Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Tony Williams on July 09, 2001, 03:59:00 PM
-
Something to start a good argument – what would have been the ideal gun armament for WW2 fighters if you could start from scratch? Start reading here:
http://www.delphi.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=autogun&ctx=1&cacheTag=2-41&msg=97.1 (http://www.delphi.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=autogun&ctx=1&cacheTag=2-41&msg=97.1)
Tony Williams
Author: Rapid Fire - The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces.
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/ (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/)
-
ooh thats easy! a single gatling firing .303 ammo (with extra long powder casing for increased power).
BRRTRRRTRTRTRTRTRTRTRTR *POW!* :D
-
Interesting article.
<<<Furthermore, all the very best-performing fighters had liquid-cooled V-12 engines (which will doubtless brings howls of protests from some quarters, but the evidence is strongly in favour of this).>>>
Howl.
ra
-
Originally posted by Tac:
ooh thats easy! a single gatling firing .303 ammo (with extra long powder casing for increased power).
:D
Nope; the 8 x .303 armament of the British fighters in the BoB was capable of a combined 9,600 rpm, but there are plenty of stories of german bombers making it back despite being riddled with holes. That's why the British were so keen on the 20mm...
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm)
-
One subject I'd like to see discussed is gun placement.
If I've understood the books correctly, one of the single biggest advances of WWI was the propellor interruptor gear. This, when introduced by Fokker, made the Eindekker into the most lethal plane of it's admittedly short (3 months?) era simply due to the aiming advantages of the centre line guns.
Then along comes WWII and most every body starts placing guns outboard on the wings and having to mess about with convergence again.
Just how important was/is gun placement?
-
what about 4 hispanos in the nose ? (J/K :D)
-
I think we could balance the initial question with the complementary: "What would be the ideal gun armament for WW2 fighters, based on your AH experience?". Would be interesting to compare results.
I think straffo pretty much resumed the answer to this late one, tho ;)
Cheers,
Pepe
-
50 cals are best gun loadout in AH by far. This game doesent model gravity, wind or air pressure for bullets, unstability of wing mounted guns and AP "clean hole to soft target" disadvantage. You know, HE has lots of advantages agains AP when shooting soft spots, like wings, in RL ofcourse.
These lacks makes significant, non RL advantages to high RPM, high velocity, AP bullets, which fly straight no matter if youre in vertical zoom, slow speed, which would be the WORST hitting solution in RL, but is just another scoring place for US pilot in AH.
This is not an issue with any other guns, like hispanos, since they atleast have some sort of dispersion, unlike 50cals. They also make your plane shatter, unlike 8x50cals (not realistic). Id rather fight against tempest than p47-11 or p51B.
Ive tried p47 sometimes and i always make 2-4 kills in those sorties. It turns with everything for a while, which is more than enough. Only thing im worried those times is another p47, since its pilot knows much more about his favourite ride than me.
-
Originally posted by Seeker:
Just how important was/is gun placement?
Some of the arguments are in the original posting (see first post). The closer the guns were to the centre of the aircraft, the fewer the probems with harmonisation (i.e. adjusting thenm to hit at a specific range). The roll rate was also better if weights wereconcentrated inboard rather than strung out along the wings.
The main problem with central location in a single-engined fighter was the need to synchronise the guns (except for the engine mounting) which was an added complication and reduced the rate of fire.
However, fighters fought very well with guns in all locations!
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm)
-
Nope; the 8 x .303 armament of the British fighters in the BoB was capable of a combined 9,600 rpm, but there are plenty of stories of german bombers making it back despite being riddled with holes. That's why the British were so keen on the 20mm...
Uh-oh - the question would be what happened to those 9,600 rpms when fired from a wingspan of over 20 feet, affected by god knows what vibrations and flexing of wings and as a result creating lots of holes over the whole fuselage/wing (not even touching convergeance issues here ;)). 6/8 barrel Gatling would simply cut an 88/111 in half when hit. Little .303s might not be good enough to penetrate the armour but they were surely capable to cut largely aluminum planes to pieces... Brits didn't have ready made Gatling nor the single engine fighter is a particularly good platform to mount such a weapon... Had they replaced largely useless 4x.303 turrets with a working miniguns the losses of Lancasters and Halifaxes might not have been so severe.
p.s. not saying that .303 is a good Air-to-Air gun (prefer 23mm 2-6 barrel Gatlings with 1,500-2,000 rpm/barrel) - just commenting on the statement by Mr Williams with all due respect :).
[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: -lynx- ]
-
I did read the post (v. interesting); but perhaps I phrased my question poorly.
Centre line gun mounting seems to have made a killing machine out of what was by all accounts a rather second rate airoplane (the Fokker Eindekker), simply due to the ease of aiming.
However, the disparity between centre mounted guns and wing mounted guns seems hardly to matter in WWII (i.e. the Hurri verses the Emil); and I don't really understand why this is so. Why was the advantage so great in WWI and not WWII?
-
In WWI the combat where at closer range than in WWII (< 100 meters) and gunsight were unprecise if you add parallelims and vibration problem to this you have a horrible gun platform.
Read what Fonck done http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/france/fonck.html (http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/france/fonck.html)
especially this comment :
"I put my bullets into the target as if I placed them there by hand." René Fonck
[/i]
Truely one of the first experten ;) (not admired because of that :()
-
With regards to Eindekker I think the radical thing was that the aircraft itself was ised as a gun - that is, the pilot aimed the aircraft at the enemy, rather than just waiving his pistol, using swivel mounted MGs and other nonsense.
The Eidekker tactics of ait-to-air combat - exposing the minimum area to the enemy under attack etc - were revolutionary for the period and her pilots racked kill after kill untill the opposition came up with similarly armed (but better) planes and tactics.
Strictly speaking, wherever you put the gun is irrelevant if proper account is taken of convergeance issues etc (say, SE5s carried forward firing MG on top of the wing). But at the time everything was new and both sides often copied whatever seemed a succesful design of the opposing side without giving much thought why the particular gadget actually worked.
Also, since there were no specially designed guns, a "normal" MGs were adapted with all their problems - say, the only way to rectify a gunjam was to re-cock it manually, extracting the cartrige. Tough job if it's a wing mounted thing...
-
The fokker was not being compared to planes with wing mounted but forward firing guns. It was being compared to flexible mounts and wierd angle mounts. And to mounts that had deflector plates on the propellers and things like that. Against a 2 mg mount firing out side of the propeller arc but still fixed to fire allong the line of flight of the AC it would not have been so revolutionary. Of course planes of that generation could not wing mount the mgs of that generation...
-
If the p38 had its 50 cals removed and as many hispanos as would fit added(3 total?) then that would be the best armed fighter of ww2 going on how AH models the guns.
AH allows some really long shots with no penalty for the attempt except a depletion of ammo. The hispano rules under those conditions as it has the ability to inflict crippling damage with very small hits. It is also very accurate at long ranges and has the rof for a great snapshot ability.
P38 mount with 3 hispanos and 150 rpg would be pretty hard to beat.
-
WWI fighter designers did not have the option of mounting MGs in the wings because MGs needed to be in reach of the pilot.
ra
-
"That's why the British were so keen on the 20mm..." Tony Williams
Actually....
"Basic Arnament, remained as eight wing housed .303 Browning MGs for the vast majority of Spitfires in the battle, but at least one heavier armed version saw brief combat then. This was the Mark Ib, armed with two 20mm Hispano Cannons, and 19 Squadron was re-equipped with Mark Ib's at the end of June, flew "service trials", then took thier cannon armed fighters into action in August. By the end of the same month, however the squadron had become frustrated by constant feed stoppages and jams in the ammunition supply, and were reallotted a batch of 8-gun Mark Is to continue combat."
excerpt from Supermarine Spitfire by Chaz Boyer.
-
I read they had the 20mm for appx a day then immediatly went back to 8 .303 because they didnt work.
Anyway .303/.30/7.7/7.92 all became worthless as fighter weapons through WW2, no matter how many were mounted. Remember the typhoon was supposed to have some 12 .303 but the 4 20mm were found to be better.
-
The 20mm Hispano had major teething problems; partly to do with the gun itself, partly to do with the mountings. In the first Spitfire mountings the guns were mounted sideways to bury as much as possible of that bulky drum magazine within the wing, and boy, did the gun not like it :(
Incidentally, the 20mm also had problems in US service for various technical reasons associated with its manufacture. It wasn't considered satisfactory by the USN until well after the war. I've not heard any criticism by the USAAF of the P-38 installation, though; has anybody?
Tony Williams
Author: Rapid Fire - The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces.
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/ (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/)
-
Tony,
The Navies problems with the 20Mill where found in the F4U-1C above 20,000FT with gun jamming because of cold tempatures. Once heaters where brought in and retro-fitted the problems disappeared hence the Navy standardizing on the 20mil by 1946.
In the mean time the F4U-1C flew low CAP at Okinawa. The AF really lagged in this department even mounting 50cal in the F-86 in Korea.
-
That answer is very simply, 3x MG213/20 in a position either like in the LA7 (inline with the fusalage) or like the 3xMG151 in the FW190D13 (one through spinner 2 in wing roots).
When i remember right, ROF 1200 per gun and veloctiy of more than 3000ft/sec. and also nearly as much explosive as the MK108.
Or for buff hunting 3x-4x MG213/30 nearly same ROF and velocity but even more explosive carried in the shell.
-
Tony, the P-38 pilots would usually have to cock and hit the cannon many times if it was not maintained properly or if the aircraft had fired the gun under high-g's.
But I still say, I would MUCH rather have a .303 gatling on the nose of my 38 with 5000+ ammo on it than the 4 .50's and 1 20mm cannon. The ROF of that puppy plus the ammo load plus the cheapness to produce the ammo and the single gun plus cheapness of maintainance/production of a gatling plus giving a lot of ammo wouldve been HEAVENLY. I can see the 109's and He111's being cut by that can opener.
Imo, German pilots loved their cannon, but most of them said the US planes had better chances because they could fire a LOT of .50 at them.. and in many cases, the dogfights would require some spraying to get hits. German planes could not afford to fire like that, the US could. The brits and their .303 planes were deadly at mid-close ranges..which was where most of the kills during the war took place anyway.
Maybe HT will one day model fantasy loadouts.. I can only dream :)
-
S!
I would stay with 1-2 cannons and a few MG's.Cannons have very limited ammo load and MG's deliver quite punch in groups and can have significantly more ammo.And the guns have to be German made ;)
-
A combined response, Gentlemen:
Tac - thanks for the word on the P-38's gun. I can't agree about the .303 calibre, though. I have reports of British wartime tests of .303 and 7.92mm AP ammo against a Blenheim fuselage (hardly the toughest of aircraft). These revealed that most of the bullets fired never even made it to the armour plate; they were stopped by the light-alloy structure. The RAF would have been better off if the .303 had been replaced by a good HMG (or better still a cannon) before WW2 began. Anyway, specifying a gatling is cheating; they didn't enter aircraft service until long after WW2!
Naudet - specifying a revolver cannon like the MG 213C is cheating as well; they required massive development and didn't enter service until the mid-1950s. Incidentally, the MK 213/30 version had a low muzzle velocity of around 530 m/s, IIRC. And I'm not sure how they would take to being synchronised; it would certainly slow them down a lot.
F4UDOA - the problems with the US version of the 20mm were more serious than just gun freezing. Chinn has a lot to say about poor manufacturing tolerances (they were classified as artillery so built to the same standards as battleship guns...) and the wrong chamber length, which were not corrected until after the war. I have a blow-by-blow account of this somewhere (possibly on my Delphi site).
DB 603 - have to disagree with you about the German guns. The best gun designers, by a mile, were the Soviets (the Russians still are), probably followed by the Japanese. If you look at the specs for my "ideal" 20mm and 30mm, the closest actual match were the 20mm Ho-5 and the 30mm Ho-155, both Japanese. The problem was the poor-quality materials mean they had to de-rate them.
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm)
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams:
Naudet - specifying a revolver cannon like the MG 213C is cheating as well; they required massive development and didn't enter service until the mid-1950s. Incidentally, the MK 213/30 version had a low muzzle velocity of around 530 m/s, IIRC. And I'm not sure how they would take to being synchronised; it would certainly slow them down a lot.
I agree that synch would slow em down and that 30mm has low velocity (sry made mistake while remembering, high velocity 30mm were the MK101 and MK103) but from the source i have the info about the MG213 ("Deutsch Luftrüstung 1933-1945" from Heinz J. Nowarra) i have the following data:
MG213/20
lenth: 1930 mm
weight: 75 kg
ROF: 1300
velocity: 1065 m/s
bullet weight: 115 g
also there were atleast 10 guns build in the period of 1942-1945, and mass production was planned for 1945.
So lets say, that i am not cheating, i just would build the latest weapons evolution of WW2 into my bird ;)
If u would only want mass WW2 weapons, i would like u either take the HO-105 20mm or the late Sowjet 20mm.
There is no doubt that japan and russia build the best guns in WW2 in mass production.
[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: Naudet ]
-
I have to disagree about the quality of Japanese Guns.
I dont know to much about Japanese Aircraft Guns. But I do know that Japanese Infantry weapons (especially MG) were at best horrible. Again I am not an expert but from what ive seen and read about Japanese Infantry weapons were very unreliable. Maybe you should enlighten us Tony on the types of Japanese Aircraft Guns and manufacturers! I sure do want to know.
-
Nefarious, it is necessary to distinguish between quality of design and quality of manufacture. I entirely agree that the quality of manufacture of Japanese guns fell away badly towards the end of the war, because they were increasingly limited to poor-quality materials and manufacturing methods.
An examination of the designs showed what they could have produced, if it were not for the above problems. The Ho-5 was a scaled-up Browning .50, chambered for a 20x94 cartridge which had the case capacity to be considerably more powerful than the MG 151/20 (if only they hadn't had to down-load it to avoid breaking the poor-quality guns). The Ho-5 was also both faster-firing and lighter than the MG 151.
The Japanese Army also scaled-up the Browning to 30mm (Ho-155) and 37mm (Ho-204) again producing light, compact and fast-firing guns chambered for potentially powerful cartridges.
The Japanese Navy was less adventurous, but they did manage to improve the Oerlikon guns by making them belt-fed (the Germans and Swiss both failed at this) and ultimately increasing the rate of fire to 670-750 rpm (the Germans and Swiss never got their aircraft guns much above 500 rpm)
There were also the Kawamura designs such as the 30mm Type 5 gun, another light, powerful weapon.
The Japanese were not as good as the Russians at coming up with original designs, but they were excellent at taking an existing design concept and improving it to levels which the western nations seemed unable to match - some things haven't changed!
Tony Williams
Author: Rapid Fire - The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces.
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/ (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/)
-
Heh, gimme 5000rnds of .303 and ill take over ze world! :D
My knowledge on guns and weapons is limited, personally I hate them in RL. Like them online though ;) . That's why I said that the .303 cartridges fired by that gatling would have a long casing for more punch and if I may add... would be nice for them to have mixed AP AP/I AP/HE tips. *drool*
-
If they were in existance, i always figured about a 17mm high velocity multi barrel cannon synched to fire through the prop hub would be perfect for a ww2 fighter. I guess around 5000-6000 rpm would open up anything in a half second burst, and with about 800 rounds it would be about right. Just a scaled down vulcan. It seems you'd need something about halfway between a .50 cal and a 20mm in round mass to do the job, but still have a decent ammo load. Everything would be centered, ballistics would be great, and roll moment would be minimized. Not sure how far along the development of gatling guns could have been taken back then, but i'd imagine it could have been done.
CJ
-
Originally posted by CJ:
If they were in existance, i always figured about a 17mm high velocity multi barrel cannon synched to fire through the prop hub would be perfect for a ww2 fighter. CJ
Do you mean synchronised to fire through the propeller disk or mounted to fire (unsynchronised) through the hollow propeller hub? If the former, you'd be wasting your time because the synchronisation would cripple the rate of fire. If the latter, a multi-barrel rotary is too bulky to fit between the banks of an aircraft engine. The only layout which would have permitted this was the P-39's, which moved the engine out of the nose.
Curiously, there was a prototype British fighter of the early 1930s (IIRC) which had the same layout as the P-39 with the pilot sitting on top of the propeller shaft (it was a biplane, though) and it was suggested at the time that a motorised gatling-type weapon firing through the propeller hub might be a good idea, but nothing came of it.
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm)
-
ah-ha! But put THAT on the nose of a P-38... mbuahahaa :)
-
S!
OK..German guns(what I've seen IRL) are very simple and reliable.That is what I prefer over ROF or velocity.And the Russians had/have good gun designs,like the Gsh23-2 twin barrel aircraft gun.Weight about 50kg and rate of fire nearly 3000rds/min.
-
Tony, what about the Breda 20mm? Everything I read on it gives it good marks.
A P-39 with a 20mm vulcan.... What bomber? :D
The Paggio (sp?) mid engine radial prototype would have had four 12.7mm Bredas and one 20mm breda, all in the nose. Just reverse the numbers and you hace a good gun set.
-
Originally posted by M.C.202:
Tony, what about the Breda 20mm? Everything I read on it gives it good marks.
I have not been able to find out anything about the Breda aircraft cannon (there was a 20mm AA gun which used the same 20x138B ammo as the German Flak, but that was a monster) and I believe it never saw action, but if you have a good source of info on it I would be very interested.
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm)
-
How about a P-38 with an even dozen .50 cal brownings in it? Heh. Heheheh.
I'm sure it wouldn't fit. How about 10. Well as many as you could stuff in the nose of P-38. :)
-
Tony said:
I have not been able to find out anything about the Breda aircraft cannon (there was a 20mm AA gun which used the same 20x138B ammo as the German Flak, but that was a monster) and I believe it never saw action, but if you have a good source of info on it I would be very interested.
Tony Williams
From Ordnanace Went Up Front by Roy F Dunlap, C 1948 reprinted in '93 by R&R books, 3020 East Lake BLVB, Livoina NY.
"The Breda M38, called the AFV by the British, is my favorite machine gun, period."
"The British considered the Italian 20mm cannon ammo better than the German-loaded (both used the same size and chamber
dimenisions were identical). Even the Italian 20mm gun was an efficient design-just an overgrown gas-operated machine gun (paired
with the M37 8mm). It was by far the simplest 20mm in use anywhere."
If you don't have this book, it is a fun read. The author was a front line ord guy.
-
nah, they could hardly fit the 4 .50's, the 20mm cannon and the gear assembly on that nose. Gimme my gatling and use that space to gimme AMMO. Dang, I REALLY wish this happened, would be might cool!
-
Originally posted by M.C.202:
"The Breda M38, called the AFV by the British, is my favorite machine gun, period."
[/QB]
Yes, I have the book and it is good. However, I think he was referring to the AA gun. I'm sure that the aircraft gun must have been much smaller, and almost certainly used different ammo.
Tony Williams
Author: Rapid Fire - The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces.
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/ (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/)
-
Tony said:
> I'm sure that the aircraft gun must have been much smaller, and almost certainly used different ammo.
I'll see if I can find my info on The Paggio mid engine fighter. It was equiped with the Bereda 20mm. Maybe a model type will be listed.
Any word on if the explosive rifle cal Italian ammo was used air to air? I have real problems with the supposed make-up of it. Nitro in a "porous granular lead" core "armed" by "centrifugal force" pulling the nitro against the jacket...
:eek:
Don't drop that ammo mate :D
-
Tony, get ahold of me plz at vermillion_c@hotmail.com I have some stuff I think you said you were interested in. With the new version of the BBS it doesn't list an email in the profile anymore.
MC202, check out this link
http://www.military-info.com/MPHOTO/P108.htm (http://www.military-info.com/MPHOTO/P108.htm)
In particular the
TM 9-1985-1 British Explosive Ordnance (July 1952); 454 pages, 289 illus. Price 45.00 {Item No. 4236} [Includes: Aircraft bombs, pistols, fuzes, detonators, rockets, grenades, landmines, firing devices and demolition stores]
TM 9-1985-2 German Explosive Ordnance (Bombs, Fuzes, Rockets, Land Mines, Grenades and Igniters)(March 1953); 346 pages, 315 illus. Price 35.00 {Item No.4152} [Vol.1 of 2, TM 9-1985-3 is Vol.2] [Difficult to photocopy, but is readable]
TM 9-1985-3 German Explosive Ordnance (Projectiles and Projectile Fuses) (March 1953); 277 pages, 298 illus. Price 28.00 {Item No.4153} [Vol.2 of 2, TM 9- 198502 is Vol.1] [Difficult to photocopy, but is readable]
TM 9-1985-4 Japanese Explosive Ordnance (Bombs, Bomb Fuzes, Land Mine, Grenades, Firing Devices and Sabotage Devices)(March 1953); 263 pages, 200 illus. Price 27.00 {Item No.3772} [Vol.1 of 2, TM 9-1985-5 is Vol.2]
TM 9-1985-5 Japanese Explosive Ordnance (Army Ammunition, Navy Ammunition)(March 1953); 287 pages, 251 illus. Price 29.00 {Item No.3773} [Vol.2 of 2, TM 9-1985-4 is Vol.1]
TM 9-1985-6 Italian and French Explosive Ordnance (March 1953); 213 pages, 282 illus. Price 22.00 {Item No.2959}
I have both the German ones, and the Japanese documents and they are excellent, and provide in depth information. I figure it will have what your looking for.
If you do get the Italian/French doc, I'll swap a copy with you.