German data on Mine shells to shoot down 4-engined bombers

[buile]

 

I wouldn't get too hung up on exact numbers of hits required. They would only have been approximate averages

Yes, that's why i think of it in terms of a bell curve.

 

but i seem to remember the Mine rounds were favored against the heavily armored IL-2...

------------------------------------------------------

I believe you are wrong on this.

Ok, i will accept that.  If i follow the source of the reference made on this, i find that it refers to the 30mm Mine shell and not the 20mm Mine shell vs IL-2s.  It would seem that the 30mm Mine shell was superior against heavily armored targets than 20mm AP or semi-AP.

 

...the Germans used an AP-rich mix when IL-2s were the intended targets.

In general, i'm not trying to make an argument here, but i honestly wonder the feasibility of this?  How often can you predict what your target is going to be in order to choose different extremes of belting options... meaning heavy on the AP or heavy on the HE?  

 

US fighters were the largest, most durable and best-armored fighters of the war.... The value of AP-type rounds against these exceptionally well-protected US fighters seems obvious to me.... The reputation of extreme toughness that P-47s, Corsairs and Hellcats had was well deserved.

Yes, the P-47's toughness was certainly recognized by the GAF.  Corsair and Hellcat didnt make much appearance in the ETO, so i'll leave those out.  P-47, yes, very tough.  The GAF didnt consider the P-51 anywhere near the same level of durability of the P-47.  In fact, i would say their overall impression of the Mustang was one of vulnerability to cannon fire, so i'm not sure how much they felt forced into a certain belting option, at least vs the P-51.

 

There is no doubt that Mine shells were effective against US fighters but the evidence suggests that other types of rounds (AP/I, Incendiary) were more effective than Mine rounds.

That is very possibly true.  But, is it unreasonable to suggest that an overpressure force is higher when you try to constrain it in a smaller area, than in a larger area?

buile-

[Hooligan]

Aircraft can be destroyed because accumulated structural damage causes structural failure (the wing comes off) or a single hit on a critical component (like the Pilot's head) can finish the aircraft.

Bombers don’t die as readily from a critical hit as fighters do.  Losing one engine or pilot in a bomber is not a guaranteed kill as it is in a single-engined fighter.  One hit in any number of  “right places” on a fighter is going to take it down, as long as that hit penetrates sufficiently.  I believe this is why the Germans did not favor a Mine-rich belting against Western fighters.  Conversely, bombers are much more difficult to kill with a single critical hit, making structural failure a more reliable killing mechanism.  This is why the German’s did favor a Mine-rich belting against bombers and why the US favored cannons for bomber interception, while largely sticking with .50s for anti-fighter roles.

Hooligan

[avin]

 

hooli wrote:
That is:
1 Mine
1 Incendiary
1 AP/I

One can only assume this is an anti-fighter belting, as opposed to a Mine-rich anti-bomber belting. This leads to 2 conclusions: 1) That against Western fighters, incendiary and Armor Piercing rounds were more desirable than Mine rounds.

Curious wording, hooli. I'd have phrased that as: against fighters, incendiary and AP rounds were *as* desirable as Mine rounds. Or did you forget that the Germans did retain some Mine shells, suggesting it wasn't as undesirable as you think. Shouldn't they have dropped it entirely if that was the case?

We know the ballistics of the Mine round were poorer than other rounds. It's possible the tradeoff with a high Mine belting was worthwhile against bombers, and less so against fighters. Fighters are tougher to hit than bombers in formation. But if a Mine round did hit a fighter, it might often do considerably more damage than any other type of shell. No way to know for sure without more evidence, either theoretical or historical.

But we've had this conversation before.

Karl, I did get an answer to my original question. Thanks.

avin

[Hooligan]

Avin:

Here is my reasoning.

1) Mine round ballistics are better out to 250-300 yards because of their higher initial velocity.  I don't think that ballistics beyond 300 yards would carry much weight for belting considerations (at least against fighters).

2)  If Mine rounds were equally as good against fighters as the other types, then why not just go with a Mine-heavy belting in the West?  After all, you might run into bombers.  Why bother with a separate belting for bombers and fighters if the bomber-belting is just as good against fighters as the fighter-belting.  It only makes sense to have a separate fighter-belting if that belting offers some significant advantage.  That is why I am currently of the opinion that Incendiary and AP/I rounds are "more" desirable rather than "as" desireable.

Obviously no single round was considered desireable to the exclusion of all others.  The German's didn't choose to have any pure-mine or pure-anything beltings.  No doubt they were hedging their bets since they did not have perfect information on exactly how well all of the rounds worked and exactly what targets would be engaged on any particular mission.

Hooligan

[buile]

 

Obviously no single round was considered desireable to the exclusion of all others.

Though when the 30mm came out, they apparently found the Mine round (or Mine, HE/I combination) satisfactory enough to do away with AP.

 

If Mine rounds were equally as good against fighters as the other types, then why not just go with a Mine-heavy belting in the West?

We have to give some kind of credence to the belting suggestions.  So *why* wouldnt they give the same kind of belting suggestions in the West as in the East?  It does suggest, as Hooligan argues, that there was benefit for it.  But like Avin mentions, with a 1:1:1 ratio, it does suggest that the Mine round was equally important as the other rounds.

 

No doubt they were hedging their bets

But why weren't they hedging their bets on the eastern front?  The IL-2 figured as a prominent target in the east.

I do not know the thicknesses of armor used on most Russian aircraft, but one interesting point is that the Mine round really has no armor penetration ability, suggesting even light armor could stop it.  So i think the argument might have to look at general construction.  Yes, allied planes were heavier, but also simply bigger, and the Mustang didnt have a reputation in the GAF as a durable machine regardless of that size and weight (but still more durable than most Russian fighters?  I dont know).  Ah, yes, i forgot about placement and quantity rather than simple thickness....

But i will say that Hooligan's POV is one that wont miss the forest for the trees.  And until, as Avin says, we find something new, then in general it's a basic and logical stance to take, regardless of lots of niggly issues that show it might not be so cut and dry.  In this kind of forum, there's always a defense mechanism because the results of these arguments can become an exagerrated model in a very competitive game.  Sometimes we dont know the extent of what people are arguing: there's a difference between a round being "ineffective" and being "not as effective."  I hope that point is clear.

While it may play no role in this discussion, it would still be nice to know about the supply situation in regards to the 20mm Mine round.  There are different reasons why you order people to use up the existing stocks of normal HE and AP 20mm ammunition, and only one of them, i suppose, is that the demand for the round was outpacing production.

It isnt too far fetched when we see that a parallel in the Luftwaffe exists with the production of the SD 1 bomb.  It was the best munition available for interdiction and anti-personell missions, but there simply wasnt enough of them produced to use on a large scale (entire prodcution of 335,000 could have been used up in one day).  While production is apparently not the *only* reason that kept the bomb from being used on a large scale, it does show that it can happen.

I only bring it up because it is just *one more* piece of the historical picture.

I kind of have a question for Tony, but i'll post it after i check something first, or if he doesnt mind, i may email it directly?

buile-

[This message has been edited by buile (edited 04-16-2001).]

[avin]

 

hooli wrote:
If Mine rounds were equally as good against fighters as the other types, then why not just go with a Mine-heavy belting in the West?

I don't know, hooli. It's an interesting question. I can think of literally half a dozen possible answers, and I'm sure if I put my mind to it I could think of more than that. Possibly the most trivial is that some in the LW still hadn't realized that the Mine shell would do the job better than AP even against fighters. Who knows?

Your own suggestion is one interesting possiblity. But that's all I see it as, and I still find it curious that you leap to it without considering other alternatives.

For one, I don't know that the LW in early 1944 was even designating missions for anti-fighter sorties. I seem to remember they were no longer allowed to do anything at this time but concentrate on bombers.

And I simply don't buy the idea that Western fighters were considerably more durable than VVS jobs in 1944. yaks were fragile, but lavochkins had a solid reputation as survivable aircraft. I seem to remember that IL2s made 25% of the sorties flown on the Eastern Front, while 4-engined bombers made less than 5% of the sorties flown. I think I've seen the same source as buile - that the solution to the Il2 was considered to be the 30mm Mine shell, though AP was also tried. I have descriptions of 109Gs shooting control surfaces off the armoured shell with 20mm HE, after which the plane augered. So 20mm Mine did work, but I can't know how effective they were.

As I said already, I'd need more information than we currently have to know what we can conclude from LW belting. I'll keep my eyes open.

avin

[Tony Williams]

One thing I have learned is that whatever the textbooks might say, what was actually loaded into the ammo belts might be quite different, depending on individual pilots' preferences or simply on what was available.

The most amazing fact about Lw ammo loading I have come across recently is that some MK 108 cartridges were loaded with Hartkernmunition.  Now think about that for a moment.  The MK 108 was designed around M-Geschoss and Hartkern has never been mentioned as an option in any documents I've seen; the Hartkern was designed for anti-tank use from the MK 101 and MK 103 high-velocity cannon and was pretty useless in any other context.

When I first heard this I thought it was a con.  Then I saw for myself dozens of these rounds, recently recovered from a German lake where they were dumped at the end of the war.

There is no logical reason I can think of why Hartkern might be loaded into a MK 108, except that the stuff was lying around in the factory and they didn't have anything else to load.  So maybe there was a 30mm M-Geschoss shortage at the end of the war.  Who knows?

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/

[SageFIN]

Tony, sounds to me that you might be on to something. Does anyone actually know how much the germans produced M-geschoss ammo and were they able to satisfy the demand? Or was there M-geschoss ammo lying around unused too?

------------------
---
SageFIN

"I think I´ll believe in Gosh instead of God.  If you don´t
 believe in Gosh too, you´ll be darned to heck."
---

[Staga]

Nice pic
Makes me wonder if LW's 30mm should have more power...

[This message has been edited by Staga (edited 04-19-2001).]

[illo]

 

And I simply don't buy the idea that Western fighters were considerably more durable than VVS jobs in 1944. yaks were fragile, but lavochkins had a solid reputation as survivable aircraft. I seem to remember that IL2s made 25% of the sorties flown on the Eastern Front, while 4-engined bombers made less than 5% of the sorties flown. I think I've seen the same source as buile - that the solution to the Il2 was considered to be the 30mm Mine shell, though AP was also tried. I have descriptions of 109Gs shooting control surfaces off the armoured shell with 20mm HE, after which the plane augered. So 20mm Mine did work, but I can't know how effective they were.

Hmmm..ive heard that mgeschoss ammo didnt work very well against many russian planes due to woodwork structures. Explosion couldnt cause such critical overpressure inside the fuselage as it could to aluminum skinned aircraft. This was because wood was blown off in small chunks letting energy of explosion to escape more easily. That is from few russian sources.

One russian WB pilot once sent me picture of Yak-1(?) with 1x30mm mgeschoss hit in its tail. Ive lost that pic, but it showed many holes (from almost football to pea size)rear from yaks cockpit.  It looked very convincing(sp?) IMHO. Im not any specialist though.

About how much 20mm MG151/20 and 30mm MK103/108 rounds were needed to down viermots. I have german test charts which gerzzz once posted at AGW board.

Among other things (loads of weapon/ammunition and range data)it lists:

          netw. Treffensahl (rounds)      firing time with 5% accuracy [sec]
mg151/15   (75)   [22,8]
mg151/20   (20)   [9,32]   
mg213/20   (20)   [5,0]   
mk103      (5)   [7,4]
mk108      (5)   [5,0]
mg213/30   (5)   [2,0]
mk50      (1)   [24]

note that each 20mm is considered to carry 18.7g, each 30mm 72g, 50mm 350g of explosives. Most likely PETN.

If you need that chart plz send me email and ill mail it to you.


[This message has been edited by illo (edited 04-19-2001).]

[illo]

As a sidenote, If i remember right it was ossi's (WB german FH) granpa Georg Amann(LW ace who flew 262, 190 and 109) who said pilots could choose their ammo belting due to their own preferences. Different beltings were used for different missions.

[avin]

Thanks for the posts, illo.

Is there any chance that we can ask ossi's grandfather which belting he in fact preferred, and why?

Did he even match his belting to his mission, or did he prefer one sort of belting that was effective in different situations?

I can't wait for a sim that models variable loadouts, as well as provides a decent damage model that allows comparisons of their effectiveness   .

avin


[This message has been edited by avin (edited 04-23-2001).]

[illo]

Ossi flew in german Warbirds freehost in JG26. I havent played WB for some time. I think we(?) will see him at WW2ol open beta.