Author Topic: Were long range heavy bombers effective?  (Read 15907 times)

Offline PR3D4TOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2884
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #150 on: June 04, 2015, 06:52:28 PM »
Yes but it was a very large shell the length of your hand. The 30x90RB round had a projectile weight of 330 grams, of which 85 grams was the chemical filler (about 25%). By comparison a Hispano 20 mm projectile weighs 130 grams. The MK 108 round had a steel mass of no less than 245 grams, or about half a pound. 28 grams more than a M67 hand grenade.

No gods or kings. Only Predator.

Offline PR3D4TOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2884
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #151 on: June 04, 2015, 08:31:56 PM »
They are to scale. As you can see there is plenty of metal in the 30 mm minengeschoss shell to cause fragmentation damage, even if it is a bit thin in the middle. The M67 hand grenade has a lethal blast and fragmentation radius of 50 feet, or about half the wingspan of a B-17.

No gods or kings. Only Predator.

Offline PR3D4TOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2884
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #152 on: June 04, 2015, 08:40:34 PM »
This is what they look like when they hit something. Gun cam footage from a Me 163.

No gods or kings. Only Predator.

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #153 on: June 04, 2015, 09:23:16 PM »
a squadron of Sturmbock 190's or 110G-2 could produce a hail of exploding shrapnel hell denser than any flak barrage onto a tight formation of bombers. This kind of Pulk-Zerstörer formation attack was short lived however, since it became suicidal when the P-51's showed up.

The MK108 armed Fw190s were first delivered in June 1944. There was lots of P-51s around by then.

If any are interested.
Army Air Forces in World War II
Europe: ARGUMENT to V-E Day, January 1944 to May 1945
http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/III/index.html#contents


Offline PR3D4TOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2884
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #154 on: June 04, 2015, 09:35:38 PM »
The first 190A-6/R2 with MK 108's were delivered in the fall of 1943. In December 1943 the A-7/R2 and R3 entered service.
No gods or kings. Only Predator.

Offline save

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2852
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #155 on: June 05, 2015, 07:16:51 AM »
Sturmgruppen from mid-44 closed in with their armoured planes to point blank range, either from high 12, or dead 6, their extra armor made them close to invulnerable to .50 cal fire from front, and 30mm from close range often exploded the bomber (source : defense of germany)

On occasions Sturmgruppen could tally high scores when escorts where not around, they paid a high price when caught by escorts.
It was one of few successes Jagdwaffe had from 44-on.



My ammo last for 6 Lancasters, or one Yak3.
"And the Yak 3 ,aka the "flying Yamato"..."
-Caldera

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #156 on: June 05, 2015, 06:40:11 PM »
Just because there is a Rustsatz number does not mean it was installed in an operational a/c. The Fw190A-6/R2, /R3 were not serial produced.

Looking at the Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen of JG1, 2 and 26 in 1943 one can find the /R6 but no /R2 and /R3.

The Mk108 first saw service with Me109s and Me110s in the fall of 1943 and there was not that many MK108s built at that time.

Offline PR3D4TOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2884
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #157 on: June 05, 2015, 07:21:20 PM »
The MK 108 had been in limited production since 1942. The First 109G-6/U4 were delivered in May 1943 and Erprobungsstelle Tarnewitz was given the task of assessing the MK 108 application in the 109G with 27 aircraft, beginning in June 1943. No the R2 (+R12) kit wasn't mass produced in 1943. The First Fw190 to be armed with the MK 108 was Fw 190A-5/U16 W.Nr. 130975. It was the prototype for what would become the Rustsatz 2 kit for the A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, and technically the D-9 as well. Only a few Rustsatz kits were serial produced from the factories, the most common variants in service. The whole idea of the Rustsatz kits were that they were field kits, able to be mounted on any 190A-6+. The R2 kit was never put on an A-6 or A-7 at the factory. Only the A-8 was delivered from the factory with R2 kits installed. The Rustsatz kits made the Luftwaffe a more flexible force, but it makes tracking and documenting what was actually used a lot harder looking back 70 years.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2015, 07:24:56 PM by PR3D4TOR »
No gods or kings. Only Predator.

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #158 on: June 05, 2015, 07:32:44 PM »
If any are interested.
Army Air Forces in World War II
Europe: ARGUMENT to V-E Day, January 1944 to May 1945
http://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/III/index.html#contents

Excellent site, thanks for posting the link.
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9434
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #159 on: June 05, 2015, 07:46:00 PM »
Excellent site, thanks for posting the link.


Craven & Cate.  That series is SO good that some years ago I was able to identify one of my father's neighbors who was shot in his parachute by the Japanese during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea.  Wonderful to see you can get it online.

- oldman

Offline DaveBB

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1356
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #160 on: June 06, 2015, 01:58:05 PM »
Notice how that B-17's self-sealing fuel tank works.  The 30mm hits the wing, flaming fuel sprays out, then it stops.
Currently ignoring Vraciu as he is a whoopeeed retard.

Offline PR3D4TOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2884
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #161 on: June 06, 2015, 07:01:29 PM »
Looks to me like he hit the small feeder tank (marked C) and it blew up. It also looks like a possible secondary explosion from the nearby hit a fraction of a second earlier and not a direct hit.

No gods or kings. Only Predator.

Offline DaveBB

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1356
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #162 on: June 06, 2015, 07:52:44 PM »
I agree that it hit the feeder tank. But the feeder tank is 212 gallons.  That's enough energy to cut the wing in half if it exploded, or burn the wing in half if it caught fire.  I'm sure it was self-sealing, as your chart even references self-sealing fuel hoses.
Currently ignoring Vraciu as he is a whoopeeed retard.

Offline PR3D4TOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2884
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #163 on: June 06, 2015, 08:05:34 PM »
Self sealing wasn't fool proof and would not stand much chance of completely sealing a hit by a 30 mm, but as I said in my previous post I think it wasn't a direct hit. I'm also not sure how much fuel would be left in the feeder tank by the time a B-17 reaches German airspace as I'm not that familiar with the B-17's fuel system.

A direct hit would probably have resulted in something similar to this:

No gods or kings. Only Predator.

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: Were long range heavy bombers effective?
« Reply #164 on: June 06, 2015, 08:59:12 PM »
I'm also not sure how much fuel would be left in the feeder tank by the time a B-17 reaches German airspace as I'm not that familiar with the B-17's fuel system.

All kinds of fuel in the feeder tank as that was its purpose.  The fuel in the outer tanks (6-9) flowed to the feeder tank which was fed to the inner engine tank.

Fuel from the outer tanks (1-5) went directly to the main tank of the outer engine.

Here is a better graphic, (follow the black lines)