- Joined
- 11 March 2012
- Messages
- 3,016
- Reaction score
- 2,700
Sounds like an ex post facto explanation.
Rifle-calibre (.303 Enfield) medium machine guns had proven "good enough" against pre-war, fabric-covered biplanes, so the RAF just stuck with tradition, bolting more and more .30 calibre MGs to airplanes.
Before the war, Vickers had developed a .50 HMG, (12.7 x 81 mm) but only sold it to the Royal Navy, where it proved ineffective against modern, all-metal aircraft. The RN then ordered 20 mm AA rapid-firing cannons. That ineffectiveness may have been the start of the RAF's bias against Browning .50.
After .30 proved its limited killing power during the Battle of Britain, the RAF started installing 20 mm cannons in Hurricanes and Spitfires and all subsequent fighters.
The primary reason for retaining .30 MGs in turrets is that they were lighter, shorter and quicker to turn.
Consider that an entire Browning Model 1919 firing .30 cal. is in the 35 pound range, while a Browning .50 cal.(barrel and receiver) weighs more like 92 pounds.
Rifle-calibre (.303 Enfield) medium machine guns had proven "good enough" against pre-war, fabric-covered biplanes, so the RAF just stuck with tradition, bolting more and more .30 calibre MGs to airplanes.
Before the war, Vickers had developed a .50 HMG, (12.7 x 81 mm) but only sold it to the Royal Navy, where it proved ineffective against modern, all-metal aircraft. The RN then ordered 20 mm AA rapid-firing cannons. That ineffectiveness may have been the start of the RAF's bias against Browning .50.
After .30 proved its limited killing power during the Battle of Britain, the RAF started installing 20 mm cannons in Hurricanes and Spitfires and all subsequent fighters.
The primary reason for retaining .30 MGs in turrets is that they were lighter, shorter and quicker to turn.
Consider that an entire Browning Model 1919 firing .30 cal. is in the 35 pound range, while a Browning .50 cal.(barrel and receiver) weighs more like 92 pounds.