A question about the armament on the Spitfire Vc's flown in Malta

[Tail-Dragon]

The Spitfire Vc's supplied to Malta were flown in armed with the 4 20mm canon, but prior to entry into service had two of the canon removed (either from the I/B or O/B bays) .

My question is were the Browning .303's then re-installed in the outer bays, to give the same weight of fire as the Vb's?

The C wing was designed to accept them, and the guns would be routinely removed and installed for cleaning and servicing, anyhow.

There would have been no shortage of supply of .303's or ammunition as they were used in the Vb's.

"Buzz" Beurling's combat reports (reprinted in the book 'Sniper of the Skies' by Nick Thomas) speaks of attacking with 'canon and machine gun fire' but does not mention the specific aircraft he flew on that day.

Photo's in Brian Cauchi's book, and Paul Lucas's articles are inconclusive, and profiles are somewhat unreliable.

 

Any thoughts, anyone?

 

thanks, Colin

[gingerbob]

I would assume so.  That was certainly the intention- my understanding is that having them come with 4x20s was just a way to deliver Hispanos.

[Steve 1602]

My understanding is that the C (universal) wings could be fitted with either:

• 4 x 20mm cannon, or,
• 2 x 20mm cannon plus 4 x browning .303 machine guns, or,
• 8 x browning .303 machine guns.

The middle configuration would be my assumed fit for Malta. 

 

Theres a really good breakdown on Spitfire Wing evolution at this link:

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/concise-guide-to-spitfire-wing-types.html
 

It’s also worth grabbing a cup or glass of your preferred beverage and having a read through the “all the spitfire questions” threads on Britmodeller. They are a goldmine.

 

Steve

 

[Graham Boak]

Bob and I have had a long disagreement on this point: I believe that the Mk.Vc was originally intended to be produced with 4 cannon as this was the preferred Air Ministry option for its fighters, but the aircraft was found to be overloaded with this and manoeuvring was sluggish, so the production standard was altered.  However, the aircraft for Malta on the two Wasp deliveries had four cannon: if were intended to merely carry spare cannon out, which would be logical enough, then it appears that no-one bothered to tell Malta about this.  Laddie Lucas (Takali based) wrote of testing the Spitfire with four cannon and only after this was the decision made to remove one pair.  I also think (not absolutely certain) that at least one of the photos of Barnham's aircraft on display shows it still with four cannon, possibly hinting that the Hal Far unit retained this fit.

 

Commonly seen on Malta are examples with the cannon in the outboard position.  This would certainly indicate a change rather than original single cannon fit.  It is possible - but by no means certain - that this indicated that the aircraft had undergone the Malta conversion to a fighter bomber, with the store carrier inside the inner cannon compartment.

 

It is a separate but interesting point to know whether the outer machine gun bays were fitted with guns on these aircraft, or (like the ammunition bays) used for the carriage of the pilots' personal items and "luxuries" not available on Malta.  I've not seen it ever mentioned.

[JackG]

Was there also a configuration of just two cannons and  two machine guns?  It has been several decades since reading 'The Buzz Beurling Story' by Brian Nolan, but if I recall correctly, this configuration was explained as conserving ammo during a certain desperate period?

 

regards,

Jack

[gingerbob]

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Bob and I have had a long disagreement on this point

 

Have we?

 

What worries me is that now I'm not sure why I "know" about the "spare Hispano" idea.  An admittedly superficial search of my own files didn't turn up documents, and it is possible that I absorbed someone else's interpretation.

 

Malta: The Spitfire Year says (p.200) that Op Calendar was when "for the first time" the full armament [sic] of 4 20s AND 4 .303s was fitted in each aircraft to be delivered.  Other things said in the same paragraph are problematic, so I don't know that I trust this without corroboration.  I say "sic" because it was never intended that the Vc be armed with 4 20s and 4 .303s - the Air Min even blanched at the suggestion of doing this in order to accelerate testing of the new armament installation (that is, 'c' wing).

 

@tonyot do you perchance have anything to contribute about Malta armament policies?

[Tail-Dragon]

The slight majority of photo's seems to indicate the 20mm in the inboard bays, slightly less in the outboard bays.  I have read that when the outboard bays were used, the locally produced bomb carriers could be fitted to the inboard bays. 

My question was really about the machine guns. Some photo's seem to show blast tube patches (covers) on the outboard machine gun bays, while others show nothing. It is my understanding that the Universal 'C' wing could accommodate any of the armament mixes without modification, so it would be a local decision on what to install in the wing.

 

I'm afraid this might be a case of "What happens in Malta, stays in Malta" !

[gingerbob]

I (at least) understood your question.  One reason I shared the comment that I did was to point out that even with 4 Hispanos fitted for delivery, they might still have carried the Brownings as well.  In service I would expect the .303s to be in and armed when ONE pair of Hispanos was used, whichever station they were in, and absent only when 4 20mms were fitted.

 

Comments about leaving out .303s on Spitfires (when they were part of the "normal" armament suite) seem to be very rare, in my experience.  Some pertain to particularly high-altitude operations, and others are so casual that I don't trust them without additional corroboration.  I don't recall any from Malta, but I admit that hasn't been an intensive focus for me.

 

bob

[ilj]

1 hour ago, gingerbob said:

Comments about leaving out .303s on Spitfires (when they were part of the "normal" armament suite) seem to be very rare, in my experience.  Some pertain to particularly high-altitude operations, and others are so casual that I don't trust them without additional corroboration.  I don't recall any from Malta, but I admit that hasn't been an intensive focus for me.

 

bob

 

Aren't there lots of Malta 1942 contemporary images clearly showing Spitfires with the outer .303 MGs deleted (the outer wing gun ports blanked off) and with only the outer 20mm cannon present (the inner station either blanked off or replaced with a blunt wooden bung)?  This being a 2x 20mm cannon and 2x .303 MG configuration?

 

ilj

Edited January 14, 2022 by ilj
added initials

[Phoenix44]

On the wing site given as a link, Edgar Brooks commented underneath a discussion about E wings that the Air Ministry was reluctant to reduce the number of machine guns in Spitfire wings (4 to 2) because the average pilot had very little chance of hitting anything unless spraying bullets everywhere (to paraphrase). If that is true, it's difficult to see the AM endorsing a 4 cannon only armament? Perhaps the need to shoot down bombers and/or the skill of Malta pilots might overcome that but that would be a local decision. 

[Graham Boak]

The Air Ministry had called for a 4 cannon armament on all fighters after the Hurricane, Spitfire and Typhoon/Tornado.    Witness Whirlwind, Beaufighter, Mosquito, Hurricane Mk.II, the MB3 and its followers, the Typhoon pretty well as soon as it entered service.  Also consider Firefly, Firebrand.  The Meteor actually called for six, but it couldn't be done.

[Tail-Dragon]

1 hour ago, ilj said:

 

Aren't there lots of Malta 1942 contemporary images clearly showing Spitfires with the outer .303 MGs deleted (the outer wing gun ports blanked off) and with only the outer 20mm cannon present (the inner station either blanked off or replaced with a blunt wooden bung)?  This being a 2x 20mm cannon and 2x .303 MG configuration?

 

ilj

Going through Brian Cauchi's book, it seems to be 'dealers choice' whether the canons remained in the inboard or outboard positions, and the photos show blurry, dark blotches (blast tube patches?) on none, or 2, or 4 positions for the machine gun bays. I personally am leaning towards 2 x 20mm and 4 x .303 loadout to match to firepower of the Vb's. I'm thinking the only way to know for sure would be photo's of the particular aircraft I'm building - of which there are none, darn it!