Author Topic: Question for Tony Williams (Read 568 times)

Sturm · « **on:** April 24, 2001, 08:57:00 AM »

Can you compare the US 50 cal and the MG 131 rounds for us? I am just curious about the G-schloss shells for the 131 or the HEi/AP rounds. Differences in Muzzle Velocity, penetration and such if you have these kind of charts.

------------------
Sturm6 StaffelKapitän
JV44 Platzschutzstaffel
Airfield Defense Squadron
"Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl harbor?" Famous quote from Animal House, John Belushi.

Tony Williams · « **Reply #1 on:** April 24, 2001, 02:10:00 PM »

No problem. The MG 131 fired several different projectiles, but these were the main ones:

34g HE/T at 750 m/s (only 1-1.2g HE; not M-Geschoss!)

32 or 34g I at 750-770 m/s (1.2g of incendiary compound with T, up to 3g without, esp with small chemical fuze. Seemed much more common than HE)

38g AP at 710 m/s: would penetrate as follows:
17mm/100m/0 degrees
10mm/100m/60 "
11mm/300m/0 "
7mm/300m/60 "

There was also an API but this was quite different from US .50 type; instead of being a jacketed bullet with a hard core and incendiary mix in the jacket tip, it was a cannon-type pointed steel projectile with a small cavity containing the nasty stuff, which was expelled from the base of the projectile on impact.

The .50 was much more powerful with a significantly higher muzzle velocity (880 m/s) and better velocity retention. The AP had better penetration (up to 25mm/100m/0 degrees) and would have retained more of it at longer ranges. OTOH, the US gun was much bigger, weighed almost twice as much and was slower-firing (although there probably wasn't much in it once synchronisation was taken into account).

Tony Williams
Author: Rapid Fire - The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces.
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/

Sturm · « **Reply #2 on:** April 24, 2001, 02:28:00 PM »

Just testing ya Tony on the Geschoss

Thanks for the info, I guess what I am also trying to gather what are your thoughts on the 131 as a gun. 770M/s is not that bad in terms of velocity. I am just wondering if the ROF countered the higher velocity of the US 50 cal. And last but not least, how destructive was the 131 when it came into contact with an enemy plane of course depending on the loadout? What would be the best choice for fighters/bombers?

------------------
Sturm6 StaffelKapitän
JV44 Platzschutzstaffel
Airfield Defense Squadron
"Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl harbor?" Famous quote from Animal House, John Belushi.

Tony Williams · « **Reply #3 on:** April 25, 2001, 12:16:00 AM »

The MG 131 was probably equally destructive against aircraft structures, fuel tanks etc, but would be more easily stopped by armour. A curious aspect of this is that a higher velocity than is necessary to penetrate the target is no advantage in destruction terms; most damage is done by projectiles which only just penetrate - faster ones just punch neater holes!

In comparing the weapons you have to take account of the weight difference; you can (nearly) have two MG 131 for the weight of one .50, which puts a whole new slant on rate of fire and destructiveness. Don't underestimate the higher MV and better ballistic shape of the .50, though. It made long range and deflection shooting much easier.

Tony Williams
Author: Rapid Fire - The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces.
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/

illo · « **Reply #4 on:** April 25, 2001, 04:54:00 AM »

So MG131 had almost similar muzzle velocities compared to MG151/20, 750-770m/s and 750-805m/s.

Though lighter MG131 rounds must have had worse velocity retention.

Tony Williams · « **Reply #5 on:** April 26, 2001, 01:38:00 AM »

One thing which has always puzzled me is why Messeschmitt didn't instal a couple of MG 131 wing guns into the Bf 109G.

Unlike the podded MG 151/20, the little MG 131 would easily have fitted inside the wing and would have had a negligible effect on the performance and handling, but would have provided a very useful (and necessary) boost to firepower.

Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm

Sturm · « **Reply #6 on:** April 26, 2001, 03:35:00 AM »

Always wondered why they didn't go with a 6 gun version in the FW's or 4 gun version in the 109