Info on Me262 with the BIG gun in the nose

[Crumpp]

At 400 m range, the MK 108 battery is superior

The Mk108 was an excellent air to air weapon given the targeting technology of the day.

If not the pinnacle of aircraft projectile weaponry in 1945, it was at least very close to it.

The Ta-152C schußwaffenanlage and the Bf-109G umrüstatz 4 schußwaffenanlage all give the Mk108 a point blank zero at 400m.

When one considers that the chances of landing lethal strikes plummets in the 100m from 400m-500m, the Mk 108 was an optimal design for the sights of the day.

According to an RAE study, the chance of landing a lethal hit with any gun system, drop from 55% at 400m to 13% at 500m with a non-CGS sight.

All the best,

Crumpp

 

[Crumpp]

The 262s had a hard enough tome scoring with 30mm from close range with the closing speeds.

Hi Bill,

They definately did have a very hard time scoring hits.

I tend to think that this is a consequence of the closure speeds and not the weapons. Short of a laser beam or the modern day lead based equivilent, a mini-gun, there is not a projective weapon system that would have faired any better in the 262 IMHO.

This was a problem of the jet age.

All the best,

Crumpp

 

[drgondog]

Hi Bill,

They definately did have a very hard time scoring hits.

I tend to think that this is a consequence of the closure speeds and not the weapons. Short of a laser beam or the modern day lead based equivilent, a mini-gun, there is not a projective weapon system that would have faired any better in the 262 IMHO.

This was a problem of the jet age.

All the best,

Crumpp

I totally agree, and actually believe the fast firing, ballistically superior 20mm might have had an edge over the Mk103 or 108 30mm with EZ 42 gunsight. There is zero issue in my mind about superior killing capabilty of the 30mm over the 20mm..

My reasoning, not supported by any specific statistics, is that great ballistics and higher rate of combined fire should give the 262 a chance to start firing at 800 yards and close to 300 before having to make a decision about break.

I have no comprehension why the 262 was ever equipped for night fighting with all the issues about closing speeds on targets you can actually see in daylight...

 

[Erich]

simplicity really, even Kommando Welter had considered pulling the 4 3cm pieces and replacing them with the 2cm mauser as it was already proven effective with the Ju 88G-6 craft in bomber killing, the 262 then could of had a later or farther start in letting off it's cannon and yet having to place more rounds into the Allied craft the use of 2cm Minen was standard equipment by 1945 ~ HE and HE/I

as to closing speeds believe it or not the 262 was ideal for Mossie hunting, dive from above and then swoop up slightly and let go with the heavy cannon. Yes it was earmarked for the future to engage the slower 4 engines, that was the plan anyway ..... with the twin seater and all the goofy radar hardware in and out the twin seater and external twin drop fuel tanks was quite a bit slower overall than the single seat A-1a used by the 10./NJG 11

 

[Crumpp]

Hi Bill,

I think you would be absolutely right if our sighting technology was not the limitation.

It is my understanding that even with CGS sights; engagement ranges were still only practical in the vicinity of 400M-500M.

The only real improvement in aerial projectile weapons, the multi barrel electric cannon, did not exist. The next step in targeting innovation, the radar CGS, did not exist either. So within the limits of targeting technology, I don't think you could get a better weapon system than Mk108 in the Me262.

The weapon itself is immaterial as we are restricted by our ability to accurately target.

If all of our weapons show a similar ability to land hits due to sighting restrictions, we might as well make the hits we do get count.

Here is a portion from the German experience with the EZ40/42 program. The engagement ranges are typical:



Here is the RAE experience with CGS sights. While they do improve a pilots hit chances considerably, there effectiveness dropped steadily with range. At 400M-500M the chances of downing an aircraft were greater than a reflex sight but still not very good.




All the best,

Crumpp

 

[drgondog]

Hi Bill,

I think you would be absolutely right if our sighting technology was not the limitation.

It is my understanding that even with CGS sights; engagement ranges were still only practical in the vicinity of 400M-500M.

I agree fundamental point and not suggesting that any piston engine fighter with either the K-14 or EZ 42 engage beyond 300 - with 150 even better. My sole and only speculation would have surrounded the combination of the Me 262 attacking B-17/24 from six o'clock with the huge closing speeds of 170-180m/s?.

Starting at 600-800 with the ballistic computation ability of the EZ 42 and closing at 200 m/s seems like a doable shot with a little time to adjust - but if the 262 waits till it closes to 300m it has only perhaps one second burst (before breaking away) does it not?


All the best,

Crumpp

I'm still thinking 20mm as primary armament for more ammo and better ballistics for strictly the Me 262 to improve bomber destruction ratios.

No question that neither the K-14 or EZ 42 even nearly as good as the Sperry in Korea but the 262 doesn't seem to get much of a firing solution if it waits to get into 300m? Just thinkin out loud.

 

[Crumpp]

the 262 doesn't seem to get much of a firing solution if it waits to get into 300m? Just thinkin out loud.

Hi Bill,

No you are right, the Me 262 could not get much of a firing solution in 300M when it is closing several hundred miles per hour faster than the target.

I agree that the ballistics of the average 20mm were better at ranges beyond 400M. However it does not make much difference if you can't hit anything at that range with either weapon system IMHO.

All the best,

Crumpp

 

[Erich]

but the whole point is that it could with a closer range with the Mk 108 3cm, if it had been four 20mm's you can see easily that destruction may have been greater at a longer range

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

 

[Crumpp]

if it had been four 20mm's you can see easily that destruction may have been greater at a longer range

Sure I think the 20mm had better range and a better probabiliy of hitting at extreme ranges. The 3cm Minegeschoss shell will always do more damage than the 2cm shell.

However if we cannot accurately target an object at that range it makes little difference. Essentially it becomes, we cannot shoot what we cannot see.

I would have to say that Mtt agreed with this line of thinking on the Me 262s weaponry.

The realities of air to air combat considered, the Mk 108 was one of the finest aerial combat weapon devised in WWII.

All the best,

Crumpp

 

[drgondog]

Sure I think the 20mm had better range and a better probabiliy of hitting at extreme ranges. The 3cm Minegeschoss shell will always do more damage than the 2cm shell.

However if we cannot accurately target an object at that range it makes little difference. Essentially it becomes, we cannot shoot what we cannot see.

I would have to say that Mtt agreed with this line of thinking on the Me 262s weaponry.

The realities of air to air combat considered, the Mk 108 was one of the finest aerial combat weapon devised in WWII.

All the best,

Crumpp

Gene - it IS hard to argue the point.. but a 103 ft wingspan in a K14 (the '42) at 800 yards would look like a P-51 wingspan at 266 yards so it wouldn't be like you couldn't see a Fort out there..

The question then is a.) how stable is the 262 in the ability to hold to pipper on target and b.) how effective (dispersion/CEP) is either the 20 or Mk108 30mm ballistically? Was either significantly poorer than an M2 at 800 or less?

There were a fair amount of 500-600 yard shots from a F-86 onto a MiG (very small sight pic) with the better radar ranging Sperry gunsight and 50's - which is damned good ballistically... and similar gun arrangement with all in the nose...

You have no argument from me on whether a 400 yard shot is better than 800. - My questions center around theoretical doctrine for a 262 given the 350-400 mph closing speed on a B-17 or B-24 from stern.

The question I think you are answering is that the EZ 42 combined with a Mk 108 or Mg151 just can't be counted on to hit anything at 800 yards in a Me 262 (or an Fw190 A8)

Works for me. I actually thought the Me 262 was as stable a gun platform as an F-86 and that the Mg151 20 mm was same as or nearly same ballistically as the M2 so that 4 of them in the nose would give a reasonable probability of a hit at 600-800 yards.

And no, I am not proposing that the common range in Korea was 500+ yards - that is still spectacular shooting against the MiG.

 

[Crumpp]

Hi Bill,

The reports I have, including the Me 262 Flugzeug-Handbuch convey that the type was stable even in high speed dives.

As a fellow pilot you are aware of the difficulty in spotting another aircraft even at 5NM.

With a 100mph closure rate we are covering a 5NM separation in about 3.6 minutes. This does not give a pilot much time to locate the target and line up his shot. The 400M is covered in less than 15 seconds.

There is very little time to align/adjust the sight, stabilize the aircraft for the condition of flight, and take the shot.

The problem is not the aircraft. Our pilot and our ability to target is the limitation. This limitation affected everyone and was set by the technology of the day.

None of the CGS's used during the war were very accurate over 400M. This is not to say there were lucky shots or extraordinarily skilled pilots. Dealing in averages though, we are limited to around 400M no matter what weapon or aircraft we are flying.

The difference in the weapons is enough to be noticeable between the M2 and the Mk108 offhand. It makes little difference as we cannot shoot down what we cannot hit because of our sights.

as stable a gun platform as an F-86

It was probably very similar. However the F-86 has the benefit of radar ranging CGS as well improved algorithms, whereas the WWII CGS was limited to the pilot eyeballing a manual range input.

Happy Holidays!

Crumpp

 

[drgondog]

Hi Bill,

The reports I have, including the Me 262 Flugzeug-Handbuch convey that the type was stable even in high speed dives.

As a fellow pilot you are aware of the difficulty in spotting another aircraft even at 5NM.

With a 100mph closure rate we are covering a 5NM separation in about 3.6 minutes. This does not give a pilot much time to locate the target and line up his shot. The 400M is covered in less than 15 seconds.

There is very little time to align/adjust the sight, stabilize the aircraft for the condition of flight, and take the shot.

The problem is not the aircraft. Our pilot and our ability to target is the limitation. This limitation affected everyone and was set by the technology of the day.

None of the CGS's used during the war were very accurate over 400M. This is not to say there were lucky shots or extraordinarily skilled pilots. Dealing in averages though, we are limited to around 400M no matter what weapon or aircraft we are flying.

The difference in the weapons is enough to be noticeable between the M2 and the Mk108 offhand. It makes little difference as we cannot shoot down what we cannot hit because of our sights.



It was probably very similar. However the F-86 has the benefit of radar ranging CGS as well improved algorithms, whereas the WWII CGS was limited to the pilot eyeballing a manual range input.

Happy Holidays!

Crumpp

Gene - I surrender on every point, simply because I don't intellectually believe in 800 yard shots with any cannon (or MG)..in WWII and not even sure today that is good practice

Only on one point will I continue to 'wiggle' - It didn't take much 'eyeball' to find a bomber stream with a couple hundred B-17s, (with a controller's help), and from there, find at least one 103 foot and 3/4inch wingspan to put in a pipper.

Anecdotally, I was looking at a nice buck this morning in my east pasture - at about 500 yards.. Granted I probably missed 50 before I spotted the one!

If I had a KNOWN range instead of estimated, and a good rest, I could have taken that shot had I been hungry enough.

All good,

Regards,

Bill

 

[Crumpp]

Only on one point will I continue to 'wiggle' - It didn't take much 'eyeball' to find a bomber stream with a couple hundred B-17s, (with a controller's help), and from there, find at least one 103 foot and 3/4inch wingspan to put in a pipper.

There is no wiggle, Bill. You are absolutely right. A large formation would be much easier to spot.

There are also those individuals with exception talent, that "eagle eye". I sometimes can spot A/C before ATC alerts. Most of the time though, I am searching for the planes in the pattern with me!

Happy Holidays!

Crumpp

 

[drgondog]

There is no wiggle, Bill. You are absolutely right. A large formation would be much easier to spot.

There are also those individuals with exception talent, that "eagle eye". I sometimes can spot A/C before ATC alerts. Most of the time though, I am searching for the planes in the pattern with me!

Happy Holidays!

Crumpp

Me too Gene - but I am reminded that every time i was in a twin in the front with the old man, I NEVER spotted anything first.

It was more than pattern recognition - he simply had 20/15 or better eyes plus that extra awareness of 'something out of place'.. He told me Henry Brown's eyes were even better and claimed the Brown often would spot something scuttling along on the deck when they were in Escort - so that is a 4-5mi Mk 1 set of eyes if not exaggerated.. I did not inherit those eyes (but my sister may have.)

I've heard Yeager and Anderson speak of each other's eyes the same way..even if 'only' three miles on a single aircraft - that is awesome eyesight.