Mauser MG 213

[Shortround6]

Joules is an indication of the power of a cartridge, as in the amount/type of propellant/s used. It is certainly not absolute and a fair amount of jiggery-pokery can be done with light high speed projectiles vs heavy slow ones but a cartridge with a standard loading of 28,000 joules is never going to come close to the projectile weight/velocity combinations of a 48-51,000 joule cartridge.

A bit like comparing a 30-30 to a 30-06.

A 20mm gun with 45-52,000 joules of energy firing any sort of standard shape and weight shell is going to have much better "long range hit probability" than a 20mm gun with 30,000 joules because it has higher initial velocity and thus shorter time of flight to a given distance.

The troubles the Hispano had in US service are well known and the cure is also well known, what is not known is why US ordnance steadfastly refused to implement the fix (shorten the chamber about 1 mm in length so the firing pin gets a better hit and greatly reducing the number of misfires).

And strangely enough the British found that inert 20 mm projectiles crashing through aircraft structures were more effective than HE shells that detonated too quickly on the skin of an aircraft and failed to penetrate before exploding. Good size hole in skin doesn't always mean structural failure.

The best solution was a high velocity, high HE capacity projectile with a properly functioning fuse fired from a reliable cannon at a high rate of fire. Trouble was nobody was able to combine all five attributes at the same point in time. In fact in the early part of the war some cannon only had one or two of the 5.

 

[DerGiLLster]

To be honest even if the Luftwaffe had the 262 in 1942 the battle for the air would have been longer, the war itself drawn out, the number of lives lost increased and the end result would have been the same. In practical terms the RAF would have had Meteors and Vampires much earlier, plus the USA would have the P80. Having the 262 will do nothing to increase the threat to the UK which will still be secure in strategic terms and I have little doubt that Berlin would have been the first target for the nuclear bomb.

I hope you are aware that P-80 did not make it's first flight until 1944, and wasn't introduced in combat until 1945. By then Germany's jet fighter would have been more advanced and would have been in fair supply to compete with the US's planes, since most of them would have been piston engined planes. Besides, Britain's jet fighters were still making test flights by the time the Me 262 would have reached operational status in this alternate time period. Germany could have made jets to win the air war over Britain and therefore make American involvement in the war substantially difficult than it could have been.

 

[GrauGeist]

I hope you are aware that P-80 did not make it's first flight until 1944, and wasn't introduced in combat until 1945. By then Germany's jet fighter would have been more advanced and would have been in fair supply to compete with the US's planes, since most of them would have been piston engined planes. Besides, Britain's jet fighters were still making test flights by the time the Me 262 would have reached operational status in this alternate time period. Germany could have made jets to win the air war over Britain and therefore make American involvement in the war substantially difficult than it could have been.

However, the U.S. had a jet fighter that first flew on 1 October 1942...just a few months after the Me262's first flight under jet power on 18 July 1942 (first physical flight was 18 April 1942 with piston power). There were still several problems to work out, one of them being that the Me262, unlike the He280 and P-59, was a tail-dragger in it's original design.

So if we're doing a "what-if" scenario, then *if* Heinkel was able to get satisfactory performance from it's Hirth engines and *if* the RLM had fully supported it's development, the He280 could have been in production easily before 1942 (the He280 first flew on 22 September 1940). Same could be said of the P-59 that *if* the engine performance could have been addressed early on, it could have been into the war by 1943-44.

 

[DerGiLLster]

However, the U.S. had a jet fighter that first flew on 1 October 1942...just a few months after the Me262's first flight under jet power on 18 July 1942 (first physical flight was 18 April 1942 with piston power). There were still several problems to work out, one of them being that the Me262, unlike the He280 and P-59, was a tail-dragger in it's original design.

So if we're doing a "what-if" scenario, then *if* Heinkel was able to get satisfactory performance from it's Hirth engines and *if* the RLM had fully supported it's development, the He280 could have been in production easily before 1942 (the He280 first flew on 22 September 1940). Same could be said of the P-59 that *if* the engine performance could have been addressed early on, it could have been into the war by 1943-44.

The Germans were a couple of years ahead of the British and the Americans. If they channeled more energy into the project with overwhelming support from Hitler, then the air war could have been a different scenario.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Germans were a couple of years ahead of the British and the Americans. If they channeled more energy into the project with overwhelming support from Hitler, then the air war could have been a different scenario.

In certain areas, the Germans were certainly pushing the envelope, but keep in mind that the bulk of aircraft engineers either knew one another or knew of each other due to aircraft design before the war. So there really weren't too many true secrets as far as aircraft concepts, jet engines and such.

Yes, if the U.S. and Germany unleashed jet fighters on each other mid-war, it may have changed the face of the war, but not the outcome. The industrial capacity of the U.S. was such, that the U.S. was the only nation in world history to successfully fight a two-front global war, it was pumping out battleships, aircraft carriers, thousands of tanks and vehicles and during the peak of the war, the U.S. in one year produced more fighter aircraft than the Soviet Union and Germany combined for that same year. Not only was the U.S. bringing more troops and equipment to the fronts, but supplying more and more equipment to it's Allies.

So Germany may have changed the way the war was fought or perhaps even prolonged it, but in the end, Germany would still be defeated.

 

[Shortround6]

Hitler can provide or even demand more energy and support but even he can't create heat resistant alloys without the proper elements. The air cooled blades were a work around and work arounds take time. Much later engine designers combined high temperature alloys and air cooling so it was certainly a good idea. Germans were on a different form of fabricating the turbine blades in late 1944. Deep drawing rather than welding. A bit like making the Mine-G shells.

The very first Jumo 004s were never intended to be production engines, they were simple to get something (anything) running so they could find out what the problems were.

Far all the miss-steps the Germans made the British made just as many, If R-R had got there hands on the Jet engine project 6 months sooner what would have happened? let alone been in from near the start. Rover did 24 hours of testing in Dec of 1942. Jan 1943 saw R-R do nearly 400 hours of testing.

 

[DerGiLLster]

In certain areas, the Germans were certainly pushing the envelope, but keep in mind that the bulk of aircraft engineers either knew one another or knew of each other due to aircraft design before the war. So there really weren't too many true secrets as far as aircraft concepts, jet engines and such.

Yes, if the U.S. and Germany unleashed jet fighters on each other mid-war, it may have changed the face of the war, but not the outcome. The industrial capacity of the U.S. was such, that the U.S. was the only nation in world history to successfully fight a two-front global war, it was pumping out battleships, aircraft carriers, thousands of tanks and vehicles and during the peak of the war, the U.S. in one year produced more fighter aircraft than the Soviet Union and Germany combined for that same year. Not only was the U.S. bringing more troops and equipment to the fronts, but supplying more and more equipment to it's Allies.

So Germany may have changed the way the war was fought or perhaps even prolonged it, but in the end, Germany would still be defeated.

Haha, this thread turned from a weapon discussion into an alternate history discussion. My bad for getting off track. Let's talk about the weapon itself in this case.

 

[Glider]

The Germans were a couple of years ahead of the British and the Americans. If they channeled more energy into the project with overwhelming support from Hitler, then the air war could have been a different scenario.

Re engines I would disagree with the observation that the Germans were ahead at all. Had the UK given the jet fighter the same priority the Germans gave the development who knows what would have appeared. Germany had to give it a high priority as the writing was on the wall as far as the air war was concerned and they had little choice.
The Meteor FIV was only just behind as it was and it wouldn't have taken much to get it into service during 1944.

 

[DerGiLLster]

Re engines I would disagree with the observation that the Germans were ahead at all. Had the UK given the jet fighter the same priority the Germans gave the development who knows what would have appeared. Germany had to give it a high priority as the writing was on the wall as far as the air war was concerned and they had little choice.
The Meteor FIV was only just behind as it was and it wouldn't have taken much to get it into service during 1944.

I feel as if in this case, in an alternate 1940, the Germans would have outproduced the British in terms of jet fighters, and having only focus on fighters might have defeated the RAF.

 

[Glider]

I feel as if in this case, in an alternate 1940, the Germans would have outproduced the British in terms of jet fighters, and having only focus on fighters might have defeated the RAF.

If there was nothing between the Germans and the British in engine development then no one would be producing anything much before the other, but for either to pretend that they could produce jet fighters in 1940 is a pipe dream

 

[Koopernic]

Damn Koopernic, your answer kicks ass! I was a little concerned with there being only one post. But your post is detailed and gives great honest data as to what would have been the effect in combat! Also, really Gatling-type guns are immune to G Loads? I knew they could handle long belts but being able to handle G loads are just fantastic!

Also, you answered my second question about the naval version. Yeah, well I was wondering if maybe U-Boats could have been fitted with a single 30 mm version of the Gatling gun, having a barrel several meters in length, having cases with extra powder to produce a more powerful charge, along with the tip of the shells being tungsten, as the higher density of tungsten would provide longer range, similar to the naval version of M61 Vulcan, as those rounds include tungsten to increase the range.

Would that also prove to be effective in combat? I would expect the 30 mm Gatling gun to be out of the rockets range to successfully engage anti-sub aircraft and fighters.

You are welcome. The German navy did indeed begin to introduce the MK303 30mm canon as a FLAK defence to partially replace the 20mm C38. The MK303 was essentially the 30mm long barrelled MK103 adapted for naval and ground use. The ballistics was not better however the destructive capability was significantly better and that was the most important factor: it was no point getting one or two 20mm hits on an enemy aircraft if it could still press home its attack or fly away to fight another day after some repairs.

I believe a quad mount was planned on the basis of the C38 quad mount but the Type XXI U-boats would have had two twin turrets at the bow and stern of the conning tower (sail) of the Type XXI. The Quad C38 and therefore also Quad MK303 would have received a microwave radar that was adapted from a night fighter whose antenna was between the quad barrels. I think the designation was AEG FMG 45 RETTIN Flak . The version for the type XXI was called "ballspiel" and I think was separate from the mounts.

Rettin-M Kriegsmarine on-carriage radar - Axis History Forum

Guns greater than 40mm tend to produced too much blast and smoke to aim from the mount itself and even 37mm/40mm guns that were aimed from the gun mount themselves were mostly in singles to avoid this problem.

Quad (as in the incomparable Bofors) and even octuplet mounts (for the British POM POM) were directed remotely. In the case of the USN Bofors by remote power control and in the case of the RN POM POM by the gun crew reading dials on their guns and pointing the guns as directed. Computing mechanisms in the directors calculated gun lead, projectile fall off and corrected for the parallax error between the gun and optics director.

A 30mm gun seems to be still acceptable for direct aiming from the mount itself. This is probably an important factor in producing a simple, compact defence and certainly a rotary mechanism could be used in this environment.

If a round fails to fire the rotary breech gun or Gatling mechanism simply feeds it through. If there is a slightly distorted cartridge the mechanism has the power to feed it through.

It could be devastating but there are several disadvantages. It takes around a 1/2 second or more to get the gun up to full speed. The gun takes a fair amount of power to run. They did get later versions to be self powered by taping gas off the barrels but I am not sure those guns run at full speed. Getting the gun to feed was a much bigger problem than just getting it to shoot. Even on large, heavy jets the empty cases are returned to the magazine, in part to help maintain the CG of the aircraft.

Now consider one Gatling taking over 1/2 second to wind up and weighing about twice as much as a Hispano and almost 3 times what a MG 151/20 weighs and still needing a power source and feed mechanism. ALso consider that a Hawker Tempest with four MK V Hispanos could fire 52-54 shells per second with no delay. Use enough regular cannon and target effect is about the same.

To be fair though the Gatling mechanism is firing during this 'spin up' period. Latter Vulcans, those for the F-22 have a lighter barrel since it was assumed that long firing times would be rarer and barrel life not so important. Reciprocating type weapons deserve to be abandoned simply on the jamming issue alone.


The Soviets seem to have built 2 barrel 'Gatling' type guns. I think this might work quite well. You cojoin the barrels so that they look like a figure 8 and then support the barrel/s at the breach end with a outer bearing. It fits well into the fuselage mounts of modern jets without the bulk of the original Gatling configuration.

 

[tomo pauk]

You are welcome. The German navy did indeed begin to introduce the MK303 30mm canon as a FLAK defence to partially replace the 20mm C38. The MK303 was essentially the 30mm long barrelled MK103 adapted for naval and ground use. The ballistics was not better however the destructive capability was significantly better and that was the most important factor: it was no point getting one or two 20mm hits on an enemy aircraft if it could still press home its attack or fly away to fight another day after some repairs.
...

The MK 303 was designed around a more powerful cartridge, that fired the similar (same?) weight of projectile at higher MV; basically, a whole new gun vs. MK 103. MK 103 used the 30x184B cartridge (440g HE-T shell at 800 m/s, among other types), the MK 303 used the 30x210 (435g HE-T shell at 1000 m/s). Yours truly manhandled the later ammo (Czech and Yugo produced, though) for most of his time as conscript
The ballistics were better than for the MK 103, the destruction capability remained as with MK 103 - three shells to kill a 'jet aircraft' as we were told.

The Soviets seem to have built 2 barrel 'Gatling' type guns. I think this might work quite well. You cojoin the barrels so that they look like a figure 8 and then support the barrel/s at the breach end with a outer bearing. It fits well into the fuselage mounts of modern jets without the bulk of the original Gatling configuration.

Yep, the soviets produced the 23 and 30 mm Gatling. Also the Yak-B 12.7mm 4-barreled heavy MG in Gatling configuration, the only Gatling in regular use in Croatian AF ever.

 

[Koopernic]

The MK 108 supposedly required 3-4 hits to bring down a B-17/B24 (average hits from German studies). The MK103 was a much longer round and I would presume it more destructive.

My mistake was to assume the MK103 and MK303 were related. The MK303 was a Czech development that the German continued to father along and intended to introduce as a defensive weapon on the Type XXI U-boot and other German ships. The Mauser MK103 was an also a powerful round but nowhere near as heavy or as fast as the MK303. The Germans did use or plan to use the MK103 as a FLAK weapon, it would have been far lighter than the MK303.

An ASW aircraft attacking a u-boot with this weapon would come of second best given its range, ballistics and fire power. They were called Brunn guns after the Czech Brno factory.

You can compare rounds here.
An introduction to collecting 30 mm cannon ammunition

The German had also developed the powerful geraete 58 5.5cm round also at 1000m/s that became soviet era 57mm guns and most late war German navy destroyers designs Featured this computer directed weapon along with the 30mm guns as a tertiary defence.

The MK303 would I think have ballistics akin to the 40mm bofors so powerful does it seem.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Mk108 and Mk103 shared the same projectile, only the casing was different:
90mm for the lower velocity Mk108 and 184mm for the Mk103

 

[tomo pauk]

Only shell that was shared between the MK 103 and 108 was 330g Mine shell. The MK 103 also fired the 440g HE-T shell, 530g AP-HE-T, the lighter 295g Mine shell (i'm not sure that MK 108 ever used this one) and 'Hartkern' APCR shot.

The MK 108 supposedly required 3-4 hits to bring down a B-17/B24 (average hits from German studies). The MK103 was a much longer round and I would presume it more destructive.

As above - the M-shell was the same; a heavier M-shell, say 450 g would've been interesting for the MK 103 had it been designed and used.

My mistake was to assume the MK103 and MK303 were related. The MK303 was a Czech development that the German continued to father along and intended to introduce as a defensive weapon on the Type XXI U-boot and other German ships. The Mauser MK103 was an also a powerful round but nowhere near as heavy or as fast as the MK303. The Germans did use or plan to use the MK103 as a FLAK weapon, it would have been far lighter than the MK303.

IIRC the German firm Krieghoff was the initial designer of the MK 303, the Czech post war gun was the M53, later the M53/59. The two-barreled installation was dis-mountable from the armored Praga truck.
The MK 103 would've been far closer in ballistics and throw weight to the 3.7cm Flak than to the 2cm Flak, yet not so heavy as the 3.7cm. The 4-barreled trial examples of the Flak 3cm/38 were using 4-barrelled Flak 2cm/38 mountings.

You can compare rounds here.
An introduction to collecting 30 mm cannon ammunition

Also the table here.

The German had also developed the powerful geraete 58 5.5cm round also at 1000m/s that became soviet era 57mm guns and most late war German navy destroyers designs Featured this computer directed weapon along with the 30mm guns as a tertiary defence.

Soviets were good in developing the automatic cannons themselves, this article is worth a reading.

The MK303 would I think have ballistics akin to the 40mm bofors so powerful does it seem.

At least as good as the 3.7cm Flak, with greater RoF and lighter weight.

 

[DerGiLLster]

Hey guys, let's discard my theory of a Gatling gun on a Me 262, as GrauGeist, shortround6 and Koopernic exploited as implausible. How about, let's say that the German navy use a 30mm Gatling weapon on a destroyer or U-Boat as a replacement for the 20mm and 37mm guns. It would be more powerful than the 20mm version and would have a farther range being heavier than the 20mm and, as Koopernic stated, would produce a less smoke than the 37m/40mm cannons.

I believe a navy application would be excellent as weight would not be a problem such as aircraft. Whereas aircraft could rarely carry more than half a ton in the nose, ships could have multiple 30mm Gatling guns being able to fire at rates of around 5000-6000 RPM, along with a huge amount of space(well for the destroyers and later U-Boat models) have potential room for being able to fire for at least several minutes. They would be able to house powerful mechanical engines in order to make the Gatling cannons work well and enough to make them maneuverable for combat. Or at least that is what I can infer. Please state whether this plausible or not.

 

[GrauGeist]

I could see a destroyer, perhaps, but not a U-Boat.

However, an ideal platform for your proposal would be an E-Boat (schnellboot) and even the R-Boat (Räumboot).

 

[johnbr]

 

[Koopernic]

Hey guys, let's discard my theory of a Gatling gun on a Me 262, as GrauGeist, shortround6 and Koopernic exploited as implausible. How about, let's say that the German navy use a 30mm Gatling weapon on a destroyer or U-Boat as a replacement for the 20mm and 37mm guns. It would be more powerful than the 20mm version and would have a farther range being heavier than the 20mm and, as Koopernic stated, would produce a less smoke than the 37m/40mm cannons.

I believe a navy application would be excellent as weight would not be a problem such as aircraft. Whereas aircraft could rarely carry more than half a ton in the nose, ships could have multiple 30mm Gatling guns being able to fire at rates of around 5000-6000 RPM, along with a huge amount of space(well for the destroyers and later U-Boat models) have potential room for being able to fire for at least several minutes. They would be able to house powerful mechanical engines in order to make the Gatling cannons work well and enough to make them maneuverable for combat. Or at least that is what I can infer. Please state whether this plausible or not.

One of the things rotary breech guns and Gatling mechanism are good for is belt feed. The MK103 was capable of belt feed and I believe the Krieghoff Mk303 was as well but they won't pull a belt as well as a Gatling/Rotary.

If done well this means one can dispose of ammunition handlers. There is a good reason for this I feel. Attacks on ships showed increasing use of high rate of fire canon and machine guns which were used to kill the defensive gunners on a ship. Hellcats strafed the Yamato, hundreds of Tirpitz's gunners died this way. (armour had been ordered but not installed). The use of B-25 with noses full of 0.5 inch guns is well known.

Plus one could better use ammunition handlers elsewhere, perhaps operating a panzerschrek or PAW 600 or driving a tank.

The gunners needed to go inside an armoured power driven turret and belt feed allows smaller turrets that avoid the need for ammunition handlers who would force an increased turret size. The Bofors 40mm was an outstanding gun because its heavy, long projectile and high velocity allowed successful engagement of targets as far as 4000m away but it sill required ammunition handlers to slam in clips.

A powerful 30mm round could easily outrange most 37mm and 40mm rounds while being compact enough to fit into small spaces.

I think a possible advantage of a gatling over the rotary breech is the possible lack of smoke contamination in the turret since there is possibly less blow by gas. The way the post war Germans got around it was by placing the rotary guns outside the turret, on the side, the other way is to pressurise the turret which often didn't work well.

A manually trained gun is less accurate than a mechanically trained gun. IE the manually gear driven C38 guns whether single or quad were more accurate than manually pointed.

A reflector site is more accurate than a ring and bead. (A reflector sight has a collimator in it to project a recticle via a half mirror)

A gyro reflector is more accurate again. A gyros sight is set with the range of the target from which is knows projectile fall off and projectile transit time. By tracking the angular rate of the target (say 1 degree per second) and the transit time (say 2 seconds) the lead of 2 degrees can be calculated and indicated by moving the collimator reticule.

A computing mechanism is more accurate gain.

If the computing mechanism transfers the aim offset via remote power control it is more accurate again as there is no 'man in the loop' reading dials and cranking handles.

 

[Koopernic]

Soviets were good in developing the automatic cannons themselves, this article is worth a reading.


At least as good as the 3.7cm Flak, with greater RoF and lighter weight.

The Soviets were indeed good at making guns. The Geraet 58 (Apparatus or System 58) was more than just a gun.

No nation developed a succcesfull 50mm or so anti aircraft gun. The back blast and smoke was to disruptive for precise aiming. The Germans wanted a gun that could kill a 4 engine bomber with one hit, something that became more pressing after the dam busters raid. German FLAK seems to have caused heavy losses on the Lancaster but not until after they had pressed home their attack.

What Geraete 58 did was develop a way of accurately aligning and aiming the guns remotely using the type of computer that was normally used by heavy FLAK and that was suitable for use with radar.

The German 3.7cm FLAK was a shorter ranged round then the 40mm bofors though the final versions, the FLAK 43 had a much higher rate of fire.

Maximum firing range
6,500 m (7,100 yd) (ground range) This is actually pretty good and much better than the Pom Pom.
(Navweaps gives Range @ 45 degrees 7,000 yards (6,400 m) )

For the Bofors from Navweaps
Range @ 45 degrees 11,133 yards (10,180 m)

I suspect the Mk 303 would match range more with the boffors thus producing a gun excellent accuracy and range to deal with long distance aircraft but still small enough to be aimed independently.