The Effectivness of 8 x.303s

[slaterat]

i think this number it's too high, they are for all luftwaffe not for units can fight over the england

The source specifically states " Luftwaffe forces deployed against Great Britain, Aug 10 1940. Figures taken from the Luftwaffe Quartermaster General 6th, Abteilung returns."

But overall IMHO it is not possible to draw such a very specific conclusion regarding armament effectiveness based on the operational record. Ironically, the RAF would be much better off with the cannon armed Emils in the Battle, as their problem was that the .303 rounds were rather ineffective against the armored German bombers. If they didn't hit something vital, like engines etc., the bomber would sometimes make it back to the base with 1000+ hits in it, and the crew unhurt. Granted the plane was a likely write off, but planes were easier to replace than aircrew.

Well something like 1000 Luftwaffe bombers went down too. However the reason I left the bomber stats out was because I wanted to compare cannons vs mgs, your point is taken though.

Unfortunately, there is no point of reference for a valid comparison. It might be that the Luftwaffe usually operated under unfavourable conditions in their engagements - for example because the ground-controlled intercept techniques of the RAF placed their fighter squadrons in superior tactial positions -, and this would make a 1:1 exchange ratio a success. (You have probably read about Galland's exchange with Göring - Galland's gripe was that Göring's orders routinely placed the Luftwaffe fighters at a disadvantage.)

I dont believe that the Luftwaffe was at any major tactical disadvantage to the RAF. One could argue the opposite as RAF fighters were often still climbing to the fight and caught at an altitude disadvantage. That being said I think neither side had a definitve advantage in positioning. Being on the offensive always has its intrisic advantages though. Both sides made changes in tactics for better or worse.

Slaterat

[HoHun]

Hi Maximowitz,

>Unless you were there at the time and actually taking part anything you say is merely lazy conjecture.

Few historians ever took part in anything, and those who did have to be treated with caution because they are biased more often than not.

In fact, history can be considered the armchair science of lazy conjecture - you better get used to it.

If you have anything to contribute to Slaterat's specific question or my specific reply, you're invited to lazily conjecture with us. Should you be unwilling (or unable) to raise the intellectual level of your posts above the "Allies won = good guns" mark, or again miss the point completely as in your "skill and luck" post, I'll simply put you on my ignore list and you can have all the fun you want without my interference.

Kind regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[renrich]

To me, and I am using intuition mostly along with many years of handloading and hunting experience with rifle, pistol and shotgun, the discussion is pretty cut and dried. If the British fighters had had four 50 cal BMGs with a good ammo load( 400 rds per gun, like the F4F3 which was roughly contemporaneous) and IF that armament load had not been so excessive in weight or size to negatively impact the performance of the fighters, the RAF would have had more success in shooting down the LW AC. Likewise, if they had mounted four 20 mms or two 20 mms and two 50 BMGs(like later Spitfires did) and IF the 20 mms had been as reliable as the MGs were and had really good ballistic properties(high muzzle velocity and good ballistic coefficients along with a good rate of fire) and IF the ammo load was almost as great as the load with the four 50s and IF the same caveats about weight, size and performance applied, then they would have been even more successful at their task. The facts are that they did not have the four 50s for probably perfectly good reasons and the 20 mms at that time were not reliable in that particular configuration in use at that time, so they went with the eight 303s and that sufficed. As time went on different armaments evolved.

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by slaterat

Well something like 1000 Luftwaffe bombers went down too

True
but how many more would have gone down to cannon-armed fighters?

Originally Posted by slaterat

However the reason I left the bomber stats out was because I wanted to compare cannons vs mgs, your point is taken though

Isn't it acceptable to leave ALL the stats out and just reason what if both sides were trying to shoot down the same types of aircraft?

If machine guns were being compared vs cannon for destructive effectiveness on a firing range, you wouldn't have them shooting at different size/mass targets, it wouldn't produce representative results.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by renrich

To me, and I am using intuition mostly along with many years of handloading and hunting experience with rifle, pistol and shotgun, the discussion is pretty cut and dried. If the British fighters had had four 50 cal BMGs with a good ammo load( 400 rds per gun, like the F4F3 which was roughly contemporaneous) and IF that armament load had not been so excessive in weight or size to negatively impact the performance of the fighters, the RAF would have had more success in shooting down the FW AC. Likewise, if they had mounted four 20 mms or two 20 mms and two 50 BMGs(like later Spitfires did) and IF the 20 mms had been as reliable as the MGs were and IF the ammo load was almost as great as the load with the four 50s and IF the same caveats about weight, size and performance applied, then they would have been even more successful at their task. The facts are that they did not have the four 50s for probably perfectly good reasons and the 20 mms at that time were not reliable in that particular configuration in use at that time, so they went with the eight 303s and that sufficed. As time went on different armaments evolved.

Sounds correct to me Ren.

[HoHun]

Hi Slaterat,

>I dont believe that the Luftwaffe was at any major tactical disadvantage to the RAF. One could argue the opposite as RAF fighters were often still climbing to the fight and caught at an altitude disadvantage.

This certainly happened too. However, the problem is that we don't know how often each side had the initial advantage, so this gap in our knowledge invalidates any conclusion towards the relative effectiveness of the guns.

Another big factor is that for the RAF fighters operating over friendly territory and at the edge of the Me 109's range, it was much easier to disengage from a combat if at a disadvantage - and we don't know how many RAF aircraft were thus saved, and how many Messerschmitts could not escape from a disadvantageous position in an otherwise symmetrical situation.

So the lack of knowledge about the exact amount of the asymmetry between the RAF and the Luftwaffe fighters' combat experience simply makes a valid conclusion on the effectiveness of their armament impossible.

Better data might exist, but I'm not aware of it ... and even then, it might be contested. (If you remember the recent discussion on Bungay's Spitfire vs. Hurricane data, you know what I mean :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Colin1]

Originally Posted by renrich

..If the British fighters had had four 50 cal BMGs with a good ammo load( 400 rds per gun, like the F4F3 which was roughly contemporaneous) and IF that armament load had not been so excessive in weight or size to negatively impact the performance of the fighters, the RAF would have had more success in shooting down the FW AC. Likewise, if they had mounted four 20 mms or two 20 mms and two 50 BMGs(like later Spitfires did) and IF the 20 mms had been as reliable as the MGs were and IF the ammo load was almost as great as the load with the four 50s and IF the same caveats about weight, size and performance applied, then they would have been even more successful at their task. The facts are that they did not have the four 50s for probably perfectly good reasons and the 20 mms at that time were not reliable in that particular configuration in use at that time, so they went with the eight 303s and that sufficed...

All good points Renrich
but we're drifting into what-if territory here, the cold fact is that 8 x .303s is what we had and the debate centres around that armament being adequate based upon kill ratios for both sides.

I'm not sure the argument is sound, based upon my previous posts.

[slaterat]

Well I'm sitting here with abroken ankle so I've got some time for lazy conjecture

I'm not argueing that there weren't better araments than 8 x.303, but for its time period ie 39/40 it did the job against 109s, 110s and the German twin engined medium bombers. Would I want to go up against 4 engined , heavily built, armed and armoured B 17s/24s, with 8 x .303s, no way.

HoHun wrote

Another big factor is that for the RAF fighters operating over friendly territory and at the edge of the Me 109's range, it was much easier to disengage from a combat if at a disadvantage - and we don't know how many RAF aircraft were thus saved, and how many Messerschmitts could not escape from a disadvantageous position in an otherwise symmetrical situation.

I would have to say that the short range of the 109 had a more telling affect on the survivability of the Luftwaffe bombers, than it did on the survivability of the 109. A 109 could often escape from a Hurricane and a Spifire by diving away. Fighting over England gave the RAF an a big advantage in saving pilots but probably not so much in saving aircraft

and

So the lack of knowledge about the exact amount of the asymmetry between the RAF and the Luftwaffe fighters' combat experience simply makes a valid conclusion on the effectiveness of their armament impossible.

This is what we have to work with, of course there is almost an infinite amount of variables. Can one make an absolute conclusion , no thats why forums like this exist.

Slaterat

[Maximowitz]

Originally Posted by HoHun

Hi Maximowitz,

>Unless you were there at the time and actually taking part anything you say is merely lazy conjecture.

Few historians ever took part in anything, and those who did have to be treated with caution because they are biased more often than not.

In fact, history can be considered the armchair science of lazy conjecture - you better get used to it.

If you have anything to contribute to Slaterat's specific question or my specific reply, you're invited to lazily conjecture with us. Should you be unwilling (or unable) to raise the intellectual level of your posts above the "Allies won = good guns" mark, or again miss the point completely as in your "skill and luck" post, I'll simply put you on my ignore list and you can have all the fun you want without my interference.

Kind regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Wrong. Being a historian is attempting to extrapolate the truth from fact. Not speculating on what may or may not have happened if this or that had been available. You'll find that under "fiction" in your local library.

[HoHun]

Hi Slaterat,

>Well I'm sitting here with abroken ankle so I've got some time for lazy conjecture:D

Ouch - I hope it heals well! We'll try to keep you entertained during reconvalescence :-)

>I'm not argueing that there weren't better araments than 8 x.303, but for its time period ie 39/40 it did the job against 109s, 110s and the German twin engined medium bombers.

My point is that better armament might have resulted in a much quicker, less costly and more decisive fashion. "Do the job" is a misleading simplification, since it implies that there is just one job that's either done or not. However, destroying so many bombers that the Luftwaffe would have to give up serious bombing, either for night operations or for "Circus" type fighter baiting operations, would have done a different job and not brought Britain so close to panic as it historically was.

(My view on the Battle of Britain is that it was a strategic air war, as the Luftwaffe tried to bomb the British into negotiating, not just the tactical air war aimed at the destruction of fighter command many writers think it was. Accordingly, being forced into ineffective night operations or tactical-only "Circus" attacks would have defeated the Luftwaffe's primary goal.)

>I would have to say that the short range of the 109 had a more telling affect on the survivability of the Luftwaffe bombers, than it did on the survivability of the 109.

It also had a telling effect on the survivability of the Hurricane and Spitfire. While the Messerschmitts were fighting at 15000 ft with 10 minutes fuel before they had to get back, they had to think twice about following a diving Hurricane or Spitfire down to finish them off. When the Messerschmitt tried to dive, the RAF fighters would have had little reason not to follow them ... they had no fuel concerns, and the dive would probably separate the Me 109 from its mates that tried to keep the altitude to make sure they would all make it bck to France.

>Can one make an absolute conclusion , no thats why forums like this exist.

True, but in this particular case, I'd even say the unknowns are so powerful that we can't even make a valid approximation.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Maximowitz,

You're on my ignore list now. I'm sure you're going to enjoy that.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Gnomey]

Hohun, just because he said something you don't agree with you ignore him (and he isn't the only one). That is pretty childish is you ask me and the way it is going to be, you're going to be ignoring everyone and have no-one left to speak to... Why can't you just accept that you have differences and discuss it in a civilised manner...

Now to the question at hand. The 8 .303's were effective to the extent that they brought down a large number of aircraft and stopped the German offensive. Now it took a lot of bullets to do this it's true and a number of aircraft went home that wouldn't of done with a heavier armament (perhaps).

However if you have lot of pilots new to air to air gunnery then the more rounds you carry the more likely you are to hit something with them. Whether or not you get a 'kill' or not is up for debate. But the more rounds you have technically means the more time for practice you have in a real world environment rather than on the training ranges.

Now it is just pure speculation if you ask me what would happened if the RAF had up-gunned the Spitfire and the Hurricane to include either a battery of 50 cals or 2 x 20mm + some .303's (like in the MKV). Obviously this gives them more firepower and as a result more destructive capability but with less rounds being able to be carried. Now going with the number of hits per kill, this is going to be less with the heavier armament but if the accuracy is still as poor as it was then it isn't necessarily going to mean more aircraft are shot down because it doesn't matter how heavier your armament is if you can't hit anything with it.

At the end of the day the 8 .303's were used and they did their job effectively enough to stop the Luftwaffe. Now we know the RAF rearmed the fighters after the battle (tried during) to make them more effective in the new environment of air combat but at the start when there wasn't a large presence of self-sealing fuel tanks and armour (unlike the end of the war). With the environment of the time of the battle the 8 .303's were an effective fighter to fighter armament but they were not perhaps the best against bombers (too light).

Would the outcome of the battle been any different had the Luftwaffe had Spitfires and Hurricanes with .303's and the RAF with BF109E (2 x 7.92mm and 2 x 20mm). The answer to that is probably no. The losses to the Luftwaffe may of been heavier and the offensive ended sooner but and the end of the day the result would of been similar which in its on way proves the effectiveness of the .303's in the early stages of the war. After this the RAF realised the limitations of them and started moving to heavier calibre weapons - the Hispano Cannons.

[slaterat]

There were some Belgian Hurricanes built with 4 x.50s, but I dont believe they saw any action. This armament would of been an easy conversion for the Hurricane but probably not so much for the Spit. As we already know the RAF decided that the .50s weren't enough of an improvement , if any, and skipped up to the 20mm.

Back on the original topic of the thread, to summarize you have the luftwaffe with

-a significant advantage in numbers
-an overall advantage in performance, level speed, diving speed,
and if you believe some members, the 109 has a turn advantage
-cannon armed fighters

and for some reason(s), the RAF Fighters went nearly 1 to 1 with them and managed to knock down 1000 bombers while doing so. So why?

Some theories based on fire power /shooting

8 x .303s though light on weight of firepower puts a , lot of bullets and tracers in the air, and thus an increase in the probability of a hit/ critical hit.

The Hurricane was a great gun platform, stable and easy to see out of when shooting = greater probability of a hit

The Hurricanes unique structure provided great strength and was very resistant to damage from cannon shells.

Slaterat

[Clay_Allison]

Originally Posted by Maximowitz

I would be particularly interested in hearing exactly how many fighter sorties HoHun managed during World War II? 5? 100? I suspect he's another little "armchair general" gathering data and specifications while playing with his Microsoft flight simulator and posting pointless "this versus that" threads.

Unless you were there at the time and actually taking part anything you say is merely lazy conjecture.

Let's not be condescending in the other direction, what you described is what historians, both amateur and pro, do with history, and in 30 years they will be all we have, the veterans will be gone.

[Maximowitz]

Originally Posted by Clay_Allison

Let's not be condescending in the other direction, what you described is what historians, both amateur and pro, do with history, and in 30 years they will be all we have, the veterans will be gone.

Fair play Clay, but as I said in a previous post I was fortunate enough to meet pilots like Tuck, Galland and Rall and I'm far more inclined to believe what they told me about their actual day to day experiences as fighter pilots than the fanciful speculations posted by certain members here.