Author Topic: 50. Vs. Cannons (Read 9349 times)

Stoney74 · « **Reply #75 on:** July 09, 2007, 09:05:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Meyer
From the G-6/U4 manual:

Excuse my lack of German...Can we get a translation on this page?

Meyer · « **Reply #76 on:** July 09, 2007, 09:45:27 AM »

Not much to translate, the numbers on the left show the highest elevation of the bullets over the LOS, and at what distance, and those on the right are the points where the bullets cross the LOS, first (1.) when they are 'climbing' and (2.) when they are on the way down.

Gibbage · « **Reply #77 on:** July 09, 2007, 12:57:13 PM »

There is no doubt that the Mk-108 MG shells pack one heck of a punch! It was designed to take down bombers! I agree with your assessment that the M2's are great for taking out systems like I said earlier, but one thing I have seen many times, is sometimes strikes from .50's into the targets ammo box was rather disastrous I saw a series of FW-190's get there wing blown off by this very thing. So all that HE ammo can be both a good and a bad thing to have sometimes

Stoney74 · « **Reply #78 on:** July 09, 2007, 07:22:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Meyer
Not much to translate, the numbers on the left show the highest elevation of the bullets over the LOS, and at what distance, and those on the right are the points where the bullets cross the LOS, first (1.) when they are 'climbing' and (2.) when they are on the way down.

So, if I'm reading this right, the Mk108 convergence in the 109's was set to 400m. At 80m and 400m the rounds hit at the aim point. At 250m, the rounds were 64cm higher than the aimpoint. Very interesting. What's more, does this demonstrate that the fixed convergence mentioned in the luft46 website was 400 meters? Regardless, finally nice to see some documentation of the weapon.

scottydawg · « **Reply #79 on:** July 09, 2007, 07:44:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Not really. I do the same, English being my third language and all.

Classic.

Firefox has a built-in spell checker now that automatically turns on in text fields.

Meyer · « **Reply #80 on:** July 09, 2007, 07:45:54 PM »

Yes Stoney, that's correct. I don't know if the convergence was fixed or not, I think the website should be right about that. But as you said before, a shorter convergence would result in a higher arc and that can't be good with the low speed Mk108.
400m seems like a perfect setting.

georgh · « **Reply #81 on:** July 09, 2007, 08:27:47 PM »

But yeah, if they would add more planes with both MGs and cannons (D.520, MS.406, P39, ect.) I would fly the hell out of 'em simply because they give you the best of both worlds.

Viking · « **Reply #82 on:** July 10, 2007, 04:41:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Did the 108's shell have a detinator that would explode it after a certain time?

Sorry, missed your question. Yes and no; there were versions of Mk 108 shells both with and without self destruct mechanism. If you look at the list of shells I posted earlier the ones with "mit Zerleger" in its name has a self destruct. And if you follow the link after the list you get to a page which also describes the different fuses and their operation.

Viking · « **Reply #83 on:** July 10, 2007, 04:43:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by scottydawg
Classic. Firefox has a built-in spell checker now that automatically turns on in text fields.

Excellent! Now I finally have a reason to install Firefox. Thanks

Viking · « **Reply #84 on:** July 10, 2007, 04:49:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gibbage
...but one thing I have seen many times, is sometimes strikes from .50's into the targets ammo box was rather disastrous I saw a series of FW-190's get there wing blown off by this very thing. So all that HE ammo can be both a good and a bad thing to have sometimes

Yes, carrying a lot of ammo is dangerous when you're getting shot at. However it is the propellant that is prone to catch fire and explode when hit by incendiary rounds, not the high-explosive shells. So even carrying only machine gun ammo is dangerous. Most high-explosives need a detonator to explode.

Knegel · « **Reply #85 on:** July 10, 2007, 05:33:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking

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.

Nice video!

Yes, thats devasting, but still far away from ripping the wing off.

Greetings,

Knegel

Viking · « **Reply #86 on:** July 10, 2007, 05:56:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Knegel
Nice video!

Yes, thats devasting, but still far away from ripping the wing off.

Greetings,

Knegel

Add the load of the wing in flight, plus aerodynamic forces and that wing is gone. Same with the picture of the Blenheim test: The tail didn't fall off, but it would have in flight.

Xasthur · « **Reply #87 on:** July 10, 2007, 08:42:51 AM »

Exactly, if that wing was under even level glide load, it would fold.

It might be your Aces High leaping wing result, but the hit in the video would still be catastrophic damage to the wing structure.

Spit 2, though.... wooden wing?

Viking · « **Reply #88 on:** July 10, 2007, 09:48:19 AM »

No the Spitfire was an all-metal design from the start. Only the control-surfaces were fabric covered on early models. No wood.

Bronk · « **Reply #89 on:** July 10, 2007, 04:11:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Add the load of the wing in flight, plus aerodynamic forces and that wing is gone. Same with the picture of the Blenheim test: The tail didn't fall off, but it would have in flight.

Wasn't the round suspended inside then detonated remotely in that pic?

Bronk