fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
I think you need to calm down a bit. You don't get to decide when I can post and what I can post about. If you want to post fantasic rubbish then so can I.
Wildcat during the Battle of Britain
- Thread starter pinehilljoe
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I think you need to calm down a bit. You don't get to decide when I can post and what I can post about. If you want to post fantasic rubbish then so can I.
It doesn't matter if it's 1 on 1, 2 on 1, 5 on 1 or 10 on 1 if you can't hit the target. You don't shoot do you. You don't own a gun do you. 1 on 1 a Hurricane jumps an HE111, Hurricane guns are pointed in 8 different directions and the pilot has never pulled the trigger before. What do you think will happen? The HE111 will most likely get away. The Hurricane pilot has a good chance of getting shot down because he has to get within 50 yards to hit the bloody thing and then he only has 1 or 2 guns that will even hit it at the same time. Contrast that with John Thach, same Hurricane, all 8 guns bore sighted at 200 yards doing a high side 90 degree deflection shot and hosing the all glass cockpit with an extremely accurate burst. 1 HE111 and it's crew aren't going home and John has plenty of ammo left for his next target
I'm not upset, the entire thread is about whether the Wildcat would do ok in the BoB. That is the title of the thread. It is the question that I answered. We are 8 pages into that discussion. You can post whatever you like, I don't care, but it seems a little silly to me to tell me that what I post is rubbish 8 pages into the discussion when all I am doing is answering the original question. I literally said early on that "I know it couldn't have made it but if it did..". The original F4F-3, the very very first one built had a 2 stage engine, it was a 330 mph fighter, give or take, at 19,000-21,000 feet. If you removed the hook and flotation gear, exchanged the 4 50's for 8 303's and filled the tank half full you would lose about 750 pounds. It probably wouldn't be over a couple mph faster but rate of climb would be much better and the British actually have 303 ammo. That is answering the original question with my take on it. If you want to answer that with how a Harrier would do with Sidewinder missiles then be my guest, as I said I was just answering the original question.
How does a deflection shot work in a head on pass? All this training meant they didn't need a gyro stabilised gun sight I presume?
buffnut453
Captain
The problem is the engagements were seldom, if ever, one-on-one. Engagement ratios DO matter. Lining up a perfect shot on a He111 becomes a lot more difficult if you're looking over your shoulder because the Staffel of escorting Me109s is lining up behind you. I'm afraid you're oversimplifying things and ignoring critical issues that impacted the tactical environment and the pilots' ability, and time, to aim accurately.
Come on pbehn, you've been on this site forever, don't resort to a silly argumentative post like that. John Thach was a gunnery expert, he could do a head on pass or a 90 degree deflection shot. So now that that is cleared up, what do you think would happen if John Thach made a head on pass on an HE111? What do you think would happen if John Thach made a 90 degree deflection pass at an HE111? (In an 8 gun Hurricane with all guns boresited to 200 yards)
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 868
- Feb 16, 2013
What was John Thatch doing in the summer of 1940?
He certainly hadn't honed his skills in combat yet, and wouldn't for another 2 years. (Maybe I am wrong, and if I am, I apologize)
I vote we just teleport 1942 era George Beurling back with his Malta Spitfire. Just take the stupid Volkes filter off first
Wow. Ok.
By a vote here, how many people think hitting the enemy plane with bullets is important in actually shooting him down?
How many people have read John Thach's idea on how to attack a bomber and shoot it down without getting shot down yourself by defensive guns?
Those of you that don't believe training pilots to shoot accurately so they can actually hit the enemy plane, how many of you guys hunt, shoot or actually own guns?
At Midway, John Thach and 2 other Wildcats supposedly engaged around 20 Zeroes at low level. Thach knocked down 3. He didn't have time to take a long steady aim, he fired head on shots of opportunity, BUT he hit them and knocked them down. How? He had practiced! It's like shooting skeet.
If we go skeet shooting I take 10 guys who have 2 weeks training in shooting skeet and you have 10 guys that have never fired a gun, who will have the higher score? Works the same way in air to air gunnery
if a gaggle of 109's is attacking you, you turn and fight. If a Hurricane passes in front of you with a 109 on his tail, wouldn't it be nice if you were trained in deflection shooting so you could actually hit him and knock him of the other Hurricanes tail? When you do make a pass at a bomber wouldn't it be great to be able to actually hit them with a good solid concentrated burst instead of just spraying the sky in the general direction?
Last edited:
It is you that is being deliberately argumentative. If your guns are harmonised at 200 yards and you make a head on pass travelling at 300MPH towards a bomber at 200 MPH. How do you get out of the way at a closing speed of 500MPH? Do you think the British didn't do head on passes? Many/most WW2 aces were good shots with a shotgun. The British learned that more training was needed and aids to shooting were needed before the US entered the war. Not everyone can shoot a shotgun and hit a moving target. Training and a gyro gunsight helped more to do what some could do naturally.
buffnut453
Captain
I'm not arguing that RAF training in shooting was lacking in 1940, or that better training may well have increased the number of kills. However, you cannot ignore the tactical environment because it has a direct impact on the ability of the fighter to get into a shooting position. The USN experience was vastly different from that of the RAF and, IMHO, distilling the complexity of air combat into an unrealistic 1-v-1 engagement ignores a whole range of factors that also impact the fight.
For example, the RAF was struggling to replace fighter pilot losses. The training scheme was cut to beyond the realistic minimum just to maintain the frontline strength. The additional training you're proposing, while eminently sensible, would considerably extend the time it took to get new pilots to squadrons. Senior RAF leaders believed that the strategic risk of not maintaining the defensive frontline was more important than the tactical risk of pilots not being as well trained in gunnery as they might have been under ideal circumstances.
It's also worth noting that the USN had 2 extra years to prepare for its first combats, and US observers were able to report on modern combat experience gained from the Battle of Britain. The RAF lacked that luxury and its leaders had to make decisions with the strategic objective in mind. I have a hard time faulting them for those decisions.
I never said it was "possible" to do it. I said it is what was "needed". The Germans "needed" 4 engine heavy bombers with better defense, but it wasn't "possible". The British "needed" their pilots to have gunnery training, I mean ANY gunnery training would have been better than "oh by the way, that button makes the guns shoot, bombers are that way, hope you get one". I agree that after the battle has started is a poor time to start gunnery training, but even pre-war, from what I have read on here, the British mostly taught formation flying. There is a place for that as well but the pre-war pilots should have already been well trained in air to air gunnery but they weren't so there wasn't even a core group of pre-war gunnery experts to call on, it was all on the job training.
Yes, actually I doubt very many if any new pilots made head on passes especially when they had 0 gunnery training. They talked about pilots opening fire at 1000 yards or more because they had 0 training. The Wildcat has a standard reflector site like all early war fighters. Training training training training is how you teach a pilot to shoot and hit another plane. Gunnery training should have started pre-war. EVERY fighter pilot should have had at least a couple of days of basic air to air gunnery before being committed to the fight. Train a squadron in the rear and the rotate it to the front. At least set up a twin engine British bomber on an airfield and let the pilots each sit in the seat of a plane 200-300 yards away from different angles so he knows what 200-300 yards should look like. To do anything less is criminally stupid. (There were a lot of criminally stupid ideas going on with every country involved, I'm by no means singling out Britain. American torpedos come to mind)
buffnut453
Captain
Can you please source the statement about zero gunnery training? Certainly during the 1930s the RAF had an annual air-to-air gunnery competition with a trophy for the best squadron. Squadrons also participated in annual armament camps. Thus it would seem that, even with the rapid expansion in the 1930s, there would be a cadre of RAF fighter pilots with at least some gunnery skills.
I actually can't. It was on here somewhere. I have also read about the new guys opening fire at 1,000 yards or more during the BoB. I don't know if anyone else's gunnery training was any better except for the US Navy. I recall reading that before Midway John Thach spent about a week with his pilots repeatedly taking them up and shooting at a target sleeve over and over with Thach coaching them until all of them were able to get a good score on the target sleeve.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 868
- Feb 16, 2013
The Royal Air Force established a gunnery training station at RAF Sutton Bridge in 1926. Is that pre-war enough for you?
As I understand it the people opening up at 1000 yards had had training, that was the problem. The Germans had training too, obviously better than the British and they had twice as many fighters, it makes you wonder why they didn't win in a week, doesn't it?
Glider
Captain
Before August 1940, in other words those pilots trained for the BOB there were 25 hours of flight time dedicated to gunnery training.
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?
If your trying to kill ducks, pheasants or crows and your a good shot with a shotgun why would you use an improved cylinder instead of a full choke? Full choke puts more lead on the target, more likely to have a clean kill, no reason not to use it if you can actually hit something.
That is some good info. Why, if the pilots were trained and able to shoot accurately, would the RAF use a spread pattern on the Spitfire and Hurricane? Anyone who actually shoots and can hit would want everything aimed at one point.
Glider
Captain
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
edit - 25 hours was a decent amount for a pilot in training and probably more than most countries, however it would be wrong to assume that 25 hours was sufficient. Do you know of any nation where the experienced pilots considered those out of training to be good at anything, including shooting?
