8 guns/ 4 guns Spitfire - don't get it

Apparently, officers could and did give their ground crews orders to adjust the aim of the guns to suit their preferences and experiences, usually abandoning the official 'spread' for convergence at 100 yards. Sergeant Pilots didn't have the same authority, so had to work with the standard settings. Consequently, Sergeant Pilots didn't so so well at getting high scores.

The concept of the cannon-armed fighter was proposed before WWII, and the HS404 autocannon was fitted to the Beaufighter in 1940. The Battle of Britain showed that the 303 round was not adequate for the task, and so the move to equip the single-engined fighter force with cannon ramped up.

Unfortunately, there was an issue with the HS404 that meant that in combat the guns could misfire. These failed guns were taken out of service and passed to the Royal Small Arms Factory for investigation. This job fell to my father, who was given a building full of these guns, and he spent some time finding a cause. I recall him telling me what he'd discovered, but it didn't appear to be the reason later put forward by officialdom. The official view was that the rounds were being too lightly struck by the (fairly light) bolt, the solution being to machine

1/16th or so from the face of the receiver, so that the bolt would be travelling faster and make a misfire less likely.

I understand that something like 100,000,000 rounds of 20mm ammunition had been made in advance, and this was put at risk by the unreliability of the guns.

The Americans also produced the HS404, and they were still debating the misfire issue at the end of the war, although they had gone some way to adopting the British solution to the problem.

Here's 3m46 of British ground attacks in 1944. Locomotives made attractive targets...

formatting link

Reply to
Spike
Loading thread data ...

My would have been uncle died in a westland whirlwind - the 'cannon fighter' of 1938. in IIRC 1940.Right idea, not enough engine.

Not necessarily spitties tho. Looks like tiffies. That was their speciality

Tiffie rocket footage is awesome

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

ISTR the more experienced pilots would have a much closer concentration point if/when they could - typically 50 yards or less, since it gave them a devastating hit when they got in really close.

Reply to
John Rumm

Yeahbut what percentage of *experienced pilots* were there compared with rooky replacements? ;-(

And did they never shoot at each other when approaching each other with a closing speed of ~600+ mph? ;-(

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

It depends if the hit the tank / munitions or not.

But far worse aerodynamics than an aeroplane in one piece.

But yes, if you hit the pilot then the plane just changes shape on the ground. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

There's programme about it/her on BBC News channel 231 tonight at

8.30, and again on Sunday morning at 10.30
Reply to
Chris Hogg

Well yes, quite a high proportion no doubt, shortage of pilots rather than airframes was the usual sticking point!

Its not the preferred option - any approach where you can shoot them and they can't shoot back would seem preferable!

Reply to
John Rumm

Wasn't that known as the 'Crikey', because that was what pilots said after experiencing its speed?

Wasn't it just...

I put the video up to show the effectiveness of cannon-gun fire on a target - 40 rounds a second exploding on a fully-steamed-up locomotive gave spectacular results. There's shedloads of gun-camera footage on You Tube.

A sixty-pound explosive projectile arriving at 700mph was quite something to be on the receiving end of!

Reply to
Spike

Yeah, getting an enemy to cooperate though ... ;-)

I would imagine a fighter to fighter dogfight to be fairly chaotic, no matter how well they might have rehearsed in the training room or practiced in the sky.

All about you trying to gain advantage over them (and their wing men) whilst they are (all) trying to do the same to you and yours?

So that's often down to trying to leverage any advantage you can get to start with (attacking them from above or from out of the sun) and then whatever advantage each plane might have against each other (speed / manoeuvrability) etc.

After that I'm guessing much of the rest (once the chaos starts) is a mix of luck and skill.

Luck being the one that doesn't have several fighters on your tail and the skill to (try to) not be in the wrong place at the wrong time (and end up with several fighters on your tail).

I'm also sure many 'good / experienced' and novice pilots died trying to defend their comrades, either to effect or in vain. ;-(

Watching the video ... I get that much of it is stopping munitions getting where they could be used against us and it is (was) a 'them' or 'us' things, but I feel sorry for say an engine driver who was probably just that, doing his job and being a 'sitting duck'.

Blowing up a munitions train was fair game (and you probably wouldn't need to hit the loco specifically), strafing down the length of a troop carrier possibly less so, but shooting up any car that moved, assuming 'intelligence wasn't as good as it is (supposed to be) now days?

All's fair in love and war ... ?

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

Cannons generally fire exploding rounds, whilst machine guns fire solid shot.

Reply to
soup

250 yards was probably the RAF standard but many (usually the good pilots) used to harmonize their guns to converge at 50 yards meaning they could fly closer to the enemy aircraft before firing and so make it easier to actually hit them (aiming from 50 yards as opposed to 250).

This harmonizing was usually done on the ground at special aircraft ranges (Butts)

formatting link

Reply to
soup

Having had a couple of fast jets practice a dogfight over us a year so back it's mighty impressive and very noisy.

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

The Mustang - once it had the Merlin - was probably a better aircraft than the Spit. Of course it wasn't around for the Battle of Britain!

The Mustang has a laminar flow wing, which gives less drag. That's the reason why Mustangs could act as cover on the US day raids over Germany. There's also the clever design of the radiator - it doesn't just have less drag than the Spit or Hurri, it actually gives thrust. Not a lot, but every little helps.

The real reason why I think the Mustang was better is this: I was watching a TV programme with my father one day comparing the 109 and the Spit. The 109 has a _really_ cramped cockpit, the Spit has this great wing that would let it outturn the 109, and suddenly he said "I always preferred the Mustang".

He had flown them all. Probably Griffin Spits though, he was post war. Interesting that he didn't mention the Fury. I can't ask him why.

Andy

Reply to
Vir Campestris

Wow, that must have been cool!

I like running and racing RC boats and cars and whilst I have run RC planes, I find that compared with cars and boats, all you are seemingly doing (especially with anything 'fast') is bringing it back.

An RC quadcopter is probably the most enjoyable because you can (and I do) fly them indoors, so you can enjoy it in close-up-detail for the entire flight.

So, with a fast jet (or even a Hawk trainer), I would imagine with a true fixed machine gun type dogfight, most of the time would be taken up getting back onto the opposition, rather than pulling the trigger?

In complete contrast to poking your target acquisition radar on top of your helicopter over a ridge, pressing the button and being on your way before the (multiple) targets are hit.

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

In message , T i m writes

Various spent bullets and cartridge casings are in my collection of

*stuff found on the farm" by metal detectorists over the years.

What I take to be .303 rounds and casings are tiny compared to a 0.5" bullet, sadly no case.

Musket balls a plenty! This must once have been a very dangerous place!

Reply to
Tim Lamb

What do we have for ground attack these days? Compared to today, those planes were simple and cheap. It's all very well having £100M jets that can do everything, but you can't afford very many of those, or the pilots to fly them. I keep thinking we need to have a cheap plane for today, that we can build lots of quickly, which could then be flown by people who can be trained relatively quickly.

Can you imagine turning out 150 F35s a month + pilots?

Reply to
Tim Streater

Article was OK but finally watched the broadcast on iPlayer: don't bother, no real information in it.

You get a glimpse of one plot with two curves on it (for different "spreads", I think). No insight at all into the calculations.

A few standard bits of archive footage and girly presenter got a ride in the two seater Spitfire.

They did suggest they were doing multiplications and divisions with a hand-powered "Facit" type calculator which you still sometimes saw when I first went into research labs in the late 60's.

Reply to
newshound

Depends on what you are doing the ground attack for today. In Vietnam there was a lot of use of quite simple aircraft with lots of heavy machine guns used, but there hasn?t been any real need for much of that since then in Iraq or Afghanistan or Syria etc.

Choppers are much more effective for that sort of thing against personnel on the ground and for taking out armoured vehicles etc.

Modern warfare isnt about large numbers of ground attack aircraft anymore.

Reply to
Joshua Snow

Didn't we get a bit of a nasty shock from Pucaras in the Falklands, even though we had ground to air missiles.

Reply to
newshound

Cool. Are you aware of any particular history of such activity on / over the farm Tim or do you think it's just what you might find most places?

I assume the cases stayed in the aeroplane (or what would stop them hitting your mate behind?) and they certainly do on the A10. You wouldn't want to fly though a cloud of over a 1000 30mm shell casings coming out at ~70 a second! ;-(

Or lots of duelling farmers? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.