Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: spitfiremkv on June 13, 2005, 06:26:47 PM
-
I don't think there's any difference in engines, so it would be the extra cannon in the nose. I'd much rather have that than not have it, yet the E4 did away with it.
-
Originally posted by spitfiremkv
I don't think there's any difference in engines, so it would be the extra cannon in the nose. I'd much rather have that than not have it, yet the E4 did away with it.
I'd rather have the one that saw the most significant use in the Battle of Britain, the Bf109E-4.
-
but why? with 3 cannons you can do that much more damage! :P
-
99% of E3 did not mount an engine cannon, that's an old myth because it was basically prepped for one but the gun never worked well so was not fitted at factory.
-
Sure I'll vote, what's an E3 or E4 ?
-
E7 with the drop tank :)
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Originally posted by spitfiremkv
but why? with 3 cannons you can do that much more damage! :P
Because I am interested in what was used and what did the fighting, not the most powerful, one built knockoff I can get.
I'm an RAF fan, but you won't see me asking for the Spitfire Mk Ib or Mk IIb. That would be dumb.
-
Hi Spitfiremkv,
>I don't think there's any difference in engines, so it would be the extra cannon in the nose. I'd much rather have that than not have it, yet the E4 did away with it.
It seems that no Emil ever featured an engine cannon.
The reports of such an aircraft seem to be based on misinterpretation of photographs from a single Me 109E fitted with experimental tow line attachment point protuding from the spinner.
The most important versions of the Emil as used in the Battle of Britain were:
- E-1: 4 x 7.92 mm MG
- E-3: 2 x 7.92 mm MG, 2 x 20 mm MG FF
- E-4: E-3 with armour glass, head armour, MG FF/M
- E-4/N: like E-4, but with DB601N engine
The E-1 saw considerable use in the Battle of Britain, but only very few E-3 aircraft were employed. It seems they were all converted to E-4 status and re-designated accordingly.
The E-4/N was relatively rare, one squadron at the beginning of the Battle and one group at the end. The DB601N meant its performance was a bit better, especially at high altitude.
I figure that the DB601A was used in 4 versions in the Emil:
- A-1 with 4 km full throttle height
- Aa with A-1 (4 km) supercharger
- A-1 with 4.5 km full throttle height
- Aa with A-1 (4.5 km) supercharger
The former 2 versions could be converted into the latter 2 respectively, and it might be that by the time of the Battle of Britain, they had.
The DB601Aa was a bit more powerful than the A-1, probably due to better tolerances and/or materials, and was produced in parallel to the A-1. However, the Aa made only about 25% of the DB601A production.
Unfortunately, the Aa-engined aircraft were not recognizable by their designation, probably because the DB601A-1 and Aa were interchanged in the field during maintenance, depending on their availability.
(The old story that the Aa was an export engine to be fitted to the Me 109E-3a export model appears to be inaccurate.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
z1
-
The E-4, it had its MG-FF replaced by the MG-FF/M, which could fire the powerful Mine shells. And, as HoHun said, most E-3s appear to be converted to E-4s (not much of a conversion, cannons+canopy being the difference..).
I wonder about the E-1s though, some say they replaced the wing MGs to cannons by 1940, but its hard to tell, a cannon armed E-1 would look exactly the same as an E-3.
The E-4/N would be a hotter version, but only a Group was built up shortly before the BoB, as decision was made that most of the 601N engines would go into reserve, Bf 110s, and the 109F that just started production. E-7 appeared in August, and could carry droptanks, but it took some time to introduce it. However, towards the end of the battle the E-7/N appeared in great numbers, able to carry droptanks or bombs, powered by the 601N engine, with Mine shell firing MG FF/M, and a slight aerodynamic improvement on the spinner shape.
I still wonder about E-1/E-3/4 conversions.. seems to be very simply to do.
-
I wonder about the E1 as well, whether they were converted to cannon armament or not.
Hooton, Eagle in flames, gives the following figures for the percentage of E subtypes lost during the BoB:
Type July Aug Sep Oct
E1 44 40 38 36
E3 30 8 1 2
E4 20 52 61 62
-
z1 cause I want a twin 109 and can look over in other cockpit and see my capuchin friend there
flying monkeys rock
especially if they wear fezs'
-
Hi Kurfürst,
>I wonder about the E-1s though, some say they replaced the wing MGs to cannons by 1940, but its hard to tell, a cannon armed E-1 would look exactly the same as an E-3.
In Priller's "JG26", there's an account by a pilot who used a quadruple-MG armed Me 109 shot down three Hurricanes in a row from the blind six of their formation. As he states that after the third attack, his windscreen got oiled up from the Hurricane in front, I imagine he must have been very close on opening fire - which might explain how he got them down with that little firepower.
(No guarantee on the accuracy as I had to dig that up from my memory ... unfortunately, I don't own that book.)
>The E-4/N would be a hotter version, but only a Group was built up shortly before the BoB, as decision was made that most of the 601N engines would go into reserve, Bf 110s, and the 109F that just started production.
Hm, "Messerschmitt Bf 110, Me 210, Me 410" by Mankau/Petrick note that the DB601N was initially ear-marked for the Me 110, but re-directed into the Bf 109 units pretty quickly. The fighter units really got preferential treatment there. I'm not sure of the time line, but I think the DB601N was only fitted to the smaller part of the Emils before Battle of Britain day, though production was rapid. (Mankau and Petrick quote the GL/C protocols, so they're probably realiable in the issue.)
>I still wonder about E-1/E-3/4 conversions.. seems to be very simply to do.
I'm not so sure about replacing the E-1's MGs with cannon, but I'd imagine that the E-1s were given the additional armour at least :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
E-1s flew on with E-3s and E-4s un-adjusted. There are photos of E-1s flying with E3/4s, and you can tell the difference because of the missing bulges on the E-1s. Now I don't know if that was the NORM, but when the 3/4s were around, the E1s were un-changed. Probably because the older wings weren't meant for the new guns, but the new planes had the adjustments built in at the factory level.
I think they also had a weaker engine. Not sure on that one.
P.S. The idea was always to put a gun in the engine. Always. The problem was the guns. And the vibrations. The only planes that ever had this were test aircraft and prototypes, and it was removed before it went into distribution.
Once the 109F came around, they had finally gotten a decent, reliable cannon (MG151/20) and solved the engine vibration problems.
-
I'm interested in the E-1 in the BoB question - I must admit I thought that virtually all of the 109's in the BoB carried cannon, but I've recently learned otherwise.
It is of course easy enough to tell from any pic showing the wing leading edge as the cannon barrel protrudes, the MG's doesn't. Does anyone have loads of photos of 109s in the BoB, and can do a quick count-up?
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 HoHun
Hi Kurfürst,
In Priller's "JG26", there's an account by a pilot who used a quadruple-MG armed Me 109 shot down three Hurricanes in a row from the blind six of their formation. As he states that after the third attack, his windscreen got oiled up from the Hurricane in front, I imagine he must have been very close on opening fire - which might explain how he got them down with that little firepower.
[/B]
I don`t have the book either, but the story sounds familiar.. do you have the date of the action? If it`s shorty before the Battle, I`d be not much surprised : none of the Spitfires and few of the Hurricanes had any kind of pilot armor fitted, the fitting having only started shortly prior the battle and took some time to equip all units (like CS props). Up until then, they were very vulnarable to fast-firing MG fire, perhaps more than to cannons of slower ROF.
I'm not so sure about replacing the E-1's MGs with cannon, but I'd imagine that the E-1s were given the additional armour at least :-)[/B]
AAW has now a discussion of it, and as per butch, the Mgs were replaced by cannons on at least some E-1s.
Another interesting point is armor; to my knowladge, all Emils started the war with pilot armor and self sealing tanks; the additional (head) armor was added around the Battle of France, and seems quite universal from the pictures. Perhaps a good way to tell BoB-era E-1s : pilot armor present but no protounding cannon barrels.
-
Hmm. This is a quote from 'Flying Guns – World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45':
"An advantage on the German side was the better quality of their self-sealing fuel tanks. Tests of British and captured German equipment by the US Navy revealed that the tank installed in the Bf 110 was considerably superior to the British self-sealing tanks and gave effective protection against .30" hits. The German tank contained no spark-inducing metal parts except the fittings for the fuel lines, which were at the top instead of the bottom to prevent leaks, and was spaced away from the aircraft skin to prevent damage occurring through the hydraulic shock effect. On the other hand, the British were agreeably surprised to discover from wrecks that the fuel tank of the Bf 109E was not self-sealing, and the armour protection of German aircraft generally deficient. This was especially so for the bombers, which had pilot armour only."
The bit about the lack of self-sealing in the Bf 109 tanks came from a first-hand report I found in the PRO.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
hmm, I recall there was a discussion on that in LEMB, and Irmur had pointed out that the 109 was designed from the begining with self sealing tanks and pilot armor, and certainly no German source indicates such absense. Perhaps butch could tell better, but I trust Irmur as he has a whole load of papers from German archives.
As for the lack of SS tank and armor, I think the Emil that the British report is based on was probably a lightened one; it was quite common during the Bf 109 production run to produce lightened aircraft for special tasks like high alt interception etc.
Even in 1944 they encountered such 'light' G-14s.
Perhaps an 109E-7/Z ? Do you know the subtype, Tony?
-
The British must be liars even though they examined many many many 109s during BoB and found the 109 lacked armour and SS fuel tanks.
-
How many reports say for how many enemy aircraft to lack SS tank and armor?
My take is ONE.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
How many reports say for how many enemy aircraft to lack SS tank and armor?
My take is ONE.
Go to the PRO and do some checking on your own for you will never believe anyone else.:p Bring a very reliable witness with you so we can have an unbiased result of your search.
We can only speculate that the 'penny pocket' of 109s (all 91 out of 33,000) used 1.98ata since you provided no proof that there actually was a conversion, only an order to do so.
-
I know of at least 3 different kind of tanks used in 109s
- fibre/leather/rubber self sealing
- light metal alloy obviously not self sealing
- 5mm thick rubber tank not self sealing.
-
Thanks butch. Could you clear up the SStank/pilot armor issue on the Emil for us?
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Kurfürst,
>I wonder about the E-1s though, some say they replaced the wing MGs to cannons by 1940, but its hard to tell, a cannon armed E-1 would look exactly the same as an E-3.
In Priller's "JG26", there's an account by a pilot who used a quadruple-MG armed Me 109 shot down three Hurricanes in a row from the blind six of their formation. As he states that after the third attack, his windscreen got oiled up from the Hurricane in front, I imagine he must have been very close on opening fire - which might explain how he got them down with that little firepower.
(No guarantee on the accuracy as I had to dig that up from my memory ... unfortunately, I don't own that book.)
>The E-4/N would be a hotter version, but only a Group was built up shortly before the BoB, as decision was made that most of the 601N engines would go into reserve, Bf 110s, and the 109F that just started production.
Hm, "Messerschmitt Bf 110, Me 210, Me 410" by Mankau/Petrick note that the DB601N was initially ear-marked for the Me 110, but re-directed into the Bf 109 units pretty quickly. The fighter units really got preferential treatment there. I'm not sure of the time line, but I think the DB601N was only fitted to the smaller part of the Emils before Battle of Britain day, though production was rapid. (Mankau and Petrick quote the GL/C protocols, so they're probably realiable in the issue.)
>I still wonder about E-1/E-3/4 conversions.. seems to be very simply to do.
I'm not so sure about replacing the E-1's MGs with cannon, but I'd imagine that the E-1s were given the additional armour at least :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Going through the Battle of Britain, then and now and it lists all the losses from both sides.
It does designate the type of Emil be it an E-1, E-3, E-4 or E-7 and there are losses of all types with E-1s showing up as lost into October 1940.
There are also photos of downed Emils and the E-1s don't have the cannon barrels showing, just the opening in the wing for the mgs.
As for the armor, there are E-4s shown with the early canopy and no armor and E-1s shown with the later canopy and armor, so it clearly was being retrofitted on the fly so to speak.
As for the 3 Hurricanes shot down in the one formation by the JG26 pilot. I would imagine this might be the incident where Gerd Schoepfel got the 4 Hurricanes from 501 Squadron August 18, 1940. His was a cannon equipped E-4 though if the photos of his aircraft are to be believed.
Images of 4 downed E-1s during the B of B. Top one had the armor in the canopy in another photo. Bottom one had later canopy style too I believe. I guess they retrofitted them when they could.
They cover the time frame of the B of B. No cannons that I can see in the wings
Dan/CorkyJr
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/810_1118865132_e1s.jpg)
-
hmm, the first one looks like more as an E-4 on public display - probably the cannons were removed.
I am not sure about the last one either, i can faintly see the cannon bulge on the underside of the wing, but it`s not clear enough to tell with certainity.
-
Top one is ID'd as Heinz Bartel's E-1 in two different sources. Werk number listed as 6296F
Bottom one is one of three E-1s listed as lost by JG27 that day. Werk number of 4851.
The openings for the MG are a different size then those with the cannon extending out too. The E-1 openings seem larger by a bit.
Not sure if that helps.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams
I'm interested in the E-1 in the BoB question - I must admit I thought that virtually all of the 109's in the BoB carried cannon, but I've recently learned otherwise.
Tony, read "Spitfire on my tail" by Ulrich Steinhilper?
Excellent book. And the author flew in BoB with 4 mg 109, and specifically mentions when he got a new plane with cannons.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
hmm, the first one looks like more as an E-4 on public display - probably the cannons were removed.
I am not sure about the last one either, i can faintly see the cannon bulge on the underside of the wing, but it`s not clear enough to tell with certainity.
For the resident 109 expert you leave a lot to be desired.
The mg were installed in the first bay past the wheel well, while the cannon were installed in the second bay past the wheel well.
Externally, the cannon opening should be closer to the slats than the mg openings. Every pic posted by Dan has an obvious large distance between the slat and gun opening.
-
Hi Dan,
>As for the armor, there are E-4s shown with the early canopy and no armor
Hm, how do you tell these apart from the E-3s?
>As for the 3 Hurricanes shot down in the one formation by the JG26 pilot. I would imagine this might be the incident where Gerd Schoepfel got the 4 Hurricanes from 501 Squadron August 18, 1940. His was a cannon equipped E-4 though if the photos of his aircraft are to be believed.
The combat narrative was quite clear in mentioning the 4 MGs. This really struck me when I read it. I'll have to phone the friend who lent me the book to confirm it was Schoepfel :-)
>I guess they retrofitted them when they could.
There's an anecdote about Galland's first encounter with such a head armour. (It struck his head with considerable force when he closed the canopy, unaware that his mechanic had fitted the armour piece without telling him.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I know that in Africa they had them removed for better visibility. I guess because they had more of a superiority going on, and didn't need the protection, or something?
-
My source on the 109E-3 is the book by Martin Caidin on the 109. Indeed, the third cannon was removed from many E3 aircraft because it caused sever vibrations.
It's pretty ironic, since later 109 models will mount a nose cannon and do away with the wing mounted ones.
-
Originally posted by Grendel
Tony, read "Spitfire on my tail" by Ulrich Steinhilper?
Excellent book. And the author flew in BoB with 4 mg 109, and specifically mentions when he got a new plane with cannons.
It's one of the depressingly large number of books sitting on my shelf which I haven't had time to read yet :(
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)