Author Topic: Oftened wondered about the MG 151/15 (Read 362 times)

Sachs · « **on:** January 24, 2002, 03:46:31 PM »

Why didn't germany put 6 of these on their fighters? Instead of 2 mg 151/20 and MG 131. Makes sense gun has awesome velocity and hitting power.

funkedup · « **Reply #1 on:** January 24, 2002, 04:04:59 PM »

Luftwaffe insisted on sticking with the WWI style cowl armament. They realized rifle caliber weapons were ineffective and MG 131 was developed as an upgrade. MG 151 is much larger than MG 131 and can't fit in such a mounting. Ammo also occupies much more space. Weight of gun and ammo is much greater too.

As for MG 151/20 vs MG 151, weight and size are very similar. So it's just a question of whether you want high velocity slugs with good ballistic properties (15 mm), or lower velocity and ballistic properties but a wide variety of ammo types (20 mm). I believe their experience with the Oerlikon-based cannon caused them to desire the latter.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #2 on:** January 24, 2002, 04:22:41 PM »

Because HE firing cannon are superior to KE weapons, even the the mighty .50cal death ray.....

Vermillion · « **Reply #3 on:** January 24, 2002, 05:06:17 PM »

Exactly Grunherz !

Thats why the US Navy upgraded to TurboLasers (Hispano 20mm) from DeathRays (.50's)

Now you truely understand it all

HoHun · « **Reply #4 on:** January 24, 2002, 06:13:31 PM »

Hi Sachs,

>Why didn't germany put 6 of these on their fighters? Instead of 2 mg 151/20 and MG 131. Makes sense gun has awesome velocity and hitting power.

I guess they didn't consider velocity particularly important.

The destructive power of the 20 mm mine shells was much greater than that of the 15 mm projectiles regardless of the velocity, anyway, so there was no real reason to prefer the 15 mm version.

The complementary question might be why the USAAF didn't put 6 MG151/20 into the wings of the P-47 ;-) They'd have weighed about the same as the 8 0.50" machine guns it historically carried, but there should be no doubt the 20 mm armament would have had greatly superior hitting power :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Tony Williams · « **Reply #5 on:** January 25, 2002, 01:51:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by HoHun
The complementary question might be why the USAAF didn't put 6 MG151/20 into the wings of the P-47 ;-) They'd have weighed about the same as the 8 0.50" machine guns it historically carried, but there should be no doubt the 20 mm armament would have had greatly superior hitting power :-)

Well, the Americans did play with some captured MG 151s (T17 programme) but fiddled with them so much that they didn't work properly anymore....

They rechambered them for the big high-velocity .60 ATR cartridge. Not significant in itself, but it was later necked out to make the 20mm round used in the M39 and M61 Vulcan. So the USA (very much later) took the same route as the Germans - calibre over velocity!

Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
http://website.lineone.net/~a_g_williams
Gun and ammunition discussions at:
http://www.delphi.com/autogun/messages

funkedup · « **Reply #6 on:** January 25, 2002, 04:55:07 AM »

Hey Tony I finally got your book, as a Christmas gift. Nice job.

Tony Williams · « **Reply #7 on:** January 25, 2002, 06:53:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by funkedup
Hey Tony I finally got your book, as a Christmas gift. Nice job.

Glad you like it - there's an update page on my site with additional information (and even the odd correction!).

Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
http://website.lineone.net/~a_g_williams
Gun and ammunition discussions at:
http://www.delphi.com/autogun/messages

Vermillion · « **Reply #8 on:** January 25, 2002, 07:00:29 AM »

Hey Tony

You never did respond to my email awhile back

I got one spare copy of each of the two German TM 9-1985's, one is on projectiles, and the second on explosive ordinance.

If you want em I just gotta throw em in the mail.

Tony Williams · « **Reply #9 on:** January 25, 2002, 03:22:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vermillion
Hey Tony

You never did respond to my email awhile back

I got one spare copy of each of the two German TM 9-1985's, one is on projectiles, and the second on explosive ordinance.

If you want em I just gotta throw em in the mail.

Didn't I? Sorry, didn't mean to be impolite. When it comes to aircraft ammo, I hoover up anything going

I'll send you an email.

Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
http://website.lineone.net/~a_g_williams/index.htm
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://www.delphi.com/autogun/messages

brady · « **Reply #10 on:** January 25, 2002, 07:24:27 PM »

Ya Tony u never sent me your adress so I could send one your way, I think I was going to send you the one on Japanes ordance.