Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It would have been pretty effective against light armour like half tracks etc and transport echelons, but without developing an ap round I doubt it would be much use against tanks or sp's!
Even against top or rear armor?
Might have been a good weapon on German APCs for use against soft targets. Similar in concept to Mk 19 automatic grenade launcher.
I'd think the better option for disabling armored vehicles would be going for soft spots.
Indeed, but there's still a difference between low angle attacks and steep diving attacks aiming primarily at the top surface. Granted, a tank's profile is a smaller target than its top, and there's other differences in vulnerability to ground fire between steep diving attacks and ones from astern at low level. (OTOH, to have sufficient pull-out time, you can't get very close in a steep attack or you need to limit dives to lower speeds, increasing vulnerability anyway)Pilots did well to hit vehicular targets at all, never mind 'going for soft spots'.
Research by the RAF showed that a Typhoon firing 4 x 20mm cannon (a significantly greater rate of fire than 2 x MK 108s) could send an average of 120 rounds in the direction of a 10' square target, normal to the line of flight, in a typical attack. An average of 32 of these rounds hit the target.
Indeed, but there's still a difference between low angle attacks and steep diving attacks aiming primarily at the top surface. Granted, a tank's profile is a smaller target than its top, and there's other differences in vulnerability to ground fire between steep diving attacks and ones from astern at low level. (OTOH, to have sufficient pull-out time, you can't get very close in a steep attack or you need to limit dives to lower speeds, increasing vulnerability anyway)
And the MK 108 isn't that much heavier than the Mk. II Hispano (50 kg for the Mk. II I believe, with the Mk.I Hispano and French HS.404 -and American M1?- weighing 60 kg), so something like the Typhoon, Tempest, P-47, or possibly even Mustang, P-40, or Hurricane could have potentially mounted them. (possibly too bulky for the P-40 and Mustang, but they did manage to fit inside Fw 190 wings with some work, so maybe, but Ammunition was obviously heavier than hispano rounds) But there weren't any German fighter-bombers with wings of that sort around, and I'm not sure many twin engine ground attack aircraft using 4 MK 108s either, I think some Bf 110Gs did with 2 in the nose and 2 in a belly pack, not sure about Ju 88Cs. I wonder if a 4 MK 108s would have fit well on the Hs 129.
In any case, I'd be interested to know how thermite rounds fared against armor. Were thermite grenades and mortar shells effective in disabling tanks (more so than similar shells with HE filler)? German stick grenades were basically all concussion effect, so rather similar to mine shells (little srapnel unless lodged in a heavier body before exploding, not much from the thin casing itself)
If impact didn't splash the filler too much, thermite cannon shells might actually be effective at damaging upper surfaces of tanks and some other armored vehicles while potentially welding or fouling external moving parts. (I'd think a thermite shell hitting treads would more likely do disabling damage than a similarly sized explosive shell would)
Setting tanks on fire was also one of the more consistently effective ways of actually disabling/destroying them, so all around incendiary effect would be useful there. (but thermite, unlike flash incendiary mixtures, burns relatively slowly and with sustained white hot temperatures, producing molten iron masses or globules)