Spitfire Vb: Did it carry 120 rnds OR 240 rnds of Cannons?

[Angus]

Nonononono...it was not about the hitting effect. It was about reliablility and ROF. Remember the LW fighters were dealing with fighters ONLY, while the RAF had mostly bombers in their gunsight.

Anyway, the BoB always amazes me, - 1200 aircraft of the LW plonked in some odd 3-4 months with .303's!!

[Meyer]

Originally posted by Angus

Come to think of it,- the LW lost some 1200+ aircraft (destroyed) to the humble .303 in the BoB.  

Not true..

[Crumpp]

It was about reliablility and ROF.

You have any facts?  Sounds like your claiming .303 was a wonderful air to air weapon?

Have you ever read any vunerability reports on WWII weapon effectiveness?









All the best,

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Meyer
Not true..

So what is the 'real' number?

Kurfy's authoritarian source, 'Fighter', by Len Deighton, says 1404 LW a/c lost between July 10 and Sept 30. There was another ~400 written off.

[Squire]

As with most things the truth lies between the two extremes.

As for the 20mm Hispano, it got a bad rep with the RAF in 1940 because of the Spitfire IB issues. Many pilots had a prejudice against cannon after that. It was eventually overcome, and they liked the Hispanos just fine after the Mk.V. save a very few pilots. Bader was just plain wrong about it.

The two LW fighters in the BOB, the 109 and 110, both relied on 7.92mm MGs as weapons, not just cannon. ALL the LW bombers...had 7.92mm MGs as defensive weapons. Remember that.

As for the 303s in the BoB, they were "adequate" but they had drawbacks, clearly, as the RAF recognised they did. The age of MG only armament was coming to an end when WW2 broke out. Whatever the # lost to RAF fighters, almost all were armed with 303s, save a single Sqn of Spit IBs.

They were not BBs, nor Pellets.

[Crumpp]

As with most things the truth lies between the two extremes.

I would say the ".303 is great" lobby is a little short on facts to back it up.  Otherwise all WWII fighters would have had rifle caliber MG's by the end of the war.

As for the BoB, things look pretty close to me.  Not much different from the USAAF when tied to the bombers:

RAF - 1,547 aircraft

Luftwaffe - 1,887 aircraft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain

I would say the 109 held it's own pretty good:

Spitfire vs. Bf 109  : 219 to 180 lost.

Hurricane vs. Bf 109 : 272 to 153 lost.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/strength.html

All the best,

Crumpp

[Meyer]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
So what is the 'real' number?

Kurfy's authoritarian source, 'Fighter', by Len Deighton, says 1404 LW a/c lost between July 10 and Sept 30. There was another ~400 written off.

I don't think that all Lw aircraft losses in BoB were due to the .303 fire. That's all I'm saying....

[SKJohn]

Originally posted by Meyer
I don't think that all Lw aircraft losses in BoB were due to the .303 fire. That's all I'm saying....

Well, there was the A/A fire, the balloons w/ hanging cables.....seems like I also remember reading about something they launched up with parachutes that floated down over the bases and snagged the airplanes - but then again it's late and I could be dreaming.....

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Meyer
I don't think that all Lw aircraft losses in BoB were due to the .303 fire. That's all I'm saying....

Yah, there was a few to AAA and balloons.
................
 
Crumpp, who is saying the ".303 are great"? They did a good job with the LW loooosing some 1800 a/c, most of which were due to Spits and Hurries.

Only after the bombers complained did the LW fighters get 'tied' to the bombers.

The 109s did pretty good? Not with 51.5% of the LW casualities being 109s and out numbering the Spits and Hurries of 11 Group by at least 2:1. (11 Group being the main combat area)

The LW could not even maintain the numbers of a/c it started the battle with while the RAF maintained the numbers they started with.

[Meyer]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Yah, there was a few to AAA and balloons.
.

Don't forget the non-combat related losses, I'm sure that all together makes more than "a few"

(Looking at the 109 numbers, seems like only less than a half were lost due to the .303 fire...)

[Kev367th]

Karnak - Pyro would like to add the Spitfire LF.Mk VIII, all things being equal, but it really depends on how much time they have. Maybe we'll get it, maybe we won't. It still wasn't decided when we talked.

what did I tell you, as soon as it was decided a XVI at 25lbs boost was an MA nightmare, Mk VIII became obsolete.
"If we have time", yeah, yeah, heard it all before. Geez it has the same fuselage as the XIV, what extra time could it possibly take? Move the inboard .50cal options outboard of the 20mms and make them stubs.

Sounds like another "yeah we'd like to give you a decent Spit lineup, but" excuse.
Who knows another 3-4 years they might get around to it.

[Crumpp]

The 109s did pretty good? Not with 51.5% of the LW casualities being 109s and out numbering the Spits and Hurries of 11 Group by at least 2:1. (11 Group being the main combat area)

You should probably check your numbers on that.

Luftwaffe - 1,089 fighters (includes Me 110's)

RAF - approx 700 fighters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain

At the start of the war, Germany had  4,000 aircraft compared to Britain's front-line strength of 1,660. By the time of the fall of France, the Luftwaffe (the German air force) had 3,000 planes based in north-west Europe alone including 1,400 bombers, 300 dive bombers, 800 single engine fighter planes and 240 twin engine fighter bombers. At the start of the battle, the Luftwaffe had 2,500 planes that were serviceable and in any normal day, the Luftwaffe could put up over 1,600 planes. The RAF had 1,200 planes on the eve of the battle which included 800 Spitfires and Hurricanes - but only 660 of these were serviceable. The rate of British plane production was good - the only weakness of the RAF was the fact that they lacked sufficient trained and experienced pilots. Trained pilots had been killed in the war in France and they had not been replaced.    

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battleofbritain.htm

Your 2:1 is a gross exaggeration.  Of course you are given to that when it comes to allied aircraft.

Perhaps you should study the Principles of War.
 
MASS

Concentrate combat power at the decisive place and time

http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/MilSci/BTSI/prinwar.html

Something the RAF was easily able to do with Radar and they enjoyed a numerical parity of single engine fighters.   History has shown that fighters are the single most important aircraft for winning air superiority.

800 single engine fighters vs 800 single engine fighters is numerically parity, Milo, not mass!!

For the attacker, mass must be available to do a reasonable amount of damage -- again, on a theater basis.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/warden/wrdchp04.htm

All the best,

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Maybe you should look at the area where most of the fighting took place over Crumpp. That is the 11 Group area. What were these RAF fighters of 11 Group fighting? Masses of LW bombers, 110s and 109s.

There was 24 squadrons assigned to 11 Group, so nominally 384 a/c (24x16).

Now go and check the number of fighters in the other 3 Groups of RAF FC.

So to use your link, the LW had 1600 a/c vs the 384 RAF fighters, or a 4:1 advantage. Or if you want to use the 660, then it is 2.4:1. Last time I checked 2.4 is greater than 2.

This site I will take over any Wikipedia site you put forward. http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Alley/5443/bofb1.htm 'Pedias are not known for the accuracy.

Here is another site for you, http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LW_OBs.html

No Crumpp, just reality unlike Axis fanbois who make up excuses for the LW's dismail failure during BoB. They cry that the Americans had 2000 a/c (bombers and fighters) over Germany but love to forget that the Germans had bombers and fighters over southern England. Love that double standard.

[Karnak]

Angus,

Only his biography "Fly for your life", which I no longer have.  I lent it to my mother to read and never saw it again.  She said she liked it though.

Kev,

That wasn't his tone at all.  He wanted to put it in, but it was the lowest priority of the Spits.  He was hoping that it could be added in this release.  We may yet get it.  Hold on and keep hoping.

[Angus]

So the LW lost 1200 + or even 1400+ to the .303!
Depends on which exact period is looked into.
And to clear it up exactly, Crumpp, - I do NOT consider the .303 to be a formidable air to air weapon, - if the RAF would have had the armament they were introducing only months later, the LW would either have suffered much more, or withdrawn from daylight ops before.
Now since Deighton's book was quoted, he mentions some factors about the 109E's cannons. Those are low muzzle velocity and little ammunition carried,- both very bad for a fighter pilot. To hit with the cannons a very steady target was needed.
But their firepower, - of course is very much better, and the muzzle velocity got improved.
If you look at the RAF later on, some pilots had a couple of their .303's (the outboard) removed to lighten the aircraft. They had no firepower compared to the Hispanos. I remember an incident though where a pilot was either out of 20mm ammo or had a jam, - he still peppered a Ju87 to death with his 2 remaining .303's!!