A.G. Williams
Airman 1st Class
- 182
- Oct 10, 2020
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Thanks for your response.It may have been possible, but the only fighter that had the 211, was Avia's S-199 which was armed with two MG131 and two MG151/20.
The rest of the applications were multi-place types (except the Ju87, of course).
In the engine's "valley", there was limited room, so anything beyond the MK103/108 was out of the question.Thanks for your response.
It seems a little odd that they didn't try to fit an engine-mounted anti-tank cannon to the Ju 87G. It would have been much more efficient and accurate than a pair of underwing guns. Possibly the aircraft engine installation didn't leave enough space for a big cannon?
I know that the Il-2 could not fit an engine-mounted gun because the engine was not designed to accommodate this.
Thanks!Hello A.G. Williams,
I don't know much about the JuMo 211, but if it was anything like the JuMo 213, then one of the problems about mounting a Motor Cannon would have been the fact that oil lines to drive the Hydraulic Propeller ran through the center of the propeller shaft.
That is why the FW 190D-9 and earlier birds did not use a Motor Cannon.
With later models of the JuMo 213, the oil lines were moved and that allowed a 30 mm MK 108 and later a 20 mm MG 151/20 to fire through the propeller shaft.
- Ivan.
There's a big difference between the MK 108 and the MK 103. The MK 108 is a very compact and light low-velocity gun, very good against bombers at close range. The MK 103 is much bigger with a long barrel, firing big, high-velocity ammunition. It is too big to fit into the Bf 109 engine mounting although a slimmed-down version, the MK 103M, could fit - a Bf 109K-10 (IIRC) was fitted with one, but not considered a success. Incidentally, the MK 103 ammunition did include very effective tungsten-cored AP rounds which would have been effective against the side, top or rear armour of most tanks.In the engine's "valley", there was limited room, so anything beyond the MK103/108 was out of the question.
In a fighter (Bf109, He112) having a centerline 20mm or 30mm cannon would be ideal especially for bomber hunting, but for anti-armor (Ju87), they would lack the punch.
The BK3.7 had the hitting power, but it was considerably larger than the Rheinmetall-Borsicht cannons.
Suspect that 700lbs is incorrect there, might want to edit it.A problem with the MK 103 was that it was a fairly long and very heavy gun. It was around 700 pounds. Weight certainly would have affected performance of a light fighter and recoil might have been a little much for the structure.
- Ivan.
Read my reply plse. Now pls explain how to get to 700lbs.700 might be with ammo. MK 103 is somewhat useless if it can't shoot ........
Hi A.G. Williams,I've been refreshing my memory concerning the basics of WW2 aero engines, and would appreciate a response on one point: the DB 600 series V-12s were designed to accept an engine-mounted gun firing through the propeller hub (a facility most notably made use of in the Bf 109F onwards). Was a similar mounting ever used with the Jumo 211 engine? I know that the He 112 was fitted with a 20mm C/30L cannon to its Jumo 210, and the early Bf 109 was designed for a similar installation, but was it ever used - or possible - with the bigger Jumo 211?