Author Topic: Spitfire Cannon (Read 595 times)

arkaler · « **on:** September 02, 2004, 11:29:33 PM »

Bader was rabidly against cannon largely because of his personal combat style....fly in close and hose them with .303. Cannon did let you open fire at longer range and pilots like Sailor Malan and Bob Tuck liked it because quite often, their intercepts were lone raiders being done at long range, at night, in rotten weather and poor visibility conditions where you only had a brief window of opportunity to fire at your target.
At 600 yards even a well aimed shot with .303 was not likely to inflict heavy damage, but at even close to 1000 yards, a few cannon hits could ultimately destroy an aircraft or damage it so that you could overtake it and destroy it at close range.
It also enables fighters to assume a ground attack role, which is precisely what the RAF High Command were thinking about in the aftermath of the Battle of Britain, when they now had the ability to go on the offensive against the Germans with low level ground attack sorties called 'Rhubarbs'.
Bader felt that cannon were 'too new and probably too full of bugs' and that a big change-over from .303 to cannon would do more harm than good. Tuck and Malan countered that there was nothing really new or revolutionary about cannon since the Germans had been using them since the outset and even some French fighters had had them.
Bader's biggest prejudice probably came from the fact that one of his Spitfire squadrons had been experimentally refit with cannon and during a battle something like 8 of 12 aircraft had gun stoppages. This was later traced down to improper installation of the cannon putting friction on certain moving parts that were never designed to withstand it. The problem was eventually solved, but Bader was dogmatic and stubborn and wouldn't risk an episode like that again. This episode was pretty well documented in Len Deighton's Book 'Fighter'.
Both Bader and Tuck had a screeching match over this topic in front of Air Marshall Sholto-Douglas while Sailor Malan watched and smiled at both of them. This episode was documented in Tuck's Biography 'Fly for your Life' by Larry Forrester.
Bader's Biography "Reach for the Sky" by Paul Brickhill is another classic.
Incidentally, Brickhill, an Australian Journalist after the war, was a Typhoon pilot who was shot down in the Western Desert. His Tiffie was bounced by 109's who destroyed his aircraft by hitting him in the wing cannon ammunition tray. The ammo spontaneously exploded and blew most of the wing off. When he bailed out, his chute caught on the tail and he was nearly drug down to death before he kicked clear and landed safely....in a mine field. While he sit in the minefield trying to figure out what to do, a sudden gust of wind blew him and his chute over the field, dragging him over possible mines until it deposited him at the other edge of the mine field......the German side. He was then promptly captured. Talk about a ****ty day!

Brickhill went on to Stalag Luft III and participated in the 'Great Escape'. He later wrote the book 'The Great Escape' and also wrote the book about 617 squadron 'The Dam Busters'
Quite a prolific guy.

All these books are good reads. They may be out of print, but I'm sure you can find them on the internet. I urge any serious enthusiast to read these.

Regards,

Arkaler

Guppy35 · « **Reply #1 on:** September 03, 2004, 01:54:48 AM »

Brickhall's books are great reads. He definately wasn't a Typhoon pilot in the Western Desert however. No Tiffies out there.

He was shot down and made a POW there though.

Dan/Slack

Tony Williams · « **Reply #2 on:** September 03, 2004, 02:14:47 AM »

Bader was right in the short term, wrong in the longer term. The Hispano was indeed very unreliable in the initial Spitfire installation in 1940, for various reasons. However, the fact that the RAF was desperate to get the gun into service as soon as possible should tell you something about the effectiveness of the .303s.

The Hispano wasn't really envisaged as a long-range gun. In the Spitifre they were harmonised to converge at 300 yards, and the RAF would have preferred 200 yards but the gunbays were too narrow to permit this.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

hogenbor · « **Reply #3 on:** September 03, 2004, 02:25:48 AM »

This week I was in the Aviodrome museum in Lelystad, the Netherlands. Good location, some interesting aircraft in the collection (airworthy Connie, DC-2 painted as the legendary 'Uiver', Fokker 'Spin' (Spider) replica, a bunch of Daks).

They also have the obligatory Spitfire, a clipped wing Mk IX in Dutch colours. Not much on the history of this aircraft though.

To cut a long story short, It amazed me again how far the cannon are apart on the Spit, even more so for the outer 0.303's. Fine for bombers, but how did they ever hit fighters with those? Still, in AH it is easier to hit something with Hispano's than with the centrally mounted armament of the Bf-109.

Are there reports out there comparing gunnery in various WWII fighters? I know about stability of the aircraft as gun platforms, ballistics etc, but are there pilots who actually could compare this in different aircraft?

MiloMorai · « **Reply #4 on:** September 03, 2004, 05:42:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Guppy35
Brickhall's books are great reads. He definately wasn't a Typhoon pilot in the Western Desert however. No Tiffies out there.

He was shot down and made a POW there though.

Dan/Slack

Sorry Dan but some Typhoons were sent to the Western Desert.

DN323 and 2 others were sent in April 1943 for tropical trials. They were assigned to 451 Sqd based at Aboukir, Idku and LG106.

Kweassa · « **Reply #5 on:** September 03, 2004, 09:48:54 AM »

Quote

Still, in AH it is easier to hit something with Hispano's than with the centrally mounted armament of the Bf-109.

I guess opinions differ amongst people in this matter. I myself feel that the center-line Bf109 cannon is easier to aim with than the wing-armed Spitfire cannons, in AH2.

Ofcourse, in general terms I do have a much easier time in bringing down an enemy plane during combat in Spitfires than 109s, but I feel that's because the Spitfire is easier to get into firing position and has a better view over the nose for high-angle deflection shots.

Since the Spitfire maneuvers so much better, it rarely ever falls into a situation where guesstimates are needed for those damned blind-lead shots, whereas a 109 rarely ever decisively outturns anything, so all of my shots in 109s are usually of deflection angle of 30 degrees or more.

However, provided the conditions/situations are equal(such as when the enemy chooses to extend in a more or less level flight...), I find the center-line armament much easier to aim with.

This tendency was rarely so pronounced in AH1(it wasn't a rare thing for the Hispanos to hit out to some 600 yards.. hence the term 'Hizooka'..), but with the enhanced gunnery of AH2, frankly, I can't hit anything over 400 marker with wing-armed planes due to convergence issues - whereas in a plane with center-line armament, I can hit upto 600 marker - sometimes even upto 800 - if I'm really willing to spray ammo.

Time and time again, I've been surprised by how different the gunnery has become - as in those cases I up in a F4U-1C with quad-Hispanos. I see an extending enemy at 400~600 yards, and despite he's flying so level I can't even land a single ping.. because of the convergence!! I actually have to aim slightly left or right of the target, to hope to hit it with at least one of the two bullet streams that spread apart..!

Urchin · « **Reply #6 on:** September 03, 2004, 11:06:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by hogenbor

To cut a long story short, It amazed me again how far the cannon are apart on the Spit, even more so for the outer 0.303's. Fine for bombers, but how did they ever hit fighters with those? Still, in AH it is easier to hit something with Hispano's than with the centrally mounted armament of the Bf-109.

Not in AH2 it isnt. I find it much easier to hit with a 109 than with a Spitfire.

hogenbor · « **Reply #7 on:** September 03, 2004, 11:54:49 AM »

Kweassa and Urchin, you are probably right. Of course I've noticed the difference in gunnery between AH1 and AH2 and had to take a critical look at my convergence settings for the planes I usually fly. I also think that the often neglected issue of convergence in the vertical axis is much more apparent now.

But... you got me that my remark is only valid for AH1, I haven't even flown Spits in AH2! I'll take one up tonight and see how I do.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #8 on:** September 03, 2004, 12:25:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Sorry Dan but some Typhoons were sent to the Western Desert.

DN323 and 2 others were sent in April 1943 for tropical trials. They were assigned to 451 Sqd based at Aboukir, Idku and LG106.

That part I was aware of.

My point, not clearly stated, is Brickhill wasn't in one, and they weren't being operated in combat

Dan/Slack

arkaler · « **Reply #9 on:** September 03, 2004, 01:51:05 PM »

The dust jacket on his book says he was. I wasn't aware that Typhoons operated in the Western Desert either. He was probably flying the cannon armed Hurricane.

Arkaler

hogenbor · « **Reply #10 on:** September 04, 2004, 08:17:08 AM »

Well, I did fly a Spit V sortie yesterday with convergence set to 300 but could easily spray two 190's out the air at 600. Knocked the wing of the second one clean. Granted, he was straight and level and I was pretty much out of ammo after two kills, but I got them.