Why did Spitfires change their guns? Ft. Jonathan Ferguson

This is one of Imperial War Museums' most prized possessions. A genuine, airworthy, combat-veteran Spitfire Mk 1. Early Spitfires were initially equipped with eight machine guns. They fired the 303-rifle calibre machine gun round. But much like the Spitfire through its development, not only did it gain things like bigger engines, but also a larger armament. In the case of the 20mm cannon and the .5-inch machine gun.
The story of the Spitfire's armament development is complicated and can even be considered controversial to this day. To help us tell that story we've brought in Jonathan Ferguson of Royal Armouries who's going to help us take an in-depth look at the main weapons of the Spitfire.
To hear more from Jonathan Ferguson, be sure to subscribe to @RoyalArmouries KZbin channel: www.youtube.com/@RoyalArmouri...
Fancy taking the pilot’s seat? Book a private talk and unique ‘In the Cockpit’ experience at IWM Duxford to sit at the controls of an airworthy combat veteran Spitfire Mk 1: bit.ly/3rPQe84
See the Hispano cannon in person at the National Museum of Arms and Armour in Leeds: royalarmouries.org/
License the footage used in this film: film.iwmcollections.org.uk/my...
Discover our Spitfire gifts: shop.iwm.org.uk/c-spitfire-gi...
Follow IWM on social media:
Twitter: / i_w_m​
Instagram: / imperialwarmuseums
Facebook: / iwm.london

[@cageordie]

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.

[@rorycraft5453]

Okay

[@ALonelyCorsair]

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….

[@kendunn2218]

God bless Mr Whitney. May he rest in peace.

[@brianjschumer]

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

[@allencowan6692]

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.

[@cplpuddingpop]

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.

[@koiyujo1543]

that guy is famous for who he is he's also obviously done stuff like react to stuff like firearms from games and such

[@jonathanferguson1211]

Thank you so much for saying so 😊

[@MaryMantous]

He is not esy to listen to, too loud

[@TheDesertwalker]

British presenters are, in general, of the highest caliber. They are educated and articulate. I wish my fellow Americans would follow their examples.

[@andrewtaylor3130]

Excellent to hear about the wing types so seldom mentioned.

[@user-qm2wl9ry9n]

Yes , I had never heard of wing types tailored to the armament they would carry . A Discovery for me .

[@johnc2438]

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. 👍

[@user-xq2zn8bu9q]

Why was it called "Ma Deuce" & what does it mean...?

[@SnowmanTF2]

@@user-xq2zn8bu9q 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.

[@user-xq2zn8bu9q]

@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...? 😁

[@mikejacques8863]

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.

[@veritasvincit2745]

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.

[@coreybenson3122]

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.

[@markgarin6355]

My mother carried the plans to final factory location for those guns. A strange admission as a dinner topic forty years after the event

[@carlday-jy7ct]

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.

[@martinsaunders2942]

I was always amazed that anyone thought a rifle calibre machine gun would be of any use at all.

[@chrissmith2114]

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,.

[@nickdanger3802]

@@chrissmith2114 Britain had very reliable Browning MG's made under license.

[@williambreedyk7861]

In an interview with Chuck Yeager who flew P51's over Europe, he mentioned preferring armour piercing incendiaries.

[@lowellwhite1603]

Later in the war, that is all the Americans used.

[@BitwiseMobile]

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.

[@ilikeships9333]

Funny those are also good in war thunder

[@alexisborden3191]

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.

[@BHuang92]

Even though .303 machine gun rounds isn't much by 1940, still i would hate to be peppered by a Spitfire in 1940.

[@kiwi_comanche]

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.

[@lilchinesekidchen]

I mean it’s powerful against people, just not that effective against machinery

[@johnc2438]

Please pass the salt! 😉

[@jj4791]

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.

[@JohnyG29]

@@jj4791 Exactly. People also forget how few shells the Me109E carried (just 60 rounds per gun) and low muzzle velocity of the weapon.

[@martentrudeau6948]

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.

[@matthewbrown6163]

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.

[@DoBraveryFPS]

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.

[@FelixstoweFoamForge]

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.

[@Chiller11]

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.

[@jaiell2049]

@@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

[@don2deliver]

@@Chiller11 It was said a Panzer was capable of taking out 10 Shermans. The problem was there were always at least 11 Shermans.

[@raypurchase801]

@@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".

[@balham456]

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.

[@richardalexander5758]

Three bmg's per wing on the Hurricane.

[@jacktattis]

lESS EFFECTIVE ?????? Dick Audet 5 enemy in 7 minutes and that was only Cannon

[@alanbates1471]

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

[@stephenallen4635]

I really admire the two previous commenters ability to completely misinterpret your comment in every way possible

[@alanbates1471]

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.

[@Finchy67]

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.

[@malcolmmoy]

More of this please. Subject mater experts discussing important details with original material. Much better than the usual light touch stuff.

[@timgosling6189]

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.

[@82726jsjsufhejsjshshdjso]

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.

[@chitlika]

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

[@Simon_Nonymous]

Yes I just spotted that straight away; I think it's a 30-06 rather than a 7.92 x 57

[@TadMarko]

It is definitely a U.S. .30-06 round.

[@88porpoise]

Would be nice to be the correct cartridge, but for the purpose of showing scale it does the job.

[@kennethjackson7574]

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.

[@jacktattis]

Well dick Audet did OK Cannon only 5 enemy in 8 minutes

[@alancranford3398]

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.

[@jacktattis]

Cannon did Not having jamming issues after Gun heating pipes were fitted from the Mk II on.

[@Ukraineaissance2014]

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

[@csulb75]

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.

[@nickdanger3802]

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

[@jacktattis]

Thanks Nick

[@cozmcwillie7897]

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.

[@fus149hammer5]

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.

[@garryferrington811]

I'm imagining a bunch of Jacob Rees-Moggs as CO's.

[@cozmcwillie7897]

@@garryferrington811Ha Ha Ha. Yeah, they'd fit the picture. I had pictured Monty Python's sketch "Upper class twit of the year" characters.

[@cozmcwillie7897]

@@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.

[@veritasvincit2745]

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.

[@jg4264]

Another excellent high quality presentation IWM and fantastic collaboration with Jonathan at Royal Armouries. Thank you

[@Guy_6397]

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 KZbin. More please! :)

[@andrewmarsden1970]

The evolution of the Spitfire in a short space of time always fascinates me.

[@920utdoors9]

Think how few years separate the Wright Flyer and the space shuttle

[@w8stral]

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? =-)

[@jacktattis]

@@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.

[@JohnyG29]

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.

[@M60gunner1971]

Still .303 is too small.

[@Conserpov]

20mm is 36 times more powerful

[@rogerthomson9461]

Well said

[@stevemitz4740]

@@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?

[@Conserpov]

@@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

[@dougrobinson8602]

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!

[@patttrick]

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.

[@brianjschumer]

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

[@allangibson8494]

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.

[@Degsie1975]

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.

[@DavidSiebert]

@@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 :)

[@davidca96]

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.

[@Blinp182]

I totally agree, “if looks could kill” the Spitfire would not need guns .

[@Cats-TM]

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.

[@Traderjoe]

The Spitfire was one of the most beautiful aircraft ever made.

[@buggadifino5780]

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.

[@ROBERTN-ut2il]

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.

[@DaveBaker-yn2zs]

😅

[@Nghilifa]

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).

[@brycesolomon9933]

Why’s your gun sluggish? Did you check the headspace and timing? You’re a NoGo at my station.

[@ROBERTN-ut2il]

@@Nghilifa Correct, but I wanted to restrict my comments to the WW2 era gun as that seemed to be the limits of the discussion

[@mattblack118]

One of the best presentations on the Spitfire I have ever seen. Well done.

[@garryferrington811]

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.

[@mpersad]

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.

[@TCK71]

Absolutely brilliant video, I was at RAF Duxford for 2 days in September for the IWM airshow, it was a completely fantastic experience.

[@Ferr1963]

0:25 Talking about the 303 round. The funny thing is that he is showing a 30/06 cartridge, which the Spitfire never fired.

[@user-vg3yc6gk5f]

I think you're right

[@FallNorth]

@@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.

[@janvan3410]

You are correct!

[@boydgrandy5769]

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.

[@FireflyMyLife]

This was an exceptional video. Bravo, well done, and many thanks.

[@cameronhilburn5628]

By far your best video to date!! I love these sort of videos; how 1 design feature informed the engineering of an iconic plane.

[@1958PonyBoy]

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.

[@dave38434783]

Great video, interesting to get the development of one specific aspect of the Spitfire, and its related changes like the wing design.

[@Marcel_Hiller]

Could you make a video about the Hawker Typhoon and Tempest? That would be interesting too.

[@anonnemo2504]

A superb, little documentary. Many thanks. I had no idea that we experimented with cannons on Spitfires during the Battle of Britain.

[@samuelschmitt7068]

Outstanding video. Thank you for providing great educational and entertaining content!

[@matthiasfraser1617]

Really enjoyed this guys, thank you!

[@xmeda]

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.

[@Hazy429]

Cool info, but I didn’t know what half of it was. Just don’t tell me

[@adrianhorsnell8900]

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?

[@rbnootan101]

Great show and amazing aircraft. Set the stage for future advancement. The Merlin engine was a beast. 👏👏👏

[@patrickcosgrove2623]

Great video and very well presented too. Well done 👍

[@14rnr]

Thank you for posting this I really enjoyed it.

[@xet1sw156]

Very well done. Congratulations on a job done to perfection.

[@terrystephens1102]

Many thanks for a very thorough history of the Spitfire’s various armament configurations.😁👌👌❤️

[@Pupienus238]

I find it so interesting that a gun that shoots at 1500rpm needed heat input from the engines. One of those things that just seems so counter-intuitive until i think about how the gun isn't firing that often.

[@zeb3144]

Watching this makes me want to visit Duxford. I haven't been for over 30 years so long over due.

[@rc-fannl7364]

Well presented, also nice to see so many airworthy Spits together

[@Zulu4impi]

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."

[@charlesdean3089]

Extraordinary lesson about a signal aircraft design. Ty!

[@GARDENER42]

0:27 That's not a .303 round as it's rimless. Looks more like a US 30-06.

[@54mgtf22]

Hi IWM. Duxford is one of my favourite places to visit all the way from Australia.

[@b.griffin317]

I had so much fun visiting Duxford last year on my tour of the UK. Truly one of the highlights.

[@kowanut1]

I believe there was a version of the Hurricane that mounted twelve .303's. Talk about a swarm of angry bees.

[@ewenmacgregor2997]

The MkIIa Hurricane carried 12 Browning .303s

[@Scott11078]

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!

[@PitFriend1]

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.

[@drEvilfromLV]

Probably not

[@EstorilEm]

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.

[@jacktattis]

@@EstorilEm If that was so the Germans Italians and RAF would not have used cannon

[@michaelwelton4910]

Absolutely fascinating. You have to admire both the imagination and also the engineering expertise.

[@hangie65]

Excellent and informative video. A one-stop shop reference on spitfire wings and armament.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

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.

[@ericadams3428]

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.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

@@ericadams3428 is that the Browning or Vickers gun? My source does say which machine guns they looked at.

[@dougrobinson8602]

@@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.

[@msgretrogamer]

Jonathan is great, I always enjoy his videos.

[@harrygleed423]

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

[@janinsweden8559]

That aircraft is very beautiful, even compared to modern aircraft you have in Britain, like the Eurofighter.

[@ndenise3460]

Each 20mm has an equivalent KE of 12-16 times a .303(not including explosive charge. So a huge increase in power

[@jacktattis]

And it was 3.6 times as powerful as the 50 Cal.

[@markanderson3376]

Very interesting video. Please keep these coming.

[@johnwtobin156]

That Spitfire looks really nice with a bubble canopy.

[@christophermiller867]

Absolutely fascinating, thank you.

[@garyshuttleworth3459]

great to watch, many thanks to all concerned

[@stephenbrookes8681]

There are some arguments for the 8 x 303's....one being the sheer number of rounds making a hit more likely (a repair at the airfield as the very least outcome). They were also very light compared to 50's and cannons so worked well in earlier models with the lower powered Merlins. The mixed ballistics of fighters armed with both MG and cannon is problematic for aiming. The best options are all cannon or all 50 cal as there is no mixed ballistics and they will hit very hard.

[@robertkalinic335]

BS, you fire mg's only on long range and cannons point blank. 50's are awful imo.

[@Simon_Nonymous]

It was also a weapon that was fully developed and tested, and used available ammunition. Indeed lightweight with a high rate of fire, they were the best available at the time - of course 20mm cannons and .5" BMG come along eventually, but this video makes quite clear the introduction of the 20mm was not a smooth process.

[@jdlamb4212]

Shoulda gone with 24 guns

[@joshuaboudreau5258]

Love jonathan! He participates in many channels. Hope he and his museum benefit from his time making you look good!

[@jbau4985]

It is obvious that he doesn't know his weapons and ammunition very well.

[@ROBERTN-ut2il]

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!

[@hotstepper887]

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.

[@hotstepper887]

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.

[@hotstepper887]

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.

[@robertpatrick3350]

@@hotstepper887the Vickers gun went on to provide sterling service destroying large nrs of Luftwaffe aircraft in North Africa whilst being mounted on jeeps.

[@hotstepper887]

@@robertpatrick3350 That's right.

[@Cometkazie]

Lots of material presented, Excellent episode.

[@yufgyug3735]

Spitfire is a beautiful instrument of freedom

[@OptiPopulus]

Then let me who how you can own a gun in the UK the same as you could in America.

[@audacity60]

I still say the best armed Hurricanes in 1940, belonged to Belgium. Their licensed built Hurricanes had 4x .50 FN Colt heavy machineguns. Those put out more projectile weight per second than 8x .303. Sadly Belgium only had 2 in service when they were invaded. I wish RAF Hurricanes had 4x .50 cal in 1940. The RAF had bought one of the earliest .50 Colt machine guns , but decided to stick with .303, until the 20mm cannon were ready. I think this was a mistake.

[@ladonnaghareeb4609]

Excellent channel. The Spitfire is one of the most beautiful airplanes I've ever seen. Very graceful lines.

[@clarencehopkins7832]

Beautiful beast great work GB 🇬🇧

[@jimleffler7976]

Awesome. Thanks for all that information

[@Stew357]

Outstanding video, ty gentlemen.

[@jonr6680]

The desire to fit bigger guns was challenging due to the hugely rapid evolution of aircraft, from 1930s to 40s, a big gun like 20mm would not only be far too heavy but the recoil would have torn an earlier aircraft to pieces. In those early days aircraft were frameworks covered in fabric. The frame was as light as possible, in wood then later alloy - just to allow the aircraft to fly! Then stressed skins started being used, adding to strength. These structures were fragile! It's literally the history of ww2 that accelerated technologies such as materials, structures and engines to the point aircraft could become gun platforms, and bombers etc. Modern technology development in peace and plenty seems amazing... Imagine developing and implementing advanced technology under war conditions... and getting it wrong meant test pilots died, or worse the front line squadrons. And every delay also threatened their survival and performance. 'No pressure then'.

[@countluke2334]

They were fragile, but they still flew with basically half the fabric gone. that's why dropping all of your .303 into the wings might still not get the enemy down (even though you're likely to at least cause fuel leaks). You needed to sink the ammo into the engine block or the cockpit, and that's not so easy when you're coming from behind in a turn fight. The cannons would make the whole wing disappear. And you need far less rounds to actually hit the target to cause serious damage.

[@simonkevnorris]

Thanks for the interesting and informative video.

[@HEIN103]

The picture of the round at time frame 0.28 is not a .303 round , Most probably a 7.62 mm round

[@user-hu7rn4ym8j]

My grandfather Peter Wilson Lovell flew the super marine spitfire in WW2…..and his grandfather Joseph Wilson was one of the founders of BSA who produced the guns for the spitfires…..

[@miket2120]

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.

[@fus149hammer5]

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'.

[@Onir500]

Great collab!!

[@resnonverba137]

Very interesting, thanks for upload. Always interesting to learn about the greatest aircraft of all time.

[@rajekamar8473]

Very informative and facination...

[@BluegillGreg]

Some say the .303s early in the air war were set to converge too far out from the Spitfire, straddling the targets at close ranges rather than hitting with concentrated power, and hitting targets but without much power at longer ranges. The Polish armorers fixed this on their Polish pilots' Hurricanes, since the Polish pilots held their fire until they were in really close. The British ground crews and pilots followed suit once they'd seen how much more effective the small rounds became when tightly massed at close range. Regarding the 20mm, I've seen claims that Americans had their main success with that in the P-38, since it was center-mounted where the pilot could open a panel to access the gun and clear a jam. While jammed, the P-38 pilot still had use of the Browning .50s. Both of these stories make sense in theory, but I'd like to hear from someone who knows better than I do!

[@bmused55]

The .50 cal was available when the Spitfire was first put into service. Imagine if it came from the get go with those. It would have literally shred the Luftwaffe to pieces over Britain. Still, even though the 303 round is quite weedy in aircraft terms, you still didn't want to be at the receiving end of over 8000 rounds a minute. I read somewhere the reason 303 was chosen was because there was a lot of 303 ammunition readily available.

[@ericbrammer2245]

8x. .30 cal, vs 6x 50 cal, at roughly (both being Browning Guns), LEAD-to-Target WEIGHT of Destruction, using RATE-OF FIRE calculations says, the Britts had a Better WEIGHT OF IMPACT in a 5second Burst... BUT, the Spitfire, unlike the Hurricane, or, say P-40/P-51B, had a Gun Arrangement of two, near wingroots, 4 outboards of the Landing Gear, two, Outside of the wing-fuel-tanks. Thus a Large, but WEAK, 'Cone-of-fire'. Hurricanes instead, had, usually, All 8 guns just outboard of the Landing gear, thus Easy-to-Aim, and a proper 'narrow' Cone-of Fire, with Equal Lead-to-impact Results.. While Range is a Consideration, let's ignore THAT briefly, in a .30 cal vs .50 cal "weight-of-shot' and RPM. So, the USA, on 5 of it's front-line fighters (the P-47 wasn't "there-yet", managed to at-the least, get 4 .50-cal guns in a 'near-cone' of Fire ( these being the P-40, P-39, P-43, and P-38, with the F-4U in Naval service, but-not-yet onboard Carriers ). Of these, the P-40 and F-4U could use 6 of, the .50 cals., and the up-coming Mustang "might" use 4 - or -6 guns, while the new P-47 was to use 8 guns of .50 cal ammo. Both the P-38, and P-39/63, and centerline Cannon, as well. So, in Machine-guns, it became a game of Range/Weight-of-Shot/Rate-of-fire. The .50 cal Won against the ,303 at about one-gun to every 3, especially beyond 500 yards. Also, note that, a Cannon was Always on German Fighters, and many Japanese fighters, but only a Few USAAC Fighters. Cannon can Hit You, and 'still miss, merely punching a Hole;'', but, IF they HIT, stuff goes "bOOM"..303 machine guns, however well aimed, didn't do that! So, when Spits went to using 2 or 4 2omm CANNONS, they Aimed to KILL, instead of using 'pepper-spray' and also asked, Politely, for the Nazis to stop bombing them By using BIG BANG weapons, instead of pea-shooters.

[@davidelliott5843]

The final shot of Mk24 shows a frighteningly deadly but absolutely stunning looking aircraft.

[@freakyflow]

As a Canadian Watching war movies as a kid I did not understand why Or who. In time I come to understand all the factors That England was indeed lucky And down to a thin wire.... I have to say of the 40+ years of loving WW2 history The UK stood out as the most diverse engineers of the time Not only in aircraft But in weapons And roles of both The Wooden Wonder, Grand slam, The Lancaster, The Tempest, Bouncing bomb. Horsepower Speed . At the time They were matched with the 109 And 190 However Few understand that the Germans Were pros at flying And at combat Something England was not matched with at first ....German public had Flying clubs And join as apart of the "elite" Today it would be equal to a Golf club VIP member.Germany also seen Aces from the Spanish civil war in 1936 And with 1 year of fighting up to England They were ready. England made leaps and bounds from there

[@Gibbons3457]

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.

Very interesting Video and a good colaboration.

[@davydatwood3158]

It's pretty widely known that George Lucas used footage from the Battle of Britain as a baseline when creating the dogfighting sequences in the original Star Wars. But after watching this, I wonder if he was aware of the "wing" terminology from the Spitfires? Lucas knew all sorts of random trivia and it tends to crop up in his movies as the names of alien species or exotic places, so it seems not implausible that he might have. And then when he's making his sci-fi epic he just changed "A-wing" and "B-Wing" to "X-Wing" and "Y-Wing." Pure speculation, but something that kept flashing through my head. I knew about the different armament setups and the "universal wing" but I hadn't heard the "A-wing" etc terminology before this. :)

[@jacktattis]

Lucas and the Battle of Britain He is the last person to make a Brit war movie