Galland 20mm v MG

[Karnak]

Lets post it again then:

What is the source?

[Zimme83]

The link is posted earlier in the thread.
And I haven't seen anything that contradict this, all sources i've read says the same thing. If you have a better source that prove them wrong then fine, but I would like to see it.

[Devil 505]

Your source is just some guy's post. Try finding a peer-reviewed and published source.

[DaveBB]

Your source is just some guy's post. Try finding a peer-reviewed and published source.

Why would they peer review a Spitfire wing article? Do you even know what peer review means?

[Devil 505]

Why would they peer review a Spitfire wing article? Do you even know what peer review means?

Yes, I am well aware of what a peer review is. My point is that he should cite some source that has at least a basic level of fact checking, whether it be an academic article or commercial publication.

[Zimme83]

 
Since im the only one that have posted any source at all i'm still in the lead.

[Serenity]

Since im the only one that have posted any source at all i'm still in the lead.

Not that I have a dog in the fight, but proving a negative is nearly impossible...

[Zimme83]

I agree, in general. In this case though it shuld be possible since you can for ex present an image to show that its impossible to fit an extra cannon inside the wing.

[Devil 505]

I agree, in general. In this case though it shuld be possible since you can for ex present an image to show that its impossible to fit an extra cannon inside the wing.

I posted that image for you to show you why you were wrong in the first place.


I'm done with you. You are uneducable. 

[Zimme83]

It did not prove anything, it just showed the 2-cannon option for the e-wing. too bad you did not read the text on the site, for ex:

this picture shows the arrangement of the armament bay of the Spitfire LF Mk. IXE, with Hispano Mk. II cannon to the left and the M2 Browning to the right. Note how the entire bay was designed to accommodate two Hispanos. The Browning fits easily in its oversized space. Its ammunition bay (the top one) was simply “downsized”  from its initial dimensions through simple addition of a spacer along its forward edge.

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/sorting-out-the-e-american-armament-for-the-spitfire-mk-ixxvi.html

And from that image i suspect that changing blister wasnt so hard since the panel is removable, if so it should have been relatively easy to change from .50 to cannon and vice versa. i dont know if thats the case though.

And btw: ive learned a lot from this thread, its quite fun to look under the skin of the planes and see how they looked on the inside.

[Zimme83]

But lets talk about the 109 for a bit: im a bit curious that they ditched the Mg FF in the wing from the F and onwards, not the best cannon but still better than nothing..

The projected K-6 and K-14 had a 30mm cannon in each wing and it seems like a few prototypes flew just Before the end of the war. im a bit curious about why the wing wasn't modified earlier..

[FBKampfer]

Many reasons, none of which were really decisive.

The Mg 151 would have had to have been finagled into the wing, possibly involving redesign, especially with the modified wing radiators put in place on the F model. But it fit nicely in the engine.


They wanted centerline armament as much as possible (even the wing mounted cannons on the Fw 190 were close enough to the center that they fired through the propeller and needed interruptors). And the single 20mm was generally sufficient.

The reduced mass in the wings aided in increased roll response and rate, one of the early 109's weak points.

Redesigning the wing would have taken time, and wasn't seen as pressing until late 1943, at which point they did start increasing the armament for interceptors.

[Krusty]

The MG/FF was intended to be a center motor mount the entire time. Engine problems, engine mount vibration problems and other issues meant it was totally incompatible with the design. The wing setup was a second-rate compromise and never originally intended.

The MG151/15 was the early low-caliber version that actually worked as intended in the motor configuration, and then later the MG151/20 brought them back to where they originally wanted to be. It was just a little late and behind the technology curve at that point in time.

[bustr]

When the canon shifted from 2 wing mounted MGFF to a single MG151\20 through the engine, was there a time period drop off of kills by German 109 pilots against allied fighters? And did that pick back up while there were enough veteran pilots to rapidly acclimate to fewer rounds from the MG151\20 until the Luft had mostly new pilots after 43? Or did the 190 make up for that because of it's increased number of 20mm?

[Krusty]

When the 109F-2s were free hunting Spit MkvBs over the channel they were racking up some of the highest kill tallies of the war, and many experts and aces were created on both sides. Fighting was intense and heavy, and technology on both sides was straining to give either the edge. It was Luftwaffe doctrine that changed and eased the pressure against the RAF, and the firepower was only really an issue against the larger, tougher bombers.


The RAF had been running night bombing campaigns for much of the war and the daytime bomber encounters were only at this time becoming common, and that's when the Luftwaffe was realizing they were under-gunned. This would also come to a head later in 1942 when they started encountering thousands of B-17s as in the west and resilient heavily-armored IL-2s (and the like) in the East. The Mk108 would have made wing guns unnecessary and it was created for that reason -- but as you know it had a troubled development and took a long time to make it into production and onto airframes. It wasn't until 1944 that the Mk108 was even common.