Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
While far from perfect, I can assure you that a 750-800 grain 50 caliber ball round at 2500 FPS will do a lot of damage to fuel tanks, engines and pilots.
Did you read what I typed? I said make Grumman fix the guns OR replace them with 8 303's.
I mean have them fitted with 303's from Grumman before they are delivered, if Grumman can't get the 50's to work In testing, have them install 303's instead.They didn't actually, the .50 cals didn't show any advantage over the .303's when tested against aircraft targets, a 2 second burst will see approx 160 ball, AP and incendiary .303's guided by tracer towards the target, the .50's will give you about 34 cup and core ball rounds, but only if you fly straight and level.
And while you are retrofitting guns to Wildcats Spitfires and Hurricanes aren't getting constant speed props, armour kits or 20 other more important things. Adding Wildcats to the British arsenal adds nothing to the course.
, a 2 second burst will see approx 160 ball, AP and incendiary .303's guided by tracer towards the target, the .50's will give you about 34 cup and core ball rounds, if you fly straight and level.
The 50 vs 303 vs 20mm has been beaten to death on here, but I think focusing all guns into a tight pattern and then teaching the pilots how to shoot would actually be more important than what caliber weapon they are using.
By "fix the guns" I mean it is Grumman's job to take a gun that fires on the ground without jamming and make it fire in the wing of a fighter without jamming. I don't mean it's their job to increase rate of fire etcIt is not up to Grumman to fix the guns, it depends on what is the problem. Just as it is not up to Grumman to fix engine problems or faulty propeller operation.
The guns are government furnished equipment, or in the case of export planes (commercial sales) they are customer furnished equipment.
The .50 cal ammo used in 1940 used 750 grain projectiles. While undoubtedly destructive if they hit the rate of fire for four .50 cal wing guns in 1940 was 40 rounds per second at best.
The ,303 ammo used 174-175 grain ammo (for ball mmo) but the eight ,303 guns had a rate of fire of 160 rounds per second at best. weight of metal per second is in favor of the ,50 cal guns by about 8%. Hardly a decisive advantage. The ,303 guns actually fire a bit less weight of projectile because the tracer and incendiary bullets are a bit lighter.
in 1940 there were no .50 cal incendiary rounds, BoB eight gun fighters had one or two guns loaded exclusively with incendiaries depending on ammo supply. One gun was generally loaded with tracer and two guns had AP bullets. During the BoB 3 guns could be loaded with ball depending on supply, later in the war ball disappeared as did tracer (for fighters) and AP and incendiary became the standard bullets.
The Martlet/F4F doesn't bring any significant increase in firepower to the battle. we are talking + or -10% or under depending on how we rate the different bullets. This does not take into account gun problems or installation problems (heaters, feed rollers, long belt feeds, etc).
The Martlet I, II and F4F-3A all perform a bit worse than the Hurricane I. The F4F-3 does have a slight speed advantage (perhaps 15mph) at certain altitudes. It has a lower ceiling? or perhaps about equal.
Even if used it is hard to see any difference in combat effectiveness over the Hurricane I at the time of the BoB and it is easy to see several potential problems.
By "fix the guns" I mean it is Grumman's job to take a gun that fires on the ground without jamming and make it fire in the wing of a fighter without jamming. I don't mean it's their job to increase rate of fire etc
Because the entire timeline has been moved by the original question at the beginning of the post. "I know it couldn't have made it but how would the Wildcat have done in the BoB?" If it showed up with no guns it probably wouldn't have done well. I'm just going along with the original question. If you took the F4F-3 number 1848 with the 2 stage P&W top speed of 330 mph at around 21,000 feet, it should have done fine. Remove 50+ pounds of naval gear, spec it with 8 303 machine guns from the factory saving another 250 pounds or more and it should do fine. It was tough, maneuverable, somewhat faster than a Hurricane and not affected by negative G.Alas, that's the entire problem with the timeline. The USN and USAAF didn't comprehend the problems with wing-mounted 50cals until the issue became apparent during combat after December 1941. How can Grumman resolve an issue that they don't know exists? Unless the UK obtains Martlets, puts them into combat, identifies the wing gun problem and THEN Grumman dives in to try and solve it. Either way the timeline doesn't line up to get an operational Martlet variant in RAF squadron service in time for the BoB.
This is also the case in the oil industry. The government is always the customer in some respects because it will be the government that has to answer for a few million gallons of oil spilled. But where do the government get the experts to speak with the contractors experts, who don't actually want to tell them what they have invested millions or billions of research into. A gun in a wing has to work, whether that means changes to the gun, to the wing, to the feeding system or lubrication and heating system depends on "stuff" and an engineering solution must be found, whether some bod from the government helps or hinders is debatable.People are now used to the airframe maker being the "prime" contractor and being responsible for a weapons "system". One reason that system of purchase came into being was the government got tired of being the prime contractor and all the finger pointing that went on between the airframe makers, the weapons makers, the engine makers and so on when the GFE showed up at the airframe makers plants and either didn't fit or didn't work the way the government wanted and none of the contractors would take the blame. This also became more important when development times for an aircraft or program grew in years and the same officer/s that started with a program were long gone when the finished product went into service. Look at the F-35 program now, started back in 1993 (or before) 22 years from start of program to first service use.
If you took the F4F-3 number 1848 with the 2 stage P&W top speed of 330 mph at around 21,000 feet,
I find it interesting how everyone is putting a great deal of effort into proving the Market/Wilcat was a pile of crap.
Yes, the early F4F mark maxed at 331 mph, but the A6M2 had a max. speed of 331mph at 14,900 and the Bf109E had a max. speed of 290mph at sea level and 348mph at 14,500 feet.
Because the entire timeline has been moved by the original question at the beginning of the post. "I know it couldn't have made it but how would the Wildcat have done in the BoB?" If it showed up with no guns it probably wouldn't have done well. I'm just going along with the original question. If you took the F4F-3 number 1848 with the 2 stage P&W top speed of 330 mph at around 21,000 feet, it should have done fine. Remove 50+ pounds of naval gear, spec it with 8 303 machine guns from the factory saving another 250 pounds or more and it should do fine. It was tough, maneuverable, somewhat faster than a Hurricane and not affected by negative G.
It's not that "simple".The Wildcat and A6M2 would struggle in the BoB, your not getting the F4 up to altitude in time and it's guns don't work, Likewise the A6M2 would find fighting Mk I-II Spitfires over England a magnitude harder than clapped out MkV's over Darwin. The BoB was a medium to high altitude fight, Zero's Wildcats P40's etc etc aren't going to cut it, simple.
Not all raids into England were high altitude. Plenty of photographs from Do17 crews showing the bomber over their target in the hundreds of feet, not thousands.
And I beg to differ regarding the A6M being at a disadvantage in the Bob - when the Fw190 debuted, it was a terror down low, where it's speed an maneuverability were unmatched.