Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Skyguns MKII on November 07, 2011, 05:40:30 PM
-
bomber busting yeah, but was it ever used for tank busting? after all it was the same cannon that was armed on the panzer for a while.
-
Not with AP rounds, I don't think. There are some reports that it was used later in the war against the Soviet onslaught, against ground vehicles. I'm not sure about what armor penetration it had, or how many were used this way, but in the real war a lot of vehicles were lightly armored if at all. It could probably make mincemeat of truck convoys, etc.
-
I've never seen any action reports or anything else that shows the 410 with the 50mm was used in the ground attack role against tanks or any other vehicles. I've seen plenty of stuff though about how much the 50mm sucked on the 410 though.
ack-ack
-
I've never seen any action reports or anything else that shows the 410 with the 50mm was used in the ground attack role against tanks or any other vehicles. I've seen plenty of stuff though about how much the 50mm sucked on the 410 though.
ack-ack
Well good thing guns dont jam in aceshigh :D
-
Good thing we don't have a miriad of other problems in Aces High.
In real life, Me 163's would sometimes explode because they got a bad fuel mixture.
-
Good thing we don't have a miriad of other problems in Aces High.
In real life, Me 163's would sometimes explode because they got a bad fuel mixture.
IRL ME-163 pilots would rather bail instead of landing just because it was that horribly dangerous. not to mention that it would leak fuel into the cockpit and burn the pilot sometimes.
as far as the ME-410 as a tank buster? possible in AH, would completely destroy a truck convoy IRL. but i have yet to see combat reports of one shooting tanks.
-
Tony Williams' site shows a picture of an AP round for the BK5. http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankammo4.htm Also the data table on his site list an AP projectile with the BK5 cannon?
About Me163's problems http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.walker6/komet/flight/flight5.htm
-
Tony Williams' site shows a picture of an AP round for the BK5. http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankammo4.htm Also the data table on his site list an AP projectile with the BK5 cannon?
Blimey, that's a big casing. What's the muzzle velocity? I'm sure I could have a quick look on Wikipedia, but I'm sure one of the experts is itching to tell :banana:
-
Only ballistics data I found was for the tank variant, from Tony Williams' site. I don't have link handy and don't have time to dig it up atm. Someone probably knows the table I'm talking about though. And IIRC I quoted or mirrored it whole in one of the old Me 410 threads.
edit- I definitely remember mentioning the muzzle velocity as part of energy calculations to try and guess at what the BK5's OBJ damage value would be.
edit2 - from an old excel spreadsheet, I have it down as 835 msec
quick and dirty copy paste for reference:
gun mv
MG 17 865
MG 131 730
.50 Browning M2 890
12.7mm UB 840
20mm Type 99-1 600
MG-FF (API) 585
MG-FF (HEIT) 585
MG-FF (HE(M)) 700
MG 151/20 745, 790, 750, 830
Hispano II 860
Hispano V 830, 820
VYa-23 (API) 880
VYa-23 (HE) 880
MK 108 505
MK 103 860
37mm M4 610
NS-37 900
HO301 246
BK5 835
T13E1/M3 619
Ostie 820
-
That's pretty fast for such a large projectile. I wonder what the ballistic coefficient is and at what point it drops to subsonic. HTC may have to extend the range at which the shot is modelled for that one. I once calculated the external ballistics for the Ho-5 cannon round but I had to make some deductions (http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/detective2.gif)
-
The comments about it seeing use against Soviet ground armor were either on ww2aircraft.net or LEMB, I don't recall which right now. If I find it I'll post the link to the discussion.
-
That's pretty fast for such a large projectile. I wonder what the ballistic coefficient is and at what point it drops to subsonic. HTC may have to extend the range at which the shot is modelled for that one. I once calculated the external ballistics for the Ho-5 cannon round but I had to make some deductions (http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/detective2.gif)
I reckon the BK5 round will get extended range compared to regular gun rounds, like the Ostie and B25H rounds.
-
IRL ME-163 pilots would rather bail instead of landing just because it was that horribly dangerous. not to mention that it would leak fuel into the cockpit and burn the pilot sometimes.
For your education, http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.walker6/komet/flight/flight5.htm
-
For your education, http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.walker6/komet/flight/flight5.htm
page cant be found? :headscratch:
-
page cant be found? :headscratch:
Works fine at my end, interview with Rudy Opitz:
Popular Wisdom vs. a Test Pilot’s Experiences
1. Rocket engines would explode without warning.
RO: engines were reliable and relatively safe and were adjusted so as to shut down in the event of an imbalance in fuel flow. If there was a problem in engine performance, it related to shutdowns, not explosions. The only instances of engines blowing were in early testing of prototypes or when they had been damaged in battle or by accident.
2. Leaking fuel could turn pilots to jelly, particularly if the plane flipped over.
RO: pilots, me included, survived overturned Komets, and an overturned ship would not necessarily leak fuel into the cockpit. When fuel contacted organic material, including skin, it ignited after only a few seconds. Our protective nylon suits would not ignite but were porous, and fuel could sop through to the skin.
3. Forward-mounted flaps were necessary to counter a negative pitching moment from the trailing-edge flaps.
RO: the TE flaps were trim flaps only, and the deployment of the forward-mounted underwing flaps did not cause a pitch change.
4. The Komet’s dive to speeds resulting in compressibility were often fatal.
RO: no fatalities resulted from this, to my knowledge. The Komets in such dives recovered after reaching a lower altitude that neutralized the compressibility problems.
5. As many as 15 percent of Komets broke up while pulling out of high-speed dives where compressibility had became a factor.
RO: no such fatalities to my knowledge.
6. Stall characteristics were abrupt and severe and taxed the skills of even experienced fighter pilots.
RO: the plane was equipped with leading-edge slots that eliminated stalls and caused it to mush forward in a mode that was immediately recoverable. The plane would not spin and was intentionally designed to be docile for low-time pilots.
7. Only experienced pilots could adequately handle the airplane at slow speeds.
RO: the plane was docile and friendly at slow speeds, and it had to be for low-time pilots to successfully land it dead-stick.
8. The Komet was not a successful fighter but future development would have made it a formidable interceptor.
RO: The 263—the next incarnation—had retractable landing gear, a pressurized cabin and considerably more fuel, but it never got beyond the early prototype stage.
I agree the 163B was not a successful fighter. Several hundred 163Bs were built,
but only 91 were operational as of December 31, 1944, and only 16 kills were attributed to 163s during the War. Note, however, that while under power or in a fast glide, the 163 could fly circles around any other fighter of its time.
In fact, the true contribution of the Komet was to high-speed flight as evidenced by the success of the delta-wing Concorde and delta-wing space shuttle. These Lippisch planform concepts live on today.
-
And the aircraft BK5 might be slower mv. I know there were issues with the 410 initially not being able to cope with the recoil, for whatever reason. Development kept going till about the end - there was a faster (40 rpm?) BK5 in R&D.
-
If I remember correctly the only Luftwaffe aircraft that did well with the cannon was the Ju-88 but they tried to upgun it in testing to carry the 75mm version and that didn't go as well as the 50mm. I forvet which book I read that in but the Ju-88 was only a test bed that never flew as more than 5 aircraft in process so the program never made it to production.
-
And the aircraft BK5 might be slower mv. I know there were issues with the 410 initially not being able to cope with the recoil, for whatever reason. Development kept going till about the end - there was a faster (40 rpm?) BK5 in R&D.
The BK5 was just an automatic version of the KwK 39 50mm L'60. I don't think it used a reduced propellant charge or shortened barrel (which would result in lowered muzzle velocity) or anything.
-
Yeah I left that unspecified for that reason. Didn't know if it's the gun that was adjusted, or the airframe interface, or what.
-
I wonder how HTC is going to accommodate the telescopic sight, something like the bombsight mode in bombers?
-
I wonder how HTC is going to accommodate the telescopic sight, something like the bombsight mode in bombers?
The easiest way would be to skip the BK5 loadout. No need to model the telescopic sight, and less risk of 2k sniping on buffs :noid
(But if this really would happen, there would still enough reason for buffs to fear the 410... MK 103 anybody? :devil)
-
Can't miss the BK5 out, the only really interesting feature would be the long range sniper option :old:
-
Can't miss the BK5 out, the only really interesting feature would be the long range sniper option :old:
:D
Well, as you can guess I'm even more eagerly waiting on the Mk 103. 200 rounds carrying the destructive power of a MK108 combined with the trajectory of a .50 cal. :x
Speaking of trajectory, I made a quick & simple graph comparing German cannons. The source is original data from Erprobungstelle Rechlin. I tried to use similar type of rounds (mine) when possible:
(http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/6310/clipboard01ww.jpg)
Performance in AH may be somewhat different for individual guns depending on which shell being simulated.
-
I've seen a number of pictures of 410's with the BK 5 mounted but no scope.
-
Yeh, it certainly would be cool to see it modelled like the tank's sighting station for example but I was thinking that it probably won't happen. After the novelty wears off it would probably end up being more of a hinderance than help as it reduces the forward visibility due to being bigger than a regular Revi.
Interesting sight though.
Pictures from: http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/instrumente/katalog/revi/revi.htm (http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/instrumente/katalog/revi/revi.htm)
(http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/instrumente/katalog/revi/gross/Fl22863-2.gif)
(http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/instrumente/katalog/revi/gross/Blick%20%20ZFR%204A.jpg)
(http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/instrumente/katalog/revi/gross/Fl52283-1.gif)
(http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/instrumente/katalog/revi/gross/Fl52283.gif)
(http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/instrumente/katalog/revi/gross/Fl52283-2.gif)
-
Nice! Does it mention the magnification? I know sniper rifle scopes from the time weren't very powerful.
Great graph Lusche, look at that 50-mm round go! You really get a good feel for ballistic coefficient comparing the projectiles on that graph. The poor FF :lol
-
Aces High's "zoom" is really to help bring out the details the human eye can see. However, it also does this by zooming in. I think that will take care of the need for a special telescopic view. Just like you can zoom in with the B-25H to try and hit your targets better.
-
Great graph Lusche, look at that 50-mm round go! You really get a good feel for ballistic coefficient comparing the projectiles on that graph. The poor FF :lol
And the Mk 103 has almost the same, but throws much more explosives at the enemy. The BK can shoot 3 rounds in 4 seconds, two MK 103 will fire about 48-56 rounds in the same time. :x
-
The combination of the Mk 103 with the 410's cockpit view is going to make for some excellent deflection shooting I suspect. I think there are quite a few good shots who will have plenty of fun when it arrives.
(http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Messerschmitt-Me410/IMAGES/Messerschmitt-Me410-Cockpit.jpg)
-
I've seen a number of pictures of 410's with the BK 5 mounted but no scope.
KA CHING
-
Holy crap!!! The luft-pilots are gonna have fun with this one.
-
I've sent Pyro some of my stuff which has the odd bit of ballistics info, MK 103s will absolutely rule IMHO. Me 410 at FTH with 103s in the hands of someone who can shoot is going to be deadly. As in "ZAP! Thanks for playing."
RLM didn't favour the BK 5 too much due to its weight and low rate of fire. They liked 2x108s best, low weight high RoF, though I'm not sure that was ever mounted on a 410.
-
I've seen a number of pictures of 410's with the BK 5 mounted but no scope.
I'll counter that with I've seen plenty of pictures of Mk103 armed 410's with the telescopic sight! :neener:
Have pity on us with poor eyesight!! :D TBH I'm just happy to see the 410 finally being added to the hanger,cant wait for those twin 30mm of LUV!!!!
Now can we see about adding the 6pounder to the mossie MkVI,that would make it a MkXVIII,the gun and about 600 pounds of extra weight.
:salute
-
^ Don't forget the additional 900 pounds of armour plate which was also added to the XVIII around the cockpit and engines.
Don't go hunting no hi-alt buffs in a Tse-Tse. It will be asthmatic at best, and you'll have to snipe the pilot, as the shells were solid shot.
-
I've sent Pyro some of my stuff which has the odd bit of ballistics info, MK 103s will absolutely rule IMHO. Me 410 at FTH with 103s in the hands of someone who can shoot is going to be deadly. As in "ZAP! Thanks for playing."
RLM didn't favour the BK 5 too much due to its weight and low rate of fire. They liked 2x108s best, low weight high RoF, though I'm not sure that was ever mounted on a 410.
Galland said he wanted 4x108. While that wasn't in the cards in the near term, he favored the BK5. The BK5 turned out to be unpracticable, but you might guess at his preference by considering that his demands were for 50% 103 and 50% BK5 daytime Me410s. On another note, IIRC in these same meetings they commented that it was good to have these guns (or either the BK5/MK103, cant recall) and the 6x20mm configurations in flight at same time, for direct comparison. Unsurprisingly (when you see how pilots apparently shot at things - walked bullets to target - according to period guncams) the 6x20 was the most user friendly.
-
The easiest way would be to skip the BK5 loadout. No need to model the telescopic sight, and less risk of 2k sniping on buffs :noid
(But if this really would happen, there would still enough reason for buffs to fear the 410... MK 103 anybody? :devil)
*grabs his pitchfork and lights his torch*
... O' really? And I suppose next you'll think further development of the 190s in this game will never be necessary. That hurts Lusche. :cry
Edit: Maybe not initialy, but if/when a periscope feature gets added to Ar234s, that added ability might tie in well with a 410 scope feature/addition at the same time.
-
Edit: Maybe not initialy, but if/when a periscope feature gets added to Ar234s, that added ability might tie in well with a 410 scope feature/addition at the same time.
Why would the Ar234 need that? When it gets remodeled the guns should be removed.
-
(http://i570.photobucket.com/albums/ss147/tnelson3_bucket/34b29869fa3c.jpg)
Jee, I dunno....
-
The A-10 has nothing to do with the Me410. False comparison.
Bab, see Karnak's reply :O He's right!
-
"The A-10 has nothing to do with the Me410."
Well actually... if you compare the cannon in A-10 to MK103 they are pretty similar in performance except for RoF... ;)
-C+
-
"The A-10 has nothing to do with the Me410."
Well actually... if you compare the cannon in A-10 to MK103 they are pretty similar in performance except for RoF... ;)
-C+
Not even close. There's a 50 year gap between the two.
Armor Penetration, ballistics, intended use, type of ammunition used, and like you said, rate of fire.
-
Hispano 20mm/GAU-8/MK103
AP projectile weight (grams): 165 / 425 / 355
Muzzle velocity: 775 / 988 / 960
Joules: 49500 / 208129 / 164122
Armour penetration is better for GAU due to DU core but there is really no difference in ballistic properties and AP is AP now and was back then and it was made to penetrate armour.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/FGww2APcarts1e.jpg
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/30mm%20cannon.htm
-C+
-
Really, all the Germans needed to do was up the shell weight a bit, and give it a slightly larger proppelent charge, and they would have had an extermly effective tank buster when firing PzGr. 40 ammunition.
-
The MK103 installation is quite heavy. The guns and 200 rounds of ammo alone weigh roughly 1000lbs and that's before counting the supporting fixtures and the other hardware.
-
Hispano 20mm/GAU-8/MK103
AP projectile weight (grams): 165 / 425 / 355
Muzzle velocity: 775 / 988 / 960
Joules: 49500 / 208129 / 164122
Armour penetration is better for GAU due to DU core but there is really no difference in ballistic properties and AP is AP now and was back then and it was made to penetrate armour.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/FGww2APcarts1e.jpg
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/30mm%20cannon.htm
-C+
Where'd you get the Hispano's muzzle velocity of 775? I've always seen 880m/sec and once 860m/sec for the Mk II.
-
You might as well compare a Luger to a Beretta M9, or even an MP5, because the rounds are so similar, right?
It's not even a close comparison, sorry! :uhoh
One was an added option to boost firepower on a Zerstorer aircraft, hunting down bombers. The other literally had the entire airplane designed AROUND it, taking up most of the internal framework of the airplane itself, and is to date the most feared anti-tank platform in the skies.
So, yeah.... They're both 30mm so they're the same. Okay. (Sarcasm! alert! sarcasm! alert!)
[Edit: Sorry if the above is "too much" but.... somebody had to say it! Back to the Me410 BK5 discussion!)
-
How the weapon is employed isn't really important if they achieve the same thing. In war, its results that matter, not how those results are achieved.
-
"Where'd you get the Hispano's muzzle velocity of 775? I've always seen 880m/sec and once 860m/sec for the Mk II."
Flying guns of WW2, Anthony Williams and Emmanuel Gustin. Page 313.
850-880m/s for Mk2 HE, 820-850m/s for MkV HE.
-C+
-
"Where'd you get the Hispano's muzzle velocity of 775? I've always seen 880m/sec and once 860m/sec for the Mk II."
Flying guns of WW2, Anthony Williams and Emmanuel Gustin. Page 313.
850-880m/s for Mk2 HE, 820-850m/s for MkV HE.
-C+
Yes, I have those books. Those numbers are both significantly above the 775m/sec.
-
The A-10 has nothing to do with the Me410. False comparison.
Bab, see Karnak's reply :O He's right!
You both completley missed my point for the request. I'm aware of the other discussion that you both are too. Those 234s in that discussion didn't have their rearward firing cannons that we know of, but a number did have the persicope that served two practical functions on the high-speed bombers.... yes?...
Edit: Now are we seeing the same similarities between the 410 scope sight and a 234 periscope as a single functionality within AH?
-
<sidetrack> The other use was for aiming bombs in shallow (shallow, 10 degrees, wasn't it?) dives. It never worked well at that, if I recall. AH already has the bombsight for level bombing built in. Not sure what the point was. If not that, yes you're right I missed the point. </sidetrack>