.50 cals on Spitfires

[zajuts149]

The British used the .50 cal Brownings in addition to the HS 20mm cannons in later versions (e-wing IIRC).
I'm curious if anyone knows if the .50 cals were considered on earlier Spits, especially before there was a reliable 20mm cannon. I would think that a 4x.50cal battery would pack a significantly better punch than the 8x.303 that was used on the Spit I and II. Am I right? And does anyone know if this was considered/tested?`

[Colin1]

A large number of armament types were considered for the Spitfire from manufacturers such as Madsen and Browning, the .50cal was one of them. I forget the details but I will post them up when I get home tonight.

[NZTyphoon]

Just before Mitchell died he designed a Spitifre variant (Type 312) with 4 x 20mm Oerlikons mounted in the wings and a redesigned cooling system (Tony Buttler British Secret Projects: Fighters and Bombers 1935-1950 pages 35, 55.

The reason the .50 Browning wasn't used was because it was considered to be under-developed by the Air Ministry. More likely they wanted to continue with the .303 because of the millions of rounds of ammo in storage. To my mind it was a stupid decision At the time it was considered the .50 was already well developed: had British fighters been armed with (say) 4-6 .50s during the Battle of Britain they would have been a great deal more effective. And, considering the problems the British had getting the 20 mm Hispano working the .50 Browning would have been a good weapon to have.

[looney]

Is the .50 that much better than a .303? Sure the .50 is heavier but IIRC it didn't carry any explosives similar to the .303
The 20mm is the 1st round large enough to carry extra BOOM. Thus why bother with .50, and put all efford in placing 20mm.

The 20mm was considered by all (Allies and Axis) as the most effictive calibre for shooting down fighters.

[tail end charlie]

The British used the .50 cal Brownings in addition to the HS 20mm cannons in later versions (e-wing IIRC).
I'm curious if anyone knows if the .50 cals were considered on earlier Spits, especially before there was a reliable 20mm cannon. I would think that a 4x.50cal battery would pack a significantly better punch than the 8x.303 that was used on the Spit I and II. Am I right? And does anyone know if this was considered/tested?`

This site gives a lot of info on the subject

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/sort...-mk-ixxvi.html

[Colin1]

Is the .50 that much better than a .303? Sure the .50 is heavier but IIRC it didn't carry any explosives similar to the .303
The 20mm is the 1st round large enough to carry extra BOOM. Thus why bother with .50, and put all effort in placing 20mm.

The 20mm was considered by all (Allies and Axis) as the most effective calibre for shooting down fighters.

Before you open up this particular can of worms
I would read around, this debate is well documented elsewhere on the forum

.303 did not have the penetrating power of .50 and wouldn't crack open armour plating like the bigger round

You should also consider the relative merits of 'bigger' and 'big enough'; the .50cal didn't have any problems despatching Luftwaffe fighters in the battle over Germany with the added bonus that more .50cal could be carried per mission platform than 20mm.

[looney]

I know about the discussion. But b4 war (when the Spit was developped) 8x .303 was considered heavy armament. During the war it soon became obvious that the .303 was to light and they installed 20mm... Sure they had problems with the 20mm but 4x 0.50 was hardly better than the .303

I haven't been able to find my scource again but I once read that .50 armed fighters needed a lot more bullets to shoot down a enemy compared to a cannon armed fighter. And as such needed to be a lot longer on the enemies tail.
Late war most German fighters where put into service for bomber killing and where heavier (added gunpods, armor etc etc) and less manouvrable.

For a fighter I'd take a 20mm anytime over a .50. I think 4x .50 was weak, 6x was barely enough and 8x good.

IF you check this site (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm see table 2) you will see that the gun effectiveness of the .303 and the .50 M2 are both 2.1

[Colin1]

(when the Spit was developed) 8x .303 was considered heavy armament. During the war it soon became obvious that the .303 was to light and they installed 20mm... Sure they had problems with the 20mm but 4x 0.50 was hardly better than the .303
The RAF's frontline fighters were upgraded with armour protection at least twice prior to WWII upon intelligence reports of the heavier German armament being fitted to the Bf109. It is curious that they didn't make the connection between armour and armour-defeating during the same period.

I haven't been able to find my scource again but I once read that .50 armed fighters needed a lot more bullets to shoot down a enemy compared to a cannon armed fighter. And as such needed to be a lot longer on the enemies tail.
Your source doesn't sound terribly scientific in its prognosis. There is little doubt that a cannon will hit you harder than a heavy machine gun but in the case of fighter vs fighter it is worth considering a sledgehammer vs nut analogy; why crack a nut with a 2lb sledgehammer when an 1lb sledgehammer is performing the same task adequately? Against yield per round you also must consider rate of fire, I don't recall any anecdotal material recording USAAF fighters running out of ammo trying to bring down a Luftwaffe interceptor (based on the assumption that his fire was effective ie he was hitting his target)

Late war most German fighters where put into service for bomber killing and were heavier (added gunpods, armor etc etc) and less maneouvrable.
Agreed

For a fighter I'd take a 20mm anytime over a .50. I think 4x .50 was weak, 6x was barely enough and 8x good.

Armament preference largely depends on mission profile. Your average Luftwaffe pilot in 1944 would likely agree with you. Your average USAAF pilot likely would not. I would also revise your armament load-out opinions to 4 x .50s as comfortably adequate, 6 x .50s as easily sufficient and 8 x .50s as more than adequate - all based on a typical USAAF mission profile for the late war period.

[tail end charlie]

Armament preference largely depends on mission profile. Your average Luftwaffe pilot in 1944 would likely agree with you. Your average USAAF pilot likely would not. I would also revise your armament load-out opinions to 4 x .50s as comfortably adequate, 6 x .50s as easily sufficient and 8 x .50s as more than adequate - all based on a typical USAAF mission profile for the late war period.

this site gives some added info

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/cann...ntroversy.html

[zajuts149]

This site gives a lot of info on the subject

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/sort...-mk-ixxvi.html

looks very interesting, and thanks to everyone else who replied. Didn't meant to rip up old 0.3 vs 0.5 vs 20mm war wounds..(ouch, that sounds painful)

[drgondog]

Is the .50 that much better than a .303? Sure the .50 is heavier but IIRC it didn't carry any explosives similar to the .303
The 20mm is the 1st round large enough to carry extra BOOM. Thus why bother with .50, and put all efford in placing 20mm.

The 20mm was considered by all (Allies and Axis) as the most effictive calibre for shooting down fighters.

The 8th AF Fighter Command experimented with HE .50 caliber rounds. I know the 355th FG tried them and IIRC the 56th also had a test sample.

My father's personal experience was that they were unsatisfactory and he recounted instances when the rounds exploded shortly after leaving the barrels. Once was enough for him. Henry Brown allegedly shot down two Fw 190s on Sept 27 with the HE rounds and apparently liked them. Having said this, Brown was an excellent shooter and possibly not be able to discern a particular advantage.

The USAF dedicated a lot of time and thought just before and during the Korean War on the .60 Cal (15mm) explosive round with the thought of retrofitting new bolt/barrel on all the installed M3s but in the end went to the 20mm for all future fighter armament (post F-89)

[zajuts149]

I agree that 20mm rounds is better over all, and history proves it. I wonder how A Spit Mk I or II would have performed with 4x .50cals vs 8x.303.cals vs bombers and fighters. The .50cal weighs almost 4x the .30 cal, so gun weight would double. but the volume of the .50 cal is not much more. The cartridge itself is 67% larger than the .30-06 that the US used(exactly, as it was just blown up in scale from the rifle round)

How many rounds did the Spit I carry per gun?
How much lead weight could be put by the 8x.303s in a typical burst(0,5 to 1 sec?)
What is the same number for 4x.50cals?
Late war spits carried 250 rds of .50cals. How do the weight of 4x.50cals w/250 rds compare to weight of 8x.303 with their ammo?
Would the extra weight(if any) hamper the Spit in a dogfight with the Bf-109E?
Would the heavier leadweight of the .50cal battery(if any) be more effective in bringing down the light/medium bombers of the day(BoB), the He-111, Do-17 and Ju-88?

I know the Armour Piercing qualities of the .50cal way surpasses the .303, but I'm curious on a more holistic level, on how the Spit would fare with another existing and working gun of the time, before the HS 20mm were up to snuff.

[zajuts149]

Just before Mitchell died he designed a Spitifre variant (Type 312) with 4 x 20mm Oerlikons mounted in the wings and a redesigned cooling system (Tony Buttler British Secret Projects: Fighters and Bombers 1935-1950 pages 35, 55.

The reason the .50 Browning wasn't used was because it was considered to be under-developed by the Air Ministry. More likely they wanted to continue with the .303 because of the millions of rounds of ammo in storage. To my mind it was a stupid decision At the time it was considered the .50 was already well developed: had British fighters been armed with (say) 4-6 .50s during the Battle of Britain they would have been a great deal more effective. And, considering the problems the British had getting the 20 mm Hispano working the .50 Browning would have been a good weapon to have.

I think so too. It's weird how defense ministries often think like grocery clerks when it comes to equipping their armed forces. I believe the German Army had the same thoughts when there was talk of introducing the MP-44 with the new 7.92x32mm round. They halted because they had 8 BILLION 7.92x57mm Mauser rounds on stock.

[Colin1]

Q: Would the heavier leadweight of the .50cal battery (if any) be more effective in bringing down the light/medium bombers of the day (BoB), the He111, Do17 and Ju88?

A: I know the armour-piercing qualities of the .50cal way surpasses the .303

...unless I'm mistaken

[buffnut453]

I think so too. It's weird how defense ministries often think like grocery clerks when it comes to equipping their armed forces. I believe the German Army had the same thoughts when there was talk of introducing the MP-44 with the new 7.92x32mm round. They halted because they had 8 BILLION 7.92x57mm Mauser rounds on stock.

I don't think interoperability is the peevish issue you seem to indicate. The standard .303 round was used in British Army rifles, the Bren Gun infantry support weapon, as well as in the RAF's fighter and bomber armament. Having just Fighter Command migrate to the .50 cal would necessitate an entirely new supply chain from factory to front-line for that one "customer" for both the weapon and the ammunition. Given the numbers of .303 rounds probably still lying around from WWI, the expense of retooling factories and the time constraints as Britain strove to prepare for the coming war, I think sticking with the .303 was the right choice.