posted 12-31- 10:11 PM               

"In fighter to fighter combat, the two sides were not far apart in firepower, but the structrual strength of the larger aircraft, that is, the German bombers, made it very difficult to bring them down with bullets. This is illustrated by an incident in the Battle when six Spitfires of 74 Squadron expended 7,000 bullets in attacks on a Dornier Do 17 but did not bring it down.

Although the rival merits of machine gun and cannon were much argued at the time, the RAF had secretly concluded that the cannon was far better. In 1940 a series of tests were carrier out against an old Blenheim airframe. The eight machine-gun configuration was fourth in a list in which two cannon were top."

posted 01-01- 01:25 AM               

Every day it comes home to me what a remarkable achievement the RAF pulled off in the BoB; basically, they were taking rifles against artillery. Heck, even that is more feasible. I guess it was a combination of discipline, marksmanship, and just pure guts. ( And not enough fuel to keep the 109's in the fight long, hehe ).

------------------
nealg=FC=

posted 01-01- 08:16 PM               

TS

posted 01-02- 01:58 AM               

Even though the Spits were usually tasked with taking on the 109's and 110's, it was more to keep the LW off the Hurris so they could pound the bombers than to actually rack up kills. A lot of it, too, may have been due to political factors, cost, and production. I still don't understand, though, why once the USA entered the war, they didn't try to develop the Spitfire with .50's. I suppose it had a lot to do with having to change the characteristics? The 50's carried a different weight and velocity, which I imagine would have involved changes to the build.

Gets into areas way beyond my poor ability to comprehend.

------------------
nealg=FC=

posted 01-03- 01:49 AM               

TS

posted 01-03- 05:26 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by nealg:
production. I still don't understand, though, why once the USA entered the war, they didn't try to develop the Spitfire with .50's.

---

They did. The "c" wing Mk.IX's used 2 20's and 2 50's.

As to the US use of the 50's, they knew it had problems in terms of anti-bomber warfare, and that's why you have the 37mm in the P-39 and the 20mm in the P-38 (and some other use of the 37mm as well). These planes were developed specifically to counter bombers, and had the heavy arms needed to do it (better than the Luftwaffe in fact). However the various planes rarely had to shoot down bombers, and thus the lighter arms was better in the fighter-fighter combat because they're lighter and had a much better ROF which is important when trying to hit a small manuvering target.

posted 01-04- 12:36 AM               

bf 109E's 20mm cannon only carried 60 rds per gun and had a muzzle velocity of only 1,800 fps and fired at a rate of 520 rds per second. this makes it a very poor choice for an air to air weapon. thus the english and german planes were fairly well matched during the battle of brittan.

the only reason why 30 cal, .303, and 7.92 mg guns were effective was because they were used early in the war against planes that were not heavily armored. if a pilot flew very close to his enemy they were effective. once you got into late 43 and on these weapons lost their effectiveness against fighters because fighters became bigger and more heavily armored.

posted 01-04- 10:00 AM               

Similarily with them pesky guns

In mid thirties, when the RAF issued the requirement for a new fighter it stated 'eight guns' which was, well astonishing? The fighter of the day hed usuallu only two rifle cal mgs to go against wood and rag bombers and fighters.

The cannon was used in combat by the RAF as early as BoB but in the heat of the battle no one can experiment (the weapon proved prone to jamming). The problem was to produce enough .303 Brownings and defend the country and only then experiment.

Economics, before the war only states with totalitarian regimes could afford designing and producing top notch weaponry in considerable quantities.

True Oerlikon 20 mm were a better choice on Polish P.11 against the bombers in 1939 but the country's defence budget had to provide for the army of a country sorrounded by the enemies with only some 50 km of natural (the sea) border (see the maps, the link at the Tailslide's site http://tailslide.firelight.dynip.com/ - thanks a lot for you excellent services, Tail! there are no maps for Soviet invasion of Poland in Sep 1939 though).

If there were readily adoptable for aerial use .50 cal mgs no doubt they would be employed providing the budget would suffice to procure the ammo! And the Army would grab them for their light tanks, and ...

It must be much easier to choose a loadout in the OP thinggie then to select, develop, produce a weapon in a country within it's political (heh, it wasn't easy to convince nations of Europe after the sloughter of WWI that they had to arm themselves and go for another - sorry for this primitive simplificication) and economical constrictions.

Did I say I had had the rant mode ON? It's OFF now

Cheers

posted 01-08- 08:33 AM               

I thought the wing types were as follows:
A - 8 .303s
B - 4 .303s, 2 20mm
C - 4 20mm
D - not used?
E - 2 .50s, 2 20mm

And for Hurricanes, B as 12 .303s, and
D was 2 40mm, 2 .303s

posted 01-08- 11:56 AM               

Not only that, they knew which utensil to use at a really big, fancy dinner.

posted 01-08- 10:56 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by AaronGTurner:
I thought the wing types were as follows:
A - 8 .303s
B - 4 .303s, 2 20mm
C - 4 20mm
D - not used?
E - 2 .50s, 2 20mm

---

You're absolutely right, my bad.

posted 01-09- 03:08 PM               

this still brings me to my original point 303 30cal or 7.92mgs were laim against 1942 and up fighters. at best the american .50 or german 13mm was bare minimum, and the 20mm is what you needed

not only are the 303s laim against more modern ww 2 aircraft, with the way they are spaced at random in the spitfires wing concentration was hard to achieve. this gaurenteed that the poor gunner would get some random hits, but it penalized the good shot.

the 30 cal 25 bullet figure that some games advertize as what it takes to bring down a fighter is pretty bogus and vague. just talking fighters I have seen pics of 38s and 47s that came back with 100 13mm bullet holes in the plane and even 1-3 20mm cannon holes to go along with the bullet holes. the problem was that they were all at random and none hit anything vital.

posted 01-09- 04:03 PM               

In Europe if you hear machine gun fire, you run to a place of safety.

In the US if you hear machine gun fire, you say, "Hey, cool, let's go check it out!"

posted 01-09- 05:42 PM               

We haven't needed any help killing each other over here. We've done quite well on our own. But, not being from here, I guess you wouldn't understand that very well, would you?

Ah, screw it. I've had about enough of these stupid flight sim forums anyway.

Both on bombsaway, and now here, all I seem to find are a bunch of people who take themselves WAY too seriously, and seem to think that their point of view is the way and the light, and have lost the ability to laugh at themselves, and the world.

And yes Rendesberg, that means laughing at serious, horrible things, as well as people slipping on banana peels.

Oh heck...maybe I ought to check myself. That's just my adaptation of English humor that I've listened to and watched over the years.

A little too much Monty Python on cable I guess.

Well, I guess I'll call some friends and see if I can set up a "Seriousness Discussion Group."

We'll only talk about real serious, important stuff, and not crack wise, lest we ruffles the feathers of humorless, starched-collar types who wouldn't know a joke if it walked up and pissed on their leg.

Good-bye.

posted 01-09- 05:52 PM               

P.S. In case you havent figured it out guys, Im halariously and sarcasticly telling you to lighten up.

posted 01-13- 03:46 PM            

But funny cause it's more likely in reality the other way around, As guns are less on the streets, it's more likely to be thought of as a fiesta/ or party fireworks! :-)

interesting topic this one has been!

------------------
www.Luftwaffe.net