With respect to anti aircraft gunnery, how did land based anti aircraft artillery of the same period compare? In the days before radar and the proximity fuze?
As I recall later marks of Spitfire were cannon armed. If the same was true for the Seafire then it might explain their anti Kamikaze role?
No conspiracy theories here. The fact is the RAF had to be given priority when it came to aircraft design and production. I once read something on ARRSE from a dark blue type, @alfred_the_great I think, that at BRNC he had been taught nothing of the wartime role of the FAA save Taranto.
This thread started simply as a tribute to the Swordfish crews who died during the Channel Dash. Unfortunately it got hijacked by those who seek to demean their efforts as their aircraft was not US made, and others blaming the failure of Operation Fuller on the RAF, and ignoring the fog of war.
The dark blue lobby always runs the risk of not identifying or learning lessons by automatically blaming the RAF, or old school Admirals.
I never said it was incorrect, I pointed out that it could be fitted for both setups depending on the role required - again, the main upgrade was not .303 to .50 in the UK, it was .303 to 20mm*ABNRedleg was correct.
The C Wing of the Spitfire could mount 4 X 20mm Cannon. He was correct with his description of the E Wing Armament.
The R.A.F. belatedly realised that the .303 Machine Gun was proving useless in both Air To Air and Air To Ground work.
* For fighters, bombers were slightly different, however, that's another discussion