big or little?
I could never work out the reasoning for the weird mix of 20 mm cannon and .303 machine guns…
a) Lack of confidence in the cannon (true enough about the early cannon Spits)
b) The “old guard” saying that cannon are unnecessary and 303’s worked fine for me etc etc.
c) We’ve got the space so let’s stick a few 303’s in for good measure (or in the case of the Spit leave them where they are?
d) All of the above?
I can’t speak for the Beau, indeed I’d like to know more about the addition of .303s to it, therefore I plead guilty of perpetrating thread drift; I’ll take a stab at an answer for the Spitfire:
D) All of the above
At least, at one time or another each of the answers can be supported.
The initial side-mounted, drum-fed “b-wing” installation was not a great one, and limited the firing time for the cannon (assuming they would continue firing!) The “continuous feed” was being developed, but meanwhile re-fitting 4 .303s was both a useful supplement to the cannon and insurance that you’d at least have something to shoot with.
A mix was favoured at least by some, because when fighting against an Me-109 one .303 round in the radiator could be just as much trouble for Herr Emil as could a bullseye with the 20mm. When the Fw-190 made its appearance the .303 seemed far less useful. As for bombers, arguments raged.
As Graham points out, 4 20mm turned out to be a bit much for the Spitfire until later, and initially there was quite a bit of uncertainty about whether there’d be enough Hispanos to go around. Joe Smith’s “universal wing” was an inspired choice, side-stepping the problem of changing requirements. Incidentally, one further advantage of this wing that is seldom noted is that the inboard (4) .303s, if going with the 8 Browning option, could have more rounds per gun, which Supermarine had also been asked about somewhere along the way.
bob
Sign In
