3.7cm Bordkanone

Discussion in 'Weapons Systems Tech.' started by davebender, Feb 16, 2013.

  1. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Was it derived from 3.7cm Flak 18 or newer 3.7cm Flak 43?
     
  2. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,994
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    #2 tomo pauk, Feb 16, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2013
    From pre-war weapons. It was operating by short recoil, firing at 160 rpm cyclic.
    The Flak 43 was gas operated, firing at 250 pm cyclic. According to Tony Williams.

    BTW, Dave, I think I have the answer why the Czechs installed double magazines instead of belts, in their take at 30mm AAA. The cartridges were to be lubricated ( by a mixture of oil and grease, we've called that 'emulsion') in order for cannon to work properly. Much easier tidier to manipulate, than messing with greasy heavy belts.
     
  3. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Why didn't they use the newer 3.7cm Flak43?
     
  4. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,994
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    IMO the main benefit (higher RoF) meant nothing for the purpose - the gun was to be employed more akin big sniper, than a big MG. The feeble ammo supply would last longer, too.
    The ground based Flak needed all the RoF it could muster, on the other hand.
     
  5. Denniss

    Denniss Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I assume the FlaK 18 was available and known as reliable whereas the FlaK43 was still in development/prototype status.
     
  6. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    I'm under the impression 3.7cm Flak43 evolved from belt feed 3cm Mk103 cannon. If so then a belt feed variant of 3.7cm Flak43 should also have been possible. That would solve the limited ammo supply problem.
     
  7. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,769
    Likes Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    Except that the 3.7cm Flak43 didn't have a belt feed which means all the detail work would have to be done. Simply scaling up all parts is just a start. It also doesn't solve the weight problem. Each round of 37mm ammo weighs about 1.5kg. Each round of 30mm ammo (HE) was 815 grams.

    And what do you get for all this work? 160rpm is 2.66 rounds per second. 250rpm for the Flak 43 is 4.16 rounds per second. A 3 second burst from the Flak 18 is 8 rounds (OK 7.98 ) rounds. From a Flak 43 it is 12.5 rounds. That is if the trigger is held down and not if the guns are used as semi automatics. chances of still being on target after 3 seconds are slim and none. The faster firing guns will transmit more recoil to the plane and if not ON the flight/thrust axis will cause the nose to dip more.

    More rounds fired that miss is not an increase in firepower.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. davebender
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    4,224

Share This Page