Erm, as long as the round goes bang on cue and doesn't loose like 100 m/s or so in MV then I'm quite sure it wouldn't matter to a gun like the Mk103.
Taking the Hs 123 back in production during WW2 ?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Erm, as long as the round goes bang on cue and doesn't loose like 100 m/s or so in MV then I'm quite sure it wouldn't matter to a gun like the Mk103.
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
recoil might also disturb the synchronization though, the Mk 103 is less than gentle.
- Thread starter
- #23
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
I hope I can get some certainty on the cannon synch. But I have to say that I cannot come up with a single aircraft which fired a cannon larger than 23mm through the prop.
Kris
Don't know about that. Both were designed as dive bombers but later used as low altitude attack aircraft or strafing machines as you call them.
Kris
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
Ju 87 was a great dive bomber. Hs 123 was a great ground attack aircraft. Regardless of the overlap in the purposes they were designed for, they had different strengths and weaknesses.
AFAIK the Mk103 put on aircraft had a built in recoil dampner, and unless the MV was to experience a rather drastic reduction in the likes of 100 m/s or so (highly unlikely), then I don't see how it would become a problem.
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
dampener or not it could blow the wing off a Bf 109.
If it hit it, then yeah. Put it wouldn't because of recoil, it was simply just too big to put on the wing.
Shortround6
Major General
The problem seems to have been getting the "propellant" to go BANG on cue rather than having the "Primer" go bang on cue. "Bang" being when the powder charge (or most of it) has actually burned and moved the projectile part way down the barrel.
Variations in timing from when the primer is initiated until peak pressure and a certain barrel travel distance occur. Moving the pressure curve could result in a later but only sightly lower peak with an acceptable variation in velocity but an uncceptable variation in "barrel time" for a Synchronized gun.
Shortround6,
I can understand that a delay from primer ignition to propellant ignition can eventually vary, but that also means that rounds all the way down to a pistol round will be affected. The reason being that once the main charge is sparked, depending on wether the charge is always the same size, the time it takes for it all to burn should remain the same. Atleast to the degree that it wouldn't matter to the sync of the gun prop. If however the primer is at fault then it wouldn't matter if it was a 7.62mm machine gun round or 30mm cannon round, they'd both be affected the same.
The problem could perhaps be that IF such a thing should happen with a machine gun bullet then the damage would be minimal, where'as a cannon projectile to the propeller would be fatal.
I can understand that a delay from primer ignition to propellant ignition can eventually vary, but that also means that rounds all the way down to a pistol round will be affected. The reason being that once the main charge is sparked, depending on wether the charge is always the same size, the time it takes for it all to burn should remain the same. Atleast to the degree that it wouldn't matter to the sync of the gun prop. If however the primer is at fault then it wouldn't matter if it was a 7.62mm machine gun round or 30mm cannon round, they'd both be affected the same.
The problem could perhaps be that IF such a thing should happen with a machine gun bullet then the damage would be minimal, where'as a cannon projectile to the propeller would be fatal.
I understand that the Fw 189 performed very well suffering relatively low losses despite slow speed.
Is it feasible that the Hs 123 enjoyed similar success?
- Thread starter
- #32
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
The Ju 87D was one of the finest close support attack aircraft there was, and definitely more powerful and better armored than the Hs 123.
You are reading my mind!
I was thinking of a monthly production of at least 300 of these cheap attack aircraft. A quarter could go to training units and another 50 to their axis allies so they too would have some kind of attack aircraft without giving them the precious Hs 129 or Ju 87.
More than feasible. I didn't want to push this further but yes, being slow but nimble is usually enough to dodge the fighters. Though Soren's idea of the fighter keeping the upper hand and being able to attack tme after time is valid, in practice the smaller aircraft, think observation aircraft, would make a sharper turn than any fighter aircraft could and would hit the deck and get away.
I also believe the Hs 123 was more nimble than any Yak though I don't have figures on that.
Kris
I am pretty sure the MK103 could be synchronized and that it even was done on prototypes. IIRC the prototypes for the never realized Ta 152 A had an armament of three MK103s two of which were mounted in the wing roots. I think I have a picture, I'll try too look it up.
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
maybe, but his claim is equally unsourced for the time being. If he quotes a source I'll believe him and cease to believe Wiki.
Shortround6
Major General
It does happen but the variations seem to be greater with larger capacity cartridges. Magnum rifle cases seem to suffer from this more than "standard" rifle cases as in .300 magnums vrs 30-06 and 7.92x57 cases. Short powder powder columns might be less suseptible than longer ones. In long range target shooting large case magnums have a reputation for dropping an occasional shot low. not a lot (8 ring) and not often (less than one in 20, maybe a lot less) but more often than random fliers would indictate.
THe problem may be in the early part of the "burn", not all primers have the same amount of "flash". Smokeless powder also has the characteristic of burning faster the more pressure it is under. A 'weak' primer may generate a bit less pressure in the case and it's flame may not extend as far into the spaces between the powder and so igniting less of the powder intially. Uniformity of crimp helps here as with a low pressure situation the projectile will tend to stay in place rather than move. this fixed volume will raise the pressure to a certain point at which time the projectile starts moving. The pressure-burn rate curve may be back on track (or close to it) giving a uniform muzzle velocity (or at least within tolerance) but the actually timing of the cap initation (pin or electric) to muzzle exit time may be off. THe way the propellent (powder) "sticks" are jumbled together in the rear of the case may affect things too. How much volume of space between the "sticks" is there for the "flash" to move thrugh and ignote the same amount of powder on each shot?
THe only peaple who worry about the time between firing pin fall (or electric spark) and muzzle exit are Olympic target shooters and peaple who are spinning blades in front of a gun muzzle.
paradoxguy
Airman
I am reading this thread with avid interest--the debate over whether production of the Hs 123 should have continued beyond 1940 will likely not be resolved. I am particularly interested in the sub-debate over the ability of the Hs 123 to keep its losses low through nimbleness and maneuverability. I think two valid questions for this debate are:
1. Did the Hs 123 encounter strong modern (i.e., contemporary monoplane fighters) fighter opposition and if so, how did they fare? Did the Hs 123 encounter the same fighter opposition as the Ju 87 and Hs 129?
2. How did the Fiat CR32/CR42 biplane fighters do against Hawker Hurricanes, P-40's, and other faster, better-armoured, better-armed monoplane fighters?
Admittedly my knowledge base for these questions is very small and limited, so I'd be appreciative if those who do know could chime in.
On a related topic, I know the Hs 123 is celebrated for its ability to carry out its missions with relatively low losses and for being "obsolete" while doing so, but how effective really was the Hs 123? Was the Hs 123 primarily effective at disrupting troop formations, or did were they also effective against tanks, armoured vehicles, and other targets of value? How did they compare with the Ju 87 and Hs 129 in these tasks?
Again, admittedly I'm asking these out of ignorance, but I also feel they are important in assessing the value of the Hs 123--an underdog warplane I have a soft spot for--and that I don't believe were addressed much in this thread so far, although I may simply have misread the posts and overlooked the data contained within them.
Just some proverbial food for thought.
Thanks,
PG
1. Did the Hs 123 encounter strong modern (i.e., contemporary monoplane fighters) fighter opposition and if so, how did they fare? Did the Hs 123 encounter the same fighter opposition as the Ju 87 and Hs 129?
2. How did the Fiat CR32/CR42 biplane fighters do against Hawker Hurricanes, P-40's, and other faster, better-armoured, better-armed monoplane fighters?
Admittedly my knowledge base for these questions is very small and limited, so I'd be appreciative if those who do know could chime in.
On a related topic, I know the Hs 123 is celebrated for its ability to carry out its missions with relatively low losses and for being "obsolete" while doing so, but how effective really was the Hs 123? Was the Hs 123 primarily effective at disrupting troop formations, or did were they also effective against tanks, armoured vehicles, and other targets of value? How did they compare with the Ju 87 and Hs 129 in these tasks?
Again, admittedly I'm asking these out of ignorance, but I also feel they are important in assessing the value of the Hs 123--an underdog warplane I have a soft spot for--and that I don't believe were addressed much in this thread so far, although I may simply have misread the posts and overlooked the data contained within them.
Just some proverbial food for thought.
Thanks,
PG
- Thread starter
- #39
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
That is an awesome idea PG! I am looking forward to this.
Here is something I quickly picked up:
In 1942 II. Gruppe had flown 3,128 Hs 129 sorties, 1,532 Hs 123 sorties, and 1,938 Bf 109 sorties, claimed 107 aircraft shot down or destroyed, and losing 20 Hs 129s, 16 Bf 109s, and 5 Hs 123s to enemy action.
Btw, what is usually not known ... the Hs 123 was inadequate as a dive bomber. Operaitonal tests in Spain showed that the Hs 123 was unable to maingtain sufficient steadiness in a dive. So from that point on they used the Hs 123s for low-level ground attacks ... with great success.
Kris
Here is something I quickly picked up:
In 1942 II. Gruppe had flown 3,128 Hs 129 sorties, 1,532 Hs 123 sorties, and 1,938 Bf 109 sorties, claimed 107 aircraft shot down or destroyed, and losing 20 Hs 129s, 16 Bf 109s, and 5 Hs 123s to enemy action.
Btw, what is usually not known ... the Hs 123 was inadequate as a dive bomber. Operaitonal tests in Spain showed that the Hs 123 was unable to maingtain sufficient steadiness in a dive. So from that point on they used the Hs 123s for low-level ground attacks ... with great success.
Kris
davebender
1st Lieutenant
It appears that people consider the Hs-123 to be an inexpensive solution for CAS. However I have yet to see the historical production cost for a Hs-123. So how do we know it was less expensive then a Ju-87B, which cost 131,175 RM (including engine) during early 1941?
Don't get me wrong, I am intrigued by the concept of producing a modified Hs-123 ILO the historical Hs-129. But production cost would be the deciding factor and we don't know what that is.
Don't get me wrong, I am intrigued by the concept of producing a modified Hs-123 ILO the historical Hs-129. But production cost would be the deciding factor and we don't know what that is.
