Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
See my previous post. The Hispano fuse problem was sorted out fairly soon and was certainly not a problem for the entire war. In fact it may have been fixed by the time the MG 151/20 was in wide spread service.
Hispano API could penetrate the same amount of armor as a US.50 cal AP round but carried 10 grams of HE/incendiary filler behind the plate.
The Japanese 40mm was actually a terrible gun. with a MV half of MK108 it was ultimate "you have to get close' gun. rate of fire was slow and the "Projectile" weight includes the powder chamber if not the propellant giving a rather exaggerated idea of it's hitting power.
The BR 20 was a remarkable weapon without doubt but it was a late war weapon and only carried by some of the LA7 where it was syncronised. The comment re the Hispano II is a little harsh. It was heavy but not that much heavier than the 20mm Mg151 and still very effective but like you the nod goes to the Mg151 with its mine shell.
I read that problem still exists in July 1942. HE round auto-detonate at barrel and damage gun, other get great spread because fault design of driving head. 16 out of 250 round fired effected so, so fairly common.
API rounds good reported, AP two piece design very bad, breaks up in bomber fuselage.. Also API (SAPI) was ineffective causing fires in fuel tanks unless they are armored (were not in German bomber.. were in 109 though) to activate round. doesn't look like 'fixed' and MG 151/20 was introduced a whole year before that report of Hispano rounds..
see above.No, I think you mix up Hispano API round with HE round.. it would be funny if near-solid API would carry so much.
It doesnt work this way, you cannot have properties of API round and HEI round at same time... API round could penetrate armor, but had no explosive; HEI round could not penetrate any significant armor. You want both.. Test show HEIT type could penetrate less than 4 mm, as it detonated in the fuselage before attack armor; HEI type about 8 mm.
And no Hispano round carried 10 grams of HE/incendiary filler. Sorry I think this is wrong. Do you have cut diagram of round perhaps in British RAF. US HEI: they carry 5 gram of total, half-half of 2.5 gram: explosive, 2.5 gram incendiary. I think same as RAF. It would be funny if solid API round carry twice as much as special HE rounds of Hispano...
I would not call it terrible; it is very light, and gets great punch. The shell carried 65 gramm explosive - say 12 times Hispano round. It like shotgun, but I agree, for a little plus weight, MK 108 is much more practical. Shell 20% more power, MV twice, cyclic rate bigger etc. Greatest advantage is that Ho 301 is limited to 10-round "clips" - MK 108 can can carry as many there is place for.. I think about 135 round per gun was maximum, on Bf 110G. Still I think Ho 301 is very innovative gun, caseless etc.
Hi Glider!
I think we can judge firepower aspects
1 weapon as installed, like BR 20 in La 7
2, Weapon as self
3, Weapon as complex system of ammunition and possibilities for installment. Like: possible to install synronized? In wing? Through cannon shaft?
I agree about what you say is BR 20 late war. Late war of course always better - almost - because experience of early war. But I think my insight is analytical, like in No. 3 point. All things consider, possibilities. Good qualities: low weight, high ballistics, high cycle rate, misc. like reliability etc. You are right as you address "BR 20 in La 7" which is point 1, but I think of Point 3 more. So we speak little different when talk of same subject.
Ammo question I was unsure. Surely Mauser is very good design. Light, slim, compact, few pieces so easy to maintain. Big plus is however - Mine shells. If we approach from Point 2 - gun itself - it can not escape conclusion that say Shwak could fire Mine shell, had it developed. Hispano too. Or least, very likely. So, if we concentrate on "How good design of gun itself really was"?, ammo can be put aside. To create playing field that is even. Of course life was not. But for analytics this can be useful.
I do not have doubt of Hispano was very effective. It worked well. In my idea however, such qualities gun is best choice when there is only one, like French fighter moteur cannon. I think for ideal air weapon, lighter, more compact is better solution overall - say gain is obvious, when same weapon weight, you could have 3 Mark V Hispano instead of 2 Mark II Hispano and you fire 2 times the bullet because weapon also fires faster. Or you can say Mauser or Shwak. Mark V shows in my opinion British were thinking same, sacrificed bit of ballistics, but ballistic property is not so much important for air gun in opinion of mine (and people designed above guns- fire on aircraft, only 2-300 meter distance typical. Further, hit probability is so low, even with best external ballistics gun, not worth trying..
And no Hispano round carried 10 grams of HE/incendiary filler. Sorry I think this is wrong. Do you have cut diagram of round perhaps in British RAF. US HEI: they carry 5 gram of total, half-half of 2.5 gram: explosive, 2.5 gram incendiary. I think same as RAF. It would be funny if solid API round carry twice as much as special HE rounds of Hispano...
For which ammunition lot?
A bunch of different shell types were produced for the Hs.404 and Hispano Mk II cannon. I believe most of the WWII era Hispano HE ammunition contained about 6 grams of HE.
Total projectile weight matters only for AP rounds.
For HE rounds what counts is the amount of explosive filler delivered on target. That holds true for 20mm aircraft cannon shells just as it holds true for army field artillery.