Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: DoLbY on July 04, 2007, 02:04:40 PM
-
I know more then likely this topic as been brought up in the past. I just joined the forums yesterday so I haven't seen it if it has. I apologize if has but this has been lingering in my mind for quite some time.
What is more effective against A/C?
True, the cannon causes good damage, and 30MM+ will definetly ruin a pilots day if it hits in the cockpit
Reason why I ask this question is I was going over some film in both my pony and cannon plane (P38). I hit the pilot several times in both planes and I noticed PW seem to be almost instant when I am using 50s.
So I noticed it kind of has a wierd balance; True cannons do cause good damage and the 50s can when hitting at right spot, but it seems 50s do more damage to pilot.
(if that confused anyone, sorry, I'm half away drunk on nightquill due to flu)
-
Originally posted by DoLbY
I). I hit the pilot several times in both planes and I noticed PW seem to be almost instant when I am using 50s.
So I noticed it kind of has a wierd balance; True cannons do cause good damage and the 50s can when hitting at right spot, but it seems 50s do more damage to pilot.
(if that confused anyone, sorry, I'm half away drunk on nightquill due to flu)
nightquill?
There are so many different varaibles between shooting gun solutions that this is hard to address.
Let's just start with this one: Were the targets in the film the same kind of plane? Some planes protect their pilots better than others.
-
50's will take more hits in the same area to cause a major structural failure.
However, on the flip side you have a LOT more of them to throw, and you can afford to take more tracking and deflection shots. 50's will also hit a lot farther out than its feasible to shoot cannons.
Cannons if your close only take 2 - 20 hits in one spot to rip something off. So kills tend to be faster, a few fewer assists than .50's. However cannons have a lot more drop in their trajectory, so its harder to hit with them. Especially farther out or in a deflection shot.
Both are fully capable of knocking planes down.
Cannons were designed more for taking down larger bombers.
6 or more 50's are much easier to hit with.
Btw I don't consider the p38 with its single 20mm a cannon bird.
Nik, F4u-1c, Tiffy, even the la's with their twin cannons will all rip a target to shreds in a heartbeat if they are on target.
I guess the only real way to test this would be to do side by side tests.
Say a Pony and a 4 or 2 cannon bird side by side on runway. With sights on 2 more parked (identical) planes. Turn film on, on mark both start shooting at the same point of their respective plane. Then compare timing for the cannon bird vs the MG bird.
As to the pilot wound issue. .50's are perhaps more likely to get through armor and cause a Pilot wound. Cannon rounds if they get into the cockpit are going to kill you dead. Not cause a pilot wound.
-
Given real life conditions, 20mms are proven to be more efficient. Despite differing opinions and a raging argument, my impression is the proponents of the 20mm argument got the definate upperhand than the advocates of the 50cals.
In AH, where people shoot more accurately, from further out, against planes with a much simplified damage depiction, it comes down to a matter of taste. Many veterans make good use of 50cals, whereas others are cannon gunners par excellence.
Personally, given a choice between multiple(4~8) 50cals vs. one or more cannons, I'd go for the cannons.
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
50's will also hit a lot farther out than its feasible to shoot cannons.
Doing some testing with the Mk108 (German 30mm) in the game on the Bf-110G2, set the 30mm to a 650 convergence. Put a target at 650 and note the pattern. Take a P-38 and set the .50 cal to 650 convergence. Repeat with another target at 650. The two patterns are almost identical and hit the target practically center-mass where the convergence and target are at the same range.
If you're saying the .50's hit easier at 1.3K with a convergence of 650--maybe as the cannon drops more over the same range set at the same convergence. But, as someone who consistently has his convergence set at 300 or less for all the different weapons systems, I think it is all too easy for folks flying cannon planes to snipe at you when they're 600-800 meters off your six. If the ballistics are that much worse, it should be a waste of ammo to take those types of long range tracking shots...
Just my opinion...
-
Thanks for the replies so far. I don't know if this has really anything to do with more PW shots but I have my guns set all on the same range ((400 in all the planes I fly)); It seems to do more damage as one round from each gun rather then several rounds from one gun.
-
With .50 cal you have bigger chances to cause PW because of:
1) more guns x faster rate of fire = more bullets in same time = more chances to hit pilot;
2) 1 x 0.50 must be enough to PW, 1 x 20mm in pilot = PK i believe;
3) 20mm is HE, it cause more damage to skin and airframe, 12mm is AP and more likely to hit fuel/engine/pilot; there are no fragments from cannon's round in AH, afaik.
-
Cannons weren't exactly reliable in WWII.
-
For me the cannons are the way to go. I often land my K4, g14 without having used a single mg round and only used the 30mm
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Cannons weren't exactly reliable in WWII.
Evidence? Or are you just spreading FUD?
The 20mm cannons on the Spitfire had one stoppage in 2500 rounds fired. I understand the German cannons were more reliable thabn the Spitfire's.
That doesn't sound worse than what I've heard of machineguns having.
Particularly the P-51B had serious stoppage issues on its machine guns.
-
The early 20 mm Hispanos used in Spit IB had issues but later version proved to be fine.
The germans usually were very reliable maybe except the MK 108 that had some small issues if firing from within turning with several G's.
-
.50's are good for taking out SYSTEMS with its AP ammo. Pilot is a system. So is an engine, fuel tank, and other systems. Cannon's are good for taking our structure's like wings, flaps and other large area's with its HE ammo. Im not very sure how AH does its DM, but thats how it is in real life. A 6 pack of .50's is better for killing a pilot. There are stories of a 20MM HE shell exploding INSIDE the cockpit in front of the cockpit, and he flew back to base with flash burns and some shrapnal wounds. A .50 cal hitting a body is not very surviveable. Also, with multiple .50's firing at a high ROF, you have a higher chance of hitting.
I think for fighter vs fighter combat, 6x .50's are VERY effective if your a good aim. I would go with that then 1 or 2 20MM and a few light HMG armorment that the standard WWII fighter (109, Spitfire, A6M, and Yak). 8x is even better ;)
-
U.S. 20mm cannons were unreliable.
The U.S. Hispanos were not built to the specifications that the British Hispanos were. Also, cannons in the F4U-1C would freeze due to using the wrong type of lubricant.
-
The initial trajectories of a M2 .50 caliber Browning and a 20 millimeter Hispano-Suiza were virtually identical, ranging from 870 mps for the M2 to 840-880 mps for the Hispano (depending on model).
That's roughly 3000 fps. Bullet drop would be identical as well, at least over the first 300 yards of range. Beyond that, bullet weight and ballistic coefficient begin to play a part. The Browning round would have a better long range trajectory because its form is more streamlined, yielding a better ballistic coefficient. The 20 millimeter made up for this deficiency by yielding more destructive power against the structure of an enemy aircraft.
In combat, most of the more experienced fighter pilots seldom fired at long range, preferring to get as close as possible, within 200 yards most of the time, before opening fire. At that range, trajectory would not be an issue with either type of armament. The fifty caliber was a better choice for the younger, greener pilots because they tended to take longer shots and their aim not as good.
For that reason, the USAAC preferred the .50 caliber to the 20 millimeter. The U.S. Navy, which tended to have older, more experienced pilots would have liked to make a change to 20 millimeter, but tended to follow the Army's lead.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
The initial trajectories of a M2 .50 caliber Browning and a 20 millimeter Hispano-Suiza were virtually identical, ranging from 870 mps for the M2 to 840-880 mps for the Hispano (depending on model).
Please correct me if im wrong, but most Hispano's in WWII had a ROF around 650-750RPM. Only the later Hispano V's had a ROF near 850? And only the Hawlker Tempest V Mk 2 (~800 produced) used them? Also, the MG-151/20 had a ROF of around 750RPM. The ShVAK also had a RPM of 700-800RPM. So most WWII 20MM's fired in the rang of 750RPM, not 850, giving the .50 cal a ROF advantage, like I stated above. Also, the Hispano V's had a short berral, lower MV, and differant ballistics then the M2 .50 cal.
-
He's not talking "rpm" (rounds per minute).
-
Sorry about that. My bad. -1 on reading comprehention for me.
-
:rofl
-
Cannons. I HATE flying MG planes. Granted, the P-47 makes up for its weaponry shortcomings, but I much like the punch offered by cannon.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
Doing some testing with the Mk108 (German 30mm) in the game on the Bf-110G2, set the 30mm to a 650 convergence. Put a target at 650 and note the pattern. Take a P-38 and set the .50 cal to 650 convergence. Repeat with another target at 650. The two patterns are almost identical and hit the target practically center-mass where the convergence and target are at the same range.
(Sorry if this was already said; didn't read the whole post.)
There's a big problem in your theory; cannons in this game are not only converged horizontally like in real life, but vertically as well. If you set convergence to 650 and aim at 650, you'l hit. With the same convergence with a target at 300, the impact point will actually be HIGHER due to the gun being set to lob the round out to 650.
-
Originally posted by OOZ662
(Sorry if this was already said; didn't read the whole post.)
There's a big problem in your theory; cannons in this game are not only converged horizontally like in real life, but vertically as well. If you set convergence to 650 and aim at 650, you'l hit. With the same convergence with a target at 300, the impact point will actually be HIGHER due to the gun being set to lob the round out to 650.
This is correct, but the Mk-108 should be very innaccurate at this range. It was a short berral, righ ROF grenade launcher and it sort of lobbed low mass HE shells in a general area. The therie about it is you have the pilot point at a mass of bombers, and maybe something will hit. Having it accuratly hit the CBM of a target 650M away is a problem. A big one.
-
Originally posted by OOZ662
(Sorry if this was already said; didn't read the whole post.)
There's a big problem in your theory; cannons in this game are not only converged horizontally like in real life, but vertically as well.
They were converged vertically in real-life as well. At least ze Germans did.
-
Originally posted by Viking
They were converged vertically in real-life as well. At least ze Germans did.
As did the Brits.
I'd be surprised if the Russians and Japanese didn't do so as well.
-
From my speaking with P-38 pilots, so was the US. They said that the 20MM was aimed higher then the .50's for vertical harmonization. Even though P-38 pilots did not need to care about horizontal, they still use convergence in the vertical. ALL guns were vertically harmonized. The bullet starts to drop the moment it leaves the gun.
-
I personally prefer the 0.50cals. I usually fly the P38, and I find that when taking "pot shots" at targets beyond 300 yards, the 50cals are far more accurate due to their better trajectories. (I have 4x50cals + 1x 20mm all converged at 300yards).
Also during snapshots,I find that even with the same convergence the 20mm arc is quite different from the 50cals due to the different mass (note: I am pulling G's whilst firing here).
All in all the 50s are way easier to aim than the 20mm. For tracking shots however, the 20mm is the way to go!
-
Originally posted by OOZ662
(Sorry if this was already said; didn't read the whole post.)
There's a big problem in your theory; cannons in this game are not only converged horizontally like in real life, but vertically as well. If you set convergence to 650 and aim at 650, you'l hit. With the same convergence with a target at 300, the impact point will actually be HIGHER due to the gun being set to lob the round out to 650.
My point in making this observation was to counter Ghost's argument that .50's in the game are better for long range shots. I consider just about anything over 400 meters icon distance to be "long range". The interesting thing is that the pattern for both weapons at the same convergence setting are almost identical. Conventional wisdom would say that the Mk108 pattern should be more scattered. In the 109, it looks like a shot gun, but the 110 has a group that matches the precision of the nose mounted .50's in the P-38. There are a lot of folks that bump the Mk108 out to 650 and they spray at you in the hope of one of those "taters" connecting. Better to be lucky than good I guess.
For whatever its worth...
-
Originally posted by Gibbage
This is correct, but the Mk-108 should be very innaccurate at this range. It was a short berral, righ ROF grenade launcher and it sort of lobbed low mass HE shells in a general area. The therie about it is you have the pilot point at a mass of bombers, and maybe something will hit.
Incorrect. Check the MK-108 gunnery charts. The cannon puts its shells very accurately, in concentrated fashion. It was a weapon that required aiming, not just "lobbing" shells to the general direction of the target.
The R4M rockets were area effect weapon, not any 30 mm cannon.
-
Originally posted by Grendel
Incorrect. Check the MK-108 gunnery charts. The cannon puts its shells very accurately, in concentrated fashion. It was a weapon that required aiming, not just "lobbing" shells to the general direction of the target.
The R4M rockets were area effect weapon, not any 30 mm cannon.
On what mount? A fixed test bed, or a 5000lb aluminum frame held aloft in air? Look at the factors of the gun. Recoil operate, short berral, low velocity, light weight shell mounted in light fighters. Nothing there speaks of accuracy in everything I know of gunnery. Whats its MIL rating? And please make sure of the mount. Alot of pilots spoke of the Mk-108 as not being very accurate, and hated it for the recoil.
-
The MK 108 Rheinmetall-Borsig cannon had the reputation of being an inaccurate weapon in combat, but this was the result of its low velocity, not of barrel length or any inherent inaccuracy of the design.
It is a common misconception that a long barrel makes a cartridge more accurate. In fact, all a long barrel does is add velocity to the shell, decreasing bullet drop at long range, thereby making it easier to hit the target. A long barrel does nothing to help a caliber group its shots better.
In fact, short barrels tend to group slightly better, especially at distances of 300 yards or less, because the barrel tends to be stiffer. Barrels have individual harmonics, much like those of a musical instrument or tuning fork, which come into play when a bullet is rotating down the barrel. The shorter the barrel, the less impact those harmonics have on the ability of the barrel to shoot accurate groups.
The velocity of the MK 108 is variously given as being between 1640 fps and 1770 fps. This hovers around 60% of the velocity of the M2 Browning .50 caliber machine gun. To put this velocity into perspective, the MK 108 round is approximately 600 fps slower than the Winchester 30-30 carbine round and is 200 fps slower than the round of the .30 caliber M-1 carbine. In fact, the velocity isn't much better than that of the .22 long rifle.
A shell launched at that speed and sighted to be dead on at 200 yards range would be about 6 inches high at 100 yards and nearly 30 inches low at 300 yards.
Now imagine installing this unit in the flexible wing of an aluminum skinned fighter, and trying to hit a target moving at speeds of approximately 400 feet a second, or executing a tight, high-g turn. The attacker armed with this weapon would have to be extremely close to an enemy fighter in order to score a hit.
Thus, one must conclude from these facts that the MK 108 was intended to be a point blank range weapon for use against the large, lumbering Allied bombers.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Some good points so far; I look forward to reading and learning more :)
-
Originally posted by Gibbage
On what mount? A fixed test bed, or a 5000lb aluminum frame held aloft in air? Look at the factors of the gun. Recoil operate, short berral, low velocity, light weight shell mounted in light fighters. Nothing there speaks of accuracy in everything I know of gunnery. Whats its MIL rating? And please make sure of the mount. Alot of pilots spoke of the Mk-108 as not being very accurate, and hated it for the recoil.
I would think you did read this thread, since you posted in it WW 2 weapons Dispersion (http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=492&hl)
-
That thread was back in 2004, and the data source was not given. Also, please note the distance the Luftwaffe used was 100M. Thats a very short distance, and we are speaking of 650M. The Mk-108 fired Minegros shells. A light, and very thin walled explosive shell. This shell was fired at a relitivly low velocity. That means air currents will play havoc on the shells after 100M and it will loose KE very fast. Besides, how many Luftwaffe pilots got within 100M of a B-17 before taking the shot? ;)
-
Curiosity question...
How much play was in the mk108 mount to allow it to pitch up / down for vertical harmonization if it was mounted through the engine /prop shaft / hub on 109s?
-
screw all that stuff 50 are the best they are more accurate and the do more damage
-
Originally posted by Gibbage
That thread was back in 2004, and the data source was not given. Also, please note the distance the Luftwaffe used was 100M. Thats a very short distance, and we are speaking of 650M. The Mk-108 fired Minegros shells. A light, and very thin walled explosive shell. This shell was fired at a relitivly low velocity. That means air currents will play havoc on the shells after 100M and it will loose KE very fast. Besides, how many Luftwaffe pilots got within 100M of a B-17 before taking the shot? ;)
First of all, learn how to spell or use a spellchecker; reading your posts is painful. Secondly, the Luftwaffe opened fire at about 400 metres (when the bomber fit into the gun sight from wingtip to wingtip). Third, the Mk 108 could fire many different types of rounds; none of them were “light” by any definition of the word. The Mk 108 round used in fact the same projectiles as the bigger Mk 101 and 103 cannon; only the cartridge was cut down. The HE(M) Minengeschoss (not “Minegros” you dolt!) projectile weighed 330 grams; compared to the 130 gram 20 mm projectile of the Hispano II cannon it was not “light” by any standard.
-
Originally posted by Waffle
Curiosity question...
How much play was in the mk108 mount to allow it to pitch up / down for vertical harmonization if it was mounted through the engine /prop shaft / hub on 109s?
That is a very good question! In all honesty, with the lob factor of the Mk-108, I REALLY dont thing it could be verticaly harmonized to 650M! It was mounted behind the engine, and the reciever was between the pilots legs. It had a blast tude that ran between the cylinder heads of the DB engine, and through the prop hub. If it was harmonized too 650M, it would need to blast right out the top of the coweling!!! Again, we are dealing with a large, light weight, now velocity grenade round that had a great deal of drop. A US prototype aircraft, the P-54, used a moveable nose section to compensate for the drop of its 37MM, and even it had a higher MV then the Mk-108.
-
Originally posted by Viking
First of all, learn how to spell or use a spellchecker; reading your posts is painful. Secondly, the Luftwaffe opened fire at about 400 metres (when the bomber fit into the gun sight from wingtip to wingtip). Third, the Mk 108 could fire many different types of rounds; none of them were “light” by any definition of the word. The Mk 108 round used in fact the same projectiles as the bigger Mk 101 and 103 cannon; only the cartridge was cut down. The HE(M) Minengeschoss (not “Minegros” you dolt!) projectile weighed 330 grams; compared to the 130 gram 20 mm projectile of the Hispano II cannon it was not “light” by any standard.
There is no reason what-so-ever to resort too insults here. I was hoping this forum was more friendly then some of the others I visit. Yes, I do have a spelling problem, but you seem to be able to read just fine and get the point of my post.
The only shells used in Mk-108's were MG shells (Info from Tony Williams of "Flying guns of WWII"). They were thin walled and filled with explosives. Making them far less dense then an AP shell or a normal HE shell. Thats why im saying they were light. Please compare a 30MM MG shell with a normal 30MM HE or AP round and you will see what I mean. Those are around 500G+, so yes, the MG shells are light for 30MM shells. Were do you get your info that they also fired the the same rounds from the Mk-103 and 101?
-
Originally posted by Gibbage
The Mk-108 fired Minegros shells. A light, and very thin walled explosive shell. This shell was fired at a relitivly low velocity. That means air currents will play havoc on the shells after 100M and it will loose KE very fast. Besides, how many Luftwaffe pilots got within 100M of a B-17 before taking the shot? ;)
Aaaargh.. I won't comment further on "Minegros"
While the thin walled "Minengeschoss" round was considered light, it's only lighter in comparison to some other 30mm round. Actually it was no light round at all, having still a tremendous sectional density.
Concerning to the "will loose KE very fast" look at the two tables. First shows the 20mm MG 151/20, the second one the MK 108. Both rounds are comparable "Minengeschosse". The last colummn shows the remaining KE. After 700m, the MK108 round has dropped to 50% of its original KE, while the 20mm round has dropped to a mere 12%. You can clearly see that the 108 round retains its energy much better at long ranges. At mentioned 700mm the 108 rounds has a much higher speed than the 151 round.
So while being far from supreme and noticeably worse than contemporary 20mm guns, the MK108's ballistics are not that bad as it is generally believed.
(http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/350/schusstafel108minely3.png)
(http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/3167/schusstafel151minezerlekw2.png)
-
And comparing the 1,770 fps muzzle velocity of the Mk 108 to that of a grenade launcher is just inane. A M203 grenade launcher has a typical muzzle velocity of 250 fps. The Mk 108 is much closer to the M1 Carbine rifle in terms of muzzle velocity, and at the muzzle it has 23 times the kinetic energy of the .50 cal.
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Aaaargh.. I won't comment further on "Minegros"
While the thin walled "Minengeschoss" round was considered light, it's only lighter in comparison to some other 30mm round. Actually it was no light round at all, having still a tremendous sectional density.
Concerning to the "will loose KE very fast" look at the two tables. First shows the 20mm MG 151/20, the second one the MK 108. Both rounds are comparable "Minengeschosse". The last colummn shows the remaining KE. After 700m, the MK108 round has dropped to 50% of its original KE, while the 20mm round has dropped to a mere 12%. You can clearly see that the 108 round retains its energy much better at long ranges. At mentioned 700mm the 108 rounds has a much higher speed than the 151 round
Sorry for my bad German, but its not my native language. Im sure you would excuse a German poster for his bad english. Please extend the same courtesy for me, but again you seem to understand what I was trying to say.
Now, you say at 700M, the Mk-108 looses 50% of its KE, but the MG-151/20 only looses 12%. That seems to illustrate my point perfectly, not dispute it! I said the Mk-108 shell looses KE fast. It seems this document you posted agrees with me, but you dont for some reason. Can you explain that?
-
Originally posted by Gibbage
Now, you say at 700M, the Mk-108 looses 50% of its KE, but the MG-151/20 only looses 12%.
No I did not say that.
I did say that the MK 108 KE has dropped to 50%, the MG 151 KE has dropped to 12%
12% is actually a lot less than 50%, so the 108 has retained more of it's energy.
-
Cannons pwn MGs, but not just any cannon... must be a 37mm hammergun!
A real man uses a Nudelman. Jus' Sayin' :)
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Gibbage
There is no reason what-so-ever to resort too insults here. I was hoping this forum was more friendly then some of the others I visit. Yes, I do have a spelling problem, but you seem to be able to read just fine and get the point of my post.
If you know you have a spelling problem then not using a spellchecker (copy and paste from MS Word or some other word processor) is rude. It doesn’t take a lot of effort and if you’re unwilling to show other posters even that minimum amount of respect then why should we afford you any?
Originally posted by Gibbage
The only shells used in Mk-108's were MG shells (Info from Tony Williams of "Flying guns of WWII"). They were thin walled and filled with explosives. Making them far less dense then an AP shell or a normal HE shell. Thats why im saying they were light. Please compare a 30MM MG shell with a normal 30MM HE or AP round and you will see what I mean. Those are around 500G+, so yes, the MG shells are light for 30MM shells. Were do you get your info that they also fired the the same rounds from the Mk-103 and 101?
Type A 3 cm Minengeschoss Übung ohne Zerleger
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/images/large/weapon20.jpg)
Type B 3 cm Minengeschoss Übung ohne Zerleger
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/images/large/weapon22.jpg)
3 cm Sprenggranate Übung ohne Zerleger
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/images/large/weapon19.jpg)
3 cm Panzersprenggranate Leuchtspur Übung ohne Zerleger
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/images/large/weapon21.jpg)
3 cm Hochgeschwindigheit Panzersprenggranate Leuchtspur Übung ohne Zerleger
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/images/large/weapon28.jpg)
3 cm Sprenggranate Übung ohne Zerleger
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/images/large/weapon35.jpg)
3 cm Minengeschoss Übung Ausführung A ohne Zerleger
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/images/large/weapon37.jpg)
3 cm Minengeschoss 108 Ausführung A mit Zerleger
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/images/large/weapon26.jpg)
3 cm Minenbrenngranate 108 mit Zerleger
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/images/large/weapon39.jpg)
-
Bofors 40MM = 881M/s
T9 37MM = 661M/s
NS-23 23MM = 690M/s
NS-37 37MM = 880M/s
ShVAK 20MM = 770M/s
MG151/20 20MM = 800M/s
Mk-101 30MM = 960M/s
Mk-103 30MM = 860M/s
Mk-108 30MM = 540M/s
Now, compared too ALL of those guns, the Mk-108 has a very low MV. Almost HALF of some others like the Mk-101. Even the T9 (M4) used in the P-39 that was described as "Lobbing a watermellon with a flare" when he spoke of firing the 37MM, and it sitll had a higher MV then the Mk-108. Thats why I described it as like a grenade launcher. Its ammo, thin walled explosive shells were more like grenades then shells, and the MV caused a high firing arc, like a grenade launcher.
-
Continued:
3 cm Minengeschoss ohne Zerleger
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/images/large/weapon24.jpg)
3 cm Brenngranate ohne Zerleger
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/images/large/weapon25.jpg)
3 cm Minengeschoss Leuchtspur mit Zerleger (day tracer) / 3 cm Minengeschoss Glimmspur mit Zerleger (night tracer)
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/images/large/weapon27.jpg)
3 cm Minengeschoss Leuchtspur Übung ohne Zerleger
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/images/large/weapon44.jpg)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/weapons15.htm
-
Originally posted by Viking
3 cm Sprenggranate Übung ohne Zerleger
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/images/large/weapon19.jpg)
"Practice shell" I see you conveniantly removed that from the description.
3 cm Panzersprenggranate Leuchtspur Übung ohne Zerleger
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/images/large/weapon21.jpg)
"Practice armour piercing high explosive tracer shell with dummy fuze"
Again, you removed this from the description.
3 cm Hochgeschwindigheit Panzersprenggranate Leuchtspur Übung ohne Zerleger
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/images/large/weapon28.jpg)
"Practice high speed armour piercing shell with tracer."
Again, more removal of the "practice" description. Hummmm.
3 cm Sprenggranate Übung ohne Zerleger
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/images/large/weapon35.jpg)
"Practice high explosive shell"
http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/weapons15.htm
So all the ones NOT practice shell are MG shells. I honestly hope you were not trying to decieve me or the forum readers. But the fact still remains that they only used Mk-108 shells in combat. I also fail too see any Mk-101 or Mk-103 shells in your list, like what was said above.
-
It matters little how much kinetic energy the MK 108 shell had at the muzzle. Retained energy at long distance would be of greater importance for this round if its main purpose was similar to that of the .50 caliber Browning, the use of velocity and weight to shred the components of an enemy aircraft.
The purpose of the 30 mm round was to explode on impact with the structure of an aircraft, tearing it apart with explosive blast and shrapnel.
Because of its large cross section (more than an inch), hollow structure to hold an explosive charge, and low initial velocity the 30 mm round will shed energy and lose height faster than a solid projectile such as the .50 caliber Browning. The .50 caliber has 3,000fps of velocity at the muzzle while the 30mm has only 1770fps. This means that in the first half-second after the round leaves the muzzle, the 50 caliber has traveled almost 600 feet further than the 30 mm.
With a 200 yard zero, which was a typical way of sighting in fighter weapons during WW II, the 30 mm would be nearly 8 feet low at 400 yards. The .50 caliber, by comparison would be only two feet low at the same distance.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Gibbage
"Practice shell" I see you conveniantly removed that from the description.
So all the ones NOT practice shell are MG shells. I honestly hope you were not trying to decieve me or the forum readers. But the fact still remains that they only used Mk-108 shells in combat. I also fail too see any Mk-101 or Mk-103 shells in your list, like what was said above.
"Übung" means “practice”, so I left nothing out.
There are six different non-practice rounds, and out of those 3 are mine-shells and 3 are incendiary rounds.
I never said the Mk 108 used the same rounds as the Mk 103 and Mk 101 you dimwit. I said the Mk 108 rounds used the same projectiles. A “round” is the projectile and cartridge as one unit. Take a look at this picture from Tony William’s site, note the 30x90RB (Mk 108) and the 30x184B (Mk 101/103). The projectile is the same.
(http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/30-1.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Viking
"Übung" means “practice”, so I left nothing out.
There are six different non-practice rounds, and out of those 3 are mine-shells and 3 are incendiary rounds.
I never said the Mk 108 used the same rounds as the Mk 103 and Mk 101 you dimwit. I said the Mk 108 rounds used the same projectiles. A “round” is the projectile and cartridge as one unit. Take a look at this picture from Tony William’s site, note the 30x90RB (Mk 108) and the 30x184B (Mk 101/103). The projectile is the same.
(http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/30-1.jpg)
It may look the same, but its whats inside that counts. Your assuming A LOT, and so far have no proof to back up your claim.
From this page.
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-am.html
30 mm low-velocity (MK 108)
Minengeschoß 108 El o. Zerl.
Only the Minengeschoß was fired by the MK 108, also in versions with day or night tracer. The ammunition was not interchangeable with that of the much more powerful MK 101 and MK 103, hence the addition 108. The letters El probably indicate the presence of Elektron, an incendiary compound, in the projectiles. Surprisingly, self-destruction fuses were not used, although German fighters were operating over the home country at this time in the war. Probably it was felt that this reduced the effective range too much.
Please find me more proof then wild asumptions of a photo.
In the future, skip the insults. That is twice now. There is no need for it, and I came to this forum to find a more friendly place to talk about WWII aircraft.
A quote of the forum rules for you.
"4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated. "
Your NOT very respectful, thats for sure. Here is another quote.
"6- Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". Issues with any breach of rules should be brought to HTC's attention via email at support@hitechcreations.com. "
Back off the insults.
-
Originally posted by Gibbage
"6- Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". Issues with any breach of rules should be brought to HTC's attention via email at support@hitechcreations.com. "
[/B]
It was Ironic, I had the brew, she had the chronic, Lakers beat the supersonics.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
It was Ironic, I had the brew, she had the chronic, Lakers beat the supersonics.
-Sik
I dont think asking him to not insult me is being a backseat mod. That quote is just me telling him to back off the insults, or I will fallow rule #6 and report it.
-
For someone who out of sheer ignorance just accused me of omitting data and trying to deceive other posters you should not talk about insults and respect. If Tony Williams drops by I’m sure he’ll clear up this matter in no time. It may even be he who posted about the 108 and 103 rounds using the same projectiles.
-
Oh, go right ahead. Report me. :lol
-
All I'm going to say is " Gibbage, google "tony williams"." Look through his info.
Bronk
-
Like I said, not everyone knows German here. You posted a list of shells used in the Mk-108 in response to my statement that the Mk-108 only used MG shells. In the list you posted to dispute my claim, there was practice rounds, but no AP or HE. The only problem is, in order to know that, you needed to be able to read German. You have also yet to post any proof that the Mk-108 could fire the AP or HE shells from the Mk-101 or Mk-103, like you said they did. I did not call you a liar, or accuse you of anything. All I said is that I hope you did not try. You, on the other hand, called me a dolt and a dimwit. I have tried to be very respectful in here. Please extend the same courtesy.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
All I'm going to say is " Gibbage, google "tony williams"." Look through his info.
Bronk
Gibbage is pretty much aware of Mr Williams work, he quoted him in this thread ;)
-
Originally posted by Bronk
All I'm going to say is " Gibbage, google "tony williams"." Look through his info.
Bronk
Im using a lot of his info in my post's. Also this web page http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html is a great resource.
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Gibbage is pretty much aware of Mr Williams work, he quoted him in this thread ;)
Rgr just trying to be helpful.:D
Bronk
-
NP. I have heard of Tony and scanned through his book a few times at the store. I would LOVE it if he came by to clear this up. Im sure that none of us are more then armchair experts, myself included. Im just going by what I find on the web, and the many many post's on forums over the years. A lot of whats quoted on the web page I linked is from Tony's documents.
-
As much as I hate to say, I saw no insult from Viking, Gibbage, just some advice.
Did the 108's shell have a detinator that would explode it after a certain time?
-
To be honest, I'd rather have both. In which case I can go "Dewo style" and use the MGs to work up the solution and then use the cannons to finish the job.
-
"Surprisingly, self-destruction fuses were not used, although German fighters were operating over the home country at this time in the war. Probably it was felt that this reduced the effective range too much"
From http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-am.html
As for the insults, "not “Minegros” you dolt!" does not sound like "friendly" advice, nor does "you dimwit". It could of been put a LOT better if it truly was just some advice.
-
Originally posted by georgh
To be honest, I'd rather have both. In which case I can go "Dewo style" and use the MGs to work up the solution and then use the cannons to finish the job.
I enjoy the P-38's armament for its combo. I "tickle" the target with the .50's, and put it down with the 20MM. Also, the .50's are great for range shots if the target is getting away.
-
Originally posted by Gibbage
You have also yet to post any proof that the Mk-108 could fire the AP or HE shells from the Mk-101 or Mk-103, like you said they did.
I have never said anything like that. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Originally posted by Gibbage
I did not call you a liar, or accuse you of anything.
No of course not. All your “I see you conveniently removed…”, “Again, you removed…”, “Again, more removal ... Hummmm”, were just your way of hinting at my … what? Honesty? I did not “remove” anything. I quoted the official designation of each round and put your claim: “The only shells used in Mk-108's were MG shells…” to shame. Clearly the Mk 108 used a number of different rounds. Then you added the qualifier “in combat” and again I showed that the Mk 108 also used incendiary rounds in combat, not only mine-shells, again putting your claim to shame.
-
Do we have practice rounds in AH? Did they use practice rounds in combat? No. Thats why I added the qualifier of "in combat". If you really want too split hairs, im SURE the Mk-108 at some point fired all sorts of rounds, but the point is what was USED in combat. Every source I can find says that the Mk-108 only fired MG shells in combat.
You also said "The Mk 108 round used in fact the same projectiles as the bigger Mk 101 and 103 cannon". Again, from my understanding, those two guns did not fire MG shells, as the recoil would not be enough to operate the receiver. Now, a few of the web resources say that they did use MG shells, so I may be wrong about this.
I assumed by you saying that the Mk-101 and 103 used the same projectiles, that you are saying that the Mk-108 can fire the Mk-101's and 103's AP and HE shells (in Mk-108 x90 cases). Reading now, I think this is a bad assumption, am I correct? Did I misunderstand what you were trying to say?
If so, I must say that it was very misleading in that you were not very clear with "The Mk 108 round used in fact the same projectiles as the bigger Mk 101 and 103 cannon". Again, that sentence leave the possibility that the Mk-101 and 103 AP and HE shells could be used. Thats what im debating. There is no proof that the Mk-108 ever used AP or HE shells in combat.
-
Originally posted by Gibbage
Do we have practice rounds in AH? Did they use practice rounds in combat? No. Thats why I added the qualifier of "in combat". If you really want too split hairs, im SURE the Mk-108 at some point fired all sorts of rounds, but the point is what was USED in combat. Every source I can find says that the Mk-108 only fired MG shells in combat.
You can’t have looked very hard then. I simply typed in “MK 108” in Google and the FIRST page it came up with states: “There were two main types of ammunition for the MK 108 to use, a 30 mm high-explosive self-destroying tracer ("M-Shell" or "Mine-Shell") and a 30 mm incendiary shell.”
http://www.luft46.com/armament/mk108.html
Note that “main types” also indicates that other types of rounds were used, but not as common.
Originally posted by Gibbage
You also said "The Mk 108 round used in fact the same projectiles as the bigger Mk 101 and 103 cannon". Again, from my understanding, those two guns did not fire MG shells, as the recoil would not be enough to operate the receiver. Now, a few of the web resources say that they did use MG shells, so I may be wrong about this.
I have already posted a picture from Tony Williams’ site that showed a 30x184R round with a mine-shell. Should be a no-brainer.
Originally posted by Gibbage
I assumed by you saying that the Mk-101 and 103 used the same projectiles, that you are saying that the Mk-108 can fire the Mk-101's and 103's AP and HE shells (in Mk-108 x90 cases). Reading now, I think this is a bad assumption, am I correct? Did I misunderstand what you were trying to say?
The Mk 101, 103 and 108 were all made by Rheinmetall-Borsig and they used the same projectiles for all those guns, or at least versions of the same projectiles. Different muzzle velocities means differences in fusing and self-destruct mechanisms, but other than that they would be the same. I have already posted pictures and designations of Mk 108 rounds using AP and (inert) HE shells as practice rounds. That the Luftwaffe decided to use the M-Geschoss and incendiary rounds almost exclusively is both understandable and unsurprising. That they were the only rounds available is however to assume too much.
Originally posted by Gibbage
If so, I must say that it was very misleading in that you were not very clear with "The Mk 108 round used in fact the same projectiles as the bigger Mk 101 and 103 cannon". Again, that sentence leave the possibility that the Mk-101 and 103 AP and HE shells could be used. Thats what im debating. There is no proof that the Mk-108 ever used AP or HE shells in combat.
My statement was not misleading at all. Rheinmetall-Borsig did make AP and other rounds for the Mk 108 and the Luftwaffe used them as training rounds. I could say there is no proof they didn’t use AP or HE shells in combat, but that would be just as silly as your final comment.
As a closing comment I’d like to commend you for your marked improvement with regard to spelling.
-
From what I know, the Mk-108 Incendiary shell is still an MG shell, with a liquid triggered fuse. So that if it hit a fuel tank, radiator, or any other fluid (including human, ick!) it would explode instead of on contact. Do you have any information on this incendiary shell?
"The second type of shell, the incendiary, was meant to be targeted at the fuel tanks of the enemy plane. Since some penetrating force was still needed to overcome the armor or airframe of the target, and not have the shell break up or explode upon contact, a hydrodynamic fuse was fitted so that the shell only exploded once it came into contact with liquid."
From the same web page you posted seems to agree that the "incendiary" component was just a hydrodynamic fuse on a standard MG shell.
P.S. Im running my post's through MS Word, just for you. Feel special now?
-
Originally posted by Waffle
Curiosity question...
How much play was in the mk108 mount to allow it to pitch up / down for vertical harmonization if it was mounted through the engine /prop shaft / hub on 109s?
According to this website (http://www.luft46.com/armament/mk108.html), harmonization could not be changed once the weapon was installed. I was wondering if that was for all installations, or merely the 109 installation. Regardless, I would think that the 109 installation would severely restrict the setting. They might open fire at further distances, but they'd definitely be "lobbing" with a convergence setting of say 200m and a target at 400m.
-
Originally posted by Gibbage
From what I know, the Mk-108 Incendiary shell is still an MG shell, with a liquid triggered fuse. So that if it hit a fuel tank, radiator, or any other fluid (including human, ick!) it would explode instead of on contact. Do you have any information on this incendiary shell?
"The second type of shell, the incendiary, was meant to be targeted at the fuel tanks of the enemy plane. Since some penetrating force was still needed to overcome the armor or airframe of the target, and not have the shell break up or explode upon contact, a hydrodynamic fuse was fitted so that the shell only exploded once it came into contact with liquid."
From the same web page you posted seems to agree that the "incendiary" component was just a hydrodynamic fuse on a standard MG shell.
No the Minenbrenngranate is not just a Minengeschoss with a different fuse. The Minenbrenngranate used thermite as the chemical component and thus did not “explode” at all, but burned like a roman candle.
Originally posted by Gibbage
P.S. Im running my post's through MS Word, just for you. Feel special now?
Not really. I do the same, English being my third language and all.
-
I have personal experience from 4 50s (m16) and 40mm (beufors).
Also from twin 20mm rheinmental
http://ellinikos-stratos.com/images/rh-202.jpg
but this 20mm has nothing to do with wwii 20mm. rate of fire 1800 shells ps. (you dont want to be infront of this nearest of 2000m).
nothing (exept armour) can survive infrond of 4 50s at 300m.
Light aluminum constructions (airframes) becomes dust.
If you see the remains of a truck of iron then you understand what hapens
to aluminum planes.
40mm will ruin your future, if he takes you.
i have hit center @ 2000m with just 0,5mm deflection because of side wind.
Ballistics near straight line. Its a wwii weapon, long barrel.
37mm of AH projectile destruction power is very near to this but ballistics of
37mm AH ack and 40mm AH beaufors (on boats) are more curbed than real 40mm.
In reality ballistics are more straight.
I find underestimated the power of 50s in AH.
If a plane stand infront of you just for half a sec must be little pieces.
And i talk 300m distance (more than 400 yards).
If making a fast pass from your sight thats another story.
-
From the G-6/U4 manual:
(http://img167.potato.com/loc588/th_49755_g6u4_t8-30_122_588lo.jpg) (http://img167.potato.com/img.php?image=49755_g6u4_t8-30_122_588lo.jpg)
As we can see, harmonization was set at 400m I don´t think you would want to change that, the bullets went pretty straight from 100 to 400m (due to the gun being close to the line of sight)
Originally posted by Gibbage
here are stories of a 20MM HE shell exploding INSIDE the cockpit in front of the cockpit, and he flew back to base with flash burns and some shrapnal wounds. A .50 cal hitting a body is not very surviveable.
I don't think that a 20mm bullet/shell would cause less harm, hitting a body, than a 0.50, do you?. And also, giving the chance, I would choose a .50 hole in my windshield than a 20mm shell exploding inside the cockpit, but that's just me
. Alot of pilots spoke of the Mk-108 as not being very accurate, and hated it for the recoil.
Which ones?
-
Originally posted by HaDeSs
I have personal experience from 4 50s (m16) and 40mm (beufors).
What ammo did you use in those .50's? Multi-purpose 1/2?
-
Oh and Gibbage, you have to have a bit thicker skin around here. Even HiTech himself calls people "dolts" in the forums from time to time, and they are his customers. "Dimwit" is a little harsher, but still very mild for this bbs. If you ever plan on visiting the O'Club you'd better don a flak jacket. ;)
-
Originally posted by Viking
What ammo did you use in those .50's? Multi-purpose 1/2?
I dont remember that. But the shells was the common 50s. 1 piece of steel.
And the guns was not that of wwii. was 4 today common nato 50s on a M35 truck. ( not a real m16 but very near ).
-
I see. With MP ammo the M2HB is a real killer weapon that can turn things to "dust" (we used it a lot in Bosnia and the effect was awesome), but with the standard BMG Ball or API ammo the gun was not very destructive. API does however have great penetrating power and the incendiary was very effective at starting fuel fires. This is all corroborated by WWII guncam footage showing very few cases of catastrophic structural damage done by .50 cals, but plenty of "critical" hits to engines and other vital components. In the LW guncam films you see more structural damage as being the method of killing with their cannons and M-Geschoss rounds.
Here's a video of a British test, firing a single Mk 108 round at a Spitfire wing:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5650251268906356663
Pretty devastating.
-
Originally posted by Meyer
From the G-6/U4 manual:
(http://img167.potato.com/loc588/th_49755_g6u4_t8-30_122_588lo.jpg) (http://img167.potato.com/img.php?image=49755_g6u4_t8-30_122_588lo.jpg)
Excuse my lack of German...Can we get a translation on this page?
-
Not much to translate, the numbers on the left show the highest elevation of the bullets over the LOS, and at what distance, and those on the right are the points where the bullets cross the LOS, first (1.) when they are 'climbing' and (2.) when they are on the way down.
-
There is no doubt that the Mk-108 MG shells pack one heck of a punch! It was designed to take down bombers! I agree with your assessment that the M2's are great for taking out systems like I said earlier, but one thing I have seen many times, is sometimes strikes from .50's into the targets ammo box was rather disastrous I saw a series of FW-190's get there wing blown off by this very thing. So all that HE ammo can be both a good and a bad thing to have sometimes
-
Originally posted by Meyer
Not much to translate, the numbers on the left show the highest elevation of the bullets over the LOS, and at what distance, and those on the right are the points where the bullets cross the LOS, first (1.) when they are 'climbing' and (2.) when they are on the way down.
So, if I'm reading this right, the Mk108 convergence in the 109's was set to 400m. At 80m and 400m the rounds hit at the aim point. At 250m, the rounds were 64cm higher than the aimpoint. Very interesting. What's more, does this demonstrate that the fixed convergence mentioned in the luft46 website was 400 meters? Regardless, finally nice to see some documentation of the weapon.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Not really. I do the same, English being my third language and all.
Classic. :) Firefox has a built-in spell checker now that automatically turns on in text fields.
-
Yes Stoney, that's correct. I don't know if the convergence was fixed or not, I think the website should be right about that. But as you said before, a shorter convergence would result in a higher arc and that can't be good with the low speed Mk108.
400m seems like a perfect setting.
-
But yeah, if they would add more planes with both MGs and cannons (D.520, MS.406, P39, ect.) I would fly the hell out of 'em simply because they give you the best of both worlds.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Did the 108's shell have a detinator that would explode it after a certain time?
Sorry, missed your question. Yes and no; there were versions of Mk 108 shells both with and without self destruct mechanism. If you look at the list of shells I posted earlier the ones with "mit Zerleger" in its name has a self destruct. And if you follow the link after the list you get to a page which also describes the different fuses and their operation.
-
Originally posted by scottydawg
Classic. :) Firefox has a built-in spell checker now that automatically turns on in text fields.
Excellent! Now I finally have a reason to install Firefox. Thanks :)
-
Originally posted by Gibbage
...but one thing I have seen many times, is sometimes strikes from .50's into the targets ammo box was rather disastrous I saw a series of FW-190's get there wing blown off by this very thing. So all that HE ammo can be both a good and a bad thing to have sometimes
Yes, carrying a lot of ammo is dangerous when you're getting shot at. However it is the propellant that is prone to catch fire and explode when hit by incendiary rounds, not the high-explosive shells. So even carrying only machine gun ammo is dangerous. Most high-explosives need a detonator to explode.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Here's a video of a British test, firing a single Mk 108 round at a Spitfire wing:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5650251268906356663
Pretty devastating.
Nice video!
Yes, thats devasting, but still far away from ripping the wing off.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Originally posted by Knegel
Nice video!
Yes, thats devasting, but still far away from ripping the wing off.
Greetings,
Knegel
Add the load of the wing in flight, plus aerodynamic forces and that wing is gone. Same with the picture of the Blenheim test: The tail didn't fall off, but it would have in flight.
(http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/weapon/mk108blenheim.jpg)
-
Exactly, if that wing was under even level glide load, it would fold.
It might be your Aces High leaping wing result, but the hit in the video would still be catastrophic damage to the wing structure.
Spit 2, though.... wooden wing?
-
No the Spitfire was an all-metal design from the start. Only the control-surfaces were fabric covered on early models. No wood.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Add the load of the wing in flight, plus aerodynamic forces and that wing is gone. Same with the picture of the Blenheim test: The tail didn't fall off, but it would have in flight.
(http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/weapon/mk108blenheim.jpg)
Wasn't the round suspended inside then detonated remotely in that pic?
Bronk
-
Bronk,
Yes, it was.
He is a photo of a Mosquito PR.Mk XVI that was hit by 2 or more 30mm rounds from an Me262:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/MossMk108Dam.jpg)
Keep in mind that the Mosquito's wooden skin and structure was demonstrated to resist cannon fire better than the aluminum most aircraft were made of.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Wasn't the round suspended inside then detonated remotely in that pic?
Bronk
Yes I've heard that too.
-
Aha, my favourite subject ;)
if you want to read about the comparisons between .50 and cannon, then THIS (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/CannonMGs.htm) article discusses the pros and cons. If you want more technical, direct comparisons between WW2 ammunition, guns and aircraft installations, then THIS (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm) gives you all the gen I could put together.
On the specific subject of the MK 108, I can contribute the following: it appears that the MK 101, MK 103 and MK 108 could all fire the same projectiles, although they usually didn't.
The MK 101 was much older than the other two, and usually fired conventional AP and HE ammunition (with projectiles weighing 433-500g), although towards the end of its life it was also loaded with the tungsten-cored Hartkernmunition (355g) for anti-tank use.
The MK 103 was used for two different purposes: first, to replace the MK 101 in the anti-tank role (carried by the Hs 129) in which instance it usually fired the Hartkern rounds (although the ammunition was not interchangeable with the MK 101 - it had the same 30x184B dimensions, but used electric rather than percussion ignition), although sometimes conventional AP; second, to arm heavy fighters for the anti-bomber role, in which case it normally used M-Geschoss ammo (330g shells).
The MK 108 was designed for the anti-bomber role and was, in fact, designed for M-Geschoss projectiles from the start. Judging by the number of surviving examples, the great majority were HEI but some M-Geschoss shell bodies were loaded with incendiary material instead. For some strange reason, a few have been found loaded with Hartkern projectiles.
As far as ballistic performance is concerned, it is important to note that there were two different shapes of 30mm M-Geschoss shells (both types are found in 30x90RB MK 108 and 30x184B MK 103 cases). The original type, the Ausf. A, had the parallel-sided shell body and blunt nose fuze as already shown - this carried no tracer. The later Ausf. C was far more streamlined and carried a tracer. It lost a little in HE capacity but retained its original velocity far better: when fired from the MK 108, the Ausf. A had lost 47% of its muzzle velocity at 600m, but the Ausf. C had lost only 26% (for comparison, the 20mm M-Geschoss lost 60%, the 20mm Hispano 43% and the .50 Browning 29%). The Ausf. A is far more common among surviving rounds.
The pic below shows the 30x90RB loaded with the Ausf. C type (the 30x184B being loaded with the Ausf. A):
(http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2aircart2.jpg)
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Judging by the number of surviving examples, the great majority were HEI but some M-Geschoss shell bodies were loaded with incendiary material instead. For some strange reason, a few have been found loaded with Hartkern projectiles.
Sounds like a dip in QC (of sorts) as the war progressed in the Allies' favour.
-
Thanks for chiming in Mr. Williams. :)
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams
Aha, my favourite subject ;)
Any information on the nature of the fixed convergence setting described in the luft46 website? It claims that the convergence of the Mk108 could not be changed after it was installed. Do you know what that range was and on what airframes it applied to?
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
Any information on the nature of the fixed convergence setting described in the luft46 website? It claims that the convergence of the Mk108 could not be changed after it was installed. Do you know what that range was and on what airframes it applied to?
Sorry, I don't. My specialities are ammunition, guns and ballistics. For installations, you'd do better to ask my co-author, Emmanuel Gustin.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
One question Tony. Would you consider the Mk-108 an accurate gun? Even out to 650M? Vs that of like an M2 or 20MM Hispano?
-
Originally posted by Gibbage
One question Tony. Would you consider the Mk-108 an accurate gun? Even out to 650M? Vs that of like an M2 or 20MM Hispano?
Yes, much more so, in terms of dispersion when range firing, and especially if engine rather than wing mounted (mounting rigidity is an important factor).
However, in action the low velocity means a curved trajectory (so the pilot's range estimation has to be spot-on) and also a long time of flight (so the pilot's deflection estimation has to be spot-on, unless he is shooting from directly behind or directly in front).
So the high-velocity guns were easier to score hits with, even if less accurate in terms of shot dispersion.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
OT: Wow, the same Tony Williams that helped me out at Gunboards (I'm TTengineer there) with US Dixon-based Incendiary variants hovering around Aces High's forums? wow.
On topic: I've always wondered what the Hurricane IID's converted Pom-Pom's were meant for, since they appear to be loaded with HE in AH2. Bomber Busting?
-
Originally posted by georgh
.
On topic: I've always wondered what the Hurricane IID's converted Pom-Pom's were meant for, since they appear to be loaded with HE in AH2. Bomber Busting?
They are not HE. I have busted many a panzer in game with them.
Bronk
-
The Hurri2D guns are only 40mm, with steel AP shells. They won't penetrate the frontal or side armor of tanks so you'd better go for the rear armor or preferably the top armor.
-
So Gibbage ... satisfied? ;)
-
(http://llv36.org/kuvat/spit_mk108small.jpg)
30mm testing.
-C+
-
Yep. Like I said before, I was lead to believe that the Mk-108 was a very inaccurate gun.
-
Some very brutal damage in those pictures and the video...:O
-
Indeed.
-
Originally posted by Gibbage
Yep. Like I said before, I was lead to believe that the Mk-108 was a very inaccurate gun.
You can test that in AH; if you shoot B-24 drones at short range (say less than 200), usually it takes only couple shots with the MK 108. Then try longer range (300 or more) with some amount of deflection... You will find out that it's all true what Tony said.
-
Tony, just a thought here....
Maybe they were the most common "surviving" because they used all the good stuff first? :P
Any idea how they were actually used, or is this more of an after-the-fact survey of "what's left" ?
-
I have no data on the actual use of the Ausf. A and Ausf. C, but it is clear that the Ausf. C was a late-war development and I believe (from photographs as well as surviving examples) that the Ausf. A was far more common.
-
Interesting... So the 30mm in AH's 109K-4 and the G-14 should be far superior to that in the Bf110G4 adn 190a8, then?
The K-4 and G-14 were much later in the war. Much better chance of them having the "latest and greatest" ammo, right?
I'm thinking it would be nice to know more about this, and perhaps have HTC change the modeling on the K-4 and G-14 30mm, to be the Ausf. C version :)
EDIT: Depending on dates, perhaps not the G-14, but the K-4, for sure!
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Interesting... So the 30mm in AH's 109K-4 and the G-14 should be far superior to that in the Bf110G4 adn 190a8, then?
The K-4 and G-14 were much later in the war. Much better chance of them having the "latest and greatest" ammo, right?
I'm thinking it would be nice to know more about this, and perhaps have HTC change the modeling on the K-4 and G-14 30mm, to be the Ausf. C version :)
EDIT: Depending on dates, perhaps not the G-14, but the K-4, for sure!
Its the ammo, not the aircraft. All these aircraft were used right up till the end of the war, and would have had a somewhat equal chance to use the more advanced ammo. The bigger question would be which ammo type would HTC model (or have they already) for all the Mk108 aircraft?
-
Clearly, the lesser ammo. Mk108 is the WORST gun in the game. Worse than MG/FF, even!
The only thing that could be worse is if we got the P-39 with the Oldsmobile cannon.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The only thing that could be worse is if we got the P-39 with the Oldsmobile cannon.
Would that son of a ***** freeze up in the middle of the summer on the equator?