I believe the chap’s full name is “Jonathan Ferguson, Keeper of Firearms and Artillery at the Royal Armouries in the UK, which houses thousands of iconic firearms from throughout history.” Nice seeing him here.
Jonathan is such a pleasure to listen to! His passion and excitement for the work that he does and knowledge he's accrued is infectious, I enjoy just about any video he's included in.
@@BernardoTorres-w5ebelieve it is what made them able to turn on a tack also, I believe. Advantage in a defensive battle, and what made them stand out compared to planes like the Mustang
My late friend Bob Whitney, USMC retired, flew the canon armed version of the F4U Corsair before going on to be a physics professor at some of the best universities in the US. I knew him in his 80s when he lived in Alameda CA. Anyway, he was the officer in charge of testing the gun heaters, and basically took the 50 BMG heater and just slapped it on the 20mm canon. I asked him how well the canon worked in combat, compared to the 50BMG. He said that in his whole war he only saw one Japanese aircraft, so his experience might not be typical. He got the gun sight on target and opened fire and the aircraft immediately exploded. So in his experience it was vastly more effective.
Best regards to you and your friend, butndo you know which variant that was? I only thought the F4U-4 series had cannons, specifically F4U-4B/F4U-4C….I think there was also the F4U-1C, but I dont think that was in service….
Interesting as I know the Japanese fighters where quick and turned well. Campared to the German fighters, if I recall the fighters where not as well armoured, and I can see them when being hit, rxplode, not sure the German fighters where as easy to down..of course it depends on which fighter was doing what to the enemy, as well
I believe the Japanese had a wholly different design philosophy when it came to their fighters. Very little weight (meaning very little armor) and at least early on, no self-sealing fuel cells. So you can probably imagine the result of a well-placed 20mm HEI-T round on a Zero.
Outstanding presentation! We liked the .50 caliber BMG "Ma Deuce" in Vietnam, too! Salute to everyone at Duxford from a retired U.S. Navy chief petty officer across the Pond in the Pacific Northwest of the USA. 👍
@@DarrenWalley It is a slang alternate of the base US army designation for it, which is M2 Browning, granted there are a range of variants which add on specifics of the configuration.
@SnowmanTF2 Thank you Snowman & what a gun. I would love to fire one. Also, have you seen the video 📹 by 'The fat electrician' about the Browning 50 cal...? 😁
It was a slang shortened version of the MOD Deuce or modification 2 which is how the US names different variants of the same weapon. I’m sure the fact that it is an unmatched powerhouse of a weapon that call keep you safe may have contributed to the “Ma” at the same time.
I was never in the armed services and only discharged full bore weapons on a private Section One licence before the UK ban following Dunblane. A mate of mine was in the Irish TA and said that on the range his compatriots were used to 7.62 and 5.56 but when 50 cal was being used everyone present was grinning. A seriously intimidating piece of kit.
Fun fact: Gun jamming during WWI was so commonplace that almost every plane mounted the guns within reach of the pilot or mechanic, who was equipped with tools to fix it midflight. That's why almost all the early fighters kept the guns on or near the fuselage rather than on the wings
Didn’t German pilots joke that they weren’t really being shot down by the British, they just couldn’t keep flying due to the weight of all the lead in their aircraft! 😂
Quite correct. The "Problem" was the German Fighter Pilots had 20 minutes of time to engage the British. Once downed? They were out of the WAR. Then the replacements of the lost started. The ME-109 always had a 20mm cannon thru the nose that could make huge holes at greater distances. The Air Cobra had a 37mm Cannon through the nose and only the Russians picked upon that use! The Mosquito had a version with 4 20mm and the Beaufighter had 4 cannons with 6 .303 but the best would be a B-25 with 10 .50 and a 75mm Canon.
Wow! Great video, and love the collaboration with Jonathan, he's a true gent and very enjoyable to listen to. I love that the IWM is making it's mark on RUclips. More please! :)
That is an OUTSTANDING video. The narration is first class with a "no mess" delivery. I thought I knew a lot about the Spitfire. Now I know, I don't. Thank you so much. Really enjoyed it.
My father a former RAAF ground engineer & later a Boeing 43 year Workshop Superintendent was a constant Flying Day visitor at the Temora Aviation Museum. He & his brother grew up here & through my father's work with the now defunct Hawker De Havillands presented a set of Blue Prints of one the later versions of the Spitfires. 2 versions of the Spitfires still fly there today. These blue prints have been copies & pawed over & studied by pilots, enthusiasts & spectators.
It is amazing how these weapons and aircraft evolved throughout the war. The amount of research and testing into all these different weapons and machines of war is astounding. It really would be something if we could harness the same energy that we have during a war for solving our other problems during peace.
A terrific video. Excellent narration and use of archive materials. I love this collaboration, and how lucky we are to have these experts and organisations putting their knowledge online, for free, for us all to enjoy and learn from. Top video.
Compare the Spitfire armament to that of the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, or "Jug" as many crews named the. The Jugs had eight .50 BMG M2 machine guns. This made for very effective ground attack capability. It wasn't the most capable fighter, but it was nearly unmatchable in a dive, and was basically a flying gun battery. Very interesting breakdown of the Spitfire's evolution of firepower. Keep these coming, please!
The Mustang could pull a higher G than the Thunderbolt that's why it was picked as the fighter escort for the bombers. Eric Winkle Brown did the testing.
Actually the P47 was a capable fighter, very much so, if you look at the loss rate, of the overall Thunderbolt loss, only 1 out of 4 was thru air to air, the rest where through flak damage and low level straffing. The P47 where around when Germany still had some of its best pilots,alive and no plane had survivorbility like the Thunderbolt, build around a lead bathtub and undeneath the supercharger had a sheath of steel protecting it..some good stories from actual p47 pilots on here explaining the virtue
The most significant difference between the P-47 and P-51 was the P-51 had a higher controllable terminal velocity. The P-51 could fight the Me109 and Fw190 on even terms and match the speed of the Me262 in a dive. The key number is “critical Mach number” where the airflow over the aircraft exceeds the speed of sound with consequent loss of control. P-51C - 0.84 Mach P-38 - 0.65 Mach P-47C - 0.69 Mach P-47N - 0.83 Mach Spitfire XIV - 0.89 Mach Hawker Tempest - 0.83 Mach Yak 3 - 0.76 Mach Me109F - 0.80 Mach Me109G - 0.78 Mach Me262 - 0.86 Mach calculated but 0.84 demonstrated. Gloster Meteor - 0.83 Mach demonstrated. Bell X-1 - 0.88 demonstrated.
The P-47 was also a very good ground attack aircraft due to its air cooled radial engine. The engine could take more damage than the Merlins in the Spitfires and Mustangs. The P-47 was a good dogfighter at high altitudes to the engine having less of a performance drop off.
@@patttrick Sigh,, The P-47 like the Spitfire evolved over time. The P-47 had better performance in dive, roll, and zoom climb. The Spitfire was better in a turn. Speed went back and forth. The P-47 with the Paddle blade prop and even later with MW injection could outclimb just about anything at altitude. At high altitudes, it was very hard to match. The reason that the P-51 took over the majority of escort missions was simple. Range..The P-51 had a longer range. Escort missions are broken up into segments. Often Spitfires would take the early segment of the mission and protect the strike while it was forming up. The P-47 took over the next leg of escort. They had the advantage that after the P-51 took over the P-47s were free to perform ground attack. This whole better is really just silly. If you are an ME-109 pilot or FW-190 pilot and you have a good pilot Mustang, Thunderbolt, Lightning, or Spitfire on your tail it is going to be a rough day. All of those aircraft were very capable aircraft but each had its advantages and disadvantages.s I would argue that if Merlin engines were the gating factor for production it would have made sense to drop the Spitfire and use them for the Mustang. But they were not the gating factor. Just as if the R-2800 production numbers were the gating factor for aircraft production then it would have made sense to reduce or stop the production of B-26s, P-47s, and F4U and use them to make more F6Fs. Not because it was the best fighter but because it was the best naval fighter for the war in the Pacific. But the US managed to stamp them out like toasters. So any comparison you see in a comment will be dumb. You would have to pick a time in history, the model and production series, and the specific conditions to even start to make a realistic comparison. So just sit back and be happy the P-47, Spitfire, P-51, P-40, Hurricane, and so on managed to beat Germany, Japan, and Italy and we get to see such beautiful aircraft at museums and airshows. P.S. I know I am weird but I actually like the looks of the Hurricane more than the Spitfire. The asymmetrical layout of the rad and oil cooler on the early marks just bugged me. The Hurricane just strikes me as an honest and reliable airplane. Kind of like the P-40 and the F4F do. That nice thick wing and wide landing gear just seem so right to me. But that is just a matter of taste. I happen to love the P-38 and I wish it had gotten the testing early on and had received upgraded paddle blade props. The poor P-38 kept the same prop blade size from the early models making 1,000 HP up to the latter models making 1700 hp. It was more expensive than the P-47 and P-51 and was loved in the Pacific and southern theaters so they didn't want to stop production when the P-51 and P-47 were doing the job. But you have got to love the SR-71s grandfather :)
A Legendary Stick and Rudder Man Bob Hoover flew a lot of Spitfires and said they were the best dogfighters, he loved them. He and Chuck Yeager were good buddies. Bob used to tell all kinds stories, I could listen to him for hours.
A lot of the "best caliber" depends on what you're shooting at. The RAF were constantly under threat of twin engined bombers, thus 20mm. The Germans faced 4 engine bombers, thus they needed to go up to 30mm. 50 cal sufficed for the US as they primarily faced single engine aircraft, and the occasional twin.
Good comment. It generally comes down to "show me the threat and I'll tell you the weapon I need". Personally, as a long time combat flight simmer, I think the USA is a good compromise. It's VERY hard to hit a fighter, (In any decent flight sim), with a single 30mm, but when you do....... The solution is to "do a Hartmann" and get very, very close. This is, of course, only relevant to computer games. the real world must be quite different.
Ironically the British were most threatened by bombers early in the war, 1940-41. At that time their fighters only had the .303 machine guns. I always wondered why the British didn’t opt for the .50 cal guns from the outset. Surely BSA could have produced the larger caliber Brownings without the need to scale them down. I’m certain it’s similar to why the Americans didn’t use the British 17 pounder in their Sherman tanks. A bit of logistical complication and equal measure short sightedness.
@@Chiller11 I believe the reason for not going with .50s at the start is because they had the 20mm guns by then and they were just trying to get them to work
@@FelixstoweFoamForge Correct. All down to the threat. Shoot at an armoured bomber with .303s. You'll make lots of holes without killing it. Shoot at a fast-turning fighter with cannon. You'll be shooting far less rounds. Perhaps all of them will miss. Bader favoured .303s. He told his pilots, "Get as close as you can before opening fire. When you think you're much too close, get even closer".
For some serious in depth information and knowledge, See Greg’s Planes and Automobiles. He breaks down arms and ammunition across all makes and models.
I just watch videos on the history of firearms in war so it is genuinely interesting to hear about what those weapons were attached to. Thank you for the video, I will probably continue watching other videos from you all.
I guess it was a 30.06 not a.7.62 definitely not .303 which are rimmed cartridges not ejector grooved like the one shown. it might have been 7.92 Mauser the german rifle caliber machine gun round, bound to be a few of those knocking about in the war museum @@82726jsjsufhejsjshshdjso
I read about the cannon versus machine gun controversy during World War Two about 50 years ago. Rifle caliber machine guns worked, for the most part. Cannon had jamming issues because those larger cartridges had enough mass that they'd shift under high G forces. Twenty years ago I was lucky enough to spend an entire day touring Duxford--and on a slow day when there weren't many other visitors. I got to see what the books told me so many years prior. A few minutes drive from where I live is the Browning Arms Museum. The prototypes for the .30 caliber and .50 caliber machine guns are on display along with a 37mm aircraft cannon Browning worked on during the First World War. There was no market for that cannon between World War One and John M. Browning's death, so when the US Army Air Corps became interested in that 37mm cannon just before World War Two, Browning wasn't around to refine it and there wasn't enough time or money to make it work. Two aircraft were supposed to carry the 37mm cannon--the P-38 Lightning and the P-39 Airacobra. Other than a few test aircraft the P-38's cannon was the 20mm. The P-39 had some 37mm cannon installed but some P39's and all of the "export model" P-400 had a 20mm cannon. There were plans to install a pair of 37mm cannon in the A-26 Intruder but that didn't happen. Speaking of cannons, the 75mm cannon on some B-25 Mitchell bombers were hand loaded for each shot. Low rate of fire resulted and the more effective B-25 armament proved to be a lot of .50 caliber machine guns.
Ive only done very accurate simulations but the difference between machine guns and cannons when they actually work is huge. One shot from a cannon can devastate and finish an enemy plane, whereas its not an exaggeration to say when shooting bombers with things like .303 machine guns it can just go on and on and on with no catastrophic damage. The mix of .50 with cannons is perfect. The effect is measured by the weight (in kilos or pounds) of metal fired at the enemy per second, if you look at the difference between .303 and cannons by that measurement it really highlights the difference. Then you have the explosive capabilities of cannon ammunition as well. Things like hurricanes being great gun platforms but relatively delicate planes in their building materials were wasted without cannons. A lot of them were mainly interceptors concentrating on bombers, and the amount of time they would have to be on a bombers tail receiving fire while they used standard .303 was extremely risky. Being able to make passes with cannons made it so much safer for them. The beaufighter was an extremely effective aircraft at what it did (maritime missions and ground attack). Not maneuverable at all, but the amount of cannons it could carry meant a few second burst from it would obliterate the target
I really enjoyed your coverage of a subject often disregarded. Could I ask if you could cover the subject of propeller blades,2,3,4 and how they impacted on the spitfire performance best wishes Harry
It’s key to add that the Hurricane, with the thicker wing, had the 4x Browning per wing clustered together which gave the pilot a tighter grouping at the harmonisation distance. The Spitfire, with the thinner wing had the 4x Browning spread out in a 1x, 2x and 1x configuration, giving a wider and less effective spread of fire.
The Hurricane had eight .303 Brownings, the Mk IIB had twelve. The Hurribomber only had six as one had to be removed from each wing due to the fitting of the bomb racks.@@richardalexander5758
People do have strange ideas on this subject, it's true. Rather than go on at length, if anyone is really interested in this subject they should buy, beg, borrow or steal a copy of THE GUNS OF THE ROYAL AIR FORCE 1939-1945 by G.F. WALLACE who was there at the time.
There was an unpleasantness little known about in the RAF. You may have noticed sergeant (NCO) pilots 5:55. Some of them were given a hard time by a few commissioned officers. These CO's didn't want NCO's becoming 'aces' before them, or at all. Some NCO's had noticed that their 8x303's were focused further than they preferred. One of them said in an interview- ''The bullets hit enemy aircraft but didn't down them. They were able to fly home looking like Swiss cheese. If the guns were focused at a point less than the regulated setting (whichever it was) all the rounds would hit in clumps together causing more damage to vitals.'' However, although many NCO pilots were recruited from the maintenance crews, they were not allowed to make adjustments to their guns (or the regular maintenance crews) without authorization from an officer next above them; they didn't get it. Nor could they unless they went over the heads of these upper-class twits to the commanding officer. Bad blood ensued all round. I saw this in the 1980's in a TV documentary all about the plight of NCO RAF pilots. There were many injustices, I'm only mentioning the guns here.
I've spoken to ex RAF pilots who were NCO's during the battle and have corresponded with some, all gone now of course and nearly all said they rarely had any off duty contact with their officers unless they were at dispersal and at readiness. Different messes, different cookhouses and definitely never in the pub together. It was only later on with the attrition of war taking the lives of the public school educated officers that the surviving "lower class" pilots were promoted and treated with some equality. The RAF was definitely the most snobbish of the armed forces.
@@fus149hammer5In the documentary, one of the NCO's described how he and one other had to share a barrack hut with several CO's. One of the CO,s tied a piece of cord across the hut then hung some old blankets over it to partition them. Often, snide derogatory remarks were aimed at them from the other side by these hooray Henrys, never face to face.
NCOs were the backbone. I recall reading that the commissioned Douglas Bader had his armament synchronised much closer than regulation settings for a harder concentration of hits.
Browning .303 "It was adopted by the Royal Air Force (RAF) and manufactured under license by Vickers Armstrong and BSA. The design was based on the 1930 Pattern belt-fed Colt-Browning machine gun with a few minor modifications." Browning .303 Mark II Machine Gun page
You forgot to mention the use of 'de Wilde' incendiary ammo, the use of which starting in 1940 greatly increased the effectiveness of the .303 round, prolonging its use.
@@Conserpov But much fewer rounds, more bullets are more better i.e. why 38 cal rifles were switched to 22 cal. i.e. more bullets' equal more kill, if that works on the ground why not in the air? Inquiring minds want to know?
@@stevemitz4740 You cannot replace 1 cannon with 36 machineguns. And even if you did, they would still not be equivalent, because cannon round has much larger effective target area. And the correct analogy would be .22 LR, not .223
If I recall correctly the surviving WWI aces interviewed in the design & specs process said that in the next war you wouldn’t expect to keep bullets on target more than two seconds, so you needed a rate of fire that would kill within two seconds. The Mark 1 had a rate of fire of 4 pounds per second, the Seafire 47 had 12 pounds per second. Disclaimer: my memory isn’t as good as I remember it being.
Probably because Luftwaffe did put armor on most of their aircraft. Depending on the aircraft and mission the armor could be substantial. It was one of the reasons the Luftwaffe was so successful in the beginning of the war. Those .303 rounds just basically ricocheted off the armor.
I don't know if I believe it was up to him. I mean, feel free to find me some real sources but I'd be hard pressed to believe he didn't just take what the logistics guy gave him, hell he was the pilot, he wasn't loading ammo.
Guy Martin did a reconstruction using the GPMG. It's close enough to the .303 round to make an accurate representation of the damage the .303 round was capable of. Worth checking out.
Um, a .303 is similar to a 30-06 of the era, or .308 NATO 7.62mm. It can penetrate 1/4 inch or 6mm of hardened steel. It will easily go thru an inch or two of solid aluminum (wing spar caps). The BF-109 was build very light, as was the spitfire. Both were susceptible to rifle-caliber fire as long as it was in great enough volume. The 109s 12.7mm machine guns, packed tightly in the nose were reasonably devastating given a well-aimed volley, and sufficient lead and track to land a constant stream of fire into the E/AC. But having 8x machine guns converging at 300-500yd where you are firing them in a wide plane and the E/AC is also a wide plane, having similar bank angle to your own while in pursuit, means absolutely covering the E/AC in a large volume of fire that indiscriminately punctures fuel tanks, hydraulic lines, coolant and oil tanks, lines, or radiators, oxygen tanks, radios, and of course wing spar caps and webs, or anything else that is not armored appropriately. More rounds on target mean more chance or odds that the target will suffer major systems damage.
An excellent video thank you! I was hoping you might have answered a question which has had me puzzled for the last 20 years since I first read Geoff Wellum's biography "First Light". He wrote about the difference the installation of cannon made and he mentioned an armourer (but not by name) who had solved the problem of cannon blockages by fabricating a bracket which allowed the cannon to be mounted in such a way that it would not jam. Some time later I was at a friend's house and noticed a framed citation signed by Archibald Sinclair. I asked about it and she told me that the recipient of the citation was her father (Robert Wragg) who had been an armourer with No. 500 (East Kent ?) squadron (hope I've remembered that correctly). I pointed out that she was very correct to treasure the citation and asked what her father had done because it was clearly something of great merit. She replied "Oh he made a bracket for a gun". Is there any way you can confirm the identity of the man who made cannon work on Spitfires?
AT 4:39 Omfg THANK YOU for answering a lingering question of about 30 years. I've been studying military history since I was a child and I remember seeing an uncountable number of times in WW2 dogfight documentaries especially battle of Britain brief images pointing at the gun mounts always fleeting shots and I kept swearing sometimes it looked like the gun ports were covered over. EVERYONE except you has been more clueless than me and had no idea what to tell me. I think this is either my longest running unanswered question or atleast in the top 3. So happy day!
My father joined 19 Squadron in 1942 as ground crew. He told me of the 20mm cannon problems in the Spitfire. One of the jobs he did was to set the guns up. On one test he 'borrowed' two used cases and solid heads dated 1942 which he gave me when I was 5 in the mid 1960's. I still have them. He told me about the planes that 19 Squadron had through the war always appearing to have the latest and best planes including Mustangs, and the Meteor.
The British 303 gun was a licensed production version of Colt's commercial version of .30-06 A/N M2 used by the US armed forces (A/N stood for Army/Navy), an aircraft version of the M1919 ground gun, which was an air cooled version (developed for arming the Cavalry and Tank Corps) of the Infantry's water cooled (Heavy) M1917. As the M1917 and all its derivatives are recoil operated, the M2 featured a lightened barrel, bolt and other components to roughly double the rate of fire. Unfortunately, this made it somewhat delicate and prone to breakage and wearing out quicker than the very reliable ground guns. In my first year of ROTC, my roommate and I formed the crew for an M1919A6 - essentially an M1919A4 with a bipod and shoulder stock. That may have officially made it a "light machine gun" but the combination of its weight and the Central Pennsylvania hills kicked our collective tail ends!
What you mean like the Internet was an American invention?, and the Jet Engine was really a German/American invention? Or the telephone was actually invented by an Italian/American? And not to mention the Steam Engine, the US claims, was invented in the first century A.D, by a Greek inventor named Hero of Alexandria who created a primitive aeolipile "steam novelty" The US hilariously tries to claim as the first ''turbine''? I mean, seriously, you couldn't make this up!! LMFAO! Propaganda taught, propaganda indoctrinated By the early 1900s, the U.S. military had a mixed collection of automatic machine guns in use that included M1895 "potato diggers", 287 M1904 Maxims, 670 M1909 Benét-Mercié guns, and 353 Lewis machine guns. In 1913, the U.S. began to search for a superior automatic weapon. One of the weapons considered was the British Vickers machine gun. Field tests were conducted of the Vickers in 1914, and the gun was unanimously approved by the board for the army under the designation "Vickers Machine Gun Model of 1915, Caliber .30, Water-Cooled". This was British, made under licence in the U.S. by Colt.
The Board is of the opinion that, except for the Vickers gun, none of the other guns submitted showed sufficiently marked superiority for the military service, in comparison with the service [Benét-Mercié] Automatic Machine Rifle, to warrant further consideration of them in the field test. The Board is of the unanimous opinion that the Vickers rifle calibre gun, light model, stood the most satisfactory test. As to the merits of the Vickers gun, there is no question - it stood in a class by itself. Not a single part was broken nor replaced. Nor was there a jam worthy of the name during the entire series of tests. A better performance could not be desired. Captain John S. Butler, Office of the Chief of Ordnance.
If you look back through history, you'll find the USA doing things all based and worked against the British. There's so much of it, it's hilarious, as it's such a fantasy. Did you know the American government spent Americans money to go to the world court, and try to get the rights of Alexander Bell Inventing the telephone overturned? Claiming the Italian who had also been working on a device did it first? Of course, they were proven wrong and lost, but they tried? Why would the USA spend American money trying to give the credit to an Italian? (who became a US citizen)! It's bizarre until you look deeper? You'll find out that at one time the USA really believed they had invented more in this world than anyone else. This is all true, they really did believe that. They knew Britain had invented a lot, so they tried to take British inventions to the world court, to try to get them overturned. I mean, how embarrassing is that? Prepared to steal other's ingenuity, to only then credit themselves? And all done to try and get closer, or even beat how much the British had invented. Look it all up, there's load's of it, man! Even really well-known British inventions, like the Steam Engine, the US has tried to smother, you'll find the USA has said the primitive aeolipile "steam novelty" ...is the first ''turbine''? Invented in the first century A.D, by a Greek inventor named Hero of Alexandria...Hahaha, I mean, seriously, you couldn't make this up!! LMFAO! Yet next month, they'll be claiming that same "miscellaneous" devise as the first of something else! LOL, you can look things up on Wikipedia, then go back in 12 months time, and you'll read a brand-new account of history, LOL! Even the invention of the Internet Is just more American propaganda and lies. Donald Watts Davies, was the real inventor of the Internet. In 1965, Davies developed the idea of packet switching, (dividing computer messages into packets that are routed independently across a network), the first seen working form of ''Internet'', and it was him, that took his invention, and showed the US military how he'd successfully managed to do, what they couldn't, the USA stole It! Davies' key insight came in the realisation that computer network traffic was inherently “bursty” with periods of silence, as compared with relatively constant telephone traffic, and he designed and proposed a national data network, based on "packet switching" in his 1966 Proposal for the Development of a National Communications Service for Online Data Processing (Worldwide Internet). When the US announced, years later, "their Internet" (outright theft), many of the involved businesses/partners that knew it was really Davis invention, made a point of showing him as the real inventor of the internet, by having tags saying so and a picture of him, with his name on all retail packaging! It's so sick. They say today, more Americans believe a German invented the jet engine! It's so pathetic! Frank Whittle speaks of his "Eureka" moment. It came out of the blue, he recalled. He had, effectively, dreamt up the turbojet, the early jet engine. I knew if a man was going to fly faster, he would have to fly at much greater altitudes where the air was thinner. Whittle concluded that the conventional propeller would never be sufficient, and that an entirely new sort of engine would be required. His arguments were so advanced that he was awarded 30 out of 30 for his work. When the young RAF officer took his idea to the Air Ministry, later in 1929, they were not sure what to make of it. They ran it past a senior boffin called A.A. Griffith, who had already done some work on the subject. Whether he was misguided or simply disliked this young Whittle in uniform, Griffith gave the idea a thumbs down. As a result, the Air Ministry rejected Whittle's design as impractical, and carried on ordering traditional planes with propellers. So Whittle took out a patent to protect his turbojet idea, which was duly published by the Patent Office. Others, like the Germans, however, saw its merits, and German diplomats in London, wasted no time ordering copies of the patent when the patent expired in 1935. (A young Whittle could not even afford the £5 renewal fee). The RAF remained supportive of their young genius however, financing Whittle through Cambridge, where needless to say, he took a First Class degree in mechanical sciences, and all the while, he was still designing the jet engine, that he knew would work. Finally, two friends helped him secure enough backing to start a small company called Power Jets Ltd, and in April 1937, he fired up his first jet engine, the first seen working, recorded, Jet engine ever built. (unlike the latter claimed German ''Engine'', they claimed long after), and they claim it was in the same year, of the same month, and on the same day? LOL. Sure! Only nobody ever said a thing about it, at the time? But Whittles was spoken about, and written about, throughout the entire media world, as he couldn't turn it off. He had to wait for it to run out of fuel, LOL. Today, his son, Ian Whittle's primary concern is to protect his father's memory from continued erosion. He said, It's appalling, it's a disgrace to human ingenuity, using cheap tricks, and misinformed people to make up history, It's now an accepted fact in the USA, that my father did not invent the jet, but, that he and von Ohain - (who became an American citizen) - co-invented it at the same time. He says... "Pretty soon, history will be rewritten to say that it was a German or American invention, just not British". So true his words really are, certainly many American engineering institutions now routinely describe von Ohain as one of the inventors of the jet. Captain Eric Brown, late, of the Fleet Air Arm, (one of the greatest test pilots in aviation history) said it was Frank's invention, and they just copied him. And let's be honest, he should know, not only has he flown more planes than anyone else - 487 different types, but he was also sent to Germany straight after the war to get hold of all the Nazis aviation technology. He says "well I interrogated von Ohain, who was very ambivalent about where he had got his idea, he couldn't say where his Idea came from", says Capt Brown from his Sussex home. He goes on, "but his sidekick was different, an open book, he was utterly straight-forward about it, he said, that Whittle's patent had been in every technical library in Germany, even before the war, and I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that Frank Whittle was the real (and only) inventor of the jet engine - and furthermore that he could have produced a jet fighter by 1937- If the Establishment had been on his side. But the Jet Engine is Frank's very own Invention". This is the truth about the USA's mentality, and it always has been, you only need to study Anglo-American history to see straight through this misrepresentation of a “Special Partnership”. Whatever the British have achieved In this world, they want to try and beat it. And however they do so, whether by cheating, lying, making up history, stealing others technology to credit themselves, the list is endless. But, just how stupid are they?, they really don't understand British history, as they'd need to be incredibly unrealistic, and foolish, thinking they could ever top what the British have already achieved in, and given this world, there's no country that gets even remotely close. Japan ended America's thoughts that they were close to the British... Tokyo University, (Japan also thought they were close to the British) spent 4 years going through all worldly inventions, and in their findings, Britain had Invented 54% of all worldly inventions. Japan 21%. The USA19%. Miles away from catching the UK! It's extraordinary what these people think, believe, or have been wrongly taught.
@@hotstepper887the Vickers gun went on to provide sterling service destroying large nrs of Luftwaffe aircraft in North Africa whilst being mounted on jeeps.
The Super Marine Spitfire is one of the most beautiful machines ever designed and manufactured. It's too bad but, at the same time, so glad it was a weapon of war.
It really is isn't it? You get aircraft that are the prettiest _aircraft_ But the Spitfire is the most beautiful _machine_ Every machine. Except Concorde, it's tied with Concorde. No other plane or car or train or boat can compare.
@@user-vg3yc6gk5f Yes he is. The 303 has flange at the back (there is probably a better name, rim maybe). Unless there was a special air version but given one reason they wanted to use the 303 was commonality of round that wouldn't make sense.
The Mk. 1 Spitfire is one of the most beautiful airplanes to ever exist in my personal opinion. It was way ahead of its time aerodynamically, could turn like a Zero, and could stay up there for a long time. The only negative was the 7.7mm guns they took sustained bursts to really tear up an enemy plane and wouldnt reliably take an engine out. Once they put the 20mm Hispano it wasnt an issue.
Right combination is to have 4x20m and 4x 12.7mm :D Like P-61 for example. And keep guns as close to centerline as possible to reduce convergence issues and have very long effective area in front of plane that is covered by fire. Guns in wings are affected by convergence issues and are ineffective if target is too close or too far away.
Also, speeds of aircraft increased (especially in fighter aircraft) during the war. Higher speeds meant faster closing times and less time to put guns on target. Having rounds that hit harder got damage done during those brief firing passes, making it more likely to destroy or severely damage that target, requiring fewer passes at bombers or not leaving that fighter intact to get behind you.
Thank you very much for your attention to detail. Cptn. J.J. Orr my Grandfather flew the MK 9. Family records show him to be one of (if not the first) to document the Jetstream, arriving back to Base a full 75 minutes ahead of schedule. " What happened Jerry jump you? " was the question on arrival. To which he simply replied, " .... it's in the can."
As an aid to making up .50 caliber ammo belts, armorers were taught "Think of TITS" - Tracer, Incendiary, Tracer, Semi-Armor Piercing. Much have caused a few blushes among the WAAF ordnance tradeswomen. The M2-HB Browning.,50 caliber remains in production today, ninety years after production - despite the fact it never breaks or wears out, the demand for new guns insatiable. Note - Browning's original .50 caliber was the M1921, a gigantic water cooled ground gun. In 1930 or so the Ordnance Corps developed a common receiver which could feed from either side. T The receiver formed the base for three different guns M2 -A water cooled anti-aircraft gun with a light barrel used by the Army and Navy. Britain got some when Britain got 50 old US destroyers which mounted this as their close range AA battery. A/N M2 - An air cooled aircraft gun with lightened recoiling components and a light 36 inch barrel. In terms of identification, this weapon had a barrel jacket from receiver to muzzle. British guns were all supplied by the US under Lend-Lease. My uncle was a flight engineer/top turret gunner on B-24's of the 8th Air Force operating out of East Anglia and nothing but praise for his guns. M2 HB - An air cooled ground gun with a heavy (to absorb the heat from the propellant) 45 inch barrel. Distinguished by its short barrel jacket/muzzle support attached to the receiver. This gun may be the greatest machine gun ever produced. It was there when I joined the Army. It was there when I retired 29 years later. In between, it armed most of the tanks I served on as the commander's personal weapon, so I shot it a lot. Accurate, long ranged, hard hitting, never a failure - what more could one ask for? About once a decade or so the Army tries to replace it with something "better" but the pretenders to the throne always fail. It is immortal.
There was also the A/N-M3 which was used in the early jet fighters (as well as in some later marks of the P-51D). It was developed late in WW2 and had a rate of fire at 1200 rounds per minute, which was greater than its predecessor, the A/N-M2. It's still in service today, it's known as the AN/M3, GAU-21/A, and M3P if I recall correctly. It was/is also mounted in gun pods as well (the XM14/SUU-12/A gun pod).
Britain had very reliable .303 machine guns and a lot of them at start of WW2, as well as millions upon millions of bullets and the infrastructure to produce a lot more very rapidly. The number of bullets in the air at any one time from 8 .303 guns meant that the largely untrained pilots taking part in battle of Britain could still get a hit, and a hit with a few .303 is better than a miss with a 20mm bullet. many of the aces of WW2, including the Polish who punched well above their weight in RAF would get to within a few hundred feet of the enemy aircraft before hitting the fire button. Cannons were better for ground attacks on trains and vehicles later in the war,.
Doubles its power, doubles its weight, ~doubles its range, increases speed by ~33% and by war's end not one single part would fit on original Spitfire... was it still a Spitfire? =-)
Great informative video! I'm so glad you were talking about the D-wing as well, rarely mentioned this type of wing. Recce variants also having very noticeable larger oil tank under the nose. I would have question: many pictures about Spitfires Mk.Vc aircrafts, which are about to leave from a carrier to Malta, have 4x20mm cannons and 4x.303MGs. But many books and other sources shows that actually at Malta they were fighting with armament reduced to the half: 2x20mm and 2x.303 guns (keeping the inner .303s usually). What was the real cause? I read books about the siege of Malta, and they almost always suffered from insufficient supplies. Was the reduced armament because they wanted to save the other half of the armament for spare? The other thing I never understood, that if a Hellcat, Corsair, Mustang (for the inner gun only) and the Thunderbolt could carry about 400 rounds per gun, why the E-wing Spitfire only could 250-260 rounds? And if the .303s would be deleted when the jamming problem was solved for the 20mm, they could swap the .303 guns and ammo "weight" for more 20mm rounds? Or the wing structure could not allow it? I mean the wing ribs, the whole design was the problem?
@Cuccos19 - the real problem with the Spitfire was its very thin wing profile; this was good for speed, but was very short of internal space for armament. In contrast, the Hurricane (like the Typhoon) had a very much thicker wing. That extra room allowed the Hurricane Mk.IIB to be fitted with twelve .303 machine guns, and the Mk.IIC to have four 20mm cannons. HTH
I personally doubt it, because I'm no fighter pilot. I do recall in one of the American fighter pilot's memoirs (probably either Bud Anderson or Chuck Yeager) that they mentioned that the tracer rounds were lighter than the armor-piercing rounds, and therefore not particularly good at judging where the AP rounds would impact. They requested their armorers to replace the tracers with only the AP bullets.
I am an ex military aircraft engineer and would like to give a perspective from my experience. The last time I carried out a bullet hole repair as part of a battle damage repair exercise it took me 6 hours. Bullet holes in aircraft generally come in pairs a so 12 manhours to repair the aircraft. That is for one bit on plate aluminium, if it hits a stringer or longeron then that aircraft is down for days of not weeks. Remember at roughly 1200 rounds per minute (20 per second) times 8 guns that is 160 rounds per second. At close range that gives a reasonably high probability of a hit. Given the TAG was inexperienced at that point of the war I think it s a decent weapon suite.
Very informative episode. I’m wondering why the British didn’t utilize the .50cal Brownings from the outset. I suppose the logistical challenge of adding another calibre to production but it would have certainly made the Hurricanes and Spitfires of the Battle of Britain more lethal machines.
My personal take is that the Spit's wings were just too thin. I mean, they had to stand the first 20mm installations for the Spit V on it's side, which led to feeding issues. The Hurricane, no such problem with it's thicker wing. BUT... Boffins with slide rules had worked out pr-war that 8 rifle caliber mgs, in a 3 second burst would take out any bomber then flying. They were, of course, wrong. But it led to the infamous "fighting area attacks" enshrined in RAF doctrine right up until the end of the BOB. and THEY were based on sequential attacks on non-manoeuvring targets with no fighter escorts. Wrong again. Tbh, the luftwaffe had similar issues, because the bf109 was originally designed to only mount 2 light mgs over the engine cowling. WWII was a time of MASSIVE change as it went on.
The Spit and the Hurricane had 14 seconds worth of fire that could be directed at an enemy aircraft during the Battle of Britain (equipped with the .303 Browning MGs). Even though the German aircraft were not heavily armored, this made it very difficult to get a shootdown. Speaks volumes about the skill and tenacity of the RAF pilots who flew them and fought them against the German onslaught.
Another interesting documentary..... Great that the IWM takes the time to highlight the less well known history and development of the Supermarine Spitfire..... Well done.... Roger.... Pembrokeshire
At 4:50, there is a small red object protruding above the wing. Is this a visual indicator of gear down and locked, or of flaps position, or something else?
Brilliant recap of the British evolution. A question. Why no wing with 3 or 4 x 50 Cal Brownings as the Americans ? The 50 Cal with the hard hitting kinetic load/minute? Seems they took engine tech from us but we did not focus on a 50 calibre uniform round easier to service with a belt feed ?
Nice detail about further development of the Spitfire. I read somewhere that they used incendiary rounds, which made their wee machine guns much more effective.
That was truly outstanding. As others here have said, the combination of the expertise from the Imperial War Museum and Royal Armories is exceptionally successful. Thank you both!
They've forgotten that around the time the Air Ministry was looking at the specification that would lead to the Spitfire and Hurricane they were also looking at what would be suitable calibres of armament. Specifically they were looking at machine-gunds in 0.303in or 0.5in, or 20mm cannon. The 20mm cannon they were looking at in 1934 was the 20mm Hispano cannon, as used by the French, was a new gun and temperamental and as the 0.303in machine guns appeared to give the best possible rate of fire.
At the time (1934) the 0.50 had a slower rate of fire than it did in WW2 so it was not thought worth the benefit as each gun weighed three times as much as a .303.
@@ericadams3428 Not to mention the weight of the ammunition, which was much heavier as you'd imagine after seeing .303 next to .50. Also, the .50 ammunition used much more brass, lead, and powder than the .303. These materials were hardly growing on trees in Bletchley Park at the time.
I wonder if the .50 guns could have fit into the early Spitfires and Hurricanes better than the 20mm cannons. While not as powerful they still would have given the planes more punch to deal with German planes more easily. I read an account from a British pilot in the Battle of Britain a long time ago and one of his constant laments was not having cannon armament to deal with the bombers. Several got away with just damage because the small guns just didn’t get the job done.
Of course they would have - it was a much smaller and more efficient package, as was the ammo. That’s like asking if the 16” super heavy .50 cal guns of the Iowas could have fit on the Yamato class instead of their 18”. Obviously - and they were better, saved weight, and allowed a higher speed / armor weight. Same penetration with higher rate of fire. Obviously not all of that applies to this scenario, but a Browning AN-M2 .50 is absolutely easier to package then a 20mm cannon.
We know that the 303 loads were not just ball but were often mixed explosive and tracer rounds (based off De Wilde), why no mention of these? (B.VI or B.VIZ). Churchill mentions constant concerns over ensuring supply of these rounds in memoirs for Battle of Britain
and I think it was in Brian Kingcome's autobiography that he talks about the many experiments that were done to determine the best ratio of tracer rounds, i think they alighted on 1 round every 8 to give the pilot better sighting of the ammunition stream. I guess this was especially important for night fighters.
Yes, but 20mm explosive rounds are far more destructive than explosive .303 rounds. The British saw they could be outclassed in the air and planned ahead.
0:01 Because the 303 just weren't cuttin' it. .................. Literally! They lacked the ability to do enough damage to the enemy aircraft, especially the bombers.😁
Excellent video. Just one query: How come Liam illustrates Browning .303" with a rimless round, and we later switch to Jonathan, who holds up a clip of rimmed ammunition? (Just curious.)
I am informed that the British did have quite a nasty incendiary round for the .303 rounds somewhat compensating for their smaller size and lack of punch.
Some have questioned by the RAF didn't go with the Browning 50cal at the outbreak of the war, since it was already a matured weapon, having been introduced in WW1. The primary reason for not adopting it was logistic: the US just didn't have the guns to send to the UK. Some sources put the total US stockpile in 1938 at just over 6000 units: not enough for both the US and Britain. So the RAF kept what they knew they could produce in the numbers they needed. They were also going with the Hispano 20mm, but as mentioned, it had loading problems under G. The Hispano was primarily a shipborne weapon, but had to be installed on it's side in the Spitfire, leading to feeding problems. Once those were solved, they started to regularly and reliably equipping the Spits and other fighters.
Millions of WW1 .303 rounds in storage at the start of the war, the ability to manufacture millions more in the UK, no guarantee the yanks will supply anything better and if we could get them across the german lake known as the Atlantic there was no lend-lease at the time so we would have to pay in cash and gold. It's what the kids call 'a no-brainer'.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
I believe the chap’s full name is “Jonathan Ferguson, Keeper of Firearms and Artillery at the Royal Armouries in the UK, which houses thousands of iconic firearms from throughout history.” Nice seeing him here.
This is correct. I checked the electoral roll.
@@cav89- it really sets a kid up with a lot of responsibility and pressure, being born with a name like that
Had to look for this comment!
Doesn't even know the .50 bmg was modeled after the 30.06 not the .303
Jonathan is such a pleasure to listen to! His passion and excitement for the work that he does and knowledge he's accrued is infectious, I enjoy just about any video he's included in.
that guy is famous for who he is he's also obviously done stuff like react to stuff like firearms from games and such
Thank you so much for saying so 😊
He is not esy to listen to, too loud
British presenters are, in general, of the highest caliber. They are educated and articulate. I wish my fellow Americans would follow their examples.
@@TheDesertwalker I agree, British presenters are very good at this and dont just fill the time chatting about other things.
Excellent to hear about the wing types so seldom mentioned.
Yes , I had never heard of wing types tailored to the armament they would carry . A Discovery for me .
@@BernardoTorres-w5ebelieve it is what made them able to turn on a tack also, I believe. Advantage in a defensive battle, and what made them stand out compared to planes like the Mustang
My late friend Bob Whitney, USMC retired, flew the canon armed version of the F4U Corsair before going on to be a physics professor at some of the best universities in the US. I knew him in his 80s when he lived in Alameda CA. Anyway, he was the officer in charge of testing the gun heaters, and basically took the 50 BMG heater and just slapped it on the 20mm canon. I asked him how well the canon worked in combat, compared to the 50BMG. He said that in his whole war he only saw one Japanese aircraft, so his experience might not be typical. He got the gun sight on target and opened fire and the aircraft immediately exploded. So in his experience it was vastly more effective.
Okay
Best regards to you and your friend, butndo you know which variant that was? I only thought the F4U-4 series had cannons, specifically F4U-4B/F4U-4C….I think there was also the F4U-1C, but I dont think that was in service….
God bless Mr Whitney.
May he rest in peace.
Interesting as I know the Japanese fighters where quick and turned well. Campared to the German fighters, if I recall the fighters where not as well armoured, and I can see them when being hit, rxplode, not sure the German fighters where as easy to down..of course it depends on which fighter was doing what to the enemy, as well
I believe the Japanese had a wholly different design philosophy when it came to their fighters. Very little weight (meaning very little armor) and at least early on, no self-sealing fuel cells.
So you can probably imagine the result of a well-placed 20mm HEI-T round on a Zero.
Outstanding presentation! We liked the .50 caliber BMG "Ma Deuce" in Vietnam, too! Salute to everyone at Duxford from a retired U.S. Navy chief petty officer across the Pond in the Pacific Northwest of the USA. 👍
Why was it called "Ma Deuce" & what does it mean...?
@@DarrenWalley It is a slang alternate of the base US army designation for it, which is M2 Browning, granted there are a range of variants which add on specifics of the configuration.
@SnowmanTF2 Thank you Snowman & what a gun. I would love to fire one. Also, have you seen the video 📹 by 'The fat electrician' about the Browning 50 cal...? 😁
It was a slang shortened version of the MOD Deuce or modification 2 which is how the US names different variants of the same weapon. I’m sure the fact that it is an unmatched powerhouse of a weapon that call keep you safe may have contributed to the “Ma” at the same time.
I was never in the armed services and only discharged full bore weapons on a private Section One licence before the UK ban following Dunblane.
A mate of mine was in the Irish TA and said that on the range his compatriots were used to 7.62 and 5.56 but when 50 cal was being used everyone present was grinning.
A seriously intimidating piece of kit.
Fun fact: Gun jamming during WWI was so commonplace that almost every plane mounted the guns within reach of the pilot or mechanic, who was equipped with tools to fix it midflight. That's why almost all the early fighters kept the guns on or near the fuselage rather than on the wings
Another excellent high quality presentation IWM and fantastic collaboration with Jonathan at Royal Armouries. Thank you
Didn’t German pilots joke that they weren’t really being shot down by the British, they just couldn’t keep flying due to the weight of all the lead in their aircraft! 😂
Quite correct. The "Problem" was the German Fighter Pilots had 20 minutes of time to engage the British. Once downed? They were out of the WAR. Then the replacements of the lost started. The ME-109 always had a 20mm cannon thru the nose that could make huge holes at greater distances. The Air Cobra had a 37mm Cannon through the nose and only the Russians picked upon that use! The Mosquito had a version with 4 20mm and the Beaufighter had 4 cannons with 6 .303 but the best would be a B-25 with 10 .50 and a 75mm Canon.
More of this please. Subject mater experts discussing important details with original material. Much better than the usual light touch stuff.
Wow! Great video, and love the collaboration with Jonathan, he's a true gent and very enjoyable to listen to. I love that the IWM is making it's mark on RUclips. More please! :)
One of the best presentations on the Spitfire I have ever seen. Well done.
That is an OUTSTANDING video. The narration is first class with a "no mess" delivery. I thought I knew a lot about the Spitfire. Now I know, I don't. Thank you so much. Really enjoyed it.
My father a former RAAF ground engineer & later a Boeing 43 year Workshop Superintendent was a constant Flying Day visitor at the Temora Aviation Museum. He & his brother grew up here & through my father's work with the now defunct Hawker De Havillands presented a set of Blue Prints of one the later versions of the Spitfires. 2 versions of the Spitfires still fly there today. These blue prints have been copies & pawed over & studied by pilots, enthusiasts & spectators.
It is amazing how these weapons and aircraft evolved throughout the war. The amount of research and testing into all these different weapons and machines of war is astounding. It really would be something if we could harness the same energy that we have during a war for solving our other problems during peace.
That is, what they after the war when they came up with the NHS et Al.
A terrific video. Excellent narration and use of archive materials. I love this collaboration, and how lucky we are to have these experts and organisations putting their knowledge online, for free, for us all to enjoy and learn from. Top video.
Compare the Spitfire armament to that of the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, or "Jug" as many crews named the. The Jugs had eight .50 BMG M2 machine guns. This made for very effective ground attack capability. It wasn't the most capable fighter, but it was nearly unmatchable in a dive, and was basically a flying gun battery. Very interesting breakdown of the Spitfire's evolution of firepower. Keep these coming, please!
The Mustang could pull a higher G than the Thunderbolt that's why it was picked as the fighter escort for the bombers. Eric Winkle Brown did the testing.
Actually the P47 was a capable fighter, very much so, if you look at the loss rate, of the overall Thunderbolt loss, only 1 out of 4 was thru air to air, the rest where through flak damage and low level straffing. The P47 where around when Germany still had some of its best pilots,alive and no plane had survivorbility like the Thunderbolt, build around a lead bathtub and undeneath the supercharger had a sheath of steel protecting it..some good stories from actual p47 pilots on here explaining the virtue
The most significant difference between the P-47 and P-51 was the P-51 had a higher controllable terminal velocity.
The P-51 could fight the Me109 and Fw190 on even terms and match the speed of the Me262 in a dive. The key number is “critical Mach number” where the airflow over the aircraft exceeds the speed of sound with consequent loss of control.
P-51C - 0.84 Mach
P-38 - 0.65 Mach
P-47C - 0.69 Mach
P-47N - 0.83 Mach
Spitfire XIV - 0.89 Mach
Hawker Tempest - 0.83 Mach
Yak 3 - 0.76 Mach
Me109F - 0.80 Mach
Me109G - 0.78 Mach
Me262 - 0.86 Mach calculated but 0.84 demonstrated.
Gloster Meteor - 0.83 Mach demonstrated.
Bell X-1 - 0.88 demonstrated.
The P-47 was also a very good ground attack aircraft due to its air cooled radial engine. The engine could take more damage than the Merlins in the Spitfires and Mustangs. The P-47 was a good dogfighter at high altitudes to the engine having less of a performance drop off.
@@patttrick Sigh,, The P-47 like the Spitfire evolved over time. The P-47 had better performance in dive, roll, and zoom climb. The Spitfire was better in a turn. Speed went back and forth. The P-47 with the Paddle blade prop and even later with MW injection could outclimb just about anything at altitude. At high altitudes, it was very hard to match.
The reason that the P-51 took over the majority of escort missions was simple. Range..The P-51 had a longer range. Escort missions are broken up into segments. Often Spitfires would take the early segment of the mission and protect the strike while it was forming up. The P-47 took over the next leg of escort. They had the advantage that after the P-51 took over the P-47s were free to perform ground attack. This whole better is really just silly. If you are an ME-109 pilot or FW-190 pilot and you have a good pilot Mustang, Thunderbolt, Lightning, or Spitfire on your tail it is going to be a rough day. All of those aircraft were very capable aircraft but each had its advantages and disadvantages.s
I would argue that if Merlin engines were the gating factor for production it would have made sense to drop the Spitfire and use them for the Mustang. But they were not the gating factor. Just as if the R-2800 production numbers were the gating factor for aircraft production then it would have made sense to reduce or stop the production of B-26s, P-47s, and F4U and use them to make more F6Fs. Not because it was the best fighter but because it was the best naval fighter for the war in the Pacific. But the US managed to stamp them out like toasters.
So any comparison you see in a comment will be dumb. You would have to pick a time in history, the model and production series, and the specific conditions to even start to make a realistic comparison.
So just sit back and be happy the P-47, Spitfire, P-51, P-40, Hurricane, and so on managed to beat Germany, Japan, and Italy and we get to see such beautiful aircraft at museums and airshows.
P.S. I know I am weird but I actually like the looks of the Hurricane more than the Spitfire. The asymmetrical layout of the rad and oil cooler on the early marks just bugged me. The Hurricane just strikes me as an honest and reliable airplane. Kind of like the P-40 and the F4F do. That nice thick wing and wide landing gear just seem so right to me.
But that is just a matter of taste. I happen to love the P-38 and I wish it had gotten the testing early on and had received upgraded paddle blade props. The poor P-38 kept the same prop blade size from the early models making 1,000 HP up to the latter models making 1700 hp. It was more expensive than the P-47 and P-51 and was loved in the Pacific and southern theaters so they didn't want to stop production when the P-51 and P-47 were doing the job. But you have got to love the SR-71s grandfather :)
A Legendary Stick and Rudder Man Bob Hoover flew a lot of Spitfires and said they were the best dogfighters, he loved them. He and Chuck Yeager were good buddies. Bob used to tell all kinds stories, I could listen to him for hours.
My mother carried the plans to final factory location for those guns. A strange admission as a dinner topic forty years after the event
Absolutely brilliant video, I was at RAF Duxford for 2 days in September for the IWM airshow, it was a completely fantastic experience.
A lot of the "best caliber" depends on what you're shooting at. The RAF were constantly under threat of twin engined bombers, thus 20mm. The Germans faced 4 engine bombers, thus they needed to go up to 30mm.
50 cal sufficed for the US as they primarily faced single engine aircraft, and the occasional twin.
Good comment. It generally comes down to "show me the threat and I'll tell you the weapon I need". Personally, as a long time combat flight simmer, I think the USA is a good compromise. It's VERY hard to hit a fighter, (In any decent flight sim), with a single 30mm, but when you do....... The solution is to "do a Hartmann" and get very, very close. This is, of course, only relevant to computer games. the real world must be quite different.
Ironically the British were most threatened by bombers early in the war, 1940-41. At that time their fighters only had the .303 machine guns. I always wondered why the British didn’t opt for the .50 cal guns from the outset. Surely BSA could have produced the larger caliber Brownings without the need to scale them down. I’m certain it’s similar to why the Americans didn’t use the British 17 pounder in their Sherman tanks. A bit of logistical complication and equal measure short sightedness.
@@Chiller11 I believe the reason for not going with .50s at the start is because they had the 20mm guns by then and they were just trying to get them to work
@@Chiller11 It was said a Panzer was capable of taking out 10 Shermans. The problem was there were always at least 11 Shermans.
@@FelixstoweFoamForge Correct. All down to the threat.
Shoot at an armoured bomber with .303s.
You'll make lots of holes without killing it.
Shoot at a fast-turning fighter with cannon.
You'll be shooting far less rounds. Perhaps all of them will miss.
Bader favoured .303s. He told his pilots, "Get as close as you can before opening fire. When you think you're much too close, get even closer".
For some serious in depth information and knowledge, See Greg’s Planes and Automobiles. He breaks down arms and ammunition across all makes and models.
I just watch videos on the history of firearms in war so it is genuinely interesting to hear about what those weapons were attached to. Thank you for the video, I will probably continue watching other videos from you all.
A superb, little documentary. Many thanks. I had no idea that we experimented with cannons on Spitfires during the Battle of Britain.
Unlike the round that was initially held up, the Browning .303 used rimmed cartridges exactly as used by the standard British Army issue LE rifle.
Yeah bit annoying that he didn’t show a 303. Sure 7.62 (is that what it was?) is equivalent but consider your audience eh.
I guess it was a 30.06 not a.7.62 definitely not .303 which are rimmed cartridges not ejector grooved like the one shown. it might have been 7.92 Mauser the german rifle caliber machine gun round, bound to be a few of those knocking about in the war museum @@82726jsjsufhejsjshshdjso
Yes I just spotted that straight away; I think it's a 30-06 rather than a 7.92 x 57
It is definitely a U.S. .30-06 round.
Would be nice to be the correct cartridge, but for the purpose of showing scale it does the job.
I read about the cannon versus machine gun controversy during World War Two about 50 years ago. Rifle caliber machine guns worked, for the most part. Cannon had jamming issues because those larger cartridges had enough mass that they'd shift under high G forces.
Twenty years ago I was lucky enough to spend an entire day touring Duxford--and on a slow day when there weren't many other visitors. I got to see what the books told me so many years prior.
A few minutes drive from where I live is the Browning Arms Museum. The prototypes for the .30 caliber and .50 caliber machine guns are on display along with a 37mm aircraft cannon Browning worked on during the First World War. There was no market for that cannon between World War One and John M. Browning's death, so when the US Army Air Corps became interested in that 37mm cannon just before World War Two, Browning wasn't around to refine it and there wasn't enough time or money to make it work. Two aircraft were supposed to carry the 37mm cannon--the P-38 Lightning and the P-39 Airacobra. Other than a few test aircraft the P-38's cannon was the 20mm. The P-39 had some 37mm cannon installed but some P39's and all of the "export model" P-400 had a 20mm cannon. There were plans to install a pair of 37mm cannon in the A-26 Intruder but that didn't happen. Speaking of cannons, the 75mm cannon on some B-25 Mitchell bombers were hand loaded for each shot. Low rate of fire resulted and the more effective B-25 armament proved to be a lot of .50 caliber machine guns.
Cannon did Not having jamming issues after Gun heating pipes were fitted from the Mk II on.
Ive only done very accurate simulations but the difference between machine guns and cannons when they actually work is huge. One shot from a cannon can devastate and finish an enemy plane, whereas its not an exaggeration to say when shooting bombers with things like .303 machine guns it can just go on and on and on with no catastrophic damage. The mix of .50 with cannons is perfect. The effect is measured by the weight (in kilos or pounds) of metal fired at the enemy per second, if you look at the difference between .303 and cannons by that measurement it really highlights the difference. Then you have the explosive capabilities of cannon ammunition as well.
Things like hurricanes being great gun platforms but relatively delicate planes in their building materials were wasted without cannons. A lot of them were mainly interceptors concentrating on bombers, and the amount of time they would have to be on a bombers tail receiving fire while they used standard .303 was extremely risky. Being able to make passes with cannons made it so much safer for them.
The beaufighter was an extremely effective aircraft at what it did (maritime missions and ground attack). Not maneuverable at all, but the amount of cannons it could carry meant a few second burst from it would obliterate the target
Could you make a video about the Hawker Typhoon and Tempest? That would be interesting too.
By far your best video to date!! I love these sort of videos; how 1 design feature informed the engineering of an iconic plane.
Enjoyed this video so much! Concise and to the point, and also enjoyable to see all the different Spit versions
This was an exceptional video. Bravo, well done, and many thanks.
I really enjoyed your coverage of a subject often disregarded. Could I ask if you could cover the subject of propeller blades,2,3,4 and how they impacted on the spitfire performance best wishes Harry
It’s key to add that the Hurricane, with the thicker wing, had the 4x Browning per wing clustered together which gave the pilot a tighter grouping at the harmonisation distance. The Spitfire, with the thinner wing had the 4x Browning spread out in a 1x, 2x and 1x configuration, giving a wider and less effective spread of fire.
Three bmg's per wing on the Hurricane.
lESS EFFECTIVE ?????? Dick Audet 5 enemy in 7 minutes and that was only Cannon
The Hurricane had eight .303 Brownings, the Mk IIB had twelve. The Hurribomber only had six as one had to be removed from each wing due to the fitting of the bomb racks.@@richardalexander5758
I really admire the two previous commenters ability to completely misinterpret your comment in every way possible
People do have strange ideas on this subject, it's true. Rather than go on at length, if anyone is really interested in this subject they should buy, beg, borrow or steal a copy of THE GUNS OF THE ROYAL AIR FORCE 1939-1945 by G.F. WALLACE who was there at the time.
Love jonathan! He participates in many channels. Hope he and his museum benefit from his time making you look good!
It is obvious that he doesn't know his weapons and ammunition very well.
There was an unpleasantness little known about in the RAF.
You may have noticed sergeant (NCO) pilots 5:55. Some of them were given a hard time by a few commissioned officers. These CO's didn't want NCO's becoming 'aces' before them, or at all.
Some NCO's had noticed that their 8x303's were focused further than they preferred.
One of them said in an interview- ''The bullets hit enemy aircraft but didn't down them. They were able to fly home looking like Swiss cheese. If the guns were focused at a point less than the regulated setting (whichever it was) all the rounds would hit in clumps together causing more damage to vitals.''
However, although many NCO pilots were recruited from the maintenance crews, they were not allowed to make adjustments to their guns (or the regular maintenance crews) without authorization from an officer next above them; they didn't get it. Nor could they unless they went over the heads of these upper-class twits to the commanding officer. Bad blood ensued all round.
I saw this in the 1980's in a TV documentary all about the plight of NCO RAF pilots.
There were many injustices, I'm only mentioning the guns here.
I've spoken to ex RAF pilots who were NCO's during the battle and have corresponded with some, all gone now of course and nearly all said they rarely had any off duty contact with their officers unless they were at dispersal and at readiness. Different messes, different cookhouses and definitely never in the pub together. It was only later on with the attrition of war taking the lives of the public school educated officers that the surviving "lower class" pilots were promoted and treated with some equality. The RAF was definitely the most snobbish of the armed forces.
I'm imagining a bunch of Jacob Rees-Moggs as CO's.
@@garryferrington811Ha Ha Ha. Yeah, they'd fit the picture.
I had pictured Monty Python's sketch "Upper class twit of the year" characters.
@@fus149hammer5In the documentary, one of the NCO's described how he and one other had to share a barrack hut with several CO's. One of the CO,s tied a piece of cord across the hut then hung some old blankets over it to partition them.
Often, snide derogatory remarks were aimed at them from the other side by these hooray Henrys, never face to face.
NCOs were the backbone.
I recall reading that the commissioned Douglas Bader had his armament synchronised much closer than regulation settings for a harder concentration of hits.
Browning .303 "It was adopted by the Royal Air Force (RAF) and manufactured under license by Vickers Armstrong and BSA. The design was based on the 1930 Pattern belt-fed Colt-Browning machine gun with a few minor modifications."
Browning .303 Mark II Machine Gun page
Thanks Nick
Great show and amazing aircraft. Set the stage for future advancement. The Merlin engine was a beast. 👏👏👏
Great video, interesting to get the development of one specific aspect of the Spitfire, and its related changes like the wing design.
You forgot to mention the use of 'de Wilde' incendiary ammo, the use of which starting in 1940 greatly increased the effectiveness of the .303 round, prolonging its use.
Still .303 is too small.
20mm is 36 times more powerful
Well said
@@Conserpov But much fewer rounds, more bullets are more better i.e. why 38 cal rifles were switched to 22 cal. i.e. more bullets' equal more kill, if that works on the ground why not in the air? Inquiring minds want to know?
@@stevemitz4740
You cannot replace 1 cannon with 36 machineguns.
And even if you did, they would still not be equivalent, because cannon round has much larger effective target area.
And the correct analogy would be .22 LR, not .223
If I recall correctly the surviving WWI aces interviewed in the design & specs process said that in the next war you wouldn’t expect to keep bullets on target more than two seconds, so you needed a rate of fire that would kill within two seconds. The Mark 1 had a rate of fire of 4 pounds per second, the Seafire 47 had 12 pounds per second. Disclaimer: my memory isn’t as good as I remember it being.
Well dick Audet did OK Cannon only 5 enemy in 8 minutes
The Spitfire was one of the most beautiful aircraft ever made.
What about the West land whirlwind then. Much nicer.
In an interview with Chuck Yeager who flew P51's over Europe, he mentioned preferring armour piercing incendiaries.
Later in the war, that is all the Americans used.
Probably because Luftwaffe did put armor on most of their aircraft. Depending on the aircraft and mission the armor could be substantial. It was one of the reasons the Luftwaffe was so successful in the beginning of the war. Those .303 rounds just basically ricocheted off the armor.
Funny those are also good in war thunder
I don't know if I believe it was up to him. I mean, feel free to find me some real sources but I'd be hard pressed to believe he didn't just take what the logistics guy gave him, hell he was the pilot, he wasn't loading ammo.
Even though .303 machine gun rounds isn't much by 1940, still i would hate to be peppered by a Spitfire in 1940.
Guy Martin did a reconstruction using the GPMG. It's close enough to the .303 round to make an accurate representation of the damage the .303 round was capable of. Worth checking out.
I mean it’s powerful against people, just not that effective against machinery
Please pass the salt! 😉
Um, a .303 is similar to a 30-06 of the era, or .308 NATO 7.62mm.
It can penetrate 1/4 inch or 6mm of hardened steel. It will easily go thru an inch or two of solid aluminum (wing spar caps).
The BF-109 was build very light, as was the spitfire. Both were susceptible to rifle-caliber fire as long as it was in great enough volume.
The 109s 12.7mm machine guns, packed tightly in the nose were reasonably devastating given a well-aimed volley, and sufficient lead and track to land a constant stream of fire into the E/AC.
But having 8x machine guns converging at 300-500yd where you are firing them in a wide plane and the E/AC is also a wide plane, having similar bank angle to your own while in pursuit, means absolutely covering the E/AC in a large volume of fire that indiscriminately punctures fuel tanks, hydraulic lines, coolant and oil tanks, lines, or radiators, oxygen tanks, radios, and of course wing spar caps and webs, or anything else that is not armored appropriately. More rounds on target mean more chance or odds that the target will suffer major systems damage.
@@Triple_J.1 Exactly. People also forget how few shells the Me109E carried (just 60 rounds per gun) and low muzzle velocity of the weapon.
Many thanks for a very thorough history of the Spitfire’s various armament configurations.😁👌👌❤️
An excellent video thank you! I was hoping you might have answered a question which has had me puzzled for the last 20 years since I first read Geoff Wellum's biography "First Light". He wrote about the difference the installation of cannon made and he mentioned an armourer (but not by name) who had solved the problem of cannon blockages by fabricating a bracket which allowed the cannon to be mounted in such a way that it would not jam. Some time later I was at a friend's house and noticed a framed citation signed by Archibald Sinclair. I asked about it and she told me that the recipient of the citation was her father (Robert Wragg) who had been an armourer with No. 500 (East Kent ?) squadron (hope I've remembered that correctly). I pointed out that she was very correct to treasure the citation and asked what her father had done because it was clearly something of great merit. She replied "Oh he made a bracket for a gun". Is there any way you can confirm the identity of the man who made cannon work on Spitfires?
I thought Churchill did i😂t all.
AT 4:39 Omfg THANK YOU for answering a lingering question of about 30 years. I've been studying military history since I was a child and I remember seeing an uncountable number of times in WW2 dogfight documentaries especially battle of Britain brief images pointing at the gun mounts always fleeting shots and I kept swearing sometimes it looked like the gun ports were covered over.
EVERYONE except you has been more clueless than me and had no idea what to tell me. I think this is either my longest running unanswered question or atleast in the top 3. So happy day!
My father joined 19 Squadron in 1942 as ground crew. He told me of the 20mm cannon problems in the Spitfire. One of the jobs he did was to set the guns up. On one test he 'borrowed' two used cases and solid heads dated 1942 which he gave me when I was 5 in the mid 1960's. I still have them. He told me about the planes that 19 Squadron had through the war always appearing to have the latest and best planes including Mustangs, and the Meteor.
The British 303 gun was a licensed production version of Colt's commercial version of .30-06 A/N M2 used by the US armed forces (A/N stood for Army/Navy), an aircraft version of the M1919 ground gun, which was an air cooled version (developed for arming the Cavalry and Tank Corps) of the Infantry's water cooled (Heavy) M1917. As the M1917 and all its derivatives are recoil operated, the M2 featured a lightened barrel, bolt and other components to roughly double the rate of fire. Unfortunately, this made it somewhat delicate and prone to breakage and wearing out quicker than the very reliable ground guns. In my first year of ROTC, my roommate and I formed the crew for an M1919A6 - essentially an M1919A4 with a bipod and shoulder stock. That may have officially made it a "light machine gun" but the combination of its weight and the Central Pennsylvania hills kicked our collective tail ends!
What you mean like the Internet was an American invention?, and the Jet Engine was really a German/American invention? Or the telephone was actually invented by an Italian/American? And not to mention the Steam Engine, the US claims, was invented in the first century A.D, by a Greek inventor named Hero of Alexandria who created a primitive aeolipile "steam novelty" The US hilariously tries to claim as the first ''turbine''?
I mean, seriously, you couldn't make this up!! LMFAO! Propaganda taught, propaganda indoctrinated
By the early 1900s, the U.S. military had a mixed collection of automatic machine guns in use that included M1895 "potato diggers", 287 M1904 Maxims, 670 M1909 Benét-Mercié guns, and 353 Lewis machine guns. In 1913, the U.S. began to search for a superior automatic weapon. One of the weapons considered was the British Vickers machine gun. Field tests were conducted of the Vickers in 1914, and the gun was unanimously approved by the board for the army under the designation "Vickers Machine Gun Model of 1915, Caliber .30, Water-Cooled". This was British, made under licence in the U.S. by Colt.
The Board is of the opinion that, except for the Vickers gun, none of the other guns submitted showed sufficiently marked superiority for the military service, in comparison with the service [Benét-Mercié] Automatic Machine Rifle, to warrant further consideration of them in the field test. The Board is of the unanimous opinion that the Vickers rifle calibre gun, light model, stood the most satisfactory test. As to the merits of the Vickers gun, there is no question - it stood in a class by itself. Not a single part was broken nor replaced. Nor was there a jam worthy of the name during the entire series of tests. A better performance could not be desired.
Captain John S. Butler, Office of the Chief of Ordnance.
If you look back through history, you'll find the USA doing things all based and worked against the British. There's so much of it, it's hilarious, as it's such a fantasy. Did you know the American government spent Americans money to go to the world court, and try to get the rights of Alexander Bell Inventing the telephone overturned? Claiming the Italian who had also been working on a device did it first? Of course, they were proven wrong and lost, but they tried? Why would the USA spend American money trying to give the credit to an Italian? (who became a US citizen)!
It's bizarre until you look deeper? You'll find out that at one time the USA really believed they had invented more in this world than anyone else. This is all true, they really did believe that. They knew Britain had invented a lot, so they tried to take British inventions to the world court, to try to get them overturned.
I mean, how embarrassing is that? Prepared to steal other's ingenuity, to only then credit themselves? And all done to try and get closer, or even beat how much the British had invented. Look it all up, there's load's of it, man!
Even really well-known British inventions, like the Steam Engine, the US has tried to smother, you'll find the USA has said the primitive aeolipile "steam novelty" ...is the first ''turbine''? Invented in the first century A.D, by a Greek inventor named Hero of Alexandria...Hahaha, I mean, seriously, you couldn't make this up!! LMFAO! Yet next month, they'll be claiming that same "miscellaneous" devise as the first of something else! LOL, you can look things up on Wikipedia, then go back in 12 months time, and you'll read a brand-new account of history, LOL!
Even the invention of the Internet Is just more American propaganda and lies. Donald Watts Davies, was the real inventor of the Internet.
In 1965, Davies developed the idea of packet switching, (dividing computer messages into packets that are routed independently across a network), the first seen working form of ''Internet'', and it was him, that took his invention, and showed the US military how he'd successfully managed to do, what they couldn't, the USA stole It!
Davies' key insight came in the realisation that computer network traffic was inherently “bursty” with periods of silence, as compared with relatively constant telephone traffic, and he designed and proposed a national data network, based on "packet switching" in his 1966 Proposal for the Development of a National Communications Service for Online Data Processing (Worldwide Internet).
When the US announced, years later, "their Internet" (outright theft), many of the involved businesses/partners that knew it was really Davis invention, made a point of showing him as the real inventor of the internet, by having tags saying so and a picture of him, with his name on all retail packaging! It's so sick.
They say today, more Americans believe a German invented the jet engine! It's so pathetic! Frank Whittle speaks of his "Eureka" moment.
It came out of the blue, he recalled. He had, effectively, dreamt up the turbojet, the early jet engine. I knew if a man was going to fly faster, he would have to fly at much greater altitudes where the air was thinner. Whittle concluded that the conventional propeller would never be sufficient, and that an entirely new sort of engine would be required. His arguments were so advanced that he was awarded 30 out of 30 for his work.
When the young RAF officer took his idea to the Air Ministry, later in 1929, they were not sure what to make of it. They ran it past a senior boffin called A.A. Griffith, who had already done some work on the subject. Whether he was misguided or simply disliked this young Whittle in uniform, Griffith gave the idea a thumbs down. As a result, the Air Ministry rejected Whittle's design as impractical, and carried on ordering traditional planes with propellers.
So Whittle took out a patent to protect his turbojet idea, which was duly published by the Patent Office. Others, like the Germans, however, saw its merits, and German diplomats in London, wasted no time ordering copies of the patent when the patent expired in 1935. (A young Whittle could not even afford the £5 renewal fee).
The RAF remained supportive of their young genius however, financing Whittle through Cambridge, where needless to say, he took a First Class degree in mechanical sciences, and all the while, he was still designing the jet engine, that he knew would work.
Finally, two friends helped him secure enough backing to start a small company called Power Jets Ltd, and in April 1937, he fired up his first jet engine, the first seen working, recorded, Jet engine ever built. (unlike the latter claimed German ''Engine'', they claimed long after), and they claim it was in the same year, of the same month, and on the same day? LOL.
Sure! Only nobody ever said a thing about it, at the time? But Whittles was spoken about, and written about, throughout the entire media world, as he couldn't turn it off. He had to wait for it to run out of fuel, LOL.
Today, his son, Ian Whittle's primary concern is to protect his father's memory from continued erosion. He said, It's appalling, it's a disgrace to human ingenuity, using cheap tricks, and misinformed people to make up history, It's now an accepted fact in the USA, that my father did not invent the jet, but, that he and von Ohain - (who became an American citizen) - co-invented it at the same time. He says... "Pretty soon, history will be rewritten to say that it was a German or American invention, just not British".
So true his words really are, certainly many American engineering institutions now routinely describe von Ohain as one of the inventors of the jet. Captain Eric Brown, late, of the Fleet Air Arm, (one of the greatest test pilots in aviation history) said it was Frank's invention, and they just copied him.
And let's be honest, he should know, not only has he flown more planes than anyone else - 487 different types, but he was also sent to Germany straight after the war to get hold of all the Nazis aviation technology. He says "well I interrogated von Ohain, who was very ambivalent about where he had got his idea, he couldn't say where his Idea came from", says Capt Brown from his Sussex home.
He goes on, "but his sidekick was different, an open book, he was utterly straight-forward about it, he said, that Whittle's patent had been in every technical library in Germany, even before the war, and I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that Frank Whittle was the real (and only) inventor of the jet engine - and furthermore that he could have produced a jet fighter by 1937- If the Establishment had been on his side. But the Jet Engine is Frank's very own Invention".
This is the truth about the USA's mentality, and it always has been, you only need to study Anglo-American history to see straight through this misrepresentation of a “Special Partnership”. Whatever the British have achieved In this world, they want to try and beat it. And however they do so, whether by cheating, lying, making up history, stealing others technology to credit themselves, the list is endless.
But, just how stupid are they?, they really don't understand British history, as they'd need to be incredibly unrealistic, and foolish, thinking they could ever top what the British have already achieved in, and given this world, there's no country that gets even remotely close.
Japan ended America's thoughts that they were close to the British... Tokyo University, (Japan also thought they were close to the British) spent 4 years going through all worldly inventions, and in their findings, Britain had Invented 54% of all worldly inventions. Japan 21%. The USA19%.
Miles away from catching the UK! It's extraordinary what these people think, believe, or have been wrongly taught.
@@hotstepper887the Vickers gun went on to provide sterling service destroying large nrs of Luftwaffe aircraft in North Africa whilst being mounted on jeeps.
@@robertpatrick3350 That's right.
The Super Marine Spitfire is one of the most beautiful machines ever designed and manufactured. It's too bad but, at the same time, so glad it was a weapon of war.
It really is isn't it?
You get aircraft that are the prettiest _aircraft_
But the Spitfire is the most beautiful _machine_
Every machine.
Except Concorde, it's tied with Concorde.
No other plane or car or train or boat can compare.
RAF ace Bob Doe said "the Spitfire, quite simply, is the most beautiful airplane ever made." A gentleman of intelligence and taste.
Outstanding video. Thank you for providing great educational and entertaining content!
0:25 Talking about the 303 round. The funny thing is that he is showing a 30/06 cartridge, which the Spitfire never fired.
I think you're right
@@user-vg3yc6gk5f
Yes he is. The 303 has flange at the back (there is probably a better name, rim maybe). Unless there was a special air version but given one reason they wanted to use the 303 was commonality of round that wouldn't make sense.
You are correct!
@@FallNorthat yet at 6:51 he has a correct belt of 303 british rims and all. Must have been a chaotic day on set
The Mk. 1 Spitfire is one of the most beautiful airplanes to ever exist in my personal opinion. It was way ahead of its time aerodynamically, could turn like a Zero, and could stay up there for a long time. The only negative was the 7.7mm guns they took sustained bursts to really tear up an enemy plane and wouldnt reliably take an engine out. Once they put the 20mm Hispano it wasnt an issue.
I totally agree, “if looks could kill” the Spitfire would not need guns .
Watching this makes me want to visit Duxford. I haven't been for over 30 years so long over due.
Right combination is to have 4x20m and 4x 12.7mm :D Like P-61 for example. And keep guns as close to centerline as possible to reduce convergence issues and have very long effective area in front of plane that is covered by fire. Guns in wings are affected by convergence issues and are ineffective if target is too close or too far away.
Cool info, but I didn’t know what half of it was. Just don’t tell me
Absolutely fascinating. You have to admire both the imagination and also the engineering expertise.
I had so much fun visiting Duxford last year on my tour of the UK. Truly one of the highlights.
Also, speeds of aircraft increased (especially in fighter aircraft) during the war.
Higher speeds meant faster closing times and less time to put guns on target.
Having rounds that hit harder got damage done during those brief firing passes, making it more likely to destroy or severely damage that target, requiring fewer passes at bombers or not leaving that fighter intact to get behind you.
Excellent channel. The Spitfire is one of the most beautiful airplanes I've ever seen. Very graceful lines.
Thank you very much for your attention to detail. Cptn. J.J. Orr my Grandfather flew the MK 9. Family records show him to be one of (if not the first) to document the Jetstream, arriving back to Base a full 75 minutes ahead of schedule. " What happened Jerry jump you? " was the question on arrival. To which he simply replied, " .... it's in the can."
As an aid to making up .50 caliber ammo belts, armorers were taught "Think of TITS" - Tracer, Incendiary, Tracer, Semi-Armor Piercing. Much have caused a few blushes among the WAAF ordnance tradeswomen.
The M2-HB Browning.,50 caliber remains in production today, ninety years after production - despite the fact it never breaks or wears out, the demand for new guns insatiable. Note - Browning's original .50 caliber was the M1921, a gigantic water cooled ground gun. In 1930 or so the Ordnance Corps developed a common receiver which could feed from either side. T
The receiver formed the base for three different guns
M2 -A water cooled anti-aircraft gun with a light barrel used by the Army and Navy. Britain got some when Britain got 50 old US destroyers which mounted this as their close range AA battery.
A/N M2 - An air cooled aircraft gun with lightened recoiling components and a light 36 inch barrel. In terms of identification, this weapon had a barrel jacket from receiver to muzzle. British guns were all supplied by the US under Lend-Lease. My uncle was a flight engineer/top turret gunner on B-24's of the 8th Air Force operating out of East Anglia and nothing but praise for his guns.
M2 HB - An air cooled ground gun with a heavy (to absorb the heat from the propellant) 45 inch barrel. Distinguished by its short barrel jacket/muzzle support attached to the receiver. This gun may be the greatest machine gun ever produced. It was there when I joined the Army. It was there when I retired 29 years later. In between, it armed most of the tanks I served on as the commander's personal weapon, so I shot it a lot. Accurate, long ranged, hard hitting, never a failure - what more could one ask for? About once a decade or so the Army tries to replace it with something "better" but the pretenders to the throne always fail. It is immortal.
😅
There was also the A/N-M3 which was used in the early jet fighters (as well as in some later marks of the P-51D). It was developed late in WW2 and had a rate of fire at 1200 rounds per minute, which was greater than its predecessor, the A/N-M2. It's still in service today, it's known as the AN/M3, GAU-21/A, and M3P if I recall correctly. It was/is also mounted in gun pods as well (the XM14/SUU-12/A gun pod).
Why’s your gun sluggish?
Did you check the headspace and timing?
You’re a NoGo at my station.
@@Nghilifa Correct, but I wanted to restrict my comments to the WW2 era gun as that seemed to be the limits of the discussion
I was always amazed that anyone thought a rifle calibre machine gun would be of any use at all.
Britain had very reliable .303 machine guns and a lot of them at start of WW2, as well as millions upon millions of bullets and the infrastructure to produce a lot more very rapidly. The number of bullets in the air at any one time from 8 .303 guns meant that the largely untrained pilots taking part in battle of Britain could still get a hit, and a hit with a few .303 is better than a miss with a 20mm bullet. many of the aces of WW2, including the Polish who punched well above their weight in RAF would get to within a few hundred feet of the enemy aircraft before hitting the fire button. Cannons were better for ground attacks on trains and vehicles later in the war,.
@@chrissmith2114 Britain had very reliable Browning MG's made under license.
Very well done. Congratulations on a job done to perfection.
The evolution of the Spitfire in a short space of time always fascinates me.
Think how few years separate the Wright Flyer and the space shuttle
Doubles its power, doubles its weight, ~doubles its range, increases speed by ~33% and by war's end not one single part would fit on original Spitfire... was it still a Spitfire? =-)
@@w8stralGOOD TRY FAIL. Too right it was Same wing from F Mk1A to MkXVI Source Morg and Shack That is how good it was, you had nothing like it.
Great informative video! I'm so glad you were talking about the D-wing as well, rarely mentioned this type of wing. Recce variants also having very noticeable larger oil tank under the nose.
I would have question: many pictures about Spitfires Mk.Vc aircrafts, which are about to leave from a carrier to Malta, have 4x20mm cannons and 4x.303MGs. But many books and other sources shows that actually at Malta they were fighting with armament reduced to the half: 2x20mm and 2x.303 guns (keeping the inner .303s usually). What was the real cause? I read books about the siege of Malta, and they almost always suffered from insufficient supplies. Was the reduced armament because they wanted to save the other half of the armament for spare?
The other thing I never understood, that if a Hellcat, Corsair, Mustang (for the inner gun only) and the Thunderbolt could carry about 400 rounds per gun, why the E-wing Spitfire only could 250-260 rounds? And if the .303s would be deleted when the jamming problem was solved for the 20mm, they could swap the .303 guns and ammo "weight" for more 20mm rounds? Or the wing structure could not allow it? I mean the wing ribs, the whole design was the problem?
@Cuccos19 - the real problem with the Spitfire was its very thin wing profile; this was good for speed, but was very short of internal space for armament. In contrast, the Hurricane (like the Typhoon) had a very much thicker wing. That extra room allowed the Hurricane Mk.IIB to be fitted with twelve .303 machine guns, and the Mk.IIC to have four 20mm cannons. HTH
12:45 were the ballistics of the .303 and 20mm cannon close enough that this actually worked?
I personally doubt it, because I'm no fighter pilot. I do recall in one of the American fighter pilot's memoirs (probably either Bud Anderson or Chuck Yeager) that they mentioned that the tracer rounds were lighter than the armor-piercing rounds, and therefore not particularly good at judging where the AP rounds would impact. They requested their armorers to replace the tracers with only the AP bullets.
Thank you for posting this I really enjoyed it.
I am an ex military aircraft engineer and would like to give a perspective from my experience.
The last time I carried out a bullet hole repair as part of a battle damage repair exercise it took me 6 hours. Bullet holes in aircraft generally come in pairs a so 12 manhours to repair the aircraft.
That is for one bit on plate aluminium, if it hits a stringer or longeron then that aircraft is down for days of not weeks. Remember at roughly 1200 rounds per minute (20 per second) times 8 guns that is 160 rounds per second. At close range that gives a reasonably high probability of a hit. Given the TAG was inexperienced at that point of the war I think it s a decent weapon suite.
Very informative episode. I’m wondering why the British didn’t utilize the .50cal Brownings from the outset. I suppose the logistical challenge of adding another calibre to production but it would have certainly made the Hurricanes and Spitfires of the Battle of Britain more lethal machines.
My personal take is that the Spit's wings were just too thin. I mean, they had to stand the first 20mm installations for the Spit V on it's side, which led to feeding issues. The Hurricane, no such problem with it's thicker wing. BUT... Boffins with slide rules had worked out pr-war that 8 rifle caliber mgs, in a 3 second burst would take out any bomber then flying. They were, of course, wrong. But it led to the infamous "fighting area attacks" enshrined in RAF doctrine right up until the end of the BOB. and THEY were based on sequential attacks on non-manoeuvring targets with no fighter escorts. Wrong again. Tbh, the luftwaffe had similar issues, because the bf109 was originally designed to only mount 2 light mgs over the engine cowling. WWII was a time of MASSIVE change as it went on.
Great video and very well presented too. Well done 👍
The Spit and the Hurricane had 14 seconds worth of fire that could be directed at an enemy aircraft during the Battle of Britain (equipped with the .303 Browning MGs). Even though the German aircraft were not heavily armored, this made it very difficult to get a shootdown. Speaks volumes about the skill and tenacity of the RAF pilots who flew them and fought them against the German onslaught.
0:27 That's not a .303 round as it's rimless.
Looks more like a US 30-06.
It’s a NATO 7.62mm
@@andrewcombe8907it must have been a rough day on set. By the time he’s back at 6:51 with a belt of correct 303 british, rims and all
Well presented, also nice to see so many airworthy Spits together
Another interesting documentary..... Great that the IWM takes the time to highlight the less well known history and development of the Supermarine Spitfire..... Well done.... Roger.... Pembrokeshire
Excellent and informative video. A one-stop shop reference on spitfire wings and armament.
Hi IWM. Duxford is one of my favourite places to visit all the way from Australia.
At 4:50, there is a small red object protruding above the wing. Is this a visual indicator of gear down and locked, or of flaps position, or something else?
Yes it's the landing gear indicator.
Really enjoyed this guys, thank you!
Lots of material presented, Excellent episode.
Beautiful photo of the Polish Supermarine Spitfire MK IX aircraft, I wonder which squadron it is from? Maybe from the famous 303? Regards.
Beautiful beast great work GB 🇬🇧
The cartridge shown at 0:27 isn't a .303 (a .303 has a 'rimmed' case, seen is 'rim-less' like a 30-06 or .308)
Extraordinary lesson about a signal aircraft design. Ty!
Brilliant recap of the British evolution. A question. Why no wing with 3 or 4 x 50 Cal Brownings as the Americans ? The 50 Cal with the hard hitting kinetic load/minute?
Seems they took engine tech from us but we did not focus on a 50 calibre uniform round easier to service with a belt feed ?
Interestingly the Americans viewed the 50 cal as a stepping stone to cannons as well.. one 20mm cannon was viewed as equivalent to 3 .50 cals.
Nice detail about further development of the Spitfire. I read somewhere that they used incendiary rounds, which made their wee machine guns much more effective.
Thanks, interesting to see the evolution of the Spitfire.
That was truly outstanding. As others here have said, the combination of the expertise from the Imperial War Museum and Royal Armories is exceptionally successful.
Thank you both!
That aircraft is very beautiful, even compared to modern aircraft you have in Britain, like the Eurofighter.
They've forgotten that around the time the Air Ministry was looking at the specification that would lead to the Spitfire and Hurricane they were also looking at what would be suitable calibres of armament. Specifically they were looking at machine-gunds in 0.303in or 0.5in, or 20mm cannon. The 20mm cannon they were looking at in 1934 was the 20mm Hispano cannon, as used by the French, was a new gun and temperamental and as the 0.303in machine guns appeared to give the best possible rate of fire.
At the time (1934) the 0.50 had a slower rate of fire than it did in WW2 so it was not thought worth the benefit as each gun weighed three times as much as a .303.
@@ericadams3428 is that the Browning or Vickers gun? My source does say which machine guns they looked at.
@@ericadams3428 Not to mention the weight of the ammunition, which was much heavier as you'd imagine after seeing .303 next to .50. Also, the .50 ammunition used much more brass, lead, and powder than the .303. These materials were hardly growing on trees in Bletchley Park at the time.
Been to Duxford,absolutely an amazing experience
Each 20mm has an equivalent KE of 12-16 times a .303(not including explosive charge. So a huge increase in power
And it was 3.6 times as powerful as the 50 Cal.
I wonder if the .50 guns could have fit into the early Spitfires and Hurricanes better than the 20mm cannons. While not as powerful they still would have given the planes more punch to deal with German planes more easily. I read an account from a British pilot in the Battle of Britain a long time ago and one of his constant laments was not having cannon armament to deal with the bombers. Several got away with just damage because the small guns just didn’t get the job done.
Probably not
Of course they would have - it was a much smaller and more efficient package, as was the ammo. That’s like asking if the 16” super heavy .50 cal guns of the Iowas could have fit on the Yamato class instead of their 18”. Obviously - and they were better, saved weight, and allowed a higher speed / armor weight. Same penetration with higher rate of fire.
Obviously not all of that applies to this scenario, but a Browning AN-M2 .50 is absolutely easier to package then a 20mm cannon.
@@EstorilEm If that was so the Germans Italians and RAF would not have used cannon
We know that the 303 loads were not just ball but were often mixed explosive and tracer rounds (based off De Wilde), why no mention of these? (B.VI or B.VIZ). Churchill mentions constant concerns over ensuring supply of these rounds in memoirs for Battle of Britain
and I think it was in Brian Kingcome's autobiography that he talks about the many experiments that were done to determine the best ratio of tracer rounds, i think they alighted on 1 round every 8 to give the pilot better sighting of the ammunition stream. I guess this was especially important for night fighters.
Yes, but 20mm explosive rounds are far more destructive than explosive .303 rounds. The British saw they could be outclassed in the air and planned ahead.
That Spitfire looks really nice with a bubble canopy.
0:01 Because the 303 just weren't cuttin' it. .................. Literally! They lacked the ability to do enough damage to the enemy aircraft, especially the bombers.😁
The picture of the round at time frame 0.28 is not a .303 round , Most probably a 7.62 mm round
Excellent video. Just one query: How come Liam illustrates Browning .303" with a rimless round, and we later switch to Jonathan, who holds up a clip of rimmed ammunition? (Just curious.)
I believe there was a version of the Hurricane that mounted twelve .303's. Talk about a swarm of angry bees.
The MkIIa Hurricane carried 12 Browning .303s
great to watch, many thanks to all concerned
I am informed that the British did have quite a nasty incendiary round for the .303 rounds somewhat compensating for their smaller size and lack of punch.
Some have questioned by the RAF didn't go with the Browning 50cal at the outbreak of the war, since it was already a matured weapon, having been introduced in WW1. The primary reason for not adopting it was logistic: the US just didn't have the guns to send to the UK. Some sources put the total US stockpile in 1938 at just over 6000 units: not enough for both the US and Britain. So the RAF kept what they knew they could produce in the numbers they needed. They were also going with the Hispano 20mm, but as mentioned, it had loading problems under G. The Hispano was primarily a shipborne weapon, but had to be installed on it's side in the Spitfire, leading to feeding problems. Once those were solved, they started to regularly and reliably equipping the Spits and other fighters.
Millions of WW1 .303 rounds in storage at the start of the war, the ability to manufacture millions more in the UK, no guarantee the yanks will supply anything better and if we could get them across the german lake known as the Atlantic there was no lend-lease at the time so we would have to pay in cash and gold. It's what the kids call 'a no-brainer'.
Very interesting video. Please keep these coming.
How did the cameras on the D=wing work? They seem to be pointed upward. Surely photos weren't taken while upsidedown.