Strengths/weaknesses of the Spitfire
Jim Erickson
This thread hasn't really addressed anything specifically wrong with the
Spit. Here's my attempt to start an argument.
Weaknesses of the Spitfire:
1) Short Range--a critical handicap in every battle except the Battle
of Britain. The Spitfire was largely irrelevant to the destruction of
the Luftwaffe after 1940. When Continental bases opened up in 1944 it
got back into action but was still far less important than P51s, P47,
and probably even Tempests.
2) Critical inability to dive quickly in Mk 1 and Mk 2. Led to high
losses and lost victories as Germans dove on it for kills and/or
escaped.
3) Slow development time. Until the Mk 9, Spitfires were outclassed by
their opposition. The Spitfire was always playing catch up in terms of
design. The Mk 1 or 2 were essentially equal to 109E if one ignores the
critical weakness in a dive (the carburetor always cut out). Mk 5 was a
little better than the 109E and not quite as good as 109F (but probably
close). It was completely outclassed by ALL FW190s. Only with the Mk 9
did the Spit clearly better the 109 series and match if not slightly
better the FW190. Since Mk 9s, were rare until Mid to late 1943, the
spits suffered grievous losses over France. The most authoritative
figures I have seen (published in FlyPast in the 1986(?) (I think they
were part of the 50th Anniversary of the Spitfire series--sorry I can't
be any more specific but I don't have those issues any more) place the
Spitfire loss/ victory ratio as about 3 to 1 (that's ~ 3 Spits lost /
victory) from 1941 through 1943. Although poor British tactics played a
role in this debacle, as did losses to anti-aircraft fire, the basic
problem was that the 109 Fs and Gs and especially the FW190 were better
fighters.
4) Inadequate armament Mk 1, 2, 5. Average armament Mk 9, and most Mk
14 since the 20mm cannon were much better than those on the Mk5. The
four 0.303, placed as far out on the wing, and having a different
trajectory than the 20s, were of little use. (An aside--It's
interesting that in Johnnie Johnson's book Wing Leader he always talks
about the cannon, never the machine guns in the Mk 9.)
The E type wing gave the Spit a reasonable armament of 2 20 mm and 2 0.5
in but this appeared so late that it was of little relevance.
5) Light and very expensive construction. The Spit was costly to build,
and not terribly strong in construction. The later point was not so
critical for an interceptor, but as the Spit was forced into the ground
attack role it was a significant handicap. In the ground attack role
the light bomb load and susceptibility to ground made it the least
effective of tactical aircraft in the Allies airforces. Unfortunately
the RAF was saddled with so many Spitfires it was forced to employ the
plane in a role for which it was poorly suited.
Jim Erickson
M. L. Shettle
Great post -- you covered about all of it. I heard somewhere that the
Spit required about 90,000 man-hours to construct. Biggest problem
was the elliptical wing -- very pretty but difficult and slow to
build.
Jim Coulter
Jim Erickson wrote:
> Here's my attempt to start an argument.
>
> Weaknesses of the Spitfire:
> 1) Short Range
> 2) Critical inability to dive quickly in Mk 1 and Mk 2.
> 3) Slow development time.
> 4) Inadequate armament Mk 1, 2, 5.
> 5) Light and very expensive construction.
Strengths of the Spitfire:
1) Far better than the Me-109. (according to Luftwaffe Gen. Adolf Galland).
Zhivan
>
>1) Far better than the Me-109. (according to Luftwaffe Gen. Adolf Galland).
I've read two reports, one carried out by the Germans, one by the English,
in 1940, betwene a Spit-I and a Bf-109E. The Germans state the Bf-109E
thoroughly outclasses the Spitfire. The English, the opposite. Personally,
one has to say the Bf-109E with the non-constant superchargerd fuel injected
DB-601 had a much better engine.. and firepower..
However, a Spit-22 could take on a 109K and spit it out
Emmanuel Gustin
> 1) Short Range--a critical handicap in every battle except the Battle
> of Britain.
Generally true, but it must not be overstated. It did not apply to
"every battle except the battle of Britain": Spitfires were
also very useful in Malta and North Africa. The Spitfire was
not able to escort bombers deep into continental Europe,
but it was useful on shorter missions. Also remember that
considerable effort was made to extend the range of the
Spitfire. Late-war models had additional fuel tanks: small tanks
in the wing leading edges, a large tank in the aft fuselage, and
drop tanks.
> 2) Critical inability to dive quickly in Mk 1 and Mk 2. Led to high
> losses and lost victories as Germans dove on it for kills and/or
> escaped.
That one too is a real defect, but "high losses and lost victories?"
The hard reality of combat is that a pilot who knows that he is
under attack has already increased his chances of survival
enormously. The ability of the Bf 109s with their fuel-injection
engines to enter a steep dive immediately was an useful
evasive tactic -- nothing more.
>3) Slow development time. Until the Mk 9, Spitfires were
>outclassed by their opposition.
Sounds absurd to me. The Mk.I was never "outclassed" by
the Bf 109E. The two fighters were very well matched, with
the Bf 109E having a slight edge in performance and the
Spitfire Mk.I having a slight edge in agility and handling. The
outcome of combat depended on pilot ability and tactical
conditions.
The Fw 190A outclassed the Spitfire Mk.V, but the Fw 190
was an entirely new design. That the RAF did not have an
equivalent to it was not the fault of the Spitfire's design,
but a consequence of the silly decisions made by Hawker
and Napier. The Mk.IX not only redressed the situation, it was
good enough to remain in production for three years.
The Mk.XIV was, except at very high altitude, a good match
for the Ta 152H. The difference is that the Mk.XIV did see service
in significant numbers, and the Ta 152 did not.
Slowness in development was not a real problem. More troubling,
at least from a logistics viewpoint, was the large number of
versions: I, II, V, LF V, IX, LF IX, HF IX, XVI, XII, XIV, and so on,
all with different engines. This must have made both production
and maintenance very complicated.
>4) Inadequate armament Mk 1, 2, 5. Average armament Mk 9, and most Mk
>14 since the 20mm cannon were much better than those on the Mk5. The
>four 0.303, placed as far out on the wing, and having a different
>trajectory than the 20s, were of little use.
Agreed that armament of the Mk.I was poorly chosen. Talking about
"Mk.V" armament is misleading because there were so many options:
Especially for the Mk.VC, because the C-wing allowed the installation
of eight .303 guns, two 20mm cannon and four .303 machineguns,
or four 20mm cannon. The .303s were indeed of little use, mainly
because of the addition of armour plate and self-sealing fuel tanks
to new fighters. The E-wing was fitted to most Mk.XIVs, and this
was a contemporary of the P-51D; hardly too late to be relevant.
>5) Light and very expensive construction. The Spit was costly to build,
>and not terribly strong in construction.
Agreed that the Spitfire was costly to build, but weak in construction?
Structural failures of Spitfires were not a frequent occurence, and not
the problem they were for e.g. the P-51. The construction was strong
enough to allow for carrier operations. Apparently the wing construction
did not allow for heavy outboard loads, but that is something different.
Emmanuel Gustin
Delete NoSpam- from my address. Users of aol.com, juno.com,
hotmail.com, ix.netcom.com: Our spam filter blocks all e-mail from
these hosts.
University of Antwerp Page: http://nat-www.uia.ac.be/~gustin/
Military Aircraft Database: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/
Military Aircraft Database: http://www.topedge.com/~gustin/
Aviation History Trivia Quiz:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/
Yama
Jim Coulter wrote:
> Jim Erickson wrote:
>
> > Here's my attempt to start an argument.
> >
> > Weaknesses of the Spitfire:
> > 1) Short Range
>
> > 2) Critical inability to dive quickly in Mk 1 and Mk 2.
>
> > 3) Slow development time.
>
> > 4) Inadequate armament Mk 1, 2, 5.
>
> > 5) Light and very expensive construction.
Well analysed.
> Strengths of the Spitfire:
>
> 1) Far better than the Me-109. (according to Luftwaffe Gen. Adolf Galland).
This is often said and it's incorrect.After BoB, top brass of Luftwaffe drew
entirely wrong conclusions from the events and decided Bf-109 should be more
maneuverable. This was embodied in F-model, which was originally meant to be
even lighter. Galland, along many other pilots, did not want Bf-109 turned to
some sort of short-ranger Zero. He clearly states in his book that criticism
was towards RLM and Goering, not Bf-109. He also clearly says that he did not
consider Spitfire being better plane than 109, and IMHO he was right.
Until Mk XIV, Spitfire just tried to catch Germans. Later Mk I's were barely
equal to Emil, late V was barely equal or inferior to both Friedrich and
Macchi Folgore and clearly inferior to FW-190. IX was better than Gustav but
barely equal to FW.
Dan Ford
Two books recently read:
H. A. Allen, Who Won the Battle of Britain?, makes the point that all
British fighters operated at a great disadvantage because of the RAF's
faith in quantities of rifle-caliber (0.303 inch) machineguns, as opposed
to the American approach of a smaller number of half-inch guns. He did not
specifically factor in cannon here, but since the Bf 109 also used
rifle-caliber machineguns, I assume he believed that its mixed armament of
mgs and 20 mm cannon made it more formidable than the Spitfire.
David Myhra, The Horten Brothers and Their All-Wing Aircraft, quotes
Walter Horten (who was a Luftwaffe pilot in the BOB) as disgusted with the
inferiority of the Bf 109 as compared to the Spitfire. Indeed, Myhra
claims that the Hortens developed their turbojet flying wing Ho 9 as a
counter to "superior" RAF a/c such as the Spitfire and the Mosquito. They
even called the Ho 9 "the German Mosquito."
- Dan (http://www.concentric.net/~danford)
Brewster Buffalo / Flying Tigers / Germany at War / Japan at War
Tony Williams
Zhivan <rus...@ihug.co.nz>
Message-ID: <6ceqa7$e...@panix3.panix.com>
wrote:
> I've read two reports, one carried out by the Germans, one by the
> English, in 1940, betwene a Spit-I and a Bf-109E. The Germans state
> the Bf-109E thoroughly outclasses the Spitfire. The English, the
> opposite. Personally, one has to say the Bf-109E with the non-constant
> superchargerd fuel injected DB-601 had a much better engine.. and
> firepower..
Not. The Bf-109E had two 7.9mm MGs and two 20mm MG-FF against the
Spitfire's eight 7.7mm. The MG-FF was a slow-firing, low-velocity
gun which, like the MGs, could not penetrate armour. The Spitfire's
armament was much better against unarmoured planes because of the
high rate of fire. Armour was not fitted to RAF or Luftwaffe planes
at the start of the war, but began to be added from 1940 onwards.
Tony Williams
EMail: T.Wil...@mmu.ac.uk
M E Rapier
In article <6ccck3$8...@panix3.panix.com>, jw...@columbia.edu says...
>
>This thread hasn't really addressed anything specifically wrong with the
>Spit. Here's my attempt to start an argument.
Just mention Poland if you want an argument;)
>Weaknesses of the Spitfire:
>1) Short Range--a critical handicap in every battle except the Battle
A 'weakness' (or should I say design feature) of all fighters designed in the
late 1930s, with the possible exception of the Zero.
>2) Critical inability to dive quickly in Mk 1 and Mk 2. Led to high
Don't know if it is that critical - fighters were designed to shoot down
bombers.
>3) Slow development time. Until the Mk 9, Spitfires were outclassed by
>their opposition. The Spitfire was always playing catch up in terms of
Don't have enough tech knowledge to comment on this, presumably the excellence
of the Fw 190 was why the Typhoon and Tempest were developed?
>4) Inadequate armament Mk 1, 2, 5. Average armament Mk 9, and most Mk
The original armament was assigned on the basis of trials that showed that
eight machine guns firing for two seconds were required to down monoplance
bombers of the late 1930s. As that was what they were supposed to do, that was
what they were equipped with. (Rather a step up from the two MGs that armed
the Hawker Fury etc). I'm not sure if the RAF tried cannon out as well.
The Germans had to load up their own fighters with more and heavier cannon
later in the war as they were taking on 1940s era heavy bombers.
>5) Light and very expensive construction. The Spit was costly to build,
Yes, probably.
The vast majority of fighters that fought the Battle of Britain were of course
Hurricanes, which had problems all of their own.
I'm sure rather than Gallands apocryphal quote that he'd "Like a squadron of
Spitfires", he'd much rather have had drop tanks for his Me 109s.
Cheers.
Martin.
--
Martin Rapier, Database Administrator
Corporate Information & Computing Services.
University of Sheffield Tel 0114 222 1137
http://rhino.shef.ac.uk:3001/mr-home/
Emmanuel Gustin
Dan Ford wrote in message <6ci1iq$h...@panix3.panix.com>...
> H. A. Allen, Who Won the Battle of Britain?, makes the point that all
> British fighters operated at a great disadvantage because of the RAF's
> faith in quantities of rifle-caliber (0.303 inch) machineguns, as opposed
> to the American approach of a smaller number of half-inch guns.
Not entirely fair: In 1940 almost everyone used rifle-calibre machineguns,
including the USA. USAAC fighters of the period, such as the P-36 and
early P-40, tended to have one or two .50 guns, and up to four .30s.
The rifle-calibre guns disappeared only after combat experience showed
that they were deficient.
Maybe the RAF erred by choosing a homogeneous armament of .303
guns for its fighters, but it can be doubted that, for example, two .50
and four .303 guns would have been much more effective. Both the
RAF and the Luftwaffe expected more from 20mm cannon, but the
British opted for a long-term solution by waiting for the excellent
Hispano; and the Germans had a short-term solution in the MG-FF.
The MG-FF had its disadvantages, but it was available.
This gave the Bf 109E more hitting power than the Spitfire Mk.I, but
the disadvantages were a small ammuntion supply and poor ballistic
characteristics. It has been argued, and I think with some justification,
that the Spitfire had the better armament for fighter-vs-fighter combat,
and the Bf 109E the better armament for shooting down bombers.
Rob Davis
Remove MAPSON if replying via email
> thoroughly outclasses the Spitfire. The English, the opposite. Personally,
If you read FLY FOR YOUR LIFE the biography of Stanford-Tuck, it
was he and George Stainforth who conducted the flight tests with
a captured 109E v Spitfire. Sorry but the text of the book
doesnt state whether it was a Spitfore I or a II.
Tuck had a high regard for the 109 which he called "a most
delightful little aeroplane" and acknowledged its strengths, such
as the guns around the central axis (they didn't appear to know
that the spinner cannon was usually deleted) and its fine rate
of dive. Altogether he rated it as a first class match for the
Spitfire, and a better aircraft than the Hurricane.
He didn't like the cramped cockpit and too robust canopy with its
thick strutting obscuring parts of the sky.
Rob Davis MSc MIAP
Anstey, Leicester UK. 0976 379489
abuse@localhost, postmaster@localhost
Tero P. Mustalahti
In article <6ccck3$8...@panix3.panix.com>,
Jim Erickson <jw...@columbia.edu> writes:
> 3) Slow development time. Until the Mk 9, Spitfires were outclassed by
> their opposition. The Spitfire was always playing catch up in terms of
> design. The Mk 1 or 2 were essentially equal to 109E if one ignores the
> critical weakness in a dive (the carburetor always cut out). Mk 5 was a
> little better than the 109E and not quite as good as 109F (but probably
> close). It was completely outclassed by ALL FW190s. Only with the Mk 9
> did the Spit clearly better the 109 series and match if not slightly
> better the FW190.
On the other hand, the American fighters were not much better in 1942
and early 1943. The P-39 and P-40 were outclassed by all German
fighters, and even the early P-38s were only adequate at best against
the Germans.
> The E type wing gave the Spit a reasonable armament of 2 20 mm and 2 0.5
> in but this appeared so late that it was of little relevance.
Is summer 1944 really too late for relevance?
> 5) Light and very expensive construction. The Spit was costly to build,
> and not terribly strong in construction. The later point was not so
> critical for an interceptor, but as the Spit was forced into the ground
> attack role it was a significant handicap. In the ground attack role
> the light bomb load and susceptibility to ground made it the least
> effective of tactical aircraft in the Allies airforces.
Very true. Using the Spit as a ground attacker was not a very good
idea, and it was never intended for that role. It could not carry
rockets or bombs under its thin wings, and so the bomb load was limited
to one 500lb bomb.
Nevertheless, the Spitfire was a very good point defense fighter and
short range interceptor. In that role it was better than most
contemporary American fighters. It was just that the Allies did not
need such a fighter much after 1942.
Tero P. Mustalahti
Tero P. Mustalahti
In article <6ck9kh$q...@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>,
M.Ra...@shef.ac.uk (M E Rapier) writes:
> The original armament was assigned on the basis of trials that
> showed that eight machine guns firing for two seconds were required
> to down monoplance bombers of the late 1930s. As that was what they
> were supposed to do, that was what they were equipped with. (Rather
> a step up from the two MGs that armed the Hawker Fury etc). I'm not
> sure if the RAF tried cannon out as well.
However, the eight rifle-caliber MGs armament was shown to be too light
even against the German bombers (Ju 88, He 111 and Do 17), which were
"monoplane bombers of the late 1930s". The RAF still managed to shoot
down many German bombers, but we can only guess how much larger the
German losses would have been if the RAF fighters had had cannon armament.
Tero P. Mustalahti
Tero P. Mustalahti
In article <6ck9h5$q...@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>,
"Tony Williams" <T.Wil...@mmu.ac.uk> writes:
> Not. The Bf-109E had two 7.9mm MGs and two 20mm MG-FF against the
> Spitfire's eight 7.7mm. The MG-FF was a slow-firing, low-velocity
> gun which, like the MGs, could not penetrate armour.
True enough.
> The Spitfire's armament was much better against unarmoured planes
> because of the high rate of fire. Armour was not fitted to RAF or
> Luftwaffe planes at the start of the war, but began to be added from
> 1940 onwards.
But if were are talking about shooting down bombers, there is no
comparison between the 7.7mm MGs and the MG FF. A 20mm high explosive
shell causes more structural damage than several seconds of fire from a
rifle-caliber machine gun. Against fighters the eight MGs might have
been better, but against bombers it was too light.
Tero P. Mustalahti
Tarjei T. Jensen
Tero P. Mustalahti wrote:
> However, the eight rifle-caliber MGs armament was shown to be too light
> even against the German bombers (Ju 88, He 111 and Do 17), which were
> "monoplane bombers of the late 1930s". The RAF still managed to shoot
> down many German bombers, but we can only guess how much larger the
> German losses would have been if the RAF fighters had had cannon armament.
I think going with 1/2" brownings on the Spitfire would have helped a
lot.
It would probably have been even better upgunning the Hurricane. I
suspect that Hurricanes with 1/2" browings and or 20 mm cannons would
have been very interesting in head-on attacks on German bomber
formations.
Even more interesting would have been to have the Martin Baker 10 which
was a backup design for the Spitfire in case the factory was bombed. If
I remember right it was to carry four 20mm guns and had two
contrarotating propellors.
Greetings,
--
// Tarjei T. Jensen
// tar...@online.no || voice +47 51 62 85 58
// Support you local rescue centre: GET LOST!
Donald Phillipson
"Tarjei T. Jensen" (tar...@online.no) writes:
>
> Even more interesting would have been to have the Martin Baker 10 which
> was a backup design for the Spitfire in case the factory was bombed. If
This seems unlikely:
1. Production of British fighters was dispersed in 1939 to
many "shadow factories," i.e. not centralized at any one
bombable place. Martin Baker designs were not ready for
mass production (e.g. jigs) and there was no need for a
"backup design."
2. Peter Lewis's book The British Fighter Since 1912 lists
no Martin Baker 10: only models 1 (1938) through 6 (tailless jet, 1945,
unbuilt). Martin and Baker competed in 1942 for the Tempest/Typhoon
specifications (F.18/39) but Baker was killed testing the MB 3 and
Martin concentrated on the ejection seat and other aircraft designs.
--
| Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs, |
| Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734 |
David R Brooks
term...@strangelove.yok.utu.fi (Tero P. Mustalahti) wrote:
:In article <6ck9kh$q...@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>,
: M.Ra...@shef.ac.uk (M E Rapier) writes:
:
:> The original armament was assigned on the basis of trials that
:> showed that eight machine guns firing for two seconds were required
:> to down monoplance bombers of the late 1930s.
:However, the eight rifle-caliber MGs armament was shown to be too light
:even against the German bombers (Ju 88, He 111 and Do 17), which were
:"monoplane bombers of the late 1930s".
What we see here has been repeated many times this century. Peacetime
trials show that weapon X will effectively suppress an attacker using
weapon Y. The factor that never (in the nature of things) comes out in
these trials, is the plain old-fashioned guts of the attacker. Often
the attack is pressed home in almost-suicidal circumstances, and
succeeds against expectation.
To cite a more recent example (sorry, moderator: it's post-1945): the
1982 Falklands War: doctrine of the time was that the available
point-defence missile systems could absolutely prevent a successful
air attack. The Argentines proved it wrong, albeit at heavy cost.
-- Dave Brooks <http://www.iinet.net.au/~daveb>
PGP public key: servers da...@iinet.net.au
fingerprint 20 8F 95 22 96 D6 1C 0B 3D 4D C3 D4 50 A1 C4 34
What's all this? see http://www.iinet.net.au/~daveb/crypto.html
*** Spam is automatically forwarded to <u...@ftc.gov> ***
Jim Erickson
>True enough.
>Tero P. Mustalahti
There seems to be a little overemphasis on armor plate here--we're not
talking about Sturmovicks. Most fighters were equipped with armor plate
behind the seat and an armored windscreen. The fuel tanks were
self-sealing but unarmored. For the most part bombers only carried
armor to protect the pilot or a few crew members. The explosive 20mm
shell did much more structural damage and had a much better chance of
bursting fuel lines or the fuel tank than did the .303 round. A few
20mm hits to the wings, fuselage, cockpit or engine could easily knock
down a fighter, with the .303 you'd have to hit a vulnerable spot or
really hose the target.
One factor that gets short shrift is the location of the guns. It's
commonly said (and true) that the Hurricane was a better gun platform
than the Spit. Its thick stable wing and clustered .303s meant a pilot
had a decent chance of getting a lot of clusted hits on target. The
Spit in contrast had four of its guns far outboard where the problems
with its thinnner more flexible wing were exagerated and produced a
shotgun effect that reduced the concentration of bullets. Even better
were cowl guns such as the 109 possessed. Althought the rate of fire
was reduced, their in line position made them more easier to aim
accurately than those of even the Hurricane. To hazard a guess, I'd bet
that the 2 7.9 mm guns on a 109E were worth at least 3 of the Spit's
guns.
It's too bad the Spit and Hurri weren't designed with 4 X .5 in from the
start. The P-51B proved that that was more than enough to knock down
any of the German planes from Ju88s to fighters. The 0.5 in gun was
pretty much developed so there would not have been the lag that occurred
while waiting for the 20mm. If they'd made that decision maybe the RAF
bombers could have had some .50s for protection as well.
Jim Erickson
Tero P. Mustalahti
In article <6d085j$1k8q$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
Jim Erickson <jw...@columbia.edu> writes:
> The explosive 20mm shell did much more structural damage and had a
> much better chance of bursting fuel lines or the fuel tank than did
> the .303 round.
Isn't that exactly what I wrote?
> A few 20mm hits to the wings, fuselage, cockpit or engine could
> easily knock down a fighter, with the .303 you'd have to hit a
> vulnerable spot or really hose the target.
The problem with the MG FF was not the round, but the slow rate of
fire and low muzzle velocity, which made hitting small and agile
fighters difficult. The MG FF also had very different ballistic
charasteristics from the 7.92mm MG 17. This meant that the MG 17s
could not be effectively used for targeting. All this was not such a
problem against bombers, but it was against the British fighters,
especially for the average pilots who did not have the skill and
courage to fly very close to the enemy.
> To hazard a guess, I'd bet that the 2 7.9 mm guns on a 109E were
> worth at least 3 of the Spit's guns.
Well, three light machine guns was not that much more useful than
two light machine guns. Rifle-caliber machine guns were obsolescent as
a fighter armament from the start of the war, but it took some time
for most countries to fully realize that.
> It's too bad the Spit and Hurri weren't designed with 4 X .5 in from the
> start. The P-51B proved that that was more than enough to knock down
> any of the German planes from Ju88s to fighters.
No doubt the P-51B shot down some German bombers, but it never has to
encounter superior number of enemies like the RAF fighters did during the
BoB. Thus we cannot really know whether four .50 cal MGs was enough or
not. My personal opinion is that for an interceptor even heavy machine
guns were not enough. The US fighters fought mostly against very fragile
Japanese bombers (G4M, Ki-21) and fighters.
> The 0.5 in gun was pretty much developed so there would not have
> been the lag that occurred while waiting for the 20mm. If they'd
> made that decision maybe the RAF bombers could have had some .50s
> for protection as well.
I agree that the .50 cal would have been better than the .303 cal, but
I also believe RAF made the right decision when it switched to 20mm
cannons as soon as possible. The Spitfire was a problem though,
because its wing could not accomodate two 20mm cannons. Even the
E-wing was a compromise. However, the last Spitfire models did finally
carry four 20mm cannons.
Tero P. Mustalahti