Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: cav58d on July 09, 2017, 09:07:38 AM
-
I thought this would be interesting to share. Unfortunately the current edition being sold on Amazon is from a small time bootleg publisher so it's not worth giving a page number but this comes out of the "following the latest bomb crater chapter" in Gallands "the first and the last".
"The me-109 carries only one 20-mm. cannon and two normal machine guns. This could by no means be regarded as sufficient in the fight against multienginrd bombers. This armament, too, constituted an incomprehensible regression in the new me-109F compared with the E series, who's production has stopped the previous year. The latter had two 20-mm. cannons mounted in the wings and two normal machine guns. The one cannon of the new me-109F was of course more modern, had a quicker rate of fire, a better trajectory, and what is more was centrally mounted over the engine and fired through he gun of the propeller. Nevertheless there were conflicting opinions as to whether the new armament should be regarded as a step forward or a step backward. Molders shared Udets opinion that one centrally mounted cannon was better then two in the wings. I regarded one cannon as completely inadequate, particularly as I considered machine guns outdated for aerial combat, merely senseless fireworks. One could hardly impress an enemy fighter with them anymore, to say nothing of multiengined bombers. Naturally I recognized he advantages of centrally mounted weapons. But if the armament consisted of one cannon only, then I preferred two decent rap cannons, especially when I thought of the gradually declining standard in skill and training of the majority of or new pilots, which was unavoidable as the war dragged on. Not every pilot was as good a sharpshooter as Molders or Udet.
This problem of the me-109 armament was also brought to Hitler's notice, how and by whom I do not know. During a conversation he asked me for my opinion. Did I consider the better armament for the me-109 a cannon in the central axis or two in the wings? I did not ponder long: "Better all three." Hitler was pleased. My answer corresponded with his ideas. He used the fact that later development proved him repeatedly correct as an argument in his attempts to put into practice odd ideas of his own in the field of armament and technically, against the advice of experts.
Immediately after this conversation came the order to increase the armament of the me-109F. Two additional 20-mm. cannons were mounted below the wings. These "gondolas" or "bathtubs" as we called them, naturally affected the performance of the plane badly. The aircraft defaced in this was was dad good as useless in fighter combat. But at least with three cannons she had now a firing power with which one could achieve something in the battle with the Flying Fortress.
Later on when the fighter escort of the Americans became more and more effective, the "bathtubs" had to be removed again. The escorting fighters became the primary target. Shooting down bombers took second place. Many favorable chances were missed by neglecting to provide stronger armament for our fighters. Much more suitable was the FW-190 first with two and later with four 20-mm. cannons and two machine guns."
Apologies if there are any mistakes, I am typing this on a cell phone while sitting on the beach.
-
Later on when the fighter escort of the Americans became more and more effective, the "bathtubs" had to be removed again. The escorting fighters became the primary target. Shooting down bombers took second place. Many favorable chances were missed by neglecting to provide stronger armament for our fighters. Much more suitable was the FW-190 first with two and later with four 20-mm. cannons and two machine guns."
Analysis of WW2 Air Combat Records
http://www.germanluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/a/Alliierte/US%20Air%20Combat%20Records%20WW%20II.pdf
-
Analysis of WW2 Air Combat Records
http://www.germanluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/a/Alliierte/US%20Air%20Combat%20Records%20WW%20II.pdf
Lots of interesting things in there, MiloMorai, thank you.
- oldman
-
The inability to carry a sufficient amount of firepower was the biggest drawback of the 109, while the 30 mm was powerful it was way to hard for the average pilot to hit Another fighter with it. That's why (IMO) the spitfire wins the title "best WW2 fighter", it could both handle the increased weight better than the 109 and also take not just 2 but 4 cannons without losing performance.
-
The only version to carry 4 cannons during WW2 were some Spit V's - and the definitely could not handle hauling all 4 and were quickly reverted to the standard configuration.
-
So? Late Mk XVI and pretty much all of the final versions had 4 cannons and they could handle it. It doesn't matter that they didn't shot at German planes with them, the point is that the spitfire could carry a sufficient amount of firepower throughout its career.
-
Which is like claiming slapping a couple hundred extra horsepower and a redesigned wing on the damn thing didn't help.
The Spitfire's core airframe was limited in a similar manner to the Bf 109. Had Germany somehow won and occupied the UK, you'd be on the other side talking about how foolish the UK was to experiment with overloading a light fighter, when the lighter armed Bf 109 served the Luftwaffe into the 1950's.
-
But that's not whats happened so the argument is irrelevant. The Germans realized before the war that the 109 lacked firepower and tried in a number of ways to solve the issue, without any good solution. The fact we even have this debate proves it..
They tried to replace the 109 but it didnt worked so they had no option but to keep the 109.
-
So? Late Mk XVI and pretty much all of the final versions had 4 cannons and they could handle it. It doesn't matter that they didn't shot at German planes with them, the point is that the spitfire could carry a sufficient amount of firepower throughout its career.
The point is that you're comparing a spitfire variant developed 5 years after the 109's being discussed. The contemporary Spitfire of 1941 could not handle 4 cannons.
When the 109F was introduced it was still the best fighter in Europe, with only the Spit V in its league. The single 20mm hub cannon was sufficient for fighter vs. fighter combat for most pilots. Look no further than the rate that Luftwaffe pilots scored kills with 109F.
Galland saw the need for more firepower against the enemy aircraft to come - heavier American bombers and fighters. He was very much correct in this regard and advocated for sole production of FW 190's as Germany's piston-powered fighter while Messerschmitt developed the 262. The man was a visionary to be sure.
Futhermore, many of the Luftwaffe's best pilots did not outfit their aircraft with extra cannon when they were available. Rall and Barkhorn both refused to take gondolas on their 109's. Even on the 190, Nowotny and Priller both favored the lighter 2 cannon loadout.
-
So? Late Mk XVI and pretty much all of the final versions had 4 cannons and they could handle it. It doesn't matter that they didn't shot at German planes with them, the point is that the spitfire could carry a sufficient amount of firepower throughout its career.
The Mk XVI was a Mk IX using a Packard Merlin. Are you saying the Mk IX had 4 cannons?
The series 20 Spitfires had a different wing than previous Mks.
-
The Mk XVI was a Mk IX using a Packard Merlin. Are you saying the Mk IX had 4 cannons?
The series 20 Spitfires had a different wing than previous Mks.
A mx XVI from may -45, the E wing could take 4 cannons:
(http://www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/6/0/3/1380306.jpg)
And the entire topic is about German experts arguing about if the firepower of the F...
-
A mx XVI from may -45, the E wing could take 4 cannons:
(http://www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/6/0/3/1380306.jpg)
4 cannon barrel fairings, but not 4 cannons. Look at the top hatch - only has the cannon fairing on the outboard bay.
(http://spitfiresite.com/uploaded_images/gun-installation-e-wing-2.jpg)
And the entire topic is about German experts arguing about if the firepower of the F...
What's your point?
-
E wing could still carry 4 cannons and point is that we are discussing the 109:s lack of firepower because that is what this thread is all about...
-
E wing could still carry 4 cannons and point is that we are discussing the 109:s lack of firepower because that is what this thread is all about...
E wing could not carry four 20mm cannons. It did not have the flexibility of the old universal wing. That flexibility was eliminated because, in practice, it wasn't used. The E wing was hard locked to two 20mm cannons and two .50 caliber machine guns.
-
It wasnt used no, i guess that they considered 2 cannons to be enough. But the option still existed..
2 cannons is enough to kill fighters, and spitfires did not have to deal with bombers during the later half of the war in any greater scale. If LW have had the ability to bomb England during the later half of the war im sure we had seen more 4 cannon spits in the bomber interceptor role.
-
It wasnt used no, i guess that they considered 2 cannons to be enough. But the option still existed..
2 cannons is enough to kill fighters, and spitfires did not have to deal with bombers during the later half of the war in any greater scale. If LW have had the ability to bomb England during the later half of the war im sure we had seen more 4 cannon spits in the bomber interceptor role.
The option did not exist on the E wing. As I said, it could only take two 20mm cannons and two .50 caliber machine guns. The mounts were not interchangeable.
Restorations are not a reliable sources of information.
-
http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/sorting-out-the-e-american-armament-for-the-spitfire-mk-ixxvi.html
So yes, it could take an extra pair of cannons, the .50 was just placed inside one of the cannon bays. If needed 4 cannon spits could have been built without any need for any bigger modifications.
Edit: C wing had a larger blister to host 4 cannons and the blister were made smaller when 2 cannons were selected as standard armament, so while its technically correct that modificatons was needed to carry 4 cannons, both C and E wing could do it.
http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/spitfire-mk-ix-xi-and-xvi-variants-much-varied.html/3
-
And point is that it was technically possible for the spitfire to carry 4 cannons, even if they chosed not to fit it with such armament. And that the spitfire could carry a sufficient armament without sacrificing performance. The 109 on the other hand was much more limited when it came to carrying guns and this was a major source of concern for the Germans during the war .
-
The 109 could carry the weigh of the guns fine. It was that stupid gondola mounting that was the problem.
And what the hell are you talking about? If it needs modification to do it, then it can't normally do it. That or the 109's wing could accept another 20mm each as well, they just needed to be modified first.
You want to jerk off the Spitfire, fine. But at least do it without being a hypocrite.
-
And what the hell are you talking about? If it needs modification to do it, then it can't normally do it. That or the 109's wing could accept another 20mm each as well, they just needed to be modified first.
Count the cannons: This is a Mk V with the C wing as it initially was intended to be armed. So tell me that it was not possible to ever build a spitfire with 4 cannons.. The C wing (and E) was designed to carry 4x 20 mm. You see the difference? The Brits chose to not have the 2 extra guns because 2 was enough for the job even if the design allowed them to have 4 cannons, while the 109 needed gondolas to add firepower...
(http://spitfiresite.com/uploaded_images/spitfire-v-AA963-Chicago-April-1942-1-732007.jpg)
-
Yes, it could potentially be done on the Spitfire Mk V, and IX IIRC. But no, you yourself just admitted the E wing needed modification to carry four cannon, which is what I was referring to.
You do not get to categorically claim "the Spitfire had four cannons!" because the Spitfire I with the A wing was not the same as the Spitfire V with the C Wing, was not the same as the Spitfire VIII with the Universal wing, was not the same as the Spitfire XVI with the E Wing.
Its like claiming Spanish Civil War bf 109's were cannon armed because later models were cannon armed. Its a disingenuous, myopic, history-channel-esqe cop out, done so you can tell a story you want to hear.
-
Zimmer, the universal wing, what you're incorrectly calling a C wing, could be set up with eight .303s or two 20mm cannons and four .303s or four 20mm cannons. The four 20mm cannon setup was only used by a couple of ground attack Mk V squadrons in the Mediterranean theater and one or two Mk VIII airframes used for Ki-46 interception in the Pacific theater. The eight .303 setup was never used, though the four .303s were sometimes omitted from the two 20mm and four .303 setup.
Again, the E wing could not mount four 20mm cannons. Regardless of how many times you make that claim it does not make it true.
-
Is it a widespread myth?
E type
A new wing was introduced in early 1944 – type E. Structurally unchanged from the C wing, the outer machine gun ports were eliminated. Although the outer machine gun bays were retained, their access doors were devoid of empty shell case ports and shell deflectors.
The inner gun bays allowed for two weapon fits two 20 mm Hispano Mk II cannon with 120 rounds/gun in the outer bays and two American .50 calibre M2 Browning machine guns, with 250 rounds per gun in the inner bays. Alternatively, four 20 mm Hispano cannon with 120 rounds per gun could be carried as per original C-wing production standard.
The cannon in the E wing was slightly relocated, positioned further to the rear in its bay. Consequently, the protruding portion of the barrel was shorter and almost entirely enclosed by a new cigar-shaped fairing. Also, the overwing blister was more narrow and a little deeper than the corresponding feature of the C wing.
An interesting curiosity is that several C-wing Spitfires LF Mk. IX of No. 485 (New Zealand) Squadron were converted to carry the Hispanos and .50 Brownings just before D-Day.
(http://spitfiresite.com/uploaded_images/gun-installation-e-wing.jpg)
-
though the four .303s were sometimes omitted from the two 20mm and four .303 setup.
In Malta from the books written about Buzz Beurling, he and others had experimented with removing the .303 guns completely from their Spitfires (Mk V, I think, not sure though) and ran with just the single 20mm per wing, and still had good accuracy and lethality, with less weight/more performance.
-
When you needed the ultimate performance savings, sometimes they removed the 20mm and left the .50cals. That's how they got to some of the highest flying Ju-86 recon birds at over 40,000 feet.
-
Is it a widespread myth?
(http://spitfiresite.com/uploaded_images/gun-installation-e-wing.jpg)
Not sure if you're saying the E wing with four 20mm is a myth or the E wing without four 20mm is a myth. In any case, the diagram you posted does not show any capability for the E wing to mount four 20mm cannons.
Gman,
Malta is specifically what I was referring to.
When you needed the ultimate performance savings, sometimes they removed the 20mm and left the .50cals. That's how they got to some of the highest flying Ju-86 recon birds at over 40,000 feet.
The Ju86 interceptions took place long before any Spifire carried .50 calibers. I've read that they removed all armor, the radio and the 20mm cannons leaving only four .303s to be able to intercept the Ju86s, but this was with Spitfire Mk Vs. If they'd been doing it with Mk VIIIs or Mk IXs, particularly Merlin 70 versions, removing the armor and radio probably would have been enough.
-
At that altitude, every pound mattered I guess. Even leaving .303s in would improve handling over the 20mm and the recon planes were defenesless basically so you didn't need more than a peashooter to get 'em.
I thought it was an interesting counter-point to the other anecdotes sacrificing non-cannon loadouts to enhance performance. :cheers:
-
Not sure if you're saying the E wing with four 20mm is a myth or the E wing without four 20mm is a myth. In any case, the diagram you posted does not show any capability for the E wing to mount four 20mm cannons.
Since every source says otherwise, what do you have to support your claims?
-
Since every source says otherwise, what do you have to support your claims?
I've never seen a source that said the E wing had any gun loadout customization at all. Do you have a source for it?
I am at work now so I don't have my books, but I'll post what I can from Spitfire: The History by Morgan and Shacklady when I get a chance.
-
Lets post it again then:
The inner gun bays allowed for two weapon fits two 20 mm Hispano Mk II cannon with 120 rounds/gun in the outer bays and two American .50 calibre M2 Browning machine guns, with 250 rounds per gun in the inner bays. Alternatively, four 20 mm Hispano cannon with 120 rounds per gun could be carried as per original C-wing production standard.
-
Lets post it again then:
What is the source?
-
The link is posted earlier in the thread.
And I haven't seen anything that contradict this, all sources i've read says the same thing. If you have a better source that prove them wrong then fine, but I would like to see it.
-
Your source is just some guy's post. Try finding a peer-reviewed and published source.
-
Your source is just some guy's post. Try finding a peer-reviewed and published source.
Why would they peer review a Spitfire wing article? Do you even know what peer review means?
-
Why would they peer review a Spitfire wing article? Do you even know what peer review means?
Yes, I am well aware of what a peer review is. My point is that he should cite some source that has at least a basic level of fact checking, whether it be an academic article or commercial publication.
-
:rofl
Since im the only one that have posted any source at all i'm still in the lead.
-
:rofl
Since im the only one that have posted any source at all i'm still in the lead.
Not that I have a dog in the fight, but proving a negative is nearly impossible...
-
I agree, in general. In this case though it shuld be possible since you can for ex present an image to show that its impossible to fit an extra cannon inside the wing.
-
I agree, in general. In this case though it shuld be possible since you can for ex present an image to show that its impossible to fit an extra cannon inside the wing.
I posted that image for you to show you why you were wrong in the first place.
I'm done with you. You are uneducable.
-
It did not prove anything, it just showed the 2-cannon option for the e-wing. too bad you did not read the text on the site, for ex:
(http://spitfiresite.com/uploaded_images/hispano-04x.jpg)
this picture shows the arrangement of the armament bay of the Spitfire LF Mk. IXE, with Hispano Mk. II cannon to the left and the M2 Browning to the right. Note how the entire bay was designed to accommodate two Hispanos. The Browning fits easily in its oversized space. Its ammunition bay (the top one) was simply “downsized” from its initial dimensions through simple addition of a spacer along its forward edge.
http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/sorting-out-the-e-american-armament-for-the-spitfire-mk-ixxvi.html
And from that image i suspect that changing blister wasnt so hard since the panel is removable, if so it should have been relatively easy to change from .50 to cannon and vice versa. i dont know if thats the case though.
And btw: ive learned a lot from this thread, its quite fun to look under the skin of the planes and see how they looked on the inside.
-
But lets talk about the 109 for a bit: im a bit curious that they ditched the Mg FF in the wing from the F and onwards, not the best cannon but still better than nothing..
The projected K-6 and K-14 had a 30mm cannon in each wing and it seems like a few prototypes flew just Before the end of the war. im a bit curious about why the wing wasn't modified earlier..
-
Many reasons, none of which were really decisive.
The Mg 151 would have had to have been finagled into the wing, possibly involving redesign, especially with the modified wing radiators put in place on the F model. But it fit nicely in the engine.
They wanted centerline armament as much as possible (even the wing mounted cannons on the Fw 190 were close enough to the center that they fired through the propeller and needed interruptors). And the single 20mm was generally sufficient.
The reduced mass in the wings aided in increased roll response and rate, one of the early 109's weak points.
Redesigning the wing would have taken time, and wasn't seen as pressing until late 1943, at which point they did start increasing the armament for interceptors.
-
The MG/FF was intended to be a center motor mount the entire time. Engine problems, engine mount vibration problems and other issues meant it was totally incompatible with the design. The wing setup was a second-rate compromise and never originally intended.
The MG151/15 was the early low-caliber version that actually worked as intended in the motor configuration, and then later the MG151/20 brought them back to where they originally wanted to be. It was just a little late and behind the technology curve at that point in time.
-
When the canon shifted from 2 wing mounted MGFF to a single MG151\20 through the engine, was there a time period drop off of kills by German 109 pilots against allied fighters? And did that pick back up while there were enough veteran pilots to rapidly acclimate to fewer rounds from the MG151\20 until the Luft had mostly new pilots after 43? Or did the 190 make up for that because of it's increased number of 20mm?
-
When the 109F-2s were free hunting Spit MkvBs over the channel they were racking up some of the highest kill tallies of the war, and many experts and aces were created on both sides. Fighting was intense and heavy, and technology on both sides was straining to give either the edge. It was Luftwaffe doctrine that changed and eased the pressure against the RAF, and the firepower was only really an issue against the larger, tougher bombers.
The RAF had been running night bombing campaigns for much of the war and the daytime bomber encounters were only at this time becoming common, and that's when the Luftwaffe was realizing they were under-gunned. This would also come to a head later in 1942 when they started encountering thousands of B-17s as in the west and resilient heavily-armored IL-2s (and the like) in the East. The Mk108 would have made wing guns unnecessary and it was created for that reason -- but as you know it had a troubled development and took a long time to make it into production and onto airframes. It wasn't until 1944 that the Mk108 was even common.
-
And i started to wonder if the negative view of the gondolas among the pilots were a bit psychological, the 109F could match or outperform any of its opponents while the G-6 had a much harder time against the newer Escort fighters. I can understand if they did not want to have several hundred Pounds of extra weight under the wings at that Point..
-
MG FF was used as centerline engine cannon in the 109 F-1
-
And i started to wonder if the negative view of the gondolas among the pilots were a bit psychological, the 109F could match or outperform any of its opponents while the G-6 had a much harder time against the newer Escort fighters. I can understand if they did not want to have several hundred Pounds of extra weight under the wings at that Point..
Probably a little of both. They do sap around 15mph, and the 109 can be a dog at high alt if it gets slow. I personally wouldn't want to lug them around at 25000ft.
-
They needed the firepower. Not all fights were "dogfights" -- even if they were against other fighters. In fact, most weren't. You get a good angle on a target and you press the attack. In that case a couple hundred pounds of lethal killing weaponry would make the fight end in a heartbeat. It was only when you were caught in the bounce and at disadvantage that it would cost you dearly.
Not all improvements that keep you alive enhance your plane's performance. Self-sealing fuel tanks, for example. They add weight, reduce handling, reduce fuel tankage, but will save you from even minor damage. Better radio gear, for example, might add another 80 pounds to your loaded weight, but if you've got good combat communication and tactics/teamwork, it'll save your life and kill the enemy just as well as any extra guns will. The P-51 bubbletop, for example, added drag over the bird cage canopy. It took several mph off top speed, if I recall. It was life saving in keeping your SA open before and during combat engagements.
So yes, the later 109Gs didn't have as good an advantage against their closest competitors in the RAF, but they were still every bit as much of a threat overall.
-
The G6 also added extra protection to the pilot, with more armor.
-
MG FF was used as centerline engine cannon in the 109 F-1
Yes, here's a video of a Jg 54 bird with one. Go to 10:15 to see the comically huge ammo drum.
https://youtu.be/AOL0-q3KtKg?t=615
-
The G6 also added extra protection to the pilot, with more armor.
And better radios, better direction finding, hood with better visibility, much more weapon and equipment variety etc.