Supermarine Spitfires and the Browning machine gun

[archerynut]

I was asking myself this question last night while modeling a lend/lease spitfire mk.Vb that was sent to the russians. the B series spitfire wing had two hispano 20mm cannon, one in each wing. then towards the far edge of the wing were two browning machine guns. in the UK and africa, either in american, canadian or british squadrons, they would have been of .303 calibre. but would this have been practical for the russians? being as far away as they were from reliable stocks of .303 british, each aircraft requiring almost 2000 rounds per sortie, something makes me think that the spitfires intended for the reds would have the brownings chambered for something else. maybe 7.62x54R?

before the brits even decided that the spitfire needed eight rifle calibre machine guns, they were only chambered for .30 calibre, which in actuality is just 30.06 right?

an interesting side note, the russians did not see what was so great about the spitfire, and thought of it as weak and much preferred the american mid-engined P-39 aircobra and the P-40 kittyhawk/warhawk. I find this to be fascinating as it shows a complete departure in the mindset of the russians when it came to combat of all types, armoured or airborne. I always found that pretty interesting.

 

[highlander]

The Russian's view on aircraft was that their primary role was for ground support. Any plane that fulfilled that role was aces to them.

Dogfighting was of secondary importance.

 

[MatthewMarchand]

Russian dogfights were also at much lower altitudes then in the west. The P-39 did quite well at low altitude.

 

[Captain Paul]

I don't know much about these topics but I always found them very interesting.

 

[Juster]

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=7289

"
Two alternative replacements of four Browning machine-guns were proposed by the gun designer B.G.Shpital'nyj together with specialists of Zavod No.115 (co-located with Yakovlev's OKB) in Moscow:
1) four 20 mm ShVAK cannons, two 7.62 mm ShKAS machine-guns and six racks for RS-82 rockets, or
2) two 20 mm ShVAK cannons, two 12.7 mm UBK machine guns and six racks for RS-82 rockets.

After evaluation by NII VVS from 28 December 1941 to 3 January 1942 the first alternative was adopted."

They also used whatever came out of the crate.

 

[Colin]

The Spitfire also had a short range, which would be hindrance in Russia

 

[gaff]

the aircraft brownings(mkII) in.303 are different than the .30 . they are more like a scaled down aircraft .50 Lots were made at Inglis in Toronto. have seen parts at gun shows, most people have no idea what there for.

 

[buffdog]

Machine guns

quote
"before the brits even decided that the spitfire needed eight rifle calibre machine guns, they were only chambered for .30 calibre, which in actuality is just 30.06 right?"

WRONG. They were .303 calibre.

In the Spitfire, some pilots even had the two outboard machine guns removed because it gave a faster rate of roll.

As noted previously, there was a difference in tactics and employment of the aircraft between the British and the Russians.

The Spitfire was designed as an Interceptor and a Fighter for the higher altitudes, while the Russian idea was to support the Army. A lesser known fact is that the Hurricane was the most used fighter in the Battle of Britain, not the Spitfire. The general idea was that the Spitfire could climb higher, and engage the German escort fighters while the Hurricanes went after the German bombers.

Depending upon the pilot's preference, the guns were generally set to converge their fire at 300 yards or less.

.

 

[archerynut]

but previous to the british deciding to employ them in the spitfire and hurricane, they were only used by the americans in .30

 

[Splatter]

]...before the brits even decided that the spitfire needed eight rifle calibre machine guns, they were only chambered for .30 calibre...

,
WRONG. They were .303 calibre.

I think what the OP meant was that he believes that the Browning MG was only chambered in .30 Cal before the Brits ordered-up a bunch for their aircraft in .303.


Darn you and you flying fingers, BuffDog

 

[TheTooner]

quote
... A lesser known fact is that the Hurricane was the most used fighter in the Battle of Britain, not the Spitfire. The general idea was that the Spitfire could climb higher, and engage the German escort fighters while the Hurricanes went after the German bombers.

...

I read something once that quoted Luftwaffe fighter ace and general Adolf Galland saying there was something he called "Spitfire snobbery" amongst German pilots. Those who made it back after being shot down claimed in impossible numbers that the Brit who did it was in a Spitfire. Few would admit to having been beaten by a Hurricane. He said they knew from the relative numbers of the two types in the RAF that it couldn't be true.

 

[Snow Dog]

I remember talking to an older gentleman that was a merchant marine during the war. He was telling me about taking Spitfires and other equipment to the Russian port of Minsk and offloading them to the yards by the docks. He went back on another convoy run about a year and a half later and swears that the Spits he helped offload earlier were still sitting in the same yard and still in the shipping crates.

 

[_Rai_]

The Russian's view on aircraft was that their primary role was for ground support. Any plane that fulfilled that role was aces to them.

Dogfighting was of secondary importance.

The russians also loved the Il-2

 

[ciphery]

Well a Hurricane at low altitude will out turn and out fly a spitfire. Their big 2s cylinder engine roared at low levels. Get the hurricane up off the deck and its a whole different story.
I believe the Hurricanes were also more heavily armed than early spits.

 

[buffdog]

I think what the OP meant was that he believes that the Browning MG was only chambered in .30 Cal before the Brits ordered-up a bunch for their aircraft in .303.


Darn you and you flying fingers, BuffDog

Ah, yes, I see what he was trying to say. The sentence was a bit ambiguous in that it mentions the Spitfire and not the Brownings.

Technically, the Hurricane which first flew in November 1935 and became operational in 1937 had the Brownings before the Spitfire which flew in March 1936 and became operational in 1938. Also the Westland Lysander (1936) had two Browning .303 machine guns in the wheel covers.

However, the OP has a valid point on the 30-06 Brownings.

.

 

[buffdog]

.303 Brownings

Well, I got a little curious on the history of the .303 Brownings, so I dug into some of my note books.

The .303 Browning, Mark I, was adopted by the British in 1934, (which is two years before the Spitfire first flew and four years before it became opertational. It was an adaptation of the 1930, belt fed, Colt-Browning Machine Gun, but firing from an open bolt. Both Vickers and BSA were licenced to produce them.

An early problem was the fouling from Cordite loads. This was solved by the RAF Gun Development people, by using a longer muzzle extension, crome plating it, and adding cooling fins. This became the Mark II.

I also found an interesting reference to the Russian Hurricanes, which were armed with the .303 Browning. The guns were considered reliable, but a bit succeptable to dust. This was overcome by covering the muzzles with a type of cloth, which protected the guns from dust on take off, but tore when the guns were fired. Once that was done, the dust problem seemed to be solved.

An sidenote here is that the British used to cover their gun ports also, using aircraft wing canvas or linen, and stuck them on with glue. While it has been thought that this was for streamlining so more speed could be obtained, (it might have had a slight effect), we must remember that a lot of the RAF airfields were grass runways, so it is possible that the same dust problem was recognized by the British.
.

 

[archerynut]

i've also read that the red cloth covering the gun ports was to prevent the guns freezing up at the high altitude they needed to reach in order to intercept the german bombers and resulting fighter cover, especially during the battle of britain, when the british early warning radar really proved its worth.

 

[donor]

Russians generally didn't have a very good opinion about UK made airplanes and tanks.

You have to remember that equipment used on Eastern Front was put through a lot hasher use due to for example:

harsh weather
unprepared (bad) landing fields
bad quality fuels,oils
lack of proper spares
lack of translated manuals for maintenance,use etc
in many cases lack of proper training of air crews
etc

There is a very good reason why all Russian made arms/equipment in those days was made the way it was- rugged,tough,unsophisticated yet it always works no matter what you do to it.

 

[Baal]

The Spitfire had various wing designs for its armaments. All Mk.I, most Mk.II and a handful of Mk.V Spits had the 'A' wing, fitted with 4 .303 Brownings per wing. Most Mk.V's and early Mk.IX's had the 'B' wing, fitted with 2 .303 Brownings and 1 20mm Hispano per wing. Many Mk. V's, especially those sent to the Mediterranean, had the 'C' wing (or Universal Wing) which housed either 2 20mm Hispanos, or 1 20mm Hispano and 1 .50 Browning per wing. And most Mk.IX's, and all Mk.XIV's and XVI's had the 'C' wing (universal wing) with 1 20mm Hispano and 1 .50 Browning.

 

[Baal]

i've also read that the red cloth covering the gun ports was to prevent the guns freezing up at the high altitude they needed to reach in order to intercept the german bombers and resulting fighter cover, especially during the battle of britain, when the british early warning radar really proved its worth.

Hot air was vented into the gun compartments from the engine exhaust to prevent freezing.