Time Machine Consultant : Maximizing the Bf-109 in January 1943

[Bronc]

The Russians had a high-velocity (900m/s) 23mm cannon round with a high rate of fire
(intentionally slowed to 540 rpm) in the Volkov-Yartsev VYa-23.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/weapons-systems-tech/ussr-aircraft-weapons-13780-3.html

Why not straight up copy it??

Bronc

 

[gorizont]

The Russians had a high-velocity (900m/s) 23mm cannon round with a high rate of fire
(intentionally slowed to 540 rpm) in the Volkov-Yartsev VYa-23.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/weapons-systems-tech/ussr-aircraft-weapons-13780-3.html

Why not straight up copy it??

Bronc

As far as I know Its recoil considered too big for a motor-cannon on fighters. It used only on Il-2, moreover it didn't be installed on Il-10 - spetialists considered its recoil too big for a wing-mounted cannon - even for relatively heavy aircraft as Il.
Recoil was't only too big, besides it was rather harsh and overstressed mountings and elements of construction of an aircraft.

 

[tomo pauk]

Since Russians used 37mm as a motor cannon, I guess that 23mm could be used in the same place, recoil-wise. Perhaps the gas-scoop leading from the barrel interfered with something inside engine, as was the case with MK 103?

 

[davebender]

However, that it took the allies several years to come up with their version doesn't mean that much. That happened to a lot of German innovatations.

I agree. German infantry were using StG44 assault rifles and MG42 light machineguns during 1944. It was 20 years before the U.S. Army introduced the equivalent M16 assault rifle and M60 machinegun.

 

[gorizont]

Since Russians used 37mm as a motor cannon, I guess that 23mm could be used in the same place, recoil-wise. Perhaps the gas-scoop leading from the barrel interfered with something inside engine, as was the case with MK 103?

Maybe it was the simplification of a problem from me.
But according to ???????????? ?????? ( ???????? ?????, ???? ????????? , ????? 4 /???????? =KRoN=/) "в марте 41 -го ОКБ без особых возражений установило на Ил-2 23-мм пушку ВЯ-23 конструкции А.А.Волкова и С.Я.Ярцева (ЦКБ-14 НКВ), которая, как показали экспериментальные работы, проведенные в НИИ АВ ВВС КА в октябре-ноябре 43-го, имела максимальное значение силы отдачи на наземном станке, ни мало ни много, 5500 кг, а в реальных условиях установки на самолете, где последняя имела возможность отката, - от 3000 до 4000 кг... Между тем, "Илы" с пушками ВЯ-23 честно отслужили всю Отечественную войну без каких-либо серьезных нареканий со стороны летного состава штурмовых авиачастей Красной Армии. "

In English - recoil force was on a trial mounting of 5500 kg (maximal).
In comparison - max recoil force for NS-37 was 5700 kg and average about 2200 kg, but ROF of VYa-23 was two time more.
Pilots and technical personal don't think of VYa recoil on Il-2 being too big, but...

About NS-37. Reports evaluations are contradictory. On one hand its usage considered to be a success as for land and flying targets. On the other hand in reports was noted that in target flew just first round from the birst, the secont and third - usually pass the target by. And there was no mean to shoot at a target birst in more than two or maximum three rounds at all, because the point of aiming were lost because of recoil immediately after the first round leaved the barrel.

 

[riacrato]

That's for the 2 cm version. The 3 cm version had half the muzzle velocity.

The Germans couldn't make the MG 213 to work despite working on it for years and throwing a lot of money/resources at it. It is still very unclear that they would have fixed the problems by 1946.
However, that it took the allies several years to come up with their version doesn't mean that much. That happened to a lot of German innovatations.


Kris

I know it's the 2cm version that was the one davebender mentioned after all.

What makes you think the Germans couldn't make it work. Considering the requirements were only issued in 1942 and the rather radical concept it's design cycle doesn't seem extraordinarily long and so far I never heard of any particular problems. Prototypes were available when the war ended.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I still would like to know why you consider the Fw 190 so superior?

Because it was....

Plus, Hohun already showed that the Fw 190s had a similar amount of take off and landing accidents as the Bf 109.

Also consider the years and the amont of training that was being undertaken during that period.

As to the Fw 190 as a bomber interceptor ... the Bf 109 could carry 3 MK 108s while the Fw 190 could carry 2 MK 108s and 2 MG 151/20s. But most importantly, the Fw 190 failed to perform at the altitude of the B-17s! And when they did get a new engine for the Fw 190, they dropped the two outboard cannons.

They still carried enough weapons to do the job. As Thatch once said...

"We would rather have six guns, but there is no use carrying around six or eight guns if you can't bring those guns to bear on the enemy."

"The pilot who will miss with four .50-caliber guns won't be able to hit with eight. Increased firepower is not a substitute for marksmanship"

As far as the 190s high altitude performance - what model?

 

[Shortround6]

I agree. German infantry were using StG44 assault rifles and MG42 light machineguns during 1944. It was 20 years before the U.S. Army introduced the equivalent M16 assault rifle and M60 machinegun.

A less than accurate comparison. The US wasn't TRYING to build equivelents for most of those years.

Improved aircraft amament did in fact become something of a Priority once the Soviet Union had the Atom bomb. The F-89 Scorpion being fitted with 6 of the old style 20mm guns in 1950. Using the .50 cal in Korea against fighters was one thing. Using .50 cal guns on large bombers when EVERY SINGLE ONE has to be destroyed is another thing entirely.

 

[Shortround6]

I know it's the 2cm version that was the one davebender mentioned after all.

What makes you think the Germans couldn't make it work. Considering the requirements were only issued in 1942 and the rather radical concept it's design cycle doesn't seem extraordinarily long and so far I never heard of any particular problems. Prototypes were available when the war ended.

Getting the gun to work on a test bench is one thing. Getting them to work in combat is another. The US .50 cal Browning was first built in 1921 yet more than one US aircraft had a number of troubles with them in WW II. Relaibility means one thing if you have six guns to begin with (although the slewing/yawing problem from unequel functioning guns on opposite sides of the plane is bothersome) it is quite another if you only have 2 guns or ONE MOTOR cannon. A Jam is as good as a mission kill.

Feeding the guns is the big problem. A rifle caliber MG is tryiing to feed about a foot (300-320mm) of ammo through the gun every second and with ammo that weighs 6-7lbs per hundred how much weight is the gun trying to move? it does depend on how the belts are placed in the ammo boxes but now try to feed a 20mm gun at 20 rps. Over twice as much length of belt per second and even MG 151 ammo weigh 220 grams so about 4.4kg of ammo ( not including links) is going into the gun every second. 30mm guns are even worse. Yes you can use servo motors and other tricks but it does take time to get all that stuff to work together in freezing temperatures and under + 5-6 "G"s or - 1-2 "G"s.

 

[riacrato]

hello shortround. All well and clear, the design of aircraft cannons is not an easy task. but i was asking for information and facts in this particular case. The way I see it the gun was simply designed too late to get into production before the war ended (like so many other projects), not because they couldn't make it work.

 

[VG-33]

Maybe it was the simplification of a problem from me.


In English - recoil force was on a trial mounting of 5500 kg (maximal).

BTW you have just forgot to quote the most important, from your link:
Дело в том, что в это время еще не существовало достаточно точной методики определения силы отдачи пушек на станке (первая серьезная работа в этом направлении появилась в НИИ ВВС лишь в конце 1942 г.), а на самолете измерить ее и вовсе было невозможно. ОКБ же было очень сложно решить вопрос о размещении и обеспечении надежной работы магазинной пушки МП-6 под крылом штурмовика Ил-2 (наличие магазина вынуждало ставить пушки не в консолях крыла, а под ними).

There were not reliable measurement methods on that time to establish recoil forces. And particulary in a flying plane, with weapon concreate recoil possibilities, that makes less than 3500-4000 kg force.
So, from Taoubin design bureau you have the value of 2 200 kg force at best only. Moreover in 1941 the work of MP-6 being highly unreliable, Iliouchine just founded a false pretext to avoid this new gun, in favor of the weaker but reliable ShVAK. That is from the link you gave.

In comparison - max recoil force for NS-37 was 5700 kg and average about 2200 kg, but ROF of VYa-23 was two time more.
Pilots and technical personal don't think of VYa recoil on Il-2 being too big, but...

Some pages later from Perov, Rastrenin book, it's plainfully obvious that the 37 mm had a much greater recoil, since the Il-2 was turning at oposite side after a single 37 mm shot, that made precise bursts virtualy impossible. With the YVA or ShVAK, such problem never existed.
It's why the Sh or NS-37 gun use was so confidential on Il-2's.

 

[drgondog]

Getting the gun to work on a test bench is one thing. Getting them to work in combat is another. The US .50 cal Browning was first built in 1921 yet more than one US aircraft had a number of troubles with them in WW II. Relaibility means one thing if you have six guns to begin with (although the slewing/yawing problem from unequel functioning guns on opposite sides of the plane is bothersome) it is quite another if you only have 2 guns or ONE MOTOR cannon. A Jam is as good as a mission kill.

Feeding the guns is the big problem. A rifle caliber MG is tryiing to feed about a foot (300-320mm) of ammo through the gun every second and with ammo that weighs 6-7lbs per hundred how much weight is the gun trying to move? it does depend on how the belts are placed in the ammo boxes but now try to feed a 20mm gun at 20 rps. Over twice as much length of belt per second and even MG 151 ammo weigh 220 grams so about 4.4kg of ammo ( not including links) is going into the gun every second. 30mm guns are even worse. Yes you can use servo motors and other tricks but it does take time to get all that stuff to work together in freezing temperatures and under + 5-6 "G"s or - 1-2 "G"s.

That is a key reason why the slanted .50's in the P-51B w/servo for belt was such a problem

 

[tomo pauk]

...
Some pages later from Perov, Rastrenin book, it's plainfully obvious that the 37 mm had a much greater recoil, since the Il-2 was turning at oposite side after a single 37 mm shot, that made precise bursts virtualy impossible. With the YVA or ShVAK, such problem never existed.
...

Thanks, VG, that makes sense.
Question: was VJa-23 ever mounted as motor cannon?

 

[VG-33]

Thanks, VG, that makes sense.
Question: was VJa-23 ever mounted as motor cannon?

Yes, on some Lagg-3 or Yak-9 very small series from my sources. Rather uncommon case, since there were not enough YVA even for Sturmoviks, those being to often obliged to carry ShVAKs, instead.

 

[gorizont]

BTW you have just forgot to quote the most important, from your link:
There were not reliable measurement methods on that time to establish recoil forces. And particulary in a flying plane, with weapon concreate recoil possibilities, that makes less than 3500-4000 kg force.
So, from Taoubin design bureau you have the value of 2 200 kg force at best only. Moreover in 1941 the work of MP-6 being highly unreliable, Iliouchine just founded a false pretext to avoid this new gun, in favor of the weaker but reliable ShVAK. That is from the link you gave.

So - think over the matter: Figures of measurements made up by those unreliable methods seems to you doubtfull, but why figures of calculations based on figures of measurements made up by those unreliable methods seems to you undoubtfull?
It's a contradiction in your position - from logical point of view.
Besides - in the article above mentioned figures are given for VYa, for MP-6 there are another figures.

Some pages later from Perov, Rastrenin book, it's plainfully obvious that the 37 mm had a much greater recoil, since the Il-2 was turning at oposite side after a single 37 mm shot, that made precise bursts virtualy impossible. With the YVA or ShVAK, such problem never existed.
It's why the Sh or NS-37 gun use was so confidential on Il-2's.

But the fact is, that NS-37 recoil power was mesuared by the same unreliable methods and its figures were estimated as equal or a bit more excessive compared to ones of VYa.
You should take in attention a little difference in mountings: VYa were installed closer to fuselage as far I remember, than NS-37. Besides, NS-37 were a bit downed relatively axis through point of gravity

And what we have: 1) most of Il-2 were armed with Shvak not VYa, 2) VYa were installed on Il-10 so its production wasn't cancelled so what didn't allow to install it in 42-43 as a motor-canon on fighters, if the gun hadn't being installed generally on Il for two or three years, in exception a rather small quantaty?
3) why on Il-10M (and on Il-10 last batches) were refused of VYa and was made a decision to install NS-23, if the VYa was so good?

 

[Altea]

A-20. 10 Feb 1943
P-39. 15 Apr 1943.
3 x P-39. 5 Jul 1943.
3 x P-39. 17 Aug 1943.
P-39. 19 Aug 1943.
P-39. 20 Sep 1943.
2 x P-39. 26 Sep 1943.
P-39. 29 Sep 1943.
2 x P-39. 30 Sep 1943.
P-39. 2 Oct 1943.
P-39. 4 Oct 1943.
3 x P-39. 20 Oct 1943.
2 x P-39. 26 Oct 1943.
P-39. 29 Oct 1943. Kill #148 for Erich Hartmann

23 of Erich Hartmann's first 148 kills consisted of U.S. manufactured aircraft. 15.5%. Apparently there were plenty of American manufactured aircraft used in combat on the Russian front.

What a strange method...
Why not just look at soviet Orders of Battle?

 

[davebender]

Erich Hartmann's book is sitting on my shelf. The Soviet OOB is not.

 

[Altea]

Erich Hartmann's book is sitting on my shelf. The Soviet OOB is not.

Well i don't think that Hartmann is a very reliable source, cause from it's 352 official victories no more than 80 could probably be confirmed by russian archives.

From fanatique de l'aviation 451 artice

http://cgi.ebay.fr/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=370287919931



we can see page 22: in june 43 there were 7 times more air fighter regiments on P-39 at the front than in november 42: 25. (~900 planes)


page 31 in may 45 there were 3087 P-39 both in V-VS and PVO.

Moreover, i wrote that some LL planes were not used by soviet in 1945 in FL units (P-63, P-40, Hurries, O-52...), not all of them.

Read carefully, next time.

 

[Marcel]

Well i don't think that Hartmann is a very reliable source, cause from it's 352 official victories no more than 80 could probably be confirmed by russian archives.

And a French Aviation magazine on the other hand is reliable?
While not countering your point, I think the real OOB would give value to your opinion, not the glossy paper.

 

[Milosh]

Hauptmann Erich Hartmann..............352
Major Gerhard Barkhorn..................301
Major Gunther Rall..........................275
Oberleutnant Otto Kittel...................267
Major Walter Nowotny***...............258
Major Wilhelm Batz........................237
Major Erich Rudorffer......................222
Oberleutnant Heinrich Bar....................220
Oberst Hermann Graf.........................212
Major Theodor Weissenburger............208
Oberleutnant Hans Philipp...................206
Oberleutnant Walter Schuck................206
Major Heinrich Ehrler.........................204
Oberleutnant Anton Hafner.................204
Hauptmann Helmut Lipfert.................203

Were all the claims for these aces bogus as well?