Bomber vs fighter
- Thread starter mig-31bm
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
When the wing hits the fuselage of the bomber you are in range.
Velocity was indeed low, 890 m/s vs 540 m/s for the 108, but it's ROF was comparable to the .50 cal.
Well, 4 guns in an ME262 with a ROF similar to a .50 Cal, and probably 15-20 times the destructive power. A lot of shells in the air and it only takes a few to take down a B-17, that's how they did it.
The German also had a 55mm auto cannon for use in fighters in an anti-bomber role. Muzzle velocity about like the 108, about half the ROF, but I'd think one direct hit would frequently be able to take down a 4 engine bomber.
Well, 4 guns in an ME262 with a ROF similar to a .50 Cal, and probably 15-20 times the destructive power. A lot of shells in the air and it only takes a few to take down a B-17, that's how they did it.
The German also had a 55mm auto cannon for use in fighters in an anti-bomber role. Muzzle velocity about like the 108, about half the ROF, but I'd think one direct hit would frequently be able to take down a 4 engine bomber.
parsifal
Colonel
The low MV of the 30mm cannon made it less than ideal against a fast moving target or for a pilot inexperienced in gunery, excacaerbated by it relatively low rate of fire and limited ammunition supply. Possibly why the 20mm cannon remained the preferred aircraft gun after the war. A good combination of explosive power, rof, mv and flat trajectory made it the best all round weapon in the sky. Against bombers, the Mk 108 was very good, provided you could master deflection shooting. . In a head on or stern chase situations, you didnt need to worry as much about that, though fall of shot I would think might still be a bit of an issue.
TECHNICAL NOTES:
Weight: 135 lbs.
Muzzle velocity: 1,600 ft./sec.
Gun length overall: 45 in.
Barrel length: 23 in.
Maximum rate of fire: 450 rounds/min.
the light weoght version of the 50 cal weighed in at 61 lbs, had an MV of around 2800 fps, and a cyclic rof of 850 rpm. Effective range was also better. without a doubt, though, the 30mm cannon was a very lethal weapon, but as a gp weapon, i think i would prefer the 50 cal to be honest. The post war 30mm cannons did however completely obsolete the 50 cal as an aircraft weapon. The DEFA 30mm, designed at the Royal Small Arms Factory in 1946, had an effective rof or 1500 rpm, a muzzle velocity of 900 m/s and all the explosive capability of the MK108 without its drawbacks. Its only real drawback was its weight, which in the missile mad 50s was a bit of an issue.
TECHNICAL NOTES:
Weight: 135 lbs.
Muzzle velocity: 1,600 ft./sec.
Gun length overall: 45 in.
Barrel length: 23 in.
Maximum rate of fire: 450 rounds/min.
the light weoght version of the 50 cal weighed in at 61 lbs, had an MV of around 2800 fps, and a cyclic rof of 850 rpm. Effective range was also better. without a doubt, though, the 30mm cannon was a very lethal weapon, but as a gp weapon, i think i would prefer the 50 cal to be honest. The post war 30mm cannons did however completely obsolete the 50 cal as an aircraft weapon. The DEFA 30mm, designed at the Royal Small Arms Factory in 1946, had an effective rof or 1500 rpm, a muzzle velocity of 900 m/s and all the explosive capability of the MK108 without its drawbacks. Its only real drawback was its weight, which in the missile mad 50s was a bit of an issue.
Last edited:
I'd take the 30mm against a 4 engine bomber (multi 30's, not just one) but I would take the 20mm against fighters or other more nimble craft.
I've also seen more favorable specs on the MK 108. This is what I have seen in a multilple of places:
TECHNICAL NOTES:
Weight: 127.9 lbs.
Muzzle velocity: 1,640-1770 ft./sec.
Gun length overall: 3' 5.6"
Maximum rate of fire: 660 rounds/min.
Rheinmetall-Borsig MK 108 30mm cannon Luft '46 entry
Similar other than a slightly higher muzzle velocity and a fair amount higher rounds per minute. I've also most frequently seen the .50 cal with a 750-850 rate of fire, the source you have seems to only indicate the top end rate of fire.
I've also seen more favorable specs on the MK 108. This is what I have seen in a multilple of places:
TECHNICAL NOTES:
Weight: 127.9 lbs.
Muzzle velocity: 1,640-1770 ft./sec.
Gun length overall: 3' 5.6"
Maximum rate of fire: 660 rounds/min.
Rheinmetall-Borsig MK 108 30mm cannon Luft '46 entry
Similar other than a slightly higher muzzle velocity and a fair amount higher rounds per minute. I've also most frequently seen the .50 cal with a 750-850 rate of fire, the source you have seems to only indicate the top end rate of fire.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Rate of fire on the Mk 108 is all over the place. Sources vary from 500rpm to 850rpm with a number saying the rate of fire increased in the later ones without saying when the increase or increases occurred.
I would note however that the 20mm Hispano started at under 600rpm, went to 600rpm in most early service versions, went to 750rpm in the short barreled MK V and was giving 1000rpm in some experimental version/s during WW II.
What is important is what rate of fire the guns in service were using and when.
I would note however that the 20mm Hispano started at under 600rpm, went to 600rpm in most early service versions, went to 750rpm in the short barreled MK V and was giving 1000rpm in some experimental version/s during WW II.
What is important is what rate of fire the guns in service were using and when.
Only some 10 proto 55mm MK 112s were made and to my understanding none were ever installed on a plane.
Juha
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Me262A1/U4 fitted with the BK5 50mm cannon was not very effective and actually worked against the pilot by the blinding muzzle-flash when it fired. None of the two BK5 equipped Me262 "narwahls" ever saw combat.
This same cannon was used on the Me410A1/U4 and Ju88P-4 and saw combat.
Only 300 BK5 cannon were produced, it had a slow rate of fire and the drum magazine only held 21 rounds.
This same cannon was used on the Me410A1/U4 and Ju88P-4 and saw combat.
Only 300 BK5 cannon were produced, it had a slow rate of fire and the drum magazine only held 21 rounds.
Last edited:
Gents,
Perhaps another way of looking at it would be to increase accuracy. We are looking at this problem (fighters ability to shoot down a bomber) but only from the point of view of weapon type. In my opine the .50 cal would have been more than fine if the accuracy could have been improved a bit (would have helped with any target not just those that carried free fall, gravity propelled devices).
Current US fighters all have 20mm cannons except of course for the A-10.
Cheers,
Biff
Perhaps another way of looking at it would be to increase accuracy. We are looking at this problem (fighters ability to shoot down a bomber) but only from the point of view of weapon type. In my opine the .50 cal would have been more than fine if the accuracy could have been improved a bit (would have helped with any target not just those that carried free fall, gravity propelled devices).
Current US fighters all have 20mm cannons except of course for the A-10.
Cheers,
Biff
I would think accuracy is not as much of a benefit of the 20mm Vulcan as is rate of fire - 6000 rpm. That's the equivalent of 10 or more (more likely more) WW2 era 20mm cannons.
It probably benefits a bit as it's one weapon, so no harmonization to worry about, and nose mounted as opposed to wing mounted.
"Shoulder"-mounted would be kinda more accurate, I guess.
Only the F/A-18 has a nose-mounted Vulcan.Shortround6
Major General
Modern aircraft sometimes have the fire control linked through or to the flight controls (fly by wire?) to apply rudder or other flight control deflection for correction of flight path due to recoil of off center gun. Even the F-86Sabre used radar for range input into the gun sight rather than rely on visual estimation or trying to place wing span inside a ring. Modern gun sights and fire control are a LOT more accurate than even the best WW II gun sights.
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
For WW2 technology levels, the main accuracy problem lies with the pilot and sighting rather than the weapon itself.
When the RAF introduced the gyro gunsight, it was estimated to double a pilot's chance to hit in deflection shots. There's a graph somewhere with the exact figures from RAF trials, - showing % hits and range with standard reflector vs GGS - but I can't locate it at the moment.
If you want to shoot down heavy bombers, a 20 mm is a better choice than a 12.7, and a 30 mm is a better choice than a 20 mm.
Put it this way: The 4 x 20 mm set up in the Typhoon and Tempest offered roughly twice the firepower (on target effect through kinetic energy, incendiary and HE effect) of the 6 x .50 cal set up in US fighters, for slightly less weight.
The modern cannon fires pretty fast, but WW2 aircraft usually had four of the slower ones instead of one in modern jets, so the total rate of fire of modern jets is rather about "only" twice the rate achieved by WW2 cannon-armed fighters.
Jabberwocky,
That was my point exactly (you said it more elagantly than I)! Increased accuracy reduces both rounds required and time spent totally focused on one target.
In todays air to air environment it's difficult to gun an aware bandit. The next step in the evolution was the air to air missile. Initially it's usefulness might be compared to a WW1 fighter whose un-synchronized guns fired through the prop (I could add some serious explicatives here). They have grown from very short ranged visual only weapons to ones that can be launched at tremendous ranges, can self guide, do bat turns, and carry a nasty warhead designed to turn serious machines into smoking holes...
Cheers,
Biff
That was my point exactly (you said it more elagantly than I)! Increased accuracy reduces both rounds required and time spent totally focused on one target.
In todays air to air environment it's difficult to gun an aware bandit. The next step in the evolution was the air to air missile. Initially it's usefulness might be compared to a WW1 fighter whose un-synchronized guns fired through the prop (I could add some serious explicatives here). They have grown from very short ranged visual only weapons to ones that can be launched at tremendous ranges, can self guide, do bat turns, and carry a nasty warhead designed to turn serious machines into smoking holes...
Cheers,
Biff
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
This is true for almost any target capable of maneouvering, in any period.
WW2, with its fleets of bombers flying in formation, provides an exception to most of the length history of air combat, although it makes up for it in sheer numbers of combats.
Even in WW2, heavy bombers could and did evade fighters with hard maneouvering (UK heavies at night, for example).
Wow - great video!
So much to say about that.
Of course, the bravery.
Did the Germans roll over while attacking?
I also appreciate the customized machine gun installations.
Also gotta wonder if Mosquito's or something else would have been a better choice for PR, but obviously you've gotta use what you've got.
