# Fw-190 - Catastrophic Cannon Ammunition Detonations



## Broncazonk (Aug 10, 2008)

Below is a link to four (4) gun camera films where the outboard cannon ammunition on a Fw-190 detonates catastrophically under .50 cal fire.

When the ammunition drum explodes - the wing falls off - everytime.

Why didn't the Germans utilize ammunition trays running linearally along the wing, instead of poorly protected ammunition drums?

If I'm not mistaken, the ammo drum was not even protected from behind! (From the front, but not behind.)

Bronc


(Download the free Google player to view) 

US fighters VS geramns planes, ww2


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 10, 2008)

Only the early model Fw-190's were fitted with MG FF/M cannon in the outer wings. (which utilized drum magazines)

Some were not fitted with the outer wing guns at all, and later models used the belt fed (also much higher performing) MG-151/20 cannon in the outer wings. (the same cannon as used in the wing root, though very early 190's had LMG's in the wing root and some late model Antons had 30mm MK-108's)


----------



## Broncazonk (Aug 11, 2008)

All four (4) films look to be 1945 (just guessing) late-war air combat. I doubt the Fw-190 was flying with FF drums as well.

The cannon ammunition in the outer wing station is definitely exploding (in the films) leading to catastrophic wing separation.

Even though the MG-151/20 ammo was in links, I think it was enclosed in a can, a tight - densely packed arrangement that was apparently prone to exploding. 

Did .50 cal belts laid out in trays do the same thing?

Bronc


----------



## KrazyKraut (Aug 11, 2008)

Since the .50 cal rounds weren't HE they obviously wouldn't explode.

I highly doubt spreading out the rounds would've helped any, only would've made the area easier to hit.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 11, 2008)

Pretty wild shots.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 12, 2008)

And if it was late war 190's it may also have been ones with the MK-108's in the wings, and a single hit to one of those shells would take the wing off.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 13, 2008)

Good footage. I wonder if the German pilots were able to bale out after that, or if the plane was pulling too many G's.


----------



## Erich (Aug 13, 2008)

second clip was taken from a 78th fg P-47 in late 1943


----------



## Udet (Aug 13, 2008)

...


----------



## Broncazonk (Aug 13, 2008)

The Fw-190 A-D and Ta-152 are my favorite airplanes ever. But, if the wing blew off after a .50 cal strike, the wing blew off. This thread has nothing to do with national pride and whose wang-dang is biggest and bestest.

I've since looked at all my books (about 20 on the Fw-190) and have discovered that the outer-wing cannon station on the A series aircraft were completely unprotected. The A-8/R8 experimental series aircraft had forward(20mm), upper (4mm) and bottom (4mm) armor, but nothing protecting the rear. 

The 20mm/30mm ammunition canister/drum/can/box was resting on the 9th wing rib and if it exploded, that's where the wing separated.

The question is: Catastrophic wing separations are obvious, "wow" events. They would have been seen and reported by other Fw-190 pilots in the East and West. These men were flying with the equivalent of a box of dynamite in both wings, with no protection whatsoever.

Why didn't someone fix this problem or remove the danger?? That's the question.

BTW: If you have gun camera of P-47 wing flying off, I want to see it. I've already asked whether .50 cal shell-casings (propellant) detonated and the answer was no.

Bronc


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 13, 2008)

Easy Udet. Adler has warned you about this before.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Aug 14, 2008)

Broncazonk said:


> The Fw-190 A-D and Ta-152 are my favorite airplanes ever. But, if the wing blew off after a .50 cal strike, the wing blew off. This thread has nothing to do with national pride and whose wang-dang is biggest and bestest.
> 
> I've since looked at all my books (about 20 on the Fw-190) and have discovered that the outer-wing cannon station on the A series aircraft were completely unprotected. The A-8/R8 experimental series aircraft had forward(20mm), upper (4mm) and bottom (4mm) armor, but nothing protecting the rear.
> 
> ...


I meant to say they would not explode like a 20mm Minengeschoss would, that's all  

Regarding the Fw 190: You have 4 clips which may show a detonation of the ammunition box (they likely do).

However this is also the first time I ever hear about this "issue" so maybe it was a rather rare problem? Were ammunition storages in wings typically heavily armored? To stop a .50 cal at typical combat distance you'd need _at least_ something like 10-15mm iirc, that's a lot of extra weight in the wings. So I guess it simply wasn't worth it. Also in two of these clips the shots come from almost 90 degrees vertical so any rear protection would've been useless.

Btw: What types of US planes were attacking here? Only asking because I think a P-38 could possibly tear a wing off on its own.


----------

