MK108 damage photos, please ?

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by HoHun

I'm sure you're aware of the famous "missing wingtip" Mosquito photograph. It clearly shows just the kind of crack mentioned in the Winter and Tschischwitz report that caused the loss of the skinning on the underside of the wing. You won't see this kind of extending damage on metal aircraft.

Wood is vulnerable. A metal Mosquito would have been a lot tougher.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

One more thing to consider about wooden construction that also enable the bullet`s kinetic energy to be more fully transferred into destruction. A light metal structure would only allow the bullet to pass through, the only kinetic force the bullet can use for destruction is the minimal one needed for penetrating the skin and punching it through with a clean hole (see Bf 109 wing damage pics). A thicker wooden structure, or the Mossie`s one backed up by thick balsa wood, would slow down the bullet more in proccess, as the avarage densitiy of the wing would be higher. This means MORE of the bullet`s KE is transferred into the airframe as a "useful" force. For the same reason, slow, but heavy projectiles are better damage makers - more of their energy is stored in their mass, and used up more efficiently (higher velocities would only cause clean penetration holes, unless in solid structures prone to hydrostatic damage, ie. fuel tanks, human body..).

[Wilbus]

Heya HoHun :-)

Nope, I know my 190's and Ta's, and it's not a 190 I'm thinking about.

Looked it up, it was the Ta152 A version that was ready in early 1944 (not 43 as I said before) for full scale production. It had the more normal 190 wings (not the long Ta152H wings) and a Jumo 213 A powerplant, it was to use 3 different weapon configurations.

First being the same as the later H version (1x30mm and 2xMg151 20's).

Second was with one extra MG 151 20mm in each wing.

The third option was like the second but with one Mk108 30mm mounted under each wing (giving it 3x30mm Mk108 and 4xMG151 20mm )

Max speed was about 680 Kp/h at 7000 meters with the light armament and about 670 with the heaviest using no extra boost such as GM1 or MW50.

Stupid of the RLM to cancel it when it was completely ready for production, would have given the LW a very capeble fighter at all altitudes in early 1944, both for fighter and anti-bomber purpose.

[Flyboy]

so why wasnt the Mk103 used on fighters? was it really that big?
what planed did use?

if i had to choose between higher velocity and lower RoF \ lower velocity higher RoF, ill go on velocity especially if we talking about a 30mm cannon

[VO101_Isegrim]

so why wasnt the Mk103 used on fighters? was it really that big?

Yep it was big and heavy, and bulky - 146 kg vs. 58 kg of the MK 108 for example, similiar increase in size, which created problems fitting it internally...  It probably didnt worth it, the MK 108 did a good enough job, the extra high ballistic performance probably didnt worth the extra bulk - most fighter combats took place at close ranges, 2-300m.

It was experienced/used with some FW 190 subtypes, and later Bf 109K models from K-8 up supposed to receive it with minor modifications in order to fit in.  They also toyed with it on Me 262s, 410s..

[Batz]

It was to big and to heavy.

Also, velocity is mostly irrelevant because the damage was caused by the HE content of the Minengeschoß.

The 3cm only needed to hit hard enough to penetrate the skin of an aircraft. It then exploded and the resulting over pressure causes the majority of the damage.

If you look at the spitfire picture Isegrim you can see what the explosion did to that spitfire.

[MiloMorai]

The prototypes of the A-1 and A-2 were not constructed (Ta152 V 1, WNr 250001, Ta152 V 2, WNr 250002).

There was though the Fw190 V 19(WNr 0041), Fw190 V 20(WNr 0042) and Fw190 V 21(WNr 0043) constructed. The V 19 first flew 7 July 43 and crashed 16 Feb 44. The V 20 first flew 23 Nov 43 and was destroyed by bombs 5 Aug 44. The V 21 first flew 13 Mar 44. The V 19 suffered from rough running Jumo 213A(#100 152 082, #100 152 160, #100 1570 009) which was not fixed until the Jumo CV (#100 1570 010(V20), #100 1570 012(V21)) was installed in the other 2 a/c. The V 21/U1 became the prototype for the Ta152C fitted with the DB engine, 18 Nov 44.

Hardly ready for large scale production.

Harmann's Ta152 book

[Wilbus]

AFAIK the Mk103 was never installed in a 109, maybe in underwing gondolas but definatly nothing else. The 410 used it opperatinonally (it could have all different kind of weapons installed in the bomb bay, such as 2xMk103 + 1x50mm at the same time etc etc). The he 219 had 4xMk103's or 4xMk108's insatlled in the nose aswell as 2xMg151's wing mounted near the fuselage (nice firepower ).

The Mk103 was used more as anti tank weapons (experimental 190 gondolas) and in some ground attack planes such as the Me410. There was also a Mk101 with a fairly high velocity used for anti tank purpose in the He129 and maybe a few others.

At close ranges I'd chose ROF over velocity any day, can just compare the 30mm Mk108 in AH with a 37mm on the Yak 9T, which one is easiest to kill with?

[bpti]

better than playboy!

[Wilbus]

Milomorai, I sugest you read the entire book before coming with messed up statements like that. The prototypes were flown alot which enabled them to fully develop the plane using just 3 prototypes. Changes were made between the different prototypes and for the second two one of the main tests were with flamedampers.

This is also a snip from Dietmar Harmann's book.

No serious shortcomings became apparent during the testing of the prototypes for the Ta 152 A series. The flame damper installation  originally planned for the series had such negative effect on performance that it was officially dropped on 18 April 1944. But by that time the Ta 152 A was fully ready for production. The RLM's decision not to build the Ta 152 A in quantity was therefor all the more inexplicable, for the Focke Wulf Ta 152 A's performance was clearly superior to that of the Fw 190 A with the BWM 801 radial engine at altitudes above 5,000 meters. The choice of power plants, especially the Jumo 213 E with three-gear transmission and two-stage supercharger then in development, suggested significant room for development. The Jumo 213 A (C), equipped with a single-stage supercharger and two-gear transmission, had meanwhile achieved the necessary level of reliability and was successfully installed in the Fw 190 D-9 series from September 1944.

So once again, before you post things like this

Hardly ready for large scale production.

you might actually want to read some of the book instead of looking at a chart with 3 protoypes, did you even read what they tested? The differences between the Ta 152 A and the Fw 190 A's?

BTW, how's it going with that source about the 30mm?

[GScholz]

Ah yes the Me 410. Love that plane!








Who wouldn't want one?!?

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Wilbus
The he 219 had 4xMk103's or 4xMk108's insatlled in the nose aswell as 2xMg151's wing mounted near the fuselage (nice firepower ).

 

The only He219 that could have the MK103 (installed in the ventral tray) was the M3 option for the A-0 with 300r/gun.

There was no nose weapons mounted.





You have trouble reading, I said I had seen the report, not that I had  a link, nor will go I look for it.

[Wilbus]

rgr on the He219 ventral tray.

One thing though, yeah you said you have seen the reports, but you just refuse to say where or even give the slightest clue, think anyone will believe you're right about the test?

loose the attitude.

[MiloMorai]

Wilbus

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Because I have seen the report.

I would tell you if I could remember where, possibly Butch. The tests were set up to see what the maximum damage would be. Logic says this could only be done with the shell exploding at a certain point. In the photos one can see other 'objects' in the background, so what would have happened if the shell fired from the cannon, had mis-fired? See the photo of a Mosquito (NT252) that had a 'run-in' with a Me110 night fighter (2 Mk108s), fabric gone on the rudder and some outer skinning missing from the fuselage behind the wing. (Osprey Combat A/C #9, pg 80) Not at all catistrophic since the a/c returned to its base.

See also Batz's post, in which he agreed.


Since you claimed the He219 had nose cannons, as well as saying the Ta152A was a high altitude fighter, one has to wunder about anything you state.

There was no Ta152(A) Vx a/c. Happy now? Now, how many flight hours did the Fw190 V19, 20 and 21 have? Was Harmann's suposition that the a/c was ready for production, yet there was 3 times as many Dora prototypes before it was ready for production. How many Ta152H a/c, yet even when it started limited production it was not ready with all the bugs worked out.



The only attitude, and being a snot, I see is from you.

[Staga]

So let me ask this once again: What were those British engineers testing ?

[Nashwan]

In the photos one can see other 'objects' in the background, so what would have happened if the shell fired from the cannon, had mis-fired?

Very good point.

In both photos, you can clearly see buildings in the background, through the holes in the aircraft fuselages. There is no way they would fire 30 mm shells at a fuselage with no backdrop to stop them if they didn't explode when they should.

It's also clear from the damage that the planes haven't been moved, the tails would have fallen off.

So let me ask this once again: What were those British engineers testing ?

I believe they were post war tests, in the context of Britain adopting the 30 mm Aden gun, based on the Mg 213 revolver cannon.

I assume the tests were designed for maximum effect because the shells exploded at the most advatageous spot possible, in the thinnest part of the fuselage just in front of the tail.