MK 103 cannon

[morfiend]

 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!


   

[LLogann]

In the reading that I have done, I find it few and far between for Luftwaffe pilots to speak highly of the 103.

[Lusche]

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.

[save]

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 ?

[Imowface]

If you want a big cannon that flys better then a hispano try out the Yak-9T, ultimate bomber killer

[Perrine]

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

[Lusche]

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.

[Imowface]

lol I wouldnt say 3500 was a "limited" run how many Me-410's in total were there?

[Lusche]

lol I wouldnt say 3500 was a "limited" run how many Me-410's in total were there?

It's in his post

[Imowface]

darn, foiled again by my lack of attention

[Krusty]

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.

[LLogann]

That's not what Lusche said yesterday....    You know, the German guy............  

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.

[Lusche]

That's not what Lusche said yesterday..

I'm a bit confused now.. what was it I did not say?  
(And what has my nationality to do with that?)

[LLogann]

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.

[Lusche]

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.