Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Perrine on November 05, 2010, 09:30:28 PM
-
So what should we expect with this cannon if we get Me 410?
I think it will fire flat like Hispanos V and its got lethality of Mk 108s :x
-
But only about 2/3 of the MK 108's rate of fire.
-
btw was MK 103 ever tried on 109s?
-
btw was MK 103 ever tried on 109s?
I think so, although they took it out in the production models, replacing it with the Mk 108
-
It was tested with 109's, but was too large and heavy to fit well in the 109's center mount. Modified smaller version were tested, but the massive recoil caused some problems.
The trajectory will not be flat firing like a 20mm Hispano cannon. The round is both a.)travelng with considerably less muzzle velocity, and b.)much larger and heavier, meaning drag and gravity will quickly sap away the rounds momentum.
-
what size is the Mk 103?
-
btw was MK 103 ever tried on 109s?
The 103 was too heavy & long to be used. There has been some talk of a modiefeid MK 103M version being tested in very late 109 variants, I haven't seen any conclusive proof yet that this variant has seen any combat.
-
what size is the Mk 103?
This size: ;)
(http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/MK%20103/MK%20103/Bilder/Hs%20192%20B-1/006.jpg)
-
Man is that sexy. :aok
-
This size: ;)
(http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/MK%20103/MK%20103/Bilder/Hs%20192%20B-1/006.jpg)
I must have it!
VOTE 410!!!!
-
I must have it!
VOTE 410!!!!
Most 410's did not feature the Mk 103 though. We may get the 410 but still not the Mk 103.
-
Most 410's did not feature the Mk 103 though. We may get the 410 but still not the Mk 103.
Another solid reason why we need the Hs 129.
On a side-note, that's a pretty odd mix of tracer on the belt being fed in to that gun, eh?
-
Another solid reason why we need the Hs 129.
Now that would be the right platform for the Mk 103! :x
-
Most 410's did not feature the Mk 103 though. We may get the 410 but still not the Mk 103.
Lusche, not to start anything but at least 2 armament loadouts have the Mk103 listed,it was a standard loadout for coastal command units and there were several hundred built.
I'd have to search through my files to find exact numbers but Moot's old post in here has a pretty complete list of the different loadouts.
BTW,IIRC the MV on the Mk103 is in the 900m/s range so I'd expect ballistics close to the NS37 but with somewhat less penetrating power. There was tungsten core ammo available,how much was used that I dont know.
:salute
-
Lusche, not to start anything but at least 2 armament loadouts have the Mk103 listed,it was a standard loadout for coastal command units and there were several hundred built.
The number of planes produced with the 103 was still only part of total 410 production. We might just get an early 410A variant... nobody knows ...
-
Agreed,
I recall reading there were delays and holdups on delieveries of the cannons.
But the beauty of the ME410 is in it's multiple different loadouts. Imagine 6x20mm in the nose! :x
:salute
-
In the reading that I have done, I find it few and far between for Luftwaffe pilots to speak highly of the 103.
-
I recall reading there were delays and holdups on delieveries of the cannons.
With the 410A, only a few planes carried the 103, mostly for testing purposes. The A-2 series was planned to have the 103 armament, but was canceled due to delays in 103 production.
About 100 410B-2 were delivered to the units with the MK 103, again shortages meant 160 other B-2s were delivered with additional MG 151's instead, and 80 with the BK5.
Only a handful of the B-6 naval variant (the one you mentioned) with two Mk 103 had been produced.
At this point, my own very rough estimate would be that less than 200 out of more than 1100 total built were equipped with the MK 103.
-
if roughly 200 where using mk103, consider using it anyways, for diversity if not for anything else -taking the weight penalty, recoil and all.
How many p47m , me16's3, brewsters (finnish variant) did service during the war , as a comparison ?
-
If you want a big cannon that flys better then a hispano try out the Yak-9T, ultimate bomber killer
-
If Il-2 can have 37mm guns, why not Me 410 with 30mm mk 103?
afterall Il-2 with 37mm gun was limited run
(and wasn't that effective in combat in real life so Red Army reverted to VYa-23 quick)
3,500 IL-2 with NS-37 / 36,183 total production run = only 9.7% of total production run armed with NS-37
200 Me 410 with MK 103 / 1,200 total production run = only 16% of total production run armed with Mk 103
-
If Il-2 can have 37mm guns, why not Me 410 with 30mm mk 103?
Nobody said we can't have the Mk 103. ;)
I just mentioned the possibility that we won't get it it, even if we get the 410. After all, we could get a 410A, not the later B. Also we don't have a FW 190 with Mk103 gunpods, which did see combat in small numbers too.
-
lol I wouldnt say 3500 was a "limited" run how many Me-410's in total were there?
-
lol I wouldnt say 3500 was a "limited" run how many Me-410's in total were there?
It's in his post ;)
-
darn, foiled again by my lack of attention
-
Also we don't have a FW 190 with Mk103 gunpods, which did see combat in small numbers too.
It was field tested and promptly dropped. I don't really consider that a real option as even the LW didn't think it was a good idea.
There are a number of gunpods "tested" but scrapped after the testing. Mk108 gunpods for Fws and Bfs, for example. I would not want to see those in AH either.
However, for the Mk103 it's a very big part of the Me410 history. It's also one of the few craft in the LW that used it in number and as a standard kit. You get some 1-off Me262s and such that used them, but realistically? This might be the only AH craft we ever get that has them as a standard option.
-
That's not what Lusche said yesterday.... :headscratch: You know, the German guy............ :aok
However, for the Mk103 it's a very big part of the Me410 history. It's also one of the few craft in the LW that used it in number and as a standard kit. You get some 1-off Me262s and such that used them, but realistically? This might be the only AH craft we ever get that has them as a standard option.
-
That's not what Lusche said yesterday..
I'm a bit confused now.. what was it I did not say? :headscratch:
(And what has my nationality to do with that?)
-
Somebody is wrong here............. But I doubt it's you.
Most 410's did not feature the Mk 103 though. We may get the 410 but still not the Mk 103.
However, for the Mk103 it's a very big part of the Me410 history.
-
Somebody is wrong here.
Whoa, hold it, hold it.
Both statements are NOT contradicting each other. Most 410's did not carry the Mk103, but it's still a very big part of it's history.
-
So it is a big part of the history even though most 410's don't know what it is?
Please, explain?
-
See Rule #4
-
Whoa, hold it, hold it.
Both statements are NOT contradicting each other. Most 410's did not carry the Mk103, but it's still a very big part of it's history.
Ignore him.. he's flamebaiting and trolling because he didn't get instant recognition in his wishlist post as a genius. Now he's lashing out because I called him out in another post.
-
See Rule #4
-
So it is a big part of the history even though most 410's don't know what it is?
Please, explain?
You lost me.
Can you call a certain piece of equipment only "big part of it's history" if most/all carried it?
-
He didn't say the mk103 was a big part of history, he said it's relationship with the me410 is a big part of history. You have directly contradicted that statement with your own sir.
You lost me.
Can you call a certain piece of equipment only "big part of it's history" if most/all carried it?
-
He didn't say the mk103 was a big part of history, he said it's relationship with the me410 is a big part of history. You have directly contradicted that statement with your own sir.
Read my post again. I said "It's" (=Me 410) history. And then answer my question again. :)
And tell me where I contradicted that. :)
-
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
ten of em seemed good enough for this
-
And after you said that I asked you to explain.......... Because what you said was basically "Very few used it but it is still a big part of the history of the plane." Right, that's what you're saying, but how? Please explain.
Whoa, hold it, hold it.
Both statements are NOT contradicting each other. Most 410's did not carry the Mk103, but it's still a very big part of it's history.
Read my post again. I said "It's" (=Me 410) history. And then answer my question again. :)
And tell me where I contradicted that. :)
-
Because what you said was basically "Very few used it but it is still a big part of the history of the plane."
I did not say "very few used it"
The only mention of the word few was "With the 410A, only a few planes carried the 103"
Later I said that I personally estimate the number of Mk 103 equipped planes in the rage of about 200. (out of ~1200)
That's not all, that's not "most", but still a big part of the 410's history. :)
-
And still waiting for the explanation of how it is a big part of 410 history......
-
And still waiting for the explanation of how it is a big part of 410 history......
See above.
-
:lol
:cheers:
:salute
-
:cheers:
Don't drink and drive, err post on the AH BBS! :old:
-
Footage of HS 129 using the Mk 103: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNYemXJ7jmE
-
Is the narrator in error?
-
Is the narrator in error?
No, I was. It's actually a 101, the precursor of the 103.
-
"Also we don't have a FW 190 with Mk103 gunpods, which did see combat in small numbers too."
And the reason for rarity in use was that they could not get MK103s to fire sychronously, so if mounted in wing pods as in A6/R3 and A8/R3 the momentum of unevenly firing cannons would start to yaw the plane and the accuracy would suffer badly. In fuselage mounting this was not a problem as in Me410.
I wonder which saw more use in Me410, MK103 or MK108?
***
"No, I was. It's actually a 101, the precursor of the 103."
Actually you were right. It is MK103 in the picture of mechanics loading the gun. The MK101 had a round muzzle brake and it was a bigger gun.
-C+
-
.
-
And after you said that I asked you to explain.......... Because what you said was basically "Very few used it but it is still a big part of the history of the plane." Right, that's what you're saying, but how? Please explain.
Read my post again. I said "It's" (=Me 410) history. And then answer my question again. :)
And tell me where I contradicted that. :)
Logan you really can't be this dense.
To use the "other" prospective A/C as a bench example...2 atomic bombs were carried by B29's. 3,970 built... two used the bomb. It was an integral part of the history of the aircraft.
Now apply it to the 410. Let the hamster run. The Mk103 was a huge part of the 410's history.
-
Ohh this is like tying a cinder block to your leg then jumping into a lake trying to swim back up...it's a lose lose situation. Might as well quit while were all ahead of ourselves. :lol
-
Oh yes I am.... :aok
But really Brotha, you're comparing apples and oranges. You can't compare the atom bomb to a cannon. Think about it........ If you talk to a military historian, odds are the A-bomb isn't going to be as big a part of the B29 history as you might think. They would talk about the loadout and they would talk about the CFS and they would talk about the size of the aircraft and they would talk about the power to weight ratio and they would talk about the problems with the Wright powerplant, all as being BIG parts of the B29's early history........ Then they would mention that it also carried two atomic bombs.
Logan you really can't be this dense.
To use the "other" prospective A/C as a bench example...2 atomic bombs were carried by B29's. 3,970 built... two used the bomb. It was an integral part of the history of the aircraft.
Now apply it to the 410. Let the hamster run. The Mk103 was a huge part of the 410's history.
-
1 out of every 17 would mention the atom bombs first....
:noid
-
That sounds right..... :aok
1 out of every 17 would mention the atom bombs first....
:noid
Thanks for backing me up on this Krusty. :lol
-
Just in case anybody falls for his posts, I am not backing him up. He's clueless.
-
What size is the mk103? I heard there's a 50mm gun on this plane, I don't know is that true and if it is I don't expect it to be on the gun
-
Mk103 is a 30mm. The BK-5 is the 50mm.
(http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/368/me410a111s7ir.jpg)
-
hhmmmmm... Well I said few historians would mention the atom bomb as a big part of the B29 and then you gave a stat.... 1 in 17. That agrees with me.... Who is clueless?
Just in case anybody falls for his posts, I am not backing him up. He's clueless.
Thanks for playing Krusty!
-
Mk103 is a 30mm. The BK-5 is the 50mm.
(http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/368/me410a111s7ir.jpg)
O ok lol, that's a massive gun on the pic :O but what's the difference from the mk108 30 then mk103? Rate of fire? Or velocity?
-
Both Sir.
O ok lol, that's a massive gun on the pic :O but what's the difference from the mk108 30 then mk103? Rate of fire? Or velocity?
-
Both Sir.
Which shoots faster and harder?
-
O ok lol, that's a massive gun on the pic :O but what's the difference from the mk108 30 then mk103? Rate of fire? Or velocity?
Mk-108
rate of fire: 650 rounds/min
muzzle velocity: 1,770 ft/s
projectile weight: 330g
Mk-103
rate of fire: 380-420 rounds/min
muzzle velocity: 2,822 to 3,150 ft/s
projectile weight: 530 g
-
Mk-108
rate of fire: 650 rounds/min
muzzle velocity: 1,770 ft/s
projectile weight: 330g
Mk-103
rate of fire: 380-420 rounds/min
muzzle velocity: 2,822 to 3,150 ft/s
projectile weight: 530 g
I'm grinning about that mk103 looks ALOT better
-
Yeah just think of it as a 30mm with a Hispano trajectory.
-
Yeah just think of it as a 30mm with a Hispano trajectory.
(http://i785.photobucket.com/albums/yy134/Kassill1/noyphh.jpg)
-
(http://i785.photobucket.com/albums/yy134/Kassill1/noyphh.jpg)
Love that song lmao
-
If you tater chuck normally, the mk103 will be a fine tool, but for the average person who thinks "oh boy oh boy, give me a 30mm" odds are they will rarely be able to land hits.
-
If you tater chuck normally, the mk103 will be a fine tool, but for the average person who thinks "oh boy oh boy, give me a 30mm" odds are they will rarely be able to land hits.
:rofl
-
If you tater chuck normally, the mk103 will be a fine tool, but for the average person who thinks "oh boy oh boy, give me a 30mm" odds are they will rarely be able to land hits.
Nö
Longer, faster, heavier projectile- it'll not only have more energy at the muzzle than the MK108, it'll carry it farther, and pack even more of a wallop once it gets there. The MK103 will likely be very easy to use, unless you use it like a MK108.
The only issue might be threading the needle due to RoF, but with 2 MK103 each with an RoF somewhere between the NS37 and MK108, I doubt it.
-
Lusche, I'm sry I said anything.... :lol :lol :lol
I still thing the most effective loadout will be the 6x20mm,only because it should have enough ammo that even I can get a kill. :aok
:salute
-
But where did Krusty go?
-
Nö
Longer, faster, heavier projectile- it'll not only have more energy at the muzzle than the MK108, it'll carry it farther, and pack even more of a wallop once it gets there. The MK103 will likely be very easy to use, unless you use it like a MK108.
The only issue might be threading the needle due to RoF, but with 2 MK103 each with an RoF somewhere between the NS37 and MK108, I doubt it.
Agreed.