Shortround6
Major General
Is there any proof, whatsoever, that ALL Spitfire MK I guns jammed at 15,000ft and up year round? that is every day of every month regardless of weather conditions?
Posting pretty pictures of an eight gun wing while quoting modifications for heating the "B" wing which use four Brownings and two drum fed 20mm guns doesn't actually prove anything about the ability of the 8 gun wing to function at altitude. MK IIb and Mk Vb aircraft used the 20mm guns with drums. C wings got the belt feed 20mm guns.
The MK Va used eight .303s, the MK Vb used the two 20mm drum feed guns and four .303s and the MK Vc used two 20mm belt feed guns and four .303s.
All MK V aircraft but rather different wings and gun heating setups even without late r modifications. BTW the C wing could take four 20mm guns but it was rarely used that way.
The larger 20mm guns and the different feeds required different heating arrangements and on the early B wings blocked or partial blocked heat to the outer machine guns.
However only one squadron flew with 20mm guns during the BoB and then only for a few weeks so it is sort of a non issue.
Spitfire was not the only interceptor during the BoB. Hurricanes made up about 2/3 of the fighters. So far nobody has claimed that their guns froze at 15,000ft and up.
The JU 89 needed rocket engines to outrun a Hurricane, heck, it needed rocket engines to outrun a Gloster Gladiator.
Using a Ju 89 or 90 or any other close variation on it and using the engines that were available in quantity in the spring/summer of 1940, (not 1942/43) leaves you with a slow, low altitude bomber that is an easy target for any number of British aircraft (Bristol Blenheim fighters?)
BTW they were flying at 30,000ft and above during the BoB. One of the reasons for building the Hurricane MK II (first squadron issue was in Sept 1940) was for better performance at the higher altitudes to better counter the Bf 109. The fights often wound up much lower but one side or the other was trying to get the bounce from above.
Sorry but using the JU 86 with it's turbo diesels and extended wing and pressure cabin as "proof" that the Ju 89 could operate at high altitudes is just false.
I would also strongly advise researching actual altitudes as many times the service ceiling quoted for bombes is either with bombs gone or in some lightly loaded condition.
For instance the JU-88A-1 had a service ceiling of 26,250ft when operating at 19,750lbs. However at 22,840lbs the ceiling dropped to 22,700ft.
And service ceiling means the altitude that a plane can still climb at 100fpm or the metric equivalent using full power. Trying to cruise in a formation (even a small one) would mean the planes are flying thousands of feet lower.
Sorry the whole thing about the Germans using 4 engine bombers and altering the course of the BoB is nonsense.
So is the Ural bomber idea but that is another post or thread.
Posting pretty pictures of an eight gun wing while quoting modifications for heating the "B" wing which use four Brownings and two drum fed 20mm guns doesn't actually prove anything about the ability of the 8 gun wing to function at altitude. MK IIb and Mk Vb aircraft used the 20mm guns with drums. C wings got the belt feed 20mm guns.
The MK Va used eight .303s, the MK Vb used the two 20mm drum feed guns and four .303s and the MK Vc used two 20mm belt feed guns and four .303s.
All MK V aircraft but rather different wings and gun heating setups even without late r modifications. BTW the C wing could take four 20mm guns but it was rarely used that way.
The larger 20mm guns and the different feeds required different heating arrangements and on the early B wings blocked or partial blocked heat to the outer machine guns.
However only one squadron flew with 20mm guns during the BoB and then only for a few weeks so it is sort of a non issue.
Spitfire was not the only interceptor during the BoB. Hurricanes made up about 2/3 of the fighters. So far nobody has claimed that their guns froze at 15,000ft and up.
The JU 89 needed rocket engines to outrun a Hurricane, heck, it needed rocket engines to outrun a Gloster Gladiator.
Using a Ju 89 or 90 or any other close variation on it and using the engines that were available in quantity in the spring/summer of 1940, (not 1942/43) leaves you with a slow, low altitude bomber that is an easy target for any number of British aircraft (Bristol Blenheim fighters?)
BTW they were flying at 30,000ft and above during the BoB. One of the reasons for building the Hurricane MK II (first squadron issue was in Sept 1940) was for better performance at the higher altitudes to better counter the Bf 109. The fights often wound up much lower but one side or the other was trying to get the bounce from above.
Sorry but using the JU 86 with it's turbo diesels and extended wing and pressure cabin as "proof" that the Ju 89 could operate at high altitudes is just false.
I would also strongly advise researching actual altitudes as many times the service ceiling quoted for bombes is either with bombs gone or in some lightly loaded condition.
For instance the JU-88A-1 had a service ceiling of 26,250ft when operating at 19,750lbs. However at 22,840lbs the ceiling dropped to 22,700ft.
And service ceiling means the altitude that a plane can still climb at 100fpm or the metric equivalent using full power. Trying to cruise in a formation (even a small one) would mean the planes are flying thousands of feet lower.
Sorry the whole thing about the Germans using 4 engine bombers and altering the course of the BoB is nonsense.
So is the Ural bomber idea but that is another post or thread.