# Your armament?



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 5, 2005)

What armament would you choose for your WW2 plane?

I think a Mk103 through the propellor hub and 4 x .50's in the wings (both)wouldn't be unrealistic for, say a Ta152?


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 5, 2005)

Hmmm.. the Mk103 was very heavy and 'slow firing', maybe the Mk108 was a better compromise.

I think an interesting discussion would be to analyze the different approach in fighters armament: Germans (and Russians) favoured the concentration of weapons in the nose (the inner MG151 of the Fw190 are so close that can be considered fuselage mounted), while Americans and British spreaded the armament in the wings.

Both solutions have of course pro and cons, as a start for the 'nose solution' they could be (all other conditions being equal):

Pro
- No horizontal harmonization issues
- Wings are lighter : better roll? I suppose that a heavier wing has a bigger inertia
- Concentrated firepower
- less vulnerability to enemy fire (smaller area and ammo more protected than a wing mounted solution) 

Con
- slower rate of fire, due to synchronization with propeller arc
- more complicated installation
- less probability to hit the target with a 'nearly miss'
- small changes in CG when the ammo are used up


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 5, 2005)

For fighter to fighter combat on a real WW2 airplane, nothing beats the combination of 4 20mm MG 151s in the wings and 2 13.2 mm MG 131 in the cowling of a Fw190A-6 or later. 

Close runner up would be the Tempest with the Mk V Hispanos with increased rate of fire and 200 rpg.

The Beaufighter and Mosquito also deserve special mention. The fighter bomber versions of the Mossie mounted 4 Hispanos with 300 rpg and 4 .303s with 3000 rpg! The Australian versions of the Beaufighter had 4 M2 Brownings with 500 rpg and 4 Hispanos with 250 rpg. British versions had 4 Hispanos and 6 Browning .303s! 

Technically speaking, I prefer the British/Soviet approach of high velocity, flat trajectory cannons with a high AP and moderate HE value. Easier to shoot at small targets than with lighter shells, much better terminal and AP effects than a HMG and similar MV and ROF to a HMG.

So, my ultimate single seater fighter armament would probably be a FW-190A equipped with 4 Hispano Mk V in the wings and a Soviet UBS Heavy Machine gun in the cowling.

For bomber interception nothing can really better the He-219 'Uhu'. The A-R/7-1 had 2 Mk 108s in the wing roots, plus two more and 2 Mg 151/20s in the gun tray. It also carried 2 more MK 108s in a Schrage Musik installation. Total of 6 Mk 108s and two Mg 151/20s!

Fighter armament

1st Hispano Mk V 20mm
2nd Berezin B-20 20mm
3rd UBS 12.7mm 

Bomber armament

1st Mk 108 20mm
2nd MG 151/20 (especially with MG shells)
3rd Hispano Mk V 20mm


----------



## Erich (Oct 5, 2005)

There never was a He 219A-7 variant used in combat. I./NJG 1 reduced the armament to just 2cm weapons except for the Schräg waffen. two 2cm's in the wingroots and usually 4 2cm in the belley tray. the 2cm actually was a prefferred arms in the German nf force over the forward 3cm which caused too much debris to fly off and then having to fly through it.............

I./NJG 1 Uhu's were either the A-0 or A-2's; no A-5 variants or A-6 mossie chasers were ever given to the unit, nor any A-7's


----------



## trackend (Oct 5, 2005)

Eight 13mm 131's with a total of 7440 rpm


----------



## Erich (Oct 5, 2005)

8 MG 151/20's 2cm's forward armament as fitted to some ZG 26 Me 410B's in early 1944 ~ aka "Watering Can"


----------



## MacArther (Oct 5, 2005)

Two .50s, two 40mms and 2 .30 caliburs to aim the 40mms and act as back up weapons.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 5, 2005)

trackend said:


> Eight 13mm 131's with a total of 7440 rpm






Id have 2xMG-151/20's in the wing roots, 4x .50's in the outer wings, and a 37mm firing through the Prop hub...


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 5, 2005)

For ground attack, id like to have seen the B25's with twelve .50's for the front and a pair of Hispano's in the tail (to finish up the job).


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 5, 2005)

I'd go for 10 x B20 cannon mounted on a P-47M/N, with 300 rpg. They'd fit and even save a little weight over 8 x .50's. Range would still be adequate though only about 3/4ths that of the .50's, but with an RoF of 8000 rpm and initial velocity in the 850 m/s range this would be awsome fire power. 

Or 8 x B20's on a P-51, P-38, or Corsair.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 5, 2005)

That would be pretty awesome...Especially on a -38...


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 5, 2005)

Fighter

2 x Hispano MKV in wings
2 x MG151/20 in wings
1 x 37mm 2 MG131 or 2 x MG151/20 and 2 MG131 in nose

Night Fighter

2 x MK108 in rear fuselage firing upwards (can't remember the name)
2 x Hispano MKV in wings
8 x MG151/20 in nose (like the ME410 "Watering Can" mentioned by Erich earlier) 

Ground attack

4 x MK108 in nose
6 x 50" in nose
12 x 60lb Rockets
Bombs/Napalm


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 5, 2005)

> 2 x MK108 in rear fuselage firing upwards (can't remember the name)



i know what it's called but i'll be buggered if i can spell it........


----------



## Erich (Oct 5, 2005)

Schräge Muzik or Schrägwaffen for short ............. 8) 

it was general acceptance to remove the heavier Mk 108 3cm from this installation except on the He 219 A-0 and A-2's as the debris from the 3cm's was so severe that the Uhu's were damaged by it while underneath the RAF heavies. 2cm with Glimmspur ammo was used giving just a very faint tracer where the crew could follow it to it's destination in the Bf 110G-4 and Ju 88 variants, and thus not quite having the terrible "blowing out effect" from the heavier 3cm's. the 3cm's also had a very large flash when firing


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 5, 2005)

Thats the one Erich. Thanks.


----------



## Sal Monella (Oct 5, 2005)

Six 20mm's on a P-47.


----------



## MacArther (Oct 5, 2005)

dont know if exists, but what about a bomber with .50 cal miniguns? That would *really* suck to go up against.[/i]


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 5, 2005)

For the single engine planes I would standardize with 2x20mm in the cowling + 2x20mm in wing roots FW190 style, all of the same type, no matter if Hispano or MG: that would be enough to scrap any fighter or medium bomber.
Just add a Mk108 or a Shvak in the propeller hub to take care of the heavies and for ground strike.

Twins : here the options can be endless, I just would stay with a max of 2 different types of weapons for ballistic harmonization and maintenance reasons.


----------



## Glider (Oct 5, 2005)

Some of these planes would be lucky to get off the ground


----------



## Erich (Oct 5, 2005)

no kidding Glider.............pure fantasy but I think this is what this thread is about


----------



## plan_D (Oct 5, 2005)

A nuclear bomb.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 5, 2005)

LOL Lanc  .


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Oct 5, 2005)

In a single engine fighter i would have two nose mounted M2 12.7mm machine guns with 300 rounds per gun. i would have two inner wing mounted Mg-151/20s with 175 rounds per gun, and a hub mounted Mg-151/20 with 100 rounds. 

For a twin engine fighter/interceptor/night fighter, i would have three Mg-131 13mm machine guns with 500 rounds per gun, and two Mg-151/20 with 250 rounds per gun. The Mg-131 mounted in belly tray, and the two cannon, one in each side of the nose.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 5, 2005)

I think I should remind everyone (I forgot muyself  ) that a 'hub gun' is impossible for a radial engined aircraft.

Also I wouldn't have any fuselage guns due to the heavy interrupter gear etc, though I would have a hub gun.

*Parmigiano:*



> Hmmm.. the Mk103 was very heavy and 'slow firing', maybe the Mk108 was a better compromise.



A Mk108 with a Mk103 barrel?



> Germans (and Russians) favoured the concentration of weapons in the nose.



The Russians actually considered this armament silly, unless flown by experienced pilots.

There was a report of Allied 'helper' pilots preffering Soviet aircraft armament, whilst the Soviets preffered the Hurricane's.



> the inner MG151 of the Fw190 are so close that can be considered fuselage mounted)



Yeah, I was wondering that, thanks Parmigiano.



> - No horizontal harmonization issues



Good point!



> - Wings are lighter : better roll? I suppose that a heavier wing has a bigger inertia



They could also be made smaller...



> (smaller area and ammo more protected than a wing mounted solution)



I'm wondering with the ammo being so close to a hot engine...



> - slower rate of fire, due to synchronization with propeller arc



This doesn't matter with 'hub guns'.



> - less probability to hit the target with a 'nearly miss'



I don't understand.  Unless you mean spray-and-pray?



> - small changes in CG when the ammo are used up



Wouldn't this happen with wing armament?

*Jabberwocky:*

I agree with you on the Moquito/Beaufighter. 8) 



> I prefer the British/Soviet approach of high velocity, flat trajectory cannons with a high AP and moderate HE value. Easier to shoot at small targets than with lighter shells, much better terminal and AP effects than a HMG and similar MV and ROF to a HMG.



Yes and no for me; I'd prefer a high calibre, high velocity, flat trajectory cannon with a high RoF, firing the German/Soviet APHE round, or Flak ammo.

A pure AP shell is not going to be as damaging as a 20mm HE shell or a .50 API or even plain AP round?

I've often wondered what a HEAT or HESH round would do to a plane?

Or even a tellermine-type warhead?



> 1st Mk 108 20mm



Why this over a MG 151/20?

*trackend:*



> Eight 13mm 131's with a total of 7440 rpm



I wonder if you could fit thAT in the wings of a Spitfire?



Erich said:


> 8 MG 151/20's 2cm's forward armament as fitted to some ZG 26 Me 410B's in early 1944 ~ aka "Watering Can"



8) 



cheddar cheese said:


> Id have 2xMG-151/20's in the wing roots, 4x .50's in the outer wings, and a 37mm firing through the Prop hub...



Hell yeah!  What aircraft?

*Lunatic:*

Sorry Lunatic, what's a B20?  

*Gnomey:*

*Fighter 

2 x Hispano MKV in wings 
2 x MG151/20 in wings 
1 x 37mm 2 MG131 or 2 x MG151/20 and 2 MG131 in nose *

Why the MG151/20's mixed with the Hispanos?

*2 x MK108 in rear fuselage firing upwards (can't remember the name) *

Shrage Muzic or jazz music is easier to remember?



Erich said:


> the debris from the 3cm's was so severe that the Uhu's were damaged by it while underneath the RAF heavies.



Didn't know (or forgot) that. 8) 



Sal Monella said:


> Six 20mm's on a P-47.



Oh yeah!



MacArther said:


> dont know if exists, but what about a bomber with .50 cal miniguns?



I think that a similar armament was put on a Chafee tank? 8) 

*Parmigiano:*



> For the single engine planes I would standardize with 2x20mm in the cowling + 2x20mm in wing roots FW190 style, all of the same type, no matter if Hispano or MG



I'm not a fan of that one.



> Just add a Mk108 or a Shvak in the propeller hub to take care of the heavies and for ground strike.



I like that!

*Glider wrote:*



> Some of these planes would be lucky to get off the ground



*Erich replied:*



> no kidding Glider.............pure fantasy but I think this is what this thread is about



But some are really truly excellent (and practical) ideas IMHO. 8) 



PlanD said:


> A nuclear bomb.



 But not for a low-level attacker/fighter?  

You could always have the nose cone made into a huge warhead.  

Wasn't there a piloted V1 planned actually?



carpenoctem1689 said:


> In a single engine fighter i would have two nose mounted M2 12.7mm machine guns with 300 rounds per gun. i would have two inner wing mounted Mg-151/20s with 175 rounds per gun, and a hub mounted Mg-151/20 with 100 rounds.



Thats great, however why the inner wing mount?

I'm guessing because it's the best of both worlds?

I wonder whether it would be better to move them only just out of the propellors swept area?


For ground attack/ heavy fighter role I'm a fan of a single Ju88-type 75mm slung under the nose, firing Flak ammo.

Maybe combined with some Hispano 20mm's (2 or 4?)

Also, if the plane is heavy, rockets could assist take off. Though it is better not to go that heavy IMHO.


----------



## MacArther (Oct 5, 2005)

But still, could you imagine the world of hurt that a .50 cal electric gatling would inflict on enemy fighters trying to catch U.S. bombers? You could litterally have one gun per position and still shoot the planes out of the sky with ease.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 5, 2005)

Hi Macarther,

A Chaffe light tank had one in WW2 IIRC?

I was thinking what an MG-131 13mm married to the roller-delayed blowback action of the MG42 would be like? 8) 


What was the RoF for a MG-131 13mm anyway?


For some of these guns, aluminium could be swapped for steel, lightening it.


Also look how the MG34 evolved into the MG42, very interesting; much cheaper, lighter, more reliable and of course doubled RoF. 8) 

If the same was done for most cannons...


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Oct 5, 2005)

Yes i would have put my guns on the inner part of the wing nearest the fuesalge because it allowed good ammo carriage, and a more concentrated cone of fire, without having all of the guns mounted right in the nose, which i really dont like, i prefer a balanced distribution to be honest. It also made it so that the aircraft didnt need any blisters on the wings, and it improved roll rate.


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 5, 2005)

Scwhartz said:


> A Mk108 with a Mk103 barrel?



- well, I always wondered why Rheinmetall did not 'stretch' the barrel of the Mk108 ... I have no clue/info



Scwhartz said:


> The Russians actually considered this armament silly, unless flown by experienced pilots



but not their engineers, many russian fighters had weapons concentrated in the nose



Scwhartz said:


> I'm wondering with the ammo being so close to a hot engine...



Good point, although I have not read of special issues except the first installations on the 109E3; apparently after they ironed it out the installations were reliable




Scwhartz said:


> I don't understand. Unless you mean spray-and-pray?



Not exactly. In a horizontal harmonization you have a theoretical point where all bullets converge, after that point the bullets will diverge at the same angle of harmonization. But they don't vanish, they cover a bigger area with a lower density. Hence, if you are harmonized at 300m and you shoot 100 mt left or right at, say, 500mt you have some chance to hit the target even if with fewer bullets.



Scwhartz said:


> Wouldn't this happen with wing armament?



Supposedly the lift force of an aircraft is centered on the wings, so changes in weight centered on the wings should not alter the CG. 
On the fuselage, instead, you have the same neutral effect only on the part above the wings. That's why most planes had the main fuselage tank above the wing or very close to that (and also why the Mustang was so tricky with the rear fuselage tank filled)

About the 4x20mm 'nose concentrated', it is just my fixation to standardize the ballistic of weaponry: different weapons have different ranges and vertical dispersion. And 4x12.7 would be enough for a fighter but too light to tackle a medium bomber, hence for me the best compromise is 4x20.

But probably the best configuration was the one with pusher propeller: in this case you have the nose free for weaponry without having to synchronize the prop. 
Latest fighter designs (at least the Germans Arado, Messerschmitt-Lippish, Blohm&Voss, Dornier) had a pusher layout, but they were already made obsolete by the jet designs.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Oct 6, 2005)

The Do-335 i wouldnt consider obsolete even at the very end of the war, even when faced with jet fighters. It was heavy, manouverable compared to jets, and had a good dive and amrament. It could have been a potent fighter/interceptor into 1946, if it were continually upgraded with the times. Not to mention the fact the good prop driven aircraft werent really obsolete in germany, even when the 262, and 162 were flying, because the prop aircraft were by FAR more reliable, and could stay airbrone longer. The german jet engines were not reliable enough to make all prop driven aircraft effectivly obsolete. it was the constant belief in the tide changing "wonder weapon" midset that negated pop driven aircraft to the germans. Had i been in the situation, seeing how the BMW 003, and the Jumo004 jets performed, reliability wise, i would have focused on prop fighters like the Do-335 and the Ta-152H instead, until they could overcome the reliability shortcoming of the turbojets.


----------



## Glider (Oct 6, 2005)

I would stick with 4 Hispano V cannons. Its more than enough to knock down any fighter and do serious, possibly terminal damage to any heavy bomber depending on where you hit it. 
The extra weight that a number of you are lugging around I would trade for extra ammo.


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 6, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> *Lunatic:*
> 
> Sorry Lunatic, what's a B20?



The B20 was basically a necked up version of the 12.7mm Berezin machine gun. It fired the same ammo as the ShVAK (the "OF" HE-Frag round carried 6.7 grams of HE).

This gun was used on the La7-FNV (approximately 386 deployed durring WWII), commonly refered to as the "3 cannon La-7".

The critical factor of this gun is its very low weight and very high reliability. Jam rates were in the 1:4000 rounds fired catagory and could often be cleared with a recharge (many guns like the Hispano have less than a 50% chance of successfully clearing a jam via gun recharging). The B-20 weighed only 25 kg including mounting hardware. This compares to:

.50 BMG = 30 kg
Hispano II = 50 kg
MG151/20 = 42 kg
MK108 = 44 kg

And none of those weights except the .50 include the mounting hardware, so add about another 20%. And most .50's were mounted in Edgewater recoil mounts and the weights of those are not included (as it is more than just a mount really). The Hispano in particular required a seriously heavy mount as it is not structurally sound on its own.

The B-20 rof was about 800 rpm in the La7 - _this was a synchronized installation!_ Unsynchronized I believe the gun fired at 1150 rpms but I've not found any WWII data to confirm this (post-war it was used in the UBT format in bomber turrets). Muzzel velocity varied from about 770 m/s to about 825 m/s depending on the ammo type, perhaps more in the fixed mounted unsync'd installations. Ammo fit in the same belt links as the 12.7 mm ammo, so belt length was the same, therefore approximately the same number of rounds could be fit in a given gun tray as would fit for a .50 BMG. Eight B-20's could probably be mounted for just a little more cost in weight than six .50's.

So to my thinking, all things considered, the B-20 was the best aircraft gun of WWII. It had enough hitting power to down any target considering its velocity characteristics, RoF, and the number of guns that could be mounted.

As an example, consider an FW190A-8 could have carried 6 of these guns and would have been toting only 75% as much weight as the German armament of 4 x MG151/20's + 2 x MG131's, and it would have had only a little over half as much weight out in the outer guns creating less of an unsprung weight issue (which is bad for roll characteristics and overall manuverability). And the guns would have jammed only about 1/3rd as often as the MG151/20's!

For the weight of 4 Hispano's you could carry at least 10 B-20's! (including the required mounting weight).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 6, 2005)

Schwarzpanzer. Dunno why I mixed them both I just like them both.

The B20 sound like a pretty nice gun though Lunatic. Good info.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 6, 2005)

Id go with 8 MG-151's.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 6, 2005)

how comes no one's done an armourment for a bomber?? i'm working on one now!


----------



## MacArther (Oct 6, 2005)

Thats what I was talking about. 6 .50 cal electric gatling guns, and maybe a .55 in coupled with the gun in the tail.


----------



## Erich (Oct 6, 2005)

.................... back for a moment on the WW 2 night fighter arrangement. It was found by all A/F that under the belly was the preference due to the muzzle flash of either mg's or cannon in the nose, the crew being blinded. the Bf 110G-4 when it was still used in 1945 had the upper guns usually fitted with flash retarders.

As for the MK 108 fitted through the hub, yes ! look at the Ta 152H, some of the Bf 109G6/AS, G-10 variants all had lengthened inner barrels


----------



## MacArther (Oct 6, 2005)

I've heard that the .50 was effective, but I have also heard that it was not enough. So, would a .50 minigun on a fighter or bomber be enough of an armament. Lets say a figher with 2 .50 miniguns and a bomber with 4 miniguns.


----------



## Glider (Oct 6, 2005)

For what its worth I believe that a 0.50 minigun isn't enough for a fighter but is ideal as a defensive weapon on a bomber. The theory is as follows.

A .50 minigun on a fighter would I suspect not be enough because to knock down a heavy bomber you need more punch. It would however be more than enough to shoot down a fighter at short to medium range. A minigun probably has about the same rof as 6 .50 and you needed more firepower than that to take on a B17 type bomber let alone a B29. Using the 1 to 6 ratio, two miniguns would be roughly equal to 4 20mm Hispano cannons which would suffice but I don't believe would be a major improvement on the firpower of a number of WW2 aircraft. 

However I do believe that a .50 would be ideal as a defensive weapon on a bomber. The 0.50 was accurate at long range a fact which I think everyone will agree to. A minigun with its massive rof in a compact package, will be able to hit the incoming fighter at a long range. 
Even though at long range it might not have the power to shoot the fighter down, as a defensive weapon on a bomber that was less important. The primary role of a defensive weapon is to stop the defending plane being shot down. No attacking plane taking hits at long range is going to keep coming in, it will take evasive action to get out of the line of fire.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 6, 2005)

Glider said:


> For what its worth I believe that a 0.50 minigun isn't enough for a fighter but is ideal as a defensive weapon on a bomber. The theory is as follows.
> 
> A .50 minigun on a fighter would I suspect not be enough because to knock down a heavy bomber you need more punch. It would however be more than enough to shoot down a fighter at short to medium range. A minigun probably has about the same rof as 6 .50 and you needed more firepower than that to take on a B17 type bomber let alone a B29. Using the 1 to 6 ratio, two miniguns would be roughly equal to 4 20mm Hispano cannons which would suffice but I don't believe would be a major improvement on the firpower of a number of WW2 aircraft.
> 
> ...


Good points Glider. I agree with you on them all.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 6, 2005)

A Fw-190D-9 with a 30mm Aden firing through the hub and a 20mm Vulcan in each wing. Is that enough to bring down a B-17?


----------



## Glider (Oct 6, 2005)

If he could catch it with that lot. The 30mm Aden would do it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2005)

Im sure a Fw-190 would catch it.


----------



## Glider (Oct 7, 2005)

Carrying 2 Vulcans and an Aden?. Even money on the recoil taking the wings off.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Oct 7, 2005)

Does anyone put thought into ammo carriage on the fighters designed to carry these? mini guns fire FAST, and the ammo supply normally carried would be depleted very, very quickly, making the design effective for about three seconds until the ammo is gone.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 8, 2005)

miniguns were suggested for use on american bombers that normally carried several tons of ammo- rate of fire's not a problem!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 8, 2005)

Not true. As he said a mini gun is out of ammo after seconds of sustained fire. You would have to have a hell of of a lot of ammo and it is not like feeding a belt of 7.62 into a machine gun. It takes time to reload.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 8, 2005)

I'll put an ejection seat in my Fw-190D-9 ...just in case the Vulcans do rip the wings off.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Oct 8, 2005)

and if you look at my post you would have seen the magical word of fightes, i realise bombers could carry more ammo than a fighter, and were a better potential mount, but still somewhat unrealistic, due to the fact it doesnt do any good to knock one plane down quickly but be out of ammo, id rather have slower firing weapons, while less effective, just as ranged, powerful, and have a longer firing life.


----------



## MacArther (Oct 8, 2005)

ooo, what about 40mm automatic grenade launchers (like the ones used on US Humvee roofs and the like)


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Oct 8, 2005)

what about them? the arc fromt he 40mm shell would be too hard to aim at a fighter, incoming on the bomber, and wouldnt be able to be easily aimed at bombers, and wouldnt be able to carry whole lot of ammunition. Yes if the 40mm shell hit the bomber, it would most likely go down with just one hit, but i think the idea infeasible.


----------



## Erich (Oct 8, 2005)

why not just go with the WW 2: 5cm Bk 5 cannon ? 

well proven on ZG Me 410's when the silly thing would not jam. personally you really do not need anything bigger than 2cm quick firing weapons to do the job


----------



## Glider (Oct 8, 2005)

Or even the 57 on the Mossie. They did manage to shoot down an 88 with it.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Oct 8, 2005)

I agree with the arguement about rapid fire 2cm weapons. you dont need something bigger, the 2cm could shoot far, and had a good punch, and was rapid firing. The best all around gun/weapon available for use against bombers and fighters. 3cm and even 5cm id suggest for special anti-bomber, inetercept squadrons id set up, but those would of limited use against anything but slow, unescorted bombers, so they could take aim.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 9, 2005)

carpenoctem1689 said:


> and if you look at my post you would have seen the magical word of fightes, i realise bombers could carry more ammo than a fighter, and were a better potential mount, but still somewhat unrealistic, due to the fact it doesnt do any good to knock one plane down quickly but be out of ammo, id rather have slower firing weapons, while less effective, just as ranged, powerful, and have a longer firing life.



And if you look at my post it was not meant for yours! I was meaning my post for Lancs about how he said rates of fire were not a problem.



MacArther said:


> ooo, what about 40mm automatic grenade launchers (like the ones used on US Humvee roofs and the like)



Would not work, the Mark 19 lobs its rounds more than it shoots them in a straight distance. You could never really aim the Mark 19 and accuratly hit an aircraft in flight. It is really fun to shoot though. We have some in our unit, too bad thought that I can not mount one in my helicopter for ground supression fire!


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 10, 2005)

carpenoctem1689 said:


> Yes i would have put my guns on the inner part of the wing nearest the fuesalge because it allowed good ammo carriage, and a more concentrated cone of fire, without having all of the guns mounted right in the nose, which i really dont like, i prefer a balanced distribution to be honest. It also made it so that the aircraft didnt need any blisters on the wings, and it improved roll rate.



Very good points there carpenoctem.

Cheers for the info Parmigiano.

Also thanks to Lunatic for the B20 info, I was thinking it would be a Yank 20mm for some reason!  

The DShK was also better than the M2HB, wonder if they were similar?



Glider said:


> However I do believe that a .50 would be ideal as a defensive weapon on a bomber. The 0.50 was accurate at long range a fact which I think everyone will agree to


. 

Yes also wouldn't be as heavy and hard to aim as a minigun or 20mm, I'd have the B20 or DShK there.

I wonder though there if a single short-barreled Hispano or even Mk108 would be good for fighters that came in tooo close?


On the miniguns thing, they would require less firing time to down an aircraft, so using the same ammo?



Glider said:


> Or even the 57 on the Mossie. They did manage to shoot down an 88 with it.



Nice bit of info there Glider! 8) 



carpenoctem1689 said:


> I agree with the arguement about rapid fire 2cm weapons. you dont need something bigger, the 2cm could shoot far, and had a good punch, and was rapid firing.



Yes against all ground/air targets, it's either that or the .50 B20.



DerAdler said:


> bad thought that I can not mount one in my helicopter for ground supression fire!



Well, you could try?...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 10, 2005)

Yeah I wish.


----------



## MacArther (Oct 18, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet, do you know (off subject slightly) if your country still uses the F-105(/6) or the F4 Phantom? If so, I think I might be joining your airforce!!!


----------



## plan_D (Oct 18, 2005)

Adler is in the U.S Army ...


----------



## MacArther (Oct 18, 2005)

DOH!! my bad big time!!!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 18, 2005)

About five squadrons in the German Luftwaffe fly the F-4F.


----------



## MacArther (Oct 18, 2005)

:acking bags:: Looks like I'm off to Germany to serve in their Airforce


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 18, 2005)

It seems to me that as far as WWII fighters with a limited armament load could use a combination to get both hitting power and length od fire that is worthwile

The P-38 had 4 .50s with 400rnds and 1 20mm with 150 rnds, though less were often carried to ensure feed of the shells.

With a conventional layout it seems to me that 2 20mm and 4 .50s would be a great layout for just about anything while still giving a length of fire thats adequate for most missions.

Of course later planes that can cary more, larger armament packages don't have this problem. 

wmaxt


----------



## plan_D (Oct 18, 2005)

The Spitfire armaments of two Hispano Mk.II 20mm and two Browning .50cal seemed to work pretty well. Either that or replace the two .50cal with four .303cal. The later Spitfire 21 had four Hispano II 20mm ...which would have been quite the hitter.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 18, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Spitfire armaments of two Hispano Mk.II 20mm and two Browning .50cal seemed to work pretty well. Either that or replace the two .50cal with four .303cal. The later Spitfire 21 had four Hispano II 20mm ...which would have been quite the hitter.



I agree 4 20mm are hard hitting but for what 6-10 seconds. I like your first choice best, esp if the firing poriod is extended. With 2 20mm with 10 seconds (or more) of fire and 4 .50s and 20 sec (or more) of fire your still a very hard hitter but can defend oneself on the way out?

Just my thought.

wmaxt


----------



## Glider (Oct 18, 2005)

I don't believe that the 303 added much to the firepower of a fighter at the end of the war. 
Also the ammo on a Spitfire would I believe last around 14 seconds which is enough for most people.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 22, 2005)

I think it was Hugh Dowding that wanted 4 x .303's? This was done after major research IIRC?

I was wondering on the ballistics of the 20mm round mentioned before, was APHE used? If so how effective? Would it detonate or simply pass out the other side?

Also the SpGr (HE) round was good ballistically and I['m sure the 20mm could outrange the .50?


Back onto fiction:

A hub-mounted Bofors firing Flak shells would have devestating accuracy and hitting power with a large blast radius, allowing for innacuracies?

That and maybe four D20's in the wings?


----------



## Glider (Oct 22, 2005)

My understanding was that the British had trouble with the fuses on the 20mm. They tended to either go off on contact or not at all. The ideal was for it to explode a fraction of a second after contact with the skin of the enemy plane so it would do the most damage inside the aircraft.
It was sorted out but until that time a number of squadrons only used AP.
Once sorted, it was of course a very effective shell.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 22, 2005)

I know they didn't use APHE on tanks shells like the Germans and Russians did, but that was due to penetration issues.

I thought exploding on contact would be very damaging to an aircraft frame/skin?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 23, 2005)

well it would do more damage if it exploded inside the fusilage if you think about it, it'd actually cause more damage than just blowing off a side pannel..........


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 23, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Also the SpGr (HE) round was good ballistically and I'm sure the 20mm could outrange the .50?



That's interesting considering that *NOT ONE 20MM (AIRCRAFT GUN) DURING WW2 OUTRANGED THE .50 BMG!*

What makes you think the SpGr HE round had good ballistics? Virtually all German (and British and Soviet and US) HE rounds in WWII had flat fronts for the fuse. Only the Japanese were crazy enough to use explosives volitile enough not to require a fuse allowing pointed projectiles. In the case of the MG151/20, the relatively poor sectional density combine with the flat nose leads to poor ballistics.

Some experimentation with more pointy designs was conducted, and the best practical example of this was probably the Ausf. C 30mm MK108 mine rounds, but even these had comparatively quite poor ballistcs vs. the .50 BMG.

Do the math yourself for the sectional density.

The area of a circle is _Pi x radius squared_. So for a 20mm round it is 3.14 x 10 x 10 = 314 square millimeters. Now divide the weight of the round by this area. For the MG151/20 HE round you are looking at about 100 grams (actually less but I don't want to look it up right now) so the sectional density is about 100/314 = ~3.18 grams / mm squared.

For the .50 BMG API round it works out about like this...

3.14 x 6.35 x 6.35 = ~126.5 square mm's.
44/126.5 = 3.5 grams/square mm.

For the AP round it works out to about 3.83 grams/ square mm.

And then there is the shape to consider... (images from www.quarry.nildram.co.uk)







The .50 is second from the left.






The MG151/20 HE round is 4th from the left.

As you can see, the MG151/20 shape is very much inferior to that of the .50 round. Inferior sectional density plus inferior ballistic shape = inferior ballistic performance.

Even the 20mm Hispano (all the way on the right of the 20mm rounds image), with its much superior 4.14 grams/square-mm sectional density had inferior ballistc performance to the .50 BMG. The MG151/20 was not even close.

=S=

Lunatic[/b]


----------



## Erich (Oct 23, 2005)

=S=

I agree with the difficulty in the range problems the German possessed for the duration of the war, but ask any surviving Luftwaffe fighter pilot and they all say the same thing, that their ammo could not be beat. Granted shorter range is sometimes easier to provilde the killing blow, but also it is remembered that your enemy may also have a bead on you as well............in comes the .50 cal


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

MacArther said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet, do you know (off subject slightly) if your country still uses the F-105(/6) or the F4 Phantom? If so, I think I might be joining your airforce!!!



As was stated by others about 5 squadrons still use the F4 Phantom however they are all just reconnaisance squandrons. It is no longer the front line fighter of Germany. For front line fighters they use the Tornado which will be replaced by the Typhoon (thank god!)

As was also pointed out I in the US Army. I was born German and still hold a German Passport and lived most of life in Germany but I am in the US Army but am based in Germany.


----------



## book1182 (Nov 1, 2005)

I haven't seen very much said about the German 30mm cannon. It was a very powerful weapon. I have heard that 3 rounds could take down a bomber and 1 round for a fighter. I know it had a slow rate of fire and it's range probably wasn't the best but didn't they say don't shot till you see the whites of his eyes. You would also believe that it would also make for a good ground attack gun since the 37mm cannon was used by JU-87's to destroy tanks.


----------



## Erich (Nov 1, 2005)

look at my SturmFw thread and some of the older threads involving IV.Sturm/JG 3 which had the whites of the eyes sewn into their lederjackes for most of their gruppe history......


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 1, 2005)

And man what a history... 

And it has been said that more than once, a B-24 was taken out with one (1) well placed 30mm minen round... 

And another thing, it was quite common for a Luftwaffe pilot to come in on target, get some hits from the machine guns, and then press the cannon button... Bomber is now on fire and HSS...

Thats the way several of Willi Reschkes kills went down.... Hardly any rounds expended... Once, on an attack on a B-24, his guns quit, he recharged, they quit... Then he just decided to ram it, and possibly sheer off the tail....

He just decided.... Thats just heroic to me... He clips it, the bomber falls and explodes in mid-air... His wing is damaged and he bails... 

And he got credit for the kill.... The Mk108 was a hell of a weap for its eventual use...


----------



## hartmann (Nov 2, 2005)

It would be intersting a Fw 190 D or TA152 with the revolver gun Mauser MG 213 C in his two variants, 20 and 30 mm (to consider more realistic than an Aden gun I think IMHO  ), the 30 mm in the engine spinner, and the two 20 mm in the wingroots 8) . A lot of hellfire which It could shot, hehehehe.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 2, 2005)

I think those weapons were too large for the available space given in those 2 airframes...


----------



## hartmann (Nov 2, 2005)

Well, It is partially true for the wingroots (1,93 m long for the 20 mm model, which was in fact the largest of these two) , but the TA 152 is mentioned to be rearmed in late models with the MK 103 in the spinner, as the Do 335, and this gun is 2,318 m, so in this place it is right.
See in these sites, they are great about the matter (the problem is the language, hehehe).  
http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/bordwaffen-R.htm
http://me109.sofiacity.com/Waffen/MK103/MK103.htm
A lot of thanks for your opinion lesofprimus.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Nov 2, 2005)

*Lunatic:*



> NOT ONE 20MM (AIRCRAFT GUN) DURING WW2 OUTRANGED THE .50 BMG!



It was a Me109 vs a B17, it was the story were the Me pilot let him go, you may have heard of it?



> Inferior sectional density plus inferior ballistic shape = inferior ballistic performance.



Sectional density and shape is all well and good, but a big cartridge and a long barrell...

Thanks for the pics anyway.  



DerAdler said:


> For front line fighters they use the Tornado which will be replaced by the Typhoon (thank god!)



You're kidding right??  I've heard it's the 'SA80 of the skies'!  



book1182 said:


> You would also believe that it would also make for a good ground attack gun since the 37mm cannon was used by JU-87's to destroy tanks.



The 37mm was developed from the 'doorknocker' Pak gun, designed from the outset for anti-tank work. It had a long barrel and (stupidly IMHO) fired APCR rounds made with precious Tungsten. These rounds had better armour penetration than standard Manganese steel projectiles. I doubt the 30mm would be anywhere close, though 30mm HE rounds would be very effective for ground attack, they would be useless for anti-tank work.



lesofprimus said:


> And another thing, it was quite common for a Luftwaffe pilot to come in on target, get some hits from the machine guns, and then press the cannon button... Bomber is now on fire and HSS...



Hammer down! 8) 

Sorry, 'Pearl Harbour moment' there.  



hartmann said:


> It would be intersting a Fw 190 D or TA152 with the revolver gun



I think it would be prone to overheating?


I agree with the bigger is better hub gun philosophy on here. 8)


----------



## Erich (Nov 2, 2005)

do a study on the Hs 129 and it's 3cm Mk 103 weapon and quite effective rounds against Soviet tanks. the 3cm Mk 108 was almost worthless in ground attack work via anti-armor. Shredding parked Allied or Soviet a/c is another matter altogether as shown in the ill vised Bodenplatte and attacks on forward Soviet airfields in 1945 within Germany. parked A/C was almost smeared off the earth by the cannon rounds


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 2, 2005)

> lesofprimus wrote:
> 
> And another thing, it was quite common for a Luftwaffe pilot to come in on target, get some hits from the machine guns, and then press the cannon button... Bomber is now on fire and HSS...





> schwarzpanzer wrote:
> 
> Hammer down!
> Sorry, 'Pearl Harbour moment' there.


I suddenly feel the urge to Afleck, I mean vomit...


----------



## delcyros (Nov 2, 2005)

From what I know, the 30 mm MK-101 was an even more powerful
anti tank weapon than was the MK-103. It had an even higher initial velocity (around 920 m/sec) but was replaced by the MK-103 because of its lower rate of fire.
According to what Lunatic said (and I think he is right here), the MG-151/20 hasn´t the ballistic performance of a 0.50. We should rather compare the MG 151/15 with this gun.


----------



## mosquitoman (Nov 4, 2005)

I'd take the armament of a Beau- 4x20mm Hispano and 6x .303 Brownings- helluva punch


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 4, 2005)

I like the Re-2005's armament: 2x 12.7mm and 3x 20mm 8)

http://www.aldini.it/re2005/performances.htm


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 4, 2005)

I like the FW190A8/R8 - 2x 20mm and 2x 30mm or the A8 - 4x 20mm and 2x 13mm or the 262 with 4x 30mm.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 4, 2005)

Yeap I have to go with that one too.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 4, 2005)

Nah I prefer the Re-2005, I can carry a ~2900lb bombload if I want to as well 8)


----------



## Erich (Nov 4, 2005)

sinister, deadly and most effective ......... 3cm Minengeschoss, HE

Favoured by the Sturmgruppen


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 4, 2005)

As I have said before, my choice is of course the Fw-190A8/R8 package, with 2x 30mm, 2x 20mm, and 2x 13mm, and of course that extra thick-ass armour...


----------



## Erich (Nov 4, 2005)

I personally think about deleting the mgs and having the mg troughs faired over for the A-8/R8. the 2cm could hit targets far enough and away.

the armor was a necessity as vets have said but a crapper in a one to one struggle with fighters, at leat 500 extra pounds in the critical cockpit, wing nose and around the cannons ........


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 4, 2005)

I have also read about covering the fairings over, and also of some of the Strums pilots who replaced the 108's with 151/20's....

The above plane of course would only be used as heavy gruppen... The top cover staffel in their Doras would take care of the Mustangs...

How many guys using that R kit went down after getting pounced from high Stangs??? 200??? 1000???

They really didnt combat too well with that extra weight, but man, having those B-17's .50cals bounce off ur plane while slamming 30mm minen rounds into her, jeez what a feeling Reschke and all those boys musta had...


----------



## helmitsmit (Nov 5, 2005)

I would have 4x 20mm cannon in the wings and two .50 on the top of the nose


----------



## Erich (Nov 5, 2005)

Les some of the sturm guys later in the war flew the basic scaled down A-8 as it was enough to take out any Allied heavy and still be a contender against the Stang. In the beginning the A-8/R2 gents were specifically ordered not to engage the Allied escorts and of course by September-October that was impossible, the idea was to bank through the bombers and dive, dive, for the deck and hopeful if shot down could make a 1000 ft bail out or lower to safety.
maybe 150 or so Sturms shot down by Stangs, some by the B-24/B-17 formations the heavy crew gunners of course thought everytime the SturmFw engine smoked and rolled they theought they nad gotten a kill. Note the last long posting in the SturmFw thread, all those kills accredited to one B-24...............NOT ! But I must say the .50 on the bombers, fighters could easily make mince meat out of the Sturm BMW in no time at all as witnessed through surviving German pilot accounts. W. Reschke usually flew in the fall of 44 a A-8/MK with outboard 3cm but without all the Sturm armor fitted, armored windscreen and that is about it, although there is foto evidence of almost sturm like armor fitted on some III. gruppe machines, no canopy blinekrs-scheuklappen like on IV.Sturm/JG 3 machines........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

Hmm interesting info there. I am with Les on this one though and I think that would have been my prefered package.


----------



## Sal Monella (Nov 6, 2005)

I think eight .50 cal. M3 machine guns a la P-47N would be a pretty wicked package.

1,200rpm on each gun. 9,600 rpm total.

160 rounds per second streaking towards your target.


----------



## Glider (Nov 6, 2005)

I have heard a lot about the P47N carrying M3 .50 instead of the normal M2 but have never found any evidence that they were used.
There was a thread a while back comparing the P47M and the P47N and there was a mention that the manual for the P47N mentioned the M2 mgs as being fitted not M3's. 
Does anyone know if this was a post war enhancement or a planned change that never happened, or indeed that it was fitted during the war.

Its just something that has always confused me and any help would be appreciated.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

Sal Monella said:


> 1,200rpm on each gun. 9,600 rpm total.
> 
> 160 rounds per second streaking towards your target.



Only for 2 seconds!


----------



## Sal Monella (Nov 6, 2005)

How do you figure?

Each guns can be loaded up with up to 425 rounds. Each gun fires at 1,200rpm. That means each gun has 21 seconds of firing time.

21 seconds of firing time isn't bad at all!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

It was not meant to be taken seriously, calm down now.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 6, 2005)

Damn even P-38 coulda figured u were kiddin around.... Sal, u just got hoodwinked...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

LOL


----------



## Sal Monella (Nov 6, 2005)

Adler - Sorry. It didn't occur to me that you were joking when you said that that there would only be 2 seconds of firing time when there would be 21. I still don't get the humorous angle but we can chalk that up to my poor sense of humor.

Eight M3's would have been a fearsome armament against any fighter though, don't you think?


----------



## delcyros (Nov 7, 2005)

Eight 0.50 M3 are very impressive. However, they don´t belong to ww2, I think. If you want to count them I would like to take the MG 213/20, also. It has an even higher rof (1300 rpm), an excellent punch (20mm) and excellent ballistics, too (initial velocity around 1065 m/sec /3400-3500 ft/s). Put them as an engine mounted gun in a longnose Fw 190 / Ta-152.


----------



## Sal Monella (Nov 7, 2005)

M3's were pressed into service in the Pacific theatre late in the war at Le Shima which was home to a heavy P-47N contingent. There is some speculation as to whether they were mounted on P-47N's though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

Sal Monella said:


> Adler - Sorry. It didn't occur to me that you were joking when you said that that there would only be 2 seconds of firing time when there would be 21. I still don't get the humorous angle but we can chalk that up to my poor sense of humor.
> 
> Eight M3's would have been a fearsome armament against any fighter though, don't you think?



No worries.


----------



## Lunatic (Nov 8, 2005)

delcyros said:


> Eight 0.50 M3 are very impressive. However, they don´t belong to ww2, I think. If you want to count them I would like to take the MG 213/20, also. It has an even higher rof (1300 rpm), an excellent punch (20mm) and excellent ballistics, too (initial velocity around 1065 m/sec /3400-3500 ft/s). Put them as an engine mounted gun in a longnose Fw 190 / Ta-152.



M3's were definitely used in the B-29 turrets in WWII. They may also have been used in the P-47N.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 8, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> book1182 said:
> 
> 
> > You would also believe that it would also make for a good ground attack gun since the 37mm cannon was used by JU-87's to destroy tanks.
> ...



This gun actually was developed from the army antiaircraft 3,7 cm Flak 18 with heavy mount including hidraulic dampers. The case was 263 mm long.

JU-87G:


----------



## MacArther (Nov 9, 2005)

How about a hub firing 30mm with two 20mm in the wing roots and two 15mm in the engine cowling. Maybe have an optional field pack for a pair of .50 cals under the wings in gondolas.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 9, 2005)

> How about a hub firing 30mm with two 20mm in the wing roots and two 15mm in the engine cowling



That was more or less the armament of the FW-Tank Ta-152C, 1x30 mm plus 4 x Mg-151.


----------



## MacArther (Nov 9, 2005)

DOH!!!


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 9, 2005)

Armament was an MK-108 or MK-103 cannon firing through the prop spinner, along with two MG-151/20 cannon in the cowling and one in each wing root...

Only about five Ta-152Cs were completed, the first flying in November 1944, as the decision was made to focus on the Ta-152H....


----------



## delcyros (Nov 9, 2005)

Yes, partly because of the engine problems (turbo-supercharger)and the avaiability of it´s engine.
I find the weapon layout of the Ta-152 C highly unbalanced. Too much recoil forces for the airframe. Especcially if you replace the MK-108 with the MK-103, but even without, the combined recoilforce is in excess of 10% of the airplanes max take off weight, which is usually very bad (depends on the place of the gun).
I would rather install a MG-213/20 as engine mounted and four additional MG 151/15 as nose/wing mounted guns in this airplane....

Good to see you´re back, Lun.


----------



## Erich (Nov 9, 2005)

C's were literally taken apart at the factory to replace damaged parts on the existing H-1's and H-0's of JG 301. the Mk 103 ws never used in the Ta 152H model. there are at least cases of 3 C's being used in the III./JG 301 and transfer over to Stab./JG 301, ther rest of the C establishment was found at the factory in a varying amount of stages


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 25, 2005)

I read the "monogram Close up" about the Ta-152 that was in consideration the emplacement of two Mg-213 in the wingroots.

But this is a mistake, ¿ how the hell they going to sincronizate this revolver canon...? impossible


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 26, 2005)

For me, my armament would be, if using the Ta-152H, one Mg 151/20 through the propeller hub, with about 125-175 rounds, in the nose, i would have two Mg 131 machine guns with about 250-350 rounds per gun, and two Mg 151/15 in the wing roots with 250-400 rounds each. All armament kept close to the nose, all weapons have a high muzzle velocity, arent as heavy as Mk-103, and have a better range than the Mk-108. Racks uner the wings for 20 or 30mm cannon would be a nice touch, or maybe some R4M, but with thoe additions, you start to get some serious weight penalties, along with drag. I just dont think, with the speed the Ta-152H had, that it needed anything above 20mm as its main armament, and could do fine with smaller weapons, with good muzzle velocity, and a higher rate of fire, because hitting a bomber at over 400pmh, getting shot back at by the whole damn formation, and avoiding escort fighters, i wouldnt want a slow cannon.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 30, 2005)

The armement You want isn´t suited well to strike heavys. It´s a fine layout for high speed dogfights but barely is suited against heavy bombers. With a single 20 mm nose gun? You may use R4M for them but that´s a single shot phylosophie. 3 different roundtypes (13mm, 15mm and 20mm are also bad, each round has it´s own ballistic performance and differs a bit.) are also somehow problematic. I would stay with a MG-213/20 mm as engine mounted, 2 MG-151/15mm for the engine cowling (optional) as well as 2 MG 151 /15 in the wing roots. That´s enough firepower to deal with any kind of target.
Another of my favorites:
Me-262 with removed nose armor and 3 MK-103/30mm instead of four MK108/30mm. This is discussed in deatail in the P-80 vs Me-262 poll and I sadly admit that the heavy recoil forces would be responsible for further reeinforcements and thus increasing the weight. It probably would be a better weaponry than Me-262 with BK-5/MK-214 against any kind of air and ground target.


----------



## Glider (Nov 30, 2005)

Sorry everyone but for general purpose punch well able to take on the fighters and bombers you have to go a long way to beat the 4 x Hispano V in the Tempest.
Arguably the most powerful 20mm of the war, with a significant punch, good rate of fire, decent ballistics, light weight and it worked.
It wasn't a pipe dream or fantasy it was real


----------



## delcyros (Dec 1, 2005)

Except for the soviet B-20 maybe.
The Hispano MK V mounted in the mid wing position is also not a very favourable solution, it couldn´t evidently harm heavy tanks and for dogfights the pilots had to deal with convergance problems.
Not to speak of the good portion of recoilforces these guns produce in the mid of a wing...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 1, 2005)

well 4x 20mm is gonna do more damage to a tank than most guns, you say it couldn't harm heavy tanks but short of anything over 30mm what could?? and convergence isn't a problem for a well trained pilot.........


----------



## Glider (Dec 1, 2005)

Remember that these are matched to the best gun sights in the war. Convergence is almost a boon when you consider the accuracy of the average pilot.
Its also worth remembering that any gun that fires through the propeller blades losses anywhere between 15-25% of its ROF depending on the gun and the plane. That should to some degree make up for any convergence issues.
The B20 is a good gun, I don't think it matched up with the shell of the Hispano but it was very light and a fine weapon. 

Be fair, I did say arguably the most powerful 20mm. 

If someone would like alternatives, I put forward two

a) The MB3 I know it didn't reach production but it was armed with 6 x 20
b) The Italians were looking at replacing the 2 x HMG on the G55 with 20mm. That would have made 5 x 20mm.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 1, 2005)

5x 20mm's overkill, 6 isn't though, we're british, we can do anything we like ..........


----------



## MacArther (Dec 1, 2005)

I thought that would be the line of some of the American guys on here! But, still, it is pretty true for both nations.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 1, 2005)

I've never heard anything but praise for the P-38 armament of 4 .50s and a 20mm in the nose.

If I was straffing troop positions the converging fire of 8 M2s and lots of ammo, like the P-47 would be tough to beat, even with 6 20mms.

wmaxt


----------



## Glider (Dec 1, 2005)

The US Navy did tests and calculated that a 20mm Hispano II was equal to 3 HMG's. The USAF did similar tests and thought that it equalled 2.5 HMG's.
use your own choice the argument works with both. 
An RAF fighter with 4 x 20 is thus equal to 10 or 12 0.5 M2 HMG's. 
The MB3 with 6 x 20 would equal 15 or 18 HMG's which is scary.
The Tempest with the Hispano V which was a considerable improvement on the Mk II must have been equal to 12-15 0.5 M2 HMG
All three of these are a massive increase on any US single engined fighter.

As for the P38 its firepower is equal to 6.5 or 7 HMG's plus the additional benefit of being in the nose which is significant. However if you double the effect its still roughly equal to the Tempest. 
Compare it to the firepower of any RAF twin engined fighter with 4 x 20 and its outclassed. The Whirlwind is the closest in that its the only dogfighting twin engined fighter we had in the war and your looking at 6.5 - 7 MG equivalent to 10-12 in the Whirlwind.

If it was a case of only straffing troops then I would be tempted with the Hurricane IIB with 12 LMG and to hell with penetration.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 1, 2005)

My armement? hmmm, 2 nosed MG42 ( WP Ammo if ever made for that gun) the nose guns would be my weapon of choice for taking out fighters, 

and 4 winged 20mm cannons(placed close to my right and left side of my cockpit) and at least 4 Rockets to take bombers down.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 1, 2005)

Rockets were just about worthless against bomber streams, as demonstrated by the Luftwaffe...


----------



## Erich (Dec 1, 2005)

hmmmmmmm actually 1 R4M could take out a B-17. the problem was no guidance system. Still quite effective and chaotic. the bomber boyz have very emotional feelings to this day when they speak of 262's sitting out of range, setting up these attacks and then letting the arsenal go and then the fast follow-up with 3cm's


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 1, 2005)

Yea, I know what ur talking about erich, and I took it into consideration, but the number of rockets launched for the results didnt really quantify the loss in performance, or the time spent setting up such an attack... The account at Schweinfurt and those exploding B-17's is EXTREMELY harrowing however...


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 1, 2005)

Actually the Germans did have guided A-A rockets for taking down bombers, I just cant remember what the hell theyre called.


----------



## Erich (Dec 2, 2005)

there were tests with wire guided air to air rockets but they failed and at least 1/2 dozen ground to air rockets that were tested but were also not suitable. As to the R4M it was not built in sufficient numbers but the killing the little weapon could do was terrible. As the jets only used the thing 18 March 45 for the first mission it was not up to par even by wars end, but the Luftwaffe threw them into action with high hopes


----------



## delcyros (Dec 2, 2005)

Enzian, Rheintochter R-I (and R-III), Hs-297 Schmetterling, C-2W Wasserfall (at least 12 subtypes W-1 - W12) and Feuerlilie (F-25 and F-55) to name the most important SAM projects. The X-4 anti bomber guided AA wasn´t a good solution at all. The R4M is quite more interesting, it could be used against ground forces as well.

The MB-3 with six 20 mm mounted in mid wing position are definetly too much for such a light airframe. I expect that the recoilforces would harm the wing badly, not to speak of directional stability while firing.

Hadn´t the VVS a 23 mm gun? what are the performances for it?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 2, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> Rockets were just about worthless against bomber streams, as demonstrated by the Luftwaffe...



While I agree with Erichs post about the R4M, I am in more agreement with you on this. They were not guided and against a single bomber would have been worthless. I believe the only time they would have been very effective is firing them into the whole Bomber formation and then you got a pretty chance of hitting something.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 3, 2005)

Umm, 
that is correct for the Werfer Gr. 21 rockets mounted under the wings but not so for the R4M.
It is completely correct that the R4M is unguided but unlike the W-Gr21 it has a comperatively flat flightpath. Normal firing solution was to use the Revi-16 B/D or EZ 42 for aiming, just like the guns. On demonstration runs it was possible to set all 24 R4M into the fuselage of a SM79 parked on the ground. Against single flying targets you would have the same chance ot hit a target with R4M or MK 108. I don´t know if it was possible to release single shots, as far as I know you could only fire the half or the full salvo of 12 or 24 R4M.
That´s effective as long as the target is not maneuvering.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

If you could only fire off the half or the full, then yes that would probably be effective however to me that sounds like a lot of overkill. I would rather fire off 1 rocket at a time, then you have 12 or 24 rockets to kill that many targets with.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 5, 2005)

It indeed is a hell of an overkill. But very suited to deal with bombers. Not very economic at all but suited for high speed engagements. The R4M would make a good solution for the Me-163, too. Replace the MK108 with SG-115 and some 24 R4M under the wings would be a very efficient armement against heavy bombers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2005)

Would certainly make it easier for the Me-163 with its low endurance.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 6, 2005)

It would. Interesting that they tested both, the SG 115 and the R4M on Me-163 B (SG 115) and A (R4M). They never came to the idea to replace the MK 108, wich indeed was a barely suited weapon for this plane, and combine R4M with SG 115. This could safe some 130-160 Kg!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 6, 2005)

that doesn't solve the fact that the -163 would be lucky to make it to the altitude of the bombers


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

Lanc, they didn't all blow up!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 6, 2005)

they weren't fantastically safe though


----------



## blue swede (Dec 6, 2005)

I'll take the same armanment the B25-H had. 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

Yeah that would pack a punch.


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Dec 6, 2005)

How about a P-47-n with four(or six if possible) short barreled Hispanos...You could at least hold about 175 rpg.

My other one would be a tail wheel P-39 with two extra .50's mounted below the nose. I would lenghthen the nose enough to stagger the top 2 .50's in order to carry about 500 rpg. Replace the 37mm with a 20mm Hispano. Carry the stock, pod mounted .50's on the wing.

And how about an 8 cannon version of the b25? Four in the nose, four in a pod under the bombay, plus the stock mgs on the side of the nose.
Twin 50's in the waist, and a 20mm in the tail.


----------



## blue swede (Dec 6, 2005)

Question.
Generally, was there a performance cost (i.e. rate of fire) for firing through the propeller arc? 8)


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 6, 2005)

I would put 8 HE 50.cal on the wings of my P-51 and four Hispano cannons around the nose.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Dec 6, 2005)

Dont you think that would degrade the performance of the P-51. I mean the Mustang was a good fighter, but already had trouble with the center if gravity, with the whole fuel tank in the center of it, and mounting four 20mm hispanos in the nose, in addition to eight 12.7mm's?! thats a hell of alot of fire power, but i dont think your aircraft would contend as it would with six 12.7mm or four 20mm.


----------



## Jank (Dec 6, 2005)

ow about 6 20 mm cannon on a P-47? That would be hard to beat.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 6, 2005)

Yea and Im sure it would climb to 35k just fine... What a fat heavy bitch that would be...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

Agreed I think the 51's armament was about where it needed to be.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 7, 2005)

Me I just like to go overboard, how bout 4 50cals on the wing but keep the cannons.


----------



## Glider (Dec 7, 2005)

A slightly more practical suggestion. The first P51's had 4 x 20, why not put them back.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 7, 2005)

Would 4 20mm Cannons even fit in the nose.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 7, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Would 4 20mm Cannons even fit in the nose.


I doubt it somehow. If they did, there wouldn't be much room for ammo if any.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 7, 2005)

That is what I was thinking.


----------



## MacArther (Dec 7, 2005)

two 50 cals and a hub firing .30 cal minigun


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 7, 2005)

that's pretty weak, even with a high ROF the .30 cal wasn't hugely effective........


----------



## MacArther (Dec 7, 2005)

Ok, *two* cowling firing miniguns. And, a pair of 50 cals in the wings ( one per wing), and a hub firing 20mm cannon


----------



## delcyros (Dec 7, 2005)

The synchronization of the 20mm MG 151 reduced it´s rof from 780 - 800 to 550-750 rpm.
I think that the 0.50 cal guns of the P-51/47 were exaclty what was needed by them. They hadn´t to deal with heavys but with small and quite agile targets.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 7, 2005)

German Heavies:

Mauser Mg-213C-20 caliber: 20x135, rate of fire 1200 rpm. V0=830 m/s.









Reinhmetall-Borsig MK-108, caliber 30x91 RB, rate of fire 620-660 rpm. V0= 505 m/s.








Rheinmetall Borsig MK-103, Caliber 30x184B, rate of fire 400-420 rpm, V0= 710 m/s ( APHE steel core), 900 m/s ( Mine), 960 m/s ( Panzergranate 40)








Mauser MK-214, caliber 50x420R, rate of fire 150-160 rpm, V0= 560 m/s (HE), 825 m/s ( APHE-T).







Reinhmetall-Borsig MK-112, caliber 55x175RB, rate of fire 350 rpm, V0= 560 m/s.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Dec 7, 2005)

You can't fit a multi-barrel gun in between the cylinder banks of a Merlin or Allison V-1710 without changing a serious amount of ducting on the engine. It is theoretically possible to do with the Allison, but you would have to reduce the size of the valve gears and relocate the induction housing somewhere else. The end result would be a significant increase in frontal area and a completely altered engine footprint, for little benefit. A 20mm Hispano type cannon is going to be more effective than a .303 Gatling style gun anyway. 

For me the best armament fit for a radial engined fighter was the Fw-190A6 onwards, with 4 MG 151/20s (20 mm) in the wings and 2 MG 131s (13.2mm) in the cowl. This was enough to take down any target in WW2 aviation. The only fighter that I feel equaled this was the Tempest V Serise II, with 4 Mk V Hispano's (short barrel, increased RoF) and 175-200 rpg. La-7 with 3 nose mounted B-20s comes close as well. 

For inlines give me the MC-205 with 3 MG 151/20 cannons (one in the nose, two in the wings) and 2 12.7 mm Brenda SCOTTI HMGs in the upper cowl. Close second is the Spitfire IXe with 2 Hispanos and 2 M2 Brownings.


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Dec 8, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> Yea and Im sure it would climb to 35k just fine... What a fat heavy bitch that would be...



FAT!!!!BITCH!!!!How insulting...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2005)

MacArther said:


> Ok, *two* cowling firing miniguns. And, a pair of 50 cals in the wings ( one per wing), and a hub firing 20mm cannon



Okay I might be wrong, but were there even any "mini guns" (note that the mini gun is not that small) built in WW2 and even if they were they certainly would not fit into a WW2 fighter like a Mustang. Plus a WW2 fighter would not be able to carry the amount of ammo for a mini gun. The rate of fire would have been to high to make it worth it.


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Dec 9, 2005)

Mabe I would fit in something like the Mossie or the Beufighter.(Dont know if I spelled it right...What the heck does beufighter mean anyway?)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2005)

There still would not have been eneogh room to put eneogh ammo to make it matter anyhow.


----------



## Glider (Dec 9, 2005)

The Beaufighter was developed using as many parts of the Beaufort which was a Torpedo Bomber.
Why Beau? I don't really know, but its often used as a short name for something good, attractive.
Miniguns didn't exist in WW2 so I suggest you stick to things that did exist. As for space the Beaufighter and Mossie both had more space than most, in particular the Mossie which had an internal bomb bay that could be used for extra. 
Also if you want a reasoned debate suggest that you work out the weight of the Guns carried by the real planes and then propose alternatives within or close to that weight. Then they are realistic alternatives instead of flights of fantasy.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2005)

Glider said:


> Miniguns didn't exist in WW2 so I suggest you stick to things that did exist.



Thats what I said.  



Glider said:


> As for space the Beaufighter and Mossie both had more space than most, in particular the Mossie which had an internal bomb bay that could be used for extra.



The Mossie and the Beau could certainly carry the weight of the ammo, but the space required to put the large belt fed system and drums large eneogh to carry the ammo to sustain the heavy rate of fire, I dont think would have been worth building into the Mossie and the Beau. As both you and I stated though, mini guns did not exist though, so it does not matter.


----------

