The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

**Mike Irwin** · July 8, 2013, 12:42 PM

"This might also have been a factor in the use of cannon in British fighters from 41 on."

It had everything to do with performance.

The 20mm cannon could bring down an He 111, in many cases, with fewer than half a dozen hits while a .303 bullet simply couldn't do the damage needed to bring down the new metal framed, metal clad aircraft.

Here's a page with an interesting discussion of this.

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/cann...ntroversy.html

It's intersting that the British rejected the .50 caliber as not having sufficient advantage over the .303.

There's no doubt that the 20mm cannon caused more damage on a per hit basis, but there's also absolute no doubt about the .50's effectiveness against German, and especially Japanese, aircraft during the war.

July 8, 2013, 12:42 PM	#8
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,381	"This might also have been a factor in the use of cannon in British fighters from 41 on." It had everything to do with performance. The 20mm cannon could bring down an He 111, in many cases, with fewer than half a dozen hits while a .303 bullet simply couldn't do the damage needed to bring down the new metal framed, metal clad aircraft. Here's a page with an interesting discussion of this. http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/cann...ntroversy.html It's intersting that the British rejected the .50 caliber as not having sufficient advantage over the .303. There's no doubt that the 20mm cannon caused more damage on a per hit basis, but there's also absolute no doubt about the .50's effectiveness against German, and especially Japanese, aircraft during the war. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.