Mk 108 30mm

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by Reynolds
Quick question: OUR G-14 has the Mk 108, correct? (From what ive seen the 101 seems more my type of gun)

Correct. The MK 101 was far too big to fit into the Bf 109: so was the much more compact standard version of the MK 103 (see comparative pics of aircraft guns below). There was a modified version, the MK 103M, which could just squeeze into the engine mounting, but this seems to have been unsuccessful when tested, so never seems to have been used. Despite what some famous references say, the MK 103 was never carried by 109s in service - and neither was the MG 131.



Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by zorstorer
Tony I have an odd question kind of related to this....

How much did necking down the brass effect the muzzle velocity?  Just wondering what sort of gains and draw back the necking down has.
 

The designers look at it this way: First they choose the calibre and weight of the projectile they want to fire. Then they decide what muzzle velocity they want to fire it at. That determines how much propellant they need to fit in the case (and also the barrel length). For a high-velocity gun they need lots of propellant, so a big cartridge case to hold it. They then have a choice - to make the cartridge case long and thin, or short and fat with a bottlenecked shape. You will usually find them adopting a short, fat case (to some degree, at least) because a shorter cartridge means that the gun action can cycle more quickly, which puts up the rate of fire.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Viking]

Originally posted by Tony Williams
Despite what some famous references say, the MK 103 was never carried by 109s in service - and neither was the MG 131.

Umm ... the MG 131 sure was carried by 109s.

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by Viking
Umm ... the MG 131 sure was carried by 109s.

Sorry - a brain fart

I meant to say that the MG 151 was never carried as a cowling gun...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[zorstorer]

Originally posted by Tony Williams
The designers look at it this way: First they choose the calibre and weight of the projectile they want to fire. Then they decide what muzzle velocity they want to fire it at. That determines how much propellant they need to fit in the case (and also the barrel length). For a high-velocity gun they need lots of propellant, so a big cartridge case to hold it. They then have a choice - to make the cartridge case long and thin, or short and fat with a bottlenecked shape. You will usually find them adopting a short, fat case (to some degree, at least) because a shorter cartridge means that the gun action can cycle more quickly, which puts up the rate of fire.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Ahh ok so it's almost like they design a shell to do something then work backwards from there.  Not a "We have this round now lets make a gun for it" sort of thing.

Thanks again Tony...no dark unknowns when Tony pops in

[Benny Moore]

Originally posted by Debonair
A few months ago i read a book by an east front 109 pilot who loved the 3cm gun
one hit would drop just about any plane, he said...

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
MK108 is awesome in AH and apprently in real life. Here is what one round did in a post war british test.

That's bombers.  They were rather effective against bombers, although they still usually could take several hits.  Fighters, however, had a vastly different structure and the round was not designed to deal with that.

[Bruno]

The Mk 108 wasn't designed 'for bombers'. Please quote the sources of all those pilots who 'disliked the MK 108'. From that same series of photographs Grünherz posted is a Spitfire that was completely destroyed by a single Mk 108 round. 1 hit on a fighter with a Mk 108 all but guaranteed an abschuß.

Minengeschoß - whether 2cm or 3cm worked the same way. If a fighter was resistant to 3cm then 2cm would have been even less effective. The LW were using MGFF/M during BoB.

LW estimated 5 hits with 2cm anywhere on a fighter was enough to bring it down. Minengeschoß were most effective against stress skinned aircraft - the blast would blow out panels weakening the aircraft structure. Now some planes like the Hurricane with its internally frame could have panels blown away and remain air worthy. Wood aircraft like the Mossie could absorb the blast as well.

In general the a single Mk 108 was enough to destroy most fighters. The MK 108 was specifically designed for use against bombers.

[Apeking]

"when I was still in the Army as a Bradley gunner my bradley commander was in the first desert storm. Long story short ... he was missing the left side of his chest from shoulder to hip" - that's one question I never expected to be answered. The internet is fantastic.

"aim" - I have had some success with the 108 against bombers; my standard tactic is to dive down from about 1.5k above and to the side, opening fire at dead point-blank range along the top of the target, diving just underneath in order to escape. The gunners usually can't aim very well in the vertical, perhaps because they are looking at the blank empty sky, and don't get a sense of relative motion. They can't switch views quickly enough to deal with a target that passes swiftly by at close range.

In theory a couple of hits should be enough to ruin a bomber, but in combat I find it impractical to fire, check the fall of shot, and fire again, so I waste lots of these precious, precious explosive truffles ensuring overkill.

Sometimes I feel that the score pipper should say "X landed N kills with 4x20mm" or "Y landed N kills with 8x12.7mm" rather than listing the airframe.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
MK108 is awesome in AH and apprently in real life. Here is what one round did in a post war british test.

The round was suspended inside the fuselage not fired at the fuselage.

There is a simular photo of Spit used during the testing.

[Debonair]

Originally posted by Benny Moore
That's bombers.  They were rather effective against bombers, although they still usually could take several hits.  Fighters, however, had a vastly different structure and the round was not designed to deal with that.

the guy from the east front was mainly working against Jaks, Las, Il-2s, Pe-2s & P-39, standard VVS stuff....

[Reynolds]

Originally posted by Apeking
[B"aim" - I have had some success with the 108 against bombers; my standard tactic is to dive down from about 1.5k above and to the side, opening fire at dead point-blank range along the top of the target, diving just underneath in order to escape. The gunners usually can't aim very well in the vertical, perhaps because they are looking at the blank empty sky, and don't get a sense of relative motion. They can't switch views quickly enough to deal with a target that passes swiftly by at close range.

In theory a couple of hits should be enough to ruin a bomber, but in combat I find it impractical to fire, check the fall of shot, and fire again, so I waste lots of these precious, precious explosive truffles ensuring overkill.

Sometimes I feel that the score pipper should say "X landed N kills with 4x20mm" or "Y landed N kills with 8x12.7mm" rather than listing the airframe. [/B]

As a bomber guy, yeah, thats a good tactic. I get disoriented when that happens. Just make a point of rolling over when you drop under and coming up the same way you came in. I always kill people in that maneuver by waiting in the ball gun and blasting their canopy from above. In fighter, I find my best 30mm kills are from above and behind. I need to come at speed, but Im NOT normally using the R6, so I am working with just 65 rounds. I aim for the No. 2 engine and fire about 5 or 6 into that general area. IF they dont kill you, (Which is why speed is of the essence) they will die. I favor my aim over my chances of survival. That tends to pay off

As far as aiming, do you use the german Revil sight? The second pip down is the general area I find at 200-400 meters. (Or yards, whatever we measure in...) My fewest shots to kill a bomber were 3, right into the no. 4 engine.

I dont like that idea, unless it lists the guns AND aircraft, because the airframe is as much of an impact on kills as the gun. ALthough it IS interesting. I always ask other 109 pilots if they fly with the /R6 and whether they use 20 or 30mm. I find the BEST kills are gained from the 20mm, but the most spectacular and most enjoyable ar with the 30mm. The best enemy 109s I have experienced as well were 30mm.

[Nilsen]

Ive used the 30mm alot since i re-joined AH and i have come to love it and be fairly accurate with it. Im guessing one in five of my 30mm rounds land on buffs but against fighters its abit less.

It is an awesome weapon and has made me a better gunner than i ever was in Ah1 when i was "spoiled" with the jug guns... and i still fly with a mouse.

Stupid me have told the missus that i want a joystick for xmas (her eyes lit up for a few seconds until she realised what i had in mind) so i cant really buy one before that.

[Reynolds]

Originally posted by Nilsen
Stupid me have told the missus that i want a joystick for xmas (her eyes lit up for a few seconds until she realised what i had in mind) so i cant really buy one before that.

What other kind of "joystick" would YOU want for christmas that SHE would enjoy so much... Unless surgery was involved...

[Kweassa]

Fighters, however, had a vastly different structure and the round was not designed to deal with that.

 Please clarify.

 How would a fighter structure differ froma bomber structure?

[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.