Author Topic: Mk 108 30mm (Read 5542 times)

Benny Moore · « **Reply #30 on:** December 17, 2006, 08:10:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
Please clarify.

How would a fighter structure differ froma bomber structure?

I'll humor you. Bombers have great, open spaces. Fighters have small, compact spaces filled with stuff.

Lusche · « **Reply #31 on:** December 17, 2006, 08:19:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Benny Moore
I'll humor you. Bombers have great, open spaces. Fighters have small, compact spaces filled with stuff.

Hmmm... explosions in great open spaces usually do less damage then in small spaces cramped with equipment

zorstorer · « **Reply #32 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:11:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Apeking
"As far as aiming, do you use the German Revi sight?"

I don't like using gunsights at all. They are prescriptive, and I dislike that kind of old-fashioned linear thinking. The more I play Aces High, the less I rely on my visual sense. Nowadays I find myself hunting and shooting with my ears and tongue more than I do with my eyes. I use my eyes less and less because they constrain my ability to feel.

For several weeks now I have been developing a new form of aerial combat. It is the skill of shooting truthfully. I do not look at the gunsight, or at anything except for the RPM indicator. The RPM indicator is steady, and I admire that quality. It is a circle, like a woman. All of the universe can fit inside the RPM indicator of a Bf109K4.

Whilst you people fixate on your aerial manoeuvres and tactics, I have come to realise that the only way to win consistently is to smother the enemy with the power of my mind. And with my desire.

The cloud is the most successful aircraft in the game. The cloud guiles its enemies. It flows around and smothers them. They do not realise that they have lost. But they *have* lost. And that is what I hope to do with my new thinking, in the cockpit of my fighter plane.

Mind plus desire into action. That mantra is my gunsight.

Anyone else follow?

Slash27 · « **Reply #33 on:** December 17, 2006, 10:18:22 PM »

Not so much.... but it sounds like fun.

Benny Moore · « **Reply #34 on:** December 17, 2006, 11:44:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lusche
Hmmm... explosions in great open spaces usually do less damage then in small spaces cramped with equipment

Ah, but the shells in question were specifically designed for maximum damage in open spaces. I'm not sure exactly how it works, but apparently the shell explodes after impact with one side of the fuselage. The shrapnel expands as it travels through the open space and then tears a wide area out of the opposite side of the fuselage. For obvious reasons, this doesn't work well when it hits wings. And the clutter inside of the fuselages of fighters tends to absorb shrapnel, although it's certainly not good for that clutter (radio, oxygen, fuel, control cables). But the point is that it's not going to magically disintegrate a fighter as people are led to believe. It's like the difference between shooting a hollowpoint at an empty can and shooting one at a can of sand.

Krusty · « **Reply #35 on:** December 18, 2006, 12:51:15 AM »

Didn't work that way.

The round had a spinning detonator inside it. The rifling bore of the gun itself spun the round, and the core would rotate with it. When the round decelerated suddenly (upon impact) the core flung forward and 2 contacts (of whatever) met and detonated the explosives.

This is a round with a slow enough muzzle velocity that it's not going to overpenetrate ANYthing.

So barring that, it's a hand grenade. Nothing more. Put a grenade in an open space, and do LESS damage. Put a grenade in a small space, and blow the living daylights out of it. The same explosion in a smaller, confined, space, will do more damage. That's just physics. Not to mention fighters were crammed in almost every inch of their wings, fuselage, tail, nose, with vital components. Bombers had a lot more space where there were no vital components (unless you count gunners?). 30mm will do more damage to a fighter than a bomber because of these reasons.

Benny Moore · « **Reply #36 on:** December 18, 2006, 12:55:15 AM »

That's an assumption that both air forces and loads of German aces disagree with.

Krusty · « **Reply #37 on:** December 18, 2006, 01:03:55 AM »

I don't think so. Even the Germans admitted it took 3-5 30mm rounds to take down heavy bombers, but that any single hit would doom a fighter.

It was MADE for bombers. It was USED against both bombers and fighters. They developed the 30mm to stop bombers, but that doesn't mean it was ANY less powerful against fighters. Put a cherry bomb on your palm. Set it off. You get a slightly scorched palm. Put one on your palm and make a fist around it and you've just blown your fingers off.

Put a 30mm in the open fuselage of a bomber, and it'll do a helluva lot of damage. Put one inside the structurally confined, enclosed wing/tail/fuselage of a fighter, and you've just killed a fighter.

Benny Moore · « **Reply #38 on:** December 18, 2006, 01:07:14 AM »

Well, all I can offer at the moment is a statement by a Focke-Wulf 190 pilot that all they did to fighters was blow off skin. I wish I could source it but I can't.

Bronk · « **Reply #39 on:** December 18, 2006, 01:20:55 AM »

Sooo lemme get this straight.

An exploding round does less damage on a smaller target .
And it does more damage on a larger target.
Ok got it.

Bronk

zorstorer · « **Reply #40 on:** December 18, 2006, 01:44:50 AM »

Just let Tony read this and come in with the "Right Hand of Tony" (tm) and set this straight

I am sure he has it worked up on his site....or just plain old knows

Benny Moore · « **Reply #41 on:** December 18, 2006, 01:54:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bronk
Sooo lemme get this straight.

An exploding round does less damage on a smaller target .
And it does more damage on a larger target.
Ok got it.

Ever shot a gun? Smaller often means denser. I've shot hollow objects with hollowpoints, and I've also shot smaller solid objects with the same. Hollow objects get torn apart, solid objects just get small holes.

Tony Williams · « **Reply #42 on:** December 18, 2006, 02:01:36 AM »

An extract from Flying Guns – World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45:

"The 30 mm HEI M-Geschoss, fired from an MK 108, was also tested. Unsurprisingly, ten rounds fired at a Spitfire fuselage resulted in a score of three immediately lethal, seven probably lethal. Eleven rounds fired at a Blenheim achieved the same results, plus one doubtful. It was noted that the ammunition did not have much effect on heavy bomber fuselages (presumably because of the large volume for the explosion to dissipate into), but inflicted serious aerodynamic damage to the wings by blowing off the surfaces, and that the incendiary content was very effective in starting fires. German tests reflected these results, and also revealed significant differences in the effectiveness of the mine shells depending on the construction of the aircraft. Stressed-skin alloy monococque structures were most vulnerable to being blown apart. Steel structures clad with thin aluminium were less affected as the cladding quickly split, releasing the pressure before it had much time to damage the structure, and fabric-covered structures were damaged least of all. It was not only the blast which inflicted damage; after the war, the Americans test-fired an MK 108 HEI shell into the tail of a B-24 at a typical angle, characteristic of a tail interception by an Me 262. The "spray" pattern of very high velocity, very small fragments cut most if not all of the control cables and many of the longerons. It was assessed that the tail would have separated if the plane had been in flight; a performance which made a great impression on the observers."

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

straffo · « **Reply #43 on:** December 18, 2006, 02:49:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Benny Moore
Ever shot a gun? Smaller often means denser. I've shot hollow objects with hollowpoints, and I've also shot smaller solid objects with the same. Hollow objects get torn apart, solid objects just get small holes.

Hu ?

Kweassa · « **Reply #44 on:** December 18, 2006, 06:37:42 AM »

Okkkkay..

So we've got a professional historian and WW2 ammunitions expert saying;

Quote

It was noted that the ammunition did not have much effect on heavy bomber fuselages (presumably because of the large volume for the explosion to dissipate into), but inflicted serious aerodynamic damage to the wings by blowing off the surfaces, and that the incendiary content was very effective in starting fires.

...and a non-significant person saying..

Quote

Ah, but the shells in question were specifically designed for maximum damage in open spaces. I'm not sure exactly how it works, but apparently the shell explodes after impact with one side of the fuselage. The shrapnel expands as it travels through the open space and then tears a wide area out of the opposite side of the fuselage. For obvious reasons, this doesn't work well when it hits wings.

I go with the professional historian.

Sorry, Moore. You're just not a reliable source.