# Bf 109 K-4 Kills? Anything Exceptional?



## Maximowitz (Sep 6, 2008)

Were there any examples of notable kills using this variant by Luftwaffe pilots?

Obviously I realise that records must be scarce, but any information regardless would be educational, as I notice there seems to be quite an interest on the K-4 here at the moment.


I'd just like to say publicly a big thank you to Wurger for providing some excellent documents on the K-4 for me. Enjoy the "Bodenplatte!"


----------



## maverick61 (Sep 8, 2008)

the K-4 . i've read aircraft of the aces book Me 109 aces. just 4 made a score of a ace one was with 8.10 kills. the rest was around 4 /7.
it doesnt go into how they was flown . as im intrested too. in the K4.
as i know it was fast for short periods 450 mph.on meths.
hope this was as use.
tj


----------



## Erich (Sep 8, 2008)

sadly many LW kills on the Ost front where the K-4 was flown have never been recorded or if they were have been lost


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 8, 2008)

It is difficult to track down without the detailed unit diaries because there were few, if any 'pure' K4 units, typically 109 Geschwadern operated a mix of G-14s, G-10 and K-4s towards the end of the war. Therefore its is difficult to say what type was used when a 'kill' was made...

Of the top of my head, I recall reading a German 'operational experience' report, which mentions some _Major_ shooting down (or at least claiming so) 3 Thunderbolts in one dogfight with his 109K, being forced to land afterwards due to combat damage to the coolant system.


----------



## Wurger (Sep 8, 2008)

Maximowitz said:


> I'd just like to say publicly a big thank you to Wurger for providing some excellent documents on the K-4 for me. Enjoy the "Bodenplatte!"



  

You are welcome My Dear.   
I thank you so much for the "Bodenplatte"


----------



## Maximowitz (Sep 8, 2008)

I'm rather pleased that such illustrious members of the forum have chosen to post in this thread. Thank you for the insight gentlemen.


----------



## Chocks away! (Sep 9, 2008)

Unfortunately I think the Bf-109 Ks armament (2 x 13mm, 1 x 30mm) isnt' the best option for multiple fighter kills, rather it was a compromise to engage bombers without extra cannon gondolas.


----------



## Erich (Sep 9, 2008)

in essence when most of the JG's moved to the Ost front to defend Berlin after the end of January 45 the armament does remain effective especially against numerous ground attack and twin engine bombers the Soviets used to hamper retreating German divisions as well as pounding numerous cities.

also the 3cm nose mounted cannon was replaced at times with the tried and true 2cm MG 151/20


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 9, 2008)

How many K-4's were made?


----------



## Maximowitz (Sep 9, 2008)

According to the Monogram book on the K-4 over 750 machines were built. I have no idea if that is accurate though. Anyone?


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 9, 2008)

Thanks how do you get 8 kills and a tenth?


----------



## Chocks away! (Sep 9, 2008)

Erich said:


> in essence when most of the JG's moved to the Ost front to defend Berlin after the end of January 45 the armament does remain effective especially against numerous ground attack and twin engine bombers the Soviets used to hamper retreating German divisions as well as pounding numerous cities.
> 
> also the 3cm nose mounted cannon was replaced at times with the tried and true 2cm MG 151/20



Yeah I can imagine it being a great Il-2 killer.

I didn't know some Bf-109Ks were fitted with the Mg 151, thanks for the info.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Sep 10, 2008)

Erich said:


> also the 3cm nose mounted cannon was replaced at times with the tried and true 2cm MG 151/20



Could this be done "in the field"? I seem to recall the nose cannon variations on earlier 109s were "Umrustbausatze", which iirc were done in the factories.


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 10, 2008)

Erich said:


> also the 3cm nose mounted cannon was replaced at times with the tried and true 2cm MG 151/20



Do you have any specific evidence to that...? I have seen it in some books, even with Prien, but I have some serious doubts

Its not that easy as swapping the guns, as there were some structural requirements, the "Lafetten" were different, the MK 108 had the ammo bay in the fuselage while the MG 151/20 had the ammo boxed in the left wing root etc.

@Maximowitz,

1593 109Ks are known to have been built up to the end of March 1945, this one is from the German delivery docs. How many in remainder of the war - unknown. 856 was produced until the end of 1944. 

Almost all by Regensburg, Erla just started production in April when US forces overrun it. The other 109 factories kept producing G-10 instead as it used the same G-aiframe they had already tooled up for. As the G-10 was largely built with 109K internals (ie. same engine, generator etc), it ensured that there would be sufficient montly production of an 'almost-a-109K' hybrid aircraft, at the same time, it provided a much simpler supply chain.


----------



## HoHun (Sep 10, 2008)

Hi Chocks,

>Unfortunately I think the Bf-109 Ks armament (2 x 13mm, 1 x 30mm) isnt' the best option for multiple fighter kills

Hm, I actually think it's excellent for multiple fighter kills due to the high destructiveness of the shells. The total destructiveness of the 60 rounds of 30 mm ammunition carried by the Me 109 is quite high, so if a pilot rejects low-probability shots his ammunition supply is good for quite a few kills.

The high firepower actually is a great advantage in a dogfight as it facilitates non-tracking kills, while with a lower-firepower weapon you'd likely have to "saddle up" for a tracking shot. Flying a pursuit course of course makes you more vulnerable for other opponents as your path is predictable, and if the target burns its energy in violent manoeuvres, your energy goes out of the window too if you try to follow.

At the preferred kill ranges for WW2 fighters (below 250 m), the low muzzle velocity of the MK 108 is not much of a disadvantage - and having a centreline mounted weapon that hits close to the aim point regardless of the orientation of the wings is a useful advantage.

>rather it was a compromise to engage bombers without extra cannon gondolas.

It is commonly thought that the MK 108 was a dedicated anti-bomber weapon, but it was actually developed before enemy bombers became a problem, and as far as I know the design goal was simply a superior air-to-air cannon. At least, I have never seen any evidence for the anti-bomber story.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Njaco (Sep 10, 2008)

> The high firepower actually is a great advantage in a dogfight as it facilitates non-tracking kills, while with a lower-firepower weapon you'd likely have to "saddle up" for a tracking shot. Flying a pursuit course of course makes you more vulnerable for other opponents as your path is predictable, and if the target burns its energy in violent manoeuvres, your energy goes out of the window too if you try to follow.



Hohun, at that stage of the war, were they concerned about dogfighting or just getting to the bombers? While I agree with what you say I think the dynamics of what Germany was trying to do were a little different than, say, 1940. Could this be so?

After thinking it over, I guess what I'm asking is was the K-4 developed as a dogfighter or anti-bomber role?


----------



## Amsel (Sep 11, 2008)

I know the odds were 60/1 against the Luftwaffe when the K-4 was in service. A good battle to study is the defensive line at the Oder and Seelow Heights. At this juncture in the war the Germans were trying to preserve aircraft and lives more the obtaining kills.


----------



## Juha (Sep 11, 2008)

Hello HoHun
I have a bit difficulty with this.
Quote:” At the preferred kill ranges for WW2 fighters (below 250 m), the low muzzle velocity of the MK 108 is not much of a disadvantage - and having a centreline mounted weapon that hits close to the aim point regardless of the orientation of the wings is a useful advantage.”

IMHO the problem was that pilots usually underestimated the range often grossly. Ie when they thought they were firing from 250m they often were firing in reality from 350-400m or even farther away.

IMHO gravity drop was same where-ever weapon was put and any kind of bank bought in a side component to firing solution because of that.

Juha


----------



## HoHun (Sep 11, 2008)

Hi Njaco,

>Hohun, at that stage of the war, were they concerned about dogfighting or just getting to the bombers? 

The development of the MK 108 commenced pretty early, so if you mean that stage - they were just concerned about effective air-to-air weaponry and probably had no idea what the sky above Germany would look like in 1944.

>After thinking it over, I guess what I'm asking is was the K-4 developed as a dogfighter or anti-bomber role?

The Me 109K-4 simply was an evolution of the general-purpose fighter Me 109G-6 with a stronger engine and some aerodynamic improvements.

A specialized anti-bomber version of the Me 109K was projected under different sub-version numbers, and it would have included MK 108 wing guns mounted internally (in a similar way as the Hispano wing guns were later mounted in the Spanish Messerschmitts).

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Sep 11, 2008)

Hi Juha,

>IMHO the problem was that pilots usually underestimated the range often grossly. Ie when they thought they were firing from 250m they often were firing in reality from 350-400m or even farther away.

Nevertheless, the typical kill ranges were below "true" 250 m, not "perceived" 250 m.

>IMHO gravity drop was same where-ever weapon was put and any kind of bank bought in a side component to firing solution because of that.

At ranges out to 250 m, gravity drop hardly matters anyway. 

The advantage of a centreline weapon is that it has no lateral offset from the aiming point, so that regardless of the relative angle between target flight vector and shooter, the fire is concentrated in a single point. If you fire at 100 m range, with guns harmonized to 250 m and 2.5 m out from the centreline (the setup of the P-47), you hit zones are 1.5 m out on each side of the aim point. A typical fighter fuselage fits conveniently between these hit zones, causing it to be missed if its oriented vertically in the gunsight.

This has quite an impact tactically. The pilot of a wing-gun aircraft has to achieve not only a "technical" firing solutions, but also control the relative roll position of his aircraft to maximize firepower, something the pilot of a centreline-gun aircraft doesn't need to care about. The centreline guns really give higher-probability shooting opportunities in a dogfight.

Mölders reportedly stated "One cannon in the nose is better than two in the wings". (When Galland later was asked by Hitler what his opinion in this issue was, he replied "I'd rather have all three". Enter the Me 109 with wing gondolae ...) Now Mölders' statement certainly is a simplification as much depends on the tactical situation, but it's interesting to note that his statement was based on combat experience in dogfighting the maneuvrable Hurricanes and Spitfires of the RAF, and not on anti-bomber combat.

(I believe Tony Williams once posted a RAF report which expressed the opinion that the cannon setup of the Me 109F was considered superior to that of the Spitfire by RAF pilots ... but maybe we should better dig up that report before we draw conclusions from it as my memory is not always perfectly reliable.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Juha (Sep 11, 2008)

Hello HoHun

Quote:” At ranges out to 250 m, gravity drop hardly matters anyway.”

I don’t have info on gravity drop of MK108 (mv 505m/s for Minen) but the gravity drop for MG151/20 (mv 800m/s for Minen) was 100cm at 280m. IMHO that of MK108 should be larger.

Quote:” Nevertheless, the typical kill ranges were below "true" 250 m, not "perceived" 250 m.”

Now IMHO the typical firing ranges is at least as interesting as the typical kill ranges, maybe even more so because it’s entirely possible that most burst fired in dogfight missed and it’s at least as interesting to know why a burst miss as why it hit. And higher mv usually meant flatter flight path and shorter flying time, both of which tended to lessen the effects of errors in sighting (for ex. in estimated range and lead and maybe even lesser extent errors in flying (for ex. skid and slip).

I agree that nose armament has inherent advantages vs wing armament, especially because dispersion is much less dependent on range.

Juha


----------



## Njaco (Sep 11, 2008)

not to mention targeting.


----------



## Maximowitz (Sep 11, 2008)

Slightly off topic, after researcking K-4 use by JG 53 I note that unit insignia was retained on the Eastern Front but not on the Western. Is there any particular reason for this?


----------



## HoHun (Sep 11, 2008)

Hi Juha,

>I don’t have info on gravity drop of MK108 (mv 505m/s for Minen) 

According to the Bf 109G-6 harmonization chart, about 1.3 m at 250 m. However, as the sightline of the gun was depressed, the procectiles actually strike about 55 cm above the aim point. Roger on the strike point displacement in banked flight. Inversed flight would be even worse 

>Now IMHO the typical firing ranges is at least as interesting as the typical kill ranges, maybe even more so because it’s entirely possible that most burst fired in dogfight missed and it’s at least as interesting to know why a burst miss as why it hit. 

Hm, I'd think it's most interesting to know the range at which there is a worthwhile probablity of a kill, especially when we're discussing the possiblity of multiple kill missions  In my opinion, the harmonization distances were typical for the expected worthwhile fighting range - there is some effectiveness remaining beyond conversion range so that range underestimation doesn't result in completely hopeless shots, but the "sweet spot" is clearly inside harmonization range.

>And higher mv usually meant flatter flight path and shorter flying time, both of which tended to lessen the effects of errors in sighting

Undoubtly true, but there is a limit to the benefit. If you double the muzzle velocity, you can reach out to twice the distance with the same flight-time dependend problems as before ... but being twice as far away, the target will be only a quarter of the effective size (as seen through the gunsight). As a high-velocity gun tends to lose firepower compared to a low velocity gun of similar mass and size - sacrificing either cyclic rate or calibre for muzzle velocity -, it's really more a question of what trade-off you prefer.

In my opinion, sacrificing muzzle velocity makes sense because the resulting firepower makes it possible to score decisively even in snapshots, which can be achieved by criss-crossing the enemy's path instead of tracking him. Comparing a 600 m/s gun with a 900 m/s gun, closing in to 120 m instead of 180 m will give the same firing solution, but a target that is more than twice as large in the gunsight. The time to collision (and accordingly the possible firing time) is 2/3 of that for the high-velocity gun ... but with a more powerful gun and a target more than twice as large effectively, this is a good trade-off.

Additionally, criss-crossing instead of tracking is a tactical method that conserves energy and avoids flying a predictable path, and makes it possible to keep up "out-of-plane" manoeuvring. Of course, you can also do that with a lower-firepower weapon, but that means you're committed to firing opportunities with low chances for a decisive hit on the enemy. If you can afford to take your time in killing the opposing aircraft, this is no problem, but usually it's much better to knock down the enemy quickly before something unexpected happens than to hang around for long, even if it looks like you'll win in the long run. I think Shaw talks of the danger of being jumped by "wildcard bandits", conveying the unpredictable nature of the danger quite well 

So a high-firepower, low-velocity gun actually enables the pilot to maneuvre in a way that would not be particularly promising with a different type of battery, and accordingly I consider the MK 108 an excellent gun for dogfighting. 

However, I'd say the optimum fighter armament probably would be closer to the battery of the Ta 152H than to that of the Me 109K - there are situations when a higher muzzle velocity is desirable, like a tailchase of a fast bandits, or when you have an opportunity for a long-range deflection shot, and the wing-root 20 mm cannon of the Ta 152 really augment the MK 108 nose cannon very nicely.

>I agree that nose armament has inherent advantages vs wing armament, especially because dispersion is much less dependent on range.

Absolutely, and it's not an exclusive Luftwaffe preference either ... in the USAAF, the P-38 battery with its nose guns was highly regarded by the pilots, too.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## davparlr (Sep 11, 2008)

HoHun said:


> The Me 109K-4 simply was an evolution of the general-purpose fighter Me 109G-6 with a stronger engine and some aerodynamic improvements.



My resource show that the K was also quite a bit lighter, empty weight of a K-6 was 5161 lbs, than the G-6, empty weight of 6050, almost 900 lbs lighter. Like the P-51H, it was quite a hotrod.


----------



## Chocks away! (Sep 11, 2008)

It's obvious to me that the 30 mm cannon on the Bf-109 was a way to give it anti-bomber cababilities without weighing it down with gondolas. Why don't we see the Bf-109 G-10/14/6/AS and K with wing gondolas in early 1945?

It's obvious they were too much of a compromise in agility.


----------



## Erich (Sep 11, 2008)

actually you do.........

in combat with US heavy bombers as well as the NF versions doing up ground attack duties against the Allies/Soviets

and Maxi, Landt and his unit fought on the western front, the Pik-AS Geschwader emblem was removed from all 109's whether on Ost or West front, the black Rumpfband was worn as a Reich defense ID during 44-45 by JG 53 and yes there are pics of Landt and his K-4, he survived the war but not sure what happened to him.........

E


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 12, 2008)

davparlr said:


> My resource show that the K was also quite a bit lighter, empty weight of a K-6 was 5161 lbs, than the G-6, empty weight of 6050, almost 900 lbs lighter. Like the P-51H, it was quite a hotrod.



How does that compare to the Weight of the G-10 and G-14?


Still, that's pretty impressive, considering the K-6 had 1x additional MK 108 inside each wing.


----------



## Juha (Sep 12, 2008)

Hello HoHun 

Quote:”According to the Bf 109G-6 harmonization chart, about 1.3 m at 250 m.”

Thanks a lot.

Quote:” In my opinion, the harmonization distances were typical for the expected worthwhile fighting range - there is some effectiveness remaining beyond conversion range so that range underestimation doesn't result in completely hopeless shots, but the "sweet spot" is clearly inside harmonization range.”

More or less I agree but I’d put it a bit more mildly, the harmonization distances were usually reasonable and effective range. FC began WWII with 400y harmonization, that would probably be the expected worthwhile fighting range, but fairly soon some sqns dropped the harmonization distance to 350 or 250y, in March 40 Dowding decided to change the harmonization distance to 250y. And Finnish AF used 150m as the harmonization distance. FC test early in the war showed that when pilots were ordered to fire at target at300y actual distances were 800-1200y, so pilots were advised to halve their range estimates and double their estimate of the lead and also advised to open fire as close as possible.

Quote:” Undoubtly true, but there is a limit to the benefit. If you double the muzzle velocity, you can reach out to twice the distance with the same flight-time dependend problems as before ... but being twice as far away, the target will be only a quarter of the effective size (as seen through the gunsight).”

Absolutely true but I was thinking easing the sighting problems not increasing firing range. It always preferable to fire from close distance, it solved most problems.

Quote:” As a high-velocity gun tends to lose firepower compared to a low velocity gun of similar mass and size - sacrificing either cyclic rate or calibre for muzzle velocity -, it's really more a question of what trade-off you prefer.”

Absolutely true! IMHO maybe the best fighter gun was Hispano Mk V, clearly higher mv and higher rof than MK 108 but clearly less effective ammo with 2/3 weight. But it’s matter of opinion. A bit large dispersion possible with tvo Mk Vs vs one MK 108 (weapon weight 84kg vs 60kg) would probably be preferable for average pilot, crack shots being rare. But it’s entirely how one weighted different relevant factors.

Quote:“do that with a lower-firepower weapon, but that means you're committed to firing opportunities with low chances for a decisive hit on the enemy”

True but 2-3 20mm hits probably at least remove enemy fighter from that fight and increased possibility that you or some other can get telling burst at the enemy later in the fight.

Quote:“In my opinion, sacrificing muzzle velocity makes sense because the resulting firepower makes it possible to score decisively even in snapshots, which can be achieved by criss-crossing the enemy's path instead of tracking him.”

But it makes hitting with those snap shots harder. Of course most of pilots would not hit anyway. 

Juha


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 12, 2008)

The best gun choice would be a compromise between velocity, cyclic weight, and caliber. (in addition to the weight and size of the gun, plus characteristics of the gun's operating mechanism, the, feed mechanism, and reliability)


Here's a good article concerning the optimum armament: IDEAL WW2 FIGHTER ARMAMENT

More here: BOOKS BY ANTHONY G WILLIAMS
A particularly interesting article being:ANOTHER MISSED OPPORTUNITY: THE OERLIKON FFL CANNON (something I had wondered about myself before finding these articles)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 12, 2008)

Empty weights of the G-10 and G14 apear to be to be ~5,066 lbs (2,300 kg).


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 12, 2008)

davparlr said:


> My resource show that the K was also quite a bit lighter, empty weight of a K-6 was 5161 lbs, than the G-6, empty weight of 6050, almost 900 lbs lighter. Like the P-51H, it was quite a hotrod.



Nah, this has been discussed a couple of times. The 109K wasn't a lightened 109 airframe. It was a strealined, but slightly heavier airframe.

Note: the Ladeplan chart is for a G-6/trop, it was something like 50kg heavier than the normal ones w/o tropical equipment.


----------



## Maximowitz (Sep 12, 2008)

Nice one Kurfurst. Are there any accounts by pilots as to its handling and flight characteristics in comparison with previous models?


----------



## HoHun (Sep 12, 2008)

Hi Juha,

>More or less I agree but I’d put it a bit more mildly, the harmonization distances were usually reasonable and effective range. 

Not a bad way to put it  Neil Stirling once posted excerpts from a RAF gun camera analysis report showing that 52% of the kills were achieved at less than 200 yards range, 34% from 200 to 400 yards, and only 14% at more than 400 yards. (And slightly more than 50% of all these kills were achieved with gyro gunsights ...)

It's not like the guns just stopped to function at long range, effectiveness just kept decreasing smoothly with increasing range. 

>FC test early in the war showed that when pilots were ordered to fire at target at300y actual distances were 800-1200y, so pilots were advised to halve their range estimates and double their estimate of the lead and also advised to open fire as close as possible.

Hm, Fighter Command training doctrine seems to have been rather "rational", including setting the sight to the target wingspan, estimating the angle-off and the target speed, and calculating the required lead. The problem with this method is that it is slow, while air-combat is fast paced. I'm convinced a "flash card" approach (as developed during WW2 for aircraft recognition training) would have been more useful. Unfortunately, I don't know what doctrine the Luftwaffe used, but I noticed Reschke made mention of a card game (for solitary play) distributed by the Luftwaffe that was supposed to train the pilots in deflection shooting. It would be interesting to know if this worked on the "flash card" principle.

(Luftwaffe aircraft recognition seems to have relied on learning characteristic features for every plane, and I don't think they ever adopted the flash card method there. On the other hand, I've read that Luftwaffe "Morse" key operators were trained with a "high speed" approach that could be considered the acoustic equivalent of the flash card approach  To this day, "to morse" is a verb in German, by the way.)

>Absolutely true but I was thinking easing the sighting problems not increasing firing range. 

Agreed, I just mean to highlight that as always in aviation, there is a trade-off involved. In the case of the MK 108, the higher firepower at short range out-performs the accuracy gain one might have from a higher muzzle velocity.

>IMHO maybe the best fighter gun was Hispano Mk V, clearly higher mv and higher rof than MK 108 but clearly less effective ammo with 2/3 weight. But it’s matter of opinion. A bit large dispersion possible with tvo Mk Vs vs one MK 108 (weapon weight 84kg vs 60kg) would probably be preferable for average pilot, crack shots being rare. 

The Hispano V certainly is a good all-around cannon, and I agree that it is to preferred over the Hispano II because it gained some firepower over the older gun at the expense of a bit of muzzle velocity.

However, when comparing fighter gun installations, the ammunition supply should not be neglected. Here are some batteries with equal ammunition and roughly comparable firepower (based on total muzzle energy):

1x MK 108 - 87 rpg - 111 kg - 221% firepower
2x Hispano V - 212 rpg - 188 kg - 109% firepower
8x ,50 Browning M2 - 250 rpg - 452 kg - 100% firepower
25x Browning ,303 - 399 rpg - 549 kg - 96% firepower

Starting with the smallest calibre, the 25-barrel rifle-calibre machine gun battery obviously will be very hard to install in a single-seat fighter for lack of space  The eight heavy machine guns are realistically possible, but comparing the complete installation to the twin Hispano battery, it's obvious that heavy machine guns come with a hefty weight penalty for the limited firepower they offer. The MK 108 not only is lighter yet than the Hispano cannon, but it additionally doubles the firepower. It can also be installed in the nose of a conventional single-engine fighter (if the engine is designed for it), while the Hispano V is unfit for synchronization so that you either have to restrict yourself to one engine cannon, reducing firepower, or mount the pair of them outside the propeller disk, with the ill effects we already discussed.

So let's change the battery to 3 Hispano (one engine cannon, two wing cannon - the Merlin didn't allow this, but the Hispano-Suiza did), comparing it to the MK 108/MG 151/20 combined battery I mentioned:

3x Hispano V - 141 rpg - 230 kg - 163% firepower

1x MK 108 - 43 rpg - 85 kg - 221% firepower
2x MG 151/20 - 105 rpg - 128 kg - 112% firepower
Total: 213 kg - 333% firepower

So I get about twice the firepower for the Ta 152 cannon setup compared to the triple Hispano V setup, at roughly equal weight if I use comparable ammunition loads. The Ta 152 setup would lose some firepower at longer ranges, but as the RAF report quoted above shows, long range fire was the excepton rather than the norm. Additionally, the MG 151/20 can be synchronized, and the wing-root position of the Ta 152's cannon has the well-known ballistic advantages over the wing-gun position necessary for two of the three Hispanos we're considering.

(Grr, now I notice that I probably should have used the data for the somewhat more powerful MX ammunition introduced late in the war for comparison to the late-war Hispano V. Well, I'm not going to re-do the calculations ... the picture is clear enough after all 

>True but 2-3 20mm hits probably at least remove enemy fighter from that fight 

Sometimes maybe, but taking into account that the Luftwaffe considered an average of 6 x 20 mm required to destroy a fighter aircraft, I don't think it's realistic to expect that as the normal result.

>>“In my opinion, sacrificing muzzle velocity makes sense because the resulting firepower makes it possible to score decisively even in snapshots, which can be achieved by criss-crossing the enemy's path instead of tracking him.”

>But it makes hitting with those snap shots harder. 

The lower muzzle velocity makes it harder to achieve nominal hits, but at the same time the massive firepower of the MK 108 makes it much easier to achieve decisive hits. It is a trade-off ... you sacrifice hit probability to increase the probability of a kill.

It also means that snap shots are a worthwhile tactic at all, as with a lower-firepower weapon, you might be forced to go for a tracking shot, which means that have to commit yourself to trade energy for angles - which can be a rather dangerous course, especially if you're up against multiple bandits.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 12, 2008)

HoHun would you agree thogh that a bit more compromise of RoF and gun weight for a higher velocity would be more desireable. (the MK 108 being a bit extreme)

Say a gun weighing 70 kg firing the same projectile at ~780 m/s with a cyclic rate of 500 rpm. (incedentally very similar to the performance of the IJN 30 mm Type 5)


----------



## HoHun (Sep 12, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>Here's a good article concerning the optimum armament: IDEAL WW2 FIGHTER ARMAMENT

I've in the past discussed this with Tony, and I'm afraid that I've been unable to successfully convey to him the concept of the fighter pilot being able to adapt the firing range to suit his weaponry, which has considerable impact on the thought excercise.

Matching trajectories for killing ranges that in 86% of the cases did not exceed 366 m is really an unnecessary luxury as even differing trajectories yield small patterns at such short ranges.

Tony's assessment of cannon in that (oldish) article also still relies on his slightly inaccurate rule of thumb for explosive ammunition that underestimates the power of slow high-explosive projectiles.

Though this might be surprising after my critical words above, but I totally agree with Tony's conclusion that for a conventional single-engined WW2 fighter, two synchronized 20 mm wing-root cannon combined with a 30 mm engine cannon is the optimum historically realistical armament  

Despite my detail critique, I'd say Tony has hit the nail right on the head with regard to the cornerstone parameters 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Sep 12, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>HoHun would you agree thogh that a bit more compromise of RoF and gun weight for a higher velocity would be more desireable. (the MK 108 being a bit extreme)

>Say a gun weighing 70 kg firing the same projectile at ~780 m/s with a cyclic rate of 500 rpm. (incedentally very similar to the performance of the IJN 30 mm Type 5)

Yes, I'd agree. The parameters you suggest look quite attractive to me. I'd even settle for less than 780 m/s 

In the Ta 152H battery, the low muzzle velocity of the MK 108 doesn't really worry me as the 20 mm cannon can be used for the longer-ranged shots, but in the Me 109 installation where the only supplementary guns are machine guns, I'd be ready to sacrifice some firepower for greater muzzle velocity for greater tactical flexiblity.

I wouldn't change the cannon all the way to the high-velocity, low rate-of-fire MK 103 though - that would be the opposite extreme 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Juha (Sep 12, 2008)

Hello HoHun
Quote:"Additionally, the MG 151/20 can be synchronized, and the wing-root position of the Ta 152's cannon has the well-known ballistic advantages over the wing-gun position necessary for two of the three Hispanos we're considering."

I agree and IMHO the 2 wingroot MG 151/20s of Fw 190/Ta152 were optimically placed giving a bit dispersion but not too much and a way that was not too much influenced by range. Only problem was that syncronisation reduced somewhat rof but IMHO that was acceptable. What I don't like in Ta 152 armament was the different ballistics of MK 108 and MG 151/20.

Quote:"Sometimes maybe, but taking into account that the Luftwaffe considered an average of 6 x 20 mm required to destroy a fighter aircraft, I don't think it's realistic to expect that as the normal result."

What I was trying to say was that 2-3 20mm hits were normally enough to damage fighter so much that its pilots would try disengage immidiately and leave the fight. At least even agressive Finnish pilots seemed to have done that in that situation.

IMHO our difference is in essence that we weight differently which is more important
higher probability to achieve at least so damaging hits that they forced enemy to disengage
vs
lower probability to achieve hits but hits would be with high probability destructive.

Juha


----------



## Amsel (Sep 12, 2008)

The MG 151/20 and Mk103 mix seems to be the best all round variant in my opinion.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 12, 2008)

The differences in ballistics of the Mk 103 and the MG 151/20 are about as big as those of the MG 151/20 and MK 108. And the increased weight of the MK 103 would adversely impact performance. (and the rate of fire is really fairly low to be very useful, and I believe ammo supply was somewhat less as well)


----------



## Amsel (Sep 12, 2008)

Roger that.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 12, 2008)

They really needed a compromise between the Mk 108 and Mk 103. (as discussed above)




On a different note:
HoHun,

According to Tony William's article, introducing electrical priming on the Hispano would have allowed synchronization.


----------



## Juha (Sep 13, 2008)

The problems with MK108 were numerous stoppages, especially when fired under g loads, which was specially annoying during fighter vs fighter combat and the low mv. IIRC all later commonly used 20mm and 30mm aircraft cannon had 50-100% higher mv (in range of 740-1030m/s) than MK108.

Juha


----------



## HoHun (Sep 13, 2008)

Hi Juha,

>IMHO our difference is in essence that we weight differently which is more important higher probability to achieve at least so damaging hits that they forced enemy to disengage vs lower probability to achieve hits but hits would be with high probability destructive.

According to a report reproduced in Luftfahrt International, the Luftwaffe answered that question very early in WW2 based on their combat experience.

Damaged aircraft returning to enemy territory with their pilots/crews aboard did not impair the enemy's capacity to wage an airwar in any meaningful way. This experience paved the way for the introduction of mine shells (though they had probably been developed earlier) in time for the Battle of Britain. The rationale behind them was to destroy an enemy aircraft immediately instead of merely damaging it, and even the 20 mm mine shell increased the chances for this markedly.

Not to forget that the immediate tactical situation is improved much more by an enemy aircraft that goes down in flames than by an enemy aircraft that disengages at high speed - the latter is still a thread as its intention might just as well be to gain some altitude to re-enter the fight with an advantage.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Sep 13, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>The differences in ballistics of the Mk 103 and the MG 151/20 are about as big as those of the MG 151/20 and MK 108. 

Out to 400 m, you can safely forget about trajectory differences.

>And the increased weight of the MK 103 would adversely impact performance.

I still is far lighter in relation to the firepower it offers than the Hispano V, for example.

1x MK 108 - 87 rpg - 111 kg - 221% firepower
1x MK 103 - 75 rpg - 210 kg - 180% firepower
2x MG 151/20 (MX) - 187 rpg - 164 kg - 124% firepower
2x Hispano V - 212 rpg - 188 kg - 109% firepower
8x ,50 Browning M2 - 250 rpg - 452 kg - 100% firepower

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Sep 13, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>They really needed a compromise between the Mk 108 and Mk 103. (as discussed above)

Above I basically said that it would have been nice to have. I don't think they actually needed it more urgently than the RAF or USAAF needed new guns (though especially for the 12.7 mm Browning, there was a lot of room for improvement.)

>According to Tony William's article, introducing electrical priming on the Hispano would have allowed synchronization.

I'm not aware that it was ever done, though. If introducing electrical priming would have meant a one-year delay for the ideal armament, the armament would not have been all that ideal as something inferior would have to be used during the delay. Technically possible does not always mean tactically available.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Sep 13, 2008)

Hi Juha,

>The problems with MK108 were numerous stoppages

Do you have any actual figures? 

There sure were a lot of stoppages with the US 12.7 mm machine gun as well, Roger Freeman even describing an instance when five out of the six guns on a P-51 jammed, but the weapon still has a reputation for great reliability.

It's difficult to make reliable conclusions from isolated occurrences if data on the big picture is lacking ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Juha (Sep 13, 2008)

Hello HoHun
Quote:” Not to forget that the immediate tactical situation is improved much more by an enemy aircraft that goes down in flames than by an enemy aircraft that disengages at high speed - the latter is still a thread as its intention might just as well be to gain some altitude to re-enter the fight with an advantage.”

Now IMHO a fighter pilot who saw his 20mm fire hitting (flashes) enemy fighter and pieces flying after which enemy dives away probably thought “Ah, a kill.” 

And as I wrote earlier no nation followed the MK108 idea after WWII. I forgot the MiG 15 and 17 armament, IIRC their 23mm and 37mm had mv appr. 690m/s but their armament were optimised for B-29 busting, 30mm NR-30s in MiG-19 and early MiG-21s had again higher mv, 790m/s. GSh-23 had lower and GSh 301 higher mv than NR-30 but between 740-860m/s range. I don’t remember the mv of GSh-23L. So even Russians, who tended to have lower mv than Western Nations after WWII didn’t go anywhere near MK 108’s low mv. I’m pretty sure that major powers had put much thought on optimal aircraft armament after WWII and Germans also went to high mv with their BK 27. So IMHO MK108 was too extreme solution.

Quote: “Do you have any actual figures?”

No, only from pilots memories and maybe there was some talk on that in meetings on LW production matters chaired by Milch, but I am not sure of the latter.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Sep 13, 2008)

Almost forgot
HoHun, Hispano Mk 7 and 9 had electrically primed ammo.

Juha


----------



## HoHun (Sep 13, 2008)

Hi Juha,

>Now IMHO a fighter pilot who saw his 20mm fire hitting (flashes) enemy fighter and pieces flying after which enemy dives away probably thought “Ah, a kill.” 

30 mm shells actually killing an aircraft will be much more clearly seen than 20 mm ammunition merely striking it somewhere 

>And as I wrote earlier no nation followed the MK108 idea after WWII. 

Naturally, the weapons get heavier when the fighters get heavier, and the MiG-15 and F-86 generation of jets had about twice the take-off weight of the Me 109. Additionally, combat speeds increased considerably due to the introduction of jets, shifting the optimum point in the muzzle-velocity vs. firepower trade-off. Frederick Blesse of "No Guts, No Glory" fame still maintained that it was necessesary to close to the same short distances as in WW2 to achieve kills ...

And while the USAF was not satisfied with their high-velocity, low-firepower machine guns, the Soviet Union was quite happy about the performance of their low-velocity, high-firepower cannon, so in a different context, the same concept proved successful again, even if the absolute muzzle velocity might have been increased to match the higher target speeds.

That technology progressed after WW2 doesn't mean that the MK 108 wasn't a excellent weapon during WW2. The real reason it was not copied after the war was that in the shape of the MK 213/30, an all-round superior new 30 mm cannon had been developed, which set the standards for the post-war guns of this calibre.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## parsifal (Sep 13, 2008)

quick question....I read somewhere that hartmann specialised in very long range gunnery. It is said (dont know if its true) that he could spot and bring down a Russian SE plane at more than 1/2 mile. Thats somewhere between 800 and 1000 metres. if this is true, how could he do that, if the 109 armament was primaraily a short range weapon????


----------



## HoHun (Sep 13, 2008)

Hi Parsifal,

>quick question....I read somewhere that hartmann specialised in very long range gunnery. 

Hm, Hartmann supposedly said "Get so close that the target fills your windscreen". I think Toliver and Constable mention one instant where he sucessfully took a very long-range shot, but that was to clear the tail of his wingman so he really didn't have much choice regarding range.

>if this is true, how could he do that, if the 109 armament was primaraily a short range weapon????

For much of the service life of the Me 109G, it was equipped with a medium-velocity 20 mm cannon. It was the MK 108 which was more of a short-range cannon.

However, the impact of muzzle velocity again depends on the tactical circumstances. Against a non-manoeuvering target in a rear aspect, even if it was just fighter-sized, the low-velocity MK 108 would hit accurately out to 600 m if you simply put the pipper on the target without accounting for gravity drop. The trajectory was curved, but the sightline was slightly depressed so that the centre of the crosshairs was always close to the trajectory. Beyond 600 m, the trajectory curved so steeply that it would be very difficult to try and compensate for the drop manually, though the late-war computing gunsight reportedly could do that accurately. (The 20 mm cannon had a flatter trajectory, accordingly its "point blank range" was longer than that of the 30 mm MK 108.)

Obviously, it was only possible to successfully hit a fighter at such a long range if its pilot was unaware of the attack and flew along steadily, as any kind of manoeuver would fly the aircraft out of the striking zone of the bullets while they were still underway. However, if the target was unaware of the attack, it made sense to close to a shorter range where the chances of bringing it down with the first burst were greater, too. This is the kind of situation where the veterans would press on to ensure a kill, and the inexperienced pilots would underestimate the range, overestimate their chances of hitting, and fire too early to hit reliably. I can well imagine that the fear of the enemy detecting the surprise attack and turning to fight back puts enough pressure on an inexperienced pilot to completely mess up his abilities to calculate range and lead ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Juha (Sep 13, 2008)

Hello HoHun
Quote:” >Now IMHO a fighter pilot who saw his 20mm fire hitting (flashes) enemy fighter and pieces flying after which enemy dives away probably thought “Ah, a kill.” 

30 mm shells actually killing an aircraft will be much more clearly seen than 20 mm ammunition merely striking it somewhere ”

Yes, but question was was the fighter hit by 20mm cannon armed fighter considered still a threat or not and IMHO it was out of that dogfight. Having seen guncamera films showing He 111s and Bf 110s taking hits from Hispano I don’t think that a Bf 109 taking hits and going downstairs were considered risk anymore.

Quote:” And while the USAF was not satisfied with their high-velocity, low-firepower machine guns, the Soviet Union was quite happy about the performance of their low-velocity, high-firepower cannon, so in a different context, the same concept proved successful again, even if the absolute muzzle velocity might have been increased to match the higher target speeds.”

Now we are talking on MK 108 vs Hispano Mk V so USAF satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their .5 HMGs is IMHO irrelevant. IIRC FAA and RAAF were fairly satisfied with Hispano during Korean War and Soviets went to uniformly higher velocity armament in their MiG 19 and early MiG 21s so I’m not sure how satisfied SU was with the armament of MiG-15. Surely it was effective against B-29s but at least USAF seemed to have thought that Soviet armament wasn’t very effective in fighter vs fighter combat. Of course they also noticed that .5 was clearly lacking punch but they opted high velocity 20mm not low velocity 30mm cannon.

That MK 108 was effective anti-bomber and anti-Il-2 weapon is probably a fact that we both agree.

Juha


----------



## HoHun (Sep 13, 2008)

Hi Juha,

>Yes, but question was was the fighter hit by 20mm cannon armed fighter considered still a threat or not and IMHO it was out of that dogfight. 

That the perception of the firer was rather unreliable can be seen clearly by considering the number of "damaged" claims that did not match the actual combat results.

Besides, I don't believe that every 20 mm hit will cause enough damage to make a pilot break off combat. It's not even possible to break off combat at will anyway - you need a tactical opportunity, and you need to consider the effect on your formation, too. No good to run away as a precautionary measure if that leaves your wing leader stranded, even if you could.

Not to mention that air combat is a battle of attrition in which you have to shoot down the enemy to win - making him run home instead will, in the end, lose the battle.

>Now we are talking on MK 108 vs Hispano Mk V so USAF satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their .5 HMGs is IMHO irrelevant. 

Soviet satisfation with their low-velocity guns is significant. The ineffective USAF armament certainly made a lot of damaged MiGs run home, and the USAF certainly were very unhappy about that. Apparently, they didn't subscribe to the "force them out of the dogfight" theory.

>Soviets went to uniformly higher velocity armament in their MiG 19 and early MiG 21s 

That's just technical progress for you. Really no sense in arguing with armament of supersonic jet fighter to make a point about a WW2 propeller fighter.

>That MK 108 was effective anti-bomber and anti-Il-2 weapon is probably a fact that we both agree.

The point is that it was not developed as an anti-bomber or anti-Il-2 weapon, but as a universal air-to-air weapon, and that it had excellent qualities as a dogfighting weapon in the air combat environment of WW2, in which vast majority of the kills were achieved at ranges of less than 350 m, and most of the kills even at less than 200 m.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 13, 2008)

Juha said:


> Now we are talking on MK 108 vs Hispano Mk V so USAF satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their .5 HMGs is IMHO irrelevant. IIRC FAA and RAAF were fairly satisfied with Hispano during Korean War



Don't forget about the USN and USMC with their M3 cannon. 
(which the USAF should have adopted as well, at least until the M39 became available)





HoHun said:


> The point is that it was not developed as an anti-bomber or anti-Il-2 weapon, but as a universal air-to-air weapon, and that it had excellent qualities as a dogfighting weapon in the air combat environment of WW2, in which vast majority of the kills were achieved at ranges of less than 350 m, and most of the kills even at less than 200 m.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Henning (HoHun)




The MK 108 would probably be more difficult to use for deflection shooting due to the lower velocity. 

Also the Soviet 23 mm cannon still had a much higher velocity than the MK 108.


----------



## HoHun (Sep 13, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>The MK 108 would probably be more difficult to use for deflection shooting due to the lower velocity. 

Deflection shooting is not an end by itself, it's a means to an end - shooting down aircraft. You really have to look at all factors in combination to assess a weapon.

>Also the Soviet 23 mm cannon still had a much higher velocity than the MK 108.

Well, the F-86 was a lot faster than the P-51, too. And the difference in manoeuvering speeds is even greater than that in top speeds - propeller aircraft turn best at the stall limit, while jet fighters turn (and climb) quickest at high speed. And with combat in Korea moving to high altitudes, the true airspeeds in a fight (which determine the amount of lead) were up, too.

To rate weapons as "low" or "high" velocity, it doesn't suffice to look at the absolute muzzle velocity alone, but the target speed has to be considered, too. For example, one could compare the ratio of muzzle velocity to the corner speed of the intended target. 

Certainly the MK 108 was a bit on the low side with regard to its muzzle velocity, but as jet fighters' speeds and fighter guns' muzzle velocities increased in parallel, I don't think there really was a dramatic move away from low-velocity guns. On the contrary, measured by the parameter I suggested, I'd even guess that the performance of the projectiles fell back behind the performance of the fighters.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Juha (Sep 14, 2008)

Hello HoHun
Quote:” That the perception of the firer was rather unreliable can be seen clearly by considering the number of "damaged" claims that did not match the actual combat results..”

In fact irrelevant, we are talking if a shooter who had seen that his 20mm fire hit the enemy fighter and the target diving away still considered the target a threat, IMHO not. He might have followed it to make the kill sure but that depended on overall situation.

Quote:” Besides, I don't believe that every 20 mm hit will cause enough damage to make a pilot break off combat.” 

As I wrote I’m speaking on 2-3 20mm hits.

Quote:” Soviet satisfation with their low-velocity guns is significant. The ineffective USAF armament certainly made a lot of damaged MiGs run home, and the USAF certainly were very unhappy about that. Apparently, they didn't subscribe to the "force them out of the dogfight" theory.”

Have you source on that Soviet satisfaction. And anyway, according to JoeB those according to you flimsy armed F-86s shoot down appr 9 times more those properly armed MiG-15s than they lost to MiG-15s. So after all the armament of F-86 wasn’t altogether hopeless even if many other things have effect on kill ratio .

“Really no sense in arguing with armament of supersonic jet fighter to make a point about a WW2 propeller fighter.”

Now the cannon in supersonic fighter was/is for subsonic combat. And as I wrote there is not much relevance in your .5 M2/M3 HMG vs Soviet N-37 and NR-23 argument in Hispano Mk V vs MK 108 conversation or much relevance either if I claimed that because JAAF was much more satisfied with Ho-103 than with Ho-301(the extreme low velocity HE gun) low velocity gun with effective HE shell was a failure.

Quote:” that it had excellent qualities as a dogfighting weapon in the air combat environment of WW2”

I simply disagree and if we cannot bring new facts in this conversation it’s better agree that we disagree in this subject.

Juha


----------



## KrazyKraut (Sep 14, 2008)

The armament is always the point that is critizised the most about the F-86 though. Kill ratios are always distorted and even if you take the 9 to 1 as fact that number is the result of way too many variables to draw conclusions about one single variable (armament) on. Bf 109 F-2s were also successful against virtually every enemy they encountered in the east, that doesn't mean their armament wasn't lacking.

And the Ho-301 is much more extreme than the MK 108 with _less than half_ the muzzle velocity and a considerably slower rate of fire. They are not very similar.

That said, iirc the MK 108 was the Rheinmetall-Borsig answer to a RLM specification for a heavy aircraft gun that could bring down bombers with the lowest expenditure of ammunition possible. So it was kind of an anti-bomber gun.

It was still useful against fighters as evidenced by Me 262 kills on all kinds of single engined fighters. In case of the Me 109 K-4s I think it was simply seen the easiest way to increase firepower without having to redesign larger parts of the aerodynamics (e.g. by adding wing cannons) and it was probably also more economical. I have never seen any actual reports on how it performed in the anti-fighter role apart from assumptions made in various books or websites. That'd be interesting to see.


----------



## Juha (Sep 15, 2008)

Hello KrazyKraut
Quote:"Kill ratios are always distorted and even if you take the 9 to 1 as fact that number is the result of way too many variables to draw conclusions about one single variable (armament) on."

JoeB had carefully study the real kill ratio, it isn't just USAF claim. And as I wrote, armament was just one of many variables which had /has effect on kill ratio.

Quote:"And the Ho-301 is much more extreme than the MK 108 with less than half the muzzle velocity and a considerably slower rate of fire. They are not very similar."

As I wrote the Ho-301 argument doesn't have much relevance on Hispano Mk V vs MK 108 argument but .5 M2/M3 vs Soviet N-37 and NR-23 had neither. After all .5 bullet weighted only 1/3 of the weight of Hispano shell.

Quote:"It was still useful against fighters as evidenced by Me 262 kills on all kinds of single engined fighters"

And how many Me 262 kills there are against single engined fighters? At least 8th FC didn't lost many P-51s to Me 262s according to Drgondog. And anyway the main MK 108 problem seems to be tendency to jam if fired under G-loads much different to 1. So in theory they should work better in Me 262, which anyway had 4 of them, than in Bf 109.The latter was probably more often in situation where it's pilot fired under G. Of course when it worked and when its shell hit it was devastating.

Juha


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 15, 2008)

Why would the MK 108 work better in the Me 262? There would be less turning (if the pilot flew to the the plane's advantages) but any maneuvering at high speeds would result in significant G loading; while there shouldn't be any sustained turn-fighting, they'd still be pulling some short, but hard, maneuvers for getting a deflection shot etc.

However it really depends on the nature of the MK 108's jamming problems: if they're caused by the ammunition feed arrangement (which would be dependant on the aircraft), or a part of the gun's mechanism itsself and weather the jam occured durring high-G maneuvers, or only when firing the weapon in such mconditions.

For example the P-51A/B/C and A-36 had problems with jams of thir wing mounted .50 Brownings, generally very relaiable, under G-loads due to the amunition feed and the postion the guns were mounted. (this was rectified with the P-51D's armament arrangement)


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 15, 2008)

I am not sure wheter this MK 108 jam problem has not been overexaggrevated a bit. It would appear that plenty of fighters _fell_ to the thing - one oral account from Tobak főhadnagy describes a turning fight with a Yakovlev-(9?), in which the Yak' entered a very steep turn. Tobak had to pull such an amount of G to get a deflection on it, tried a 13mm test-burst first, then let the 108 loose. The Yak got ripped to pieces.

From what I have read, MK 108 jam problems were attributed to faulty aligned guns (sloppy assembly) resulting in feed problems. This could fixed in the field by re-aligning the guns.


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 15, 2008)

Juha said:


> Have you source on that Soviet satisfaction. And anyway, according to JoeB those according to you flimsy armed F-86s shoot down appr 9 times more those properly armed MiG-15s than they lost to MiG-15s. So after all the armament of F-86 wasn’t altogether hopeless even if many other things have effect on kill ratio.
> 
> Juha



Against your rhetorics, it is a simple fact that the USAF was disappointed with the performance of .50 caliber guns in Korea. Like in the BoB, the matter was not how many were successfully shot down with them, but how many times it happened that MiGs just got away riddled with .50s. In response 20mm installations were tried, but IIRC again it happened that the US 20mm were just unreliable.


----------



## Glider (Sep 15, 2008)

I think its also worth remembering that the Mig 15 had to attack heavy bombers for which its heavy cannon were ideal. If the F86 had to go against B29/50 type bombers, I wonder how long it would have taken the USAF to switch to cannons?

As for the Mk108 I have never heard of a particular problem with jamming.


----------



## HoHun (Sep 15, 2008)

Hi Juha,

>>Quote:” Besides, I don't believe that every 20 mm hit will cause enough damage to make a pilot break off combat.” 

>As I wrote I’m speaking on 2-3 20mm hits.

Obviously, if not every hit is effective, any number of hits can be ineffecive. The average number of 20 mm hits requried for a fighter kill was 6 according to Luftwaffe experience, which mean that there was quite a lot of room to the 2 to 3 hits you are quoting.

>Have you source on that Soviet satisfaction. And anyway, according to JoeB those according to you flimsy armed F-86s shoot down appr 9 times more those properly armed MiG-15s than they lost to MiG-15s. So after all the armament of F-86 wasn’t altogether hopeless even if many other things have effect on kill ratio .

Wilfried Kopenhagen, "Flugzeuge und Hubschrauber der NVA". And since so many other things have an effect on kill ratio that it doesn't tell us anything about weapon quality, it strikes me as pointless posturing on your part to quote the final score here as if it proved anything.

>>“Really no sense in arguing with armament of supersonic jet fighter to make a point about a WW2 propeller fighter.”

>And as I wrote there is not much relevance in your .5 M2/M3 HMG vs Soviet N-37 and NR-23 argument in Hispano Mk V vs MK 108 conversation or much relevance either if I claimed that because JAAF was much more satisfied with Ho-103 than with Ho-301(the extreme low velocity HE gun) low velocity gun with effective HE shell was a failure.

Sounds like you're trying to troll me here. Not only does the final USAF 9:1 kill ratio (if it was that good) say nothing about the qualities about the aircraft guns used by the warring sides, but the Ho-301 is in fact a 40 mm cannon with a subsonic muzzle velocity of roughly 250 m/s, less than half of that of the MK 108, and in no way a similar weapon.

>Now the cannon in supersonic fighter was/is for subsonic combat. 

As have I pointed out above, you have to consider typical target speeds to classify an aircraft gun as "low" or "high" velocity. If a MiG-21 met an F-4 in air combat, they would dogfight at much higher speeds than the Me 109 meeting a P-47. If the F-4 was flying at twice the speed of the P-47, a cannon with twice the absolute muzzle velocity would still have to be classified as a low-velocity cannon because it would impose the same tactical restrains in jet combat as the low-velocity WW2 cannon in propeller-fighter combat.

>>Quote:” that it had excellent qualities as a dogfighting weapon in the air combat environment of WW2”

>I simply disagree and if we cannot bring new facts in this conversation it’s better agree that we disagree in this subject.

Well, the excellent qualities of the MK 108 as a dogfighting weapon are facts that are not open to disagreement. These were: Extremely high firepower, low dispersion, low weight, suitability for centreline mounting. In fact, the firepower of one MK 108 was that of four Hispano V cannon if ammunition of equal total energy was carried:

1x MK 108 - 87 rpg - 111 kg - 221% firepower
4x Hispano V - 106 rpg - 272 kg - 217% firepower
8x ,50 Browning M2 - 250 rpg - 452 kg - 100% firepower

Note that the weight Hispano V battery weighs more than twice as much as the MK 108 battery.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## drgondog (Sep 15, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Against your rhetorics, it is a simple fact that the USAF was disappointed with the performance of .50 caliber guns in Korea. Like in the BoB, the matter was not how many were successfully shot down with them, but how many times it happened that MiGs just got away riddled with .50s. In response 20mm installations were tried, but IIRC again it happened that the US 20mm were just unreliable.



It was just too late. The USMC FJ-4 was so equipped but not deployed and all subsequent designs with a gun for (post 1953) USAF fighters had the 20mm and the F-105 was the first with the M-61 Vulcan internally.

The primary reason was lack of destructive power at high altitude engagements where fire was not an immediate issue to a heavy concentration of hits. 

The six centrally mounted 50's were much better than the wing mounted guns of the 51 and 47 - a/c weren't buring at 35,000 feet.

The USAF experimented with 15mm (60 cal) HE and HEI at Eglin in 1951 but decided the cost to benefit was less than the 20MM Colt.


----------



## Juha (Sep 15, 2008)

Hello Kurfürst
Quote: ” It would appear that plenty of fighters fell to the thing - one oral account from Tobak főhadnagy describes a turning fight with a Yakovlev-(9?), in which the Yak' entered a very steep turn. Tobak had to pull such an amount of G to get a deflection on it, tried a 13mm test-burst first, then let the 108 loose. The Yak got ripped to pieces.”

As I wrote it had tendency to jam not that it jammed when fired under G loads much different from 1. Latest I read on that was from Düttmann’s memoirs. And he shot down quite a few Soviet planes with MK108 IIRC but he developed his own tactic to circumvent the need to fire under G.

Quote:” but how many times it happened that MiGs just got away riddled with .50s”

Have you any numbers?

HoHun
Quote” Obviously, if not every hit is effective, any number of hits can be ineffecive. The average number of 20 mm hits requried for a fighter kill was 6 according to Luftwaffe experience, which mean that there was quite a lot of room to the 2 to 3 hits you are quoting.”

Now hit a wingtip, was it 7,7mm. 12.7mm. 20mm or 30mm was not usually fatal, depending to some extent how the aileron was placed. And ANY number of hits can be ineffective? Have you ever heard Bf 109 which flew after 100 20mm hits? What is you problem, we are talking on damaged plane not a destroyed plane and have you some statics how many % of say Bf 109Gs continued a fight after 2-3 20mm hits? Bf 109G could well survive 2-3 20mm hits but what I have read from combat reports after those hits pilots disengaged and nursed they planes home if the hits were not in vulnerable areas.

Quote:” nothing about the qualities about the aircraft guns used by the warring sides.”

Now do you claim if F-86s would have been armed by 6 .3 mgs the results would have been same? So IMHO the results say something but not everything.

Quote:"the Ho-301 is in fact a 40 mm cannon with a subsonic muzzle velocity of roughly 250 m/s, less than half of that of the MK 108, and in no way a similar weapon."

Probably Ho-301 wasn't much more different (if we leave out that its ammo was caseless) from MK 108 than .5 M3 was from Hispano Mk V. (one was HMG and the other cannon, one shot bullets the other shells and shots and the bullet of .5 weighted only 1/3 of the weight of the shell of Hispano)


Quote:” the excellent qualities of the MK 108 as a dogfighting weapon are facts that are not open to disagreement.”

You say so, so what. Even this thread show that there is disagreement. And there is more than one way to calculate firepower, you can think that yours is the only right one but its your opinion.

Juha


----------



## HoHun (Sep 15, 2008)

Hi Juha,

>Now do you claim if F-86s would have been armed by 6 .3 mgs the results would have been same?

Try to draw a rational conclusion from the 9:1 kill ratio allegedly achieved by the F-86 over the MiG-15, and I perhaps I will consider that worth a reply.

>Probably Ho-301 wasn't much more different (if we leave out that its ammo was caseless) from MK 108 than .5 M3 was from Hispano Mk V.

Try to draw a rational conclusion from the technical parameters of the quoted weapons, and perhaps I will consider it worth a reply.

>>” the excellent qualities of the MK 108 as a dogfighting weapon are facts that are not open to disagreement.”

>You say so, so what. 

If you'd have read on, you'd find that I listed the specific qualities right below that. With which of these do you mean to disagree? I'm getting tired of your attitude posts.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Juha (Sep 16, 2008)

Hello HoHun

Quote:” And since so many other things have an effect on kill ratio that it doesn't tell us anything about weapon quality, it strikes me as pointless posturing on your part to quote the final score here as if it proved anything.”

Quote:“Not only does the final USAF 9:1 kill ratio (if it was that good) say nothing about the qualities about the aircraft guns used by the warring sides”

So if kill ratio tells nothing about weapon quality so weapon quality has no effect on kill ratio, so why to discuss on what was the best gun because weapon quality is irrelevant to kill ratio and so logically also to ability to achieve kills? Maybe you make an exception on German guns but as I wrote earlier “I simply disagree and if we cannot bring new facts in this conversation it’s better agree that we disagree in this subject.”

Juha


----------



## HoHun (Sep 16, 2008)

Hi Juha,

>>Try to draw a rational conclusion from the 9:1 kill ratio allegedly achieved by the F-86 over the MiG-15, and I perhaps I will consider that worth a reply.

>So if kill ratio tells nothing about weapon quality so weapon quality has no effect on kill ratio, so why to discuss on what was the best gun because weapon quality is irrelevant to kill ratio and so logically also to ability to achieve kills? 

That is not a rational conclusion, that is a rethorical question. To help you a bit: You could make a rational conclusion about the combined quality of the personnel, tactical doctrines and weapons systems in general from the kill ratio achieved in the Korean War, but not one regarding one specific factor because "many other things have effect on kill ratio". That were your own words on the topic, I'd have put a "too" in front of them to make the meaning even clearer. 

It is especially futile to try and use the general kill ratio in support of a hypothesis which is contradicted by much more specific information we have: both the American and the Soviet level of satisfaction with their guns.

Even then, neglecting to take into account the development of target speeds from WW2 to Korea when comparing the muzzle velocities of the guns used in the different conflicts would give bogus results.

>Maybe you make an exception on German guns but as I wrote earlier “I simply disagree and if we cannot bring new facts in this conversation it’s better agree that we disagree in this subject.”

You wrote this after quoting a specific statement listing facts about the MK 108 that are not a matter of opinion. Fuzzy disagreement is not good enough - either show my source data to be wrong, or explain why the listed qualities (extremely high firepower, low dispersion, low weight, suitability for centreline mounting) are not excellent qualities for a dogfighting weapon.

So far, you've only managed to convey considerable emotional distress at the thought of the MK 108 being an excellent dogfighting weapon, but I don't see that you have actually managed to disagree with anything I wrote specifically.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## KrazyKraut (Sep 16, 2008)

Juha said:


> And how many Me 262 kills there are against single engined fighters? At least 8th FC didn't lost many P-51s to Me 262s according to Drgondog.



Bär had 2 P-51s and 3 P-47s to his credit.

Rademacher had 5 single engined fighters, most of them P-51s and one Spitfire or Tempest.

Schall claims 4 P-51s while flying for Kdo Nowotny and further 6 while flying for 10./JG 7. He scored more single engine fighter kills in the Me 262 than he scored bomber kills.

Eder: 6 single engined fighters +1 probable and one P-38 while flying Me 262s.

With these four roughly 1/3 of their jet kills were single engined fighters.


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 16, 2008)

HoHun said:


> So far, you've only managed to convey considerable emotional distress at the thought of the MK 108 being an excellent dogfighting weapon, but I don't see that you have actually managed to disagree with anything I wrote specifically.



Brilliant assertion of the situation IMHO. 8)


----------



## Juha (Sep 16, 2008)

KrazyKraut
You are talking claims, now according to Drgondog on 17th July 2008 on this board “390 8th AF FC fighters were lost to all causes (air, flak, Ops, accident, unknown) from Jan1 1945 through the end of the war. more than 240 were lost to flak.

I'm still cross checking but it seems that of the 390 lost in the last 4 months, 36 were air to air and 6 more 'Unknown - last seen..". Of the 36 "known air", 5 were Me 262s, 16 were Me 109s and 15 were Fw 190s.


HoHun
disadvantages of MK 108
1) low muzzle velocity made hitting harder because it means longer flight time and so made the estimation of correct lead more difficult. It also means that correct range estimation is more important. And the estimation of correct lead and range are very difficult in air-to-air combat. Also longer flight time meant that the target has time to move farther from initial point. It doesn’t matter how effective your ammo is if you miss the target. Plane flying 550km/h will move 75m in ½ sec.

2) Low muzzle velocity means it was very preferable to open fire at short distance but the very effective ammo was itself problem here because it greatly increased risks of the shooter being hit by debris from target. That problem is mentioned in all memories of pilots flying Bf 109s equipped with MK 108 I can recall. That was also the reason why Major Jabs didn’t like MK 108 as can be seen in the RLM report on its use in Bf 110 published on 16 Jun 44. So low muzzle velocity made it preferable to open fire from close range and behind but effective ammo made just that kind of tactic dangerous.

3) Memories of at least a few aces mentioned the tendency of MK 108 jam if fired under G-forces much different from 1. And in dogfight those forces were common. And jammed gun isn’t very good thing even with super ammo.

Now we can state our points as many times you want but without new info this argument would go nowhere, we simply disagree in how good MK 108 was in dogfight situation. To me the key to success in air combat is hitting with effective ammo.

Juha


----------



## HoHun (Sep 16, 2008)

Hi Juha,

>Now we can state our points as many times you want [...]

Oh, I'd say we didn't really disagree about the factual points we both posted. (I accept the list of disadvantages you listed, and I take it that by posting that list instead of disagreeing with the advantages I listed, you accept my points too.) It's only in the conclusion we disagreed - I consider the MK 108 an excellent dogfighting weapon, and you (as I interpreted it  don't.

>1) low muzzle velocity made hitting harder because it means longer flight time and so made the estimation of correct lead more difficult. 

At short range, with a centre-line mounted low-dispersion weapon, this is not that much of a problem. The technique is to aim ahead of the fuselage without attempting to track perfectly, and fire a burst of just a few rounds. The spread of the burst has a good chance of overlapping the length of the fuselage if you do this correctly.

This is only a worthwhile tactic because of the high firepower of the weapon, meaning that you only need one or two hits to bring down the target. With a lower-firepower weapon, it would take multiple hits, and you can only get in a few hits per pass this way.

(It's a highly attractive tactic due to the out-of-plane, high-energy, non-tracking fighting style implications I mentioned above. Due to the preference of intersecting vectors over pursuit curves, it also decreases the average firing ranges, which is a desired effect.)

>2) Low muzzle velocity means it was very preferable to open fire at short distance but the very effective ammo was itself problem here because it greatly increased risks of the shooter being hit by debris from target. 

Oh, but how many Luftwaffe aircraft were actually lost to that? I don't think it was much of an operational concern and paled in comparison to the advantages of the high firepower the MK 108 offered. With regard to Major Jabs, I haven't read the report you mention (but of course would be interested to, if you have a link), but I think he was flying as a night fighter in 1944, so I guess he wasn't actually dogfighting enemy fighters, but rather blowing up bomb-loaden Viermots at point-blank range.

Additionally, using the snapshot tactics I mentioned means that you are not usually flying in the wake of your target where the debris would strike you. A disintegrating aircraft isn't equivalent to a fragmentation warhead, but the parts coming off are decelerated by the increased drag (and lack of propulsion) of the debris compared to the attacking aircraft, becoming sort of a stationary obstacle a pursuing attacking flies into. If you're not pursuing, there is not much danger.

>3) Memories of at least a few aces mentioned the tendency of MK 108 jam if fired under G-forces much different from 1. 

Again, how often did this happen? All weapons suffered from a certain jam rate, with G forces playing a role for pretty much any weapon ... and anecdotal evidence is not very good for determining the actual operational impact of anything.

(By the way, the snapshot tactic I described actually tends to minimize the G rates pulled while firing because it's not necessary - or desired - to actually track the target. Some Gs might still be pulled, though.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## KrazyKraut (Sep 17, 2008)

Juha said:


> KrazyKraut
> You are talking claims, now according to Drgondog on 17th July 2008 on this board “390 8th AF FC fighters were lost to all causes (air, flak, Ops, accident, unknown) from Jan1 1945 through the end of the war. more than 240 were lost to flak.
> 
> I'm still cross checking but it seems that of the 390 lost in the last 4 months, 36 were air to air and 6 more 'Unknown - last seen..". Of the 36 "known air", 5 were Me 262s, 16 were Me 109s and 15 were Fw 190s.



So what? First of all 8th air force weren't the only allied force flying over germany. Second: The way the Me 262 engaged it is very well possible they were not identified as such or seen at all and their victims were simply written off as "unknown" or "lost to flak". Third: Me 262s were very well fighting prior to new year's eve 1945: Of Schall's fighter kills, 5 were with Kdo Nowotny in November of '44. And finally: It doesn't matter if I am "talking claims". Everyone knows the awarded kill numbers are distorted, but, unless you assume a direct manipulation towards fighter kills, they still draw a very clear picture: that about 1/4 to 1/3 of all Me 262 kills were fighters.


----------



## Maximowitz (Sep 17, 2008)

Is it just me or is this thread becoming an increasingly tangential argument about the relative merits of armament?


----------



## Juha (Sep 17, 2008)

Maximowitz
Quote:” Is it just me or is this thread becoming an increasingly tangential argument about the relative merits of armament?”

Sorry on that, this will be my last message on that subject, hopefully!

HoHun
Quote:” At short range, with a centre-line mounted low-dispersion weapon, this is not that much of a problem. The technique is to aim ahead of the fuselage without attempting to track perfectly, and fire a burst of just a few rounds. The spread of the burst has a good chance of overlapping the length of the fuselage if you do this correctly.”

True, but the point is if one could do that correctly. High angle deflection shooting was a skill that only few mastered and trying that with a low mv weapon made that just more difficult. Because the great difficulty of high angle deflection shooting using a reflector gun sight was well known fact a/c were unprotected against flanking fire so IMHO if the shooter was one of those few who could do that or one with exceptional luck and his aim was perfect IMHO it doesn’t matter if the target fighter was hit by 2-3 MK 108 Minen shells, 4-6 20mm HE or 20-30 .5 API from nose to cockpit. Only difference in average case would have been that the deed was more difficult to make with MK 108 because its lower mv.
If the shooter had allowed a bit too little lead and hits were against rear fuselage, then there might have difference because 2-3 MK 108 hits would be surely enough but in case they were duds, if the hits were 20mm HE IMHO odds are that the plane was goner but that wasn’t sure. I don’t have opinion on effects of .5 API hits. But with same lead error high mv weapons hits would be more forward and it’s entire possible that first high mv hits were in cockpit when first low mv hits were in tail.
If the shooter had made a bit bigger mistake in lead high mv hits would be at least partly in tail and MK 108 shells would miss behind.
And in most common scenario it doesn’t matter what guns were in use because shooter would miss behind because of too little lead.
So don’t agree with your theory, it worked only for those rare pilots who mastered high angle deflection shooting and those could kill a single engine fighter with any reasonable effective gun. IIRC that skill was properly teached only in a few air forces.

Quote:” I don't think it was much of an operational concern”

Anyway for some reason aces seems to mention that in their memoirs.

Quote:” With regard to Major Jabs, I haven't read the report you mention (but of course would be interested to, if you have a link), but I think he was flying as a night fighter in 1944, so I guess he wasn't actually dogfighting enemy fighters, but rather blowing up bomb-loaden Viermots at point-blank range.”

Doubt that it is in net. Have read only short references from Mankau’s and Petrick’s Messerschmitt Bf 110/Me210/Me410. Yes Jabs flew in NJG 1 but he wasn’t blowing up Viermots, he was shooting them down while being careful not to blow them up into his face and I doubt that when MK 108 came in service there were many so dim LW night fighter pilots that tried to hit bomb bay of a Viermot and Jabs:”Kills using the MK108 nearly always results damage to the attacking a/c, which is struck by pieces from the stricken a/c, even with one hit”
Now behind and under happened to be a good position to attack enemy fighter because then the attacker is in blind spot.

Quote:” weapons suffered from a certain jam rate, with G forces playing a role for pretty much any weapon ...”

True but it is mentioned as something different than how MG 151/20 behaved and Düttmann had technical background and his memoirs gives impression that he really was interesting in technical matters.

Juha


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 18, 2008)

> At short range, with a centre-line mounted low-dispersion weapon, this is not that much of a problem. The technique is to aim ahead of the fuselage without attempting to track perfectly, and fire a burst of just a few rounds. The spread of the burst has a good chance of overlapping the length of the fuselage if you do this correctly.




Sounds tricky, but a good pilot could do it I guess.


----------



## HoHun (Sep 18, 2008)

Hi Juha,

>True, but the point is if one could do that correctly. High angle deflection shooting was a skill that only few mastered and trying that with a low mv weapon made that just more difficult. 

The difficult skill actually is sustained continuous tracking for deflection shooting. Just aiming somewhere in front of the target and letting the target fly though that is way easier. Of course, with low-firepower shots, this is not going to give great kill chances per attack ... but the MK 108 was a high-firepower weapon.

>IMHO it doesn’t matter if the target fighter was hit by 2-3 MK 108 Minen shells, 4-6 20mm HE or 20-30 .5 API from nose to cockpit. 

Hm, the comparison should actually be 1 MK 108 round vs. 5 Hispano rounds vs. 23 12.7 mm API rounds:

MK 108 mine shell: 503 kJ total energy
Hispano V high explosive round: 103 kJ total energy
Browning 12.7 mm armour-piercing incendiary round: 21.8 kJ total energy

In a half-second burst, you get 5 MK 108 rounds (single-barrel as in Me 109), 10 Hispano rounds (twin-barrel as in Spitfire) or 39 Browning rounds (six-barrel as in P-51) into the air.

Assuming a hit rate of 20%, that would give the one MK 108 hit required to down a fighter, or 2 20 mm hits (with on the average 6 being required for a fighter kill), or 8 12.7 mm hits (for which I have no lethality data, but of which 30 are required to match the energy of 6 20 mm MG 151/20 rounds).

>And in most common scenario it doesn’t matter what guns were in use because shooter would miss behind because of too little lead.

Oh, well, I don't buy into the "inexperienced killer" concept. Mike Spick in "The Ace Factor" points out that across all air forces, 5% of the pilots achieved 40% of the kills, and even in the 8th Air Force were the experienced aces got rotated out after a while while the new guys received excellent training, the top 20% of the fighter pilots achieved 50% of the kills.

So it actually makes sense to pick a weapon that is tailored for experienced pilots and not for newbies because it always are the experienced pilots that do the killing, not the newbies who don't usually score anyway.

>So don’t agree with your theory, it worked only for those rare pilots who mastered high angle deflection shooting and those could kill a single engine fighter with any reasonable effective gun. IIRC that skill was properly teached only in a few air forces.

Well, as pointed out above, there is a big difference between continuous tracking and setting up snapshots. The latter is quite a bit easier, but only suitable for high-firepower weapons (and greatly facilitated by centreline guns). 

With regard to skills required ... in any air force it were the experienced pilots who were the effective killers. Thus, if a weapon is powerful in skilled hands, it's a good choice for an air force.

>>” I don't think it was much of an operational concern”

>Anyway for some reason aces seems to mention that in their memoirs.

Oh well, memoirs are not statistics. Alone that the Me 109 had only one main gun will have concentrated the mind of the pilot on the question of jamming, regardless of the real probability. It's like the psychological stress admitted by pilots flying single-engined aircraft over water - no matter how the chances really are, the moment the coast is out of sight, the engine seems to run uneven and rough, only to purr smoothly again once the aircraft re-gains terra firma.

>Now behind and under happened to be a good position to attack enemy fighter because then the attacker is in blind spot.

Yes, but how often does that happen during a dogfight, and how big are the chances of actually getting a crippling hit from debris when it happens? We're talking about infinitesimal chances here.

>True but it is mentioned as something different than how MG 151/20 behaved and Düttmann had technical background and his memoirs gives impression that he really was interesting in technical matters.

The MG 151/20 certainly was a mature weapon, and the MK 108 might not have been as mature yet. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the MK 108 had an unacceptable jam rate. If the jam rate had been unacceptable, we'd have seen a strong reaction from the Luftwaffe, not just some mentions in fighter pilot memoirs. The Luftwaffe had all the data, and neither did they revert to the MG 151/20 nor am I aware of any emergency trouble-shooting measures to fix the MK 108's reliability they left on the historical record. If they didn't try to fix it, it probably wasn't broken ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Juha (Sep 19, 2008)

Hello HoHun
My last message on this subject
You seem not to understand the difficulties of aerial gunnery, Not many of us can shot swallows with pistol even if it is one hit kill weapon in that role and even ducks were hunted with shot gun not with rifle.
When I got my short training on shooting aerial targets the lesson was first track a second then move fast the gun in the amount of estimated lead along the projected track of the target and shoot. The teaching wasn’t, aim somewhere front of the target and take a snap shot. And I trust more on my army instructors than you in this subject.

In real word good high angle deflection shooters like Rall and Marseille showed that one MG 151 was enough to shoot down fighters, with a little help by two MG 17s. To expert one rather high mv cannon was OK. MK 108 on the other hand made Il-2 much easier one would almost say easy target.

If you bother you can calculate how many hits into side of DB605 or Merlin disabled it or how many hits into cockpit disabled the pilot or how big contact fuzed shell was needed to destroy a fighter if the shell missed the target by 75cm.

Quote:” and how big are the chances of actually getting a crippling hit from debris when it happens? We're talking about infinitesimal chances here.”

Read again what Jabs wrote.

The field is all yours, I’ll not continue this conversation
Juha


----------



## HoHun (Sep 19, 2008)

Hi Juha,

>You seem not to understand the difficulties of aerial gunnery

Snapshots are standard operating procedure ... just look up Shaw's "Fighter Combat", page 20, to see I'm well in agreement with the author of "the fighter pilot's bible".

Shaw distinguishes between "snapshots" (the technique to use with the MK 108 at short range) and "tracking shots" (what the army taught you). As your army training was for tracking shots, you didn't learn about snapshots. However, the priorities in anti-aircraft fire are different from air-to-air fire, so it's not an oversight by your instructors - it's just that regarding our topic, you can't draw any valid conclusions from your army training.

>>Quote:” and how big are the chances of actually getting a crippling hit from debris when it happens? We're talking about infinitesimal chances here.”

>Read again what Jabs wrote.

My quote actually started (emphasis added): "Yes, but how often does that happen during a DOGFIGHT, ...", as we're discussing fighter-vs.-fighter combat here.

I also asked for the chances of a CRIPPLING debris hit. If the target goes down at the price of some scratched paint on your Me 109, that's not much a problem even if it happens every time you kill an enemy fighter.

>The field is all yours, I’ll not continue this conversation

Hm, that's slightly disappointing as I thought it was an interesting topic ... feel free to add more information if you come across relevant stuff in the future.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 19, 2008)

Perhaps you could start a thread on this in the weapons subforum.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 19, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Hi Juha,
> 
> >You seem not to understand the difficulties of aerial gunnery
> 
> ...



Henning wondering if you shoot international skeet?

If you do there is a near perfect analogy at station 2 High house or worst case station six low.

A snap shooter like Petrov - USSR '68 Olympics would position his Baikal with position of body and shotgun to move vertically to intercept the horizontal target. When he broke the target (98%of the time) it was approximately 10 feet out of the house from a low gun position. The rest of us were breaking the target at 50' in the semi tracking swing through method. He was exceptionally gifted and the only Olympic quality shooter that I ever saw that was capable winning with this method.

We all have seen the very rare 'one off' shooting at an a/c entering the gun camera field in a rapid 90 degree crossing manuever, but even fewer showing a hit. 

Finding the track, aligning the path of the a/c or shotgun to the target track, 'swinging through' and adjusting as you shoot is a far more reliable (and teachable) technique. With a Grouse in heavy cover you don't take the shot in leisure and you don't eat if you don't take the shot - but you'll miss a lot more than a reasonable time to swing through the flight path would avail you.


----------

