An interceptor with no capability for firing forward. Brilliant.
Blame the government specification, not the plane or its designers, for that.
From Wikipedia: The 4 rear mounted .303’s could be fired forward, sorta. The turret was simply rotated into a forward firing position. Insulated cut off points in the turret’s rings prevented the guns from firing if they were aimed at the propeller blades or facing rearward at the plane’s tail. The guns function could be transferred to the pilot’s if/when desired but was not done often.
“An interceptor with no capability for firing forward. Brilliant.” [ClearCase_guy, post 2]
‘Interceptor” and “fighter” were in 1940 two different types of aircraft. Performance characteristics barely overlapped at all.
An interceptor had to possess a high rate of climb and high speed, to be launched against an attacking force, which it was expected to reach quickly. A large load of heavy weapons had to be carried, as it was assumed the attackers would be heavy bombers.
A fighter was intended to meet hostile fighters in flight and to contend against them in air-to-air combat. High top speed was useful but maneuverability was at least as important. Typically, this dictated lighter weapons and smaller loads of munitions, because heavy airplanes couldn’t maneuver so easily.
The distinction between the two aircraft types carried through into the 1970s. Since then, constraints have lessened some but will never be removed entirely. Thus highly maneuverable aircraft like the F-16 can’t carry much and can’t fly very far.