Favorite concentrated armament package.

[Clay_Allison]

My favorite thing about the P-38, Mosquito, and Bf-110 has always been the ability to mount weapons in the nose, concentrating firepower and giving the capacity for kills at greater ranges.

So, imagine you are arming a two-engine fighter for any of the war's air forces, what would be the armament package you want to point at the enemy? 10x7.62mm? 2x37mm? 3x30?

I like the idea of a Bf-110 with 6x MG-131.

 

[GrauGeist]

Is it limited to just fighters, or can modified bombers be included?

As far as favorite nose armaments configs go, I think it would be the Me262A-1a/U5 with the 6 Mk108s

 

[Civettone]

Of course we would be inclined to say the more and the heavier the better ... so I think that is the favorite armament of all ... such a 800 MGs and 50 cannons.

Perhaps you should set a maximum weight, or several weight configurations...

I kinda like 2 MG-FF/Ms and 1 MK 108 for aerial fighting, and 2 MG 151s and 1 MK 103 for ground attacks. Or just 1 Flak 43 gun...

Kris

 

[GrauGeist]

If bombers could be included (perhaps twin engined only?), then I'd say a good lightweight twin engined bomber/gunship would be the B-25H, with or without the 75mm T13E1. It could bring 10 "fifties" to bear forward....that's alot of hurt!

 

[paradoxguy]

At least four 20mm MG 151 cannon with 250 rpg and two 30mm MK 108 cannon with 175 rpg (or higher rpg if allowed). If performance of the fighter is not compromised and sufficient space is available, then I would upgrade the MK 108 cannon to MK 103 with 150 rpg (or higher if permitted), and then, if performance and space reserves were still available, then increase the number of MK 103 to four with 150 rpg (again, or higher if able).

 

[fastmongrel]

I dont know if it ever flew as such but the Gloster Meteor was designed to carry 6x20mm Hispano. 65 high velocity cannon shells a second would mean a bad day for anyone who got in the way.

 

[Shortround6]

I don't know how many peaple are aware of this article From Mr. Williams website:

WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS

Weight or time period might have to be taken into consideration.

What a 2200HP fighter ( twin 1100s) could carry effectively is going to be much less than what a 4000hp airplane could carry.

 

[Glider]

I dont know if it ever flew as such but the Gloster Meteor was designed to carry 6x20mm Hispano. 65 high velocity cannon shells a second would mean a bad day for anyone who got in the way.

I am afraid that it never flew with 6 x 20mm. The Spitfire was mocked up with a 6 x 20m configuration and the MB3 which never made production flew with 6 x 20mm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin-Baker_MB_3

 

[Civettone]

Yeah we really need some rules for this thread. Else it's pointless. I mean ... four MK 103s ?


Kris

 

[timshatz]

What did the Dornier Arrow carry as an armaments package? Seems like a pretty good way to build a twin engined fighter. Thought two Merlins, inline with a 4 pack of 20 MM cannons with muzzles and weapons underneath would be a brutally effective heavy fighter.

 

[davebender]

A short burst is lethal against fighter aircraft and will seriously damage a heavy bomber. A combination of high projectile velocity and centerline weapons mounting improves accuracy especially at long range. If you need even more firepower (for bomber busting) then carry R4/M rockets under the wings.

 

[paradoxguy]

Yeah we really need some rules for this thread. Else it's pointless. I mean ... four MK 103s ?


Kris

I'm risking some more ridicule here, but I'll ask anyway--is it really inconceivable that a twin-engined plane could carry four MK 103's? Is space the limiting factor? I realize now I did not know the dimensions of the MK 103 (only its weight, which I thought a high-powered twin-engined plane could manage four of).

I also was just having some fun with the question, which I thought was one of the goals.

 

[Erich]

the LW in 44-45 proved the point on it's Ju 88G NF's with center-line under the belly 4 2cm cannon, enough to terminate any Allied craft. Range limitations with 3cm weapons packages and any more than 4 weapons is futile due to weight. stick with simplicity gents .......

E ~

 

[Shortround6]

It is weight and size and what peformance you want the plane to have.
Four MK 103 with 60 rounds apiece comes out to about 750KG to which you have to add another 30-60% to account for mounts, ammo boxes, gun chargers and heaters, etc.

You are starting to get into the payload of a medium bomber. Which means the plane better have engines of around 1700-1800hp or better to have any hope of acting like a fighter.

 

[Civettone]

Why don't we set a standard here and now?

Let's say 150 kg for a 'normal' twin-engined fighter, and 300 kg for a larger and heavier one? That's only the guns, not the ammo and wiring etc.

So for instance, a British Hispano cannon weighs 50 kg and a Browning heavy MG 29 kg. The MK 108 weighs 60, MK 103 about double.
More weights at Tony's site: The WWII Fighter Gun Debate: Introduction

Kris

 

[pbfoot]

Bristol Beaufighter with 4 x 20mm and 6x 303's

 

[Clay_Allison]

All right, rules it is.

Rule #1 Only twin engined planes
Rule #2 Only engines that actually existed and were used in WWII
Rule #3 Only armament which could conceivably fit in the nose of your plane
Rule #4 You still want your plane to be able to work as a fighter. It's about best, including best balanced, not most powerful.

 

[Vincenzo]

Me 262 with 4 Mk 108?

 

[paradoxguy]

It is weight and size and what peformance you want the plane to have.
Four MK 103 with 60 rounds apiece comes out to about 750KG to which you have to add another 30-60% to account for mounts, ammo boxes, gun chargers and heaters, etc.

You are starting to get into the payload of a medium bomber. Which means the plane better have engines of around 1700-1800hp or better to have any hope of acting like a fighter.

Point taken, thanks. I didn't stop to consider how much significant the weight of ammunition and the other associated equipment of guns are. I can see why Civettone and probably almost everyone thought carrying 4 MK 103's with 100-150 rpg is a fantasy--which I now realize it is

All right, rules it is.

Rule #1 Only twin engined planes
Rule #2 Only engines that actually existed and were used in WWII
Rule #3 Only armament which could conceivably fit in the nose of your plane
Rule #4 You still want your plane to be able to work as a fighter. It's about best, including best balanced, not most powerful.

These guidelines should bring some much-needed rationale to people like I .

I wanted to clarify a few points:

1. Regarding rule #2, did you want us to provide engine specifications as well, such as power, displacement, etc? Any other specifications we need to provide besides those of armament and engines?
2. Regarding rule #3, can the zerstorer carry forward-firing armament in a ventral pack or gondola as well?

 

[drgondog]

Depends entirely on the intended mission of the aircraft and the probable optional roles.

US Fighters didn't need 30mm cannon. The B-25 could have welcomed them for the ship busting role in the SW Pacific.

IX TAC P-47s probably would have been better served with 4x20 but 8th AF 8x .50 just fine...I would like to have seen 4x20's in the P-51B/C/D w/125 rpg but 4x .50 also performed well.

The best equipped fighter for the mission may have been the Me 262 w/4x30mm but 4x20 in the nose was pretty impressive. Erich's comments for NF Ju 88 apply to German day fighters in ETO/MTO and Japanese fighters as well. They had bigger and tougher targets for their daily diet of Allied bombers.