[P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole]

I'm afraid that i'm not quite sure what your point is with the comprison. It's interesting, certainly, and I thank you for sharing it. But are you suggesting we should have used .300 Winchester Magnum? I've not argued that the .303 was any better shot for shot than any aerial weapon, indeed it was markedly inferior -- but 8 / 12 of the buggers when propperly converged and fired accurately could still be quite potent, especially against early war aircraft. Yes, one lucky .303 round might do more damage than 5 cannon shells in theory, but the chances of that happening are massively low. I'm afraid that by going down this path comparing modern and antiquated weaponry, we shall stray off topic entirely.