Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Hristo on March 16, 2004, 08:46:15 AM
-
Please, does anyone have those famous MK108 damage photos against a Spitfire and a Blenheim ? The ones from British tests ?
If so, can you proovide the link ? I'd be very grateful...
Apparently, the crowd on Il2 forums suggests that it would take 3 or more MK108 hits to down a fighter ;)
-
Apparently, the crowd on Il2 forums suggests that it would take 3 or more MK108 hits to down a fighter ;) [/B]
I've seen the pic of the Blenheim. One hit to the rear fuselage and the plane was virtually shot in two. In flight it would have broken. Like to see what happens to a Spitfire though, although I know full well what happens in AH :D
-
Originally posted by hogenbor
I've seen the pic of the Blenheim. One hit to the rear fuselage and the plane was virtually shot in two. In flight it would have broken. Like to see what happens to a Spitfire though, although I know full well what happens in AH :D
Both the tests, Blenheim and Spitfire, were special test setups with the 30mm exploding inside the fuselage.
There is no ryme or reason for real life damage done. For example, 2 Spitfires hit by 20mm, one has an entre hole the size of your fist on one side and the other side has multiple schrapnel holes, while the other has the fuselage opened up simular to the Spitfire test, but not as bad (flew back to base). Look at some photos of B-17s (and other a/c) damaged done by flak. Some show damage no worse than multiple 20mm or 30mm hits.
Don't get hung up on the 1 shot = 1 kill.
-
(http://pages.ykt.ru/il2/Hronika/photohronika/30mm%20mk108%20on%20blenheim.jpg)
http://pages.ykt.ru/il2/Hronika/photohronika/30mm%20mk108%20on%20blenheim.jpg
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Both the tests, Blenheim and Spitfire, were special test setups with the 30mm exploding inside the fuselage.
From the test
"(a) Cause - the 30 mm. MK 108 cannon, seen here with one of the explosive rounds it fired. This weapon was fitted in the upper nose of the majority of Bf 110s which saw action during the latter part of the war. (b) -and effect. The damage to this Spitfire was caused by a hit from a single explosive round from an MK 108, fired during a test on the ground."
says "hit" and "fired" ;)
-
thanks TimRas, just what I was looking for !
-
Originally posted by Hristo
says "hit" and "fired" ;)
Writers licence. The shell was detonated inside the fuselage.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Writers licence. The shell was detonated inside the fuselage.
How do you know ?
-
Originally posted by Hristo
How do you know ?
Because I have seen the report.
-
OK, I'm not trying to be a smartass here, but do you have a link or something similar ?
-
MiloMorai, please post a link to it, or info of where to find that report, book, homepage? Can't just say "Because I've seen the report".
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Writers licence. The shell was detonated inside the fuselage.
Well lets say thats true and you prove it with somehow. It prolly still doesnt matter. Mk108 shells were "timed" as to only explode shortly after penetrating inside a plane. They did not burst on the surface like early war shells. So the effect is the same, whether fired at or placed in; as far as the shell knows its doing the same thing.
-
a good site about MK 108 shells
http://www.sml.lr.tudelft.nl/~home/rob/me163/weapon15.htm
-
whats the different between the Mk103 and Mk108?
-
5. :)
-
Mk103 a much bigger and heavier gun, it's also much more powerfull. While the Mk108 shoots away it's shells with about 600 meters/s (exact figures anyone?) the 103 shoots its away with over 900 meters/s. Better trajectory, longer range, greater hitting power, I think the gun is almost 3 times as heavy though and it's got a lower rate of fire.
-
I've seen a photo of a Mossie that was hit right on the tail cone by one. Blew the tail cone apart, but the Mossie still made it home.
I recall another Mossie got hit by three and made it home. They all detonated.
There is a picture out there of a P-51D that has a hole behind the pilot from a Mk108 round that failed to detonate.
Just to give an idea of how random making it and not making it can be, I've seen a photo of a Ju88 that was hit by a Spitfire with a single Hispano round on it's tail cone, just like the Mosquito in my first paragraph, and the damage was fatal. The pilot did manage a soft landing though, hence the photo.
I don't think there is any question that an Mk108 round does significantly more damage than a Hispano round and I doubt anybody could reasonably claim the Mossie was all that much tougher than the Ju88. Bother aircraft have reputations for being rugged.
-
Karnak those planes are the "miracles". You can't claim they are representative of anything, either toughness or "randomness", unless there is a detailed study that not only includes those that "made it home" but those that didn't.
What if 9 out of 10 mossies dies from 1 mg17 hit and 1 out ten made it home after surviving a 3cm hit? Does the 1 surviving tell anything?
My neighbor Jessie was shot in the head by a 38 several years ago and survived. Does that demonstrate anything? One can still say with a certain level of certainty that getting shot in the head with a 38 would kill you, same with getting hit with an mk108.
Milo,
Unless the Brits up the HE content of the 3cm in their tests that image shows the damage a 3cm can cause. You can see how thick the skin is on that image and the 3cm just need to penetrate it and detonate to cause serious structural damage. By hanging the round in the center you see a more even distribution of the blast effect but even if it didn’t detonate dead center the damage would have been severe.
Hristo,
IIRC Milo is right that the 3cm was suspended from a string and adjusted so that the round was centered in the fuselage. It was then detonated. I see if I can find the info.
-
Originally posted by Batz
Karnak those planes are the "miracles". You can't claim they are representative of anything, either toughness or "randomness", unless there is a detailed study that not only includes those that "made it home" but those that didn't.
Oh, I agree absolutely. That is what I was talking about at the end with the Ju88 downed by one Hispano round.
It usually cannot be determined how many hits and of what kind brought an aircraft down because the aircraft is so thoroughly destroyed by its subsequent interaction with the ground.
Those aircraft that make it home after taking heavy hits tend to create a myth about how durable their type is. Look at how frequently that P-47 that came home after being shot up by the Fw190 comes up and how it is used to claim that a P-47 should always take that much damage. What you don't hear about is the P-47 that was hit by a single MG151/20 round and had its elevators jammed or the cables severed, consquently not making it home.
In one of my books I have an account of a Mosquito bomber that had a flak burst go off near it. After returning it was found that one piece of shrapnel hit it and severed all but one strand of one wire of the elevator runs. Now that doesn't say that the Mossie was tough, it says that the crew got lucky in that the shrapnel wasn't a milimeter more on target. If it had been nobody would have ever known what had downed that aircraft, it simply wouldn't have returned. As it was the ground crew's comment when telling the crew was that they'd "Virtually bought it".
Now, due to the Mosquito's construction and the way in which the MK108 does damage I do think the structure of the Mosquito is significantly more durable than a similarly sized aluminum aircraft would be. However the above examples are not what lead me to think that. It also must be said that even if the Mosquito's skin and spars are better able to take an MK108 round that hardly assures survival.
-
Oh pretty please with sugar on top let me see the Spit!!! Preferably burning brightly with a huge plume of black smoke!!! :D
-
Originally posted by hogenbor
I've seen the pic of the Blenheim. One hit to the rear fuselage and the plane was virtually shot in two. In flight it would have broken. Like to see what happens to a Spitfire though, although I know full well what happens in AH :D
Pinged a Mig3 (UB I think) with the 108 massive flash on his wing root then he started flying sort of funny, level but slightly at an angle, slid below him and hit his engine area with 13mm before I could fire again with the 30mm he started to burn, Virtual 1 Finnish server - so yep no instant kills with 30mm, also not so many massive damage hits, more degradation of systems leading to failure to fly.
-
Karnak I've seen a pic of P-47 Thunderbolt which crashed due a single bullet from a rifle. Strange things happen but not too often.
-
MiloMorai please answer this one question: What were those British engineers doing when they put that 30mm shell on the Blenheim's fuselage and detonated it?
Were they doing it just for the fun or were they maybe testing something? If yes then what were they testing ?
btw I've also seena pic of Bf109 which flew back to base after P-39's 37mm shell detonated in rear fuselage. Not a pretty sight but could still fly.
-
Now, due to the Mosquito's construction and the way in which the MK108 does damage I do think the structure of the Mosquito is significantly more durable than a similarly sized aluminum aircraft would be. However the above examples are not what lead me to think that. It also must be said that even if the Mosquito's skin and spars are better able to take an MK108 round that hardly assures survival.
Well yes the Minengeschoß rounds were designed to destroy the structural integrity of stressed skinned all metal aircraft. They were effective in doing this. They had a harder time with the cloth skinned aircraft like the Hurricane and "wooden" aircraft like the Mossie.
The damage is a result of overpressure from the expanding gasses in the confined spaces with in the aircraft. On stressed skinned aircraft structural integrity is dependent on the stressed skinned, if enough of it fails so does the aircraft. OTOH the Hurri strength is in the framing. The cloth skins adds to it but the plane can still fly with huge portions blow away.
There is shrapnel from the exploding Minengeschoß but not enough to destroy an aircraft on its own.
Early on there were fuzing problems but thes were mostly solved. Late in the war a "hydrostatic" fuze was developed for the 3cm round. It would detonate upon entering a fuel tank.
-
Originally posted by Hristo
a good site about MK 108 shells
http://www.sml.lr.tudelft.nl/~home/rob/me163/weapon15.htm
An interesting site, I've never seen such detailed information on the rounds before.
The one which has puzzled me for some time is the AP practice shell. It is the same shape and weight as the Hartkern round used for tankbusting in the high-velocity MK 103, so that was presumably meant to be the 'warshot'. But against what, exactly? The whole philosophy of the MK 108 was as a low-velocity deliverer of large quantities of HE; I can't imagine a less suitable user of a Hartkern!
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by Staga
Karnak I've seen a pic of P-47 Thunderbolt which crashed due a single bullet from a rifle. Strange things happen but not too often.
I read once about a groundskeeper who shot down a low Do-17 with two shots from a rifle (one in each engine)...
Tronsky
-
Double.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Oh pretty please with sugar on top let me see the Spit!!! Preferably burning brightly with a huge plume of black smoke!!! :D
Now ain`t that a most beutiful sight ? :eek:
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Bordwaffen/MK108MGeffectonSpit.jpg)
No black smoke and sugar though. :(
Here are few more. The B-17`s is rather scary.
http://www.pbase.com/isegrim/gun_pics
These two show wgat a dud MK 108 round does. The damage is still considerable.
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Bordwaffen/B26dudMK108-1.jpg
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Bordwaffen/B26dudMK108-2.jpg
-
very nice pics isegrim
-
Is this you Isegrim?
http://www.pbase.com/image/12103526
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Is this you Isegrim?
http://www.pbase.com/image/12103526
No, some Finnish guy I believe in the cocpit of a G-6 in a Finn museum, probably from one of the finn virtual squads. I took the photo from somewhere on the net.
-
You got it from the thread at Ubi/Il-2 in which you and Huckles tried to say the 109 had better vision from the cockpit than a P-51.
-
Apart from the fact your personal feud is irrelevant to the question and does a disservice to this thread, it also fails to have any connection with the actual events.
-
Barbi, since you had a faulty memory, all I did was tell you where you got the pic from.:rolleyes: :aok
The only one that has shown any antaganisum is you.:)
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
You got it from the thread at Ubi/Il-2 in which you and Huckles tried to say the 109 had better vision from the cockpit than a P-51.
yep that huckbien guy is a character over at ubi. now strictly speaking about the ubi game and not real life, the 109 w/ that hood does have better visibility to the rear than the 51.
-
Originally posted by bolillo_loco
yep that huckbien guy is a character over at ubi. now strictly speaking about the ubi game and not real life, the 109 w/ that hood does have better visibility to the rear than the 51.
Yep. BTW, did you noticed that there`s a huge errors in those 109 canopies in Il-2? The early E/F series are about fine, but the G-2 and G-6 have canopy bars missing.
And the ones with the Erla Haube... they were modified from 3D models of old canopies into the new one, but the canopy bars were left there, on the top front/sides.. it`s clearly visible as there are bars suddenly ending at the 5 o clcik high view, exactly where the old 2-piece canopy swung...
I hope Oleg gets this old bug modelled, along with several minor 3d model issues of the 109s with the new sim BoB.
-
How about that source MiloMorai? Can we see it?
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Here are few more. The B-17`s is rather scary.
http://www.pbase.com/isegrim/gun_pics
nice find...
notice the .50 cal damage on the 109.
sorry to say im getting very disillusioned with the ballistics modeling in AH
the more books i read, and the more information i see posted here... well, besides terrible leadership and terrible defense plans the germans should have dominated the air war. (not that i'd want them too... just discussing the engineering and design of allied vs. german planes and such)
-
73, they were ganged like a two bit bish (always wanted to say that :D). Aircraft performance wise they were better at all times except in late 1943 and early 1944 ... the most crucial period of the air war and when Germany finally lost the war completely. What they failed in 1943 was to compensate for the fact that the air war in the west shifted to higher and higher altitudes, and probably due to the mess that was the German High Command, they failed to produce high altitude fighters before it was too late.
You're right though. AH's damage model emphasizes too much on kinetic energy, making high velocity weapons far too good, and penalizing low velocity guns that used HE blast effect as their main method of destruction.
-
even in 43-44 and so on the german planes from what i have read performed better. at alt too.
just wasn't enough of them or they were sent to do innane things like dive bomb in a 262.
yeah they were ganged lol. gd prison rape more like it lol.
-
High altitude TA152's (A or B, can't remember which one without looking it up) was 100% ready for production in 1943, all that was needed was teh GO from the RLM but they decided to scrap the project. Why? No idea...
-
Hi Karnak,
>Now, due to the Mosquito's construction and the way in which the MK108 does damage I do think the structure of the Mosquito is significantly more durable than a similarly sized aluminum aircraft would be.
The opposite is true. Wood was especially vulnerable against explosive damage.
In the 1930s Winter and Tschischwitz examined aircraft battle damage focusing on 20 mm shells in their report FB505. They used the old MG C30 shells as the more effective mine shells hadn't been developed yet.
"The trials proved that plywood only has little resistance to hits by explosive shells. Reinforcing the plywood by applying cloth covering, integrating wire mesh layers, using smaller segments and using bakelite-impregmated layers did not result in any improvements. In comparison to plywood, the materials Duralumin and Electron show very much superior behavior.
[...]
4) Extremely heavy damage was observed for plywood-covered stabilizers. The extensive cracking of the skin that hardly seems to absorb any energy is remarkable."
However, I'd guess wood still may have been superior in the way you indicated against the machine gun rounds which made up the main defensive firepower of the Luftwaffe night bombers and night fighters."
I'm sure you're aware of the famous "missing wingtip" Mosquito photograph. It clearly shows just the kind of crack mentioned in the Winter and Tschischwitz report that caused the loss of the skinning on the underside of the wing. You won't see this kind of extending damage on metal aircraft.
Wood is vulnerable. A metal Mosquito would have been a lot tougher.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Tony,
>The one which has puzzled me for some time is the AP practice shell.
I'd assume it was less a practice shell and more a proving shell.
For a low-velocity gun, you might consider it a disproving shell ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
High altitude TA152's (A or B, can't remember which one without looking it up) was 100% ready for production in 1943, all that was needed was teh GO from the RLM but they decided to scrap the project. Why? No idea...
How about that source MiloMorai? Can we see it?
No you can't because I only seen it.:)
The Ta152A was to be a meduim altitude heavy fighter. It is hard to have an a/c ready for production if there are no prototypes constructed and no a/c were contracted for. The main reason was the Jumo213 was not available in sufficent numbers. The Ta152B was simular but with different guns.
-
Hi Wilbus,
>High altitude TA152's (A or B, can't remember which one without looking it up) was 100% ready for production in 1943
Maybe you're thinking of the Fw 190B (also called Höhenjäger 1) that was scheduled to enter mass production in June 1942?
It was basically the same as the Fw 190A, but featured an increased wing span and external supercharger intakes to exploit ram effect.
Performance-wise, it was a good match for the Spitfire F. IX/Merlin 61 (which was optimized for a rather high altitude).
The series was called off because the trend towards higher combat altitudes finally stopped in 1942.
This tactical change is also evident from the later Spitfire IX subvariants being optimized for medium altitudes instead, roughly matching the Fw 190A's performance there.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
I'm sure you're aware of the famous "missing wingtip" Mosquito photograph. It clearly shows just the kind of crack mentioned in the Winter and Tschischwitz report that caused the loss of the skinning on the underside of the wing. You won't see this kind of extending damage on metal aircraft.
Wood is vulnerable. A metal Mosquito would have been a lot tougher.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
One more thing to consider about wooden construction that also enable the bullet`s kinetic energy to be more fully transferred into destruction. A light metal structure would only allow the bullet to pass through, the only kinetic force the bullet can use for destruction is the minimal one needed for penetrating the skin and punching it through with a clean hole (see Bf 109 wing damage pics). A thicker wooden structure, or the Mossie`s one backed up by thick balsa wood, would slow down the bullet more in proccess, as the avarage densitiy of the wing would be higher. This means MORE of the bullet`s KE is transferred into the airframe as a "useful" force. For the same reason, slow, but heavy projectiles are better damage makers - more of their energy is stored in their mass, and used up more efficiently (higher velocities would only cause clean penetration holes, unless in solid structures prone to hydrostatic damage, ie. fuel tanks, human body..).
-
Heya HoHun :-)
Nope, I know my 190's and Ta's, and it's not a 190 I'm thinking about.
Looked it up, it was the Ta152 A version that was ready in early 1944 (not 43 as I said before) for full scale production. It had the more normal 190 wings (not the long Ta152H wings) and a Jumo 213 A powerplant, it was to use 3 different weapon configurations.
First being the same as the later H version (1x30mm and 2xMg151 20's).
Second was with one extra MG 151 20mm in each wing.
The third option was like the second but with one Mk108 30mm mounted under each wing (giving it 3x30mm Mk108 and 4xMG151 20mm :D )
Max speed was about 680 Kp/h at 7000 meters with the light armament and about 670 with the heaviest using no extra boost such as GM1 or MW50.
Stupid of the RLM to cancel it when it was completely ready for production, would have given the LW a very capeble fighter at all altitudes in early 1944, both for fighter and anti-bomber purpose.
-
so why wasnt the Mk103 used on fighters? was it really that big?
what planed did use?
if i had to choose between higher velocity and lower RoF \ lower velocity higher RoF, ill go on velocity especially if we talking about a 30mm cannon
-
so why wasnt the Mk103 used on fighters? was it really that big?
Yep it was big and heavy, and bulky - 146 kg vs. 58 kg of the MK 108 for example, similiar increase in size, which created problems fitting it internally... It probably didnt worth it, the MK 108 did a good enough job, the extra high ballistic performance probably didnt worth the extra bulk - most fighter combats took place at close ranges, 2-300m.
It was experienced/used with some FW 190 subtypes, and later Bf 109K models from K-8 up supposed to receive it with minor modifications in order to fit in. They also toyed with it on Me 262s, 410s..
-
It was to big and to heavy.
Also, velocity is mostly irrelevant because the damage was caused by the HE content of the Minengeschoß.
The 3cm only needed to hit hard enough to penetrate the skin of an aircraft. It then exploded and the resulting over pressure causes the majority of the damage.
If you look at the spitfire picture Isegrim you can see what the explosion did to that spitfire.
(http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Bordwaffen/MK108MGeffectonSpit.jpg)
-
The prototypes of the A-1 and A-2 were not constructed (Ta152 V 1, WNr 250001, Ta152 V 2, WNr 250002).
There was though the Fw190 V 19(WNr 0041), Fw190 V 20(WNr 0042) and Fw190 V 21(WNr 0043) constructed. The V 19 first flew 7 July 43 and crashed 16 Feb 44. The V 20 first flew 23 Nov 43 and was destroyed by bombs 5 Aug 44. The V 21 first flew 13 Mar 44. The V 19 suffered from rough running Jumo 213A(#100 152 082, #100 152 160, #100 1570 009) which was not fixed until the Jumo CV (#100 1570 010(V20), #100 1570 012(V21)) was installed in the other 2 a/c. The V 21/U1 became the prototype for the Ta152C fitted with the DB engine, 18 Nov 44.
Hardly ready for large scale production.
Harmann's Ta152 book
-
AFAIK the Mk103 was never installed in a 109, maybe in underwing gondolas but definatly nothing else. The 410 used it opperatinonally (it could have all different kind of weapons installed in the bomb bay, such as 2xMk103 + 1x50mm at the same time etc etc). The he 219 had 4xMk103's or 4xMk108's insatlled in the nose aswell as 2xMg151's wing mounted near the fuselage (nice firepower :D ).
The Mk103 was used more as anti tank weapons (experimental 190 gondolas) and in some ground attack planes such as the Me410. There was also a Mk101 with a fairly high velocity used for anti tank purpose in the He129 and maybe a few others.
At close ranges I'd chose ROF over velocity any day, can just compare the 30mm Mk108 in AH with a 37mm on the Yak 9T, which one is easiest to kill with?
-
better than playboy!
-
Milomorai, I sugest you read the entire book before coming with messed up statements like that. The prototypes were flown alot which enabled them to fully develop the plane using just 3 prototypes. Changes were made between the different prototypes and for the second two one of the main tests were with flamedampers.
This is also a snip from Dietmar Harmann's book.
No serious shortcomings became apparent during the testing of the prototypes for the Ta 152 A series. The flame damper installation originally planned for the series had such negative effect on performance that it was officially dropped on 18 April 1944. But by that time the Ta 152 A was fully ready for production. The RLM's decision not to build the Ta 152 A in quantity was therefor all the more inexplicable, for the Focke Wulf Ta 152 A's performance was clearly superior to that of the Fw 190 A with the BWM 801 radial engine at altitudes above 5,000 meters. The choice of power plants, especially the Jumo 213 E with three-gear transmission and two-stage supercharger then in development, suggested significant room for development. The Jumo 213 A (C), equipped with a single-stage supercharger and two-gear transmission, had meanwhile achieved the necessary level of reliability and was successfully installed in the Fw 190 D-9 series from September 1944.
So once again, before you post things like this Hardly ready for large scale production.
you might actually want to read some of the book instead of looking at a chart with 3 protoypes, did you even read what they tested? The differences between the Ta 152 A and the Fw 190 A's?
BTW, how's it going with that source about the 30mm? :rolleyes:
-
Ah yes the Me 410. Love that plane!
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/245_1079730042_me410_02.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/245_1079730147_wrg0236.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/245_1079730091_wrg0237.jpg)
Who wouldn't want one?!?
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
The he 219 had 4xMk103's or 4xMk108's insatlled in the nose aswell as 2xMg151's wing mounted near the fuselage (nice firepower :D ).
The only He219 that could have the MK103 (installed in the ventral tray) was the M3 option for the A-0 with 300r/gun.
There was no nose weapons mounted.
(http://wmilitary.neurok.ru/wwii/he219-f2.jpg)
You have trouble reading, I said I had seen the report, not that I had a link, nor will go I look for it.:rolleyes:
-
rgr on the He219 ventral tray.
One thing though, yeah you said you have seen the reports, but you just refuse to say where or even give the slightest clue, think anyone will believe you're right about the test?
loose the attitude.
-
Wilbus
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Because I have seen the report.
I would tell you if I could remember where, possibly Butch.:p :p The tests were set up to see what the maximum damage would be. Logic says this could only be done with the shell exploding at a certain point. In the photos one can see other 'objects' in the background, so what would have happened if the shell fired from the cannon, had mis-fired? See the photo of a Mosquito (NT252) that had a 'run-in' with a Me110 night fighter (2 Mk108s), fabric gone on the rudder and some outer skinning missing from the fuselage behind the wing. (Osprey Combat A/C #9, pg 80) Not at all catistrophic since the a/c returned to its base.
See also Batz's post, in which he agreed.
Since you claimed the He219 had nose cannons, as well as saying the Ta152A was a high altitude fighter, one has to wunder about anything you state.
There was no Ta152(A) Vx a/c. Happy now?:) Now, how many flight hours did the Fw190 V19, 20 and 21 have? Was Harmann's suposition that the a/c was ready for production, yet there was 3 times as many Dora prototypes before it was ready for production. How many Ta152H a/c, yet even when it started limited production it was not ready with all the bugs worked out.
The only attitude, and being a snot, I see is from you.:p :)
-
So let me ask this once again: What were those British engineers testing ?
-
In the photos one can see other 'objects' in the background, so what would have happened if the shell fired from the cannon, had mis-fired?
Very good point.
In both photos, you can clearly see buildings in the background, through the holes in the aircraft fuselages. There is no way they would fire 30 mm shells at a fuselage with no backdrop to stop them if they didn't explode when they should.
It's also clear from the damage that the planes haven't been moved, the tails would have fallen off.
So let me ask this once again: What were those British engineers testing ?
I believe they were post war tests, in the context of Britain adopting the 30 mm Aden gun, based on the Mg 213 revolver cannon.
I assume the tests were designed for maximum effect because the shells exploded at the most advatageous spot possible, in the thinnest part of the fuselage just in front of the tail.
-
Since you claimed the He219 had nose cannons, as well as saying the Ta152A was a high altitude fighter, one has to wunder about anything you state.
Well, I agreed on the HE219, had to look it up and I said you were right about it.
The Ta152 A was a high altitude version of the 190, not as specific as the H though. Why you ask? Just look at the engine, Jumo 213 were designed for high altitude bombers, it had it's best settings at 5000 meters and above, the Ta152 A reaching its best speed at 7000 meters using the 213 A and a celing of over 11 000 meters, that's a high altitude fighter. You may not realisize it, you may not want to or you're just too ignorant, but that's the thruth.
Like I said before, was wrong about the HE219 armament, had to look it up and I admit my misstake about it.
Have I said anything about Ta 152 H production numbers? Uhmmm, no.
-
Wilbuz,
I remember reading a report of the RAF test of the 3cm round. I read it on one of the forums (I cant remember which). Basically it included the images above. These images were all pasted onto a white background and each image was captioned.
Below the image was as explanation in "article" fashion.
It went into details about the test and it stated thats 3cm shells were suspended from string so that they would be centered in the fuselage. The rounds were then detonated remotely (I forget if the article detailed how the round was detonated).
Several aircraft were tested.
These rounds were typical 3cm Minengeschoß rounds and were not tampered with to improve blast effect.
IIRC I believe Nashwan is right is they were post war tests.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Well, I agreed on the HE219, had to look it up and I said you were right about it.
Any nOOb knows that the He219 did not have any nose cannons.
The Ta152 A was a high altitude version of the 190, not as specific as the H though. Why you ask? Just look at the engine, Jumo 213 were designed for high altitude bombers, it had it's best settings at 5000 meters and above, the Ta152 A reaching its best speed at 7000 meters using the 213 A and a ceiling of over 11 000 meters, that's a high altitude fighter. You may not realisize it, you may not want to or you're just too ignorant, but that's the thruth.
21,300ft is not a high altitude. Maybe by German standards it was but not Allied. The Spitfire LF IX (note the LF designation) had its max speed at 21,000ft, with a ceiling of ~43,000ft(13,100m).:eek: Using your numbers this would make the Spitfire LF IX a high altitude fighter as well.:eek: Having a better higher altitude performance over the Fw190As does not mean it was a high altitude a/c.:rolleyes: The high altitude fighter was to be the Ta153. The Jumo 213E was the high altitude version not the Jumo213A. Even the Ta152C with the DB engine had better altitude performance than the proposed, Jumo powered, Ta152As.
Like I said before, was wrong about the HE219 armament, had to look it up and I admit my misstake about it.
So, why don't you admit you were wrong about the high altitude Ta152A?
Have I said anything about Ta 152 H production numbers? Uhmmm, no.
Nope, but if you can't see any corralation with the numbers of prototypes and the the suitablility for production, to bad.:( Anyways the V19, 20 and 21 did not have any guns fitted. Ready for production? sure.:rolleyes:
Thanks Batz.:) Maybe this non-believer will get off my back now.
Nashwan another question would be is why was there was no other areas of the a/c tested?
-
Hi Nashwan,
>I assume the tests were designed for maximum effect because the shells exploded at the most advatageous spot possible, in the thinnest part of the fuselage just in front of the tail.
Actually, that's just the spot where the shell blows up into the largest empty volume in an aircraft, minimizing the blast effect. If the rounds were additionally centered in the fuselage cross section as stated earlier, this also means that the blast pressure at the shock wave front was evenly distributed all around, while an off-centre detontation would have meant that the closer side of the fuselage would have been hit by a more destructive high pressure blast.
The most advantageous spot to hit with a mine shell in fact is the wing because the confined volumes are much smaller there so it's very easy to destroy the load-bearing skin.
A hit in the empty fuselage and a detonation in the centre of the cross section ballistically is the least advantageous case.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
You still don't seem to understand what I mean with high-altitude fighter do you? Is it because you're really as stupid as you seam or just don't want to read? High altitude fighter as I mean it now is not an extreeme high altitude version (10,000 meters and above), it's 7000-10000 meters, that's a medium/high altitude fighter, engines best performance to counter the 20-25k flying bombers. It was to do what the 190 D9 later did, replace the Fw 190 A from 20k and up. Sorry if you don't understand that.
-
I assume the tests were designed for maximum effect because the shells exploded at the most advatageous spot possible, in the thinnest part of the fuselage just in front of the tail.
Actually, that's just the spot where the shell blows up into the largest empty volume in an aircraft, minimizing the blast effect. If the rounds were additionally centered in the fuselage cross section as stated earlier, this also means that the blast pressure at the shock wave front was evenly distributed all around, while an off-centre detontation would have meant that the closer side of the fuselage would have been hit by a more destructive high pressure blast.
I think centralising the blast, in that area in front of the tail, provided the most damage.
If the blast had been off centre, it's possible damage could have been more localised to one side, rather than destroying the whole section. It probably wouldn't have made a difference on the Spit, but I think the Blenheim might have survived an off centre blast.
The same is true of choosing an empty section of fuselage.
More substantial items in the fuselage might have deflected the blast.
Basically the blast wave in these tests hit all areas equally, causing all to fail at once. Off centre, or with major items of equipment in the way, the blast would have hit the fuelage skin in one place first, causing a rupture, and reducing the pressure and damage elsewhere.
The most advantageous spot to hit with a mine shell in fact is the wing because the confined volumes are much smaller there so it's very easy to destroy the load-bearing skin.
Wing hits can be extremely damaging, but I have seen pictures of aircraft that made it back to base with huge holes blown in the wing. I've never seen one that made it back minus the entire tail section.
-
Hi Nashwan,
>I think centralising the blast, in that area in front of the tail, provided the most damage.
It didn't.
>If the blast had been off centre, it's possible damage could have been more localised to one side, rather than destroying the whole section. It probably wouldn't have made a difference on the Spit, but I think the Blenheim might have survived an off centre blast.
The damage from an off-centre blast would have been asymmetrical.
But that would just have meant that one side of the Blenheim's fuselage would have been completely removed, and the other side not. It might perhaps have held together jacked-up on the ground, but in the air it would have folded up due to the aerodynamic loads that the missing structure couldn't transfer.
>The same is true of choosing an empty section of fuselage.
That's wrong. With a partially filled fuselage, the blast would have from in a smaller volume, causing the pressure to rise even higher.
>More substantial items in the fuselage might have deflected the blast.
That might have protected the skin behind the hard components. However, hard components reduce the internal volume and the blast becomes more destructive in a confined space, so it would have acted with increased force against the non-protected areas around the hard components.
>Wing hits can be extremely damaging, but I have seen pictures of aircraft that made it back to base with huge holes blown in the wing. I've never seen one that made it back minus the entire tail section.
The point is that the fuselage hit is the worst case. The third picture in this photo sequence is the fuselage of a heavy bomber, which has several big holes that wouldn't have lead to structural failure even in the air. The effect of the mine shells was small due to the large empty volume.
Wing hits would have been much more destructive, reinforcing the observation that the fuselage hit is the worst case for a mine shell.
(Of course, randomly shooting at an airframe makes the effect a statistical process.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
You still don't seem to understand what I mean with high-altitude fighter do you? Is it because you're really as stupid as you seam or just don't want to read? High altitude fighter as I mean it now is not an extreeme high altitude version (10,000 meters and above), it's 7000-10000 meters, that's a medium/high altitude fighter, engines best performance to counter the 20-25k flying bombers. It was to do what the 190 D9 later did, replace the Fw 190 A from 20k and up. Sorry if you don't understand that.
Well if you had used the correct words, then no one would misunderstand you.:rolleyes: The only stupidity that I can see is therefore by you.
The classification of the fighter, low, medium or high, was determined by the rated altitude of the engine. The use of the correct words, in the first place, would stop you from having that knot in your knickers, up your bung hole.:aok Don't get upset with other people because of your lack of ability to express yourself correctly because the cobwebs are thick.:eek:
Oh, and the Dora was classified as a medium altitude fighter. Use of the correct words goes a long way in helping other people know what you are trying to say, for they are not mind readers.:)
To aid you in your education here is an interesting Junker engine web site. http://www.geocities.com/hjunkers/
Especially interesting are the production numbers for the 213.
Obw, a seam is the line where two pieces of fabric are joined.:rolleyes: The correct word is seem.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
AFAIK the Mk103 was never installed in a 109, maybe in underwing gondolas but definatly nothing else.
The MK 103 could not fit in the nose of the 109. A modified version, the MK 103M was produced in order to fit, and this would have been fitted to some late K models, but the only definite statement I have seen concerning its use is that it was tried, apparently unsuccessfully, in a K-10. All described and illustrated in 'Flying Guns: World War 2' :)
The Mk103 was used more as anti tank weapons (experimental 190 gondolas) and in some ground attack planes such as the Me410. There was also a Mk101 with a fairly high velocity used for anti tank purpose in the He129 and maybe a few others. [/B]
Correct; the MK 101 actually used almost the same ammunition (it was percussion rather than electric primed, so not interchangeable). In fighters, as well as some versions of the Ta 152, the MK 103 was also scheduled for use in the Do 335.
At close ranges I'd chose ROF over velocity any day, can just compare the 30mm Mk108 in AH with a 37mm on the Yak 9T, which one is easiest to kill with? [/B]
The Luftwaffe generally preferred the MK 108 because it not only fired 50% faster, it only weighed half as much, so for the same armament weight you got three times the rate of fire. This improved the hit probability enough to compensate for the extra velocity of the MK 103.
However, if you can only mount one gun (e.g. in an engine mounting) then the MK 108 loses the weight advantage because you can't mount two there; which is why the Luftwaffe was interested in using the MK 103 in engine mountings in fighters.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Good info Tony thanks :)
-
I don`t get this much debate about the details of these tests. Whenever these pictures of broken tails by that single Minengeschoss are shown, allied fans come up quickly and post novels about the details, that it was in the mid-fusalge etc., implying that it`s only a test, bears no resamblance to real life, the MK 108 isn`t that tough etc.
The whole arguing is pointless; the LW did it`s own research work, and decided that 5 hits from it will bring down a heavy bomber, and mention that in some cases even less would be sufficient; 1 will kill a fighter. There`s nothing to argue about. The 3cm was a deadly caliber, and I haven`t seen any picture of a fighter that survived a 3cm M-Geschoss. Pilot`s who used them described the effect the enemy they hit had simply disappeared, vaporized into nothing. Not to mention that at 10 rounds/sec, one had to be lucky to be hit only once.
So there`s really nothing to argue about. The presence of the MK 108 on a plane simply means that it makes no sense to even compare the sheer firepower. No realistic combination of .30, .50 or 20mm battery could produce the same concentrated damage effects. Overall effectiveness, effiency of course is another question, but these debates about the sheer destructive power make no sense to me. The 3cm Minengeschoss was simply an huge overkill vs. WW2 combat aircraft.
-
From:
"The Development of German Aircraft Armament to 1945", USAF Historical Studies #193, Oberst Ing
Page 32
(Luftwaffe) Tests had disclosed that it was not the grenade splinters but the blow-back effect of the thin-walled mine projectiles which brought about large-scale damage combined with incendiary effect in the aircraft hit. The effectiveness of 20mm, as compared with 30mm mines, was approximately 1:4, and in 1944 four or five hits by 30mm projectiles, concentrated in a relatively small area, were necessary to bring down a four-engine bomber.
…..
The initial experiments revealed that 420g-450g of explosives were needed in order to bring about the desired total damage to the fuselage or wings of a large bomber.”
This 420g-450g explosive content requirement led to the development of the German 55mm aircraft cannon. For reference, a mk 108 30mm round contains 72g of explosive/incendiary mixture
The "four or five hits by 30mm projectiles" required to reliably bring down a bomber had to be "concentrated in a relatively small area". 5 randomly placed hits would apparently not have been sufficient.
Hooligan
-
1/2 second burst.
-
Does anyone have the total numbe rof 109s equppied with the MK 108?
109G-6 (& AS)
109G-14
109G-10
-
Re: the MK 108's effectiveness - this is a quote from 'Flying Guns: WW2'. The information was supplied to me by an American serviceman who personally witnessed the test:
"It was not only the blast which inflicted damage; after the war, the Americans test-fired an MK 108 HEI shell into the tail of a B-24 at a typical angle, characteristic of a tail interception by an Me 262. The "spray" pattern of very high velocity, very small fragments cut most if not all of the control cables and many of the longerons. It was assessed that the tail would have separated if the plane had been in flight; a performance which made a great impression on the observers."
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
I fyou look at the Bleinhem picture you can see the radial patern of fragments that has that effect.
-
B17 getting shredded by FW190-A8 (http://www.lordpanzer.com/downloads/FW190A8-B17.wmv)
P40 getting shredded by Macchi (MG151 20mm) (http://www.lordpanzer.com/downloads/MACCHI-P40.wmv)
-
That 2nd video is a 202 with 2 x 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT not mg151.
-
The 12.7mm Breda can't carry that much HE. Must be 151s IMO.
-
Its 202 its been posted on this forum and many others
12.7mm Italian Breda-SAFAT Machine guns: they all were armed with the multi-effect "S.I.T." - "Scoppianti"(explosive)+ "Incendiarie"(...incendiary)+"Traccianti" (..tracer)- bullets (a variant of Vickers 12.7mm x 81Sr cartridge).
Despite the smoke thats not alot of HE. Go to the Czech site and watch the 109s. You should see adifference.
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams
Re: the MK 108's effectiveness - this is a quote from 'Flying Guns: WW2'. The information was supplied to me by an American serviceman who personally witnessed the test:
"It was not only the blast which inflicted damage; after the war, the Americans test-fired an MK 108 HEI shell into the tail of a B-24 at a typical angle, characteristic of a tail interception by an Me 262. The "spray" pattern of very high velocity, very small fragments cut most if not all of the control cables and many of the longerons. It was assessed that the tail would have separated if the plane had been in flight; a performance which made a great impression on the observers."
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
There we go, end of story. We have first hand account of an actual firing test that shows the full extent of destructive ability of MK108 against the primary WW2 US heavy bomber. And its considered credible by an acknowledged expert on ww2 guns so that he puts it into his book. I hope Pyro takes this into account when he models the B24, heck even the B17 may need be redon wrt to Mk108 damage.
-
Unless you have a source that claims that to be a C.202 I'm going to have to disagree. The blast effect is very similar to the 109/190 guncam videos I've seen, and the projectile velocity (spreading) is similar too. If those are indeed Bredas I'm quite amazed at how destructive they were.
-
Quick search turns up this old thread.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43507&highlight=BredaSAFAT
My contention that it is a 202 is substantiated by Lupo who claims to have that film on VHS.
Also if you look at where the tracers come from they appear to me to be relatively close to each other meaning 12.7 nose cannon not mg151 on the wings.
There have been other threads but I don feel like searching for them.
-
If it is so the 12.7mm Breda is seriously undermodelled!
-
I remember that thread Batz, think everybody were equally surprised to see the destructive power the 202 had, specially compared to what AH has.
Maybe Mr.Williams have more info about this??
-
Hi Hooligan,
>5 randomly placed hits would apparently not have been sufficient.
According to Luftwaffe figures, 4 - 5 randomly placed hits had a 50% chance of bringing down a heavy bomber, 8 - 9 randomly placed hits were required for a 95% kill chance.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Just look at the film I posted. After the first burst both wings were on fire. The second burst completely shredded the tail section.
-
I hope AH2 treats the 108 more realistically than the current AH does - have spent the lst two weeks playing FB and the 108 is the weapon of choice - it's effects are in line with what was reported historically and since the a/c are a lot tougher than in AH you only get a chance to make one or two hits....
-
Hohun:
Thanks for the info. Can you tell me what document that data is from? It sounds like something I would like to get a copy of.
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
The only He219 that could have the MK103 (installed in the ventral tray) was the M3 option for the A-0 with 300r/gun.
The He219A-7/R1 had 2 × 30 mm MK 108 fixed forward-firing in the wing roots, 100 rounds each, 2 × 30 mm MK 103 fixed forward-firing in the ventral tray, 100 rounds each, 2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 fixed forward-firing in the ventral tray, 300 rounds each, and 2 × 30 mm MK 108 fixed in the rear fuselage in a Shräge Musik installation, 100 rounds each. The He219A-7/R2 deleted the wing-root Mk108s. The He-219A-2/R2 had 2 × 30 mm MK 108 in a Shräge Musik installation, 2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 fixed forward-firing in wing roots, and 2 × 30 mm MK 103 fixed forward-firing in the ventral tray.
-
Originally posted by Staga
Karnak I've seen a pic of P-47 Thunderbolt which crashed due a single bullet from a rifle. Strange things happen but not too often.
Well the graet red baron himself was shot down with a bullet (i know the world at it's wife were shooting at him but only one hit him)
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
I remember that thread Batz, think everybody were equally surprised to see the destructive power the 202 had, specially compared to what AH has.
Maybe Mr.Williams have more info about this??
I don't have any test information for the 12.7mm HE rounds. The Japanese seemed impressed by them, as they bought the ammo design for the 12.7x81SR from Italy, and their Ho-103 reportedly used Italian ammo initially until they developed their own.
However, the USA never fielded .50 cal HE even though some was developed and tested. They apparently didn't feel the calibre was big enough to be worth it, so stuck with AP/incendiary types. The Soviets did have HE for their 12.7mm, but I don't know how much use they got compared with their very good API (which was copied for the American .50 M8 loading).
One general comment I would make about individual shoot-downs is that performance figures quoted are only averages of a wide range of results; sometimes aircraft sustained many times the damage which should have brought them down, other times they were knocked down with minimal effort: random factors played a big part. My favourite story concerned the Bf 109 which was brought down by a single shot from a British Army officer's .38 revolver; it was flying very low and the bullet severed either a fuel or coolant line, I forget which. Both protagonists survived the war and met afterwards.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
I hope AH2 treats the 108 more realistically than the current AH does - have spent the lst two weeks playing FB and the 108 is the weapon of choice - it's effects are in line with what was reported historically and since the a/c are a lot tougher than in AH you only get a chance to make one or two hits....
But they have gone and made the 151/20 worthless.
-
Hi Hooligan,
>Can you tell me what document that data is from?
Some document originally provided by Karl.
Here's the data (upper table for 50%, lower table for 95%):
http://www.x-plane.org/users/hohun/weapons/mineshells.gif
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
HoHun,
Can you help me in tracking down some MK 108 production totals ? How many were produced ? I need that 4 my site`s weapons section, already have for MG 151s (249 609) and MG 131s (144 124), just missing for the good ole` 108..
I would guess Fritz Hahn has such data in the Luftwaffe weapons book, however I cant get the book `cos some b@stard took it from the library for 2 years now, and "forgot" to bring it back ever since.. I guess you may probably have that book...
Any info would be welcome!
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams
One general comment I would make about individual shoot-downs is that performance figures quoted are only averages of a wide range of results; sometimes aircraft sustained many times the damage which should have brought them down, other times they were knocked down with minimal effort: random factors played a big part. My favourite story concerned the Bf 109 which was brought down by a single shot from a British Army officer's .38 revolver; it was flying very low and the bullet severed either a fuel or coolant line, I forget which. Both protagonists survived the war and met afterwards.
[/URL]
I think this a very good point that goes missing in these discussions. The effects of a hit wold not be constant, and might vary enormously.
Another point related to this is that damage to specific aircraft systems might be more important than gross structural damage. This is of course especially true of engines, fuel tanks and the pilot but a hit to control cables could be just as devastating.
In most flight sims a/c behave like they are made out of a number of chunks of wood: very few systems are modelled and division into different areas is not very fine. For example in AH you have 4 areas on the wing: innner wing, outer wing, aileron, flap. The only systems modelled are guns and possible chance of a fuel leak. Once enough damage is done to a part falls off, otherwise it is still there working fine. IN realit even a hit from a small calibre ball or AP bullet might sever a control cable or set a fule tank on fire. Likewise a big cannon shell might detonate blowing a big hole in the wing but not destroying the spars or any vital systems. The difference between a kill and no useful damage might be a few centimetres or a slight change of impact angle. il2:FB does a better job of this than other games I have tried: the damage effects are more random and systems get damaged more often. Most of my il2 kills are through engine or fuel fires, pilot kills. In AH and other games most kills seem to come from gross strutural failures: you blow the wing or tailplane off. In fact in il2 I find myself aiming for vulnerable points where as in AH i will just aim for the largest part of a fighter or the wing of a bomber, confident that a good burst will destroy some key part of the aircraft.
-
Hi Pei,
>I think this a very good point that goes missing in these discussions. The effects of a hit wold not be constant, and might vary enormously.
Actually, the table I posted covers just that.
Hit 20 four-engined bombers with 4 mine shells each, and 10 out of 20 will fly away.
When target saturation is reached, variation becomes very small though: Hit 20 bombers with 7 mine shells each, and only 1 out of the 20 will fly away.
>Another point related to this is that damage to specific aircraft systems might be more important than gross structural damage.
In fact, mine shells were designed to cause gross structural damage because combat experience showed that damage to specific aircraft systems wasn't good enough.
>Likewise a big cannon shell might detonate blowing a big hole in the wing but not destroying the spars or any vital systems.
The damage mechanism of mine shells relies on blowing big holes the wing's skin because the wing's skin actually is a vital load-bearing component in all-metal stressed-skin aircraft.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
B-26 wing damage
http://320thbg.org/phcrashes_001.html
same wing? but another view
http://pages.zdnet.com/vancell/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/320blu4z.jpg
more pictures...
http://pages.zdnet.com/vancell/b26tailgunner/id12.html
-
These are the same two photos I posted, but in much better quality and they are in color! Great!
-
Why did not the bigger, more powerful flak shell hit not do more damage? The 30mm in the British tests did.
(http://pages.zdnet.com/vancell/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/damagex.jpg)
Why does the B-26 still have a wing if it was hit by 30mm shells? Using the British tests as examples of the destructive power of the 30mm, the wing should have been blown clean off.:p
(http://320thbg.org/archivephotoslrg/flak_0001lrg.jpg)
-
Why does the B-26 still have a wing if it was hit by 30mm shells? Using the British tests as examples of the destructive power of the 30mm, the wing should have been blown clean off.
`cos that`s the effect of two DUD MK 108 shells merely passing through. If you weren`t so dumb as you are, you could read that already. :lol But you`re just trolling as usual. Oh, congrats for your... uhm... 7th ? :D banning on Ubi forums for doing the same. :aok
Why did not the bigger, more powerful flak shell hit not do more damage? The 30mm in the British tests did.
I can`t see how the effect of the Blenheim is greater. The Blenheim was a much smaller aircraft than a B-26.
If you want to see what a direct Flak hit does, I can provide one that of a B-17 over Hungary, which had it`s whole nose section blown off and it went down shortly afterwards. Rather famous picture.
-
Have not bothered to re-register Barbi unlike you who has been banned again and has a couple of other aliases. The place is a cess pool with you and your henchmen, Huckles, Nicolas and Fw190fan (and their new aliases).:) Anyways, no need to, as your German is uber bs mentality is well known, now.:rofl :aok If I did re-register, no doubt you and your henchmen would be crying to the mods like the little wimpy babies, you all are.
As to the 2 duds, the caption does not say they were duds.
"The crew chief inspects damage inflicted by an ME-262 jet fighter."
If your were not so dumb and so full of yourself, you would see that it was not a troll but pointing out that the British test were not indicative of 30mm damage in all cases.:eek:
What is the explosive content of an 88mm compared to a 30mm? Yet the 88 has not quite the same damage effect as the 30mm on the Blenhiem.
Pg 116 of the Mighty Eighth by Freeman has a pic of a flak hit that opened up the radio room from wing root to above the window. It made it back.:)
Pg 180 has a B-17 pic with a nose hit that made it back to base. Only the bombardier was killed in the explosion that destroyed the nose from the top of the turret back to the windscreen.
Pg 80 of Osprey Combat A/C #9(Mosquito FB Units) has a pic of a Mossie that tangled with a Me110(2 MK108s) that survived with a shredded rudder and a piece of it's fuselage outer skin missing.
So Barbi, as much as you would like your uber German weaponry to be 1 shot, one kill, it is not in fact so.:)
-
Maybe you should read this :
"Die Grenzauftreffgeschwindigkeit, für did der zünder für MK108 noch anspricht, ist noch unsicher.
Genaue untersuchungen insbesondere auch kleinen auftreffwinkeln und massnahmen zur verbesserung, erscheinen erforderlich. Die grenzauftreffgeschwindigkeit liegt für senkrechten auftreffwinkel bei 200 bis 250m/s.
Für 200 und 250m/s mindestansprechgeschwindigkei t werden die kampfentfernungen je nach kampfhöhe und gegnergeschwindigkeit für z.Zt. an der front befindliche A-Geschoss und für das B-Geschoss wie folgt eingeschränkt"
From a late war MK108 test report.
I think it will explain a lot of things... ;)
-
Tu est dur avec moi mon allemand est plus que limité
(j'ai encore la marque du radiateur sur la joue 10 ans aprés ;))
En bref quand la vitesse d'impact est de l'ordre de 250m/s et en deça il y a des pb de détonnateur ?
Ou j'ai encore rien compris ?.
-
Hi Straffo,
>En bref quand la vitesse d'impact est de l'ordre de 250m/s et en deça il y a des pb de détonnateur ?
"The lower limit of the impact velocity for which the fuse of the MK108 still reacts hasn't been determined reliably yet.
Accurate tests especially for small impact angles and with regard to measures for improvement appear necessary.
The lower limit of the impact velocity for perpendicular impact angles is in the region of 200 to 250 m/s.
For 200 to 250 m/s minimum fusing velocity, the combat ranges are limited depending on combat altitude and enemy air speed for the A and B shells currently in use at the front as follows."
There should be some kind of table here telling us the effective ranges for the mine shells. Maybe Butch can provide them?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Merci Henning :)
It proove that my German is not completly rotten ... but is almost dead :D
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
`cos that`s the effect of two DUD MK 108 shells merely passing through. If you weren`t so dumb as you are, you could read that already.
I've seen a photo of a P-51D that was hit behind the cockpit by a dud MK108 shell. It simply made a small hole on each side of the fuselage.
To cause that much damage the MK108 shells had to have gone off. They may have gone off a little late, but they definately went off.
The MK108 did not guarantee a kill with a single hit. The German munitions are notably better than the Allied munitions, but be real here, we're not talking sci-fi blasters or some such.
-
Any way to proof visually wich weapon (30mm or 20mm) did those damage?
-
this image is captioned
http://pages.zdnet.com/vancell/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/320blu4z.jpg
Attack by a Me 262 jet on this 320th Bomb Group B26 left wing is damaged by 20mm cannon. He had only enough fuel for one pass and the 26 made it home OK. It was a blessing that the Germans didn't develop and use the Me262 jets sooner. (Me262 pictures on Page 10) They were so fast... in and out of range before we knew it. They could zip through a bomber group and shoot down planes before we could react. Fortunately at that time they had a very limited range and had to return quickly. Our fighters waited for them near their airbases and shot them down while they were trying to land. War is hell... winning is everything.
So it unclear atleast in this image what round caused the damage. Unless someone has better info on the pic I am not sure what round caused the damage.
-
Hi Orka,
>Any way to proof visually wich weapon (30mm or 20mm) did those damage?
No certain way.
Visual impression:
30 mm creates very big holes (50 x 50 cm^2 to 100 x 100 cm^2).
Often, the damage doesn't stop at a row of rivets but tears the skin right off so that it's peeled off and the rivet perforation is visible.
The holes often look "square" because all of the skin is torn off one or several rib/spar fields up to the point where the power of the explosion doesn't suffice to defeat the riveting.
(20 mm can make square holes, too, but only if it strikes small rib/spar fields, or control surfaces.)
30 mm can also deform the nose box of a wing completely, but you will only see that in ground tests because it will render the plane unflyable immediately. (The Luftwaffe destroyed a Hs 124 wing with one such 30 mm hit in a ground test.)
Often, a 30 mm hit takes out both the upper and the lower surface in the area of the hit.
This photograph matches most of the 30 mm effects I described above:
http://pages.zdnet.com/vancell/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/320blu4z.jpg
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
This picture was already posted in BW form. Read the caption.
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Bordwaffen/B26dudMK108-1.jpg
-
Fritz Hahn: Deutsche Geheimwaffen
MINENGRANATEN
..So riB tin Flächentreffer an einer "Fortress"
tin Loch von einer GröBe 100X175 cm durch die Verwendung einer 30-mm- M.Gr. mit 72 g Sprengstoff. In einem anderen Falle wurde mit der gleichen Munition ein Treffer in den hinteren Rumpfteil des P-51-Jägers "Mustang" erzielt, mit dem Ergebnis, daB die Beplankung in über 3 m Längevöllig abgerissen wurde - die Maschine stürzte ah. "
Basically it notes two such cases, one being a single B-17 wing hit, that resulted the skin being torn of in an area of 1m x 1.75 m.
In the other case, the fusalage of a P-51 was hit, result being the skin being ripped of on a whole 3 m lenght - the plane went down.
-
Now what caliber was that ? :D
(http://unix.rulez.org/~calver/pictures/birdstrike.jpg)
-
Hi Isegrim,
>This picture was already posted in BW form. Read the caption.
Hm, quite interesting, but in my opinion the caption is in error.
A dud would only have made a (keyhole-shaped) entry and an irregular exit hole. (Only slightly more damaging than an amour-piercing round ;-)
Look at the way the panels are damaged and bent up. The corresponding picture of the wing's lower surface probably shows it even better, with the aluminium skin pushed out.
That can only be achieved by a rather violent explosion within the wing.
Just look at the size of the affected area - that must be something like 1.5 m x 0.5 m of skin that's blown out and without any structural function, and 0.5 m x 0.5 m at the underside.
That's a very serious structural hit, not enough to bring the plane down, but with another hit of this kind in the same wing ...
The second hit is an illustration of the statistic nature of terminal ballistics. It has hit the aileron, striking a rib directly, blowing off just 0.4 m x 0.4 m in a non-structural part so that it doesn't weaken the wing at all.
That's why 4 hits only bring down a heavy bomber with 50% probability - if for example it gets 2 or 3 hits in one wing, it's down. If it gets 1 in each wing, 1 in the fuselage, and 1 in some control surface, it might fly on.
It's a kind of roulette where any individual game is impossible to predict. The only certainty is that in the long run, the bank wins ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
This picture was already posted in BW form. Read the caption.
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Bordwaffen/B26dudMK108-1.jpg
And we know the caption writer is a reliable expert because...?
-
Yes Hohun i have the tables and the whole document, but i have to find it back within tenth of thousands of other pages... I had this sentence marked down a few months ago because it explained some of troubles encountered with non detoning MK108 shells.
-
A 20mm or 30mm shell would have tore that wing apart had it exploded.
-
The USAAF noticed that a/c hit by heavier flak had more damage done from the nose end of the shell. Their conclusion was the velocity of the shell added to the nose end damage and detracted from the back(shell) end damaged.
From this one can conclude that the British tests were done with exploding a stationary 30mm shell in the fuselages.
-
HoHun, if that shell would gone off, I would except similiar damage as on other pcitures - HUGE surfaces being blown off. But in this case, it`s opened like with a tin can opener, forced out one side..
If you look at the picture that shows the bottom wing, the panels are forced open evenly in a clean line along the riveting, and notice it opened near the trailing edge. Why ? The shell passed through from below (typical 262 attack style BTW), punched a hole on the lower wing surface, and completely knocked out an upper panel, exited without exploding.
Then what happened was the airflow entering the hole in the wing top, and forcing open the lower panel like a door, effectively creating a neat ducting like as a radiator. :)
The hit at the ailerons obviously did not explode - you expect anything remaining of that fabric surface after mine shell?- not even the ribs are scratched, just some smashing movement on the left one, but that`s clean, too.
No signs of fragments and hundreds of tiny holes. All shining aluminium, no sign of burn, smoke, explosion... clean as in a laboratory.
The shell either didnt go off, or it was an incendinary MK 108 shell that did not contain any explosives - effectively being an AP in not hitting a fuel tank.
-
Hi Isegrim,
>HoHun, if that shell would gone off, I would except similiar damage as on other pcitures - HUGE surfaces being blown off.
1.5 m x 0.5 m is HUGE :-)
>Then what happened was the airflow entering the hole in the wing top, and forcing open the lower panel like a door
Hm, the wing top is a low pressure area. Air pressure alone wouldn't suffice to rip aluminium off its rivets, either.
>The hit at the ailerons obviously did not explode - you expect anything remaining of that fabric surface after mine shell?
If it's fabric, this explains why little damage was done - fabric rips apart without allowing a really destructive pressure to build up.
>No signs of fragments and hundreds of tiny holes. All shining aluminium, no sign of burn, smoke, explosion...
They didn't use black powder, you know ;-) Mine shells have very little fragmetation effect, due to the thin-walled shells it's almost all blast.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Having a large hole in the wing does not prevent you from RTB:ing but if you'd try to maneuver with such damage it would probably break the wing off.
Finnish ace Ilmari Juutilainen said he liked to wait for the escaping enemy fighter to start pulling out of dive as even one hit in the wing with 151/20 would cut the wing off.
The wing structure might be a bit problematic place for a HE to go off as it is a sectioned structure which is divided by spars etc. concentrating the pressure on one section and at the same time leaking the pressure to the surrounding sections. So the pressure rips one section open and fails to deliver adequate pressure to surrounding sections.
I'd imagine the best place for the 30mm HE to go off would be in middle of the fuselage which is sectioned by closed bulkheads. That would provide a somewhat large expansion room for the explosion which would not leak anywhere but would blow the skinning off evenly around it. (The Blen fuselage obviously was of optimal size...)
I think it can be seen in those photos that the explosion has usually destroyed the surface of one section and only slightly spread to surrounding sections. But, of course, the surface is part of supporting structures in stressed skin a/c, so having a square foot hole in the wing would make your usable flight envelope considerably more narrow in G-plane.
I have flown a 30mm armed planes in AH quite a lot recently and I have been very satisfied by its effectiveness.
-C+
-
Hi Charge,
>But, of course, the surface is part of supporting structures in stressed skin a/c, so having a square foot hole in the wing would make your usable flight envelope considerably more narrow in G-plane.
Actually, German tests show that you should expect a square meter hole rather than a square foot one :-) And that might be both on the upper and on the lower surface.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Much as I'm a fan of the Mossie, I think you'll find the damage in that Osprey picture you're referring to was caused not by Mk108s, but by burning petrol as the Mosquito flew through the exploding wreckage of the 110 it shot down.
This is fairly typical damage for that type of incident, of which there were many. I believe there's even another picture earlier in the Osprey book.
Cheers,
Scherf
-
Originally posted by Scherf
Much as I'm a fan of the Mossie, I think you'll find the damage in that Osprey picture you're referring to was caused not by Mk108s, but by burning petrol as the Mosquito flew through the exploding wreckage of the 110 it shot down.
This is fairly typical damage for that type of incident, of which there were many. I believe there's even another picture earlier in the Osprey book.
Cheers,
Scherf
No, I know the picture you are talking about and think he is talking about a different photo. I have a photo of the Mossie that survived the MK108 hits (I'd guess two hits) in one of my books. I'll see if I can get an electronic copy of it and post it later tonight.
The Mossies that flew through burning fuel are pretty obviously not shot up. There were several instances of this happening. Frankly, reading through "Mosquito" by Sharp and Bowyer it is surprising how often Mosquito's collided with parts of their victims.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Hooligan,
>5 randomly placed hits would apparently not have been sufficient.
According to Luftwaffe figures, 4 - 5 randomly placed hits had a 50% chance of bringing down a heavy bomber, 8 - 9 randomly placed hits were required for a 95% kill chance.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
This is consistent with what Franz Stigler said at the WB Con in 2000.
-
(http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/karnak/MossMk108Dam.jpg)
Lt. Archie Lockart with the Mosquito engaged by an Me 262 in August, 1944
(http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/karnak/MossMk108DamTxt.JPG)
-
Thanks for that. As the text says though, that's a PR Mossie which encountered a 262, not the Fighter Mossie which encountered a 110, which is the pic that Milo's referring to.
I've got the Osprey book back in the hotel, will double-check, but I'm almost positive that was a 100 Group nightfighter which had the rudder covering and some of the fuselage covering burned away.
Sorry, no scanner, can't post the pic.
Cheers,
Scherf
-
I was in error guys. It is as Scherf says.:o Damaged received on the night of Feb 1/2 near Stuttgart.
It was a NF 30, NT252 of No 169 Sqd.
The crew, Mellows and Drew claimed a He219(WNr 290194) on New Years eve at approx 1624 hr. They were attached to No 85 Sqd at the time.
-
Nice picture, just landed in my MK 108 directory. ;)
-
Been in my Mossie directory for a while now.
Cheers,
Scherf
-
Originally posted by Scherf
Thanks for that. As the text says though, that's a PR Mossie which encountered a 262, not the Fighter Mossie which encountered a 110, which is the pic that Milo's referring to.
I wasn't implying that it was the same Mossie, as it obviously isn't. I was simply posting pictures of a Mossie that had been hit by Mk108s. I don't have a scanner either. I wnrt to Kinkos and used their's for the exchange of cash.
-
That's above and beyond the call of duty, Karnak!
The only other picture I've seen of 30mm damage to Mossies was another SAAF PR machine, which had damage to engine, propellor, spinner etc.
Any others out there that you know of?
Cheers,
Scherf
-
Scherf,
Not that I know of. I have seen several photos of surface burned Mosquitos. I don't know if they are all of the same aircraft or if that simply happened to more than one aircraft.
I'll do a post sometime with the damage photos I do have.