50. Vs. Cannons

[georgh]

To be honest, I'd rather have both. In which case I can go "Dewo style" and use the MGs to work up the solution and then use the cannons to finish the job.

[Gibbage]

"Surprisingly, self-destruction fuses were not used, although German fighters were operating over the home country at this time in the war. Probably it was felt that this reduced the effective range too much"

From http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-am.html

As for the insults, "not “Minegros” you dolt!" does not sound like "friendly" advice, nor does "you dimwit".  It could of been put a LOT better if it truly was just some advice.

[Gibbage]

Originally posted by georgh
To be honest, I'd rather have both. In which case I can go "Dewo style" and use the MGs to work up the solution and then use the cannons to finish the job.

I enjoy the P-38's armament for its combo.  I "tickle" the target with the .50's, and put it down with the 20MM.  Also, the .50's are great for range shots if the target is getting away.

[Viking]

Originally posted by Gibbage
You have also yet to post any proof that the Mk-108 could fire the AP or HE shells from the Mk-101 or Mk-103, like you said they did.  

I have never said anything like that. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Originally posted by Gibbage
I did not call you a liar, or accuse you of anything.

No of course not. All your “I see you conveniently removed…”, “Again, you removed…”, “Again, more removal ... Hummmm”, were just your way of hinting at my … what? Honesty? I did not “remove” anything. I quoted the official designation of each round and put your claim: “The only shells used in Mk-108's were MG shells…” to shame. Clearly the Mk 108 used a number of different rounds. Then you added the qualifier “in combat” and again I showed that the Mk 108 also used incendiary rounds in combat, not only mine-shells, again putting your claim to shame.

[Gibbage]

Do we have practice rounds in AH?  Did they use practice rounds in combat?  No.  Thats why I added the qualifier of "in combat".  If you really want too split hairs, im SURE the Mk-108 at some point fired all sorts of rounds, but the point is what was USED in combat.  Every source I can find says that the Mk-108 only fired MG shells in combat.  

You also said "The Mk 108 round used in fact the same projectiles as the bigger Mk 101 and 103 cannon".  Again, from my understanding, those two guns did not fire MG shells, as the recoil would not be enough to operate the receiver.  Now, a few of the web resources say that they did use MG shells, so I may be wrong about this.  

I assumed by you saying that the Mk-101 and 103 used the same projectiles, that you are saying that the Mk-108 can fire the Mk-101's and 103's AP and HE shells (in Mk-108 x90 cases).  Reading now, I think this is a bad assumption, am I correct?  Did I misunderstand what you were trying to say?  

If so, I must say that it was very misleading in that you were not very clear with "The Mk 108 round used in fact the same projectiles as the bigger Mk 101 and 103 cannon".  Again, that sentence leave the possibility that the Mk-101 and 103 AP and HE shells could be used.  Thats what im debating.  There is no proof that the Mk-108 ever used AP or HE shells in combat.

[Viking]

Originally posted by Gibbage
Do we have practice rounds in AH?  Did they use practice rounds in combat?  No.  Thats why I added the qualifier of "in combat".  If you really want too split hairs, im SURE the Mk-108 at some point fired all sorts of rounds, but the point is what was USED in combat.  Every source I can find says that the Mk-108 only fired MG shells in combat.  

You can’t have looked very hard then. I simply typed in “MK 108” in Google and the FIRST page it came up with states: “There were two main types of ammunition for the MK 108 to use, a 30 mm high-explosive self-destroying tracer  ("M-Shell" or "Mine-Shell") and a 30 mm incendiary shell.”

http://www.luft46.com/armament/mk108.html

Note that “main types” also indicates that other types of rounds were used, but not as common.

Originally posted by Gibbage
You also said "The Mk 108 round used in fact the same projectiles as the bigger Mk 101 and 103 cannon".  Again, from my understanding, those two guns did not fire MG shells, as the recoil would not be enough to operate the receiver.  Now, a few of the web resources say that they did use MG shells, so I may be wrong about this.  

I have already posted a picture from Tony Williams’ site that showed a 30x184R round with a mine-shell. Should be a no-brainer.

Originally posted by Gibbage
I assumed by you saying that the Mk-101 and 103 used the same projectiles, that you are saying that the Mk-108 can fire the Mk-101's and 103's AP and HE shells (in Mk-108 x90 cases).  Reading now, I think this is a bad assumption, am I correct?  Did I misunderstand what you were trying to say?  

The Mk 101, 103 and 108 were all made by Rheinmetall-Borsig and they used the same projectiles for all those guns, or at least versions of the same projectiles. Different muzzle velocities means differences in fusing and self-destruct mechanisms, but other than that they would be the same. I have already posted pictures and designations of Mk 108 rounds using AP and (inert) HE shells as practice rounds. That the Luftwaffe decided to use the M-Geschoss and incendiary rounds almost exclusively is both understandable and unsurprising. That they were the only rounds available is however to assume too much.

Originally posted by Gibbage
If so, I must say that it was very misleading in that you were not very clear with "The Mk 108 round used in fact the same projectiles as the bigger Mk 101 and 103 cannon".  Again, that sentence leave the possibility that the Mk-101 and 103 AP and HE shells could be used.  Thats what im debating.  There is no proof that the Mk-108 ever used AP or HE shells in combat.

My statement was not misleading at all. Rheinmetall-Borsig did make AP and other rounds for the Mk 108 and the Luftwaffe used them as training rounds. I could say there is no proof they didn’t use AP or HE shells in combat, but that would be just as silly as your final comment.

As a closing comment I’d like to commend you for your marked improvement with regard to spelling.

[Gibbage]

From what I know, the Mk-108 Incendiary shell is still an MG shell, with a liquid triggered fuse. So that if it hit a fuel tank, radiator, or any other fluid (including human, ick!) it would explode instead of on contact. Do you have any information on this incendiary shell?

"The second type of shell, the incendiary, was meant to be targeted at the fuel tanks of the enemy plane. Since some penetrating force was still needed to overcome the armor or airframe of the target, and not have the shell break up or explode upon contact, a hydrodynamic fuse was fitted so that the shell only exploded once it came into contact with liquid."

From the same web page you posted seems to agree that the "incendiary" component was just a hydrodynamic fuse on a standard MG shell.

P.S. Im running my post's through MS Word, just for you. Feel special now?

[Stoney74]

Originally posted by Waffle
Curiosity question...

How much play was in the mk108 mount to allow it to pitch up / down for vertical harmonization if it was mounted through the engine /prop shaft / hub on 109s?

According to this website, harmonization could not be changed once the weapon was installed.  I was wondering if that was for all installations, or merely the 109 installation.  Regardless, I would think that the 109 installation would severely restrict the setting.  They might open fire at further distances, but they'd definitely be "lobbing" with a convergence setting of say 200m and a target at 400m.

[Viking]

Originally posted by Gibbage
From what I know, the Mk-108 Incendiary shell is still an MG shell, with a liquid triggered fuse. So that if it hit a fuel tank, radiator, or any other fluid (including human, ick!) it would explode instead of on contact. Do you have any information on this incendiary shell?

"The second type of shell, the incendiary, was meant to be targeted at the fuel tanks of the enemy plane. Since some penetrating force was still needed to overcome the armor or airframe of the target, and not have the shell break up or explode upon contact, a hydrodynamic fuse was fitted so that the shell only exploded once it came into contact with liquid."

From the same web page you posted seems to agree that the "incendiary" component was just a hydrodynamic fuse on a standard MG shell.

No the Minenbrenngranate is not just a Minengeschoss with a different fuse. The Minenbrenngranate used thermite as the chemical component and thus did not “explode” at all, but burned like a roman candle.

Originally posted by Gibbage
P.S. Im running my post's through MS Word, just for you. Feel special now?

Not really. I do the same, English being my third language and all.

[HaDeSs]

I have personal experience from 4 50s (m16) and 40mm (beufors).

Also from twin 20mm rheinmental
http://ellinikos-stratos.com/images/rh-202.jpg

but this 20mm has nothing to do with wwii 20mm. rate of fire 1800 shells ps. (you dont want to be infront of this nearest of 2000m).

nothing (exept armour) can survive infrond of 4 50s at 300m.

Light aluminum constructions (airframes) becomes dust.

If you see the remains of a truck of iron then you understand what hapens
to aluminum planes.

40mm will ruin your future, if he takes you.
i have hit center @ 2000m with just 0,5mm deflection because of side wind.
Ballistics near straight line. Its a wwii weapon, long barrel.
37mm of AH projectile destruction power is very near to this but ballistics of
37mm AH ack and 40mm AH beaufors (on boats) are more curbed than real 40mm.
In reality ballistics are more straight.

I find underestimated the power of 50s in AH.
If a plane stand infront of you just for half a sec must be little pieces.
And i talk 300m distance (more than 400 yards).

If making a fast pass from your sight thats another story.

[Meyer]

From the G-6/U4 manual:

 

As we can see, harmonization was set at 400m I don´t think you would want to change that, the bullets went pretty straight from 100 to 400m (due to the gun being close to the line of sight)

Originally posted by Gibbage
here are stories of a 20MM HE shell exploding INSIDE the cockpit in front of the cockpit, and he flew back to base with flash burns and some shrapnal wounds. A .50 cal hitting a body is not very surviveable.

I don't think that a 20mm bullet/shell would cause less harm, hitting a body, than a 0.50, do you?. And also, giving the chance, I would choose a .50 hole in my windshield than a 20mm shell exploding inside the cockpit, but that's just me



 

. Alot of pilots spoke of the Mk-108 as not being very accurate, and hated it for the recoil.

Which ones?

[Viking]

Originally posted by HaDeSs
I have personal experience from 4 50s (m16) and 40mm (beufors).

What ammo did you use in those .50's? Multi-purpose 1/2?

[Viking]

Oh and Gibbage, you have to have a bit thicker skin around here. Even HiTech himself calls people "dolts" in the forums from time to time, and they are his customers. "Dimwit" is a little harsher, but still very mild for this bbs. If you ever plan on visiting the O'Club you'd better don a flak jacket.

[HaDeSs]

Originally posted by Viking
What ammo did you use in those .50's? Multi-purpose 1/2?

I dont remember that. But the shells was the common 50s. 1 piece of steel.
And the guns was not that of wwii. was 4 today common nato 50s on a M35 truck. ( not a real m16 but very near ).

[Viking]

I see. With MP ammo the M2HB is a real killer weapon that can turn things to "dust" (we used it a lot in Bosnia and the effect was awesome), but with the standard BMG Ball or API ammo the gun was not very destructive. API does however have great penetrating power and the incendiary was very effective at starting fuel fires. This is all corroborated by WWII guncam footage showing very few cases of catastrophic structural damage done by .50 cals, but plenty of "critical" hits to engines and other vital components. In the LW guncam films you see more structural damage as being the method of killing with their cannons and M-Geschoss rounds.


Here's a video of a British test, firing a single Mk 108 round at a Spitfire wing:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5650251268906356663

Pretty devastating.