Galland 20mm v MG

[Karnak]

It wasnt used no, i guess that they considered 2 cannons to be enough. But the option still existed..
2 cannons is enough to kill fighters, and spitfires did not have to deal with bombers during the later half of the war in any greater scale. If LW have had the ability to bomb England during the later half of the war im sure we had seen more 4 cannon spits in the bomber interceptor role.

The option did not exist on the E wing.  As I said, it could only take two 20mm cannons and two .50 caliber machine guns.  The mounts were not interchangeable.

Restorations are not a reliable sources of information.

[Zimme83]

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/sorting-out-the-e-american-armament-for-the-spitfire-mk-ixxvi.html

So yes, it could take an extra pair of cannons, the .50 was just placed inside one of the cannon bays. If needed 4 cannon spits could have been built without any need for any bigger modifications.

Edit: C wing had a larger blister to host 4 cannons and the blister were made smaller when 2 cannons were selected as standard armament, so while its technically correct that modificatons was needed to carry 4 cannons, both C and E wing could do it.
http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/spitfire-mk-ix-xi-and-xvi-variants-much-varied.html/3

[Zimme83]

And point is that it was technically possible for the spitfire to carry 4 cannons, even if they chosed not to fit it with such armament. And that the spitfire could carry a sufficient armament without sacrificing performance. The 109 on the other hand was much more limited when it came to carrying guns and this was a major source of concern for the Germans during the war .

[FBKampfer]

The 109 could carry the weigh of the guns fine. It was that stupid gondola mounting that was the problem.


And what the hell are you talking about? If it needs modification to do it, then it can't normally do it. That or the 109's wing could accept another 20mm each as well, they just needed to be modified first.


You want to jerk off the Spitfire, fine. But at least do it without being a hypocrite.

[Zimme83]

And what the hell are you talking about? If it needs modification to do it, then it can't normally do it. That or the 109's wing could accept another 20mm each as well, they just needed to be modified first.

Count the cannons: This is a Mk V with the C wing as it initially was intended to be armed. So tell me that it was not possible to ever build a spitfire with 4 cannons.. The C wing (and E) was designed to carry 4x 20 mm. You see the difference? The Brits chose to not have the 2 extra guns because 2 was enough for the job even if the design allowed them to have 4 cannons, while the 109 needed gondolas to add firepower...

 

[FBKampfer]

Yes, it could potentially be done on the Spitfire Mk V, and IX IIRC. But no, you yourself just admitted the E wing needed modification to carry four cannon, which is what I was referring to.

You do not get to categorically claim "the Spitfire had four cannons!" because the Spitfire I with the A wing was not the same as the Spitfire V with the C Wing, was not the same as the Spitfire VIII with the Universal wing, was not the same as the Spitfire XVI with the E Wing.

Its like claiming Spanish Civil War bf 109's were cannon armed because later models were cannon armed. Its a disingenuous, myopic, history-channel-esqe cop out, done so you can tell a story you want to hear.

[Karnak]

Zimmer, the universal wing, what you're incorrectly calling a C wing, could be set up with eight .303s or two 20mm cannons and four .303s or four 20mm cannons.  The four 20mm cannon setup was only used by a couple of ground attack Mk V squadrons in the Mediterranean theater and one or two Mk VIII airframes used for Ki-46 interception in the Pacific theater.  The eight .303 setup was never used, though the four .303s were sometimes omitted from the two 20mm and four .303 setup.

Again, the E wing could not mount four 20mm cannons.  Regardless of how many times you make that claim it does not make it true.

[DaveBB]

Is it a widespread myth?

E type

A new wing was introduced in early 1944 – type E. Structurally unchanged from the C wing, the outer machine gun ports were eliminated. Although the outer machine gun bays were retained, their access doors were devoid of empty shell case ports and shell deflectors.

The inner gun bays allowed for two weapon fits two 20 mm Hispano Mk II cannon with 120 rounds/gun in the outer bays and two American .50 calibre M2 Browning machine guns, with 250 rounds per gun in the inner bays. Alternatively, four 20 mm Hispano cannon with 120 rounds per gun could be carried as per original C-wing production standard.

The cannon in the E wing was slightly relocated, positioned further to the rear in its bay. Consequently, the protruding portion of the barrel was shorter and almost entirely enclosed by a new cigar-shaped fairing. Also, the overwing blister was more narrow and a little deeper than the corresponding feature of the C wing.

An interesting curiosity is that several C-wing Spitfires LF Mk. IX of No. 485 (New Zealand) Squadron were converted to carry the Hispanos and .50 Brownings just before D-Day.

[Gman]

though the four .303s were sometimes omitted from the two 20mm and four .303 setup.

In Malta from the books written about Buzz Beurling, he and others had experimented with removing the .303 guns completely from their Spitfires (Mk V, I think, not sure though) and ran with just the single 20mm per wing, and still had good accuracy and lethality, with less weight/more performance.

[Krusty]

When you needed the ultimate performance savings, sometimes they removed the 20mm and left the .50cals. That's how they got to some of the highest flying Ju-86 recon birds at over 40,000 feet.

[Karnak]

Is it a widespread myth?

(Image removed from quote.)

Not sure if you're saying the E wing with four 20mm is a myth or the E wing without four 20mm is a myth.  In any case, the diagram you posted does not show any capability for the E wing to mount four 20mm cannons.

Gman,

Malta is specifically what I was referring to.

When you needed the ultimate performance savings, sometimes they removed the 20mm and left the .50cals. That's how they got to some of the highest flying Ju-86 recon birds at over 40,000 feet.

The Ju86 interceptions took place long before any Spifire carried .50 calibers.  I've read that they removed all armor, the radio and the 20mm cannons leaving only four .303s to be able to intercept the Ju86s, but this was with Spitfire Mk Vs.  If they'd been doing it with Mk VIIIs or Mk IXs, particularly Merlin 70 versions, removing the armor and radio probably would have been enough.

[Krusty]

At that altitude, every pound mattered I guess. Even leaving .303s in would improve handling over the 20mm and the recon planes were defenesless basically so you didn't need more than a peashooter to get 'em.

I thought it was an interesting counter-point to the other anecdotes sacrificing non-cannon loadouts to enhance performance. 

[Zimme83]

Not sure if you're saying the E wing with four 20mm is a myth or the E wing without four 20mm is a myth.  In any case, the diagram you posted does not show any capability for the E wing to mount four 20mm cannons.

Since every source says otherwise, what do you have to support your claims?

[Karnak]

Since every source says otherwise, what do you have to support your claims?

I've never seen a source that said the E wing had any gun loadout customization at all.  Do you have a source for it?

I am at work now so I don't have my books, but I'll post what I can from Spitfire: The History by Morgan and Shacklady when I get a chance.

[Zimme83]

Lets post it again then:

The inner gun bays allowed for two weapon fits two 20 mm Hispano Mk II cannon with 120 rounds/gun in the outer bays and two American .50 calibre M2 Browning machine guns, with 250 rounds per gun in the inner bays. Alternatively, four 20 mm Hispano cannon with 120 rounds per gun could be carried as per original C-wing production standard.