BBC James Holland - Battle of Britain

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Actually you have to put it in the correct context...............

"Adolf Galland rated the Spitfire so highly he told Goering 'Give me a squadron of Spitfires'." - Here's a quote from his book The First And The Last:

"The theme of fighter protection was chewed over again and again. Goering clearly represented the point of view of the bombers and demanded close and rigid protection. The bomber, he said, was more important than record bag figures. I tried to point out that the Me109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which, although a little slower, was much more manoeuvrable. He rejected my objection. We received many more harsh words. Finally, as his time ran short, he grew more amiable and asked what were the requirements for our squadrons. Moelders asked for a series of Me109's with more powerful engines. The request was granted. 'And you ?' Goering turned to me. I did not hesitate long. 'I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my group.' After blurting this out, I had rather a shock, for it was not really meant that way. Of course, fundamentally I preferred our Me109 to the Spitfire, but I was unbelievably vexed at the lack of understanding and the stubbornness with which the command gave us orders we could not execute - or only incompletely - as a result of many shortcomings for which we were not to blame. Such brazen-faced impudence made even Goering speechless. He stamped off, growling as he went."

Well, no disagreements there. That's pretty much what i meant in my previous post, maybe i didn't say it clear enough

Originally Posted by Splitter

Almost an apples and oranges debate, sort of like the P-51 vs. Spitfire.

The 109 in the BoB was flying at the edge of its' range. The Spitfire had the advantage of engaging at short range (to base) and fighting over friendly territory. As someone else pointed out, the 109's also had to protect bombers which limited their attack.

Add to those things the fact that the British pilots were often vectored to the enemy formations. They "knew" where the enemy was and which way they were going, the Germans were effectively flying blind in comparison.

Me? I would rather be flying a 109 with all other things being equal. Being a little faster and able to dive away always leaves a way oout of the fight. But...not all things were equal in the BoB.

Now what I have never understood was the choice of armament. The British MG's threw out a lot of rounds but had little "punch". The German planes had equally inefficient MG's plus cannons that fired slowly and with limited capacity.

The .50 cal was the best compromise among the available armaments. It's rate of fire was almost comparable to the .303 and it hit a LOT harder. While it didn't hit as hard as a 20mm cannon by any means, it's rate of fire, range, and capacity made up for the lack of punch. In short, the .50 cal hit hard enough to take down bombers and fired fast enough to take down fighters.

Why the Brits and Germans refused to go to 12.7-13mm machines guns is beyond me. I could see cannons being used against bombers, but they make little sense against fighters compared to alternatives. Even their rifle caliber machine guns really didn't hit hard enough even for fighters.

Splitter

That's also accurate, but the widespread prevalence of the .50 came a bit later. Not too late, as by Pearl Harbor a lot if not most of the US designs carried the .50, but it was not unusual to see US warbirds with .30s or a mix of .30s and .50s during the early months. I think part of the whole deal was also weight concerns.

In the end the US designers chose a well balanced compromise and stuck with it, as it was found to be good enough and provided a common standard across all platforms (ease of maintaining and training personnel to service a single weapon type,etc), one could say to the point of complacency as evidenced by the prevalence of .50s even until Korea (Sabres with six .50s against Migs carrying 23mm and 37mm cannons with a high rate of fire, maybe the only widespread user of cannons on the US side was the Corsair).
In the UK the situation was balanced with the introduction of the Hispano and in Germany with the Mg151, both of them weapons with a fast enough rate of fire for a cannon of the time and good balistic characteristics. Clearly, much superior in terms of ammunition quantity and ease of aiming to the MGFF the 109s used during BoB.

[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