- Thread starter
-
- #141
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It was a mistype Soren. I have been working with a company called Free Form, these things happenMaybe, but it still strikes me as a very odd misspelling.
Sorry but that's just pure rubbish Claidemore. The Mk108 was considered a very effective weapon for long range shooting by the LW, one of the most accurate.
Trying a Mk103 in a dogfight is at a disadvantage due to the low rate of fire and the huge amount of extra weight which would also ruin performance.The answer is simple Glider: A shorter flighttime. The Mk103 would've made deflection shooting in dogfights easier. But that's not what we were discussing, we were discussing ballistics accuracy, and the Mk108 was one of the more accurate guns put on LW a/c.
Look at Hennings chart on posting 22. That shows you the poor balistics at any range.Now to top it off you simply have no proof that the accuracy or ballistics of the 30mm Mk108 was bad. I on the other hand have the LW pilots opinion which makes it quite clear that the Mk108 was one of the most accurate guns.
Accuracy is one things, accuracy at range is another. The Mk 108 may well be accurate but I don't believe that it has range.HoHun has also presented a study from Luftfahrt 15 which shows the superior accuracy of the Mk108, even in deflection shooting. So what is your source for saying the opposite besides opinion?
Switching to 20 mm cannon was not however an unmixed blessing from a reliability point of view. One of my sources who operated the F8U mentioned that the care and feeding of it's 4-20mms was extremely complicated and not always successful.
The Crusader used the Colt Mk.12 cannon, a gun based on the Hispano, but with a rate of fire of ~1,000 rpm, it used ammunition similar to the USAF's used on the M39 and later M61 (derived from the WWII .60 cal ATR) but with a case lenthened from 102 to 110 mm and fired a heavier projectile at a slightly lower velocity. The reliability problems seem to have been resulted to the feed system as you mentioned, being particularly sensitive to high-G maneuvers (also a problem on the Pre-D P-51's .50's). I'm not sure how the reliability of the M3 (used just afer WWII and by the USN in Korea) or M24 Hispano would compare for reliability, but I expect they'd be better.
My source on the various German 30 mm shells has the MK 108(mine/tracer) with a MV of 1640 fps, and calls it self destructive. I assume that means it explodes upon contact. It is very blunt nosed, not spitzer shaped which would give it a poor BC. The Mk 108(incendiary) has a similar MV and is also self destructive and has the blunt nose. The MK 103(tungsten cabide core) has a MV of 3150 fps, is not self destructive but is meant for use against tanks. The projectile is spitzer shaped which would enhance BC. The Mk 103(incendiary/tracer) has a MV of 2950 fps, is not self destructive and has the blunt nose. It appears that all the rounds meant for air to air combat would have poor BCs and the two explosive rounds do not have a particularly high MV. In fact their MV is inferior to the MV of the Japanese Type 99 model 2 MK4 20mm cannon used in the A6M which had a MV of 1968 fps.
Also important in the text were the effects on Hisso's 20mm HEI on armour and whatever was behind it the effects of very near detonation on self-sealing fuel tank. As we know the self sealing worked better against numerous tiny holes than fewer bigger holes.
Juha
Hello Kurfürst
You are rignt, but because Hisso fired heavier shell with higher MV, its HEI probably was more effective.
Juha
You're assuming 100 % hit rate there I'm sure the Luftwaffe wouldn't have worried about extra guns if their pilots could shoot that accurate, but the hit rate figure they were realistically expecting was less than 10 % (9 % at a combat range of 500 m in one report, 5 % with no range specified in another.)