BBC James Holland - Battle of Britain

[jameson]

8 machine guns, Spitfire. Clue: why it's called spit fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4rrh...eature=related

[Splitter]

At least the Spit had 8 pea shooters lol. Volume would help to make up for the lack of penetrating power.

Such an arrangement would have done well against Japanese fighters given their lack of armor and tendency to burst into flame when hit. Against more sturdy aircraft, like the 109, it would seem that something with more power would have been a better solution.

Yes, there certainly was an arms evolution throughout the war. Even the early Mustangs had some .30 cal guns (or .303). Weight was certainly a consideration as was space in the aircraft. Those bulges under a 109 wing were for increased ammo capacity. My understanding is that the some of the shape of the Spit wing was dictated by fitting the guns in (made wider front to back).

I am also eternally amazed by the limited amount of ammo carried on many planes. Russian craft seem to have very limited ammo supplies. Even the Mustangs only carried about 250 rounds per gun (depending on which position). That's not a lot of trigger time.

I have no idea how some pilots chalked up 3, 4, or even 5 kills in a mission with such limitations.

Splitter

[robtek]

Asfar as i remember H-J Marseille, i.e., spent around 12 to 20 rounds of his 20mm and 40 to 80 rounds 7,92 mm from his Bf109F4 for a air victory.
But he was a exceptional sharpshooter, always targeting the center where the pilot was.
What this low ammo expenditure made special is that he very often made successful high deflection shots.

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by robtek

As far as i remember H-J Marseille, i.e., spent around 12 to 20 rounds of his 20mm and 40 to 80 rounds 7,92 mm from his Bf109F4 for a air victory.
But he was a exceptional sharpshooter, always targeting the centre where the pilot was.
What this low ammo expenditure made special is that he very often made successful high deflection shots.

From the documentary
Tom Neil @ 39:10

Re: 20mm

"2-3 shots"

12-20 for downing a bomber perhaps.

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

From the documentary
Tom Neil @ 39:10

Re: 20mm

"2-3 shots"

12-20 for downing a bomber perhaps.

I never really gave much credit on how many rounds it would take to shoot down a plane, there are so many factors involved that if you consider it under a simple physics point of view it's impossible to ascertain how many rounds it would take. Just to give you an example, there are at least two documented cases of Macchi 200 shooting down a B-17, and as you know they only had two 12.7mm machine guns that were actually crap, so go figure!

SJ

[Splitter]

Are we talking about how many are fired or how many hit?

I think it was the US that did a study in WWII that said that 4500 rounds had to be fired to bring down a plane. I am guessing they were talking about .50 cal since that was the standard (depends on when they did the study though). Obviously they weren't talking about how many hit the plane but about how many rounds were expanded in comparison to kills. Even then, that number sounds low.

In a single engine fighter, obviously one bullet could do the trick. In a bomber, with a co-pilot, there is obviously a much lower chance of one shot kills. That's why the Germans in particular kept experimenting with larger caliber cannons for bomber interception. (several countries did)

Bullets do strange things.

Splitter